McCain Staffer Betting On Racism To Help His Candidate Win

In an interview with NPR's All Things Considered, a Senior McCain staffer, seems to reveal that they are betting on racism to help McCain in November. Even the NPR host had to do a double-take. It seems as if she wanted to say "You can't be that evil, cynical, and calculating", but of course she couldn't say it.

Even though I know how calculating these folks are, it is still amazing when you see and hear this kind of sickness. It still makes me shake my head.

If You Smell What Barack is Cookin’

So I’ve decided to forget about my qualified support for Obama and have decided to just plain support his candidacy for President. Why? My sister is also a blogger. After last Thursday’s acceptance speech by Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention she was moved to write something in her blog. This is what she had to say:

Little known fact: for about a year, while I was in high school, I contemplated a political career. I was a volunteer intern with the Democratic Coordinated Campaign in 2000, and I was hired as an intern for Senator Feingold’s office the summer between my junior and senior years. For a tiny while I thought to myself, you know what, I could be a damn fine president. Yes, I really did.

And then I realized, come on now, I’m biracial. I’m a woman. The daughter of an immigrant. It’s impossible in my lifetime. I can’t. I won’t ever be given the chance. Give up. And then I gave up.

Now imagine a girl, in high school, a teenager, mixed-race, black, Asian, Latina, native american, any girl who would have been held back by being who she was born as, imagine her having that dream today. And then watching Barack Obama’s speech tonight. And not giving up.

It’s the dreams of those young girls and boys that actually brought me to tears tonight, not anything that was said in that packed stadium in Denver. The tenuous hope, so easily taken away, that there could be a generation of children of color raised in an America with a biracial black man as its President. The dreams they’d be allowed to dream, and really believe in. The burdens of their parents that they wouldn’t feel at all. Just eight years ago, when I was in high school, dreaming, that seemed a complete impossibility. An impossibility.

I was wrong to give up, though I can’t take it back, my life is on a very different path now, and my heart is elsewhere. And I had my reasons not to hope. So far this election cycle I have been very, very doubtful about Senator Obama’s chances. He’s not President yet, he still may never be, but I’ve already been proven wrong. And I revel in it.

I didn’t believe that Americans were ready to nominate someone like Obama. Someone who looked like Obama, and had his background. I didn’t believe it because, as my family moved around the world, every time we moved back to the US, I was met with prejudice, nonacceptance, hostility, and ignorance. Not uniformly, not from everyone. But over and over again. In everyday incidences that, one by one, pounded it into my consciousness that I was not accepted, I did not belong, and it was because of what I look like, who my parents are, and where we come from. Somewhere in the back of my head, I believe that most people believe that I’m not a real American. And Barack Obama, a man with a background quite similar to mine in many respects, well, I couldn’t believe that people could put aside those prejudices that I’d felt so often in my life, and accept him as one of their own. I’m still not sure I do believe it.

But it’s not impossible anymore. And that’s enough to impress me, and amaze me, and humble me. I thought too little of America, because I was convinced that it thought so little of me, and of people like me.

Thanks for proving me wrong, Senator. You have my vote.

Liberal Arts Dude sez:

I must say I was very surprised reading the above from my sister. If you’ve read enough of this blog you will learn that I do plan on voting for Obama this coming November but my vote is a qualified one–Obama gets my vote but … and then a litany of disappointments and skepticism of the failed populist promises and betrayal of working peoples’ interests by the Democratic Party will follow.

Obama sounded like a true populist last Thursday. He said all the right things and got my hopes up that maybe, just maybe, he is sincere about this “Change” business and that if he wins in November, he will be able to change the culture of Washington DC and politics for the better. Because he is counting on the support and mandate from an organized and engaged citizenry. As he said, the election is really not about him -- it’s about us right? The citizenry whose hopes have been aroused by his candidacy and are now engaged and organized to participate in this grand experiment called Democracy.

I was impressed by the Obama campaign’s ability to elicit the type of response he did from my sister last night. Not a lot of politicians have been able to do that. Certainly not in my short lifetime. I’ve also never seen a campaign mobilize and raise money from so many ordinary people and get their hopes up.

An old story once said about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when a constituent met with him and made a great case for enacting reforms and policies. Roosevelt’s response: “That is all great. Now go out there and make me do it.” The story focuses on the importance and the role of the constituency in pressuring politicians from below in enacting the types of policies they want to happen.

Obama said he is running on a platform of Change. Let’s get out there and make him do it.

Cross posted in An Ordinary Person.

The ' Dap' Seen Around The World..LOL

People have cracked me up with the reaction to the Obamas' 'Dap' in St. Paul.

Here's an article at WaPo.com

This was in the replies at JJP

Here’s something I found on Slate.com today to make you guys giggle.

————–
The presidential campaign—well, one in particular—has introduced a new greeting to the political world: the fist pound (also known as daps). Last night, we saw perhaps the most high-profile pound of all time, as Michelle and Barack Obama bumped fists on national television before he took the stage.

What’s hilarious is watching the formal, AP Stylebook-loving media trying to figure out what to call it. In an article about Obama’s body man Reggie Love, the New York Times called Love’s preferred greeting a “closed-fisted high-five.” Last night produced other assorted references:

“Taking a fist-pound from wife Michelle, Obama stepped to the podium Tuesday”—MTV.com

“Michelle Obama (L) gives her husband, Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Senator Barack Obama, a knuckle-bump as a sign of support before he speaks to supporters.”—Monsters and Critics

“At 09:09:27 Central Time, Michelle Obama gave Barack Obama a pound in St. Paul, Minnesota.”—Lola New York

“I never realized how romantic and respectful and mutually appreciative and loving a frat-tastic fist bump could be. Could it be the new peck-on-the-cheek?”—The Frisky

“… Obama, who was joined on stage by his wife Michelle, with whom he shared a celebratory fist-bump.”—Reuters

“Obama, began with a loving fist to fist thumbs up with Michelle.”—Capitol Hill Blue

“Michelle is not as ‘refined’ as Obama at hiding her TRUE feelings about America—etc. Her ‘Hezbollah’ style fist-jabbing …”—Human Events

“I loved that moment, when they touched their hands together like that.” –Commenter, bjkeefe

Hilarious. Some editor trying to find a description of it to put into a story..LOL

Another article on this by Ta-Nehisi Coates:Obama's so black...

Then listening to Chris Matthews talk about it on Hardball...

Like I said, it's been hilarious.

The Official Mirror On America - Let's Just Enjoy This Moment Post

A reader suggested that we have a place where we could remember our favorite moments of the primary season.

I believe that's a good idea, because we can read one another's thoughts, and get energized, and just savor, if only in this post, what has happened up until this moment.

For me, I have a few moments of joy and nervousness.


1. January 3, 2008 - Pretty much all-White Iowa...the Obama FAMILY up on that stage, cheered on. The commentators were stunned. I was happy as a clam. It was beautiful.

2. The Michigan Fake Primary - The results from Detroit, where 'Uncommitted' received 70% of the vote. Remember, this was at the beginning of the Dogwhistle being blown, and that result from Detroit said that Black folk had heard that whistle being blown - loud and clear.

3. South Carolina - I exhaled in South Carolina, because you all know, we had those discussions here. We were worried for our Brothers and Sisters in South Carolina. We didn't know if they had heard the calls of the Dogwhistle. When those results rolled in that Saturday night, and they said that 200,000 more Black folks voted in 2008 than 2004, I was so proud.

4. The Ted Kennedy/Caroline Kennedy Endorsement -I really don't think that it can be said enough about what that endorsement meant. The MSM deliberately, I believe, completely overlooked what that endorsement did for Obama. I remember clearly, the glee, of them talking about Obama losing Massachusetts, thus the Kennedy Endorsement must not mean that much. That endorsement wasn't about winning Massachusetts. That endorsement was about stopping Camp Hillpatine's attempt to marginalize Obama into being the ' Black Candidate'. It was to stop that narrative, long enough for Obama to win those All-White States that he won on February 5th.

