It is outrageous that private for profit companies are being taken over by the government. Who gives the government the right to do this? Doesn't the money need to be properly appropriated or does the fed just have a slush fund to play with?

I am so disgusted right now. The feds can bail out a company because of the bad decisions they made. What happened to the free market??? How can a company become too large to die? What precedents are we setting here? Is the point of business now to get so large that you can make all of the bad, immoral, and greedy deals, and then the feds will bail you out?

There has to be a way to stop this. Where the fuck is congress? Where are the free marketeers? Where are the assholes like Norquist? Who is going to say no to this??? All of the banks, investment firms, insurance companies, and others that can't survive on their own should be permitted to die! I feel bad for their employees. I work near Lehman Brothers and I know how bad it is. But it's going to be much worse to temporarily prop up these corporations. It doesn't solve the core problems and it doesn't allow the natural flow of the free market. The stalling tactics will make it so much worse.

Bush will certainly go down in history with Hoover. Our grandchildren will learn about these times the way I learned about the times of my grandparents. I am so angry and sad right now. Fascism and the socialization of risk are happening right before our eyes. And for some reason, no one that matters is doing anything about it.

This has been a long time coming. I avoided the presidential process until October this year. I feel that everything before then is meaningless unless I am in love with a candidate. The two candidates I loved didn’t run (Warner and Feingold). So I sat it out until October. Then in October, I started paying close attention. I had to think about what I was looking for in a presidential candidate and evaluate where I wanted this country to be in 5 years.

My view of where I want to see this nation is based on the issues. The issues that are most important to me are the Iraq War, Health Care, the Economy, and the Environment. I want a candidate that was correct about the Iraq War from the beginning. I don’t want the republican to say “but you supported it.” I want a candidate that will have all troops out of combat roles as quickly as possible. I want a candidate that can implement a health care overhaul. I want all people to be able to get health care at the lowest cost possible while achieving high quality of service. I want a candidate that realizes that people are going through hardship and will try to change the system to favor people instead of corporations. And I want a candidate that recognizes that we’re headed for a global catastrophe with the environment. So what is a Democrat to do?

I’ve evaluated each of the candidates. Kucinich is interesting, but he’ll never win. I wanted to like Richardson, but his sleepy, apathetic style wasn’t what I was looking for. Also, some of his positions on national security issues were bad. Then there is John Edwards. I have flirted with Edwards both in 2004 and 2008. I was never convinced that Edwards believed what he was saying, and that he’d make a good president. Then there’s Clinton. Clinton is a right wing fox in sheep’s clothing. Clinton represents the ruling class. Clinton has been planning this run for the presidency since at least the time she ran for senate. Clinton like Edwards would have to explain away their previous support for the war. It would be John Kerry 2 (you supported it and now you’re playing politics). And Clinton is an electoral college nightmare. We’ve seen this already in NH and NV. Clinton has still not won a state on delegates. This is a sign of things to come in the General Election. There are no 2004 “red states” that Clinton is likely to win.

Finally, there’s Barack Obama. Obama represents the future of this nation. Obama is young, optimistic, brilliant, hard working, and a community organizer who rose through the ranks (unlike Hillary and Edwards). Obama has new ideas for old problems. Obama wants to bring people together instead of just being angry at the republicans. Obama is comfortable in his own skin unlike Hillary and sometimes Edwards. Obama has a national technology plan, which is a big deal for a tech worker like me. Barack Obama was correct about Iraq. He said it was a dumb war. He’s on record as opposing it from the beginning. Obama has a health care plan that unlike Hillary’s, can be enacted and is a step forward. Forcing people to buy the same overpriced insurance isn’t the answer. Obama wants to reduce the cost of health care and cover all children. Obama has the most elected experience of any the major candidates (11 years). Barack Obama is the correct candidate for the times. He represents a clean break from the old politics of America, of war, fear, partisan gridlock, and overt partisanship. And Barack Obama can WIN! He’s shown it already. He still hasn’t lost a state on the delegates. He brings together all kinds of people to build a coalition of voters for change that we can believe in.

So I proudly endorse Barack Obama for president. This means a lot to me. I will work my ass off from here on out to help Barack become president. Today I am joining the local Barack Obama campaign. I have also booked a flight to South Carolina for Wednesday. I will be working out of the Charleston office, because the best way to get candidates elected is working hard on the ground.

And one final message for my fellow DUers. I truly love you guys. We beat each other up over here through these elections. It’s a tough process, especially on a message board. There’s a lot for us to be excited about this cycle. Hopefully we can keep an eye on the ultimate goal of restoring the constitution and this nation to the status she deserves.

(Iowa City, IA) Today it was revealed that Senator Barack Obama preferred to be bottle fed. The NY Post spoke with Obama's 95 year old care taker Mildred Klaus who said: "Obama breast fed for at least a month before he demanded to be bottle fed. He was the fussiest 1 month old I have ever seen."

