Lynette Long

BOUGHT AND PAID FOR!

How does money influence who superdelegates endorse?  Check out this video shows where Nancy Pelosi spends her Pac money.  Her Pac is called Pac to the Future and information is availible on www.opensecrets.org.  I wrote the script, Paula Abeles found the photos, and geeklove produced the video.  Thanks to the other two members of the team.  Great job guys.

TALES FROM THE FRONT

Approximately a year ago thousands of committed volunteers attended “Camp Obama,” a four-day indoctrination program, geared at teaching pre-screened Obama volunteers grass roots organizational strategies.   The training, which specifically focused on the caucus states, taught volunteers to be “ruthless,” “take risks,” and win at all costs. Obama’s campaign and Camp Obama’s strategy which focused on the vulnerable caucuses and the early primaries worked.  Obama only lost 1 out of 14 caucuses, a staggering achievement, especially when he lost 21 out of 38 primaries and scored a statistical tie in popular vote.   How did he accomplish such an astonishing string of victories that would eventually define the Democratic Primary?  At www.caucusanalysis.org, a new website devoted exclusively to the 2008 Democratic caucuses, you can read Tales from the Front, stories told to sites founder, Dr. Lynette Long, by participants in all 14 caucus states.  Here are excerpts from  the website. For complete statements and a mathematical analysis of each state, go to www.caucusanalysis.org.

FROM IOWA

I live in Davenport, Iowa - Precinct 23.  I arrived at our precinct caucus at 6:30.  At 6:50 pm, over 75 people of African American descent came walking in, past the tables and sat in the Obama section.  I knew one of them from my canvassing.  I knew another one who did not live in this precinct!  And aside from the 4 or 5 families that live on Hillandale Road, there are no other black people in this unusually white precinct and one of those black couples were in my Hillary section.  The results were Obama 3, Clinton, 2, Edwards 1!  It was impossible for me to argue since the precinct chair was an Obama supporter from another precinct.  A very large bus was seen in the parking lot afterwards carrying these folks back.

FROM IOWA

You probably have heard about the busloads coming in from over the IL border, but you may not have known about the busloads coming in from the NE border. North Omaha and Omaha itself are two of the three places in NE -- Lincoln being the third -- where there's over 5% African-American population. Obama's campaign offered people things like I-pods and free stuff-- t-shirts, clothes, shoes, and at least two free meals on the Nebraska side.

FROM KANSAS

There were a lot of young people there and a lot of black people.  We do not have that many blacks in this county.  El Dorado is a small town of about 12,000 and it is the largest town in the county.  There are probably only a handful of blacks that live in El Dorado.  I work with the school district and travel to the high school, middle school and elementary schools and believe me, there are very, very, few  black students.

FROM MINNESOTA

There was NO voter registration for the MN caucus... no identification was checked so Obots were going from room to room voting over and over again giggling all the while doing it. 

FROM NEVADA

Throughout this mess of a process, hostility built to a degree I found truly alarming.  Some overenthusiastic BHO supporters formed a gauntlet in the hallway outside the registration area, on the way to the ballroom, within the zone in which campaigning was prohibited.  Any HRC supporter was subject to verbal abuse, ridicule and, eventually, physical assault.

FROM NEBRASKA

Nebraska was totally chaotic and each precinct location had a different way to do the caucus. In Nebraska, 18 precincts where crammed into one high school in Sarpy county. When I got there, it felt like I stepped into a Third World voting situation. They were trying to determine whether people could actually participate in the caucuses or not, and then it seemed like they just gave up on that and just let anyone participate. There was a gym at the high school where about 5 precincts met. A person was supposed to fill out their preference on a slip of paper and then turn it in. They tried to run it like a primary instead of a true caucus, just take out any semblance of order and guards against voter disenfranchisement that a normal primary would have. I found a pile of these preferences slips just sitting on a table where anyone could pick them up and fill them out.

FROM TEXAS

I was at the Texas Caucus and the Obama supporter’s took the Packets as early as 6:30 AM which they were told not to do, They never let go and then when time came to vote they took over the precinct by some of them pushing the people that were supposed to run it across the room to chairs. They called in incorrect totals for Obama instead of correct ones. He actually had 4 delegates and they called in 19 delegates.