5. The string of Eleven in a Row - it was downright hilarious watching election returns on those nights. It was the first time it ACTUALLY dawned on the MSM...

" Oh @*#&! He MIGHT ACTUALLY WIN!"

6. Indiana/North Carolina....The stomping in North Carolina was wonderful....but, it was the perfect orchestration of the night.....Obama winning HUGE in North Carolina...and Indiana being too close to call. It was the last gasp of the MSM..and they knew they had to stop being pimps to the Clinton fraud that they had been perpetrating since Wisconsin, cause Chucky T told us the night of the Wisconsin Primary that she was DONE - delegate wise.

These are my moments, what are yours?

Let's reflect on what's happened up to this point.

January 3, 2008 - A Dream Forms Real Roots

A snowy night in Iowa.

That is when it began.

When a First Term Senator from the State of Illinois shocked America by winning, convincingly, the Iowa Caucus.

I spent the night fielding calls from friends and family. Short calls that didn't amount to much more than " HE WON.......I'll call you back!"

As an African-American, even though I had been donating money, volunteering, even going to Iowa to canvass, seeing him on that stage, in victory, was surreal.

For my mother, born in the Jim Crow South, seeing Obama on stage in 90+% White Iowa, a clear winner was something she never thought she'd see in her lifetime. For my teenaged nephew, all he knew was that his first political exercise of his franchisement would be for Barack Obama.

Admit it....Iowa made you shake your head.

What else do you you remember about that night?

Denver- From the Imagination of a West Wing Writer

Hat tip:Prometheus6

Lawrence O'Donnell of West Wing fame has penned a nightmare fan fiction:

Four Days In Denver

Michelle Obama Talks About the ' A' Word

Hat tip: Reader on Jack and Jill Politics

From the HuffingtonPost.com

Pertinent portion:

She called on another supporter, whose voice quivered and broke with barely contained emotion as she explained how important it is to her, personally, that our country change course. She explained that she had just returned from Oregon where she campaigned for Obama and attended the 75,000-person rally by the river. She had noticed, she said, that the Secret Service had increased security dramatically for Barack Obama's rallies since the Phoenix rally in January.

The room collectively gasped and murmured, some aghast that these fears were being spoken aloud directly to Barack Obama's wife. Some nodded, concern and fear on their faces. Others shifted on their feet, displaying a range of emotions -- concern, discomfort with the topic, indignation.

The woman continued: "What can you tell us..." and then her voice caught and broke as a sob rose up from her chest. She paused for a moment. "I'm afraid of what might happen. What can you tell us, after last week's comments--" another sob-- "after last week's comments, to make us feel more at ease?" She cried unabashedly after finally getting out her words.

The room that had been electrified with positive energy throughout the evening suddenly became still and quiet, all eyes focused on Michelle Obama. Michelle Obama's eyes, though, were focused on that concerned supporter. She paused, allowing the clearly distraught supporter to pull herself together. Maybe it was 30 seconds before Obama spoke, stretched out into imaginary minutes. Finally, she said firmly, "I'm ok. Really. I am ok. And if I'm ok, you should be ok.

"You know, we talked about this as a family."

She held the microphone with one hand, the other curved inward over her heart as she talked. Her tenor and body language was clear. Michelle Obama was talking as a mother. She was introspective and intimate, looking the questioner in the eyes as if they are the only two in the room.

"We talked about this as a family."

The room remained still and quiet. Imagine having that talk with your children. Then, she paused, gathering herself, pulling herself up, seeming to grow even taller, Michelle, the campaigning wife returns. She says,

"I've talked about this before. Barack is probably safer now than he was before. Kids are dying in the street in our community. They get shot walking to class, sitting in school, taking the bus home. They are dying in the street.... Send us good vibes. Pray for us. Think positive thoughts. But most of all, be vigilant. Be vigilant about stopping this kind of talk.
It's not funny. You don't have to like Barack to dislike that kind of talk. Be vigilant about stopping that kind of talk."

Then she reminded the crowd what we are fighting for, and why it is important to forge ahead without fear. "Fear is the reason this country is where it is today. Fear is a useless emotion. Don't ever make decisions based on fear. Make decisions based on hope and possibility. Make decisions based on what should happen, not what shouldn't. Don't ever make decisions based on fear."

The talk about questioning the patriotism of Barack and Michelle Obama is patently absurd. Practically, from the moment he announced, his life and the lives of his family have been threatened. Nobody who doesn't love this country is going to subject the ones they love most to this possible horror. Lack of patriotism? Patriotism is the only theme large enough to explain it to small children. To explain why Daddy is away so much. To explain why all these strange people are around. To explain why Mama is gone sometimes too. Patriotism and love of country is the only way to get a small child to envision something larger than themselves, and to ask them to understand that they must be less selfish - for love of country.

Flag pin?

BULL

Stepping out into the unknown everyday, knowing that all it takes is just one nut. One crazy person.

THAT is PATRIOTISM.

That is what Barack and Michelle Obama have.

The Attempt to Dehumanize Michelle Obama

I struggled with writing this piece, because I thought for awhile that I should just let it go. That I shouldn't spread this filth, but then I realized that not confronting it was a problem.

When I first saw this over at TheRoot.com, my mouth went open. Not that I didn't expect it, I did. I've said from the beginning that the entire Obama candidacy would be a Racial Rorschach Test for the country, and that a whole lot that had been bubbling beneath the surface would surface in this campaign.

The problem with this horrific picture is that it was published on DailyKos without someone going, ' um, I wonder if I should post this?'

See, this is what I feel is a residual effect of the active racebaiting brought on by Camp Hillpatine.

It's not that I didn't expect this kind of horror.

It's just that I believed it would be coming from the GOP.

There is NO WAY that any logical person would have posted this picture of Michelle Obama.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the White Feminist Establishment to defend Michelle Obama. The better assumption, until proven otherwise, is that Michelle's on her own, and those of us out here, of all colors, who admire and respect Michelle - well, we're going to have to do our best to defend her, which is why I'm speaking out.

The image is wrong because it is diminishing, disrespecting, dehumanizing.

Tied to a tree? With the KLAN around her? In a RED DRESS? With a BRANDING IRON honing in on her back?

Just ONE of these images would be enough.

All 4 is sensory overload.
1. Tied to a tree
Do I need to go over what Black folk and trees means? The history of this country is littered with the violence against Black Men and Women who were treated as sport as they were hung from trees. Didn't Jena teach you anything that it's just not acceptable?

2. The KLAN
I don't even believe I need to explain why the image of the Klan is upsetting.

3. In the RED DRESS

Red is the color for harlots. Red is the color of a loose woman. Once again diving back into that stereotype that the only use a Black woman has is ON HER BACK as some receptacle for when the White Slavemaster strolled down to the slave quarters. The vulnerability that the Black woman not only had no virtue that a White man was to respect, but that she didn't have ANY VIRTUE PERIOD.

4. The BRANDING IRON

We brand ANIMALS in this country. In this image, any thoughts that Michelle was HUMAN is gone. She's no better than the cow grazing in the field, who is also branded.


But, Michelle Obama IS a human being. She is a woman. A loving wife. A devoted mother. A successful professional. Intelligent. Smart. She is all this, and more. And, it seems as if she's going to be under attack from now until the election, so those of us who support her, have to continue to be vigilant. I do believe we wouldn't be as weary; that we would have been more rested for the General Election, IF we hadn't of had to fight the RACEBAITING IN A DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY.

I've said it before,and I'll say it again...

It's not that I expected Obama to go through this campaign without having to deal with racebaiting on some level.

It's just that I didn't expect it to COME FROM ANOTHER DEMOCRAT.

The GOP never pretended to be Black folks' friends.

So, we were just supposed to roll over and let Camp Hillpatine racebait Obama from one end of the country to another without speaking up?

HELL NO.

But, for those of you who were SILENT as Obama was being racebaited during this time...

Just continue to keep your mouths SHUT when the GOP does it, because you no longer have any moral credibility. Your SILENCE spoke volumes and now has rendered you SUSPECT.

