Army of Dog

Michelle Malkin has a story about a new campaign designed to make young men believe that if they vote for Republicans, the supply of bitter, partisan skanks with little or no self respect will suddenly dry up like a water hole in the Serengeti. Yeah, I’m thinking not. My guess is that horny people will continue to drink themselves into a stupor and bump uglies with strangers regardless of political affiliation. I’m not knocking it, mind you.

Here’s their retarded edgy and hip video designed to go viral and rally the always reliable “youth vote.”

So Senator Lord & Savior is now the Democratic Party nominee.  In other news, he’s still a fucking disaster as well.  Despite an entire political career of sympathy for Palestinian terrorists, he felt the need to go before AIPAC and tell them how committed he is to making sure that Iran doesn’t nuke 6 million Jews … sort of.

Calling for “aggressive, principled diplomacy” to tackle the problem of the Islamic regime in Tehran, he also warned he would never take the military option off the table in guaranteeing US and Israeli security.

“As president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing — if, and only if — it can advance the interests of the United States.”

“Never take the military option off the table?”  How much of a leftist douchebag do you have to be before the idea of taking the military option “off the table” even occurs to you?  Under what set of circumstances do you promise your enemy that you will absolutely not take military action?  Here’s a hard and fast international diplomacy rule: other hostile countries are more likely to do what we want when they think there’s at least a possibility that we might shove a few hundred JDAMs up their collective ass. 

The second sentence in that quote sums up everything you need to know about the man.  Even with all of the shortcomings of the current President, would you really need him to assure you of his commitment to advancing “the interests of the United States?”  Of course not, because you can comfortably assume that whatever he does, he believes that to be the best course of action for the country.  Obama?  Not so much.

Reading through the Letters section of the local paper, I came across this letter decrying the tarring of the Obamessiah with the sins of his associates (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, et al.). 

Of guilt by association

Rod Dreher’s piece on Barack Obama is another attempt at the guilt-by-association tack many conservatives have taken. Lacking any other means of painting Mr. Obama as unworthy of our highest office, they stoop to this.

I have come in contact with many unsavory, radical or just plain wacky characters in my life. Am I defined by them? No. I’m still a family man with a career and life of my own. I make my own decisions and take responsibility for them.

What Mr. Dreher and those like him fail to realize is that those of us of Mr. Obama’s generation are intelligent enough to listen to the previous generation and take their cries for justice and equality, strip them of their anger and pain and transform them into something all our own. The idealism of the ’60s isn’t lost on us, just the radicalism.

Charles Mikkelsen, Dallas

Mr. Mikkelsen makes the standard Obamapoligist argument that anyone who brings up the fact that his pet candidate is associated with this racist pastor or that former enemy of the state is just attempting “guilt by association.”  Well, yes.  The salient fact in Obama’s case is that these are not simply cases of loose association.  Anyone, including a public figure, has the right not to be tarred with the sins of acquaintances with whom they share nothing more than a coincidental encounter or relationships in common.  However, in Obama’s case we’re not talking about people he ran into once on the street or happened to attend a function with.  We’re talking about people with whom Barack Obama chose to be associated, in Wright’s case at the deepest social and spiritual levels for more than two decades, knowing full well what their views on this country were.  At that point, he is guilty by association.

What we’re being asked to believe is that Obama shares his life with a woman whose view of this country is overwhelmingly negative, that the pastor who mentors him utters some of the most virulent anti-American rhetoric most people have ever heard in a pulpit, and that he served on the board of the Woods Foundation with a man who set bombs trying to kill United States Army officers, but none of the hard-left politics and anti-Americanism that these people espouse rubbed off on him.  A man who asks you to believe that either thinks you’re an idiot, or is one.

The Left seems to have a serious obsession with the idea of “voices that go unheard.”  The basic premise seems to be that certain segments of society are deliberately marginalized and silenced.  Ask them who these segments are and you’re likely to get a laundry list of the hard-left’s pet demographic groups, the poor, minorities, women, the homeless, illegal immigrants, gays, youths, etc.  Central to this notion of forcing silence on groups we can’t seem to get to shut up is the idea that the white male patriarchy secretly controls all of the outlets through which political and social viewpoints are heard.  Which is why men are so often portrayed as competent, intelligent, and accomplished, while women are crass, sub-literate, ne’er-do-wells who are the constant butt of derogatory jokes about their intellect.

