Why did Obama savagely attack Ted Kennedy of all people?

Barack Obama claims to be different.  He claims to not engage in the politics of personal attacks.  But behind the slick talk and long speeches there lurks an over eager Chicago politician is more than happy to personally attack his opponents.

Look no further than his savage personal attack on Ted Kennedy of all people.



From Boston.com:

"We've got to call up not just Republicans, but we got to call up Ted Kennedy and say, Ted, you're getting a little old now, and you've been a fighter for us before I don't know what's happening now, Ted get some spine and stand up to the Republicans," said Obama.

Obama speaking in 2003, a rookie Senator with no experience, called Teddy Kennedy old, and questions his spine and his willingness to stand up to Republicans.   People Ted Kennedy has stood up to Republicans his entire life and he craps bigger than Barack Obama.

The video can be seen at the Huffingtonpost who claims they have it exclusively:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/18 /obama-called-out-ted-kenn_n_77337.html

Obama isn't different.  He doesn't mind the politics of personal attacks as long as it is he who is on the attack.  Obama is a fraud in my humble opinion.

Is this news worthy? Sounds like desparation from the Clinton camp.

clinton campaign launches two websites solely for the purpose of smearing barack obama using words such as cowardly.

clinton representatives in this article bought and paid for with promises for support.

dirty politics, dirty politicians, dirty campaigning.

CLINTONS ARE NOT CHANGE AGENTS-SAME OLD POLITICS

you can't change washington if you are the same as washington.

PEOPLE FOR THE HEALING OF AMERICA

I guess the question he has to answer is why not vote yes or no on those issues?  Does he not want to get caught with a stand on those votes?

Hopefully they're assumption that the American people are too stupid to understand why he voted present will prove false in Iowa.

The more anyone takes a look at Obama's record the more the inflated blimp loses air.  The real truth is that the media has fail to scrutinize Obama as they do to other candidates.  Keep looking at his record and you will wonder talk is really cheap.

More negative misleading attacks from the Clinton campaign.  Do they really think this is going fool anyone?  I started out this campaign with Clinton as my 1st choice, but now she's last.  I'm tired of her negative slash and burn tactics.  I'm voting for a positive candidate like Edwards or Obama.

Another desperation from the losers who called themselves congress men. The question they should ask themselves is this; what have i done since i got to congress?

Didn't these guys voted for the war? They don't have any credibility to question Obama on his vote strategy. It is like bunch of moron questioning someone that get it right 100% of the time

Issues that make no sence and some that do....

1. A Man raised in a muslim believing family that is for abortion, or anything "liberal leaning".But I do understand the capital punishment program he might favor.According to the muslim faith I could see that making sense to the man.

2.How Bin Laden might perceive "Obama for president" after 9/11.

3.How Al Quaida(msp?)might perceive "Obama for president in general".

4.When did the Lord Jesus condone most of what liberals in America stand for? Its is "love the sinner hate the sin".And since when does it officially make a man a Christian just because he sits in a church or his mom is one?Some must still not understand Christianity at all as they speak in defence of this political farce.

The NYT piece also made it clear that while sometimes the 'present' vote was part of a wider party strategy many times it was not.  In some instances Obama voted present on bills that had strong bi-partisan support.  Other times the NYT points out he was one of only a few to vote present.

It is clear in some instances he was ducking tough issues and playing politics.

I would rather have someone who voted present than someone who voted for the war..

Nothing like "coordinated outrage" to rock the vote! :)

Sample Hillary supporter script: We need a STRONG AND EXPERIENCED leader who is a CHANGE AGENT to campaign against PRESENT VOTERS everywhere! lol

It's all just a little too carefully choreographed for me . . .

Wowza, Hillary will stop at nothing!Suragate after suragate comes forth with nothing new to say other than trash. Still the voter's are'nt paying attention to her. hay, can i get some RESPECT  around here, you know my husband was President for 8 years, does that mean anything to y"all. Her internal #'s must be showing a lot more than we've seen so far.

I'm just wondering when the Daly family is gonna get involved in this campaign for President. We all know that they were a formiddable foe way back when, but in the 90's backed Clinton. Now they have someone from their own backyard running for the Highest office in the land, & so far, they've been silent. You know the Daly family wants that National  prominence back & it remains to be seen, which side their on. Anyone from Illinois have any feedback on this?



" DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER

Fact Check: Present Votes are an Accepted Legislative Strategy in the Illinois Senate
December 20, 2007


Obama Was Praised for Showing Leadership on Tough Issues -- Representing a Safe Democratic District, He Used His Position To Help More Vulnerable Senators Do The Right Thing. Zorn wrote, "Obama, however, was in a safe district and never faced a serious challenge for his legislative seat. He had no need to shy from hard-line stands on gun control and abortion rights. He actually took such stands frequently and is now highly praised by advocates for both causes." [Chicago Tribune, Zorn, 3/9/04]

Planned Parenthood President: Anyone Who Thinks A Present Vote Is A "Duck" Doesn't Understand How the Process Works. "There is a presumption, if one is not familiar with the mechanics of the General Assembly, that a present vote is a 'duck.' Pam Sutherland, the CEO and President of Illinois Planned Parenthood said of [this] Hull argument: "I think it's not well-based...I think it's somebody who doesn't understand how the legislative process works." [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Handgun Violence Opponents: Criticizing Present Votes Indicates "You Don't Have A Great Understanding Of The Process." "'Criticizing Obama on the basis of 'present' votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process,' said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence." [Chicago Tribune, Zorn, 3/9/04]

Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. "An aspect of Obama's State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his "present" votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down "yes" or "no" that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It's most important use is as a signal -- to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill. [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Obama Said He Would Vote 'Present' On Unconstitutional Bills, Saying He Tried To Resist Bad Votes Even If They Made Good Politics. The Sun Times wrote, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [Chicago Sun-Times, 9/13/04]