I thought about, on the off chance, that Malia and Sasha saw that image of their mother- my chest tightened. I thought about my 8 week-old great-niece; as a Black woman, will she STILL have to be subject to such foul and racist imagery when she matures? Imagery designed to strip her of her dignity and self-respect. I say no. We will have to confront these foul images when they come up. We cannot let them pass. We must label them UNACCEPTABLE on all levels. We must expose them for the ugliness that they are, and continue to have the Obamas' backs.


UPDATE: In the comments over at JJP, some have pointed out to me some of the other work of the poster. I'm coming down on the image. Do you realize that IF I had actually seen that on DailyKos, I wouldn't have been able to read the diary, because I just would have been stopped in my tracks? It might have been the best diary in the world, but that image would have stopped me from reading it.

And, I believe the poster would have been better off just posting the picture - as is.

Without a diary.

That would have been more powerful.

I don't think he understood the true extent of his imagery.

The image alone was a diary.

But, I can't get past the belief that the racebaiting during this campaign has lowered the bar. The same way I believe the Hillpatine South Dakota comments on Friday relate to the 'Obama Assassination' talk later on Fox. All part of the same cesspool.

McCain Wanted To Talk To Hamas TOO

h/t jedreport




Um, Senator 'Straight Talk Express' McCain isn't speaking such straight talk. After running up behind Dubya yesterday in his criticism of Obama being an ' appeaser', lo and behold, what is found?

From an interview 2 years ago:

RUBIN: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCAIN: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Hmmmmmm....
Hmmmmmm.....

Will Dubya come out and call McCain an appeaser? Or is McCain a flip-flopper?

L.Douglas Wilder Offers Obama Encouragement and Warnings

From Yahoo.com

Obama Gets Encouragement and Warning From Wilder
Heidi Przybyla
Thu Apr 24, 9:01 AM ET



April 24 (Bloomberg) -- Doug Wilder, the nation's first elected black governor, has both encouragement and a warning for Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

The encouragement is that Obama is approaching the race issue the right way, and the nation is ready to elect a black president. The warning is that it may not be as ready as polls suggest.

``Let's not kid ourselves again, the issue of race will not disappear; but I don't think it will predominate,'' the former Virginia governor said in an interview at his office in Richmond, where he is now mayor. At the same time, he said, even if Obama is the nominee and heads into the fall with an apparent lead, the election ``will be closer than any polls will suggest.''

Wilder, 77, is an authority in the matter. In 1989, he won the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in the overwhelmingly white onetime cradle of the Confederacy. Polls taken just before Election Day had put him ahead of his Republican competitor by as much as 10 percentage points; he won by less than half a percentage point.

Wilder said he believes Obama has done a good job so far in blunting the race issue. ``Obama, by not running as an African- American, has been able to show that race is coincidental to his being,'' rather than the centerpiece of his campaign, he said.

The message Obama, 46, sends to voters is ```I'm not being dominated by any groups,''' Wilder said. ``That includes African- Americans.''

`Ingrained Difficulty'

Wilder said he isn't surprised that Obama has run behind New York Senator Hillary Clinton among white voters in some states. Obama has faced more ``ingrained difficulty'' as a black candidate than Clinton has as a woman, Wilder said.

Bias against Clinton, 60, may have more to do with specific incidents that have reinforced stereotypes, he said. ``Hillary's reactions to things conjure up images that are not necessarily the healthiest in terms of hissy fits or reactions because of emotions, like the crying and the weeping and then forgetting somewhat that she did that,'' he said.

In Pennsylvania's April 22 Democratic primary, Obama lost by 10 points to Clinton, as white Democrats voted for her by a 65- to-35 percent margin. In exit polls, 19 percent of Pennsylvania Democratic voters said race was important in making their choice.

`Struggling'

``He's struggling with them in terms of the nomination,'' Wilder said. ``I don't think that struggle will emanate through the general election because they have far more in common with him than they do with the Republican candidate.''

Rest of article at the link above.

I appreciate Wilder's words of support towards Obama.

Booman - Clintons have crossed the line

I have been very frustrated the last couple of days. The blog has been screwing up. The politics of separate and divide are being used by the Clintons. It started with the 3 am commercial and it has just continued. Not only do we need to tear down Barack Obama but we also need to elevate ourselves. Instead, of telling the truth about what she has accomplished we have that Lying Man from Saturday Night Live (I know I'm dating myself). "And I was ... dodging sniper fire. yeah, that's it. Sniper fire. And everyone had to sit on their bulletproof vests. Yeah, that's right. And I solved the Northern Ireland conflict while I was brushing my teeth. Yeah, that's right. That's the ticket."

Booman from Booman Tribute has a great post on the anger that many of us, progressives, feel against Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Clinton gang.

From Booman: Hillary Clinton has gone too far. In a conversation with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Clinton presumed to tell Barack Obama where he should worship his God. She suggested that Reverend Wright is guilty of 'hate speech' and compared him to Don Imus.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a wide-ranging interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporters and editors, said she would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor made. "He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." ..."You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that," Clinton said. "I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."

Hillary Clinton has a lot of gall to question her opponent's choice of church considering her own kooky associations. And I think it would be equally repulsive if Barack Obama chose to make an issue of her decision to worship with Sam Brownback and Rick 'Man on Dog' Santorum. Obama certainly could question her faith and what her faith suggests about her political commitments. As Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported in Mother Jones last fall...

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

The Fellowship leader is Doug Coe, who Clinton has described as "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

Coe's friends include former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Reaganite Edwin Meese III, and ultraconservative Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). Under Coe's guidance, Meese has hosted weekly prayer breakfasts for politicians, businesspeople, and diplomats, and Pitts rose from obscurity to head the House Values Action Team, an off-the-record network of religious right groups and members of Congress created by Tom DeLay. The corresponding Senate Values Action Team is guided by another Coe protégé, Brownback, who also claims to have recruited King Abdullah of Jordan into a regular study of Jesus' teachings.

But Barack Obama has not made Clinton's kooky right-wing church into an issue on the campaign trail because he understands that a person's faith is an intensely personal and (hopefully) non-political affair.

Clinton's decision to question Obama's choice of church is a bigger problem than her personal tastelessness. Her decision is an arrow aimed directly at the heart of the black community. It is one of the worst acts of public betrayal I have ever seen committed by a Democratic politician in my lifetime, and the most shortsighted and toxic decision I can recall.

White Americans may be surprised by their introduction to the style of black sermonizing in the figure of Rev. Wright, but the black community sees nothing particularly out of place in his rhetoric. This may or may not be a political vulnerability in the general election, but a far greater vulnerability is opened up by telling the black church-going community that Rev. Wright is the equivalent of Don Imus and his 'nappy-headed hos'. The suggestion that Rev. Wright was engaged in 'hate speech' of a kind so loathsome as to require leaving his church is deeply offensive. The black community is feeling besieged by the national spotlight on Rev. Wright and the ensuing white backlash. They are looking around for allies, and find Hillary Clinton piling on and throwing them under the bus.

Clinton is not only presumptuous, she is vicious and divisive and hurtful. She should be defending Barack Obama against unfair attacks, and defending and contextualizing the tradition of black sermonizing. In his speech, Barack Obama sought to educate and bring reconciliation. Clinton's response is to throw it all back in his face and suggest that there is something wrong with him for attending his church.

If Clinton succeeds in pushing this racial polarization to the point that white people will not vote for Obama, the black community will never, ever, forgive her. This is especially true because she can only win on the backs of the superdelegates.

At this point it is absolutely imperative that the party leaders step in and stop the Clinton campaign from inflicting lasting damage to the relationship between the party and the African-American community. She cannot be allowed to even try to win the nomination this way, let alone actually win it.

This is poison of the worst possible kind. It will destroy the party's electoral viability more swiftly and more surely than anything I can think of.

I call on Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, Chairman Dean, and the other leaders of the party top step in right now and call this contest.

The Clintons absolutely must not be permitted to do this. It must be stopped.