When my 88 year old Mother showed up, who can hardly walk on her walker, and they took her walker away from her when she said she was there to vote for Hillary. They said you are in the wrong place old woman; this is an Obama precinct, and you need to go across town. When I saw what was happening I called the police.  Blog post no quarter evelyn

FROM TEXAS

As an eye witness at the Precinct and Senate District Conventions, this is how Obama won many caucuses. First of all, vast numbers of Obama supporters were bused in to the conventions. They were loud and intimidating. Texas Democratic rules state that each person who participates in the Precinct Convention should have voted in this precinct and sign-in personally on a formal sign-in sheet. So many Obama people showed up, that there were not enough sign-in sheets available, so when the conventions ended, there were many sign-in sheets for Obama filled out in the same handwriting, not signed-in as specified. As Hillary supporters, we obtained copies of these sign-in sheets from all over south Texas, Harris County in particular. We laboriously compared the names on the sheets to see if the person who attended the precinct convention had voted in the primary election. Many listed Obama people had not. We then cross-checked the names of the Obama people to see if they lived in the correct precinct. Many times the Obama people did not come to the correct precinct and often appeared on sign-in sheets, as being present in several precinct conventions at the same time (a violation of the space-time continuum).

FROM THE TEXAS CONVENTION

I walked into the Nueses,Texas County Convention only to discover that I was already there as an Obama delegate.

FROM THE TEXAS CONVENTION

They shoved Obama signs in Clinton delegates' faces, three inches from the nose, called them racists, and told my friend that she had to move from her third-row seat in one meeting and go sit in the back.  She also said that the proceedings were heavily laced with black power speeches by preachers as well as public officials.

FROM WASHINGTON STATE

What I saw was at least 3 trained group agitators -- Since my MA is in group dynamics and group facilitation I recognized when someone is using techniques that I have been trained in. If such individuals were planted in ALL precincts, along with bringing in ringers -- then ALL caucus results are bogus. For this sort of intensive origination to take place in a rural area -- this means that a vast amount of money was spent to manipulate the results of the caucus. The Obama supporters kept changing the number of delegates -- subtracting Clinton delegates and increasing Obama delegates, each time they claimed someone had changed and they had to do "complicated" math and that's why Clinton kept losing delegates. There were NO Clinton supporters checking the Obama "math".

Read full accounts at www.caucusanalysis.org.

Contact DrLynetteLong@aol.com

ARKANSAS KILLING- KILLER KILLED BY POLICE

A man barged into the Arkansas Democratic National Headquarters last Wednesday and killed state party chairman Bill Gwatney.  The police shot and killed the suspect after a thirty mile chase.  The former state senator had been playing to travel to Denver as a Hillary Superdelegate.  A friend of the Clinton's and head of the Arkansas coilation, I can not believe this murder is a random act of violence.  The killer  drove thirty miles to Gwatney's office, shot him several times and then left. 

I remember when JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald.  Jack Ruby killed Less Harvey Oswald ending the chain of evidence that would determine who was behind the Kennedy assasination.  Who is behind the Gwatney murder? Will will ever find out?  Why is no one interested in this story?  A man died, a man with tremendous symbolic importance to the Clinton Campaingn.  Superdelegates, are you listening?  Was this a message to you? 

My heart goes out to Mr. Gwatney's family.  My thoughts and my prayers are with you.

REVERSE APARTHEID!

by Cynde Greene

I want my grain-of-sand vote to show this New York Democrat voting for a Repubican for the first time in my life. The corruption of the DNC and the Obama campaign has changed my life. I will fight for the rest of my life if that is what it takes to reform the media, the DNC and reveal the truth about Obama, although I believe the latter might happen starting in September after the RNC convention in Minneapolis. I believe (perhaps hope?) that the GOP is saving its big guns for the general election. I am impatient to see Obama lose and I "hope" he loses big so we can think  "I told ya so."

I also deeply resent the fact that All kinds of women constitute the majority in this country but are more poorly represented in the government than anyone, that women are the true slaves and that out of a population of 302 million, there are about 185 million women of all kinds while there are about 18 million black men in this country. What kind of equal representation democracy is this--reverse apartheid against women?

THE NEW AGENDA AIN'T BLUFFING!

Aug 18th 2008 8:00AM

Filed Under:eHillary Clinton, Democrats, Barack Obama, John McCain

There's a new group called The New Agenda, and they're coming for you, Chris Matthews. The LA Times reports that the group considers Matthews a good start:

The nonpartisan group, called the New Agenda, held its first meeting this week and established as one of several goals getting Matthews yanked from his long-running show, "Hardball with Chris Matthews."