Senators Would Vote Present If They Had 'Unresolved Worries.' The State Journal-Register reported, "Sen. George Shadid, the Edwards Democrat who is pushing the legislation, promised Senate Education Committee members that he wouldn't move ahead with Senate Bill 368 'unless I can get a good consensus.'…Four committee members cited unresolved worries when they voted 'present' on the measure, which passed 7-0." [State Journal-Register, 2/27/03]


Specific Bills Raised By The New York Times
SB 759 - OBAMA SAID HE WAS VOTING PRESENT ON THE FLOOR; OBAMA SAID THAT THE PROVISIONS WERE NEGOTIATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM BILL AND THAT THE SENATE WAS GOING BACK ON ITS WORD

Obama Voted Present On Bill To Charge Minor As Adult For Gun Crime Near A School Because There Was No Proof That The Measure Would Reduce Juvenile Crime. Obama voted present on a bill to allow a minor to be tried as an adult if he/she is charged with aggravated battery with a firearm at or near a school. Obama said, "I did just want to point out that last year we worked on a almost complete overhaul of the Juvenile Justice Code, and this provision was debated at length during negotiations with the various State's attorney's office. Part of the reason that we negotiated it out of that original bill was at least the sense of some of us that there is really no proof or indication that automatic transfers and increased penalties and adult penalties for juvenile offenses have, in fact, proven to be more effective in reducing juvenile crime or cutting back on recidivism. I know there's disagreements with other folks, but I did just want to point out that last year when we worked -- guided so ably by Senator Hawkinson -- on this bill, the sense was that we had more or less completed an overhaul of the code and that we were going to pause for a moment, see how that worked before we moved on. And I guess I'd just like to point out that here we are, a year later, doing the exact same thing that we had been doing prior to the changes that we initiated last year and that is to increase penalties further for juveniles and try them further as adults and expand the number of offenses. So for that reason, I'm going to be voting present." [91st GA, SB 0759, 3/25/99, 3R P; 52-1-5 (BO: P); Session Transcript, 3/25/99, p.209]


HB 854 -- OBAMA VOTED PRESENT BECAUSE A BILL WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Obama Voted Present On The Floor And In Committee On A Bill That Would Seal Sexual Assault Victims' Court Records; Illinois Press Association And Obama Argued That The Bill Was Unconstitutional. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Criminal Identification Act by allowing certain assault victims to petition to have their court records sealed, only to be opened for public inspection if good cause is shown. Under the bill the trials involving sex crimes would remain open, but upon a conviction, a victim of a sex crime could ask a state's attorney to petition a judge to seal the records of the case. If the judge agreed, the public could not open those records unless someone petitioned the court and showed good cause. The State Journal-Register reported, "But the Illinois Press Association argued that the measure violates the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution does not allow judges to seal the records of trials that have been held in open court, said association attorney Don Craven. Besides, Craven argued, the legislation does not allow defendants the same opportunity if they're found not guilty. And there's no indication what would happen to the case files if the verdict were appealed. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, agreed that the bill probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster, although he said it's not unusual for his colleagues to pass such measures to show political resolve." [91st GA, HB 0854, 5/11/99, 3R P; 58-0-1; State Journal-Register, 4/28/99]

3 Of The 4 Democrats On The Judiciary Committee Voted Present On This Bill. In committee, Senators Shadid and Silverstein joined Obama in voting Present on HB 854. [91st GA, HB 854, Jud Committee, 7-0-3, 4/28/99]

When Similar Measures Were Passed In Other States Following A Scandal, The Press Raised Similar Constitutional Objections. The AP reported, "News executives in both states said the legislation was unnecessary and would hinder freedom of the press. 'It's another case where in order to achieve some possible good, legislatures are often willing to run right over basic constitutional rights,' said J. Randolph Murray, editor of The Anchorage Times in Alaska. 'We are against the thing because of the blanket restrictions it would impose,' said Doug Crews, executive director of the Missouri Press Association. 'Once a restriction such as this is made, where is the line drawn and where does it stop in the area of law enforcement records?'" [AP, 4/30/91]


HB 1511 -- OBAMA VOTED PRESENT ON A BILL WHOSE SUPPORTERS ADMITTED IT WAS UNFINISHED

Obama Voted Present On A Bill That Would Require Aggravating Allegation To Be Included To The Trier Of Fact As An Element Of The Offense; The Bill Was Not Deemed Ready At The Time Of The Vote With Promises From Its Supporters To Revisit It In The Spring, Which They Did Not Do. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure to provide that, in all cases in which the death penalty is not a possibility, if an alleged fact -- other than the fact of a prior conviction -- is not an element of an offense but is sought to be used to increase the range of penalties for the offense beyond the statutory maximum that could otherwise be imposed for the offense, the alleged fact shall be included in the charging instrument or provided to the defendant through a written notice before trial, submitted to the trier of fact as an element of the offense, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [91st GA, HB 1511, 3R P 54-2-2, 11/30/00; PA 91-0953, 2/23/01]

Illinois State Bar Association: "Bill Needs More Time, It Needs More Discussion, It Needs More Input By The Legislators And I Don't Think That Has Happened To This Point." Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reported, "But Daniel L. Houlihan, legislative counsel to the Illinois State Bar Association, said the bill appeared to be so flawed that lawmakers shouldn't rush to pass it. 'This bill needs more time, it needs more discussion, it needs more input by the legislators and I don't think that has happened to this point,' he said." [Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, 11/29/00]


HB 3793 -- BILL WAS "MEANINGLESS," "MEDDLESOME," AND AN EXAMPLE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY "WASTING ITS TIME"

Obama Voted Present On Teacher Curriculum Requirements. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the School Code by requiring public school teachers to teach pupils discipline and respect for others. [90th GA, HB 3793, 5/13/98, 3R P; 44-10-1; P.A. 90-0620, 7/10/98]

