Before ACORN became a household name, Larry Johnson and Eastan McNeal reported that the Obama campaign has been funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to a shady ACORN shell corporation called Citizens Services, Inc. New information, including the photo above, proves that Obama’s past denials of his relationship with ACORN are not the truth.

According to the Leftist Dissent Magazine, the nebulous term, “community organizing,” has shaped Barack Obama:

Although he didn’t make community organizing a lifetime career—he left Chicago to attend Harvard Law School—Obama often says that his organizing experience has shaped his approach to politics.

~snip~

Since embarking on a political career, Obama hasn’t forgotten the lessons that he learned on the streets of Chicago.

Although Obama claims to never have been associated with ACORN, except when he was retained as their attorney, his community organizing experience is indistinguishable from ACORN’s mission:

In 1985, at age 23, Obama was hired by the Developing Communities Project, a coalition of churches on Chicago’s South Side, to help empower residents to win improved playgrounds, after-school programs, job training, housing, and other concerns affecting a neighborhood hurt by large-scale layoffs from the nearby steel mills and neglect by banks, retail stores, and the local government.

ACORN’s mission is to force governments and businesses, by threat of lawsuits and harassment, to support their agenda of obtaining the maximum services from government, coercing corporations to finance their projects, and forcing banks to approve high-risk loans. Additionally, ACORN works on voter registration issues and is suspected in mass voter fraud. This should be of special concern to the supporters of Hillary Clinton, many of whom witnessed caucus fraud during the primary season.

Stanley Kurtz details that ACORN may be at fault for much of the housing crisis we are now experiencing. Kurtz writes:

While the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act did call on banks to increase lending in poor and minority neighborhoods, its exact requirements were vague, and therefore open to a good deal of regulatory interpretation. Banks merger or expansion plans were rarely held up under CRA until the late 1980s, when ACORN perfected its technique of filing CRA complaints in tandem with the sort of intimidation tactics perfected by that original “community organizer” (and Obama idol), Saul Alinsky.

Kurtz states that Obama, in his position on the board of the Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) — both with domestic terrorist and Obama benefactor Bill Ayers — funneled large sums of money to ACORN:

as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to Acorn, and sending still more money Acorn’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported Acorn. And Acorn, far more than we’ve recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis.

It’s become apparent that ACORN is serving as Obama’s red-shirted shock troops for voter “outreach,” a euphemism for the mass voter registration fraud witnessed up to this point in the election. ACORN will do for voting integrity what they did for mortgage lending.

According to Obama’s “Fight the Smears” Web Site, he was never an organizer for ACORN:

Regardless of what the Web site says, Obama’s ties to ACORN go much further than simply writing the group large checks from CAC in his role as Bill Ayers’ toady. Although “Fight the Smears” says that Obama was not an organizer for ACORN, he was an attorney for an ACORN’s voter registration project.

However, in May of this year, Stanley Kurtz discovered that Obama and ACORN have a much closer connection:

While most press accounts imply that Obama just happened to be at the sort of public-interest law firm that would take Acorn’s “motor voter” case, Foulkes claims that Acorn specifically sought out Obama’s representation in the motor voter case, remembering Obama from the days when he worked with Talbot. And while many reports speak of Obama’s post-law school role organizing “Project VOTE” in 1992, Foulkes makes it clear that this project was undertaken in direct partnership with Acorn. Foulkes then stresses Obama’s yearly service as a key figure in Acorn’s leadership-training seminars.

Further, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, elaborates that Obama was an attorney for ACORN, trained ACORN activists, and dispensed funds to ACORN:

In 1995, then GOP Gov. Jim Edgar refused to implement the federal “Motor Voter” law. Allowing voters to register using only a postcard and blocking the state from culling voter rolls, he argued, could invite fraud. Mr. Obama sued on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and won. Acorn later invited Mr. Obama to help train its staff; Mr. Obama would also sit on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago, which frequently gave this group grants.

