18 Million Voices Denver Check-in Information/ Administrative Details

Upon your arrival in Denver, please stop by and "check-in" with us!!!

Get connected with other Hillary supporters and find out about all of the various events going on in Denver to support Senator Clinton.

At check-in, we will provide you with a packet of information containing:More...

AN EVENT SCHEDULE: detailing all the events taking place in Denver in support of Senator Hillary Clinton

A LIST OF MEET AND GREET LOCATIONS: places where we will all meet, socialize, and break bread with fellow supporters of Senator Clinton

PRACTICAL DENVER INFORMATION: other useful "practical information" for your use during your stay.

The Broker Restaurant
821 17th Street
Denver, CO

We will be in the Library Room.

Map and directions can be found here.

The times and dates for "check-in" center operation are:

Sunday August 24th, 6 to 8 pm
Monday August 25th, 9 to 11 am
Tuesday August 26th, 9 to 11 am

Thanks,
RiseHillaryRise
Organizer
18 Million Voices Rise Hillary Rise
18millionvoices.blogspot.com

48th District Democrats - Events and Announcements

Here's Your opportunity to meet other candidates and democrats in your area and persuade them to support Hillary!

Upcoming Events More...

Friends of Peter Goldmark Fundraising Event
WHAT: Watch the Blue Angels Air Show from the shores of Lake Washington and meet Peter Goldmark, Candidate for Land Commissioner, at this fun election fundraising event!

WHEN: Saturday August 2, noon -2pm (air show starts at 12:45)

WHERE: Ellis residence, 7625 Overlake Drive West, Medina (West Bellevue)

Pool's open! Bring kids, swim suits and towels
Park at Medina School if Overlake Drive is posted "No Parking" (Ellis driveway can hold approximately 20 cars)
I-90 will close for the air show so be sure to arrive early

HOW: Choose a donation level:
· Friend: $50
· Family: $125
· Fantastic!: $250

RSVP: cellis@nwlink.com, www.petergoldmark.com or leave a message at (425) 443-6303.


Event to Benefit Darcy Burner - Saturday, August 2nd

Here's a message from Keri Andrews, regarding a private party at Tost in Fremont, to benefit Darcy Burner:

As you may have seen in the news, Darcy's house burned down a couple of weeks ago. The best thing we can do for her right now is to raise money for her campaign for Congress, so that she can focus on her family instead of having to worry about fundraising. I've booked a band, so I expect you all to show up and bring your friends! Maybe we can even get Darcy to show us a few moves on the dance floor :o)

The event is from 7-9pm. The band goes on at 8.
Tost (in Fremont)
513 N. 36th St.
Seattle, WA 98103
21 and over only, please.
RSVP to: keri@keriandrews.com. Cell phone: 206-228-5437

There is a minimum suggested donation of $50 (check or credit card only!) Please donate as much as you can afford. If you can't make it to the party, you can still help by donating at:

http://www.darcyburner.com/page/outreach/view/main/keri


Summer Meeting

The 48th LD held our Summer meeting/BBQ on July 23rd, 2008. At the meeting, we voted to endorse the following candidates:

Jason Osgood - Candidate for Secretary of State
Nic Corning - Candidate for King County Superior Court
Rebeccah Graham - Candidate for King County Superior Court

We voted to *not* endorse a candidate in the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Additional information regarding the meeting can be found at our website: www.48thdems.org


Resolution/Platform Positions:

The National Democratic Party has solicited feedback from all State, County and Legislative District organizations, regarding the National Democratic Platform. If you wish to submit a resolution, please email your comments to Becky Lewis (rebeccie@comcast.net). Becky is a member of the WA State Delegation to the DNC Convention, and she will make sure that the WA State Platform Committee gets a copy of all resolutions in time for their August 9th meeting in Pittsburg.

New Meeting for 18 Million Voices Washington State!

Announcing a new meeting for 18 Million Voices/Rise Hillary Rise of WA State!

When: August 7, 2008 7:00 PM

Where: Click here to find out! Please RSVP either way.

We will be discussing Denver and our local events. There are several new developments!

We are well on our way to helping Hillary Rise!

I look forward to seeing all of you!

Thanks
Laura
Reply to: women-1143@meetup.com

I Own My Vote Organization Asks for Platform Input

Now that Obama has hijacked, stolen and paid for the party and installed his thugs and threatened many of the decent people of the party into silence, and now that we know they don't give a shit about Hillary's 18Million voters, we have to start at the bottom. Obama is sending emails around to voters in the party saying he wants to hear from you about the platform, so i own my own vote intelligently put together something where all of us could speak from one unified source.

Please use the check boxes for what you would like to ad to the platform. (Click on platform)

Please fill it out, it'll only take a minute or so. If 1,000's sign it, maybe the new brownshirts DNC party will pretend they're doing something for the people by maybe incorporating one of the things we care about. Thanks!

McCain narrows Obama's lead in key states

McCain narrows Obama's lead in key states
Posted: 11:21 AM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
McCain has narrowed Obama's lead in three key states.

(CNN) — Barack Obama and John McCain are statistically tied in Florida and Ohio while Obama holds a clear advantage in Pennsylvania, new Quinnipiac polls out of those crucial battleground states Thursday show.

But in what could be a warning sign for Obama as voters begin to turn their attention to the general election race, Obama's lead appears to have dwindled, or barely remained steady, in all three states, even as the Democratic presidential candidate has enjoyed a wave of intense media coverage surrounding his trip abroad.More...

CNN Election Center: View the latest state polls

In Florida, Obama now holds a statistically insignificant 2-point lead over McCain, 46-44 percent. In a similar poll taken one month ago, Obama held a wider, and statistically significant, 47-43 percent advantage over the Arizona senator there. The difference appears to be a shift among independent voters, who now support McCain in Florida by a 5-point margin. In the June poll, Obama held the advantage among the same group of voters by a 10-percent advantage.

CNN's Electoral Map: Check out the lay of the land

In Ohio, the battleground state where a weak economy should give Democrats an advantage, Obama is ahead by a 2-point margin, 46-44 percent. That lead, also statistically insignificant, is down from the 6-point advantage the Illinois senator held there one month ago.

Obama's lead has also narrowed in Pennsylvania, though he still enjoys a clear edge there. Obama now leads McCain by a 7-point advantage, 49-42 percent, down from the 11 point advantage he had in June.

The poll was conducted from July 23-29, in the midst of Obama's trip abroad, and carries a margin of error of just under 3 points in each state.

