I searched Meetup for Northfield-area groups who support the various presidential candidates but couldn’t find any.
Are there any organized gatherings yet?
If you know of any, attach a comment with the info.
1/31 update: I’ve removed Edwards and Giuliani from the blog post title since they dropped out this week.
2/9 update: I’ve removed Romney from the blog post title since he dropped out this week.
4/17: I’ve removed Huckabee and Paul from the blog post title
6/3: I’ve removed Clinton from the blog post title
There is an active Obama network in Northfield. I have to admit I’ve been so busy with them that I haven’t been on this site recently – my apologies. Anyone who wants to get in contact with the Obama folks can email me at felicity.enders@gmail.com. Tom Hayes and Mary-Lewis Grow are more involved than I am, but I can help make connections. Anyone who wants to lurk a bit and read up on the issues or catch a speech online can do so at http://www.barackobama.com/issues or http://www.barackobama.com/tv/. I was personally inspired to get into this campaign (never having been involved in a campaign before) by hearing Barack speak, so I highly recommend that venue. Also, I do have Obama buttons and bumper stickers for those who are interested; I’ll have some with me while I’m out and about this weekend. I’ll even endeavor to belatedly get a picture posted here so people can find me in public!
Of course, the most important activity is coming out to caucus next Tuesday. The DFL caucus is at 7pm at the new Northfield middle school on south Division. Eligible voters must be there by 8 at the latest in order to participate. Taking part in the presidential preference part of the caucus is easy – you just complete the form and then if you don’t want to get involved with the rest of the caucus you can leave.
Finally, please note that the DFL caucus is binding in terms of delegates, not a straw poll such as the Republican caucus apparently is.
Thanks, Felicity. I found the Northfield for Obama group on his site. I see you and Tom Hayes there and have sent you both requests to pretty puhleeeeeeeease ‘be my friend.’
Are there any F2F gatherings planned for the area?
I’ve removed Edwards and Giuliani from the blog post title since they dropped out this week.
Glad to “meet” you, Griff!
CORRECTION: although the caucus itself does begin at 7 on Tuesday, voting for presidential preference will start at 6:30 and run to 8pm. Again, this info is just for the DFL caucus.
We had one at our house last weekend, and Tom Hayes (I believe that’s his last name) had a gathering a couple days ago. I’m sorry we missed you. I’m not sure where these things are announced, as I was just in charge of the cleaning for our gathering. We didn’t mention anything here because as of a week ago or so, national politics didn’t seem to fit within the purview of Locally Grown.
I’ve also heard a rumor that there’s a gathering “for women” somewhere in town tomorrow. Perhaps my dear friend Felicity might stop by and tell us all where to go to find out about these things?
Hi all,
The gathering for women Patrick alluded to is very targeted at those feeling conflicted about this decision, so the organizer has asked me not to open it up by posting here. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any others between now and Tuesday -- the campaign has shifted into a “get out the caucus” mode. That being said, I am planning to attend Sunday’s Politics & a Pint, which seems like a reasonable forum to discuss differences between the candidates (assuming the P&P folks meant presidential candidates as well as senatorial candidates).
Actually, I was focused mostly on presidential first, then senate.
Thanks Bruce. Great timing for this P&P, it’s clearly on a lot of people’s minds.
I just want to say that I would never dislike anyone for their political preferences. I always associate with anyone who is sincere and friendly
towards me and others. At first I am human and then an American
and I can use those as common denominators. I hope everyone can.
Bright- I like your perspective. It really doesn’t matter what our political convictions are if we are not willing to accept one another and live together in the community. I believe that is a choice we can make that goes above our feelings. I like to expreass it this way- “both and”, rather that “either or”. One is inclusive, the other devisive. I highly respect any person of conviction. I may not agree with them, but that doesn’t mean we can’t talk and come to some type of agreement. I like to think I am more of a pragmatist (although I know I may not always sound like one).
Patrick once had a teacher who used to say “the only thing worse than being dead is not having an opinion.” I absolutely agree with this -- even if the opinion is not the same as mine. After all, the world would be a pretty boring place if everyone agreed about everything. More importantly, a diversity of opinions are needed to reach real resolution on problems of enormous complexity, such as those faced by the current presidential candidates.
Johnny B. Good, I like that you like my perspective!
I took these photos Friday — the first yard sign and bumper sticker for the ’08 presidential race I’ve seen in Northfield.
I don’t know if anyone else from Northfield made the trek to the Target Center yesterday for the Obama rally, but I (and my wife Anne and son Jakob) did. What a fabulous experience! I blogged about it at http://www.sustainablecommunitysolutions.com/index.php/2008/02/03/caucus-on-tuesday-for-obama/.
I hope to see a throng at the Middle School DFL caucus at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday!