In a tight race for the presidency, Hillary's spokesman Howard Wolfson said "Baby Barack didn't have the courage or convictions to feed from his mother's bosom. The people of Iowa must understand that Barack Obama doesn't love his mother." RNC Chairman Michael Duncan joked "Obama supported breast feeding before he was against it." Obama's campaign was did not return calls for comment.
<snip>

Don't believe me? Read for yourself.

October 8, 2004: Edwards doesn't regret his vote.
``The vote on the resolution was the right vote, even in hindsight,'' Edwards, a first-term U.S. senator from North Carolina, said in an interview aboard his campaign plane on Oct. 8 (2004). ``It was the right vote to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein,'' he said.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...

Edwards in his own words on 10/10/2002

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107... :

And of course this:

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make.

We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.

We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.

This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The United States must do as much as possible to build a new United Nations Security Council coalition against Saddam Hussein.

Although the administration was far too slow to start this diplomatic process, squandering valuable time to bring nations to our side, I support its recent efforts to forge a new U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq.

If inspectors go back into Iraq, they should do so with parameters that are air-tight, water-tight, and Saddam-tight. They should be allowed to see what they want when they want, anytime, anywhere, without warning, and without delay.

Yet if the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat.

We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq. Of course, the best outcome would be a peaceful resolution of this issue. No one here wants war. We all hope that Saddam Hussein meets his obligations to existing Security Council Resolutions and agrees to disarm, but after 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so.

That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.

Yet some question why Congress should act now to give the President the authority to act against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used. Saddam Hussein has one last chance to adhere to his obligations and disarm, and his past behavior shows that the only chance he will comply is if he is threatened with force.

Of course, there is no guarantee that he will comply even if threatened by force, but we must try.

Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaida. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.

The resolution before us today is significantly better than the one the president initially submitted. It is not a blank check. It contains several provisions that I and many of my colleagues have long argued were required.

First, it gives the administration the authority to use all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it calls on the administration to do as much as possible to forge a new U.N. Security Council mandate, understanding that if new Security Council action proves impossible, the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as will join us.

Third, it requires the administration to report to Congress on its plans to assist with Iraq's transition to democracy after Saddam Hussein is gone.

It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. Such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

So far, we have not heard nearly enough from the administration about its plans for assisting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives and create a new, democratic government. The president has said that the U.S. will help, but he hasn't offered any details about how.

As we have learned in Afghanistan, this administration's words are not enough. This resolution will require the administration to move beyond its words and share with Congress, and the world, its concrete plans for how America will support a post-Saddam Iraq.

Finally, in taking this action, Congress must make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East, and indeed around the world.

We must do more to support existing non-proliferation and disarmament

GPO's PDF
programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants like Saddam Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians, and promoting democratization throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.
The decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less.

Edwards in his own words 9/12/2002.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107...

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has aggressively and obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We

GPO's PDF
know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability--a capability that could be less than a year away.
I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraqi's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

Iraq has continued to develop its arsenal in definance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and ignoring as many as 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions--including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

These U.N. resolutions are not unilateral American demands. They involve obligations Iraq has undertaken to the international community. By ignoring them. Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of international collective action which is so important to the United States and our allies.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein. The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

This is not an easy decision, and its carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and possibly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

As we set out on this course, we must be as conscious of our special responsibility as we are confident in the rightness of our cause.

The United States has a special role of leadership in the international community. As America and its allies move down this path, we must do so in a way that preserves the legitimacy of our actions, enhances international consensus, and strengthens our global leadership.

First, this means making the strongest possible case to the American people about the danger Saddam poses. Months of mixed messages, high-level speculation and news-leaks about possible military plans have caused widespread concern among many Americans and around the world.

I am encouraged that the President has overruled some of his advisors and decided to ask for the support of Congress. From the support of Congress, this effort will derive even greater and more enduring strength.

Second, the Administration must do as much as possible to rally the support of the international community under the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. We should tap into the strengths of existing alliances like NATO to enforce such a mandate. And let me be clear: America's allies deserve more than just token consultation. The Bush administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush's father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed.

If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions. After all, that's what the U.S. and its NATO allies did during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when a U.N. Security Council resolution was impossible.

Third, we must be honest with the American people about the extraordinary commitment this task entails. It is likely to cost us much in the short-term, and it is certain to demand our attention and commitment for the long-haul. We have to show the world that we are prepared to do what it takes to help rebuild a post-Saddam Iraq and give the long-suffering Iraqi people the chance to live under freedom.

Working with our allies, we have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of success--helping to provide security inside Iraq after Saddam is gone, working with the various Iraqi opposition groups in shaping a new government, reassuring Iraq's neighbors about its future stability, and supporting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. This is a massive undertaking, and we must pursue it with no illusions.