All of this inequity will change, of course, when the Obamessiah is allowed to take his rightful place in the Oval Office.  Suddenly, the downtrodden will once-and-for-all have their voices heard.  Hence, this video:

Here’s my problem with this steaming pile of pig excrement.  We never seem to stop hearing from these supposedly silenced vox populi.  They never, ever shut up.  Al Gore has a 24-hour cable channel devoted to nothing but this kind of crap.  Hollywood films that champion the plight of the lesbian, transsexual fighter pilot who struggles to gain acceptance among the hegemonic military patriarchy or some other similar tale find their way to the public in an almost never-ending stream.  For fuck sake, the website that hosts their own damn video (YouTube) is a world-wide cornucopia of narcissistic freak-porn that grows bigger and bigger by the second.

In all seriousness, how many damn outlets do we need for the self-styled social outcasts among us to air their constant barrage of “I don’t need your approval, but please, please watch me” bullshit.  Want to be a real voice for the silenced masses?  Start standing up for the right of ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people in the fucking capital of our fair country to protect themselves from the criminal vermin that prey on them in shocking numbers.  Hopefully the Supreme Court will beat you to it.  Either way, it’s a more productive use of time than giving even more attention to a bunch of gullible nitwits who have been either too bitter or too obsessed with Paris Hilton and her ilk to be politically involved in the past.

Start up the office betting pool now and place bets on how the Huffington Post might answer it’s own question:

Obama In Kentucky And West Virginia: Why Will He Lose?

If you had your money on “because they’re all a bunch of toothless racists,” then congratulations, you’re a winner.

And yet despite his status, Obama is no match for Sen. Clinton in Kentucky and West Virginia. In the few polls that have come out over the past few weeks, Clinton has maintained a huge 30-point margin in both states. Even surveys completed after her disappointing performances in Indiana and North Carolina show an electorate entirely unfazed. And while Clinton has still proven herself popular among a large number of voters, her lead in West Virginia and Kentucky is unlike nearly any previous contest. So why is Barack Obama going to lose?

At least one pollster thinks the issue of race is defining the Kentucky primary:

“I’ll be very blunt,” said pollster Del Ali, president of Research 2000. “Even if there wasn’t a Rev. Wright controversy, I think Obama would have a tough time in Kentucky, for obvious reasons.”

The fact that 56 percent of interviewed voters said Obama’s race was not important could be due to something called the Bradley effect, Ardrey said. In 1982, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who was black, was predicted to win the governor’s race by a comfortable margin but lost.

Now thank me for the easiest fifty bucks you ever made.

As it becomes more and more apparent that John McCain will try to paint himself as the truly “bipartisan” candidate, I begin to ask myself “Is it possible that the Democrats’ attempt to paint McCain as ‘too conservative’ may actually help him?”  I ask that because reading this breathless Huffington Post article about McCain’s tax plan actually made me feel good about his candidacy for the first time since I last muttered the words “First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama” quietly to myself.  Whoever Jared Bernstein is, he’s apparently shitting himself over the prospect of a McCain victory in November, in no small part because of the Republican’s evil secret plan to actually cut back the growth of government.

I hold in my hand one of the most important pieces of paper in America: Table T08-0071, an analysis of candidate John McCain’s tax plan.

OK, it’s not really in my hand because I’m typing, but I’m looking at it carefully, and you should too. It is a table constructed by the Tax Policy Center’s steely-eyed tax analysts, and it reveals nothing less than McCain’s secret plan to diminish the US government beyond recognition. If he gets his way, conservatives will finally be able to say they’ve achieved the goal set out by Grover Norquist: to get government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

 

Don’t fucking tease me Jared.  So help me, if you’re getting me all excited with Norquist quotes and the threat of unemployed federal bureaucrats just to let me down, I’ll go out and shoot an endangered species, I swear to God.

No wait, it gets better:

Plus, he can’t fill the hole he’s dug with cuts in these programs either, which leads you to the inevitable punch line of all this: his target is the entitlements, Social Security and Medicare. Those programs have always been the big enchiladas for the Norquist shock troops and they’ve never recovered from their Social Security privatization defeat. Well, they’re back, incognito.

Again, I don’t know or care who the fuck Jared Bernstein is, but evidently he failed Political Science 101.  You know, the part about “when your opponent is busy pissing off his base, don’t fucking help him by talking about his plan to carve up government programs they hate.”  But what do you expect from a guy whose biography tells us the he has a PhD in “social welfare.”  No shit, they’re giving out doctoral degrees in social welfare now.