Amy Siskind of Westchester, N.Y., a founder and Clinton supporter, said the group was urging that Matthews' contract not be renewed because "the kind of language he uses and the kind of behavior he exhibits in the public domain toward women objectifies them and leads to bad things for our society and to domestic violence."

Siskind would not reveal what tactics the group would use to get Matthews off the air. She likened the organization to the Navy Seals, saying their methods would be covert.

The group's press release goes into more detail about The New Agenda's agenda, which is indeed new. The group has a set of issues that they are shopping, but I guess Matthews was the "grabber." I talked with Amy Siskind on Thursday, and she said I should talk to Cynthia Ruccia about The New Agenda, that it's a much more interesting story.

So, I did. It turns out there are lots of "grabbers" to this story.

We talked for hours, and I found her to be very compelling. It would be tough to be fair to her without relaying our conversations in their entirety, because these are tough issues that belie reduction to soundbites. I will write a more comprehensive piece on our interview in the next day or so. Think of this as a primer.

Grabber #1: The New Agenda is pushing a slate of women's issues "beyond Roe v Wade," as Cynthia put it. Amy Siskind summed it up in stronger terms:

"One women's rights issue conspicuously missing from our list: abortion," Siskind points out, adding, "It's not that The New Agenda doesn't view choice as a central women's issue, it's that Roe v. Wade has been used a single defining issue to hold women voters hostage in the past. There are many other issues that are important and relevant to a broad spectrum of women."

The premise is intriguing. In my view, this is sort of a "free market" approach to women's issues. Taking Roe out of the mix essentially breaks the Democratic Party's monopoly on female voters, and allows for competition between the parties for the group's support.

Grabber #2: The group is getting traction with the McCain campaign. Many of the founding members were also founders of various PUMA groups, and attended a meeting with McCain senior policy adviser Carly Fiorina last month to assess the candidate's ability to deliver on important issues.

I contacted Carly Fiorina the week before last to see if they were close to delivering a proposal to that group, and was told by her rep that she would be following up with the group directly.

Again, this is my characterization, but I think The New Agenda is an attempt to step away from the increasingly negative PUMA movement, and harness that energy more productively. They have already made inroads with the McCain campaign, and have a meeting with the Obama campaign this week.

Grabber #3: Cynthia Ruccia supports John McCain. (Her group is non-partisan.) She is a lifelong Democrat, who even ran for congress as a Democrat, but she is supporting John McCain in this election.

I spoke about this on blogtalkradio last night with Christina from Yes to Democracy, and she immediately expressed skepticism about Cynthia's Democratic bona fides, but I have no doubt that she's on the level. There is nothing to indicate that The New Agenda is just a PUMA offshoot. Agree or disagree with them, The New Agenda is a marked improvement on PUMA, whose mission is increasingly about smearing Barack Obama rather than reforming or improving anything.

As I also said last night, the proof in the New Agenda's pudding will be in the tasting. Will they give the Obama campaign an equal shot at their list of issues?

Grabber #4: The New Agenda is a top-down organization, composed now of 30 leaders in business and various professional fields, a "best and brightest" group that seeks to spread into a grassroots movement. Their level of success in doing so will tell the tale of whether ordinary women share their priorities.

Both Cynthia and Amy have touted to me the McCain campaign's promise of appointing more women to his cabinet than any administration in history, pointing to that as something that can definitely be delivered on. Is that worth aligning oneself with a party that is anathema to most women's issues? Cynthia says there is 75-80% common ground on women's issues between Republicans and Democrats.

Grabber #5: Because this is a story about Chris Matthews, I will include a quote from my talk with Cynthia that bears on that. I asked if the group had any plans to seek accountability from McCain and the Republicans for their own sexism and misogyny.

"We, right now, are talking about accountability in the media, and it's one thing at a time," she replied.

I have to say that I am skeptical, to put it mildly, that McCain or the Republicans are going to deliver on the meat of New Agenda's issues, i.e. Fair Pay, domestic violence, accountability for sexism, and paid maternity leave. Having said that, I am at a loss to think of another way to get the Democratic Party to stop taking women's votes for granted.

I'm anxious to hear how the Obama campaign responds, and to see how broad the grassroots support for this group becomes. I hope the Democrats don't go into this thinking they can call New Agenda's bluff. Whatever the strength of their hand, they ain't bluffing.