Bloomington Pantagraph: Bill Would Create A Mandate With No Objective Standards, General Assembly Was 'Wasting Its Time.' The Bloomington Pantagraph wrote in an editorial, "Illinois schools have enough problems without the General Assembly wasting its time on measures that are at best symbolic, mostly meaningless and at worst meddlesome…the Legislature sent a bill to the governor that would require public school teachers to teach pupils discipline and respect for others. The school code already requires honesty, kindness and justice to be taught to students...All this bill will do is...clutter the school code and widen the rift between teachers and lawmakers who try to micromanage their classrooms." [Bloomington Pantagraph Editorial, 5/20/98]


SB 609 -- OBAMA SPOKE ON THE FLOOR THAT THE SENATE SHOULD NOT OVERRIDE HOME RULE

Obama Voted Present On Adult Business Location Restrictions Because Of Home Rule; The Bill Failed. Obama voted present on a bill creating the Adult Uses Location Restriction Act, providing restrictions on the proximity of adult entertainment establishments to schools, parks, places of worship, pre-schools, day care facilities, mobile home parks, and/or other residential areas, (Senate Amendment No. 1) constituting minimum restriction on the location of adult uses for all governmental units, including home rule units and allows governmental units to enact more stringent restrictions. When discussing the bill, Obama said, "[M]ost of us would prefer not to have an adult bookstore or -- movie theater or something next to our -- next to our residence, but that's exactly why we have local zoning ordinances...And it seems to me that if there's ever been a function that has historically been relegated to local control and is appropriately there, it's these kinds of zoning matters." [92nd GA, SB 0609, 3/29/01, 3R L; 33-15-5 (BO: P); 92nd General Assembly, Session Transcript, 3/29/01, p.160]




Even Though Present Votes Attack Was Raised And Rebutted In 2003, Clinton Campaign Recycles Old Opposition Research

The "Dirt" On Attacks on Obama's Present Votes Is "All Over The Hands of Those Pointing The Finger." "This column has the dirt on the issue of state Sen. Barack Obama's "present" votes on tough issues in the Illinois Legislature--votes that at least two of his opponents in the March 16 Democratic U.S. Senate primary say mark him as a coward... There's dirt here all right. It's all over the hands of those pointing the finger." [Chicago Tribune, Zorn, 3/9/04]

Emily's List Head Ellen Malcolm Held A Press Conference To Discuss Obama's Present Votes. First Read reported, "Describing it as a press conference gone awry would be putting it mildly. Before the start of the NPR debate yesterday afternoon, the Clinton campaign arranged for Ellen Malcolm, the head of Emily's List, to hold a press conference with reporters. Malcolm took the podium and argued that Clinton was the only candidate in this race who had stood up when it was tough, especially on women's issues...Malcolm hadn't mentioned Obama by name, but she said that those who vote "present" at tough times don't show a true commitment to leadership - referring to Obama's "present" votes on some anti-abortion measures while serving in the Illinois state Senate. But reporters asked Malcolm why the head of the Illinois Planned Parenthood had said in the Los Angeles Times that Obama was getting in trouble for a "present"-vote strategy that the pro-choice group had devised." [First Read, 12/5/07]

Hillary: Obama "Voted Present" On Choice And Gun Issues As A Member Of The Illinois Senate. Hillary Clinton said, "Well, in the Illinois state senate, on issue after issue, my opponent voted present instead of yes or no. Seven of those votes were on a women's right to choose, two of those votes were on measures to protect families from gun violence, one of which was a measure about firing guns on or near school grounds." [Hillary Clinton, Clear Lake Event, 12/3/07]

Blair Hull Criticized Obama For Voting Present. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama's commitment to abortion rights has also been questioned in campaign mailings from rival Blair Hull, who has criticized the state senator for several "present" votes he cast on bills relating to abortion. 'It's inexcusable,' Hull said while campaigning Downstate Tuesday. 'If you are absolutely pro-choice, you don't vote present.' But abortion-rights advocates have been quick to defend Obama, arguing that his "present" votes were strategic legislative maneuvers that many other lawmakers who support their cause also participated in." [Chicago Tribune, 3/10/04]

Hull Sent Out Mail That Said That Obama "Ducked" Present Votes; Maria Pappas Criticized Obama At A Debate. The Daily Herald reported, "Recent campaign mailers sent by Democrat Senate hopeful Blair Hull accuse Barack Obama of ducking key abortion rights votes in Springfield by voting 'present.' But the head of Illinois Planned Parenthood said Obama's critics are misguided. 'I think it's not well-based,' Pam Sutherland, chief executive and president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said of Hull's criticism. 'I think it's somebody who doesn't understand how the legislative process works.' The campaign pieces accuse Obama of failing to stand up for a woman's right to choose because he voted 'present' on legislation that dealt with parental notification of abortions...The mailings, sent to voters in recent days, show a rubber duck above the headline 'He Ducked!'... Hull is not the only candidate to criticize Obama's voting record. Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas has offered similar criticism at recent debates." [Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Read More http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/20/fact_check_present_votes_are_a.php

The representatives are either ignorant or manipulative.  The very groups that cared most about the issues in those votes have consistently said that they fully supported Obama's "present" votes, and that's a fact that has been widely reported.  Also, the NY Times article is nothing more than sloppy seconds (emphasis on sloppy) given this is old news that many other news organizations addressed long ago, and in a more competent manner given other groups took the time to talk to those in Illinois msot affected by those votes.  

Obama is not ready to lead this conuntry!

What grounds do senators from other states have in commenting on Obama? None. But that doesn't matter to Clinton, who is so desperate now she is buying attack websites. All just more proof about what this country will get if Clinton becomes president. Bush lite. Tell Mark "Rovian" Penn to go home.