Overview of the Democratic Primary Race w/ schedule

Below is a schedule of the remaining Democratic Primary constests, including which way the States lean.

Pledged Delegate Count So Far (not including Superdelegates):

Obama: 1116

Clinton: 985

Remaining Schedule For The Democrats

February 19th (tonight)

Hawaii Caucus (toss up) Delegates have already been awarded
Wisconsin (toss up) 74 Pledged delegates at stake

March 4th

Ohio Primary (leans heavily Clinton) 141 Pledged delegates at stake
Texas- Hybrid Primary/Caucus (leans Clinton) 193 Pledged delegates at stake
Rhode Island Primary (leans Clinton) 21 Pledged delegates at stake
Vermont Primary (leans Clinton) 15 Pledged delegates at stake

March 8th

Wyoming Caucus (toss up) 12 Pledged delegates at stake

March 11th

Mississippi Primary (toss up, but looks good for Obama) 33 Pledged delegates at stake

April 22nd

Pennsylvania Primary (leans Clinton) 158 Pledged delegates at stake

May 3rd

Guam Caucus (toss up) 6 Pledged delegates at stake (9 total)

May 6th

Indiana Primary (no recent polling info, but looks good for Clinton) 72 Pledged delegates at stake

North Carolina Primary (leans Obama) 115 Pledged delegates at stake

May 13

West Virginia Primary (toss up, but I would say W.V. looks good for Clinton) 28 Pledged delegates at stake

May 20th

Kentucky Primary (no recent polling data, but looks good for Clinton) 51 Pledged delegates at stake

Oregon Primary (deep Blue Country.... strong deep progressive, & anti-war voters. Similar demographics as Washington State and Minnesota, both of which Obama has already won. So it has to look good for Obama). 52 Pledged delegates at stake

June 3rd

Montana Primary (toss up) 16 Pledged delegates at stake

South Dakota Primary (toss up) 15 Pledged delegates at stake

June 7th

Puerto Rico (toss up...but Obama needs to get down there to help sell his platform and to seal the deal) The 63 delegates from PR are typically awarded as a block, due to the complicated PR politics.

Note: The above outlook will change as I find more information. But things are setting up for a possible late comeback for Clinton. If a comeback materializes, will it be enough?

**********************************

General George Custer & Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Draws Line In the Sand In Texas & Ohio - A Great Comeback Strategy or Custers Last Stand?

When & Where Will This Battle Royale Take Place?

Date: March 4th, 2008

Place: Ohio, Texas (and to a smaller degree, Vermont and Rhode Island).

What does Clinton have to do?

Not only does she have to win on March 4th, but she has to win big, especially in Texas and Ohio. She has to get well over 60% of the vote and crush Obama in all contests.

However, Texas is turning out to be a bit of a problem for Clinton in her comeback quest. Obama (by some miracle) has tightened the race in Texas. Texas was supposed to be her great firewall... But will March 4th turn out to resemble Custers Massacre at Little Big Horn for the Clinton camp? Just 5 days ago, Clinton was heard issuing the following challenge to Obama:

"To my opponent Mr. Obama..... meet me in Texas"

And Obama is answering the call.... with a louder voice than the Clinton camp expected. Did the Clinton camp miscalculate by including Texas in their "last stand", line in the sand strategy? I think they may have....and I will explain why later on. The Clinton camp went as far as saying (earlier this month) that a win in Texas and Ohio would mean that Obama should step out of the race. Is there are problem of over confidence on the part of the Clintons? Or abject arrogance?

The media is already helping Clinton lower expectations for March 4th, especially regarding Texas. The media is also setting up Wisconsin as a great opportunity for Clinton to come back. Even a marginal win for Clinton in Wisconsin, and later in Texas, will be be framed by the media as huge victories for Clinton. The corporate media seems desperate to keep Clinton (the media favorite) in the race.

Clinton is also hoping to get delegates from Florida and Michigan included in the final delegate count. Dirty politics? Of course. But nothing seems to be out of bounds for the Clintons. This seems to be standard operating procedure for them.

She will also run negative advertisements in all of the remaining States. She will attempt (again) to label Obama as "the Black candidate". She will attempt to label him as "all hat no Cattle"...a man with no substance and no experience.... someone who is not competent and not up for the job. She will scare voters by saying that they are "rolling the dice" with this Black guy. He will turn the White House into the Black House.... a den of sin. He will embarrass the Country.

Yes folks... you will see it all from the Clinton camp in the weeks to come.

***************************************

What does Obama have to do?

First of all, Obama has to do well tonight in Wisconsin and Hawaii. He has to at least match Clinton 1-1 in both States, although that would be seen as a big loss for Obama. But the race is all about delegates at this point. As I mentioned, even a marginal win by Clinton would be seen as a huge victory for her and a huge loss for him....that's just the way the biased media works. It wouldn't matter if the delegate advantage remains essentially the same. It's all about the media wanting to claim a victory for Clinton.

After tonight Obama has to somehow get out of March 4th, and April 22nd alive. He needs to pull more miracles in the coming months. To do this, he doesn't have to win... but he has to narrow the gap. Texas has built in advantages for Obama, with its hybrid Primary/Caucus system. It appears that he has narrowed the gap in Texas. He must also narrow the gap in Ohio and Pennsylvania. His performance tonight in Wisconsin could help him narrow the gap in Ohio. It is pretty clear that Clinton will gain delegates in the coming weeks. Obama has to keep Clinton's net delegate gain to an absolute minimum.

The problem for Obama from here on out is that he is dealing with an opponent who has turned completely negative, and is now in swiftboat (nuclear) mode. They are willing to do anything to win (or steal the election). Obama must watch his actions and the actions of his campaign very carefully. Clinton and her media allies are now attempting to take Obama out... TAKE HIM OUT. The Clinton tactics are reminiscent of the Republican stategy that was used against Senator John Kerry in 2004. Sort of a scorched earth policy.... nothing is safe. She will go after the Obama children if she can find an opening. They are already going after Michelle Obama with a vengeance.

Why Obama does not have to win Texas (below is the best explanation that I have seen).

Obama could lose Texas, but still do well in the delegate count...perhaps even winning more delegates, despite losing.

With Texas and Ohio coming up rapidly, we had been curiously deprived of polls from the Lone Star State. But two surveys out this morning confirm that Clinton is in good shape to win the state -- but will she manage to be ahead in the delegate count?

An IRV poll has Hillary Clinton ahead 49% to 41%, relying on a strong showing among Hispanics (63%).

A Rasmussen poll looks even better for Clinton, as she is ahead 54% to 38%. Without providing numbers, Rasmussen does say Clinton is ahead among Latinos, so Obama has not yet been able to contest her advantage there.

Update: As always, ARG comes out with a poll that looks like an outlier. The only institute that has Wisconsin going Clinton (+9), ARG is now the only one that has Texas leaning Obama in its new poll: 48% to 42%. Clinton is ahead among registered Dems and Obama gets all his lead among indies.

More than two weeks before Ohio and Texas, baseline polls in both show that Clinton could win them and survive to fight in Pennsylvania, and possibly even win them big. But the question also is whether she can close her pledged delegate deficit significantly, even on March 4th. And this is where Texas's absurdly complex delegate allocation system kicks in.

In a detailed study of the IRV poll, relying on their indications of regional breakdown, Burnt Orange Report explains that Clinton's 8% lead would still give Obama more delegates out of Texas! This is due in great part to the even/odd district particularities we were discussing in the run-up to Super Tuesday, but this time the odd/even district allocation is not due to chance, but to GOP gerrymandering. Let's embark on a quick overview of the Texas process:

(1) Of Texas's 193 pledged delegates, 126 are allocated through the primary. 64 are allocated through a caucus for which voters have to attend their "precinct conventions" after the polls close. The 64 delegates will not be allocated before the June state convention but they will reflect the wishes of the precinct convention (just like in most caucuses, like Iowa).