Ensuring that Iraq complies with its commitments to the international community is the mission of the moment. Rebuilding Iraq and helping it evolve into a democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors will be the mission of many years.

Unfortunately, the administration's record to date gives me cause for concern. They must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help democracy take root and flourish.

Finally, the administration must show that its actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security around the world.

We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction--the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them. We must do much more to support the many disarmament programs already in place to dismantle weapons and prevent access to weapons-grade materials in Russia and the former Soviet states; we must fully fund Nunn-Lugar; and we should work hard to forge international coalition to prevent proliferation.

We must be fully and continuously engaged to help resolve the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. Disengagement was a mistake. The United States cannot deliver peace to the parties, but no agreement is possible without our active involvement.

We also must have a national strategy for energy security, working to strengthen relationships with new suppliers and doing more to develop alternative sources of power.

And we must do far more to promote democracy throughout the Arab world. We should examine our overall engagement in the entire region, and employ the same kinds of tools that we used to win the battle of ideas fought during the Cold War, from vigorous public diplomacy to assistance for democratic reform at the grassroots.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9/11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event--or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse--to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq .

John McCain has already lost the 2008 presidential election. I doubt if he makes it out of a primary, but he's lost the General Election anyway. John McCain is not the maverick reformer of 2000 anymore. He's not the spontaneous, common sense, independent that he once built himself up as. John McCain lacking backbone, character, balls, and brains has become just another say anything, do nothing politician that is more interested in getting elected than doing the right thing.

Evidence #1


That speaks for itself. Pathetic

Evidence #2
He refused to denounce Bush after the 2000 primary even though Bush directly and indirectly:
Played the race card by saying McCain fathered a black baby.
Said that McCain's wife is a drug addict.
Questioned his service in Vietnam
Claimed that McCain was a traitor for talking to the VC.

Evidence #3
"McCain's war on blogs."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

This is another example of McCain trying to control his environment. He knows his support is weak in the conservative blogosphere and he will get eviscerated by the popular blogosphere in a GE. So what does he do? He attacks the blogs. He could start a regular blog. He could reach out to bloggers and do interviews. Instead he tries to silence them.

Evidence #4

Just watch him. He's jumped the shark with his position on the war. He wants more troops. The professional pundits all say this is a smart position because McCain will say that no one tried his method. WRONG, Bush is actually dumb enough to try it. Bush will ignore ISG and Iraq will be a disaster. McCain will have ignored popular will and the recommendations of experts and he will lose.

McCain is just wrong. He's wrong for the Republicans. He's wrong for America. He's scripted himself into irrelevancy. Too bad for him.

These are the things I want the new Congress to pass or work on. This is the approximate order. I put this together just after the election, but it was pandemonium here. What do you think? What would you add, expand, etc.?

1. Pass the full slate of 9/11 commission recommendations.

2. Right to Keep and Bear Arms resolution which would symbolically show the support of the House for the second amendment. Of course it should be the item second symbolically.

3. Increase the minimum wage to 7.25. Increases should be scheduled for votes for the following 3 years as well. This is a neglected issue so it should be given the proper treatment.

4. Repeal all of the judicial handcuffs the pukes put on the courts. Let the courts do their jobs.

5. Adjust the AMT. It's killing working people.

6. Fund anti-crime programs. Bring back the cops program.

7. Begin a review and overhaul of the tax code. This should include multiple public forums in every congressional district. Get the people involved and let's fix the tax system. Aim to have a new tax code ready for vote by 9/08.

8. Overhaul the management of our borders. Get rid of the fence idea. Properly fund and support border control. An ambitious Congress can try to de-incentivize border jumpers.

9. Fully fund veteran's administration. Our veterans have given us so much. There should unlimited free health care for veterans. Do whatever it takes to repay our veterans.

10. Increase funding for NASA. This is a fun one that we all benefit from. This is a deep investment in science and education that I think has always paid off.

Other items of high importance is Energy Independence R&D and Healthcare.

When Carville attacks Dean, he attacks all of us that have invested in the party's reformation. This is the most offensive and disturbing part of Carville's attack for me. Democratic committee members at all levels selected Dean to be our leader. He offered a plan and we bought into it. The majority of Democrats including me have committed to and invested in the DNC to execute Dean's plan until 2008. So when political mercenaries like Carville attack Dean and others in the party, they attack and distract us all. Our job now is to expand our majorities and get a Democrat elected president. Howard Dean and the DNC will lead this effort and we will execute the plan.

Each Democratic committee has a function. The DSCC works to get Senators elected. The DCCC works to get House members elected. The DLCC is a centralized organization working on local elections. Individual state committees work to get Democrats elected on the state level. The county or central committees manage local and usually all races.