Kurtz lays the collapse of the mortgage giants squarely at the feet of ACORN:

Up to now, conventional wisdom on the financial meltdown has relegated ACORN and the CRA to bit parts. The real problem, we’ve been told, lay with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, however, ACORN is at the base of the whole mess. ACORN used CRA and Democratic sympathizers to entangle Fannie and Freddie and the entire financial system in a disastrous disregard of the most basic financial standards. And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way.

In a prescient article from 1998, entitled Capitalist Wealth Underwrites Assaults on Middle America’s Values, Robert Holland reports that ACORN received funding from Fannie Mae and other banks and that ACORN then pressured the federal government to force banks to make high-risk loans:

Corporate leaders may be dispensing this aid in the belief it will curry favor with radical groups, or they may calculate that regulation will favor their business’ interests over competitors. Some of the giving, however, just seems spectacularly misguided: For example, Bank America, Chase Manhattan, and Fannie Mae contributed $315,000 to ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), an outfit that threatens financial institutions with federal sanctions if they fail to issue high-risk loans at bargain rates to borrowers of ACORN’s choosing.

Matthew Weaver originally uncovered this photograph of Obama and The Rev. Michael L. Pfleger protesting payday loans in January 2000.

The caption from NBC 5 photograph does not detail who sponsored the protest. It’s striking, however, that one of ACORN’s primary missions is protesting payday loans. And the yellow signs are ubiquitous in nearly all photographs of ACORN from this period:

The caption reads: “ACORN members demand fair lending, not predatory lending! This march was part of ACORN’s National Convention in Philadelphia, Summer 2000.”

The protest in Chicago attended by Obama and The Rev. Pfleger was likely an ACORN-related event, and significant enough for Pfleger to list the protest on his Curriculum Vitae:

What’s interesting about Pfleger’s CV, in addition to the prominence placed on the lending protest, are the other two actions. In a period of one month, Pfleger was actively attempting to ban Indian bidis cigarettes (with Obama) and coordinating efforts with Rev. Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam.

But Obama’s ties with Pfleger did not end with fighting payday loans and exotic cigarettes, Pfleger is close to Farrakhan and Obama attended Farrakhan’s Million Man March:

Obama was apparently at Farrakhan’s Million Man March, although his precise attitude toward the march is in dispute

Regardless of Obama’s proximity to Farrakhan, he continues to embrace the resurgent far-Left.

Dissent reports that Obama employs Marshall Ganz of Harvard to lead “Camp Obama,” a Saul Alinsky-inspired, ACORN-like retreat for the training of Obama organizers:

Obama enlisted Marshall Ganz, a Harvard professor who is one of the country’s leading organizing theorists and practitioners, to help train organizers and volunteers as a key component of his presidential campaign. Ganz was instrumental in shaping the volunteer training experience.

Many Obama campaign volunteers went through several days of intense training sessions called “Camp Obama.” The sessions were led by Ganz and other experienced organizers

Ganz is a respected organizer and academic with long-term associations with ACORN. He was also a member of the Howard Dean campaign.

In an article last year on Talking Points Memo, Ganz notes that recent elections have been remarkably close and that organizing will decide this year’s election. Using Alinsky as his model, he proposes a grass-roots campaign to win in 2008.

Barack Obama, a man we know little truth about, was forced onto the Democratic Party by far-Left activists and obsequious Party elders. ACORN is engaged in fraudulent voter registration on behalf of Obama, and the leader of “Camp Obama” tells us clearly that this election will be about organizing. Obama’s close relationship with ACORN, as documented by Kurtz,

a bit of digging into Obama’s years in the Illinois State Senate indicates strong concern with Acorn’s signature issues, as well as meetings with Acorn and the introduction by Obama of Acorn-friendly legislation on the living wage and banking practices. You begin to wonder whether, in his Springfield days, Obama might have best been characterized as “the Senator from Acorn.”

This is a frightening thought when you consider that ACORN is much to blame for the housing crisis we’re now experiencing. And it’s not surprising that the Obama campaign’s strong-arm tactics, inspired by Alinsky and perfected by ACORN, have made the Democratic Party foreign to so many of its loyal base.