Females in Comeback Runs Are Breaking Records

Run Date: 07/31/08
By Allison Stevens
Washington Bureau Chief

Women's eNews: Sixteen women who lost congressional races in 2006 are giving it another go. That's a record number of female comeback bids and a tide-turning moment for women who often fade away after a failed campaign.More...

BETHESDA, Md. (WOMENSENEWS)--Donna Edwards' June election to the U.S. House of Representatives was neither fast nor easy.

In 2006, Edwards tried to unseat Democratic Rep. Albert Wynn of Maryland, but she lost by fewer than 3,000 votes. "When I lost, I wanted to crawl under my bed," Edwards said earlier this month at the annual conference of the Washington-based National Organization for Women held in Bethesda, Md. "But I woke up."

Wynn, an African American who voted in 2002 to authorize the president to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, was too moderate for the heavily Democratic district in suburbs east of Washington, D.C., Edwards asserted.

Ousting him, she said, deserved a second try.

So Edwards, a lawyer and anti-domestic violence activist, staged a repeat performance of her 2006 campaign. Voters responded enthusiastically, giving her a 22-point victory over Wynn the second time around.

Wynn resigned in June, triggering a special election for the seat. Edwards won with 80 percent of the vote and now serves in Congress.

Edwards' persistence is unusual for female candidates, who tend to shut down the campaign office and return to pre-race routines after losing political contests, according to Gilda Morales, a researcher at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey in New Brunswick.

"Women kind of disappear after they lose," Morales said.
Long Road to Victory

After losing once, running a second race in the same district or state for the same office may seem futile. But often, a political loss is the first leg on a longer road to victory, an axiom well understood by male candidates ranging from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan. Indeed, repeat candidates often benefit from higher name recognition, established fundraising networks and experience gained from rookie mistakes.

"No question there's an advantage because you know what you did right and what you did wrong the last time," said Jonathan Parker, political director of EMILY's List, a leading political action committee in Washington that backs pro-choice Democratic women.

It's a lesson Edwards said needs to be learned by women. "For so many women who run for political office and lose, you may never see that person again. That needs to change."

Edwards' message appears to be catching on.

Sixteen women who lost congressional races in 2006 are running again in 2008, a record number of female comeback bids for congressional office that could mark a new era in the evolution of the female political candidate, Morales said.

Historically, women have sought political office after the death, resignation or retirement of husbands or male relatives, as was the case with presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton. That pattern began to change in recent decades, and today, many of the 88 women currently serving in Congress established political careers without following in the footsteps of male relatives.

Now women are running on their own initiative, sometimes for a second or third time.
New Outlook, Repeat Candidates

Several of the women who ran in 2006 have a better shot this time around, Parker said. He pointed to two women, both endorsed by EMILY's List, who are running for the same seat they lost before but under more favorable circumstances this time.

In 2006, Linda Stender of New Jersey and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio ran against GOP incumbents, both of whom are retiring this year. Because Stender and Kilroy have already run, they enjoy the edge in name recognition, fundraising and experience.

As of mid-July, Stender had $1.2 million in the bank, far more than the $81,000 reported by her GOP rival, state Sen. Leonard Lance. Kilroy also had $1.2 million on hand; her opponent, state Sen. Steve Stivers, had $880,000, according to CQ Politics, an online political journal.

Several other women are mounting rematches against the same incumbents they fought in 2006, but under more favorable conditions this time around, Parker said.

In Washington state, Democrat Darcy Burner is running again against Republican Dave Reichert, to whom she lost in 2006. Burner has a better shot this year because she can ride on the coattails of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who is expected to carry Washington state, Parker said.

And in New Hampshire, former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen is running a second time for the United States Senate against GOP Sen. John Sununu, whom she lost to six years ago. This time, she hopes to capitalize on a Democratic tide that swept the state in 2006, when Democrats took control of both houses of the state Legislature for the first time since 1874.

All four races are considered too close to call by Charlie Cook, author of the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan publication that tracks congressional races.

"There are real reasons these women candidates are running again," Parker said. "They're not just running to run."
Playing the Odds to Win

Other female Democrats also hope to take advantage of a more favorable national political climate.

Daily tracking polls of registered voters across the country conducted during the month of July by Gallup give Obama a 1- to 9-point lead over GOP nominee John McCain.

And 51 percent of registered voters surveyed in a national poll conducted July 25-27 by Research 2000 said they would favor a Democratic candidate for Congress, while only 37 percent said they would back a generic Republican candidate.

Female Democrats like Victoria Wulsin of Ohio and Sharon Renier of Michigan hope to capitalize on that trend. Wulsin is taking on GOP Rep. Jean Schmidt and Renier wants to oust Republican Tim Walberg.

Both women came close to victory in 2006, although none more so than Christine Jennings, a Florida Democrat who came within 373 votes of beating Republican Vern Buchanan. In that race, more than 18,000 ballots were not counted due to voter machine malfunction, giving Jennings hope that she will win this time around.

Meanwhile, two Republican women--Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania and Anne Northup of Kentucky--who lost their seats in the 2006 midterm elections are running to reclaim them now.

All of these races are considered competitive by Cook.

Other women are running longer-shot repeat campaigns, including Republicans Sydney Hay of Arizona, Deborah Honeycutt of Georgia and Charel Winston of California, and Democrats Judy Feder of Virginia, Diane Benson of Alaska, Nikki Tinker of Tennessee and Cristina Avalos of California.

Allison Stevens is Washington bureau chief at Women's eNews.

Women's eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.

Black women given short shrift by CNN

Avis Jones-DeWeever | Posted July 31, 2008 1:53 AM

CNN did all of America a grave disservice with its over-simplistic, decontextualized, and obsessively-hyped documentary on the Black American experience. Upon the umpteenth showing of the special it finally hit me--the only additional image needed to really bring it home would have been a soft-shoe dancin', white-glove wearin', big grin sportin' minstrel interlude. At least with such a display, it would have become graphically clear that the Black America emphasized in the series was more caricature than fact-based groundbreaking analysis. More...

Take for example, the especially disappointing focus on Black women. To hear CNN tell it, Black women would be fine, if only they would get out of the baby-making business and just get married--preferably, to a white guy. With those bases covered, all would be right with the world...right? WRONG! It's frankly insulting to insinuate that the range of the Black woman's experience in America boils down to whether or not she said, "I do." Instead, it would have been far more groundbreaking to report that Black women have the highest labor force participation rate of all women in America. Yet, despite their work effort, Black women earn only 63 cents for every dollar earned by white men, suffering both a gender and race pay gap. And even worse, they find themselves tied with Native American women as the most likely to be poor. Even with all of their hard work, Black women's poverty more than doubles that of white women, notably outpaces that of Latinas, and even exceeds that of Black men.