(2) Texas's delegates are allocated by state senate district, not by congressional district. And each district has a number of delegates according to the turnout in the last election. Now, the last election saw a very high turnout in African-American districts but very low in Hispanic ones which means that places where Obama is strong will award relatively more delegates than those that are Clinton strongholds. This is the first problem Clinton faces.

(3) The Texas GOP has gerrymandered the state Senate districts to put as many African-Americans in as few districts as possible (as this article from the Huffington Post explains. This will have major consequences on March 4th. Indeed, many districts only have 4 delegates, which will make it extremely difficult for Clinton to get any sort of delegate lead, since you need to get 62.5% to split those districts 3-1. So after votes are counted in most of the districts, the two candidates could still be close to a tie in delegates, even if Clinton is leading by double-digits in them! But the districts that award the most delegates, especially in Houston, have 7 or 8, and those are the places Obama is hoping to do well in, certainly getting more delegates and perhaps even a lead overall depending on the exact percentages.

Ultimately, will Texas cross the line in absurd delegate plots? In Nevada, Clinton had won by 6% but lost the delegate count 13-12. Obama had then argued that Clinton's support was too concentrated in the Vegas area whereas he had appealed statewide. If Clinton wins by 8% in Texas but loses the delegate count, while winning in most of the state, is that the point at which people start wondering whether the delegate system should be reformed? Can Clinton get some mileage out of it to try and undermine what Obama's pledged delegate count consists in? This would give her an ideal occasion to introduce the popular vote argument, a vote she right now trails in but could come ahead in if she wins Ohio and Texas.

Source

Worried about SuperDelegates Hijacking Democracy?

Then click on the following links:

Democracy for America -Voters Decide

Superdelegate Transparency Project


Here is what we're up against - from The Boston Globe

Clinton is determined to "take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote" with a plan to "persuade enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention." Clinton "will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson."

Campaign Obituary: John Edwards

Despite weeks of assertions that he would continue to campaign up to the convention, John Edwards unexpectedly dropped out of the race today. Making an announcement from the same place he began his campaign more than a year ago, Edwards appeared in New Orleans to confirm that he was abandoning his second presidential bid.

Overshadowed since the outset by two so-called celebrity candidates, Edwards struggled to keep up with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton financially, falling behind in a media war that painted a two-person race. Putting most of his chips in Iowa's kickoff caucuses, he narrowly edged Clinton for second, but the final blow was probably dealt by his distant third place finish on Saturday in his home state of South Carolina. The campaign had acknowledged that their path to the nomination had become extremely difficult, but argued they intended to win as many delegates as they could to gain influence at the convention. Edwards was the driving force of the policy debate for Democrats, coming out with detailed plans on health care, education, and poverty relief. "It's time for me to step aside," Edwards told the crowd of supporters, "so that history can blaze its path."

So what impact will the decision have on the race going forward? Let's start with what we know. A brokered convention, always a long shot, is now almost certainly out of the question. Such a scenario always relied on Edwards capturing enough delegates to prevent either Obama or Clinton from securing the nomination outright. Now, with the field shrinking to two candidates, the path to the nomination should be much clearer after February 5.

An endorsement didn't come today, but one wasn't ruled out for the future. Edwards noted that he had spoken to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both having pledged to make the fight to end poverty a central part of their campaigns. Despite a meeting with Clinton last week that set off rumors of a potential deal, it seems unlikely that Edwards would back the former first lady. Advisor David "Mudcat" Saunders said today, "I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure he does not endorse Hillary Clinton." Saunders doesn't speak for the candidate, but Edwards has criticized Clinton since the campaign began on Iraq, NAFTA, and representing the status quo.

The question regarding an endorsement seems to be whether he will give it to Obama or simply remain on the sidelines. Our sense, pure speculation, is that Edwards is not a man to remain neutral--expect an Obama endorsement and soon.

The far more difficult question to answer is where his supporters will go. Edwards' support seems to be made up of two separate groups, which could split between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In 2004, he campaigned as a Southern centrist who could win in November, attracting much of his support from white blue-collar voters, some of whom stayed with him this cycle. Since the 2004 campaign ended, however, Edwards has moved considerably to the left, attracting a great deal of liberal support and becoming a favorite of the lefty blogosphere.

These voters, 10-15% of the Democratic electorate according to recent national polls, now have a decision to make. Clinton has been more successful in courting blue-collar support, having equaled Edwards in union backing. Of course, Edwards' departure may also allow the anti-Clinton vote to align fully behind Obama. Edwards strongest support has come from white men and they could become the key swing group going forward. Some believe the racial overtones of the campaign will drive these voters to Clinton in the South, while others suggest they've already passed on Clinton and will turn to the next best alternative. In the end, Obama should stand to benefit the most, but perhaps not by as wide a margin as some would suspect.

One thing is clear--Edwards' withdrawal creates a head-to-head battle that will first present itself at a debate in California tomorrow night. With voters across the country now without a candidate, the stakes could not be higher.

Cross-posted at Political Realm.

Democratic Debate or the WWF?

I'm done with the "I said," "I never said,"and "she said." Hillary has taken a page right out of the Karl Rove playbook. She has twisted Obama's words. Barack Obama never said that he loved the Republicans. He never said that. (look at this post for the video and listen to what he really said) Instead, he said that Reagan was an agent of change. This is true. I hate the analogy but it is true. I would have used Ghandi or Teddy Roosevelt as agents of change. Unfortunately, those references would have sent some to the internet and would have left others scratching their heads.

What Hillary has done is not politics. It is down right nasty and dishonest. She starts attacking Obama because he hasn't spelled out exactly how he is going to pay for his foreign aid programs. Okay. But what about her health care program? Hillary Clinton has had 10 years to formulate a health care program. Where are her numbers? How would someone like me get paid? Physician reimbursement has dropped across the board for years. Hell, Cardiac Surgeons used to be able to make over $2 million per year. Now, if they are lucky they might be able to make a quarter of that. Nurses need a salary increase. Where is that in her progressive plan? Hospitals desperately need more social workers. Where is that in her plan?

I simply reject the politics of personal destruction. I reject the politics of Democrats eating their own. This is so disappointing. I'm pissed.

TCR has some thoughts.

(BTW, I'm at another trauma conference so I'm done blogging for tonight. I'll take some Pepto and watch the rest of the "debate" and post some video tomorrow.)

Update: Video added.

As I was driving back home today, I had a chance to hear Lynn Samuels and earlier I heard Alex Bennett. From listening to these 2 left wing talk show hosts, I learned that Barack Obama is an asshole and is full of himself. Again, these are not right wing talking heads but "thoughtful" progressives.

Alex Bennett tried to spin the argument that because Obama spoke on Martin Luther King day that he was using the holiday for personal gain which "proved" that he was an egotistical, ass. I wish I had time to call his show this morning because I would have asked what would have happened if Barack Obama didn't speak on MLK day. What kind of noise would he have heard from liberals and Blacks? Was he too good for Martin Luther King? Barack was in an impossible situation. If you can't see that and it appears that Alex Bennett couldn't, then Bennett isn't worthy of the national stage, IMHO.

Lynn Samuels basically stated that she is supporting Hillary Clinton because Hillary was a woman. What? If that is her position that's fine but at least try to foster some support for the other Democratic candidates. Nope. She didn't. If she is just going to be a gossip queen who is going to talk about fashion and not examine the issues then she belongs with Sally Jessie and Montel.

Sparks Fly In South Carolina Showdown

In the most heated debate of the cycle, the three Democrats on stage tonight in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, noted clear distinctions of both policy and personality. The increased ferocity comes both as an extension of the typically behind the scenes surrogate fight that has been going on for weeks and as a signal of the increased stakes after split decisions in Iowa and New Hampshire with February 5 looming on the horizon.

Both Clinton and Obama dug into the opposition research file tonight, frequently referencing past votes and apparent contradictions. Obama appeared eager to stand up to the Clinton machine and prove he has the fire to withstand the grueling election season. Obama's frustration at weeks of Clinton needling was visible throughout much of the first hour. Obama and Clinton traded blows over Bill Clinton's role in the campaign, Obama's praise for Ronald Reagan, health care plans, economic stimulus offerings, and the Iraq War. Obama went to great lengths to defend himself from every change, which made him seem either sharp or defensive, depending on one's perspective.