Now that Edwards has dropped, I am also in the Obama camp. I just need assurance he will tackle the flawed world trade agreements, NAFTA being the most glaring example. The rush of immigrants over the border was one of the unanticipated consequences. Would I trust Hillary to break from her husband who is largely responsible for the mess? Not really.
Although I like Obama, he is a very good orator, likable smile, and some good morals, I wonder what experience he has to draw upon when he starts talking to heads of state, heads of tribes, and those who may harm the USA interests. No one has been able to answer me, or no where that I research do I get some reassuring answer based in truth. Oh, dear.
Bright- As far as drawing from experience when working with heads of states, etc., take a look at Reagan. His resume was that he was a good actor. He also proved to be a good statesman. If I remember right, it was on his watch that the Iron Curtain fell, and democracy came to the Soviet Union. I may be too pragmatic, but I think a person’s depth of character and ability ablility to work with people of differing viewpoints is most important. I put more stock in actions than words. If a person (leader) doesn’t walk his talk, I really don’t give him much credibility as a leader. I think it is more important to see who a leader’s advisers are, or will be, than to rely solely on his experience or lack thereof. There are many more facets to this whole thing, but I think this is an important one.
Go McKinney
Good points, JG. Reagan was also a uber major student of history.
So who would Obama bring into his cabinet? The reason I wonder so,
is because he is from my old part of town, and I never heard of him
ten years ago…nothing on the street, nothing amongst my neighbors
who may be black and very political. Not a word.
Bright- Interesting first hand insight on your part. Might make for some good conspiracy grist. Illinois seems to have a history of mob controled politics. Wonder who is behind his arising? I haven’t researched this, but it does raise a question in my mind.
Another thing this points out is that not every candidate has grass roots background. Those things always wave a red flag for me. It seems the founding fathers set up our government system so that anyone could serve. Nowadays, it seems that politics has become a profession. Even Paul Wellstone fell prey to this trap.
The reasons Obama has risen so quickly are simple: he’s an amazingly good orator, and the party really needed some fresh blood.
When I heard he was going to speak for Kerry in 2004, I said, “who”? After I heard him, I said “I want that man to run for President.” He can think, he can write, and he can inspire. Those are very rare things. Bill Clinton had some of that leadership quality. Reagan had lots of it -- even though I disagreed with where he led.
If the Democratic Party had other, better candidates for leadership, Obama may not have risen so quickly. But the competition is thin, and inspiring leaders are very rare. Hillary Clinton is the only other decent candidate the party has right now, but many of us wanted an alternative to her.
So that’s why he was encouraged to run. As for actually having a chance to win, that’s the result of who he is, who Hillary is, and what he has done as a candidate.
Thanks to everyone who has replied to my cry for help in understanding these candy dates.
Patrick said:
“I want that man to run for President.” He can think, he can write, and he can inspire.”
Patrick, I am sure you are right all across the board here, and btw good answer!
But here I fear, the description you give for Obama can also be true for
some of the serial killers we have run across.
Are we voting for the these people because that’s all we have been offered?
Where are the great people of this country? Where are the real visionaries with actual dreams to give us and where are our own voices? It’s just seems like the same old circles we are traveling in, with nothing new to move this country forward. Maybe I am just getting jaded.
Patrick- I think you expressed some very good points. If you look through history, there are some really good examples of these qualities. Lincoln, Roosevelt, John Kennedy are some that come to mind (I’m sure there are others I’m missing). It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
Bright,
Of course, I can’t be sure, but I consider it highly unlikely that Barack Obama is a serial killer.
Patrick- That would be especially important to Malto Meal. Oh rats! That’s “serial”!! Thought spell check was decieving me!
Rats? In Northfield?
Is anyone suffering from OCS (Obama Comedown Syndrome) yet? If so, are local support groups forming to help one deal with it?
I just saw Obama on the tube, it was a flash shot, but I could see he looks
mighty tired, and a good chunk older than he did a week ago. I know the newest Hollywood make up is killer, in that in can cover up a whole lot of
what people don’t like to see in a way that has never been done previously.
Maybe this is the first time I see him without make up.
So I hope it’s just that, cuz as people know, the Presidency can cause rapid aging. If someone is that tired just from campaigning, I don’t think they’ll hold up more than a year or two. It may not be true, but the instinct tells me otherwise.
Nope. But then, I merely believe that -- among the current Presidential candidates -- he has the most potential to be a good leader. Nothing more.
This messianic talk has been more than a little silly, and seems mostly to be spread by his detractors.
Mostly.
What Patrick said. Mostly!
I imagine things will be getting pretty ugly soon (both from the Clinton camp and the McCain camp), with Swift-boating, Willy Hortoning, etc., etc., ad nauseam, as an Obama-McCain general campaign appears increasingly likely.