I have a news flash for CNN. The biggest problem facing Black women isn't the lack of a wedding ring, it's the lack of access to jobs that pay livable wages and that are inclusive of benefits that most middle-class Americans take for granted, such as paid sick days, employer-provided health insurance, and access to retirement plans.

It's important also to note that not all news about Black women is doom and gloom. We make up the majority of African Americans earning Associates, Bachelor's and Master's Degrees. We are entering and excelling in non-traditional fields, earning some 14,800 Doctorates in science and engineering. And in less than a 10-year span between 1997 and 2006, Black women's entrepreneurship exploded, growing 147 percent compared to an overall rate of growth among privately-owned businesses of a comparatively paltry 24%.

Yet, the powers that be at CNN apparently thought this and other information not important enough for inclusion. Choosing instead to focus on images that have been around as long as Ronald Reagan's mythical "welfare queen." To CNN, the issue that deserved the primary focus with respect to Black women was the issue of single-parenthood. And even that issue was given short-shrift, based much more in stereotype and moral proselytizing, than fact-based, contextualized, reality.

It's no accident that CNN chose to highlight a never-married woman with five kids to drive their point home, when according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical Black woman-headed family has only 1.78 kids (well let's be generous and round it up to two). It's no accident that the great solution put forth was Marry Your Baby Daddy Day, complete with dancing grooms, with no mention of the fact that the so-called "marriage solution" is being funded primarily from TANF dollars--money meant to help poor families survive. And while aid to struggling families have received cut after cut in recent years in a variety of critical areas such as child care assistance, housing assistance, job-training specifically for women, and even child-support enforcement, it's no accident that marriage promotion dollars have been free-flowing.

So what's wrong with this reprioritization of funds? Perhaps what's most disturbing is that the let them eat wedding cake solution just doesn't add up. It's been estimated that there are three available African American women for every one available African American man who has the means to lift a family out of poverty. You don't have to hold a Ph.D. in mathematics to understand what's wrong with that picture. There just ain't enough brothers to go around. Now CNN would have Black women expand the pool beyond the Black male option. Problem is, for most, they either lack the desire or the opportunity to do so.

Black women are in fact the demographic group that is the least likely to marry outside of their race. In contrast, Black men are among the most likely. In fact, research suggests that as Black men's income, education, and job prestige increases, so too do their likelihood to marry interracially. So to suggest to the sistas in the 'hood that all they need do is wait for their Black Knight to come and rescue them and their children from a life of poverty is disingenuous at best. Make no mistake about it, those sistas will have a long wait. And for some, that day will never come, especially since many of the men who are best equipped to "save" them are not looking in the 'hood when they're looking for a wife.

The marriage solution is no solution at all. Instead, it's just a diversion from the much more critical task of creating and implementing a truly substantive anti-poverty plan. When the disproportionate poverty problem is adequately addressed within the Black community, the marriage issue will take care of itself.

The problem isn't that Black people don't value marriage. Quite the opposite is true. Surveys and studies confirm that if anything, many Blacks may in fact value marriage too much. They hold it in such high regard that they want everything to be "just right" before walking down the aisle. They want a good job. They want financial stability. They want to own a home and they fear that delaying childbearing until each of these pieces of the puzzle are in place would lead to fertility difficulties down the road. The real tragedy is that for many, those very basic desires may never be achieved.

So what do Black girls and young women need to avoid the fate of impoverished single motherhood? They need access to a quality education from Pre-K up to and including adult education. And as a nation, we need to come to grips with the fact that we still have very separate and very unequal public education systems. If anything, our educational institutions are getting worse in this regard and not better as time goes by. Supreme Court rulings in recent years have continually chipped away at the never fully enforced Brown v. Board of Education decision. As a result, schools today are more segregated than they were in 1990 and in fact, more segregated in the North than in the South. This educational dilemma needs to be addressed in a much more meaningful and comprehensive way than the "solution" advanced in the documentary of providing $250 cash subsidies to a small subsection of students.

Also critical is the need to expand access to higher education. Although more Black women than men are enrolled in college, when compared to other women, Black women have comparatively low college enrollment. That is a huge problem. College is especially critical for Black women since they need a Bachelor's degree just to be roughly on par with the earnings of white men with a GED. Finally, Black women need jobs, good quality jobs, located within their own communities. These jobs need to provide good wages, benefits, and opportunities for long-term career advancement.

The problem isn't that CNN didn't understand these issues. I told them. The much more disturbing problem is that they chose to leave those perspectives on the cutting room floor.

Avis Jones-DeWeever, Ph.D., is the Director of the Research Public Policy and Information Center for African American Women at the National Council of Negro Women.

30% of Conservative Democrats Say They’ll Vote for McCain

Thirty percent (30%) of conservative Democrats say they're voting for John McCain.Rasmussen Reports data also shows the Republican hopeful picking up support from 19% of White Democrats and 15% of Democrats over the age of 50. These results are from national telephone survey interviews conducted with 14,000 Likely Voters during the two weeks ending July 24. The sample includes 5,074 Democratic voters.

More Voters than Ever Say They Would Vote for Black Candidate, Still Not Sure About Friends.

Woman Persecuted but Fought Back!

Someone in this country needs your help. Here is a very long and alarming story and it has to do the persecutions which women suffer in a (mostly) woman based workforces. This needs to be shared with hopes that if enough people are made aware of what goes on both within our governmental departments, or what we allege does not go on to support citizens within our country, then we need to have a big drastic change, so when we know these incidents happen, it makes us aware, and we Know; "Knowledge is Power!"

It is very long and I know you need two cups of your favorite beverage to stay awake, however, if you can it needs to go out to those who care to know the truth. I am hoping that it falls into Grisham's or Oliver Stone's hands as it could be a book/movie...with a happy ending, only if the corporations would be shamed into not appealing cases like this. I know that this happens...within other corporations too, so lets stay focused on helping change this country for both women and men.
More...
Reply to: comm-731519135@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-06-24, 5:26PM PDT


For Immediate Release:

Contact: Mark Murray, Murray Personal Management
Phone: 775-219-6571
email: murraypersonlmgmnt@sbcglobal.net


Greta Anderson vs. American Airlines (AAL) Corporation

Federal Court to Hear Greta Anderson vs. American Airlines (AAL) Corporation
By Mark J Murray - Monday, June 23, 2008

On July 7, 2008 (r) C-05-4292 Greta Anderson vs. American Airlines (AAL) Corporation trial is scheduled to begin in the US District Court, Northern District of California chambers of the Honorable Judge Susan Illston, Courtroom 10, 19th Floor of the Phillip Burton Federal Building & U.S. Court House, 450 Golden Gate Ave in San Francisco. It will be a groundbreaking case in proving employee disability discrimination and wrongful termination under formal laws against a company that did everything they could to ruin Ms. Anderson’s reputation and livelihood as a career flight attendant with American Airlines. The case will also show how companies are aggressively using prejudicial psychological testing of employees to remove them from there positions. It will also challenge aspects of 'patient rights' to medical records; to the withholding of disability payments; to the removal and dissolving of thirty year earned medical and health insurance by the airline-employer.

