Thanks, Lloyd; this will make our 4 1/2-hour roundtrip drive from Roanoke to Bristol even more enjoyable and important - history in the making!

Steve

n/t

Lloyd is our Roanoke Kiwanis Club's secretary/treasurer, as a matter of fact, and also a good Democrat...

Sorry about that...

Thanks again!

Steve

for the rally (sitting in R.I. right now) .... but if I was I'd be trying to instigate a Webb for VP cheering section!!

Imagine 25 thousand supporters chanting OBAMA WEBB - OBAMA WEBB!!!  I think his VP selection team might get the message. In fact I think this rally provides an excellent cover for Barrack to broach the subject with the inscrutable Senator Webb.

Go OBAMA!

did I miss that or is Webb still holding out?

Does that answer your question? :)

I wish I could be there despite the traffic - but alas, I have a conflict; roof repair is kind of important given the recent weather...

because the roads are likely to be gridlock.  I am hearing that they are expecting 50,000 people to show up.  Even if we don't again get hit by thunderstorms, put even another 10,000 cars on I-66 and it will be gridlock.

Parking lot is opening at 2 PM.  I don't have 6-7 hours to spend, especially still having not power after about 17 hours, with no relief in sight for perhaps another 24.  So it looks like I will neither be able to get out there or to watch it on cable unless I go into town to someplace that would have it on cable.  

Bummer.

we didn't lose power.  Everyone have fun stuck in gridlock...er, at the rally! :)

than people expect.  This rally on top of rush hour is going to be a nightmare. I really hope Kaine isn't late for it since he's driving... Well, maybe he carpooled to help sent a good example - since that was his suggestion for everyone in the Post this morning.  

so he'd better figure out ow to get there

I would love to see Gov. Tim Kaine or Gov. Ritter of CO as Sen. Obama's deputy. Though I'm not a one issue voter, my faith and values in helping the helpless extends from conception to death.

I remember reading a passage in Obama's book about his encounter with pro-life demonstrators at a venue in Southern Illinois and I felt that even if this young man is not on the same page as me, HE AT LEAST LISTENS. Reagan and Bush I promised folks like me a human life amendment, didn't fight for it and then blamed it on the liberals. They told us to settle for gradual change with the courts becaus the votes were not there, but it was just for issues they could play political football with. Bush II claimed he was born-again but his actions spoke otherwise; both he and McCain treat people they disagree with like rags and now they want our votes to stop the "liberals" from taking over? Well I've been had before and I'd be, in Ned Flanders' words, "diddly-arn-darned" if I'm had again.

Although I voted for Jim Webb, I don't think he should be the VP nominee, at least not now. I really want Tim Kaine, he's youg, a family man and is someone of deep conviction which I greatly admire (the others are also). But all in all, I think Mark Warner will be the better pick because he is a manager (something Obama needs to manage the largest bureacracy in the world). He is somewhat conservative (small c) and I think Obama needs that balance. But more importantly, like Kaine and Obama, Warner is a change agent and a fighter who can garnder the support of indepdents and republicans.

Also for practical reasons, and you can take this to the bank, whomever wins VA wins the Presidency in 2008. I think Gov Warner being on the ballot against a politically inept Gilmore, having built the modern Democratic party of VA and made it inclusive for people like me to trust Democrats once again, will make that a near certainty. My heart is with Kaine but I think  Warner is the better choice.

pro-choice. So are Warner and Webb.

What I think commonsense and I are saying is that there are those of us for whom this is a very important issue, and not because we're women's rights hating reactionaries, which is admittedly how many people who have problems with abortion are portrayed in Democratic circles.  Moreover, the way the issue is presented is strong-minded, independent women making informed, voluntary decisions about their abortions while weighing all the pluses and minuses, versus reactionary right-wingers who want men to run everything and want to forbid abortion because that's the way Jesus wanted it.  It's a cartoon version of reality, to say the least.  

A good Catholic like Kaine has struggled with this issue, I'm sure, but has come to the conclusion that abortion is like the 800 pound gorilla in the room.  You're not going to make him go away until he feels like it.  Well, banning obviously doesn't work and raises issues of infringement on personal liberty.  So the solution is not to try to make a procedure which is as old as humanity go away, but to create options and opportunities for those options to be taken.  By creating options I mean there should be a lot more emphasis on educational and social programs and provision of decent prenatal and postnatal care.  One reason I'm in favor of universal health insurance is that I've met women who had abortions because they feared they would not be able to care for the child or absorb the medical costs of raising one.