This discussion at Rachel’s site has prompted a rather long, and at many points hostile, comment thread about the choice for conservatives of various stripes come November. This post actually started out as my response to a couple of other comments there, but I soon realized that it was getting way too long, so I’m just dedicating a post to it.

I really want to make this point in a way that will appeal to rationality, but the problem is that this issue seems to get people to the emotional hot-button almost immediately. With that risk in mind, here goes.

The hard reality is that the viable candidate list always comes down to two, Republican and Democrat. Third-party, Perot-style fantasies aside, every President of the United States since Millard Fillmore has come from one of those two parties.

The modern Democratic Party is controlled largely by leftists. The platform of the party is inextricably linked with big-government, socially-left, anti-capitalist policies. There is simply no way that that will be changed in the foreseeable future.

The modern Republican Party is a coalition of fiscal, religious, and foreign-policy conservatives paired with pro-business, pro-capitalist types who like the relatively laissez-faire attitude of the party towards industry and the economy. While there is certainly a bothersome level of political action that runs counter to traditional conservative ideals, the platform of the party itself is still very much in line with what most of us want.

Conservatives, both fiscal and social, must find some platform upon which we build the candidates we want to see in high office. From what I’ve outlined above, I think that the Republican Party is still the clear choice for that foundation. Ideal, or at least more ideal, political candidates must be recruited, elected to lower office, supported by infrastructure, and given publicity in order to become viable. The process takes time, money, and tremendous effort by those dedicated enough to cultivate candidates through the maze of local, state, and federal elections. For those reasons alone, the use of a major party political infrastructure is essential.

Ronald Reagan, the last Presidential candidate most conservatives remember voting for in good conscience, was recruited for office in 1964. He won his first political campaign in 1966, a full 14 years (three and a half Presidential terms) and one failed run in the Republican Primary before his first term as President. He didn’t just appear one day, riding on a white horse, and proclaim his dedication to conservatism. He was recruited, cultivated, and supported for more than a decade and a half before he ever saw the White House.

The lack of acceptable candidates is our fault. Not John McCain’s, not the media’s, and not the Republican establishment’s. You don’t get to have candidates paraded in front of you and judge them acceptable or not from the comfort of your couch like some kind of third-world dictator judging wives for his harem. The amount of whining about the choices in the upcoming election by the very people who are most responsible for the dearth is starting to drive me crazy. If you’re not donating time, money, or effort to candidates you believe in at the state level in the hopes of cultivating a future President, and I’m as guilty as anyone of not, then you are at least partly responsible for the problem you’re complaining about. If you are in the trenches, then the approach you’re taking needs to be reexamined.

Conservatives spend a lot of time, and I believe rightly so, bemoaning the tendency in our culture to claim victim status whenever bad things befall us. The problem is that those same conservatives are doing just that in response to the dearth of acceptable Presidential candidates. It’s time to stop playing victim, stop talking about taking your toys and going home, start taking action, start building better candidates, and start doing the hard work of convincing others of the value of your ideas.

I get it, you’re angry. Welcome to the club, the line forms here. Everyone who loves the idea of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and a strong commitment to core American values (the real ones, not the nonsense Obama keeps talking about) is pissed off about the choices we have. It’s our damn fault. Plain and simple, we didn’t do our job as conservatives. Now we have to pay the piper.

There is a discussion that desperately needs to take place about the best way to move forward, and how we start rebuilding what we have neglected. No matter what the result of that collective discussion is, we have to act in the meantime. We have to make a choice about how we play our collective hand in this election, and probably the next one without a candidate we truly like. It sucks, but that’s life. Like Denis Leary said, “Get a helmet.”

So we are left with a choice, we can vote in a candidate that we don’t like based on a few areas where we share common cause (the war, judicial appointments, etc.) and do our damnedest to keep him on the reservation, or we can throw a fit, stay home, let Obama get elected and make the challenge we face much, much worse. And make absolutely no mistake, it will get much, much worse. McCain at his most liberal could never dream up the massive government power grabs that Obama will not only advocate, but, given a Democratic House and Senate, pass. To say nothing of the effect of four years of an Obama administration on military readiness and strategy.

