Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'senator'.
It's Obama's party Illinois senator finally secures the Democratic nomination, and becomes the first black man to lead his party JOHN IBBITSON June 4, 2008 at 3:03 AM EDT WASHINGTON — This is history. Barack Obama is the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for president, the first African-American to lead the party of Jefferson and Roosevelt. The Illinois senator secured the nomination last night after a spate of superdelegates – senior party politicians and officials – announced they would be supporting him at the Democratic National Convention in August. That, plus the pledged delegates he obtained after Tuesday's final two primaries in Montana and South Dakota, put Mr. Obama past the 2,118 delegates needed to win the convention. He secured the nomination even though he lost to New York Senator Hillary Clinton in South Dakota. The proportional method of allocating delegations ensured that Mr. Obama would cross the threshold despite losing the state. In compensation, Mr. Obama won Montana, though both states are among the smallest in the union in terms of delegate count. “Tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another, a journey that will bring a new and better day to America,” Mr. Obama declared last night in a speech in St. Paul, Minn. “Tonight, I can stand here and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.” Obama makes history Illinois senator Barack Obama has laid claim to the Democratic presidential nomination, making him the first black man to lead his party Hillary Clinton Clinton's next move Hillary Clinton will acknowledge that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said Related Articles Acknowledging the rifts of race and gender and class that had opened in the party during the 17-month race, Mr. Obama urged Democrats to “unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.” And he lavished praise on his rival, lauding Ms. Clinton's “unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. “And you can rest assured,” he added, “that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory.” For her part, Ms. Clinton offered a speech to supporters in New York that was largely elegiac in nature. “I will carry your stories and your dreams with me every day for the rest of my life,” she promised her supporters. But Ms. Clinton was not prepared to make any public declarations or concessions. “This has been a long campaign and I will be making no decision tonight,” she told supporters at her rally in New York. “In the coming days, I'll be consulting with supporters and party leaders to determine how to move forward with the best interests of our party and our country guiding my way,” she said. Ms. Clinton did, however, indicate in a conference call to members of her party's New York congressional delegation, that she would be open to serving as Mr. Obama's vice-president, if asked, though a campaign spokesman said this was no more than a repetition of her pledge to do whatever she could to ensure victory for the Democrats in November.The next few days could foment intense speculation on where and when Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton will meet, what she will be asking for, and what he is prepared to offer, as she arranges her formal departure from the campaign. Although the Democratic Party has been energized by this contest, with record turnouts in state after state, the fight has also divided the party along racial and gender lines. Many female Democrats bitterly complain that sexist attitudes, particularly in the media, contributed to Ms. Clinton's loss, while Mr. Obama's supporters say they had to overcome racist attitudes among some voters. Exit polls in South Dakota revealed that 55 per cent of Democrats want Mr. Obama to pick Ms. Clinton as his running mate, though 41 per cent do not. But when only Obama supporters were sampled, 56 per cent wanted her kept off the ticket, a sign of how raw emotions have been rubbed. For 17 months, Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton have fought each other for the nomination, in one of the epic political contests of modern times. For much of that contest, Ms. Clinton seemed the inevitable winner. But she and others had not reckoned on Mr. Obama's extraordinary ability to galvanize younger voters, to raise more than $200-million, mostly through small donations, to rally both less affluent African-Americans and upscale liberals to his cause, marrying a message of hope and reform to the most powerful oratory seen in America since the days of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. They fought to a draw until February, when Mr. Obama racked up an impressive and unanswered string of victories, mostly in smaller states. Ms. Clinton came back with wins in the Midwest and Appalachia, forging her own coalition of lower-income white voters plus women. But it was the party elders, the superdelegates, who had the final say in this race. And although Ms. Clinton had a grip on them at the start, by the end it was obvious they had collectively decided to give the nomination to Mr. Obama. About 200 of the superdelegates stayed uncommitted until the problem of seating the Michigan and Florida delegations — the two states had violated party rules by holding their primaries in January — was resolved over the weekend. Then Tuesday, in what appears to have been a move orchestrated by the Obama campaign, the superdelegate endorsements began pouring in, until by the time the polls closed in Montana and South Dakota the tally there was almost irrelevant. The most prominent among them was former president Jimmy Carter, who told The Associated Press Tuesday afternoon that “the fact is the