The case has taken some four years to get to court after evidence was gathered to show support of American Airline’s alleged patterns and intentional design to remove Ms. Anderson from her position with the company. It will show a reprehensible example of management’s handling of an individual employee who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time innocently becoming an in-flight assault victim, causing her to become a victim’s advocate for other cabin crew members and only then to be re-victimized by the airline employer. Ms. Anderson had been a dedicated flight attendant/employee for American Airlines from 1976 until she was finally forced out of the cabin in 2003 and fired in 2005; she loved her job, the industry and the life long career she had developed.

Ms. Anderson's troubles with American Airlines began after she was assaulted by passenger Danielle Bellon Pontie, a French V.I.P. traveling internationally, on May 5th, 1995. The multi-lingual Ms. Anderson, first class flight attendant for the airline, was attacked from behind with a kick to her lower right sacrum by the wife of French aristocrat Guy Pontie. Ms. Anderson had been requested by other flight attendants, because of her ability to speak several languages, to help Mrs. Pontie’s husband with inquiries regarding their changed flight connections in Dallas Fort Worth due to a company flight delay in departure from Guadalajara Mexico. Upset about the two hour delay and that they were going to mis-connect onto their flight to Paris, Mrs. Pontie wanted to take her anger out on the airline and the closest representative in uniform for American at the time was Ms. Anderson, whom she viciously assaulted from behind, injuring her and disabling her from her work duties. Due to the severity of her injuries, Ms. Anderson was carried off the aircraft on a stretcher and then taken to a local DFW hospital where she was held over for treatment and care. Although assault on an airline cabin crew member is a federal crime, American Airlines coddled, protected and accommodated the Pontie’s, continuing to assist them in getting to their final destination (Paris, France) and did their best to keep Ms. Anderson from filing charges against Mrs. Pontie.


Ms. Anderson was a working, on-duty cabin crew member who was in the midst of performing her in flight safety and service duties at approximately 35,000' feet of altitude. The unprovoked assault and battery broke Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 91.11 (an offense for which the federal authorities later detained Richard Reid for the attempted in-flight shoe-bomb incident). This should have led to the immediate arrest of the Mrs. Pontie just as it has in the recent assault on flight attendant Paul Whyte, on a Jet Blue flight that was en route from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York to San Francisco, CA on this past Tuesday June 19th. But the American Airlines and federal authorities who were called to the scene after the plane landed chose to do nothing in regards to the assault, even though it was a federal crime, or detain Mrs. Pontie who did not have diplomatic immunity until charges could be filed. Instead the assault was minimized by both the airline and agents of our U.S. Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) and, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which had the responsibility to uphold and enforce both the civil and criminal prosecution of the infractions against Federal Aviation Laws (FARS) that affected Ms. Anderson and would have affected any other person on the flight including the Pilot’s and which Mrs. Pontie blatantly broke. This is known because as she was recovering from her injuries, Ms. Anderson was told not to talk about her experience by American Airlines and was discouraged by both the FBI and the FAA from proceeding further in regards to identifying and pressing charges against Mrs. Pontie and her husband. The FAA agents responsible for the investigation of this in-flight assault trivialized its importance as did American Airlines management members and both American Airlines and the FAA referred to the assault against Ms. Anderson as "alleged" in various evidentiary documents, showing a persistent campaign to delegitimize the importance of this vicious in-flight assault and battery against Ms. Anderson.
Within the first twenty-four hours an airline manager had told Greta Anderson that if she had any regard for her twenty year career, she would ignore the assault. The threat put at risk everything she had worked for, if she looked into the identity of her in-flight assailant or spoke to the press, lawyers or any special interest groups. Yet Ms Anderson persisted in following up on the assault and finding out the identity of her attackers. She had previous experience in dealing with domestic violence against herself and was helping to support others in the Houston, Texas; area as a victim’s rights advocate. Because of these experiences she chose to pursue her rights as an individual and a US citizen, faced her assailant in court and was victorious. In February of 2000 she won possibly the largest Air Rage Case, (Greta L. Anderson vs. Guy and Danielle Bellon Pontie: 1996 – 2000), yet heard and tried in a U.S. Federal Court that was also then approved through The Hague and is currently, even now, being pursued in the French Courts system for enforcement of the U.S. $525,000.00 award.
[Refer: Michael Pangia, Washington, D.C.]. [202-955-6450]