Clinton, for her part, was not about to back down, though her aggressiveness was pushed into outright anger at times. Responding to Obama's suggestion that she was a "corporate lawyer on the board of Wal-Mart," Clinton sharply replied that Obama was "representing your contributor Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago." That exchange was the perhaps the most heated of the night, but it certainly wasn't the only tense moment.

All things equal, John Edwards was the clear winner of this debate. He made the most of his time--rising above the Clinton vs. Obama tit-for-tat and backing up his points with a wealth of specifics. All things, of course, are not equal, but Edwards showed he remained a formidable debater with courtroom prowess. Unlike previous debates, this wasn't a two-on-one against Hillary Clinton, rather Edwards frequently teamed up with the former first lady to drive a point against Obama. On issues like health care and voting 'present' in the Illinois Senate, Edwards was unusually sharp against his oft ally. Without a doubt, Edwards was good, but did he do enough to change the momentum of his campaign?

In the end, the trio offered interesting contrasts on a variety of issues, with differing visions of leadership beyond 2008. With a supportive audience, the King holiday as a backdrop, and a lead in the state's polls, Obama is our default winner, though none of the three should leave the debate disappointed.

Clip of a few of the bitter exchanges in the SC Debate.


Cross-posted at Political Realm.

Barack Obama for President

Barack Obama for President

When Barack Obama first announced that he was running for President, I had my doubts. I had my doubts that he could seriously take on the most powerful Democratic Machine in a quarter century and give it a good fight.

I understood his reasoning for running for President NOW. In fact, I thought it was a smart strategic move on his part in this sweepstakes known as The First Black President.

I cheered him on because I thought it was time that places who had never seen a Black candidate up close and personal in this country, would get that opportunity. I wanted for the country to see that a Black Man could run a credible, serious campaign for President and the republic would not fall apart. I had wanted to see that with Colin Powell, but I didn't get it with him.

The initial question was: was it the ' right time'?

I had to laugh at that one, because nobody ever uses ' Black' and ' the right time' in the same sentence. You take the time given to you and you run like hell with it. Obama understood that the door opens rarely like this, so you have to step up or let it pass you by. I would like to take this opportunity to thank George W. Bush, for if he hadn't of been such an utter failure on so many levels, then the country wouldn't remotely be open to the 'possibility' of a Black man as President.


The "Experience" Question

Hillary Clinton is a One Term Senator. Period. THAT is the extent of her experience. Don't give me the swill of her being someone's wife equals solid professional experience. If that's the case, then sign me up for the Laura Bush for Governor of Texas Exploratory Committee.

John Edwards is a One Term Senator. Period.

So, Barack Obama is a First Term Senator. It's about even for me there.

The Question of Ideology

Obama is by far the most consistent Progressive, according to those who do the evaluations on that sort of thing. It's not that Clinton and Edwards are far far to the right, it's just that Obama is to the left. So, let's leave it at that.

The Question of Electability

I have written many times that those who argue about electability better be arguing for John Edwards. If you bring up the fact, that in the history of this country, only a White male has been elected, and thus, this is why they support Edwards, I wouldn't have to like it, but I could accept it.

I will never accept an Electability argument for Clinton over Obama. You have polls that BEGAN with Clinton at 45% of the electorate saying that they will NEVER vote for her. The latest one, a year out, before any real attacks on her, have HALF OF THIS COUNTRY saying that they will NEVER vote for her. HALF before a single GOP commercial being run against her. Don't talk to me about electability with her. She gets Democrats. Period. She doesn't get Independents and she doesn't get Republicans. Basically, her strategy is 50%+1, and haven't we 'been there and done that' already?

The recent polls have shown that Obama is strong in General Election polls. In REAL polls versus REAL GOP Candidates, Obama is winning in every single contest by wider margins than Clinton. Here's the latest Electability Guide from Newsweek.

I am NOT naive. I am NOT delusional. I understand race in America as well as any Black person that has grown up in this country. I know that Obama could be subject to a Bradley Effect. But, the truth is, there are times when you have to choose optimism over pessimism. You don't have to be Pollyanna, but you fight, you push forward, and you hope. If you're ultimately disappointed, oh well, but it won't destroy you.

I have written plenty of times that I DO NOT KNOW if White people will, when push comes to shove, vote for a Black man.

I only want THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

I believe it's time for that answer.

Obama's Campaign Approach

It has been disheartening to read 'Progressive' after 'Progressive' deride Barack Obama because they don't believe he'll be an attack dog like Hillary Clinton or Edwards. I don't know why it took me so long to vocalize this, but it came to me:

Barack Obama and no other Black candidate would EVER

and I mean EVER

campaign on a theme of 'attack dog', or anything remotely dealing with 'attacking' the opposition.

THEY WON'T GET ELECTED.

This doesn't mean that they roll over and play dead with the opposition. They will debate on the issues. They will be strong against their opponent. Being forceful without seeming nasty. They could never be the nasty, vengeful attack dog that Progressives seem to want. There is NO Black candidate that can to into an election with the strategy of "50%+1". It might TURN OUT that way, but there is no way that they can go into an election with that kind of strategy. Just won't work for them.

Look at the campaigns of Black candidates who have gone after something larger than a safe gerrymandered Congressional seat...what is their campaign focused around?
Reaching out to the ENTIRE community.

They have to, because they are Black. And, the ONLY way that, as a Black candidate, you will be able to WIN, is to appeal to a broad constituency. It's the ONLY way.

Barack Obama does it. (he won the Senate)
Harold Ford did it. (he lost the Senate)
Deval Patrick did it. (he won)
Adrian Fenty did it. (he won)
Douglas Wilder did it.(he won)
Tom Bradley did it. (he lost)
David Dinkins did it. (he won)
Harvey Gantt did it (he lost)
Roland Burris (Illinois) and Carl McCall (New York) did it. (both lost)
In the midst of one of the most racially polarizing campaigns in the history of this country, Harold Washington did it.

The MINUTE Barack Obama turns into that 'attack dog' that the Progressives are clamoring for, what will happen?

He will become THE ANGRY BLACK MAN.

He knows it.

I know it.

And, then, THERE will be ANOTHER excuse as to why they can't vote for Obama.

Obama understands that and is NOT going to fall into THAT trap.

That mode of campaign doesn't work with Black candidates. It's not an option for a Black candidate - not if they want to WIN. And make no mistake, Barack is running to WIN.

My Bottom Line

If forced to, I would have to say that the two things that Barack Obama can offer me, as a voter are:

1. The Disposal of the Imperial Presidency.

Of all the things that George Bush has done that are detrimental to this country, none of have more potentially long lasting implications than his shredding of The Constitution with The Imperial Presidency. The respect for The Constitution should be above all else, considering that you swear and oath to it. My stance could be called ' hokey', or ' are you for real?', and yes, I am. I am an AMERICAN of AFRICAN descent, and I respect both. The Constitution, IMO, is probably the greatest modern document ever written. It's brilliance is that it lives and adapts, but the dedication to the rule of law is what I believe. Without it, and believing that all its citizens, no matter how rich or powerful, are subject to it, is a fundamental for me. To have it trampled on, as Bush & Co. have done, is so offensive, it brings with it a deep sense of rage.

The Imperial Presidency isn't wrong because BUSH is doing it. It would be EQUALLY wrong if a Democrat were doing it too. What's best for the country is to be rid of it- PERIOD.

I believe Barack Obama would rectify that. I believe he would respect and honor the Constitution. I don't have any reason to believe that John Edwards wouldn't also get rid of the Imperial Presidency. But, I don't believe for one minute that Clinton would get rid of it.