Obama people already know they have my vote when the polls close tonight.” So the national presidential election race is fully under way, five months before the actual vote, with John McCain standing for the Republicans and Barack Obama for the Democrats. Mr. McCain acknowledged as much himself, in a speech last night in New Orleans. “Pundits and party elders have declared that Senator Obama will be my opponent,” he told supporters “He will be a formidable one. But I welcome the challenge.” The war in Iraq will figure prominently in this contest, since Mr. McCain wants to stay the course and Mr. Obama wants to bring the troops home. There will be contrasting policies as well on tax cuts and health care and trade, though both candidates are committed to fighting global warming. But as with all elections, the real choices will be intangible: youth versus experience, social justice versus individual freedom, leadership you can trust versus a new voice for America. The presidential race promises to be no less epic than that for the Democratic nomination. This election will be one for the books. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080604.wprimarymain04/BNStory/usElection2008/home
http://www.citylab.com/navigator/2016/02/should-the-law-step-in-to-outlaw-pedestrian-cellphone-use/462669/?utm_source=SFFB From The Atlantic CityLab Officials Keep Trying, and Failing, to Outlaw Distracted Walking A proposed bill in Hawaii is the latest in a doomed line of legislative attempts to deal with pedestrians on their cell phones. EILLIE ANZILOTTI @eillieanzi Feb 15, 2016 4 Comments Image Lori Foxworth/Flickr Lori Foxworth/Flickr You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who’d say that texting and walking mix well. New York’s (sadly fictitious) Department of Pedestrian Etiquette listed “walking with your face in a map or mobile device,” among its violations. Beyond the annoyance factor, it’s a health risk: 2010 data show that at least 1,500 people a year wound up in the emergency room after taking to the streets on their phones. The Pew Research Center has found that 53 percent of adult cell phone users have bumped into something as a result of distracted walking. And if you still don’t see the hazard, consider the La Crescenta, California, man who nearly texted himself straight into a bear. Yet people keep doing it. And when common sense fails, the law steps in. Or, at least, tries to. A bill introduced in the Hawaii House of Representatives at the end of January would ban pedestrians from crossing a street, road, or highway while using a mobile electronic device. The House Committee on Transportation deferred the bill on Wednesday, bringing to mind a similar ban proposed by the Honolulu City Council in 2011, which never reached approval. Legislative attempts to curtail pedestrian cellphone use do not have very successful track record. Carl Kruger, a former state senator from New York, introduced a proposal in 2007 that would have barred the use of electronics in intersections at the risk of a $100 fine. “Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry,” he said. The bill failed. Similarly, a 2011 Arkansas proposal to outlaw wearing headphones in both ears while walking went nowhere. (Studies have shown that, relative to texting, music isn’t even that great of a distraction.) Jimmy Jeffres, the senator behind the bill, knew it wouldn’t pass but introduced it anyway to raise awareness of the issue. "You might not get the full effect of the Boston Symphony Orchestra with one ear,” he told the Associated Press, “but you at least will be aware of your surroundings." Those lackluster outcomes didn’t stop the Utah Transit Authority from trying to slap a $50 fee on pedestrians using their phones, headphones, and other devices while crossing Salt Lake City’s light rail tracks in 2012. But the ordinance never became statewide law. Craig Frank, a Republican representative who opposed the bill, said at the time: “I never thought the government needed to cite me for using my cellphone in a reasonable manner.” (AP Photo/Ben Margot) Distracted driving laws have had a considerably easier time making it through the legislature; 46 states ban texting and 14 ban hand-held phone use entirely. But attempts to monitor how people conduct themselves while walking (or, for that matter, riding a bike) frustrate safety advocates who view pedestrians and cyclists as the most vulnerable city street users. Numerous states have proposed public awareness campaigns to direct pedestrian attention away from their phone screens and back toward their livelihoods; California’s 2014 campaign implores: “Stay Alert. Stay Alive.” Some researchers have become doubtful that such campaigns can work. Corey Basch of William Patterson University, co-author of a recent report on pedestrian distractedness at five Manhattan intersection, found that “Don’t Walk” signs failed to affect those distracted by their devices; nearly half of observed walkers who crossed against the light were looking at their phones, putting them at a greater risk, she said, than those who were paying attention to their surroundings. Consequently, she’s not sure pedestrians would heed—let alone notice—additional signage encouraging them to watch out for themselves. “The urgency to always be in touch and the fear of missing out on something has grown so strong I'm not even sure they're aware of how dangerous it is," Basch told NJ.com. sent via Tapatalk
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jk162UUpJfgGma16l7tAmrNPBShQ?docId=CNG.51741d44ded9b31056a85d8267330981.b31 Not sure any Canadians who would want to get a US Visa and start paying even more taxes. True, you will be able to work in the states, but I do not see the reward.