OCS…maybe I’m getting it. Just too smooth…too handsome…too young… He better choose some old, balding white guy as in a rumpled suit for vp, or I’m outahere.
I’d be glad to vote for Obama (and rather expect to do so, given how things are going). And Obama seems able to write prose that scans, which is almost enough for me after our long national linguistic nightmare.
But … in a spirit of contrarianism … I don’t see others praising Hillary, and that needs doing, too.
The prevailing narrative in the press seems to be that it’s all over, that Hillary has too many negatives, etc. This could be right, or it could be wrong. We’ve still got the same press, after all, that mindlessly dissed Al Gore in 2000, and the press hasn’t gotten any smarter or more diligent since then. Right- or left-wing, they’re mostly parroting a few simple scripts.
Hillary seems to me to be just as smart and disciplined as Obama, and she is arguably a better bet to be able to work the political system effectively to effect change. Obama may be more inspirational, but it’s reasonable to ask whether inspiration or street-fighting political ability will matter more in the next four years.
Hillary’s policy on health insurance, for instance, appears to me to be better designed and is in some ways gutsier and more progressive than Obama’s. Neither O. nor C. is coming anywhere near clean on the real economic problems of the nation, or on what may need to be done about (say) Medicare funding, but again it’s reasonable to ask whether hard practical problems, when they can no longer be denied, are best solved by Obama-esque inspiration or by Hillary-esque political horse-trading. It takes both kinds.
Viva Hillary, too.
One thing you have to give to Bush is that he has never caved when under real, not fabricated, pressure. What other candidate will live up to that?
What do you mean, Bright, by “real” as opposed to “fabricated” pressure? Where does the Harriet Miers nomination fiasco fall on this scale? What about Bush’s (original) adamant opposition to establishing a Dept of Homeland Security?
Steadfastness in tough times is a good thing, but how should we distinguish it from stubbornness in defense of folly? Or willful ignorance?
Or Bush’s opposition to independent investigation of 9/11?
Well, I meant to say “foreign opposition” but I had to let the dog out. He was crying and I only have 20 lbs on him, so I thought I would let it fly and I am glad I did because I like see some more specific focus on our discussions,
especially about the presidential candidates because I am so tired of hearing, oh, he’s so cute, or she’s too predictable, as reasons to vote or not vote for someone.
Fabricated means stuff like what the NY Times did to McCain on the front page no less with no facts whatsoever to back the statement. Real means when N. Korea tries to poke a stick in your eye.
Sorry, Bright, I still don’t get it.
Do you really *know* that the NYT article about McCain’s possible lobbyist entanglement is “with no facts whatsoever”? The article certainly makes many assertions of concrete fact, such as that McCain rode on various corporate jets, etc.
Are you saying that (a) these facts are false or in some sense “fabricated”? Or (b) that we shouldn’t care much one way or the other about implications of the NYT piece? Or (c) that it’s none of our business if McCain is or was shacking up with the lady lobbyist.
If (a), I wonder how you know. If (b), why would you say it makes no difference if McCain cozies up to big corporate donors? If (c), I agree completely.
What I loved about the McCain piece in the NYT wasn’t the journalistic integrity therein, because it certainly was speculative on a number of points and brought up some ethics issues about anonymous sources, etc…, but, at the end of the article the McCain camp responds to the allegations with a bizarre statement, in part:
I say bizarre because McCain himself has repeatedly admitted his involvement in the Keating 5 / Savings and Loan scandal in the early 1990s which was nothing but favors for special interests. Perhaps, his advisers should have released a statement that said, instead: “John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country, the past 17 or so, with honor and integrity…” That would not have contradicted their candidate’s own contrite and published admissions about violating the public trust in that matter.
I’m not saying he’s a bad guy, and, honestly, I’m not concerned about his sexual past or present, but it seems rather odd for his campaign to issue a statement that so baldly flies in the face of their own candidate’s confessed behavior. We’re left to wonder whether or not McCain and his campaign consider the Keating 5 issue, and McCain’s involvement in it, to be honorable behavior.
I’m not sure how they will talk their way around such an obvious contradiction. Probably, they will ignore it, and hope nobody notices.
McCain’s involvement was so minimal he was actually re-elected by the people. Let’s face it, a lot of people do a little cheating once in a while.
It’s the American way, why it may even be the way of the world since commerce began on the salt trail.
It surprizes me to know that some people think cheating on a spouse is okay though. To me, if you are taking your energy from your family commitments and going off a on little tryst, just for the heck of it, you are a big fat cheater and don’t deserve the love and loyalty of a fine family…although a fine family would prolly give you another chance.
I didn’t say cheating on your spouse was okay, Bright, only that it is not my concern. We should leave politicians their personal lives. McCain’s involvement was not so much “minimal” as much as it was reframed effectively enough for him to be re-elected.