2. The Election of the First Black President
The symbolism of it. Don't short shrift symbols. They are very powerful, and very meaningful. There is a Black kid somewhere, and his parent, grandparent, teacher, is telling him/her that they can be anything that they want to be. You have to tell kids that, because you can't begin them with the obstacles that would be placed in their way. You teach them later, as they age, about how to deal with the obstacles. To be able to point to PRESIDENT Barack Obama as an example of success - through education, hard work, and skill - that you can use your mind and achieve unimaginable success- yes, that's a powerful symbol.

I don't now, nor have I ever seen Barack Obama as some sort of 'Black Messiah'; I have Jesus, don't need another Messiah. I have seen him as an example of what is possible. He wasn't born to money; he wasn't born to power. Nobody handed him anything; not his Illinois State Senate Seat, nor his Illinois Senate Seat. Each time he worked hard, starting at the bottom and working, from the bottom up, to find those voters who would listen to his message. And, the pattern has been repeated here, with this election cycle. He began, ten months ago, with nothing. Brick by brick, he did the hard work, the grunt work, building, from the ground up, a political apparatus that, 48 hours before the Iowa Caucus, is poised to take on the most serious Democratic Machine in a quarter century. By lasting this long, Obama has stunned many skeptics and pessimists. None of what he has done was supposed to happen, but it has.

So, for me, Barack Obama is:
Qualified
Progressive
Electable
My best chance to rid this country of the Imperial Presidency
Would be the First Black President

Add all these together, and it's the sum total of why I support Barack Obama and wish him well tomorrow in Iowa.



Related Articles:

Boston Globe Endorsement

Nashua Telegraph Endorsement

Sioux City Journal Endorsement

Ottumwa Courier Endorsement

Iowa City Press-Citizen Endorsement

America has a clear-cut choice: the candidates of hope or fear

McCain Losing Votes to Obama in New Hampshire

Hat tip: Prometheus6

McCain losing votes to Obama in N.H.
By Maeve Reston and Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
December 30, 2007

NASHUA, N.H. -- Like many New Hampshire voters, Dave Montgomery considers himself a dyed-in-the-wool independent -- which in this state means he can vote in either the Republican or Democratic presidential primary when he goes to the polls Jan. 8.

This year, the semi-retired school bus driver from Milford finds himself torn between two candidates, one from each party: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Barack Obama of (D-Ill.).

Montgomery likes McCain, he said, because "he seems to be enough of a rebel." He likes Obama for pretty much the same reason -- because he seems to be "his own man."

"I think either one of them could do the job," he said.

Independents like Montgomery may be the decisive factor for both major parties when New Hampshire holds the nation's first primary next week, hot on the heel's of Iowa's caucuses on Thursday. And the choices these nonaligned New Hampshire voters make almost assuredly will shape the nation's later primary races.

"This big group in the middle . . . has a chance to really transform the election," said Tom Rath, a veteran New Hampshire Republican strategist who is advising former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.). Describing the efforts to woo independents, he added: "It's more like a general election here."

If Obama bests national front runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), he probably will owe his New Hampshire victory to independents, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll suggested last week.

Among the state's registered Democrats, the survey found Clinton led Obama, 35% to 28%. But among independents who plan to vote in the Democratic primary, Obama led, 37% to 24% -- turning the contest into a virtual tie.

Rest of the article is HERE.

The reason why this article is important, is because it points out the fallacy of Barack Obama's ' Unelectability'.

In the last month, poll after poll has consistently shown that Barack Obama polls well, against every major GOP Candidate in the General Election. He consistently polls BETTER than Hillary Clinton.

Why?

Because of his appeal to independents and some Republicans.

You see in this article that Hillary wasn't remotely a choice for him. It was Obama or McCain. Independents have already told the pollsters that they aren't voting for Hillary Clinton. They will consider Obama.

You win elections by trying to appeal to the broadest possible constituency. Of course you CAN win with '50%+1', but what has that brought us in this country the past seven years? Nothing but bitterness upon bitterness. Why set ourselves up for that AGAIN (with Clinton), when we don't have to. When you have a candidate that can gather a broad coalition to govern.

Barack Obama is electable.

He's NOT the one that HALF THE COUNTRY says they will NEVER VOTE FOR.

I have said it before; I'm not naive to think that Obama couldn't be victim to some sort of Bradley Effect. But, I stand by this: for him to catch up to where Clinton is RIGHT NOW?

It would have to be the size of a tsunami.


Cross-posted at BrownIowa

Just in case you thought Kerrey's apology MEANT ANYTHING

Here is Bob Kerrey's insincere apology to Barack Obama:

Dear Barack,

I want to sincerely apologize for the remarks I made on Sunday in Council Bluffs, Iowa, after an event at which I endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton's Presidential candidacy. I answered a question about your qualifications to be President in a way that has been interpreted as a backhanded insult of you. I assure you I meant to do just the opposite.

After you and I met during your primary campaign for the Senate, I wrote a public letter in which I said that that you were among the two or three most talented people I have ever met in politics. Nothing in your performance in the Senate or your campaign for the Presidency has altered that view.

The question I was asked in Iowa on Sunday was something like this: "Senator Kerrey, you ran for President in your first term in the Senate. If you were qualified, why isn't Senator Obama?" With the benefit of my computer's capacity to make certain that my words reflect my belief let me answer that question in this letter which you are free to use anyway you choose.

You are exceptionally qualified by experience and judgment to be President of the United States. I do not doubt that you would use the power of the Presidency to bring peace and prosperity to as many people as possible on our fragile planet. You inspire my highest hopes for that office's potential: That it be used as a force for good in America and the world.

It is your capacity to inspire hope that is your greatest God given talent. Without spending a dime of tax payer's money or changing a single law your presence in the Oval Office will send a clear and compelling message to four groups of people who will be altered for good as a consequence. That was what I was trying to say on Sunday and what I hope I said more clearly in this letter.

Again, I am sorry for the insult and wish you the best on January 3 and beyond.

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Respectfully yours,

Bob Kerrey

Here you go- proof that it's not worth spit:


Clinton Launches Obama Attack Web Sites

ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.

And, just to sum it all up for the readers, especially those who stand there, and go, ' you Obama folks are just ' too sensitive', a reader of Andrew Sullivan's summed it up quite well:

So far this month Mrs. Clinton has "apologized" for two Iowa county volunteer coordinators' forwarding Obama-is-a-Muslim emails; Bill Shaheen does the Obama-is-a-druggie routine; Howard Wolfson goes on national TV and repeats it; Bill Clinton says we're "rolling the dice" with Obama, and now Kerrey is "apologizing" for his Obama-went-to-a-Madrassa remarks. This many events in a three-week span indicate a coherent plan. If one accepts Mrs. Clinton's explanations that these events are not what they obviously are, then the only other explanation would seem to be that she cannot control her campaign staff. That seems fairly incompetent leadership for someone who claims to be ready to lead on day one.

Like I've said before....ISOLATED incidents can only be qualified as such, when they remain ISOLATED. When they stop being ISOLATED and begin to form a PATTERN, then accept the PATTERN and what it tells you.

The Southern Strategy, and its racist underbelly, is all the same, whether used in Mississippi & Georgia, or in this case, IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.



RELATED ARTICLES:
Clinton Acolytes' Racist Attacks
The Real Race Card




Cross-posted at BrownIowa.

A Personal Account of Oprah/Obama in South Carolina

I yield the floor to sagereader of Think On These Things, who was there in South Carolina this weekend.



Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey In South Carolina: Random Thoughts and News Clippings

Pre-Rally

The state troopers were seriously out on the highway the morning of the rally. Is there usually a SC state trooper every mile going into Columbia early on Sunday morning?

“God has smiled on me…” is what I was thinking but “This is the day that the Lord has made” was the phrase that came to Obama’s mind as he started his speech. It was December 9, at least 70 degrees, and the sun was beaming down on people as they tried to find shade while waiting in line. It felt like it was July. Simply coincidence? The Clean Coal people had enthusiastic hands grabbing for their fliers as people waited in line, but that was more a matter of people needing a piece of paper to keep the sun out of their eyes than anything else.

