Check this out from WorldNetDaily.

Cindy Sheehan, the so-called “peace mom” on a crusade to end
U.S. involvement in the Iraq war, is publicly blasting Sen. Hillary
Clinton, D-N.Y., for her continued support of the ongoing conflict.

“I think she is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys,” Sheehan writes in an open letter posted on anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore’s website.
“I would love to support Hillary for president if she would come out
against the travesty in Iraq. But I don’t think she can speak out
against the occupation, because she supports it. I will not make the
mistake of supporting another pro-war Democrat for president again: As
I won’t support a pro-war Republican.”

“I believe that the intelligent thing for Democrats to do
for 2006 and 2008 would be to come out strongly and correctly against
the botched, bungled, illegal, and immoral occupation of Iraq,” Sheehan
added.

Hey folks, think of it this way. Campaign for Murtha and you turn the debate within the Democratic Party on its head!

Choice number one:  Run Hilary–a liberal who is FOR THE WAR…

(yes, Hilary is for the war….)

Choice number two:  run Murtha, and get someone who will BRING THE TROOPS HOME.

(and yes, he is a conservative, which might actually make him electable..)

——————————

Which do you want?  Hilary visiting the troops in 2009, still in Iraq?

Or your son, daughter, neighbor AT HOME!

This is worth reading

From the LA Times today, November 17, 2005

“The American public is way ahead of the
members of Congress,” Murtha said. “The United States and coalition
troops have done all they can in Iraq. But it’s time for a change in
direction.

“Our military is suffering. The future of our
country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course,” he said,
adding: “It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in
the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or
the Persian Gulf regime.”

Citing one of Bush’s key
justifications for the war � the concern the president raised that
Saddam Hussein’s regime was developing chemical, nuclear and biological
weapons â�� Murtha said, “The main reason for going to war has been
discredited.”

U.S. forces have found no evidence in the 32 months since they invaded Iraq to support Bush’s argument, he noted.

“It’s a U.S. intelligence failure,” Murtha said.

Murtha, who represents a
blue-collar district in southwestern Pennsylvania, said the wounded
troops with whom he has visited were demoralized not by criticism of
the war, but by “going to war with not enough troops and equipment to
make the transition to peace.”

Within the military, he said,
recruitment is down, even though the military has lowered its
standards, “personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in
healthcare,” equipment is worn out, and bases at home are facing “huge
shortfalls.”

“Our military has been fighting this war in Iraq
for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its
mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein,
captured or killed his closest associates, but the war continues to
intensify,” Murtha said.

He cited U.S. military deaths
approaching 2,100, serious injuries to more than 15,500 other troops,
and an increase, rather than a decrease, in the number of attacks on
U.S. forces there.

“Our troops have become the primary target
of the insurgency,” uniting insurgents and becoming a catalyst for
violence, Murtha said. “We need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.”

Murtha said that before the Iraqi elections scheduled for mid-December,
Iraq must know that “the United States will immediately redeploy. No
schedule which can be changed, nothing that’s controlled by the Iraqis.
This is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they
have become the target. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free, free
from a United States occupation.”

Asked at what point this
could be accomplished safely for the troops, he said, “Six months would
be a reasonable time to get them out of there.”

Some things to Do Before the Inauguration:

1. Get that abortion you’ve always wanted.

2. Drink a nice clean glass of water.

3. Cash your social security check.

4. See a doctor of your own choosing.

5. Spend quality time with your draft age child/grandchild.

6. Visit Syria, or any foreign country for that matter.

7. Get that gas mask you’ve been putting off buying.

8. Hoard gasoline.

10. Borrow books from library before they’re banned – Constitutional
      law books, Catcher in the Rye, Harry Potter, Tropic of Cancer, etc.

11. If you have an idea for an art piece involving a crucifix – do it now.

12. Come out – then go back in – HURRY!

13. Jam in all the Alzheimer’s stem cell research you can.

14. Stay out late before the curfews start.

15. Go see Bruce Springsteen before he has his “accident.”

thanks to Casadelogo

here is the link to DNC committee member names and addresses.  Have fun!

Must see maps and cartograms here..

Counties in varying shades of purple to indicate the percentage of the county vote that was blue or red.