I REALLY wanted to vote for the Democratic platform. Or at least the one that Hillary presented. (Susan UnPC wrote about the DNC platform in August). Hillary’s platform protects our country, provides healthcare, protects our natural resources, pays everyone a living wage, grants respect and civil rights to everyone, respects and supports the blue collar working Americans, takes care of the members and families of those serving in the armed forces and the vets who have served; those are my values.

As I consider this, I realize that the platform is only a secondary part of my vote. In order to vote for the platform, I must believe two things: first and foremost, that our national security will strengthen and our country will remain safe and protected; and secondly, that the people presenting the platform can and will deliver.

In both these areas, I have no faith in Barack Obama or the party that manufactured him. Zilch. Nada. Nil. Everything I’ve learned about him over the past year, and continue to learn through his words and actions, makes it clear that he can never meet my two requirements. He has no foreign policy experience, and do you recall his response to the Georgian crisis? From the August 13th Washington Post:

“Russian peacekeeping troops should be replaced by a genuine international peacekeeping force, Georgia should refrain from using force in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and a political settlement must be reached that addresses the status of these disputed regions,” Obama said during a break from his vacation in Hawaii on Monday.

(This is very important people, very telling. Obama is waaayyy out of his depth. Larry wrote about Obama’s Impending Pearl Harbor)

Soldier4Hill makes it abundantly clear why she won’t be voting for Obama. Watch her again:

As Patsy says in her video statement, Obama is a creation, albeit a very flawed one, of the so-called Democratic Party. And that’s the rub: the Democratic Party showed signs of a terminal illness throughout the primaries, and it died the day of the Rules and By-laws Committee decision to give Hillary’s votes to their selected candidate. One of my favorite bloggers, garychapelhill, attended the meeting and writes this (read his entire post):

On May 31, 2008, I witnessed what could turn out to be the beginning of the end of democracy in our country. Obama’s henchmen on the Rules and By-Laws Committee of the DNC stole votes and delegates that had been awarded to Clinton by the voters of Michigan and gave them to Barack Obama. Of course, there’s hardly a footnote of this from any of the MSM coverage of that event. But I saw it firsthand, and it is the main reason that I will never support Barack Obama, and why his cronies like Brazile, Wexler, Dean, Germond, Fowler, et al. need to be run out of our party for high crimes against democracy itself.

All of their accusations of racism, their blatant sexism and misogyny, the discrimination against the working class, the flip flopping (many posts document Obama’s two-faced backtracking flip flops and Susan posted an excellent video piece), makes it painfully obvious that there is no real platform. As Michael Gerson writes in the September 17 edition of the WaPo:

Even worse for Obama, all these shifts to catch the prevailing winds confirm the most serious concerns about his political character. As a senator, he has almost never opposed the ideological consensus of his party. (The ethics reform he often cites as his profile in courage eventually passed the Senate 96 to 2.) And now as a presidential candidate, Obama has run his campaign with all the constancy of a skittish sailboat on an erratic ocean.

What do the Democrats have? As of now they have racked up a list of unforgivable offenses. The so-called roll call on the convention floor (yeah, we’re that stupid); the aiding-and-abetting of the virtual gang rape of Ferarro, Hillary, Palin and the rest of us; the frigging celebrity money-pump into Obama’s campaign when the economy is collapsing and many of us can barely afford gas to get to work. Now Charlie Rangle has called Palin “disabled.” And it goes on and on and on.

The LATimes’ Doyle McManus makes an interesting observation about the distinctions between McCain and Whosit:

McCain… has frequently rebelled against established orthodoxy, especially in his own party. Obama…is more cautious — and more likely to stick with his party’s usual position.

And now that I’m clear on what Obama’s party’s “usual” positions are, I won’t be voting for it. And that party’s hope and change creation has been exposed as his manufacturers’ defective creation. Gerson concludes by pointing out that there is no there there:

Obama could attempt to “beat back the politics of fear, and doubt, and cynicism.” He could try to build a coalition that “stretches through red states and blue states.” He could reject “the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up.”