Ummm…Why was there someone walking around the line with a Ron Paul sign? I’m not inclined to think that Obama’s support will easily go to Ron Paul.

The media are also out in full effect with their satellite trucks facing the beaming sun. One perky reporter goes around interviewing people about whether they are there more for Oprah or for Obama. I’m annoyed that the reporters already have their framing of the event before it even begins and that they can’t ask a more important question than that.

The line wrapped and wrapped and wrapped and wrapped and we stood and stood and stood. Some people had the right idea and stopped at Bojangles to eat while they waited. Every few meters, we are asked by volunteers if we have signed our supporter card and have it checked. We must have it signed and ready to turn in when we enter. Another person comes by, “Anyone need to register to vote? It’s very easy. If you’re not going to be in town that day you can do absentee.” Two smiling younger kids come by, “Anyone want to donate their canned goods for hope?” I feel ashamed that I forgot to bring my cans.

Yep. Folk probably didn’t go to church today. We actually see some church buses there at the stadium, so maybe they had church there. This is an historic event…who could miss it?

As we finally walk into the stadium, campaign volunteers are handing out another sheet of paper with some golf pencils. Everyone grabs for one, not knowing what it’s about. I think most people were probably thinking it was for a raffle or giveaway. Hey, when Oprah’s involved you never know what bountiful gifts you might be eligible to receive.

A rock band plays as we enter…Pretty good. Not sure if they’re locals or not. They try to get people excited but I think most people are just glad to sit down. We’re conserving our energy for Obama and Oprah.

Two high school marching bands are there (HBCU style)…Very cute. I’m thankful that their dance moves were not as “provocative”as my high school marching band’s moves were. We were down on the ground. Lord have mercy. No wonder they got us a new tamer band director…we had no business doing that stuff at that age. But I digress. These kids were good and they danced their age.

Arrested Development

Arrested Development is up next. I forgot they had other hits besides Tennessee. They started off with Mr. Wendel…

Here, have a dollar, in fact no brother, man here have two. Two dollars means a snack to me, but it means a big deal to you…

A 70+ year old man on stage with them who they claim is “the oldest man in hip-hop” starts dancin’ and gets lowwww… I think most people are thinking that they wish they could be that agile when they get over 70 years old…or even right now. Ishi (sp?) then proceeds to dance her butt off. You go girl.
Then came those Calgon-like sultry words we had been waiting to hear…

Take me hoooooo-o-ome… Take me hoooo-ooo-oome…. Hooomme. Take meee to another plaaaaace. Won’t you help me? Won’t you help me? Won’t you help me under-stand your plannnnnnnn?

Y’all know that was the jam. I’m amazed that they have probably sang this song a million times and can still sing it with so much feeling as if it were brand new.
Then Speech took us back with one of our icons…

Old pirates, yes, they rob I;
Sold I to the merchant ships,

…
These songs of freedom? -
cause all I ever have:
Redemption songs;
Redemption songs.

Man, I love that song. I’m reminded of the genius of Bob Marley and the redemption song we need to sing right now to get our country out of the mess it’s in.

But then another Arrested Development hit comes on—I had completely forgotten about this one!

“Iiiiiiii am everyday people…”

In the midst of all this the audience stirs as people start whispering that they saw Gayle King walk out into the crowd–”You see! She’s over there in the cream color! Do you see her?” “Oh okay! I see her now.”


The Rally Gets Rolling
Obama campaign volunteers come out and ask people to text the SC campaign to receive updates and so that three of them can randomly be selected to sit right down front at the rally. They also come out and help the crowd break the record for largest phonebank ever as people are asked to call the four numbers on the piece of paper they handed out and read the phonebanking script to inquire about who they are supporting in the SC primary. We’re supposed to use the golf pencils to fill out responses and then turn them in to the volunteers walking through the aisles. The Guinness Book of World Records guy comes out on stage and certifies the record. The previous phonebank record had been 15,000. Today’s was a little over 36,000. What is clear is that the Obama campaign is disciplined and organized and making sure they sign up voters and get contact info so they can get out the vote. This is good because if they’re not going to get out the vote, all of this is for naught.


Then comes Michelle Obama…. Woooo! Whoever is her stylist and all that is doing a bang up job. She is really representing. If we are going to have our first African American First Lady, we better do it with style and grace. It’s clear that Michelle Obama is going to lead the charge. She gives an empowered speech that’s short but potent and then…

out comes Oprah!!! Woooo!!!! The crowd goes wild! Everyone whispers about how she looks just like she does on TV!

I expected Oprah to endorse Obama, but I didn’t really know she would endorse Obama. She really nailed some of the major criticisms of his candidacy including people who say he should wait. She says, “None of us are God. We don’t know what the future holds.” We need to act when we are pressured to do so and that time is now. She nails the criticism of Obama’s experience. She discusses how mothers know that it is not how much time you spend with your child but the quality of time you spend with them. She links this to saying the audience shouldn’t let people fool them into thinking that experience learning the ways of Washington is superior to the wisdom learned working on the ground with people outside of Washington…

She reminds us that if she had listened to people who said she needed to wait or needed more experience before doing things, she wouldn’t be sitting on that stage right now. Heads nod as her words resonate deeply with many of us who know Oprah’s amazing story. Images of a young Oprah fresh out of Tennessee State University taking on a news job a little before her time flash through my mind. Memories of her standing with a microphone and an afro and her many battle stories of people telling her she was too this and too that to do what she has done have already been etched into my brain from years of watching her show. We all know that Oprah is telling the truth about her story. She is telling the truth about Obama’s story. To deny that she’s telling the truth would be to deny the possibilities for our own lives. We should not wait.

She tells SC that on January 26, it is their moment. She gets the mike off its stand and gets into talk show mode walking around the stage saying that it will be SC’s moment. This is Mama Oprah’s time…exhorting her children to “vote Dr. King’s dream.”

Oprah is in our homes every day advising us on our finances, relationships, interior decorating, fashion, etc. However, I have never seen this side of Oprah. She could have been a “neutral” endorser, but she wasn’t. She put her foot all up in the criticism of Obama–experience, needing to “wait his turn,” and more–and made all those excuses null and void.

You can watch clips from her speech online so I won’t recount the whole thing. She ends though with the refrain from The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman, “Are you the one?” Such a powerful refrain because it takes our vote for President and imbues it with a spiritual and almost divine meaning that it wouldn’t otherwise have. Not “Who are you going to vote for?” but “Are you the one?” With that she tells the crowd that she believes Obama is the one and out he comes…The audience screams!

Watch the full 20-minute speech from Oprah here.

Contrary to Ben Smith at Politico and Mark Halperin at The Page, Barack Obama’s speech did not “silence the crowd.” After one of Obama’s initial lines about “In November 2008, George Bush will no longer be on the ballot” the audience went wild for at least a minute until Obama had to quiet them down. From then on we were hanging on to his every word. In fact, it occurred to me that Barack Obama is much better at giving speeches than even Oprah. Her speech was good and she’s the queen at daytime talk show moderation, but Obama is truly an amazing orator in front of a crowd. He told the “Barack, I’m a Republican” joke that I’ve heard him say over hundred times and I and the crowd still laughed. There is no way that he had turned the crowd off in any way shape or form.

In fact, there were a few fired up random people standing up and screaming “I love you Barack!” while he was trying to make a deep point and people looked quickly as if to say, “Shhh…we’re trying to hear what he’s saying.” If there was any quiet moment it was because people were listening intently.

Obama gave the speech he gave at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner…A powerful speech. I love it.

Parting Thoughts

Some people are confused about turnout. There were about 36,000 folk there.
The Hillary campaign is truly aware of the power of this event. On the black gospel station that most of the black folk were probably listening to on the way home from the rally, the Hillary campaign was running radio spots featuring Maya Angelou. Angelou echoed the Clinton campaign’s “strength and experience to lead” argument and emphasized that Clinton is a woman. I don’t think the content and timing of those ads were coincidental.

Just wanted to thank sagereader for that personal account