As a result of her assault and in defiance of threats she had received from both her employer (American Airlines) and from the Federal Government officials (both the FBI and the FAA); Ms. Anderson began to speak out at air transport meetings on "Air Rage." American Airlines then pursued a number of negative personnel actions against Ms. Anderson, including her firing in 2005 (after 28 years of stellar performance on the job), and the loss of her health insurance and further work recommendations. Her offense was her legal request for her medical records from a psychiatrist the company had hired to test her. Previously she had no record of bad behavior (company theft, rudeness to clientele, delinquency or lapses in safety matters, etc… etc…). The airline started determinedly on a campaign to use 'psychological evaluations and psychiatric profiling', forcing her into redundant reviews and testing in 1995, 1997, 1999 (twice), an attempt in 2001 and finally in 2003 - 2004 [This history will be laid out in court]. It appears that through this process American Airlines engaged in "psychiatrist shopping" as a way to disqualify her, until they found an expert who would deliver what they wanted and then Ms. Anderson was removed from her position.
Since she was unable to continue to work in her chosen career as a flight attendant and due to the erroneous psychological reports against her, Ms. Anderson --- a single mother of two children--- has been forced to take a series of low-paying jobs so she could raise and support her children, while struggling with American Airlines to clear her name and reputation. With her health insurance gone, she has suffered from difficult health problems that she has no money to treat. Nonetheless, she has never given up her struggle to hold American Airlines accountable for the damage done to her, and to protect other cabin crew members from assaults by unruly passengers and violence aboard U.S. Commercial Airliners and subsequent cover-up by their airline employer. She made presentations on Capital Hill as well as other national conferences and seminars. These included being the opening speaker at the SAS "Unruly Passenger Conference" in Stockholm, Sweden, on June 28, 1998, where she presented data, research and papers in regards to the problem. Her case demonstrates the extreme lengths that large corporations and even our own government is willing to go, to punish those who speak out against unethical practices or dangerous situations in the workplace.
Since her decision to insist on her rights American Airlines has been on a campaign to reduce her financial well being along with her mental well being. Ms Anderson has been belittled, disparaged, maligned, harassed, accused and ignored by both officials of American Airlines and members of various federal agencies. Ms. Anderson has written Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) letters to both the FBI and to the FAA since her assault and over the past fourteen years of asking for information regarding both the Pontie assault and those agencies communications with American Airlines both federal agencies have refused to respond. She has been made to fear the airline's 'retaliation' against her by repeatedly forcing her into psychological testing without cause, has been the target of private investigators and company agents who have broken onto her private property and intercepted her young children to question them along with neighbors about her. She has been “decertified without cause” by American Airlines when other employees have not even been properly certified, creating a period of lost income. And also her home mysteriously burned to the ground in October of 2000 in Tarrant County, Texas.
Finally in 2003 she was accused by American Airlines of actions and behavior of which she was innocent, forcing her into an investigation which eventually led to her suspension (her employee number disappeared from employee records in October of 2003 as if she no longer existed) and loss of work time along with income once again. This happened prior to seeing the last psychiatrist American Airlines hired to test her and whose actions caused American Airlines to consider her to be 'disabled' in 2004 and well before she was officially terminated in 2005 for asking for her medical records. When these actions were happening to her, prior testing had shown that she was “without any difficulties to perform her job duties”, was capable of handling her position and while she received praise from passengers and colleagues alike, she felt herself in "the sights" of the airline. Those suspicions of “retaliation” by her employer have now been borne out through the large body of evidence and exhibits that will be exposed through the body of this case. Amazingly, the copious record of airline management documentation and discussions about Ms. Anderson through the course of her three decade career runs into the "thousands of pages"!
“Ms. Anderson was 'forced off income and out of her job and career in 2003 whereas by October of that year Ms. Anderson's employee number disappeared off the radar screen and when entered into the American Airlines computer system, it read that 'this employee no longer exists'; despite the fact that American Airlines Legal Department later argued to the EEOC that she had not been 'discharged'. It was after Ms. Anderson having been expunged from the employee roster, showing 'suspended' and having lost her viable employee number and after having been disallowed into the employee computer information centers of Jetnet and DECS, that the airline still forced her into another round of redundant 'psychological testing' in March of 2004; disabling and then firing her for requesting her own medical records."
“Even representatives to the American Airlines Employees Benefits and Services Department questioned how such a random order of actions taken against Ms. Anderson had manifested as she was 'suspended', then disabled and finally fired. Also, Ms. Anderson never received an LTD - Long Term Disability payments (of an approximate $1,490.00 a month due to her) into which she had paid for the duration of her career after managers of the airline refused to fill-out the necessary paperwork for its filing and causing Ms. Anderson further financial devastation.
This is just part of the history that is the back-drop to this case critical to the understanding of airline corporate handling of its employees

"In another interesting consideration embodied within this case of Greta L. Anderson vs. American Airlines, the rule of 'captain's authority' that guarantees mere civilian air transport pilots (ATP) to U.S. commercial airlines near 'papal infallibility and absolute power' will fall under a particular examination as it can lead to egregious mis-applications for the purposes of cover-up, self-preservation and even acts of retaliation. Such a practice within the airline industry is comparative to law enforcement agents engaging in official oppression, excessive force and/or even threatening actions of (police or, in this case, 'pilot') brutality.
No longer can an absolute rule of Maritime Law contribute to unchecked and dangerous actions of 'discrimination' that contributes to enhancing danger within the flight environment. Additionally, airline pilots with known propensities toward violence (child abuse, domestic violence, spousal abuse, assaults and threats of assault) and commercial airline pilots with manifestations of erratic behavior and existent histories of ‘despondency, suicide threats, homicide threats’, and etc. certainly should fall under a particular scrutiny, especially with regards to accusations under ‘the cloak of captain’s authority’ that could be misleading and even retaliatory.
Additionally, the issue of more stringent psychological evaluation of commercial airline pilots is put forth in the study of developments within this case. Additionally, a need for the further examination of pilots who engage within areas of 'erratic violent behavior', assaults outside the airline workplace, known domestic violence offenses, reported despondency and depression and threats of suicide and homicide will come under consideration within this case. [Refer and investigate: Randy T. Hoffman vs. Melony Hoffman, Kent County Courts, Kent County - Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1996 – 1997].
"Questions of 'who is in command of your airline flight' should evolve from parts of the history of this case. Overall, Greta L. Anderson vs. American Airlines' will shed new light and an inside look into long maintained little known conditions within the air transport industry
At issue also is that when Ms. Anderson was falsely accused by a captain and crew in August of 2003, and, later by managers to American Airlines who acted upon an immediate and prejudicial presumption and declaration of her assumed guilt; Ms. Greta Anderson contacted her union, the APFA. Ms. Anderson was advised by SFO APFA representative that “Ms. Anderson had suffered harassment and being traumatized at the hands and actions of Captain Randy T. Hoffman (Ada, Michigan / based in ORD).
Ms. LeWinter further advised Ms. Anderson in August of 2003 to file a report of harassment and discrimination with the hired neutral reporting system assigned to American Airlines reporting systems, The Network. Ms. Anderson followed these instructions in 2003. Yet, by 2005 Ms. Anderson was informed by no less that two agents to The Network that American Airlines Human Resources, to which they reported, had instructed The Network to erase and expunge her reports.
Ms. Anderson after having been removed off her trip under ‘the false pretenses’ of falsified captain and crew reports also followed procedure in reporting the events of her last and catastrophic three day trip. Yet, despite properly reporting to the internal reporting channels within American Airlines, later evidence presented at the time of her firing in 2005, showed that the persons to whom she reported did NOT want to take any information regarding the violent actions of a captain or the improper actions of the rest of her crew.
And additional point to understand with regards to the sequence of events of this case and persons involved and knowledgeable of this case and its history, is that, before Ms. Anderson had any legal representation and after having been removed from her last trip, her job and her income; Ms. Anderson wrote directly to the CEO of American Airlines, Gerard Arpey and to The Board of American Airlines, Inc., reporting the travesty of injustice that had descended upon her since August of 2003.
Though none of these persons responded to Ms. Anderson’s plea for an investigation, a Mr. David Levine of American Airlines Human Resources responded to Ms. Anderson on behalf of Mr. Gerard Arpey (mentioning him by name) in an email in the summer of 2005. Mr. Levine in a caustic and very negative email again expressed false accusations against Ms. Anderson, yet again, and stayed within the accusatory framework of malicious dis-information.
Thus, the very top of the executive tier were either directly or indirectly advised and presumptively reached by Ms. Greta L. Anderson only to find no remedy in her search for justice and fairness.
Thus is one study of ‘the pathological corporate culture’ of the management – labor relations put forward by American Airlines and made evident within this case.
We hope that interested members of the press and the general public, who follow airline safety issues, and employee protection legislation, will attend this trial. What happened to Greta Anderson was a travesty of justice and fair labor practices. The fate of Greta Anderson is important, since she is a symbol and example of employees trying to create safer conditions for everyone to fly in. The tactics used against Greta Anderson can be used against any airline employee who tries to bring dangerous conditions to public attention and these tactics could be used further afield, against employees in other industries who try to blow the whistle on unsafe practices. The U.S., if not global, commercial air transport industry and its unknown and little realized tactics and labor relations need to be 'revolutionized'.
It is also hopeful that crime victim advocates will attend this case and see how much "psychology for hire' is utilized against American employees (within the United States and within the airline industry) while, for example, the airlines maneuvers, manipulates and misuses a cry for the "safety sensitive environment of flight" of which Ms. Anderson ironically, was a consummate champion. –
A final pre-trial hearing for the case is scheduled for 3:30 PM on Tuesday June 24th, 2008 in the same chambers.