Conservatives have every right to be frustrated and angry, but we should be willing to put some of the blame for our predicament on our own shoulders. More importantly, we should be willing to put our anger aside and not allow it to create a dangerous myopia in our political strategy. The temptation to throw out shallow phrases like “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” must be resisted because any reasonable analysis of the two candidates belies that statement. McCain is a knee-jerk moderate who is more in love with being “bipartisan” than he is with upholding most conservative principles. Obama is a dyed-in-the-wool leftist with the ability to put a pretty package around some of the most hard-left policy positions of any serious modern Presidential candidate. That’s a substantial difference.

I think much of the “I won’t vote for McCain” phenomenon on the right is rooted in an idea that, in my opinion, is deeply flawed. The logic goes something like “If McCain is too liberal and I still vote for him, then the party will continue to move left and take conservatives for granted, therefore, I will stay home and teach the party that they must uphold conservative principles.” This sounds good, but it is based on the flawed assumption that the primary weapon of conservatives is withholding votes and electing liberals. Pardon me if this seems like a less-than-ideal strategy.

I would contend that the primary weapon that conservatives should wield is the ability to replace elected officials who move too far left with more conservative ones. This strategy has been tried before with little success (Toomey in PA, Laffey in RI), but I believe that, given time and commitment, it can work. To accomplish that, we need for conservatives to build powerful candidates that can loom as an ever-present reminder to incumbents that their reelection is contingent on pleasing their base. All of this requires a tremendous amount of work, obviously, but it’s the only way that I can see to reclaim our party without enduring four years of disastrous, hard-core leftist policy that will take decades to reverse.

The Code Pink gals are still maintaining their ever-weakening siege on the Marine Corps Recruiting Center in Berkeley, and now their going with a Mother’s Day theme-week that ends today.  To bring this wildly successful campaign to a close, they’ve decided to forego costumes and just come to the protest as witches and crones.  They’re claiming to also have “sirens,” but we have photos of these women and they just aren’t going to be able to pull that bullshit off.

Code Pink and their pathetic protest have been boring as hell for months now, but there was one really interesting quote in the article.  The quote comes from Zanne Sam Joi, Code Pink truck driver and certified fucking nutjob.

“Women are coming to cast spells and do rituals and to impart wisdom to figure out how we’re going to end war,” Zanne Sam Joi of Bay Area Code Pink told FOXNews.com.

Click the link, I’m not making that shit up.  Hell, I couldn’t make it up if I wanted to.  Before we examine that inane contribution to the issue of war and peace, let’s get a little background, shall we.  Zanne Joi has her own blog here, where she describes herself thus:

i’m a 57 yr old jewish lesbian anti-racist mother striving radical womonist/feminist; daughter & granddaughter of survivors of the holocaust, mother of a young amazon healer & amazing human being, lover of wimmin & student of consicous living…………even tho i am the one actually driving the truck, i could not even head out from home if it were not for the support of many, many, many wimmin (and several men as well). If you want to help support my trip across the country, spreading codepink, registering voters, working to DEFEAT BUSH, please click the “Make a Donation” link below- it’s secure!

For those of you who only speak Literate, let me translate.  “I hate men, and America, and I’ll use my parents suffering to try to add legitimacy to my batshit political views.  I drive a truck, Bushhitler sucks, now send me money.”

Zanne and her Code Pink friends like to travel around trying to bring “peace” by protesting anything that even looks like it might be able to protect American interests in a time of crisis.  Their success, to be kind, has been limited.  I have a humble suggestion for the crones of Code Pink.  Why don’t you pack up your shit and go cast spells and do rituals to end war in the front yards of the people who actually start this shit?  Seriously, get the kids, tell your life partner to take off a few weeks from work, get in the truck, and head on over to Gaza, Mosul, Tehran, or Beirut and cast spells on the jihadi assholes who are, as we speak, training kids to hate Jews and kill Americans.  Maybe then your dumb, shriveled ass could have some chance of ending the need for the best and brightest of American society to travel over there and get shot at.

I’ll tell you why they don’t do that.  Because standing around a Marine Corps Recruiting Center and doing this crap is easy, and it has the added benefit of not being particularly dangerous.  You see, when a publicity-seeking group of desperate attention-whores needs a way to make spectacles of themselves, not being killed in the process is of paramount concern.  And make no mistake, if they pulled this witchcraft shit in any of the places I just mentioned and confronted the Bronze Age assholes who make all of this war and conflict necessary, even as a joke, they would be kidnapped, tied up in a burqa, and stoned to fucking death.  But it’s the Marines who are the killers, right?