I am a founding member of this group and so is Amy Siskind who is giving a speech in this video.

RESUME PADDING

By ABRAHAM KATSMAN AND KORY BARDASH

Aug 17, 2008

One of the knocks on Barack Obama is that his résumé is, so to speak,
paper-thin. But that is not entirely accurate. Obama, in fact, has
held some major job titles which are noteworthy all by themselves:
United States Senator, Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law
School, Harvard Law Review President-each of these titles puts him in
rarefied company. Tack on a few Illinois State Senate terms, and his
resume actually appears solid. Yet, in spite of these prestigious
positions, Obama has increasingly resorted to making claims of
accomplishment that are so patently inflated that even his
cheerleaders at CNN and the New York Times are taking notice. Why?

It seems that Obama recognizes that while his résumé titles are
impressive, his actual accomplishments are weak. It's as if he were
jockeying to be the next company CEO with little to show for his
prior high-profile management positions. So, he does what anyone else
does who has spent years coasting on charisma without doing any heavy
work: he pads his résumé–stretching the truth here, stealing credit
there, and creating the illusion of achievement during his
lackadaisical, undistinguished tenure in previous jobs.

A few examples? Take Obama's first general election ad. We are told
that Obama "passed laws" that "extended healthcare for wounded troops
who'd been neglected," with a citation at the bottom to only one
Senate bill: The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, which passed the
Senate by a 91-3 vote. Six Senators did not vote-including Obama. Nor
is there evidence that he contributed to its passage in any material
way. So, his claim to have "passed laws" amounts to citing a bill
that was largely unopposed, that he didn't vote for, and whose
passage he didn't impact. Even his hometown Chicago Tribune caught
this false claim. It's classic résumé-padding–falsely taking credit
for the work of others.

Or take one of Obama's standard lines: his claim of "twenty years of
public service." As pundit Michael Medved has pointed out, the
numbers don't add up. Shall we count? Three years in the US Senate
(two of which he's spent running for President), plus seven years in
the Illinois State Senate (a part-time gig, during which time he also
served as a law professor) equals, at most, ten. Even if we
generously throw in his three years as a "community organizer"
(whatever that means, let's count it as public service), that still
adds up to just thirteen.

Obama's other activities since 1985 have included Harvard Law School,
writing two autobiographies (including several months writing in
Bali), prestigious summer law firm jobs, three years as an associate
at a Chicago law firm, and twelve years part-time on the University
of Chicago Law School faculty. As Medved notes, it takes quite the
ego to consider any of those stints "public service." Which of them
is Obama including?

Obama made yet another inflated boast last month during his visit to
Israel. At his press conference in Hamas rocket-bombarded Sderot,
Obama talked up "his" efforts to protect Israel from Iran:

"Just this past week, we passed out of the US Senate Banking
Committee - which is my committee - a bill to call for divestment
from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they
don't obtain a nuclear weapon." (Emphasis added.)

Nice try. But as even CNN noted, Obama is not even on that committee.
That is one peculiar "mistake" to simply have made by accident.
Again, his claiming credit for the work of others just looks like
clumsy, transparent résumé embellishment.

Would someone with Obama's stellar list of job titles resort to
making stuff up? He seems to think he has to. In spite of the many
impressive positions he's held, he's done almost nothing with them.
If he wants to claim specific, relevant accomplishments, his only
resort is to stretching the truth.

Look at his record: he's now completed over half of a Senate term;
yet, is there even one signature issue he has taken hold of, other
than his own presidential run? Similarly, as the New York Times
recently pointed out, Obama spent twelve years on the University of
Chicago Law School faculty–singularly famous for its intellectual
ferment and incubator of scholarship–and produced not even a single
scholarly paper. He was President of Harvard Law Review, but wrote
nothing himself. Even as a state legislator for seven years-or
community organizer for three years, there is little that shows his
imprint. OK, to be fair, he did write two books. About himself.

For all his glowing job titles, Obama has never gotten much done. Is
it any wonder that his spokesmen respond with sweeping generalities
when asked what Obama has actually accomplished relevant to the
presidency?

Obama has held several serious positions from which a serious man
could have made a serious impact. But Obama made none. He remains a
man of proven charisma, but unproven skill–and not for lack of
opportunity. He's treated his offices as if they were high school
student council positions-fun to run for, fun to win, affirmations of
popularity, heady recognition from superiors, good resume-builders
for stepping up to the next position of power, and…well, that's about
it-actual accomplishments are not expected; heavy lifting is never on
the agenda.

