Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

On the Ground in PA

by BooMan
Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 12:44:17 PM EST

I'll admit that the polls do not look good for Obama in Pennsylvania, but that is not the only measure we should be looking at.

Only registered Democrats can vote for their party's candidates in the primary, and Obama is hoping the recruits will help him overcome Clinton's solid lead -- 12 points in one poll taken last weekend. At stake are 158 delegates to this summer's Democratic national convention -- the biggest bloc of delegates still to be awarded.
Since last fall's election, statewide Democratic enrollment has swelled by more than 111,000 -- an increase of about 3% in less than six months, which state elections Commissioner Harry VanSickle said is unprecedented. With days to go, Democratic registration is barely 5,000 votes shy of a record 4 million.
"The volume is very large, very steady," said Jim Forsythe, director of voter services in Chester County, a Philadelphia suburb where Democratic enrollment grew by nearly 7% -- the second-largest gain among the 67 counties.
The smaller statewide enrollments of Republicans and voters not registered in either party have declined slightly.

Yesterday, I managed to register five independents as Democrats, all of whom suggested that they were either leaning toward, or supporting Barack Obama. I only encountered one person that is supporting or even leaning toward Clinton, and no one expressed any support for McCain. And this was in a heavily white, heavily Catholic, lower middle class neighborhood in Chester County, Pennsylvania. One 50-ish white guy did tell me I was crazy to support a guy that goes to a 'I-Hate-Whitie church', but that was the only interaction I had that showed the Rev. Wright flap is negatively affecting the race.

But that is just my anecdotal experience, and others have seen much stronger Wright effects. In the end, the outcome in Pennsylvania is more likely to be influenced by the meta-narrative that is taking hold that Clinton has a 10% chance of winning the nomination.

Regardless of the outcome in Pennsylvania, which won't have any effect on Obama's eventual nomination, the fact that there is a contest at all is going to help the Democratic Party.

Mining the state's computerized voter registry for trends, the Pennsylvania Department of State, which oversees elections, has found that:
• Since January, more than 100,000 Pennsylvanians who were not previously registered to vote did so.
• In that time, more than 68,000 registered voters changed their affiliation to one of the major parties, with those switching to Democratic registration outpacing those switching to Republican by more than 3-1.

With the strong registration drives going on this weekend, the eventual numbers will be even more striking. It doesn't help the Democrats to have the Clinton campaign beating up on our nominee, but there is the unintended benefit that added interest is leading to more registered Democrats.

The Clintons are using the old tactic of phonebanking, while the Obama people are out at the malls, corporate centers, churches, and going door-to-door. The Democrats should benefit greatly, provided our nominee is not mortally wounded in the process.

But those looking at the polls should take heed. With independents flocking to sign up as Dems, the likely voter models can't be too accurate. Can Clinton maintain the fiction that she still has a chance for another five weeks? How strongly will Obama outperform the polls?

The biggest shame of all is that registrations end on Monday. If we had another month-plus to do voter reg, there is no telling how much strength we could add to the Democratic Party here. But Gov. Ed Rendell has endorsed Clinton, and he has no interest in that.

On the Ground in PA | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: On the Ground in PA (none / 0)

Here's the scenario I'm worried about--

Let's suppose that Hillary has a very good day in Pennsylvania, perhaps a 15-20 point win. If that happens, there is no way the superdelegates are going to move to lock it down for Obama. It's likely that she will also do fairly well in Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky, chipping away at Obama's lead. She probably won't overcome his current margin, but she will be close enough to be able to make the case to the superdelegates that she has the momentum, and that the Pastor Wright mess renders Obama unelectable.

Thus, we go into the convention with a bitterly divided Party, with tensions running high, and both of our potential nominees battered and less able to take on McCain in November. The superdelegates will be in the very uncomfortable position of having to risk alienating the newly-inpspired and huge African-American and youth components of the Party if they hand the prize to Hillary Clinton. If they give the nod to Obama, the Clinton faction is going to raise all kinds of hell and may not be supportive of Obama in the general election.