The important thing for the Dems to understand is that they need to meet this abortion issue head-on, and without demonizing the opposition or acting as if there's only one valid position.  Lots of Catholics and other social conservatives struggle with abortion, and if the Dems are going to pry them away from the Republican fold they'd better find someone who can talk the talk - which is why Kaine is an attractive VP possibility - and speak frankly about the political realities, which are that the Republicans have now had TWELVE years within which to do something legislatively about abortion, and they haven't.  All they've done is stack the Supreme Court with arch conservatives in the hope of eventually reversing settled law and voiding stare decisis.  Lots of luck with that.  Someone needs to get out there and explain to these potential Dem supporters why a vote for a Dem is NOT a vote for abortion.    

...a vote for Republicans who stand in the way of family planning and other alternatives to abortion is more of a vote "for abortion" than a vote for a Democrat.  Question to Republicans: has the abortion rate gone up, down, or stayed the same when Republicans were in power?  Hmmmm.

Lowell...don't be so slice and dice. A lot of Republicans I know (and have voted for) are former Dems (like my late grampy from Buckingham, VA) who could no longer carry the banner of a party in which some "activists" drove them out because of the life issue (and he was an integrationist too). Clearly, the Republicans benefited from it. A pro-life politician can oppose the things you mentioned out of conscience, but that does not mean he is voting for "abortion".

Like I said I am not a single issue voter but faced with the option of 2 equally footed politicians, one of whom is pro-life, I would prefer the pro-life candidate though it would not be dispositive. People like Obama, Warner etc are able to properly communicate this sense of unity, unlike some in the Democratic party (and in the GOP) who hold a "take no prisoner's approach)". I hope, for the sake of the millions of value voters who are downright dissatisfied with the current direction of this country, they take the opportunity to ask for their support in a respectful and honest way, even if we don't get 100% of what we'd like. We all want change but to take a leap of faith, we need to know our issues will not be ignored or exploited in an endless game of political football.

Obama's message (which this extended primary has muddled up a bit but he has to immediately return to) is very much like Warner's and countless other new politicians which is: The things that unite us are greater than what divides us. I care about what he says and does, not what some other person says (Hagee, Wright or whomever). If longevity in Washington DC, number of bills passed or legislations enacted, war service etc were the criteria for American leaders, we'd have no need for Governors nor once in a time leaders like FDR and Lincoln. I think the GOP needs a time out, and this war thing has to end.  

doesn't mean the politician is effectively doing anything to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.  That's all I'm saying.

I, like countless other Americans, just hate being lied to and have my priorities used for political gamesmanship. Hopefully, this year things might change.  

As a buddhist I believe that all life is sacred.

As a member of an extremely minority religion, I am strongly in favor of ultra-wide separation of church and state.

Personally pro-life.
Politically pro-choice.

Family planning and comprehensive sex education are critical for achieving the goal of eliminating abortions.  This is simple common sense, not rocket science.  The people trying to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy with laws just make no sense.  The way to solve it is with education, science, and medical facts.  Armed with facts, people make the decision for themselves and do not need abortions nor medical treatment for STDs.

Educate, make condoms available, educate, and teach your children well.

The question ultimately is this:  do the right wingers REALLY want to reduce abortion or do they just want a political "wedge issue" to use?  Seems like the latter to me, because if it were the former, they would be going about things completely differently.

here, and I find myself agreeing with much of what you say.  I, too, have always been pro-life with strong left leanings.  I've felt excluded and marginalized by some pro-choice Dems who seem to think you can't be a good Democrat unless you are for abortion, and I've felt lied to and manipulated by the allegedly pro-life Repubs who are in favor of human life until it's born, after which it's free to go to hell for all they care.  They call themselves pro-life but favor the death penalty, punitive and destructive incarceration policies, and war, while actively denouncing the types of social programs which would go a long way toward creating an atmosphere where women don't feel they have to get abortions for economic reasons.

For the pro-choice Dems who would demonize those who oppose abortion and keep referring to everyone who has a problem with it as anti-choicers, one thing my life in the juvenile and domestic relations courts has taught me is that many times the "choice" is a phantom thing.  I've watched young pregnant women pressured by the bio-dads into making the "choice".  When the girl has the baby and bio-dad is brought into court to pay child support he usually denies any obligation by saying he offered to pay for an abortion and it's not his fault if she didn't agree.  I've seen parents and social workers pressure young women and pregnant teens to have abortions.  I've seen parents denied any access to their teen daughters' medical records, to knowledge of their daughters' conditions, on the assumption that the parents somehow pose a potential harm to the teen, while the social worker whom she just met knows better and becomes the person upon whom she's encouraged to rely in making her decision.  Does no one see anything wrong with that picture?  Well, enough of that.  This post brought up one of my sore spots.