Obama's record of accomplishment is thin not because of lack of
opportunity, but in spite of it. For twenty years, Obama has walked
the floors of the most prestigious institutions in the nation, but
has left no footprints other than those from his runs for whatever
office came next.

It's been said that some people want to be President so they can do
something; and some want to be President so they can be something.
Obama has accomplished nothing noteworthy despite the golden
opportunities and positions he's had; why should we believe he'd be a
different man in the White House?

No company would hire anyone with Obama's empty track record, pattern
of underachievement and padded résumé to be CEO. Is America really
ready to hire him as President?

Most of this is familiar material to us here. But it can't be
repeated enough.

Allah knows, our watchdog media will never tell us about Mr. Obama's
lack of credentials.

THE MOST IMPORTANT WORK IS NOW

We have all watched  democracy get hijacked by the  DNC leadership and the Obama campaign to try to ensure his nomination and election at all costs. 

This has meant  the suppression of information, voter fraud, sexism lobbied at Hillary Clinton, race baiting, bribing of super delegates through Nancy Pelosi's pac, threatening of delegates and of course, the  incredible stripping of votes from Michigan and Florida and reassigning delegates for Hillary and undecideds to Barack Obama.

  Hardly a representation of democracy or a fair election.

But there have been some victories along the way.  After weeks of work on behalf of many people, we have managed to get Hillary on the ballot in nomination.  It is, of course, outrageous that it was ever an issue for her to be placed on the ballot since she never conceded. She only suspended her campaign.

But now, in a sense the most important work begins.  Sacha Millstone,  a delegate who supports Hillary, expressed her concerns about Obama in a private email to another delegate who reported her to the head of the Colorado Democratic Party . She was ordered her to come to headquarters to justify her position. With her freedom of speech threatened, Millstone hired a lawyer to help  navigate through this Big Brother intimidation.

There is a lot of this going on and it is frightening. I commend Sacha's courage in exposing these tactics and  for standing up for what is right.

What is important now is that we work towards a true nomination process at the convention. Not a symbolic one.

Here is where all of us come in.  It is crucial that we contact the delegates we know to be Hillary supporters and encourage them to stay the course.  We must thank them for their dedication and  remind them that  they represent the interests of millions of people who believe that Hillary is the best candidate.

The super delegates also need to hear from us.  They need to be reminded again that their job is to vote for the strongest candidate to represent the Democratic party and to lead our party to victory against John McCain. 

As Obama's inadequacies become more apparent by the day, the polls are reflecting the concerns of the American people.  With Bush's low ratings, if Obama really had the trust of the American people, this should be a slam dunk for him.  But it is not.  Because millions of people understand that he is not prepared for the presidency and that his campaign's thuggish tactics  are ripping the country apart.

Please contact the delegates and super delegates.  Thank them for their service to our country.  Let them know we support their efforts to do the right thing and  to vote for Hillary.  If they do not feel there is a ground swell of support, they may not feel safe to vote for her.

Most of us cannot go to Denver. But i hope we can all  find the time to do some of  this. It is crucial.

Yours for a democratic future.

Joan Lipkin
St. Louis

LYNETTE LAUNCHES NEW WEBSITE ON CAUCUS FRAUD

Announcing the Launch of  http://www.lynettelong.com/CAUCUSFRAUD/

A Website Devoted Specifically to Caucus Fraud. If you think caucuses are boring think again.

At the caucus fraud website you’ll find

·         An in-depth analysis of each of the 14 caucus states

·         Over 100 Videos that take you inside a caucus

·         Gripping Eyewitness Reports of Caucus Fraud

·         Private Emails and Testimonials Never Seen Before

·         Articles and Videos on Obama’s 4 day Induction Camp - Camp Obama

·         And for the geeks in the crowd, election results, demographics, caucus rules and poll results.

·         And lots, lots, more.

If you think you know what happened at the caucuses – think again.

Please help distribute this site and paste the link everywhere.

Thanks. Lynette

TWO MINDS…SIMILAR THOUGHTS

By Olivia Taylor-Young

We have always been a two career couple…which translates into being a two-plus computer and a two-office-In-our-home couple as well. But this summer, at our individual keyboards, we’ve spent more time fighting more facets of the same battle than we ever could have imagined.