IMHO, we are headed toward a very unhappy ending, and if I were a superdelegate I'd be inclined to slam-dunk it now for Obama. The Clinton camp would have no cause to complain; they started this campaign with 96 committed SD's who didn't even bother to take a look at the other contestants-- they were in Hillary's pocket from the start. It is also worth noting that the Clinton team was saying that they expected to wrap this whole thing up by Super Tuesday, so they are in no position to claim that the Obama SD's acted in haste. At the moment, Obama leads by every conceivable metric-- pledged delegates, popular vote, states won, caucuses won, and yes- primaries won. The uncommitted SD's who have been patient enough to witness 19 debates and 40 primaries could easily justify their decision to line up behind a nominee so we can begin to consolidate support for our general election candidate.

The fact that those superdelegates haven't pulled the trigger yet make me inclined to believe that they are going to let the process run its course, and I'm betting that when we reach July we are all going to wish that they had summoned up the wisdom and the courage to end it back in mid-March.

by eagleye on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 01:44:28 PM EST

Re: On the Ground in PA (none / 0)

Given the Dem party's talent for self-destruction, that's not an unthinkable scenario. Still, this is one time that strong, vocal public pressure can make the difference. Clinton has no credible argument for the uncommitted delegates to swing to her. Obama has all the moral, political, and strategic arguments on his side.

I'm less worried about a Dem-on-Dem war giving McCain a win. Whatever the polls may say now, he's just not viable, IMO. The really worrisome thing in your scenario is its power to kill off the potential for a huge Dem win in Congress. People who see that McCain is not the answer could still express their distaste for the hapless, petty Dems further down the ballot.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 02:32:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Random remarks (none / 0)

Why all the Clinton bashing by Obama supporters? If they are so sure that Obama will be the nominee then why are they so defensive? If people are that excited about him then why not put all that effort into going after McCain, who will be the candidate regardless of who wins the Dem nomination? I just don't get it.
There is a reasonable chance that McCain might win the election. Voters could go for him for a number of reasons, including prejudice (against either Dem), a desire to have a strong father leader, continuing fear, or a wish not to put all the power in the hands of a single party, i.e. splitting their votes.
If McCain wins what is the plan? A divided government under Bill Clinton ended up leaning rightward. The Dems are always willing to compromise or go bi-partisan, but the Repubs never are (see the current filibuster stalemate) so divided governments usually tack right. If the thought scares people, maybe they should focus on this possibility a bit more and stop the fratricide.

Policies not Politics
--- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 01:49:06 PM EST

Re: Random remarks (none / 0)

She brought it on herself, when she started elevating McCain over Obama. No good Democrat would do that to a fellow Dem. So please don't expect any courtesy towards her.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

by Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 02:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Random remarks (none / 1)

Granted that I'm strongly partisan on this, but it really does seem obvious to me that Obama personally, if not his supporters, has been far more gracious and less savage against Clinton than vice versa. And nonetheless less constantly whiny about poor me getting attacked. I'd be interested to hear whether Clinton supporters really believe that's untrue.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 02:24:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Random remarks (none / 0)

They do, because they live on her Web site and only get her side of the story.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

by Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 03:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Random remarks (none / 0)

I don't see that the bashing is primarily from the Obama side. But it certainly exists, and is understandable on a couple of grounds:

--Simple pushback. As far as I've ever found, Obama has never suggested that Clinton is not fit to be president, nor has he said it would be better to elect McCain than Clinton. You seem to expect Obama supporters to be certified ascended masters.

--Obama supporters are sure he'll end up winning both the pledged delegates and the popular vote. That doesn't mean they're sure he'll end up the nominee in a process that is even less democratic than the US electoral "system" as a whole. The current occupant of the White House won neither the popular vote nor the electoral votes, if you recall. It hardly seems surprising that Obama supporters are apprehensive about a replay of that atrocity at the intra-party level.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 02:19:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Random remarks (none / 0)

1.Hillary Clinton violated Reagan's rule:

Republicans shall speak no evil of fellow republicans. This rule in politics holds true for Dems.

2.Yep, McCain has some troubles though: Aside from FEC, (a) he's weak on foreign policy - his only strength is he offers to bomb. bomb. bomb and remain in Irag for 1000 years. (b) he's very weak on the economy - an issue that will trump all other issues. We can't afford the wars. During this weekend Central banksters are huddling together to work out a plan to solve banking crisis - the mass purchase of mortgages, only several trillions. Such a plan should finish off the dollar make government the largest landlord in the world.