And let me not end this tirade without bringing a little attention to another vapid piece of verbal spittle:

“The grandmothers were here and tried to get recruited,” Joi said. “They tried to have conversations with the Marines, but the Marines were too scared to talk.”

Let’s get one thing fucking straight, you crusty nutjob, if the goddamn Japanese Army couldn’t run the Marines off of Iwo-fucking-Jima, your gang of shriveled shrews not going to run them out of Berkely-goddamn-California.  I can’t speak for the mental state of every Marine in that office obviously, but I will bet every damn dime I have to my name that not one of them is fucking scared of you.

Michelle Malkin posted the transcript of prepared remarks that John McCain delivered at Wake Forest yesterday on the issue of judicial appointments.  She ends her comments on the speech with this question:

Do you trust him? Can you trust him?

This issue has been bandied about by pundits and political junkies on the right since the day it became clear that McCain would be the Republican nominee.  The logic for voting for McCain despite deep ideological disagreement is that the ability of the next President to appoint as many as three justices to the Supreme Court (to say nothing of other federal-level judicial appointments) makes electing a Republican essential.  The common counter to that argument postulates that McCain’s penchant for poking conservatives in the eye makes him unreliable at best and therefore not worthy of support on that basis.

I will state up front that I have an ever-increasing list of issues where Senator McCain and I disagree strongly.  In fact, after a few shining moments where I allowed myself to hope for his conversion on issues like government bailouts of homeowners and commitment to spending reductions, the senior Senator from Arizona seems to be on a barn-busting campaign to alienate me and every other fiscal conservative in the country.  We’re still of one mind on Iraq and a commitment to fighting terrorism, but in every other area, from global warming to gas prices, we don’t see eye to eye.

Having said all that, I’ll still vote for him.  Not only that, I’ll probably do it sober.  The reason I can so comfortably say that I will vote for a man who will no doubt get further away from my political ideal in the coming months is that I play poker.  Certainly not professionally, but I play in a variety of games pretty regularly.  Poker, for those of you who haven’t watched television or been on the internet in this decade, has become so popular that it’s best players are now household names.  It seems that everyone has played Texas Hold’em at least once and the game’s terminology is showing up in the vernacular.

Anyone who wants to play poker at any level other than “sucker” has to understand one fundamental concept of the game, odds.  Calculating odds on the fly is the most basic tool of poker.  The ability to calculate and judge odds at a table is as important to Doyle Brunson as the ability to putt is to Tiger Woods.  You can have all the God-given talent in the world and if you can’t calculate odds, somebody’s going home with your money.

If I were sitting at a poker table deciding whether to call a large bet I would need to know three things to make my decision.  First I need to know what I stand to win.  That’s pretty simple math, I just take what’s in the pot and add the amount of my opponent’s bet.  I also need to know how much I stand to lose.  Also a simple calculation, I stand to lose the amount required to call.  The third thing I need to know is my chances of winning.  This is where the math gets slightly harder.  Without digressing into a dissertation on calculating hand odds, I have to know how many cards are left that will help me versus the total number of cards left in the deck.  That gives me a ratio and the rest of the decision making process is about comparing ratios and making the most profitable choice consistently.

“How in the name of all things holy does this relate to politics and John McCain?” you ask.  Simple, voting for McCain is about odds.  When we decide what to do in the upcoming election we face a similar choice to that of a poker player.  Our hand is not made, we don’t have a known quantity.  What we do have are choices that have different potential consequences.  We can stay home and not vote at all.  The Democrat will be elected and our only real hope is to minimize the damage they can do in four years by using our minority in both houses of Congress.  Given the lack of Republican political power that seems like a very bad option with very long odds to me.  Given what I know about the penchant Republicans have for “getting along,” it looks even worse.  Or we can vote for McCain and hope that his election buys us enough time to develop the next true leader of the conservative movement.  This strategy has the added benefit of creating a crisis within the Democratic Party.  Having a supposed dream slate of candidates and still managing to lose a Presidential election that was all but in the bag would have devastating consequences on the party from the top down.  This is the electoral equivalent of firing back over the top and forcing your opponent to make the hard decision.  You may not have a hand you like, but the other guy has shown weakness and if you win, he will have a very hard time recovering both psychologically and in terms of the game. 