Also, please refer to KVTV – the CBS affiliate in Ft. Worth, Texas, for an interviewed piece by reporter Jerry Strickland and Ms. Anderson on February 22, 2000, that shows cause and motive for American Airlines retaliatory actions against the plaintiff to this case. Contact Angie at KVTV in FW, Texas, and the archivist to this station for a clear copied video of said interview.

-30-

Contact: Mark Murray
Phone: 775-219-6571
Email: murraypersonlmgmnt@sbcglobal.net
For more information in regards to this case.
Location: Reno/Washoe Valley
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
PostingID: 731519135


Jury gives former American flight attendant $1.2 million

BY MARTHA BELLISLE
mbellisle@rgj.com
A federal jury has ordered American Airlines to pay a former flight attendant from Washoe Valley $1.2 million after she sued the company for firing her for seeking the mental health records that led to her termination in 2005.
Greta Anderson, 57, said Monday that the jury's decision last week after a 10-day trial in federal court in San Francisco ends a
13-year battle and should be a warning to other corporations.
"The misuse of psychological or psychiatric evaluations should not and cannot undeservedly disqualify employees nor be used as a surgical tool to cut out an employee from a long-earned career, income or benefits nor serve as a 'gag to silence employees,'" she said in an e-mailed statement.
Her lawyer, Gregory Redmond, said the jury's decision "vindicates my client."
Sacramento lawyer Kenneth O'Brien, who represented the airlines, could not be reached for comment.
Anderson filed her lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Northern California after an incident on a flight from Dallas to Fort Myers, Fla., in which she was assaulted by an "irate female passenger."
The passenger interfered with her safety and serving duties, Anderson said, so she sought to defuse the situation.
The airlines ordered Anderson undergo a psychological evaluation, and a doctor "found me unfit for duty," she said. She had underwent similar evaluations in previous years and always passed with glowing reviews, she said.
When the airlines reported a bad report, she asked to see the evaluation and was told by the airlines that if she tries again to acquire her medical records, she'll be fired for insubordination.
She said she had been given her mental health reports in the past and had a legal right to review her records, so she sued the company.
The jury awarded her $238,000 for loss of wages and $1 million for emotional distress.

Flight attendant wins $1.2 million in suit

Second Article on the WIN....Hope this makes you happy, or "feisty happy!"
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, July 18, 2008

A federal court jury in San Francisco awarded more than $1.2 million in damages Thursday to a former American Airlines flight attendant who said the airline concocted reasons to fire her after she complained about an assault by a passenger.
The eight-member U.S. District Court jury found that American Airlines fired Greta Anderson in 2005 at least in part because of the company's belief that she was mentally disabled, even though she was able to do the job she had held since 1976. The jury awarded her $238,000 for wage losses and $1 million for emotional distress.

The airline said it dismissed Anderson for insubordination because she disobeyed supervisors' orders by repeatedly asking a psychiatrist for a copy of his report that found her unfit for duty. Company lawyers were unavailable for comment late Thursday, but Anderson's attorney, Gregory Redmond, said the airline's position during the trial left little doubt that it would appeal the verdict.

Anderson, 57, lives in Reno and was based in San Jose as a flight attendant. In trial testimony and an interview, she said her problems with the airline started in May 1995 when a passenger frustrated by flight delays kicked her in the back. The passenger turned out to be the wife of a French diplomat, Anderson said, and when she tried to get American Airlines to do something about it, the company turned on her instead.

Anderson said she was referred for a series of psychiatric evaluations over the next eight years, all of which found her fit to work, while she spoke out publicly about safety problems posed by combative airline passengers. After an incident on a flight in August 2003 - in which, she said, the pilot raised a fist to her and later had her removed from the plane - the company referred her to another psychiatrist, who found her unstable.

She was suspended without pay after the flight, was fired in September 2005 and filed suit a year later.

Her case shows that "psychological evaluations cannot be used as a surgical tool to cut out employees from a 30-year career, to silence them," Anderson said after the verdict, which followed a two-week trial.

Redmond, Anderson's lawyer, said the verdict showed that the jury agreed with Anderson that the psychiatrist's assessment of her as unstable and unfit for duty was unfounded.

"It vindicates my client," he said.

In court papers, Kenneth O'Brien, a lawyer for the airline, defended the psychiatrist's conclusions and said he reasonably refused to give Anderson a copy of the report because it might cause her further mental trauma. The airline's treatment of Anderson was "neither discriminatory, retaliatory nor wrongful," O'Brien said.




E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

Obama's Iraq Fumble

By KARL ROVE
July 31, 2008

In a race supposedly dominated by the economy, both Barack Obama and John McCain have spent a lot of time talking about Iraq. Why? Because both men have Iraq problems that are causing difficulties for their campaigns.

How each candidate resolves his Iraq problems may determine who voters come to see as best qualified to set American foreign policy.More...

If Mr. McCain wins the argument on Iraq, he will add to his greatest strength -- a perceived fitness to be commander in chief and lead the global war on terror. As the underdog, Mr. McCain needs to convince voters that he is overwhelmingly the better choice on the issue.