3.McCain's war hero resume won't cut it. Obama will be the next president. Time charts give him the edge.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 02:50:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Random remarks (none / 0)

Thanks to all who have proved my point by continuing the Clinton bashing. Why? You don't like her fine. Why the need to keep harping on it. If you think she is going to lose then why bother?

How will you feel if McCain wins and it turns out that some voters went for him because they got turned off by the Dem infighting. If you think Clinton has stepped over the line, so what. Two wrongs don't make a right and tit for tat is not an mature electoral strategy.

It is one of the key characteristics of liberals that they end up spending more time fighting with each other than with their opponents. I'll allow Lisa to expand upon the any of: the Bolsheviks vs the Mensheviks, the anarchists, the Trotskyites, the Socialists or even the AFL vs the CIO vs the IWW. How did that all work out?

Do you really want Bush III?

Policies not Politics
--- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Random remarks (none / 0)

you're mistaking the presentation of reasonable objections, with a clear exposition of the reasons for them, for bashing. it would be more beneficial if you, as well as several other of the recent posters, were to come over here and make a substantive argument(s) for your positions, as opposed to the valueless and knee-jerk reactions that you seem to espouse. l'm sure we could have a viable conversation, and who knows what we all might discover in the process.

if that's not what you're looking for, l would suggest you visit any number of other sites where you sycophantic attitude is more l'm sure you know where they are.

my 2¢ YMMV

g'day.

the revolution will not be televised...

by dada on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 03:45:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

typo (none / 0)

...where your sycophantic attitude is more welcome...

the revolution will not be televised...

by dada on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 03:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Random remarks (none / 0)

When you have nothing of substance to say, try ad hominem attacks on the person you disagree with. How predictable.

Do you know what my position is?

I'll tell you, although I usually don't reveal my choice. I supported John Edwards. After he pulled out I lost interest in the contest. I find either candidate acceptable and have no preference.

What I don't find useful is infighting, it only supplies ammunition to the opposition. And they will know how to use it come the general election campaign.

I've been watching elections since 1948 and have seen a large number of "progressive" candidates go down to defeat because of infighting in the Dem party. Too many in the blogosphere think that there is something special about electoral dynamics this time just because they get to sound off in a new medium.

We haven't had a "progressive" president - ever. FDR was emboldened by the times and forced to try all sorts of innovative ideas that he got from his think tank. Some of them were seen as "progressive" after the fact.

Teddy Roosevelt was "progressive" when it came to a new layer of consumer protection. He was also forced to act by the excesses of the age. The same excesses exist now. Will either Clinton or Obama be forced into acting? I have no idea and neither do you. You can believe that Obama will be more "progressive". That's called hope.

You like "reasonable objections" instead of "bashing" fine.

However I prefer to see a Dem as president instead of Bush III and I have history to fall back on when I say that infighting does not improve the chances.

The stakes are too high to indulge those who think this is American Idol and act accordingly.

Policies not Politics
--- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 04:42:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Random remarks (none / 0)

Please explain to me, in less than a paragraph, how "Clinton has said repeatedly that McCain would be preferable to Obama" is "bashing"? It's a concise and clear explanation of a legitimate and fundamental disagreement with a candidate.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 05:24:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Random remarks (none / 0)

Pointing out actual incidents and statements is not bashing. It's called responding to reality.

by Heart of the Rockies on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 06:36:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Random remarks (none / 0)

It's interesting that you don't supply any examples of "Clinton bashing," and Booman's opening post contains none, so what is your post about?

Looking at the current situation from a relatively neutral point of view -- a fair appraisal of the 2008 Democratic nomination contest would cite the scorched earth tactics of Clinton campaign as the cause of much of the ill will, and the fact that Obama supporters don't view Clinton favorably because of this is hardly surprising. Depicting our current situation as "fratricide" is a straw-man distortion of events, and it also commits a Solomonic fallacy.