Thanks to Larry Lessig

Maps and cartograms of the 2004 US presidential election results

Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi, and Mark Newman
University of Michigan

[Outage: This page was unreachable for several hours on Sunday
November 7 because of an electrical fault on the University of Michigan
campus. Everything appears to be running smoothly again now. Apologies
for the inconvenience.]

[Correction: The figures for numbers of counties voting Rep/Dem were
off because of a bug in one of our programs. We've fixed this and
corrected the text below. Thanks to K. Drum and others for pointing this
out. (All the actual maps are perfectly fine however.)]

[Update: We've done some slight improvements to the cartograms,
based on updated population and electoral data. (You'll have to look
pretty hard to see any difference though.)]

[Update: We changed the color scale on the purple maps to be the
same as that used by Robert
Vanderbei. The old maps are still available at the very bottom of the
page for those who are interested.]

[Wallpapers: By popular demand, the purple map and cartogram are now
available in "wallpaper" sizes for your computer desktop. Click here.]

Election results by state

On election night and in the days since then, we have seen many maps that
look like this (click on any of the maps for a larger picture):

The (contiguous 48) states of the country are colored red or blue to
indicate whether a majority of their voters voted for the Republican
candidate (George W. Bush) or the Democratic candidate (John F. Kerry)
respectively. The map gives the superficial impression that the “red
states” dominate the country, since they cover far more area than the blue
ones. However, as pointed out by many others, this is misleading because
it fails to take into account the fact that most of the red states have
small populations, whereas most of the blue states have large ones. The
blue may be small in area, but they are large in terms of numbers of
people, which is what matters in an election.

We can correct for this by making use of a cartogram, a map in which
the sizes of states have been rescaled according to their population. That
is, states are drawn with a size proportional not to their sheer
topographic acreage — which has little to do with politics — but to the
number of their inhabitants, states with more people appearing larger than
states with fewer, regardless of their actual area on the ground. Thus, on
such a map, the state of Rhode Island, with its 1.1 million inhabitants,
would appear about twice the size of Wyoming, which has half a million,
even though Wyoming has 60 times the acreage of Rhode Island.

Here are the 2004 presidential election results on a population cartogram
of this type:

The cartogram was made using the diffusion method of Gastner and Newman.
Population data were taken from the 2000
US Census. Iowa and New Mexico, which at the time of writing were
officially undeclared, we have assumed to have a Republican majority — all
indications are that this will be the final declaration once recounts are
complete.

The cartogram reveals what we know already from the news: that the country
was actually very evenly divided by the vote, rather than being dominated
by one side or the other.

Election results by county

But we can go further. We can do the same thing also with the county-level
election results and the images are even more striking. Here is a
map of US counties, again colored red and blue to indicate Republican and
Democratic majorities respectively:

Similar maps have appeared in the press, for example in USA
Today, and have been cited as evidence that the Republican party
has wide support. Again, however, a cartogram gives a more accurate
picture. Here is what the cartogram looks like for the county-level
election returns:

Again, the blue areas are much magnified, and areas of blue and red are now
nearly equal. However, there is in fact still more red than blue on this
map, even after allowing for population sizes. Of course, we know that
nationwide the percentages of voters voting for either candidate were
almost identical, so what is going on here?

The answer seems to be that the amount of red on the map is skewed because
there are a lot of counties in which only a slim majority voted Republican.
One possible way to allow for this, suggested by Robert
Vanderbei at Princeton University, is to use not just two colors on the
map, red and blue, but instead to use red, blue, and shades of purple to
indicate percentages of voters. Here is what the normal map looks like if
you do this:

And here’s what the cartogram looks like:

In this map, it appears that only a rather small area is taken up by true
red counties, the rest being mostly shades of purple with patches of blue
in the urban areas.

A slight variation on the same idea is to use a nonlinear color scale like
this:

These maps use a color scale that ranges from red for 70% Republican or
more, to blue for 70% Democrat or more. This is sort of practical, since
there aren’t many counties outside that range anyway, but to some extent it
also obscures the true balance of red and blue.

If you do, please let me know by email at  jmoore at cyber.law.harvard.edu  thanks!!

Here is the story–worthwhile reading.

Add this
story, on the clever use of the same-sex marraige initiatives to draw
conservatives to the polls and showcase the difference between Bush and
Kerry on a divisive issue..