The candidate who said those words the night he won the Iowa caucuses did pretty well. But whatever the outcome of this presidential election, that candidate is no longer in the race.

WATCH FOR THIS, I am told: Howard Dean apparently wants this to be a mere “show,” but we want to make sure that every amendment gets its opportunity. (This is no longer a worry, I am further told.)

UPDATES: Proud Military Mom tells me that when Howard Dean spoke, he received no applause EXCEPT when he mentioned 1) women’s rights and fairness, and 2) Hillary Clinton.

Proud Military Mom (hereafter PMM) just called me. She reports that the appause seems overwhelmingly pro-Hillary, even among the members of the Platform Committee. She is with a great contingent, and another Hillary group held a rally outside and is sending me photos ASAP. STAY TUNED for more reports.

PMM also told me that OUR amendments will get a fair hearing. That was made clear at the top of the meeting, which is ongoing live on C-Span1. One more story I’ll add in a minute from PMM …

PMM also told me that when New Mexico attorney general Patricia Madrid mentioned that in New Mexico, most residents are able to speak TWO languages, the entire place erupted in laughter and applause. PMM interpreted it as a slight dig at Obama’s remarks recently about Americans not being to speak other languages.

With thanks to all who participated, we are posting the results of those who voted in this I Own My Vote survey.

I Own My Vote created a unique virtual platform meeting. I Own My Vote’s original goal was that over 1,000 people would participate in order to demonstrate a real commitment to the positions we articulate.

To the organizers’ delight, the total number of responses was 2,938.

Tomorrow, approximately 180 members of the national Platform committee will meet in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (If you’d like to join tomorrow’s events, click on this link for directions and e-mail luswife@yahoo . com (Proud Military Mom’s e-mail address). We will receive first-person reports during the day from Proud Military Mom and others on site.

All but three platform issues were agreed on by about 95% or better of those voting. The notable exception, predictably, was the major split was regarding the platform ‘Unjust and Foolish Wars,’ which also posited reinstatement of the draft (as proposed by New York Rep. Charlie Rangel) where there was a 60% agree - 40% disagree split. LGBT issues resulted in a 90%-10% split. The Defense of Labor issue resulted in a 93.5%-6.4% split.

The full text of each platform issue and exact voting results/percentages are listed below:

1. Equal Rights Amendment
The Democratic Party apologizes to all women for removing the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment from John Kerry’s 2004 Democratic National Convention Platform. The Equal Rights Amendment must be passed during the next congressional session.

AGREE 2837; 96.5% / DISAGREE 101; 3.4%

2. Universal Healthcare
The Democratic Party will use all available means to create a system of universal healthcare under which 100% of the population will be covered by comprehensive health insurance. The Democratic Party and its leaders will oppose any efforts to redefine the term “universal healthcare” to mean any policy that insures less than 100% of the population. We believe that Senator Hillary Clinton’s health care plan is the most effective way to create a system of universal healthcare for all Americans. The United States must mandate that all citizens have health insurance.

AGREE 2831; 96.3% / DISAGREE 107; 3.6%

3. One Person One Vote
In our democratic system, every adult person is entitled to one vote. The 2008 primaries illustrated that a caucus vote is worth more than a primary vote because each delegate elected by caucus represents less voters than each delegate elected by primary. Caucuses allow party officials to exert undue influence and coercion over voters. Caucuses are immune from federal oversight, while primaries are subject to federal election law. Therefore, the Democratic Party will forbid caucuses in all future nominating processes and will require all states to conduct primaries to select their delegates to future national conventions.

AGREE 2882; 98.0% / DISAGREE 56; 1.9%

4. Fair Reflection
The Democratic Party and Senator Obama apologize to the voters of Michigan for supporting a delegate selection plan that allotted pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention through a method that substituted the judgment of members of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee for the judgment of Michigan’s voters.