Unlike poker players, however, the one option we don’t have is folding.  At the table, you can simply leave the hand and survive long enough to try again later.  It’s more often than not the best choice in the circumstances I’ve described, but unfortunately electoral politics has no muck.  One of the candidates left in this race will be the next President.  The only play we have left is to back the best odds, and right now John McCain, like it or not, is the best of a bad field.

I’m actually a rather cautious poker player by nature, but I’ve played enough to know that when you’ve run out of other options, aggression is usually the best strategy.  So I say we not only back the man who may betray us at any turn, I say we do it with gusto.  The answer to Michelle’s question is “no.”  I don’t trust him to make good judicial appointments, but I do trust the two he’s running against to make bad ones.

Well, Barack Obama has taken a brief break from stalking me and begging for money to let his wife stalk me and beg for my help in harassing other voters.

Brett –

In every state across the country, there are thousands of qualified voters who are not registered to vote.

Some believe their vote doesn’t matter, some have been actively disenfranchised, and some have been overlooked or excluded by a broken system that has lost touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans.

Barack and I entered this race because we believe there’s a chance to change that.

If I were John McCain or Hillary Clinton, I would get down on my knees and pray to Jesus every night that the Obama campaign continues to remind people that Barack and Michelle are a package deal. That woman is Hillary circa 1992 without the charming sense of humor and easy-going personality.

>From the beginning, our goal has been to reach out to people of all races, ages, and backgrounds and bring them back into the political process. We must use the rare opportunity we have right now to bring people together and make this a better country for all Americans.

Here is the crux of the Michelle Obama talking point. The implication here is that making America “better” is an opportunity that comes around once in a blue moon. And the blue moon in this case is electing a black man.

That’s why I’m excited to announce a 50-state voter registration and mobilization drive we’re calling Vote for Change.

Beginning with a nationwide kick-off on Saturday, May 10th, more than 100 Vote for Change events will take place in every state, organized by our dedicated volunteers who are leading this campaign for change in their own communities.

Sign up to get involved now:

http://my.barackobama.com/voteforchange

“Vote for Change?” What about hope? How can they just ignore the half of Obama supporters who are committed to Hope? Are hopeful people going to be second-class citizens in an Obama administration?

This campaign is about the change in all of us — it’s about demanding that we live in a different world and being ready to fight for the vision that we have for our children.

And that starts with being engaged and engaging others.

If you’re reading this, you’re already somewhat engaged in this campaign. But if your experience is anything like mine, you know at least 20 other people who are not engaged, who are not focused on politics, and who may not vote in November.

If we are going to change this country, the change must come from the bottom up. That means reaching out in your community, in your circle of friends, and even in your family.

You can help get new people involved in the process so together we can finally solve the problems that this country faces.

Join Vote for Change today and start registering and mobilizing voters:

http://my.barackobama.com/voteforchange

Millions of little Obama supporters, drunk on the vapor of their own naivete, harassing their friends, family, and co-workers about their nebulous commitment to “change.” Pass the fucking popcorn.

Throughout this campaign, we’ve seen millions of Americans get involved who have never been interested in politics, never volunteered on a campaign, and many who have never even registered to vote before.

And some of our greatest successes have been recent.

Voter registration drives organized and conducted by supporters like you have registered more than 200,000 new Democrats in Pennsylvania, more than 165,000 new Democrats in North Carolina, and more than 150,000 new Democrats in Indiana.

Those numbers just scratch the surface of what’s possible.

And that’s why Barack needs you. He needs regular folks, engaged not just with their dollars, but also with their energy.

If you get involved with Vote for Change now, you can help equip enough people in this country with the tools necessary to bring about the kind of change we so desperately need.

I like to imagine that even Obama wakes up some mornings, looks at himself in the mirror, and says “Wait, what the fuck do I mean by ‘change?’”

Politics in this country can no longer be the way it’s been: divided, isolated and cynical. We know in our hearts it can be so much better.

We’ve already come this far, and this nation-wide voter registration and mobilization drive is the next step.

Be a part of Vote for Change, bring move voices into the political process, and help America move toward a future filled with hope:

http://my.barackobama.com/voteforchange

Thank you for getting involved,

Michelle

I know in my heart that people who talk about unity while appealing to racial identity and hiding behind a thinly constructed wall of racial sensitivity are completely full of shit.