Mr. Obama needs to win the argument because his greatest weakness is inexperience and a perceived unreadiness to be president. That's dangerous. Voters believe keeping America safe and strong is a president's most important responsibility.

Mr. McCain's first Iraq problem is that he favored removing Saddam Hussein when it was popular -- 76% of Americans thought it was worth going to war in April 2003 -- and has maintained his support of the war even as it grew to be unpopular. In January, only 32% of Americans said the war was worth it.

Mr. McCain's second Iraq problem is that the success of the surge he advocated has made it easier for voters to believe we can accelerate the drawdown of U.S. troops. This belief makes Mr. Obama's proposal to withdraw in 16 months seem more reasonable.

Mr. McCain's position was further complicated recently when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seemed to give a semiendorsement of Mr. Obama's withdrawal plan. Mr. Maliki actually agrees with Mr. McCain that a timetable should be aspirational and based on conditions on the ground, which is why he said U.S. troops should be withdrawn by 2010 "if possible."

Some Iraqis are anxious to have American troops leave and some are not -- which is why Mr. Maliki treads a fine line on withdrawal. Unfortunately for Mr. McCain, this only complicates things for his campaign.

Mr. Obama's problem is he opposed the policy that created the progress that makes victory in Iraq possible. Mr. Obama's unbending opposition to the surge undermines his fundamental argument that he has better judgment on national security. Mr. McCain needs to use Mr. Obama's retrospective mistake to shape voters' prospective conclusion, convincing them that Mr. Obama's badly flawed judgment on the surge shows he cannot be trusted with major foreign-policy decisions.

Mr. Obama also created a problem by canceling a visit to U.S. soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and are now recuperating at Landstuhl hospital in Germany. His campaign has offered a welter of explanations. What's the real one? My rule is that when in doubt, see what a candidate said at the time and judge his candor. In a July 26 London news conference, Mr. Obama explained: "I was going to be accompanied by one of my advisers, a former military officer. And we got notice that he would be treated as a campaign person, and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy, but he wasn't on the Senate staff."

The solution was obvious. Leave the campaign adviser behind and visit the wounded troops. Mr. Obama's decision to work out in the hotel gym instead adds to his growing reputation for arrogance.

Most importantly, Mr. Obama missed the opportunity to show he can admit a mistake. He could have said that what he saw on his visit to Iraq convinced him that the surge was right and its success now allows U.S. troops to be safely drawn down. Instead, he insisted he was right to say the surge wouldn't work.

That may give voters pause. If Mr. Obama can't admit the surge worked after the fact, how can voters count on him to keep his mind open to the facts on other important foreign-policy decisions?

Mr. Obama should not be misled by polls showing support for a timetable. Opinion surveys are notoriously unreliable in gauging public opinion on a complicated question like Iraq.

Americans can simultaneously support a withdrawal timetable and also insist that the withdrawal occur only when conditions justify it and military leaders recommend it. For instance, Gallup polls have shown that 69% of Americans think we should set a timetable for withdrawal, but 65% also want to establish stability and security before withdrawing. Like Messrs. McCain and Maliki, Americans are for an aspirational and conditional timetable. They want to win.

The conventional wisdom has been that this election will be decided on the economy. That will be crucial, but so is Iraq. And it makes perfect sense. We are, after all, a nation at war. And in wartime, electing a president who will win should matter most of all.

Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Why Obama Should Pick Hillary

Let's start with one undisputable fact: Sen. Clinton is the only Democrat who gives Sen. Obama a statistically significant boost in any national poll results.More...

OPINION

Why Obama Should Pick Hillary
By LANNY J. DAVIS
July 31, 2008; Page A15

Picking a vice president is obviously Barack Obama's decision to make. He must be comfortable with who he picks. Comfort level between a president and vice president may be the most important factor of all.

So I can only offer my argument, based on some facts and subjective impressions, as to why I believe it would be in Sen. Obama's personal and political interest to select Hillary Rodham Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. Not just to enhance his chances of winning -- but, more important, to help him be a more effective president.
[Why Obama Should Pick Hillary]
M.E. Cohen

Let's start with one undisputable fact: Sen. Clinton is the only Democrat who gives Sen. Obama a statistically significant boost in any national poll results.

This is not a criticism of other candidates. This is simply a fact -- a product of Sen. Clinton's nearly 18-month national campaign in all 50 states and the 18 million votes she won. The result was a dramatic increase in her favorable ratings across the spectrum, even among some of her most conservative critics.

In late June, polls conducted by The Wall Street Journal/NBC and Fox/Opinion Dynamics -- using entirely different samples -- both showed Sen. Clinton giving Sen. Obama a +3% bump, pushing him over 51% for the first time, when the two of them were paired against Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney.

Most recently, in nationwide polling on July 22-23, a Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll showed a more dramatic bump of +8% with Sen. Clinton as Sen. Obama's vice presidential running mate. In a head-on match, it was Sen. Obama 41% to Sen. McCain's 40% (this was before the intense media coverage of his European trip). But with exactly the same sample, when all voters were presented with the choice of an Obama-Clinton ticket vs. McCain-Romney, the results were Obama-Clinton, 48% (+7%), and McCain-Romney 39% (-1%).

Can Sen. Obama win without Sen. Clinton on the ticket? Yes he can. Majorities favor his views on most of the economic issues. And his European trip was virtually flawless, demonstrating that he can walk, talk and act like a president in foreign affairs and with foreign leaders.

However, with Sen. Clinton on the ticket, I do not believe Sen. Obama can lose. She adds important strength to Sen. Obama's in the key constituencies of women, blue-collar workers and senior citizens. And, thus, she could tip the balance in such key border states as West Virginia, Kentucky and Arkansas (not apparently in play for Sen. Obama as of now), as well as in the key battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida.

So, considering this data, why not pick Sen. Clinton? Here are the three most repeated negatives that seem to concern sincere supporters of Sen. Obama the most:

- Sen. Clinton is polarizing and will rev up the Republican base.

In fact, the data proves the reverse is true: Sen. Clinton has little or no effect on Republican preferences in a race against Sen. McCain -- and she helps Sen. Obama significantly among Democrats.

According to the July 22-23 Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll, in an Obama-McCain head-on match-up, Sen. Obama gets just 74% of the Democrats and 6% of the Republicans. With Sen. Clinton as his running mate vs. a McCain-Romney ticket, Sen. Obama's Democratic vote goes up to 86% -- a significant 12% increase. As for Republican voters, rather than getting "revved up" because of Hillary's presence on the ticket, there was no effect at all: The Obama-Clinton ticket gains 3% (from 6% to 9% among Republicans), whereas McCain-Romney gains the same 3% (from 82% to 85%).

So what about independents? An Obama-Clinton ticket appears to gain some strength in this critical swing-voter group. With an Obama-McCain head-on contest, independents are evenly divided, 32%-30%, with Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain. But with an Obama-Clinton ticket vs. a McCain-Romney ticket, the independents favor Obama-Clinton 38%-30% -- a statistically significant 6% increase in a crucial voter group.

- Choosing Sen. Clinton would be counter to the Obama message of "new politics" and change.

The simple answer: How can choosing the first woman vice president in the history of the United States be a choice for the status quo? How can choosing someone who can help the future President Obama bring to America its first affordable and effective national health insurance system reinforce the status quo rather than change? The answer is: Older doesn't mean status quo. Hillary Clinton is a change agent and always has been throughout her public career. Barack Obama selecting her as the first female vice president would reinforce his change message, not detract from it.

- She would not be a team player, and her husband would be a distraction or worse in an Obama White House.

The answer here comes down to knowing Hillary and Bill Clinton as real people, not as cartoon characters. No one who knows either one of them believes there is a shred of truth to this widely held misperception.

Hillary Clinton is the ultimate team player and I have no doubt she would be an invaluable vice president. She knows from firsthand experience the importance of a supportive and involved vice president.

I am certain of this -- not just because of my personal friendship with her over 39-plus years, in the best of times and in the worst of times. But also I know -- and I believe even her critics would agree -- that she is first and foremost a dedicated public servant. And she would do everything, everything, to help her president succeed because by doing so the nation and the American people would benefit. As long as I've known her, that has always been her life's driving goal: public service to help people.

So what about Bill Clinton? Well, what about him? He loves his wife, he loves his country, and he would be 100% dedicated to helping a President Obama in any way the president wished. If that means being quiet and not distracting from the messages or issues the Obama White House is focusing on, Bill Clinton will do whatever it takes to be helpful.

Of course having a former president as the spouse of the vice president in the White House, much less someone with the intellectual power and star quality of Bill Clinton, will be a challenge to a President Obama and his White House. Few can deny that. But the last time I looked, Sen. Obama does pretty well dealing with challenges, even those his closest friends and confidantes are worried about.

In the final analysis, to repeat, this is Sen. Obama's personal and political decision and he must be comfortable with the choice. I respect that. I honor that. These are my best arguments that it is in his political interest and his future administration's interest to have Hillary Clinton by his side on the ticket as vice president -- as a cheerleader and articulate supporter, as a candid adviser, and as a friend inside the White House with eight years of frontline experience of what it's like.

Now it's up to Sen. Obama. Whatever his decision, I will support it.

Mr. Davis is a Washington attorney and former special counsel to President Clinton (1996-98). He was an active supporter of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential nominating contest.

Did Obama Accuse McCain of Running a Racist, Xenophobic Campaign?

More...
Jake Tapper
July 30, 2008 10:45 PM

"John McCain right now, he's spending an awful lot of time talking about me," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said today in Rolla, Mo. "You notice that? I haven’t seen an ad yet where he talks about what he’s gonna do. And the reason is because those folks know they don’t have any good answers, they know they’ve had their turn over the last eight years and made a mess of things. They know that you’re not real happy with them."

Obama continued: "And so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. So what they’re saying is, ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he’s... doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, you know, he’s got a, he’s got a funny name.'

"I mean, that’s basically the argument -- he’s too risky," Obama said, per ABC News' Sunlen Miller. "But think about it, what’s the bigger risk? Us deciding that we’re going to come together to bring about real change in America or continuing to do same things with the same folks in the same ways that we know have not worked? I mean, are we really going to do the same stuff that we’ve been doing over the last eight years? ... That’s a risk we cannot afford. The stakes are too high."

Obama made similar comments earlier in the day in Springfield, Mo.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it not seem as if Obama just said McCain and his campaign -- presumably the "they" in this construct -- are saying that Obama shouldn't be elected because he's a risk because he's black and has a foreign-sounding name?

The Obama campaign says no, no, no, certainly not, he was talking about his "opponents" in general, writ large, the talk radio hosts and smear artists and such.

Then in Union, Mo., this evening, Obama seemed to specifically accuse McCain and the GOP of peddling racism and xenophobia.

Obama said that "John McCain and the Republicans, they don’t have any new ideas, that’s why they’re spending all their time talking about me. I mean, you haven’t heard a positive thing out of that campaign in ... in a month. All they do is try to run me down and you know, you know this in your own life. If somebody doesn’t have anything nice to say about anybody, that means they’ve got some problems of their own. So they know they’ve got no new ideas, they know they’re dredging up all the stale old stuff they’ve been peddling for the last eight, 10 years.

"But, since they don’t have any new ideas the only strategy they’ve got in this election is to try to scare you about me. They’re going to try to say that I’m a risky guy, they’re going to try to say, 'Well, you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills and, and they’re going to send out nasty emails.

"And, you know, the latest one they’ve got me in an ad with Paris Hilton," Obama said, referring to a McCain campaign ad launched today. "You know, never met the woman. But, but, you know, what they’re gonna try to argue is that somehow I’m too risky."

There's a lot of racist xenophobic crap out there. But not only has McCain not peddled any of it, he's condemned it.

Back in February, McCain apologized for some questionable comments made by a local radio host. In April, he condemned the North Carolina Republican Party's ad featuring images of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

With one possible exception, I've never seen McCain or those under his control playing the race card or making fun of Obama's name -- or even mentioning Obama's full name, for that matter!

(The one exception was in March when McCain suspended a low-level campaign staffer for sending out to a small group of friends a link to a video that attempts to tie Obama not only to Wright but to the black power movement, rappers Public Enemy and Malcolm X.)

While I have no doubt there will be a bunch more racist, xenophobic, and other ignorant drek coming our way courtesy of the Internet and perhaps the occasional cable news network, it's important to determine where it's coming from. Is it from a specific campaign or party? A third-party group? A third-party group with direct ties to establishment figures? This all matters.

I've seen racism in campaigns before -- I've seen it against Obama in this campaign (more from Democrats than Republicans, at this point, I might add) and I've seen it against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, when his adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was alleged, by the charming friends and allies of then-Gov. George W. Bush, to have been a McCain love-child with an African-American woman.

What I have not seen is it come from McCain or his campaign in such a way to merit the language Obama used today. Pretty inflammatory.

- jpt
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5080861302018782195

New Video: These Boots Are Made For Walkin' 11/04/2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBvP_O9AwKA