There are clear differences between how the Obama and Clinton campaigns have conducted themselves. I've been politically active since the 1976 Presidential campaign, so I have a great number of experiences to draw upon in forming my opinion. Although hard feelings are unavoidable in a tight nomination fight, this nomination fight has been unusual. In fact, at the point in late December when I was still undecided and coming to a decision over who I would support, it was the repulsive tenor of the Clinton campaign that made my eventual decision so easy to make.

If you're a sincere individual rdf, you would be making your argument to Clinton supporters on their fora rather than here. It would be quite easy for Obama supporters to re-direct their focus at this point, but the reason they haven't is because the "kitchen sink" is still being thrown their way. Your advice to hold the higher moral ground in the midst of all this sink-throwing has merit, but wouldn't it make more sense to offer this advice to the sink throwers?

"..the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. .. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked.." - Goering

by colinski on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 09:38:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Random remarks (none / 0)

It's also worth noting that Obama, at the very least, is maintaining the higher moral ground. He's not attacking Clinton, he's not questioning her fitness to be President, he's talking about why he should be President and what he'd do if he was. I'd like to point out that his rhetoric has gotten a lot more progressive of late. His Tuesday (?) speech, for example, addresses both race and poverty very directly. It's still possible that his policies won't match his rhetoric, but since we've got a choice between reasonably progressive rhetoric + questionably progressive policies and center-right rhetoric + center-right policies...

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 09:49:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Random remarks (none / 0)

I know booman has strong differences with dailykos, so some who congregate here may think I'm addressing the wrong audience, perhaps so, but I was making a general observation.

As for the examples of "bashing" one only has to look at the postings on dailykos to see what I'm talking about. I don't follow the day to day mud slinging, but if I understand it, a bunch of Clinton supporters are bypassing the site because they feel that it is too biased.

I will now resume ignoring the posturings of both camps. I'll be happy if either candidate gets the nomination, but I won't be happy if any of the bickering going on now ends up helping McCain win the election.

There was an observation yesterday that passionate supporters of a candidate may find it difficult to support their opponent after investing so much emotional energy in discrediting them. The frustration shows up in remarks such as "If X doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting for McCain".

One can only hope this is a momentary outburst and doesn't reflect actual behavior at election time.

Policies not Politics
--- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 at 08:48:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the Ground in PA (none / 0)

Don't be too sure that newly registered "Democrats" are a good omen for Obama. Limbaugh's campaign for Republicans become Democrats-for-a-day to support Clinton maybe getting some real traction. Some blogs point to TX stats as proof that dittoheads-for-Clinton swung the state for her.

It must be comforting for the Clinton supporters to be joined by Republicans seeking only to thwart a Dem presidency in '08. Of course, the candidate herself is sending similar signals when she questions whether an unnamed candidate who didn't win all the big states would be "legitimate."

by SaltyDawg on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 02:00:55 PM EST

Re: On the Ground in PA (none / 0)

Yeah, I was surprised that Boo's post didn't at least mention the Zombie Dems for Limbaugh scenario. Or is this just another cable news pile of crap?

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 02:11:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the Ground in PA (none / 0)

After the Ohio and TX caper, I think Limbaugh may tread lightly. from another thread I posted this:

Will Rush Limbaugh Be Indicted for Voter Fraud?

As the board of election in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Cleveland is located, launches an investigation into illegal crossover voting in the state's 2008 presidential primary, a big open question remains unanswered: Will county officials go after the ringleaders of apparently illegal electioneering where thousands of Republican voters swore -- under penalty of law -- allegiance to the Democratic Party in order to vote for Hillary Clinton?
In case you missed it, Rush Limbaugh, the nation's top-rated talk radio host, was urging Republicans in Texas and Ohio to skip their party's primary on March 4 and instead cast a vote for Hillary Clinton in order to prolong the fight between her and Barack Obama. And that Tuesday, as media in both states reported, thousands of Republicans did just what Limbaugh and others had suggested -- they changed parties to vote for Clinton.[.]
"I helped give Mrs. Clinton the biggest and happiest moment and night of the campaign season so far, maybe her life, and she tells me, "Be careful what you wish for, Rush"? Why, that sounds like a threat, does it not? I've got a Democrat presidential candidate threatening your host. Why, I am stunned! After all I did ..."
While this all makes for great talk radio and sounds like fun, there is one catch: What Limbaugh encouraged Republican voters to do in Ohio was a fifth-degree felony in that state, punishable with a $2,500 fine and six to 12 months in jail. That is because in order to change party affiliation in Ohio, voters have to fill out a form swearing allegiance to that party's principles "under penalty of election falsification.