So I agree with you.  It would be great to have either Kaine or Warner on the ticket, but I'm leaning in favor of Warner, too.  Jim Webb must stay in the Senate.

Like Kaine, I am also a practicing Catholic. I am  personally opposed to abortion but politically support it.
So I feel like I'm in the middle grey area most of the time.
A few weeks ago I asked my parish Priest what we could do as a "pro-life" parish to help the women who are now struggling young mothers that fight to buy the necessities.
We are working on a closet for young mothers that will carry the items that WIC does not cover. Hopefully, this can help. I feel like very often- those that are pro-life will screech about abortions but hang out to dry the women who have their child.
As Catzmaw says, there are so many pro-life Repubs who seem to care only until the baby is born (Pro-fetus?). It's nothing but pure hypocrisy.
As you can see from my s/n I am also a dyed-in-the-wool-yellow-dog Democrat. I don't feel that there is a conflict with this (although some in my Faith will argue differently)
There are no easy answers and I agree with Lowell 100%, I don't think that those on the right really want to reduce abortions- it's a "red meat" issue.  

I've seen occasional mentions here of St. Charles's activist pastor, Fr. Gerry Creedon, who is not only a strong advocate of many social causes and of ecumenism, but has been a staunch supporter and promoter of Borromeo Housing, a non-sectarian charity in Arlington County for homeless adolescent mothers founded by the parish in 1988.  It prepares them for motherhood and provides support and structure for them.  A sister project called Elizabeth House provides comprehensive educational and training services to young mothers.  Calling oneself pro-life doesn't have to be like admitting you're an alcoholic.  What it should mean for the people who call themselves that is they believe in the sanctity and value of all human life and are willing to do what it takes to promote the preservation of and welfare of all life, not just of fetuses until the day they are born.  This is the challenge which should be placed before those who believe that any politician who calls himself pro-choice should be driven out of the church.  

Here's how the argument should be framed:  If you're pro-life, what are YOU doing to show it?  What do you think SHOULD be done in order for you to show it?  Why is it acceptable to call yourself pro-life but to oppose programs and education calculated to make it easier for young women to bear their children?  I asked a guy in a bar this question once, after he'd been up in my face yelling about how pro-life he was, and he was stunned.  He said I wanted government to take care of teenagers' babies.  I replied that he'd just finished telling me that the government should take any means necessary to stop abortion.  I was offering a means.  Why is zero tolerance better than simply offering an alternative?  He couldn't come up with a decent reply.  Pro-lifers don't operate in a values vacuum.  The challenge is to make them understand that the values they serve can be better served using a different approach.  But at the very beginning of the discussion those who call themselves pro-choice MUST accord the pro-lifers respect for their position and stop making it sound like all pro-lifers are backwoods fascists.  Too much name-calling and not enough substantive discussion makes for a really crappy shot at bipartisan agreement.

Take a look at the website:  Borromeo Housing

Adoption.
I wrote a letter to the Catholic Virginian lamenting the fact that adoption is 1) not really promoted strongly as an alternative and 2) is not a finacially feasable option for many middle class families. My former boss had to refinance her house to adopt her daughter.
I received a response from the editor about how the CV always promotes adoption- I went back through the past year and there was only article about clinic demonstrations and marches! It sounds like Fr. Creedon has a much more effective solution and is actually "walking the walk". I wish more would do so!

I've been involved in a number of adoptions arranged through Catholic Charities, usually as either appointed counsel to one of the parents or as the Guardian ad litem for the child.  The process is usually pretty smooth, and the Catholic Charities staff really understands how to move things along without a hitch.  

Ok, now that the primary is unquestionably over and Webb is 100% behind Obama without having to worry about alienating any of Clinton's people in the Senate, Webb can start showing Obama what he's made of.

One of the most frequent criticisms of Jim Webb as a running mate is that he's not a good enough campaigner. All right then. Neither was Bill Clinton once upon a time, but at some point in the '92 primary something clicked and he suddenly looked like a natural. Mark Warner used to be a bit stiff on the trail back during his first run for the Senate. Since then, he's obviously improved tremendously.

Starting with his speech tonight, Jim Webb should spend as much time as possible over the next month practicing and demonstrating his skills as a campaigner. I mean on all levels. Doing 'town hall meeting' style events, showing up at barbecues and so on at events where he is promoting Barack Obama.  Get out there and prove the critics wrong.

It's obvious now that he's been convinced. He wants to be Vice President now. This is what he should start doing to audition.

Where do you get that?  

Hopefully Obama, Warner, and Kaine will ask Webb to vote for the Climate Security Act ...