All I can say is: wow. There’s just nothing like hearing Barack Obama speak in person. Combine that with one of my other favorites, Bill Richardson, and you have an outstanding rally.

The two hour wait in the cold, and then another two hours of waiting in uncomfortable seats, was definitely worth it. It was even worth braving the packed crowds (I’m quite claustrophobia and have stopped attending some events because of it).

I’m going to save much of what I have to say about his speech for use in my item on why I’m supporting Obama to be our next president. But some of my favorite parts included him talking about how he’d taught the Constitution, know what it stands for, and will make sure this country once again follows what it stands for; about making our country a leader in civil rights, equal rights, and the return of habeas corpus; and about investing in this country – from high speed internet to education to alternative energy. How upping car mile per gallon standards to 40 mpg would cut our use of oil enough to completely cut our need for oil from the Persian Gulf. How many in this country are wondering who Congress is more interested in protecting – home buyers or banks. And how making changes to improve our environment, improve our infrastructure, etc. will mean more jobs for Americans.

At times during the rally, people were so focused on what he was saying, you could have heard a pin drop. Other times, the cheering and clapping was so loud you wanted to cover your ears.

It was especially great that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson not only endorsed Obama today, but traveled to Oregon to express in person why Obama should be our next president.

I highly encourage everyone to listen to his speech from today. I’d imagine that the news stations will have it online soon. Plus it’ll probably end up on YouTube. But I also highly encourage people take any chance they have to hear him speak live. We’re at a turning point in this country, and we need a president like Obama to bring in the hope and change needed to get the job done.

Video from today’s rally:

SALEM, Ore. — This month, as controversies emerged in other parts of the country over polling place problems and malfunctioning touch-screen machines, we here in Oregon prepared to swear in a new crop of elected officials with nary a question about the legitimacy of the count or the functioning of our electoral process. We accomplished this with a turnout on Nov. 7 that was, once again, among the highest in the nation. How? With Vote by Mail.

One episode that highlights its success occurred in Tillamook County, where 13 inches of rain on Election Day sent many citizens scrambling to the safety of shelters under a declared state of emergency. Despite the fact that many roads were impassable and parts of the county were inaccessible — conditions that would have crippled turnout in a state that relied on conventional polling places — 70 percent of the voters cast ballots. Only voting by mail could have led to this outcome.

Voting by mail was launched statewide through a people’s initiative in 1998, which passed by a 70 to 30 percent margin. Every registered voter receives a paper ballot in the weeks before Election Day. The ballot can be either mailed back or dropped off at one of a number of secure sites statewide.

The system has proven to be fraud-free. Oregon is one of only two states in the nation to verify every single voter signature against the signature on that voter’s registration card. Our process is transparent and open to observation. Finally, the returned paper ballots, which are the official record of the election, can be recounted by hand.

With voting by mail, Oregon’s turnout is consistently among the highest of any state without same-day voter registration. We don’t suffer with long lines at polling places, with voter harassment or intimidation, with fears about malfunctioning or easily hacked voting machines, or from lack of a paper trail. Even floodwaters don’t keep voters from participating. Under Oregon law, mailed ballots are not forwarded if a voter has moved, and those returned ballots have allowed us to maintain one of the cleanest and most up-to-date registration lists in the country.

Voting by mail is also a cost-effective way to run elections, costing taxpayers about 30 percent less than polling-place elections.

A University of Oregon study conducted five years after the adoption of voting by mail statewide showed that 80 percent of voters across the political spectrum prefer it to voting at polling places. It’s a system that answers the needs of Americans who lead increasingly busy, complex lives, balancing many work and family responsibilities.

Election days were originally scheduled on Tuesdays because that was when farmers brought their crops into town to sell. Today on an average Tuesday people balance multiple jobs, soccer practice and child care. Voting by mail gives them ample opportunity to stay engaged in our most crucial democratic process.

The foundation of our democracy rests upon the administration of free, fair and highly participatory elections. It’s critical that Americans have faith in the security of their vote. Here in Oregon, with voting by mail, we have achieved those things and been able to assure voters that their votes count.

And if our elections aren’t quite as exciting, or if the results aren’t as likely to be disputed as some others around the country, well, we’ll just have to live with that.

The writer is Oregon’s secretary of state.

I have to ask, what’s your beef with Howard Dean? Let me tell you this. You are hurting all Democrats with your recent comments. There is enough to focus on the corrupt Republican Party without you cannibalizing a man who is seen by millions of Americans as a true inspiration! When you suggest that he hasn’t done anything to help the Democratic Party you not only insult him, you insult me – who worked tirelessly, often sacrificing my family’s needs while serving as State Director for him in Virginia. You also insult all of the other people whom he inspired across this great country. Thousands of people who have become active on the grassroots level have been working to turn around the direction of this country. I can give you hundreds of names of people I’ve personally met over the past 3 1/2 years who are very active in politics now, working to bring change, solely because of his influence. So when you say that he’s done no good, I have to disagree with you.

You don’t like Howard Dean? Fine. So Be It. We are a big enough party for the two of you.

Remember what you must have been told as a child. Please keep your thoughts to yourself. Show us all some respect have a little bit of humility. Perhaps you don’t know everything. His 50 state strategy is working and is changing politics in America. He’s empowering folks like me and inspiring them to give of themselves to better this country.

Thank you. Have a nice day.
Respectfully,

Jennifer Boysko
Herndon, VA

EDA Press Release / Nov. 17, 2006
Landslide Denied!
Major Miscount in 2006 Election:
Were 4% of Votes “Misplaced”?
Read the Report

Election Defense Alliance, a national election integrity organization, issued an urgent call today for an investigation into the 2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic voting equipment after analysis of national exit polling data indicated a major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in congressional races across the country. These findings are an alarming indictment of the American election system in which 80% of voters used electronic voting equipment.

As in 2004, the Exit Poll and the reported election results do not add up. But this time there is an objective yardstick in the methodology that establishes the validity of the Exit Poll and exposes the inaccuracy of the election returns. These findings are detailed in a paper published today on the EDA website.

The Edison-Mitofsky media Exit Poll, posted Election Night on CNN.com, had a sample base of more than 10,000 voters, and showed Democratic House candidates winning over Republicans by an 11.5 percent margin.

The reported vote count showed Democrats winning by a 7.6 margin, 3.9 percent less than the Exit Poll and far outside the poll’s +/-1-percent margin of error. This discrepancy entailed at least 3,000,000 votes.

The Exit Poll was then adjusted, by a process known as “forcing,” to match reported election vote totals. The final result, posted at 1:00 p.m. November 8, showed Democrats winning by a 7.6 percent margin, exactly mirroring the reported vote totals.

The objective yardstick was the proportion of respondents who indicated they had voted for Bush or Kerry in 2004. The sample in the already weighted Election Night Exit Poll had 47 percent Bush voters and 45 percent Kerry voters, a valid sample given the very conservative assumption that Republicans and Democrats turned out with equal enthusiasm in 2006. However, after the forcing process, the sample contained 49 percent Bush voters and only 43 percent Kerry supporters. This 6 percent gap is more than twice the size of the 2004 Bush win of 2.8 percent. It indicates a significant over-sampling of Republican voters in the adjusted 2006 Exit Poll.

Such a gross oversample of Republicans was necessary to match the actual vote counts, which therefore could not have been an accurate count of the actual electorate. Had the intended votes been accurately tallied, this election would have produced a Democratic landslide of epic proportions.

Dean fires back at critics in his party
BY MATT GOURAS
Associated Press

TETON VILLAGE, Wyo. – Democratic chairman Howard Dean on Friday took a swipe at Washington critics who questioned his strategy of spending money in all 50 states, dismissing them as the “old Democratic Party.”

Basking in the afterglow of last week’s election victories, Dean told the state party chairmen who were among the biggest beneficiaries of his strategy that it was an approach marked by Democratic wins at all levels of government.

”It was a great win for what I call the new Democratic Party,” Dean said in a speech to the Association of State Democratic Chairs. “This is the new Democratic Party. The old Democratic Party is back there in Washington, sometimes they still complain a little bit.”

In recent days, political strategist James Carville, best known for his work on Bill Clinton’s campaign in 1992, has assailed Dean, saying he left too much money in the bank that could have been used to seize an even larger Democratic majority in Congress.

In one interview, Carville called Dean’s errors ”Rumsfeldian,” a reference to the secretary of defense. In the past, Rumsfeld has railed about ”Old Europe” and its reticence in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

”The people who complain always get the headlines,” Dean said, adding there are other high-profile Democrats who support his initiative. “But the fact is that this strategy not only works, it works in states Democrats have given up on for 30 years.

“We cannot give up on anybody.”

The Association of State Democratic Chairs, gathering at this ski resort getaway, adopted a resolution voicing strong support for Dean, who turned 58 on Friday.