If Rush aired no disclaimer,, tell voters to check state and county laws, he is complicit. By his own tape he has incriminated himself.

Just an idea, let's book Rush in at a maximum security Rebar Hotel for the next 10 months...give him time to snort out his head.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 03:00:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the Ground in PA (none / 0)

BooMan - the Obama campaign is phonebanking heavily too. People from all over the country are calling not only Pennsylvania but also the states who have upcoming primaries right after.

In my calls this morning, one woman said she was having trouble deciding between "all three" (meaning McCain and the two Dems). I asked if she had seen Obama's speech. Yes, she said, "I was disgusted."

"Why?" I asked.

"Because he threw his grandmother under the bus."

"I didn't see it that way at all," I said, but she was ready to get off the phone.

This is our biggest foe in the election. People who listen to the media and parrot it back. It's like a form of mass hypnotism, and cutting through that will be no small feat.

I'm glad there are many on the ground in PA. I don't think that state is a lost cause at all. We have several weeks.

Those of you who can't join BooMan on the ground can still join me and thousands of others calling from home or local call centers.

Go to BarackObama.com and click the link on the right to Make Calls.

There's a script, and even an audio "lesson" you can listen to (5 mins, tops) re how to make calls and what to expect. So far, the PA people have all been polite, at least!

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

by Real History Lisa (lpeaseRemoveThis@gte.net) on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 02:14:54 PM EST

Re: On the Ground in PA (none / 1)

Mass hypnotism is an apt description.

I hear very intelligent people "parrot" the exact same words of talking heads. If the smart people do this, what does this say for those with Bush's IQ? As Catherine Crier wrote today,

"Watching favored channels, they absorb material that usually comports with their established world-view. Opposing positions are presented as fodder for their gladiators to shoot down or lampoon by the force of personality alone, or, regardless of the content, as demonstrating equilibrium in the discussion."

The key part here is "the force of personality." All you need is a Sean Hannity type to scream loud enough and people will think, 'Geez this must be really bad,' rather than deciding for themselves.

by liberaljournal on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 05:40:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the Ground in PA (none / 1)

The "grandmother under the bus" is a right wing talking point. You were hearing an echo chamber. I have not read his books, but I believe this anecdote is in one of his books and has been out there for a decade.

If you're to continue to call, I'd have a good response at the ready.

And perhaps you have seen the CBS poll that indicated 70% of those queried were happy with the speech.

by Heart of the Rockies on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 06:39:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the Ground in PA (none / 0)

I just saw a new Obama fan video. This time from Jay Jay French of Twisted Sister. I was never much of a head-banger myself, but it's a pretty good remake of one of their old hits... "I want Barack"

Check it out. They will be releasing the song for download on iTunes soon as well.

by RandyH on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 02:41:15 PM EST

Re: On the Ground in PA (none / 0)

100k new voters? That's interesting. 50% more than the total switches and double the number switching from R to D. You have to assume these are not partisan Republicans who are signing up to 'throw' the Democratic primary (however that's supposed to work).

Applying the same 3-1 ratio to the new registrations, we're looking at something around 125k additional voters in the Democratic primary. Wow.

by lutton on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 05:05:50 PM EST

Re: On the Ground in PA (none / 1)

I went out to grab groceries down at 40th and Walnut, and the Obama campaign had 2 people out registering voters.

They've been doing this since the beginning of February...I have yet to see any sort of registration effort being made by the Clinton side. I'm realistic about the prospects of Obama winning, but I think it'll end up being much closer than the polls currently show it to be.

FWIW, I got my girlfriend and a few other of my good friends on campus registered as Democrats. I'll be looking forward to visiting Obama HQ on Monday to start my volunteering for the next month.

by PsiFighter37 on Sat Mar 22nd, 2008 at 05:22:29 PM EST

On the Ground in PA | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile