If you are already convinced that we need to give money to the campaign, and/or you have already donated, you can skip down to the “How much to give?” section at the end of the article.

Why does the Obama Campaign need more money?

These past few weeks, the polls and the narrative in the media have made it seem like an Obama victory is inevitable. He certainly performed strongly in all of the debates, and the campaign has been able to largely avoid or divert any smears and attacks.

But we’ve still got 2 weeks to go, and it would be dangerous to become overconfident at a time like this. Here’s why:

1. Obama’s lead has been shrinking the past few days.
   
   October 12 - McCain: 40, Obama 53 (13 point lead)
   October 18 - McCain: 43, Obama 50 (7 point lead)

   source

   This shrinking lead is something to take very seriously. It is impossible to know if the lead will continue to shrink or bounce back in the next two weeks (see point 2, below).

2. Gore in 2000
   
   Quoting from a recent email from the Obama campaign:

   In October of 2000, Al Gore had a double-digit lead in the polls. By Election Day, it came down to one state and a handful of votes.

3. Last-minute smear attacks
   
   When the 2004 election season was getting started, Bush was plenty unpopular. Kerry, with his long political career and extensive military achievements, had a rock-solid patriotic image, and was in a good position to start winning over undecided and moderate voters.

   Until the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth began their unprecedented months-long smear campaign, destroying Kerry’s image.

   Something just as egregious, but less visible, is happening right now as you’re reading this — the “robo call” smear campaign. McCain-Palin and the RNC are spending $70,000,000 (seventy million dollars) calling voters in 10 swing states with these messages:

   Hello. I’m calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the US Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge’s home and killed Americans.

   You need to know that Barack Obama and his Democrat allies in the Illinois Senate opposed a bill requiring doctors to care for babies born alive after surviving attempted abortions — a position at odds even with John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama and his liberal Democrats are too extreme for America. Please vote — vote for the candidates who share our values.

   source

4. Disenfranchisement of voters.
   
   Over the last decade, Republicans have unapologetically disenfranchised voters in every election, and this one is no exception.
   • After A Surge in Registration, A Surge in Suppression
   • Vote-scam fliers target black neighborhoods
   • …and so much more

How much to give?

Many of you reading this have probably made at least a small donation to the Obama campaign. Unless you have a very limited income, you have probably thought to yourself at some point, “Should I donate a little more?”.

Think of it this way: what are the most important things to spend money on in your life right now? If you’re life will be just fine if McCain wins, then you don’t need to think about giving more money. If the changes that Obama will bring to this country won’t drastically improve your financial security, your physical security, your physical health, or your mental health, then you don’t need to donate.

I’m pretty sure that if you are reading this, then that’s not the case. I urge you to donate as much as you possibly can. Don’t think that enough other people will donate, so you don’t have to. That’s the same thing as thinking that enough other people will vote, so you don’t have to.

And don’t think that the Obama campaign already has enough money. Every dollar you give directly translates into more campaigning in swing states, to counteract and surpass McCain-Palin’s efforts in those same states. (In the unlikely scenario that there is a significant surplus of funds, the money will go to the DNC, which is doing great work these days.)

It would be nice if the politician with the best ideas won, but we know that’s not how it works. If you have any kernel of faith that Obama will win because America and the news media like him better these days, you need to get over that. Election after election, the candidate who raises the most money wins, period.

In 2008, given the state of our country and the world, and the candidates on the ballot, I believe that it is irresponsible to not donate as much money to the Obama campaign as you possibly can, whatever that might mean for you.

If you’re a student, or otherwise have a very limited income, this might mean an extra $20.

If you’re working, but have your share of financial responsibilities (loans, children), consider cutting down on drinks, eating out, or even your monthly savings, and give an extra $100-$500.

If you’re working and have very few financial responsibilities, consider giving a lot. Consider giving the maximum allowed by campaign fundraising laws in the post-primary season – $2300. That’s what I did.

Even if you have to cut into your savings to donate, think of it this way– getting Obama into office is a more important investment in your future than a few hundred extra dollars sitting in your bank account.

Click here to donate now.

I also noted on their website that they seem to be pretty critical of Nader, that he is not doing constructive things for the independent movement — I agree.

Update: John Opdycke from CUIP got in touch with me and clarified CUIPs relationship to the effort in North Carolina:

The Committee for a Unified Independent Party did not endorse Barack Obama, but rather is providing political and financial support to a longtime independent activist in North Carolina, Tyra Cohen, who has initiated an organizing effort entitled “North Carolina Independents for Obama.” Several of CUIP’s state affiliates have endorsed Obama; others have chosen not to make presidential endorsements but to focus on crucial political reform and base building efforts.

update: audio file from when the wrong numbers were announced

In chronological order. Newest updates are at the bottom. Last updated 9:31 pm, eastern

– 9:10 pm –

• it’s pretty nuts – lost sign in sheets, ad hoc procedural decisions, etd.
• in the beginning, everyone was told they could sign in (indicating the candidate) and then leave
• if they didn’t want to be a delegate
• [my wife] did, so we stayed
• then, when the initial count of hillary voters for one of the precincts was off by an obvious order of magnitude… [update: see audio file above]
• now we’re doing resolutions
• 1 – impeach bush/cheney
• (didn’t see that coming)
• anyway – a bunch of signup sheets were missing
• and the chair suggested that we allocate the delegates based on who was still here (!)
• (a bunch of folks had left – I would have if not for [my wife])
• but then someone came out of the back with a bunch of sheets
• and they’re still counting
• there was zero control over the sheets
• so I don’t think we can be too confident
• - next resolution has to do with inaccurate vote counts in the past – hehe

– 9:20 –

• rats – hillary took both precincts
• but by a narrow margin
• the total vote counts sounded sane
• hundred twenty something total for one precint, hundred two for the other – but i’m going to count
• about 100 still in the room – makes sense to think about that many left
• back into 4 groups – one O & one H for each precinct
• now voting on delegates, after hearing resolutions
• there’s usually no competition for delegates.
• right now a green party convert is stumping to become an obama delegate
• our precinct gets 5 delegates for obama, and 12 people signed up for it ([my wife] among them)
• we also get 5 alternates (makes sense), and so the delegates are expressing which they want to be
• looks like we pared down to 10 and agreed to split off the alternates
• no vote needed, and [my wife]‘s a delegate – we’re taking off (baby’s cranky)

Josh had this to say after he got home:

• John: well… from what you told me it seems like some pile of sheets came from nowhere
• John: magically
• yeah — someone had stashed them in the back
• John: or at least– they could have been pre-processed by some party before they made their reappearance
• there were enough signers present, and the sheets were in plain sight…
• that it would have been foolish to try large fraud, I imagine
• but the control really wasn’t there — one or more sheets could have been lost
• all the addresses and voter reg (or drivers license) numbers will be verified
• so from that perspective, it’s probably better than those damn machines we used for the primary

http://yeswecanhas.com

Let me know what you think, tell all your friends, and most importantly: submit images!

First of all, Obama just plain covers more issues that Clinton: 21 vs. 14. Clinton has no technology section. Even Obama’s “Additional Issues” section covers some important points missed by Clinton. In this section Obama specifically covers dealing with the hurricane Katrina tragedy. (Although, to Clinton’s credit, via a google search I did find an article on hurricane Katrina policy, but it’s just not listed in the issues menu.)

Second of all, compare the language/IA of the menu itself– Clinton’s is so contrived and superficial. The menu items aren’t even consistent in tense, tone, and style. Some of the items describe what she is going to do (“Strengthening the Middle Class”), others describe what content is linked to (“An Innovation Agenda”), and then there’s an item that just says who/what Clinton is (“A Champion for Women”). This “sentence” style, and the fact that the sentences aren’t even in a consitent style, makes the information much more difficult to navigate. It’s as if the website architects forgot that they were making a menu for users to access content, and just took every opportunity to communicate the perfect “message” whenever and wherever they had the attention of a voter, at the cost of making the information easy to access in the first place.

Obama’s menu is very well done– it’s extremely clear what each item links to. Users who are looking for the platform for a particular issue can find it very quickly, and users just perusing the website see a very accessible and comprehensible top-level list of issues. In fact, the items in the menu are in alphabetical order! Be still, my beating heart!

Obama’s menu says “Education”; Clinton’s: “Improving Our Schools”. You almost don’t have to click on Clinton’s– why read her plan when she already told you: when she is president the schools are getting more better. If you do click through, you will find that Obama has about twice as much content on his page, plus links to pdfs with much more detail on subtopics. Clinton’s page does have a “Hillary’s Plans” section on the upper right, but this is a list of links to a hodge-podge of feature articles and press releasees and is not done in the thoughtful and consistently-organized platform presentation of Obama’s website.

Check out this list of people in technology I respect who also support Obama:

• Peter Norvig, Director of Research, Google
  

  He is the most inspirational, he has the integrity to stand up for what is right and admit when he was wrong (a quality that Clinton seems to lack), and he is honest in answering questions where other candidates are political.

  Most importantly, Obama is willing and able to work with everyone, not just with his base. Clinton wants to reach out to republicans and others who disagree with her, but the level of animosity that many others have towards her may make it difficult for her to do so. McCain and Romney seem to be intent on playing towards their base, and have not shown how they will reach out. Obama has shown he can do it — he can be the president that brings the whole country together and leads us in a new direction.

• Greg DeKoenigsberg, über geek, Fedora community leader, something or other in Red Hat communications, OLPC evangelist
• Lawrence Lessig, intellectual property guru / free culture messiah
  

  … I believe in the policies. Clearly on the big issues — the war and corruption. Obama has made his career fighting both. But also on the issues closest to me. … Obama has committed himself to important and importantly balanced positions.

• The XKCD guy, (makes this comic)
  

  Obama has shown a real commitment to open government. When putting together tech policy … others might have gone to industry lobbyists. Obama went to Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons … and longtime white knight in the struggle with a broken system over internet and copyright policy. Lessig was impressed by Obama’s commitment to open systems — for example, his support of machine-readable government information standards that allow citizens’ groups to monitor what our government is up to. Right now, the only group that can effectively police the government is the government itself, and as a result, it’s corrupt to the core…

  Obama stands against bad governing not only in his support of specific practices like open data standards and basic network neutrality, but in his work against corruption from day one. He’s sponsored legislation to restrict gifts to Congress by industry representatives (which also carried a whole slew of anti-corruption measures that were a breath of fresh air). He’s fought against vote fraud. He’s been pushing for election and lobbying reform from the start, and in his campaign he’s refused to take lobbyist money.

  Clinton has done nothing of the sort, and when questioned seems baffled that anyone would have a problem with what is, by any reasonable standard, bribery. I find her basic lack of integrity troubling, and I think as president she would continue fighting to maintain the status quo.

• Tim Wu, intellectual property guru, coined the term “Net Neutrality”, professor at Columbia law school
• Karl Fogel, software engineer, open source software community leader, copyright reformer
  

  Barack Obama is exactly what he seems: terrifically smart, well-intentioned, utterly free of the personal insecurities that drive far too much of the decision-making in the current administration, and eminently electable. He stands a much better chance of winning against McCain than any other Democratic candidate would have. The canard that he’s light on policy simply confuses a primary-season tactic for a general electoral strategy. There’s no point trying to out-wonk Hillary Clinton, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t done his homework: when the time comes, it’s there in reserve.

• Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Netscape, very successful entrepreneur/investor/visionary, down to earth and fun blogger
  

  Smart, normal, curious, not radical, and post-Boomer.If you were asking me to write a capsule description of what I would look for in the next President of the United States, that would be it.

  Having met him and then having watched him for the last 12 months run one of the best-executed and cleanest major presidential campaigns in recent memory, I have no doubt that Senator Obama has the judgment, bearing, intellect, and high ethical standards to be an outstanding president — completely aside from the movement that has formed around him, and in complete contradition to the silly assertions by both the Clinton and McCain campaigns that he’s somehow not ready.

Some readers of this blog who know me personally might know that I voted for Nader in 2000, was a Deaniac in 2004, and became completely disengaged from the process and campaign when Kerry was nominated. Some might also know that I’ve been conversationally enthusiastic about Ron Paul for the past few months. In other words– I’m sick of the two-party system (sometimes to the point of pragmatic detriment, I admit), and it takes a very special candidate to get me interested in actively supporting the Democratic party.

Why does Obama interest me so much? This is a big topic, and I admit my familiarity with his policies and history is a bit superficial in areas. And I also have to admit, there is a significant Not Hillary factor influencing me. But all my impressions have come together to form a consistent impression that he is a genuine person who cares about improving our country and government, which is not only Not Hillary but also Anti Hillary.

In subsequent posts, I’m going to explore and explain what I think is so great about Obama.

Meanwhile, for those of you who are already Obama supporters, I urge you to donate to the Obama campaign. I just gave by far the most I’ve ever given to a political campaign. If you believe that Obama is truly competent, genuine, and has a chance, then please, consider making a significant donation. Ask yourself: what is more important?

The goal of WikiBallot is to provide a view of what the ballot will look like in every polling location in the nation.

This is not going to be useful for anyone in the upcoming election — there is currently no content. We are discussing how to acquire and structure the data.

I am really excited about the potential for this project to become popular and useful. Everyone I’ve told about it thinks it is a great idea.

Go check it out, show it to all your friends, and let me know what you think. In a few days I’ll write more about my motivations for the site and why I think it will be useful.