AGREE 2806; 95.5% / DISAGREE 132; 4.4%

5. No Geographic Preference
No state is more important than any other state. No voter is more important than any other voter. The Democratic Party has engaged in a practice that has given preference to some states over others. In the future the Democratic National Committee will not give preference to any state in scheduling the primary elections. So long as all states hold their primaries within a prescribed window of time, the Democratic Party will not penalize any state for scheduling its primary before or after any other, even if as a result all states schedule their primaries for the same day.

AGREE 2850; 97.0% / DISAGREE 88; 2.9%

6. Discrimination
The Democratic Party will not tolerate discrimination based on race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or nation of origin. The Democratic Party leadership, including the DNC executive committee, presidential and vice-presidential nominees, House and Senate leadership, and members of all committees within the Democratic National Committee, will from this point forward publicly defend candidates and officeholders who are attacked on any of these bases in the media.

AGREE 2876; 97.8% / DISAGREE 62; 2.1%

7. Prevention of Unjust and Foolish Wars
The Democratic Party opposes all unjust and foolish wars. The key to preventing unjust and foolish wars is an informed electorate with a vested interest in the nation’s military policies who will hold Congress accountable. Relying on a volunteer military constituted of paid soldiers and contractors insulates the vast majority of Americans from the dangers and consequences of our nation’s military actions. The Democratic Party opposes any disproportionate impact such military composition has on individuals, families, and communities based on race, economic status, economic opportunity, or educational level.

Barack Obama has inspired young people everywhere to support him. The Democratic Party believes that these young people are the key to stopping unjust and foolish wars. Therefore, the Democratic Party supports the reinstatement of the draft as proposed by Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York.

AGREE 1776; 60.4% / DISAGREE 1162; 39.5%

8. A Fair, Open, and Legitimate Convention
It is in the best interests of Party unity that there be no question about the legitimacy of the electoral process. The election of the Democratic nominees for the offices of president and vice president shall take place at the Democratic National Convention. Party leaders shall not do anything to discourage or suppress the delegate vote at the Democratic National Convention. In the event that any candidate receives more than 25% of the popular vote for president, his or her name shall be automatically entered into nomination for the office of president of the united states and the secretary of the convention shall take a roll call vote of all the delegates. In this eventuality, the party shall not nominate any candidate for president by acclimation.

AGREE 2885; 98.1% / DISAGREE 53; 1.8%

9. LGBT Rights
All members of the Democratic Party, led by the nominee for President, will work together to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and to provide equal federal benefits to all married couples, with marriage defined by the state or country where the marriage was solemnized. The Democratic Party will also use all means to ensure that the same benefits that exist for married couples exist for all civil unions. Further, the Democratic Party and its elected officials will not fund or promote any educational material or organization that spreads a message of hate or discrimination against LGBT people.

AGREE 2657; 90.4% / DISAGREE 281; 9.5%

10. Defense of Labor
The Justice Department has oversight of some labor unions such as the Teamsters because of a history of union leadership misusing union dues and pension funds. The Democratic Party supports the working class and unionized labor. Therefore, the Democratic Party supports continued Justice Department oversight of those labor unions to which such oversight currently applies.

AGREE 2748; 93.5% / DISAGREE 190; 6.4%

Many thanks again for adding your voice to this important survey.

. . .an increasingly nasty lawsuit against the DNC, brought by Donald Hitchcock after he was fired as the party’s gay and lesbian outreach director, has exposed the rift between gays and one of the party’s most important constituencies, African Americans.

As an outsider to both groups, it seemed to me that the LGBT groups were looking for recognition, participation and a guaranteed voice in DNC matters. Many consider this a civil rights issue. While the use of the term “civil rights” seems to offend some AA groups, it does not necessarily look as if “civil rights” is the driving factor in what follows.

In my read of the available materials, the issue is power. Powerful AAs in the Democratic party want to keep that power in AA hands. An example of this was the recent election in Alabama of Patricia Todd, the first openly gay state legislator. In a race for the seat of a retiring AA legislator, with no Republican opponent, the Democratic primary would decide who held the seat.

Five people ran and the vote was close enough to force a run-off between the top two vote-getters - Todd, a white gay woman, and Gaynell Hendricks, an AA woman. The run-off was decided in favor of Todd by 59 votes out of 2287.

From Wikipedia:

[Todd's] run-off victory was challenged by her opponent’s mother-in-law, who claimed that Todd had received “illegal votes” and had filed a campaign finance report late.[4] That report contained information – a $25,000 contribution from the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and payments to two of her primary opponents – that opponents charged could have affected the outcome.

It was widely reported[5] that the contest centered around the question of race. Todd is white, and the outgoing legislator, like the majority of the district, is black. Many of the state’s African-American political leaders were apparently eager to keep the seat in black hands.[6]

A sub-committee of the Alabama Democratic Party (ADP) met to decide the contest and voted 5–0 to disqualify both Todd and her opponent, on the basis of what the ADP Chairman Joe Turnham called an “archaic party by-law”.[7] The by-law had not only been superseded by the 1988 Fair Campaign Practices Act but had not been followed by any candidate running for any office since 1988, including candidates for governor. It also emerged that the by-law was in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act and may well actually have been repealed.[8]

Following sustained pressure and newspaper editorials criticising the judgement,[9], the State Democratic Executive Committee voted on 26 August to overturn the sub-committee’s ruling by a vote of 95–87. According to press reports, the voting was “mostly along racial lines”.[5]

Footnotes at Wikipedia will take you to original articles, some of which are no longer available.

The NYT had this to say at the time:

The challenge was brought by Ms. Hendricks’s mother-in-law. But it was tacitly supported by Joe L. Reed, a longtime Democratic kingmaker and the party’s vice chairman of minority affairs. Mr. Reed had urged voters to support Ms. Hendricks, and at one point the Alabama Democratic Conference, a black political organization that he is chairman of, gave a check to cover the $3,000 fee needed to bring the challenge in case Ms. Hendricks missed the deadline. He also controlled the subcommittee; three of the five members were drawn from a pool of Mr. Reed’s appointees.

“This is really not about race,” Ms. Todd said in a telephone interview as she traveled to Montgomery for the hearing. “This is about Joe Reed controlling the party and trying to get his way, and he’s just a bully.”

Mr. Reed disagreed. “She doesn’t even know me,’’ he said, “so she wouldn’t be in any position to know. This is not about lifestyles; this is not about race. This is about whether she complied with the party rules.”

The Times seems to suggest the issue may have been race, but LGTB groups saw sexual orientation as the issue.

The WaPo reported the eventual outcome this way:

The Alabama Democratic Party Executive Committee voted 95-87 on Saturday to reject that decision. Party chairman Joe Turnham said no candidate has filed a disclosure report with the party since 1988.

The vote, which pitted vice chairman Joe Reed, a powerful black political leader, against other party officials, fell mostly along racial lines.

Prior to the Todd election, the DNC’s director of outreach to the gay community, Donald Hitchcock, was fired after his domestic partner, Paul Yandura, wrote a letter criticizing DNC chair Howard Dean to gay Democrats.

Hitchcock sued the DNC alleging discrimination. During the course of the lawsuit, the Todd election and other issues between the LGBT community and the AA community surfaced.

According to the Washington Blade:

Yandura’s open letter to gay Democrats in 2006 came shortly after reports surfaced that some members of the DNC Black Caucus opposed a proposal by gay DNC member Garry Shay of California to add gays to the party’s affirmative action guidelines for selecting delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

According to documents obtained by the Blade, Daughtry allegedly led a vigorous effort to thwart the plan.

Leah Daughtry, Dean’s chief of staff and long time party operative, is an AA woman who is also a pentecostal minister.

Shay’s proposal called for a DNC rule change that would require all state parties to set goals for selecting a minimum number of gay delegates, much in the same way that delegate quotas exist for African Americans, Latinos, Asian-Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and women.

Here’s where Donna Brazile comes in. Apparently she supported the change as long as it was voluntary, not required. Why might she do this?

The New York Daily News reported that Brazile, a member of the DNC Black Caucus, was among the Democrats who were concerned that Shay’s proposal could result in fewer black delegates attending the convention.

Not surprisingly, some information has come forth - from YouTube. The first clip is from the beginning of the Dean deposition. The second concerns the Shay proposal.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LprQ-LOkucE[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD0ANgN36z8&amp[/youtube]

So, while this may or may not directly impact every NQ reader, it is instructive. Any group with power and a guaranteed voice is not likely to share that without a fight. In this case, it appears the main objection to full inclusion of the LGBT community in the Democratic party relates more to a potential loss of power than even race or sexual orientation, although those go hand-in-hand when people are grouped this way. But ultimately, it’s about power - and keeping it. Naturally, to the LGBT community, it is a denial of their rights.

Ironic from a civil rights standpoint, but predictable from a human one, and the Democratic Party is showing the strain. However, I’ll just bet the calculation within the upper echelons is that the LGBT community will just have to hold on. Where else can they go, right?? Well, maybe the Log Cabin Republicans, in a pinch?

If you are a student of irony, this is good. The Todd election was initially reversed based on a rule not enforced for nearly 20 years because it was superseded by the 1988 Fair Campaign Practices Act. The rule was also in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act and may have been repealed to boot. The panel that ruled the Todd election void based on this discriminatory rule was majority AA and appointed by Joe Reed, the vice chairman of minority affairs for the Democratic party in Alabama.

In the end, is this a racial issue, a gay / straight issue or simply about power? Yes, to varying degrees and individuals, it is about all of the above. However, it is clearly about keeping power in the hands of established Democratic operatives. In this case, those operatives are AA. Would the outcome be the same if the gay participants were also AA? Hard to say - in that case, other issues, like gay / straight tensions or religious ones, might have more influence. Would a gay AA win over a straight white person in a traditionally AA district? I have no idea.

In today’s political climate, with AA presidential candidate BO promising a “post-racial” inclusive administration, this issue is particularly poignant. How the Democratic Party handles this and how the AA community responds to the challenge of the LGBT community will be interesting, to say the least.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

Now you must wade through these documents, prepared entirely by Obama staff, and respond by 1) contacting your representatives at the platform committee meeting, 2) contacting your superdelegates, and 3) getting to Pittsburgh to help us fight for our AMENDMENTS to this platform.

The documents:
* draft-2008-democratic-national-platform.pdf

– You will note that the word “caucus” does not appear anywhere in this draft. The long section on health care begins at the bottom of page 10. Please review it carefully, and share your findings below.

* platform-committee-pre-meeting-materials-update.pdf

AGAIN:

You, and 3,000 good Democrats, have all filled out the IOwnMyVote platform survey — and if you haven’t, please do it now.

You have also received all of the details on the Platform meeting and the Howard Dean rally in Pittsburgh this Friday and Saturday.

LET YOUR VOICES BE HEARD!

(If you want to go to Pittsburgh, e-mail Proud Military Mom at luswife@yahoo.com.)

It is critically important that you, as a signatory to the I Own My Vote Pledge and a concerned Hillary supporter, participate in our Virtual Platform Committee Meeting. It will take less than five minutes of your time and could have real impact on the Party for the next four years.

The platform planks you approve will be presented to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Howard Dean, other key officials, and the members of the Platform Committee when they meet in Pittsburgh this coming weekend to vote on the platform.

The platform is more than an aspirational document of party’s values. It is binding on the DNC and the next party chair for four years. This means that if the Convention adopts a platform that modifies the rules for how the Party conducts presidential primaries, those rules will have force in the 2012 primary. So add your voice now by clicking here.

Even if we don’t agree 100% on every platform plank, it’s important that we come together to show that we are organized. Any platform plank that does not receive a majority of the votes will not be presented.

::::::::::

Get “I Own My Vote” Banners

Refer visitors from your blog, website, or MySpace page to IOwnMyVote.com by placing one of our banners on your site and hyperlinking it to the Pledge at IOwnMyVote.com. Send an e-mail to info@iownmyvote.com with the word “BANNERS” in the subject and we will send you our animated GIFs in all standard sizes.