The issue, for me, is that McCain has been in public repentance, anti-lobbyist vigilance mode for years because of that scandal. These new allegations about very close relationships with lobbyists paint a rather hypocritical picture of him.
In addition to his campaign’s boneheaded, contradictory assertions that I detailed in comment #39, I caught this from Newsweek by way of reprint in the Huffington Post:
I’m not sure why his campaign keeps making such easily-confirmed contradictions to their candidate’s own claims and admissions. Looks very bad.
Wouldn’t the better path be to make claims that McCain was contacted (because he was), but that he wrote the letters because of his personal convictions? Sure, it’s a little wishy-washy and gray, but at least your campaign isn’t flat-out lying.
This is why discourse is so good. We obviously haven’t actually been
anywhere where we might have any opinion of our own to develop, and
have to rely on the media which is full of sauerkraut. Do you remember
the term ‘fog of war?’ and do you remember the telephone game from
second grade? This holds true, where there is one intrepretation,
there is one mistake which will be denied. We cannot deny that we
aren’t getting the whole story and we cannot say okay, we are not
getting the whole story, but let’s act like we do cuz we don’t know
what else to do. See, My take on media is to simply throw opinions
into the stew and watch it bubble. Maybe McCains’ camp is purposely
issuing contradictory statements in order to swoggle the mind. Maybe
there are DFLers on his staff.
Cheating on the spouse shouldn’t be overlooked, because it is very
telling of the person’s morality overall. And either we care about how
much money and favors are passed, and how the politician treats the
family, or we don’t care about either. Otherwise you are saying that
the politician’s family doesn’t deserve the same consideration that the
American people do.
Attention to cheating, although it looks like a matter of privacy, it’s
more a matter of the lack of good judgement which we derive from
knowing the public figures habits and follies. Sure, everyone has their
character flaws, but some are more consequential to the running of
nations than others, adn for that reason should not be overlooked, imho.
Oh, and Happy Birthday to you and Anne, and the other February babies
around here, ykwyr!
Bright, Paul, Brendon, the NYT’s own public editor (ombudsman) takes issue with the way his paper handled the McCain article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/24/2170901.htm?section=justin
Curt, thanks for the link. Mr. Hoyt seems to have missed the (or at least my) biggest concern about this article -- the timing. How can the NYT justify releasing this after sitting on it until the Republican nomination process was basically resolved? I find it very troubling.
Curt,
Yeah, I saw that. It’s not surprising. As I mentioned in my first post about that article, it wasn’t the merit of the piece I was defending; it was the McCain camp’s obvious contradiction of McCain’s own confessed behavior.
In my opinion, the NYT undermined the credibility of a fairly solid article about McCain anti-lobbyist stance by dropping hints of a romantic liaison with little to go on. They shot themselves in the foot in that regard.
Felicity,
Did they sit on the information for a long time? I got the impression that it was an ongoing investigation that they just finished. Maybe I’m wrong.
I think, in some ways though, it still makes sense. Once McCain becomes the nominee (for all intents and purposes), then he’ll gather more and more coverage, especially long articles like that one which reach into his past to examine how his actual behavior jibes with his professed positions.
I don’t actually know when they had the story ready to go, or if they sat on it, but I would be more troubled if they finished it now, then released it one week before the general election.
SNL did a send up last night on Obama-mania that was really funny.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=52284
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU
Nice! I liked the “Are you mad at me?” line.
Not the best Obama impersonator, but not bad.
I really loved the Hillary impersonator’s “Losing to Obama in Wisconsin, Virginia, Maryland, etc… has been a life-long dream of mine”… downplaying the significance of her recent primary losses in an appropriately overstated manner.
Brendon (re #46); yes, they were working on it for over a year. However, I consider it reprehensible that they didn’t release ANYTHING until after the Republican nomination process was tied up. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/business/media/21askthenewsroom.html?pagewanted=5&sq=mccain&st=nyt&scp=50 for discussion around this from NYT staff. I understand wanting a story to be backed up by facts prior to release (though one could argue that goal wasn’t realized fully in this story) but any story that impacts a presidential election really ought to come out in time to influence the election if the electorate so wish.
McCain had been trying new scripts lately that included a lot of humility: “I will listen to the American people and and learn from them as I campaign… but___” (But I’ll still be the strong leader you want to see in me, etc.) I had not heard him use that script before so much. It added a nice soft touch. His singing “Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb Iran” was a little over the top for me.
I think Hillary should sing more. Something like the old camp song, “Ya gotta have skin.” Or she should do a campaign commercial in which she sings to her largest contributors that great song from Guys and Dolls, “Take Back Your Mink.” It would be a stitch. It would save her campaign. She has a bubbly, singing side that’s just dying to get out. If politics don’t work for her, she could have that to fall back on.