“I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and an EMILY’s List donor, but this line of attack is unacceptable. While I was the president of Chicago National Organization for Women, Senator Obama worked closely with us, could not have been more supportive of a woman¹s right to choose, and there was no bigger champion in Illinois on our issues. What¹s important is that the candidates do not cannibalize each other on issues we all agree about because we need to win in November.” Lorna Brett, former president of Chicago NOW

"During his years in the state legislature, Barack Obama was a strong and consistent supporter of women's reproductive rights. He worked hand-in-hand with Planned Parenthood in developing and executing strategies to make sure that women had access to reproductive health care. I also want to thank him for standing up with us in the effort to open the Aurora clinic and for his introduction of legislation guaranteeing access to low-cost birth control. Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area has proudly endorsed Barack throughout his entire political career." Steve Trombley, CEO & President, Planned Parenthood/Chicago Action


"The present votes Obama took at that time, along with many other pro-choice legislators, were 'no' votes to bad bills being used for political gain. We asked Senator Obama and other strong supporters of choice to vote present to encourage Senators facing tough re-elections to make the right choice by voting present, instead of caving to political pressure and voting for these bad bills. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama showed leadership, compassion and a true commitment to reproductive health care. The Republican Senate President at the time constantly used anti-abortion bills to pigeon-hole Democrats so that he could target them with misleading mailers during campaign season. It was a tactic that was about politics, not policy - and Obama didn't let them get away with it." Pam Sutherland, President & CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council


“Senator Obama is one of America’s strongest and most loyal defenders of women’s rights on issues of reproductive health care. I’ve contributed to EMILY’s List in the past ­ but I never will again, because I¹m so disappointed in their decision to launch these unfair, false attacks on behalf of Senator Clinton¹s campaign.” Libby Slappey, a former 13-year board member of Planned Parenthood of East Central Iowa.


Even Ellen Malcolm has praised Barack as recently as last year, after Barack gave the keynote speech at the annual Emily’s List Luncheon. In a letter to Barack, Malcolm writes:


Senator Obama,


Thank you so much for helping to make the 2006 EMILY’s List Majority Council Conference such a great success. Our Majority Council members told me again and again how energized they were to hear directly from you and how much they appreciated your spending time with us.


You truly inspired our members and reminded them why they support our work to elect dynamic pro-choice Democratic women ­ especially after hearing you speak about how you’re fighting to make change happen.


I appreciate your commitment to EMILY’s List. Here’s to victory in November!


Warmest regards, Ellen R. Malcolm, President


http://progressivegovernment.blogspot.com/2007/12/from-anne-and-women-for-obama.html

Interesting that this is called a slam.  I think it is raising legitimate issues regarding the inconsistencies between the message of his campaign, that he will stand up for his beliefs, and his history in legislative office.    

As has been stated numerous times, Obama voted "Present" at the request of Planned Parenthood and the Clinton camp knows this.  They are just trying to confuse the issue by not revealing all the facts.  Dirty politics as usual for the Clintons.

A True Must Read:

"Jay Cost Thu Dec 20, 9:30 AM ET
Most neutral observers would agree that Hillary Clinton's response to Barack Obama's rise has been bungled. Over the past few weeks, we have seen her campaign attempt again and again to attack him, only to make itself look foolish. I think the worst moment came last weekend when President Clinton was dispatched to the Charlie Rose Show to trash the junior senator from Illinois. That task was simply beneath a former president. And who did not notice the irony of Clinton arguing for experience over freshness? If any Democrat has parroted Republican talking points this cycle - it was Bill Clinton mimicking Bush-Quayle '92.
TRhis plan was clearly put together on a spit and a prayer. It seems to me that if the Clinton campaign had anticipated that Obama would pose this kind of threat - it would have developed a better strategy for dealing with him. Its ineptitude over the last few weeks betrays its lack of preparedness. I am sure that Team Clinton has a number of contingency plans in its filing drawer, but the rise of Obama is clearly not one of them.
Why was the Clinton campaign unprepared for this?
Unfortunately, we cannot answer this question directly. The only people who know are the higher-ups of the Clinton organization - and they are not going to admit that they were unprepared, let alone explain why. But I have a plausible theory worth sharing.
The way to approach the question is first to ask why we should have expected an Obama surge. It stands to reason that the Clinton campaign failed to account for at least one of the factors that make up our answer. These are the three reasons that I argued for over the summer and fall:
(1) Obama raised $70 million in nine months from half a million people. This demonstrates two points:
(a) He caters to a real demand in the Democratic electorate - intense enough to open wallets.
(b) His money can facilitate a more sophisticated campaign strategy. Obama can do more than win Iowa and hope that he magically catches fire. Instead, he can win Iowa and fight Clinton dollar-for-dollar, state-for-state.
(2) Obama is the most authentic change candidate among the top three Democrats. Hillary Clinton is not this candidate. Her principal qualification for the job is her role as her husband's advisor - so she was always going to run on the record of the 1990s. John Edwards has positioned himself as a change candidate, but he does not convey the authenticity that Obama does.
(3) Obama is organized in Iowa. He recognized that organization was critically important for an Iowa victory - and that an Iowa victory was necessary for his broader strategy. And so, he is organized and ready for the January 3 caucus.
Through the summer and the fall, journalists underestimated the importance of these because they used the opinion polls to create a horse race out of whole cloth. In reality - the opinions expressed to pollsters were not stable enough to support the idea that there was an actual race going on.
Voter opinions were based on little information and even less interest in the campaign. Obama's activities were never going to register with these uninformed and uninterested voters in the summer; they were always meant to yield dividends in the winter. So, Obama was seen to be a weaker candidate than he really was. Accordingly, Clinton was seen to be stronger than she really was. She was always the frontrunner (she still is), but the overuse of opinion polls made her appear "unstoppable" and "inevitable" to the press.
Like the press, the Clinton campaign clearly underestimated Obama - it over-looked the money, the message, or the organizing. Perhaps the Clinton campaign did this for the same reason as the press. Perhaps it relied so heavily on the opinion polls that it could not see that Obama was preparing to launch a viable campaign later on.
I think this explanation has some credibility to it. I'm thinking in particular of Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist and pollster. His comments over the course of the campaign have struck me as utilizing the same erroneous assumptions that informed the press' summer horse race narrative. Consider this snippet from the Ben Smith's blog. The date of this entry is October 18. 2007:
"Republicans are not prepared for the loss of a substantial group of Republican women voters ... even in the South," he said. "I think you're going to see as much as 24% of Republican women defect and make a major difference nationwide in terms of, I think, the emotional element of potentially having the first woman nominee. And that that actually will be a major unexpected factor here that will throw the Republicans for a loop."
This is a ridiculously overconfident assertion.
First, research has shown that partisanship is a stable and powerful feature of a person's psychology. It has also shown that voters who are conflicted between their partisanship and their evaluations of the candidates often resolve the conflict by simply abstaining, rather than voting for the other party. The idea that one in four Republican women will defy these regularities is possible, but far from likely.
Second, I just cannot see how this figure can be quantified some twelve-and-a-half months prior to the election. That's just insane to me. Everything we know about the levels of voter information, voter attention, the effect of the media dialogue on transitory political opinions, the influence of question wording and ordering - leads me to suspect that Penn is committing some serious inferential fallacy. It is not that he is necessarily wrong. It is that his assertion is dramatically underdetermined. The numbers are not giving him the hard answers he thinks they are.
This is the kind of comment I expect from non-expert journalists who look at the polls and read the numbers in a naïve way. "Republican women say that they would consider voting for Clinton; ergo, they would consider voting for Clinton." Not quite. The fact of the matter is that you can't come to this conclusion so easily. Underlying all of those seemingly straightforward numbers is a complex, intricate aggregation of individual voter psychologies. This makes inferential analysis extremely difficult.
I would contrast Penn's silly assertion with the considered work of political scientists who specialize in political psychology. The best work in this subfield is the most difficult stuff I have ever read. The theories are complicated, the methods are complex, and the conclusions are always narrow and tentative because voter psychology is incredibly difficult to delineate. It is not made any easier by the fact that our best point of contact with voters is the opinion survey - which, when you think about it, is quite distant from their interior mental states.
You can find the same flippancy in Penn's strategy memos - which have come out periodically over the course of the campaign. All of them follow the same basic script as this one from July: Clinton's poll position is insurmountable; there is no need to have an election because a sample of the voting population has reported statistically significant results that Clinton will win.
In January he argued, "If Hillary leads in Ohio at this point in the race -- the key state that gave the last election to the Republicans -- then this confirms that Hillary can win and is today winning. She is the strongest Democrat in what was the most difficult state." Look at his words carefully: polling results some twenty-two months before the election "confirm" that Hillary can win and "is" winning. In February he said basically the same thing in response to the latest polling data, "As other candidates are getting more and more attention, Hillary is getting more and more support...This poll confirms that Hillary not only can win but actually is today winning."
In August, he wrote that voters had "come to see the race differently," and accordingly "concluded" that Clinton "has what it takes to be President and what it takes to take on the Republicans." It is untenable to argue that voter perceptions were changing in August, or that voters had concluded anything before Labor Day.
In October, he said that Clinton's support among women is "deep" - and that "94% of young women" will be more likely to turn out to vote for the first female nominee. Much like his comment about Republican women - there is no way to quantify how "young women" will respond to Clinton some thirteen months before Election Day. Nor, for that matter, can depth of support be easily interpreted from simple yes-or-no questions asked months before the first votes are cast.
In November, he wrote that the "leadership card" is the reason "why people are voting for Hillary Clinton." His consistent use of the present tense to describe the act of voting represents the same fallacy that polling respondents are no different than voters.
Now, there is a lot of spin going on with these memos. In particular, Penn has an incentive to play to the prior beliefs of the audience - i.e. journalists who cannot distinguish between a February poll and a December poll. However, spin alone cannot explain Penn's voluminous study of the polls. I counted upwards of 6,000 words offered in analysis of polling data since the start of the campaign - no campaign's senior adviser spends so much effort dissecting the polls simply for the purpose of spinning the press. That would be a misallocation of resources.
Spin alone also does not explain why Penn would consistently take the tone he has adopted. If he agreed that the polls could turn on a dime, he would never argue that they would not. Anybody with a lick of sense knows not to tell a falsifiable lie if it can be avoided. Generally, the fact that the Clinton campaign facilitated the idea of inevitability is an indication that it believed that it was inevitable. You don't go pushing that storyline if you believe it is not necessarily true. Otherwise, you set expectations far too high - and you run the risk of getting burned when things do not go your way.
This is actually Clinton's biggest problem right now. When the voting starts, expectations matter. Most of the electorate's information on the campaign will come from the media - whose emphasis is on the horse race. Who's up and who's down. If Clinton loses several of the first contests, she will receive more negative coverage than, say, Giuliani because her campaign once convinced the press that she couldn't lose.
So, I think that the Mark Penn and the Clinton campaign might have made the same basic mistake the press made. They over-interpreted the polls. They wrongly assumed that the opinions expressed in them were more informed, sophisticated, and stable than they actually were. I think that this, in turn, caused them to overlook Obama's real strengths.
The big question: what will this cost them? Possibly nothing. I think this race remains fundamentally unchanged. Winning Iowa is a necessary condition for Obama. It is a sufficient condition for Clinton. Clinton could win Iowa - and her numbers that have slipped in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and nationwide will rebound. The race will be over. In that case, her campaign will probably be in better shape for having learned a good lesson at no cost. But it might cost them something. There is such a small margin that separates Clinton, Obama, and Edwards in Iowa that her campaign's maladroit response to Obama could cost her victory. In that case - the race continues to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and then Super Tuesday. And she could lose the nomination."

Right out of the Clinton playbook...let the surrogates do the attacking so you can appear to "stay above the fray."  Until they go too far, and then we're back to the cycle of "attack, apologize, resign, rinse, lather, repeat."

The fact is, the people that were THERE with Obama and encouraged him to use these strategies have STOOD UP for his use of these, especially in most all of the high profile situations that the Clinton mafia is attacking.

It seems like a good 3rd option to me.  If you agree in principle with the bill but think a couple things could be changed, voting "present" rather than voting to kill a bill seems like a good option to have in any case.

The Clintonites are building up a negative buzz for Obama this week because there's a lot of bad news waiting to pop...Bloomberg just did a profile on Bill Clinton's "Cayman Island" investments, the AFSCME dirty tricks, the story about the felons and their finances donating to the Clinton Foundation....there's a lot of negative stuff coming down the pipe for her.  I think their team thinks that if they can keep the news cycle this wild that it'll be pushed off into the holiday weekend - sort of like a White House Friday night document dump.

You can see that she's desperate.  According to the Washington Post's The Trail Blog:

"Clinton has shifted gears several times in recent weeks. She questioned Obama's character at the beginning of December, then pitched a "bring a buddy to caucus" organizing message, then switched over to an effort to humanize her on the campaign trail. Now, with just a week and a half left, she is latched onto her original theme: That she has the experience to bring about change, and a record of doing so."

Who shifts the message so many times in the home stretch of a campaign except for one who is desperate?  She's desparately trying to drag Edwards into the fray because she knows she's losing support to him as well as Obama...but they're not sitting on their laurels either.

What in the hell is wrong with the Clinton campaign?  I supported her up until about 3 months ago...I've been in the undecided column since her campaign started taking these wild swings at everybody.

I'm leaning towards Obama or Biden right now - I can tell you one thing, I won't be caucusing for Hillary.

In the Illinois senate, Barack Obama sponsored over 800 bills. Hundreds were passed. He voted on over 4000(of which 130 were 'present' due to my reference above.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

Ensuring that the Voting Section Protects the Right to Vote:

Barack Obama has been a life-long defender of voting rights. After law school, he registered 150,000 new voters in Chicago. As a civil rights lawyer, he defended minority voters who challenged redistricting plans that diluted their vote. As a constitutional law lecturer, he taught classes on voting rights. And in the US Senate, he has led the fight to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, to oppose discriminatory photo-ID laws and improve our election machinery. His " Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act", which has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate Judiciary Committee, will enable investigations into deceptive and fraudulent practices.  It establishes significant, harsh penalties for those who have engaged in fraud, and it provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.
----
I believe that, based on Barack Obama's self-written books 'Dreams from MY Father' and 'Audacity of Hope'/
his work throughout the years to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the hopeless(poor and union-workers)/ his speeches etc, he is a better candidate. He did not just happen upon Dem principles in this campaign, he gave up hundreds of job offers over 20+ years ago to go work for $12,000/yr in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago. He graduated magna cum laude/head of Harvard Law Review/Civil Rights Attorney/taught constitutional law for over 10 years etc. After law school, he registered 150,000 new voters in Chicago. He was finally able to pay off his college debt using proceeds from his first bestselling book.
-----
Barack Obama
Senior Lecturer in Law (on leave of absence)
1111 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
phone: 773-834-0935
email: bobama@aol.com


EDUCATION

Harvard Law School, J.D. 1991, Magna Cum Laude.
President, Harvard Law Review
Executive Board, Black Law Students' Association
Columbia University, Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, 1983


Illinois State Senator - 13th Legislative District, Chicago, 1996 - 2004
Minority Spokesperson for the Public Health & Welfare Committee, Member of the Judiciary and Revenue Committees, Co-Chair of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.
Areas of legislative interest include welfare reform; public school funding and accountability; tax accountability and tax fairness; campaign finance and ethics reform; job training and workforce preparation; economic development and technology access; and juvenile justice issues.

University of Chicago Law School
Senior Lecturer, 1993 -

Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.
Of Counsel, 1996 -  
Specializing in civil rights and voting rights litigation, employment law, and the representation of not-for-profit and community development corporations in urban redevelopment activities.
Associate, 1993 - 1996
Litigated voting rights and employment cases, wrote appellate briefs and argued appeals in the United States Court of Appeals, helped to structure and finance efforts to construct mixed-income housing to replace public housing in and around Cabrini Green, served as general counsel to community health clinics, social service agencies, and charter schools throughout Chicago.

Illinois Project Vote
Director, April 1992 - November 1992
Organized and directed a voter registration and education campaign targeted at minority and low-income voters in Cook County. Recruited and managed 10 paid staff and 700 volunteers; helped raise $200,000 for the project; coordinated a companion multi-media campaign; established office and reporting systems. Resulted in approximately 150,000 newly registered voters in the 1992 Presidential election.

Developing Communities Project
Director, June 1985 - June 1988
Organized and directed a not-for-profit community development program in low-income areas of Chicago's Far South Side. With a membership of over twenty churches and civic groups, the organization trained local leaders to formulate and execute a range of community development projects, including job training programs for area unemployed, college prep programs for low-income students, parent initiatives to reform public schools, and campaigns to clean up hazardous waste sites.

Business International Corporation
Writer/Financial Analyst, January 1984 - January 1985
Researched, wrote and edited articles, reports, and how-to manuals on international business and finance for multinational corporations.


--
Obama helped to deliver the first significant campaign finance reform law in Illinois in 25 years. He brought law enforcement groups around to back legislation requiring that homicide interrogations be taped and helped bring about passage of the state’s first racial-profiling law. He was a chief sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care subsidies (NYT, 7/30/07).  Here in Chicago, Obama worked as lead organizer for the Developing Communities Project, a campaign funded by south-side Catholic churches to counteract the dislocation and massive unemployment caused by the closing and downsizing of southeast Chicago steel plants. (ChicagoReader 12/8/95)   As a Chicago community organizer, Obama notched accomplishments ranging from job-training programs to a successful attempt to improve city services at the Altgeld Gardens housing project, chaired a voter-registration drive that helped carry Illinois for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton in 1992 and led an effort to acquire state money for a dropout prevention program that still operates today.
--

"As a state legislator, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans in drafting successful legislation on ethics and health care reform. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for child care. He expanded healthcare to include 154.000 people in Illinois(including 70,000 children).  Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited him with having been "immensely helpful in working with police organizations" on death penalty reform."
While in the US Senate Obama has passed Lugar-Obama, a bill that expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines. He has also passed the "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for a web site, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract. In addition to those two he has also gotten through the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," which had his name on it as the first sponsor.

Looks like he was too busy thinking of the pothole bill he wanted to pass.

Hmmm, I don't mean to sound overly anti-Clinton, but having her surrogates attack Obama while she stays high and mighty in the background is getting old.  I used to point out that she was running the most aggressive, tough campaign (with the most cajones), but now the little girly needs other people to do her dirty work for her.  (Kind of reminds me of the mafia, but certainly isn't the mark of a leader).  One thing I like about Obama is that if he is going to say something, he is man enough to say it himself, in person.  But what she is doing is nothing more than a string of cowardly hitjobs, and I hope the voters down respond to that.

Why would they sacrifice their credibility for Clinton, which will be gone the this time next year?  Their collective breath won't be worth the carbon footprint exhaled.  Ha!

This "present votes" non-controversy is going to get bigger and bigger unless the campaign finds a short and simple way to explain it. Here's my suggestion:

Senator Obama voted present on about 130 measures out of 4000. That's about three percent of all votes taken. Voting present is one of many tools a legislator has in order to combat faulty bills. Senator Clinton is either surprisingly ignorant of this fact, or feigning ignorance in order to score yet another political attack. I don't know which is worse."

Well its about time that at least some of Obamas political record is getting some scrutiny. It is rather funny though to watch the "isn't Obama perfect" love struck press reluctantly report on his record. I am not even saying that Obama's penchant for voting present is a smoking gun, but at least it is getting some attention. Looking at how the candidates vote is ceratinly fair game. But I am sure that the naive and idealistic Obamaites will cry foul that mean ol' Hill is once again attacking their perfect never did a darn thing wrong Barack Obama. Obamaites (and the press) please keep in mind that Obama has been attacking Clinton on her voting record fro months now, so I do not want to hear that Obama is being unfairly attacked.  

Who are these bozos ?
Why do they matter ?
Why is this news ?
Why does First Read have an article on them ?

Are you going to do any more articles about Hillary's cleavage ?

How does First Read decide what merits an article ?

Does the Clinton campaign 'suggest' articles ?

How 'objective' do you consider First Read to be ?

Have you ever counted how many articles you do on Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Biden etc...... ?

Do you think this ratio is 'fair and balanced' ?

Does it matter to First Read ?

No Substance and only Fluff that is Barack Hussein Obama. Yes he is a charismatic orator who tease the media obama lovers with "one-liners" but that is not a qualification to be the president of this great country. Electing a president is not a beauty pagent or a congeniality contest, if that is the case then Barack Hussen should win. We need a leader who is experinced and ready to lead with a drastic change in our political system and that would be senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Any one who says having a woman leader of the free world for the first time in our history is not a change is blind and rather stupid, no?

From Salon.com:

'...Meanwhile, John Edwards' campaign is complaining that it's at the receiving end of a dirty trick from the Clinton-endorsing American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. A flier from the group uses Edwards' words to criticize Obama's healthcare plan, maybe leaving voters with the message that the attack on Obama is coming from Edwards rather than from an organization aligned with Clinton. "Either they are trying to trick people, or they've realized that on health care, John Edwards is the candidate who speaks honestly about what it really costs and what will be required to have truly universal coverage," Edwards' Iowa state director says in a statement. "It's fine to have an honest debate about policy, but Iowans deserve better than planted questions and campaign fliers designed to fool them." ...'

More dirty tricks from Hillary's campaign
What no more dope allegations ?
How about 'muslim' accuasations ?
Sink a little lower Hillary....

Think nobody is watching ?
The might in Iowa and NH......

All that 'warm and fuzzy' advertizing down the drain

Hillary is an evil witch, not warn and fuzzy

Hillary Clinton, cold, calculating, dishonest, unethical, divisive

Is this news worthy? Sounds like desparation from the Clinton camp.
American Voter (Sent Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:11 PM)


Yes they are and we all know it.


OBAMA 08'


I would rather have someone who voted present than someone who voted for the war..

AMEN!!!

Obama 08'

Barack Obama is on the following committees in the US senate:

Senate Foreign Relations Commitee
Senate Commitee on Veterans' Affairs
Senate Commitee on Health, Education, Labor, Pensions
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Illinois primary race

Mr. Obama beat his nearest competitor Comptroller Dan Hynes. Millionaire Blair Hull was a footnote.


Illinois senate race in 2004---(only 12% African-American population --won over 75%)

Barack Obama won 70%--------over 3.5 million (including all demographics---suburbs, city, downstate, upstate, Black, White, Hispanic, Asian).

John Kerry won over 54%-----over 2.8 million

George Bush won over 44%----over 2.3 million

Alan Keyes won over 27%-----over 1.3 million

Received more votes than JKerry.
Not only that, Obama won consistently in both affluent and poor areas, and in both black and white communities. His strong values enabled him to appeal to a wide variety of voters.  

To Flatts referring to a 2003 speech on the spineless congress(sounds familiar?).


Ted Kennedy's comments in December of 2006:

But in an hourlong interview with Globe reporters and editors, Kennedy offered strong praise for two of Kerry's possible presidential rivals: senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, calling them "formidable figures" who are connecting with rank-and-file Democrats.

I wonder if Mark Penn did a polling analysis and determined that voters would respond to this issue,  because everyone was annoyed by that kid in class who would always say "present" in class instead of just saying here.

Sound ridiculous?  No moreso than opposition research on kindergarten documents.

I am very angry at this.  I hope Tubbs, Crowley and Weiner all get primary challengers and get knocked off.

Marbw:  I appreciate the positive information.

Thank you for explaining the various "present" votes, what they mean and putting them in perspective with regard to the total number of votes.

Also, I appreciate how you outlined a number of his legislative accomplishments (finance reform, healthcare reform, welfare reform, racial profiling, and a bunch more that you listed).  Sounds like he was active while he made those "present" votes to help his peers.  This is the easiest argument to counter, because all Obama needs to do is point out his legislative successes and it also makes people known to his experience.

(Maybe after posting something so long, you can pick out the important points and repost them, a Cliff Notes version).

Wow the more Clinton attacks the more we find
about what Obama accomplished while he was state senator.

Too bad Clinton seems unable to discuss what she accomplished while "present" in the whitehouse.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa,

I have been reading your posts in the last 2 months and i realized you either hate Obama or you can't stand him.

The question i have for you is this; what could he have done when he is trying to help other democrats that are in tough district? You know Obama won't ditch the Democratic Party like you, yet, Madame Clinton is hammering him for helping the party.

Another loosing proposition from both Carrie and Clinton's surrogate; thank God there is other party to choose from.

130 present votes, 50 of which were democratic party moves.
80 of which where obama making certain he wasn't on the record for anything.
he dodged more controversial votes than any illini congressman....

read the nytimes articles...
obama is scummy

M@ - Chicago writes:"What grounds do senators from other states have in commenting on Obama? None."

Uh, excuse me M@, but Obama is runing for a little job kbown as the president of the United States. Are you suggesting that other congressman or the people of the United States have no business looking at Obama's voting record? I have a question for you M@. Is it Ok for Obama to question Hillary about her vote on Iraq? If your answer is yes, then please go away.

Typical of Hillary to send out her minions to do her bidding.  I bet if the press asks her if she agrees with their misinformed attacks, she said "I didn't know about any misinformed and misleading attacks!"

""In the Q&A session with reporters, Tubbs Jones replied that she understood that some Obama's "present" votes were part of a Democratic legislative strategy. "But not all of them," she added. ""
Typical half-truth from the Clinton camp.  No.  All of them weren't part of Democratic legislative strategy.  Some 'present' votes were because he thought a bill had Constitutional issues (he IS a constitutional law -professor- at a top law school after all).  Some were because he disagreed with parts of the bill and not other parts.

Get informed.  An informed public is Clinton's worst nightmare.  Half truths and lies are how Clinton promises to lead and deceive.

To all of you who say that Hillary has so much 'experience'...I have yet to see her in any photo in the White House or Bill Signing ceremony during her husband's presidency.  Where were her "experience lessons" held? Around the Christmas tree? If Bill were not her husband, no one would even be considering her. I support Obama because his accomplishments have been self attained and that takes endurrance and character.

Hay how about doing some real reporting.Has anyone took the time and asked everyone who were missing in acton were they were.
How mush more attacking comments are to be made on why the vote for the war was bad.
Would his vote make the outcome a winner or just part of the same message we are getting.
It's time to stop being so picke. Like real news, Like Bush added Tax"s  for the midclass. I just love the ture.

to rich flatts- i just looked at the hillary movie. obama doesn't make one mention of ted kennedy. i did notice however that this movie was put together by citizens united( a right wing attack group).

what i did see was obama point out what hillary has said as far as her experience and the fact that you can't claim all the good things pertaining to her white house tenure and say the bad things that happened there had nothing to do with you.

obama is right on that fact. if hillary is going to lay claim to the good things in the white house as part of her experience then he has the right to point out that she also has equal responsibility for the things that went wrong as well.

in addition to that, these people didn't have the cooperation or consent of hillary nor obama in making this video.

i don't see anything where obama is slamming ted kennedy. if there is somewhere i can read it or see it i would appreciate the link being provided or where i can read it along with it's source.

Voting present 130 times out of 4000 votes cast is a story?  By my calculation that means Senator Obama voted "present" .0325 percent of the time.  Get a grip Senator Clinton.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa

Again I applaud your integrity and unbiased contributions.  It hysterical to see Bee, NH try to call you something you are not.

This poor woman has nothing better to do than sit and write post after post after post after post of inane garbage. Her hatred of the Clintons is beyond palpable - it borders on the psychotic. It's like reading Fox Noise in print.

Bee, NH what did they do to you? Cut your Social Security benefits? Cut off your welfare? Clipped your prescription drug benefits? You can be a bitter hater if you want, why don't you try and back it up with some facts once in a while? Oops, that would be impossible. You and Sierra, SF should take a nice cruise somewhere and relax......

Whatever are you going to do when Hillary wins? Maybe you'll be able to benefit from her universal health care policy. We wouldn't want you to be one of the 15 MILLION people left out of Obama's plan.

HILLARY '08  

Clinton is nasty.

Amen, Mark.

These folks are absolutely dirty.  No wonder citizens are turned off by politics and politicians.  What if Barack became President - what would the likes of Tubbs, Weiner, and Crowley do then?  They would kiss his ring and Tubbs' teeth would light up the room.

it is really sad that some of the comments that are beig made on voting are being twisted or misconstrued off of talking points and not the search for facts. there are good reasons for the present votes. if you really want to check instead of find out you could do so.

if you look at hillary's voting record in the senate she has scores and scores of abstentions(same as present in state legislation). someone could say she was ducking votes or leadership. they won't because others have chosen not to use this misleading tactic.

hillary didn't cast votes of aye or nay for the same reasons obama said present. the bills needed additional work, she wasn't in agreement with the writing of the bill or it would have hurt her constituency.

i am glad theat john edwards, joe biden, barack obama, dodd or richardson have chose not to play the dirty politics with people mind that hillary is doing.

look at her voting record and the many abstains she has done. it could easily be painted to the public that she is skipping her votes. why does everyone swallow garbage so easily instead of checking it out?

someone was right in their posting. if we don't stop hating we will lose to the gop. there is no unity. some of you like trashy politics. you are the  minority.

the majority of americans will look at the campaigning as an indicator of the type of white house that will be at hand when whoever gets there. dirty politics will ahve a backlash.

as an independent, i hate to see the same mess going that the gop pulled coming from the clinton campaign. her tactics are going to cause the majority of independents to not support her. possibly even move to the gop.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):