For example, on today’s editorial page was Dionne’s syndicated column from the Washington Post. In it, the writer wondered when the Democratic party’s leadership will finally be wrested from the Clintons and why "Obama is having difficulty ... seizing control of a party whose nomination he won fair and square." So I emailed him that he was operating under the fallacy of false premise. “Obama's campaign was anything but fair and square.” I wrote. “In fact, it successfully pulled off a bloodless coup.

“There is widespread evidence of caucus fraud.” I continued. “From across the nation, people have signed affidavits and provided video documentation detailing their experiences of intimidation, threats, slashed tires, unidentified 'voters' being bussing in to caucus events, moderators ( who -- by law -- must be impartial) wearing Obama buttons and throwing out Hillary ballots, no checking of identification…” etc. etc. etc.

I also noted that, as a lifelong Democrat, I initially did not want to believe how thoroughly my party’s primary process had been corrupted; but that kind of thinking now seems like it was in another life. Regarding caucus fraud, I continued, “The more I delved into research, the more data I gathered and the more people I corresponded and spoke with nationwide, I couldn't help but realize how profoundly their stories echoed one another’s. Sure, there were variations. But these had more to do with location and individual aspects, The over- all caucus experiences were far too similar to be the result of a few unscrupulous, overzealous Obama campaign workers. The caucus take-overs were a well planned, well orchestrated example of voter fraud. The video documentation, in case you question such authenticity, was provided by people who felt they were taking part in an exciting moment in history and wanted to record the event for posterity. They were at an historical juncture...but not the kind of history they expected.”

“If you want to categorize me as an typical disgruntled Hillary supporter,” I continued, “you are certainly entitled to your opinion. In response, I suggest you look up www.lynettelong.com. She has some startling documentation which verifies what I am writing you...and I don't believe after reading her credentials that you can pass her off as a sure loser or far out nutcase. Also in response, I'd like to add that, since the Rules Committee debacle, I've been in contact with many wonderful people across the country and can categorically state first hand that dismissing Hillary's supporters into a single focus category (usually angry, slightly delusional old time feminists with nothing else to do) is, in itself, delusional. I've been emailed by both men and woman, people as young as early twenties and all the way up to their nineties. Veterans from WWII, Iraq and everything in between. Young parents and their own parents and even their grandparents. College students and professors. The Democratic party has, so far, been unwise to the point of stupidity to dismiss the anger, passion and sheer voting power of people who feel the party has lost its moral compass as well as its moral authority to lecture anyone about election fraud.

ON THE CUTTING EDGE

ON THE CUTTING EDGE: New Non-Partisan Group To Promote Women's Agenda

newagendapress@yahoo.com

A Movement Is Born: The New Agenda

New Non-Partisan Group Formed To Promote Women's Agenda

August 11, 2008 --On Monday, 30 women from around the country who are leaders of various women's organizations or have worked as community activists came together in Westchester, NY, to found a group called The New Agenda, a non-partisan organization to advance women’s issues.   

"We will pool our talents and leverage already established 'friends of the family' organizations to launch a grass roots and grass tops effort to register women voters, organize a national 'get out the vote' effort around women’s issues," says Amy Siskind. "Our long-term goal is to cultivate and groom women to run for public office at all levels of government – including the presidency," adds Siskind, a former Wall Street executive who is active in Democratic politics and is a founding member of Together4US, which is supporting efforts to put Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. 

"The first order of business for our group is to persuade candidates for the presidency, Senate and House to incorporate a number of women’s rights goals and policies into their platforms," says Siskind. These include:

• Mandating paid maternity leave;

• Ensuring that affordable healthcare is available to women and children;

• Passing the Fair Pay Act in the Senate;

• Helping women establish and run small businesses;

• Reducing domestic violence;

• Allocating 20 percent more party money to female candidates than to male candidates until the number of women elected to Congress is on par with their percentage of the population; and 

• Strengthening FCC regulations to penalize content that denigrates women. 

CLINTON WILL BE PUT UP FOR NOMINATION

from Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

Sen. Hillary Clinton's name will be put up for nomination at the Democratic National Convention, according to Marc Ambinder.

"Within the past week, Clinton advisers informed the Obama team that many of Clinton's staunchest supporters felt strongly that something had to be done, and that Clinton had concluded that, in part for the sake of unity, their wishes ought to be respected.  They heard back immediately: the Obama campaign had always been open to having her name placed in nomination alongside his."