The job of the DNC is to organize the party and get a Democratic president elected. Dean's plan is to invest in all state's to give us a fighting chance in most of them. His job is not to get congressmen elected. It's to build the infrastructure that gets congressmen and everyone else elected. And through the 50 State Strategy and other plans Dean has been successful thus-far.

So when mercenaries such as Carville attack and distract, focus on the job ahead and follow Dean's lead.

Ted Haggard holds weekly phone calls with President Bush on Monday mornings. Once again, gay male prostitutes are linked to the White House. Maybe there is a Gannon connection?








And much more on the internets.

Bush likes the name calling business. He claims that the Democrats are Cut and Run obstructionists. George Bush is the first American president to lose TWO wars (and possibly three). Bush has lost the war in Iraq. He has lost the war in Afghanistan. And most Americans believe that we are losing the War on Terror®. Republican rubber stamp terrorist appeasers have done more to enable and energize terrorists than anyone on the planet The recent NIE report says that. So lets say it how it is Mr. President.

You are the first American president to lose two years. Your yes men should be swept out of Congress this November before it is too late.

I am watching Anderson Cooper. It's wall to wall polygamy. This Jeff's guy sounds like a bad dude, and he must be to make the FBI Top 10. Rape, statutory rape, polygamy, molestation, claiming to be a prophet of the master race, welfare fraud, abuse, and all kinds of other stuff.

When this story was announced, many DUers were pleased and expressed relief. It seemed like DUers from the southwest were familiar with this story. So I have a few questions.

How widespread is polygamy in this country? Is it regional? It it cultish like the Branch Dravidian's?
Is it in the news a lot out west? I am from NY and I never hear much.
Is polygamy illegal everywhere?
Are you a polygamist or do you know any?
Anything else we should know about the newfound polygamy crisis in America.

I am attending Demfest in San Diego. I was talking to someone last night that claimed to be high up in the Florida Democratic Party. They told me that anyone that wants to be a player in 2008 has contacted them. The only real shocking news is that they think Sen. Chris Dodd is running for President. They also said that Richardson, Warner, Biden, Fiengold, Clark, and Hillary ARE running. I know I am dealing in rumors, but this seemed credible.

BTW, I asked "are you sure about Clark? I'm not sure if he wants to do it again." They said he's running.

This team would make Steve Colbert proud. Not only do they have balls, they have guts. I watched the second half of yesterday's Bundes Brawl against the Italians again. I wanted to see it again sober. I was slightly intoxicated the first time around. The US performance was heroic and legendary. It was one of those rare moments in sports that were unbelievable, inspirational, thrilling, and courageous. We have all heard the stories about the guts, courage, and toughness of the old school football and baseball teams. We are all aware of the Miracle on Ice. Yesterday's game was on that level.

The US soccer team. The 5th best in the world, yet the most underestimated. The team that didn't show up for game 1. The team that got bloodied before losing 2 men. They fought to the end. They scored a goal with 9 men before it was taken away. They showed what Americans working together are capable of. I said it to my friends during the game and I will say it again here. We will be talking about this game for the next 50 years, and that's a good thing.

Ahhh, the hypocrisy of it all.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...

<snip>
His recent decision to have weekly radios addresses in both English and Spanish, which started with the week of Cinco de Mayo, continues his process of attempting to capture more Latino voters who in the last election preferred Al Gore by a margin of 2-1.
<snip>

http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/archieve/...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...

Have a look at this. I went to AOL this morning and I see "Time to make Big Oil Pay? Republican Proposes New Tax"

So I go into the artcle this is the first paragraph:

"WASHINGTON (April 24) -- Congress should consider a tax on excessive oil company profits, two senators said Sunday, as gasoline prices in some cities have risen above $3 a gallon. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said on CNN's Late Edition that President Bush should call for a windfall profits tax on the oil companies' "extreme, obscene profits.""





This is just another example of the RW bias in the corporate media. And this time it's from AOL. I guess they don't like seeing Bush get slaughtered in their polls every day.

Here's the story: http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article....

and others.

I attended the Nassau County Democratic Party Dinner tonight. It was a fun event as usual. I saw lots of great people and have some pictures to go along. Tom Suozzi who is running for governor was there. He gave a good speech about why he entered public office and how to make government work for people. He also joked about increasing his support from 8% to 14%.

Mark Green and Sean Patrick Maloney (of recent DU advertising fame) were both there. They are both running for Attorney General. Both were nice. They were pressing the flesh. Sean is a lot taller than he looks.

County Legislator and potential candidate for Congress against Peter King (Moran-NY03) was there. He met some good people and is building his support base. Here are some pictures.

Jay Jacobs, me and Tom Suozzi


Mark Green, me and Town of North Hempstead Supervisor Jon Kaiman


Suozzi getting a standing-O