The Clintons are rich, right?

I really don't think Joe Biden should be emailing my broke ass to pay a millionaire's debts:

We want to be ready to go, and that's why I'm asking you to help us honor an outstanding commitment we made during the election.

Our campaign pledged to help Senator Hillary Clinton -- one of the vital members of our team and our future Secretary of State -- retire her campaign debt. That's the money her campaign owes to the vendors across the country that make our political process possible.

Barack and I had the deepest respect for Hillary as an opponent on the campaign trail. Her undeniable intellect, talent, and passion strengthened Barack as a candidate and tested our movement for change.

We welcome Hillary as a partner in our administration, and I hope you will show your support by helping Barack fulfill our campaign promise.

(deleted link)

I saw your generosity and commitment to this team throughout the election, and I know we can do it.

In the general election, Hillary was one of our strongest advocates. She traveled the country and did more than 70 events, raising money and bringing new supporters into our campaign.

As Secretary of State, she will be indispensable in furthering Barack's agenda for change.

Let's welcome Hillary to the team and thank her for her efforts in support of our campaign by helping to retire her debt to the hard-working individuals and small businesses that were a part of the election:

(deleted link)

Your support and generosity got us this far, and I know I can count on it now.

Thank you,

Joe

Forget all the reasons I supported the Obama candidacy instead of Hillary Clinton's, forget the massive amounts of cash she spent prolonging her campaign when the writing was on the wall, and forget that the debt is owed to Mark Penn.

Today, it was announced that the last time so many jobs had been lost in a month was 1974.

And I'm kinda trying to look for a job right now.

Hillary, step up and retire you're own damn debt.

Barack Obama donors need to be funding soup kitchens right now instead.

Those Speech-Giving, Convention-Having, Truth-Telling, Liberal Elitists

They have some nerve pointing out the obvious to the voters of America. It's as if they think people are so stupid that some of them might actually still vote for John McCain after seeing the GOP's true colors on full display for the last eight years.

Seriously though, I think this convention has been excellent and relegated the GOP talking heads to either jumping on board with their sincere praise or flailing helplessly with rumors of discord between the Clinton camp and the Obamas. And they look like fools stoking up those divisions because the speeches by the Clintons were perfect. Had they heaped on any more praise or been any more strident in their calls for the election of Barack Obama, they would have been ripped apart for going over-the-top or for mocking the nominee. Mission accomplished by the Clintons.

I was not disappointed one bit with the Big Dog's speech. Oyster highlighted his favorite parts. I can see why President Clinton wanted so badly to go into the economy during his speech. There was a lot of buzz early in the week about Bill not being happy with his speech topic or whatever. I think this was a load of bull. Do you think the Obama camp, after all the work that's been done to heal the primary wounds, went to Bill Clinton and told him what he had to talk about? Did people expect the Obama camp to be so stupid that when Bill Clinton came to say 'I'm going to absolutely roast the GOP on the economy during my speech,' he was told no?

Totally worth watching.

For all the talk about the wounds of Clinton supporters not being sufficiently heeled after the primary campaign, what about all the insults absorbed by Obama supporters after the borderline Rovian campaign run by the Hillary camp?

I'm generally not a holder of grudges but I lost a lot of respect for the Clintons during the primary season.

They needed to earn back that respect from me as a young Obama supporter just as much as the Obama camp needed to heel wounds with the Clintons. That wasn't the dominant media storyline but it's true.

Anyways, both Bill and Hillary's speeches were superb and really castrated the media make-believe over the seriousness of the supposed rift. Was there supposed to be some sort of armed coup? Give me a break.

The Clintons praised Obama, they praised his ideas, they went after McCain, and they excoriated his agenda. They challenged the Democrats to propel Senator Obama to the Presidency.

I'm ready.

--

Hillary Clinton's best line: "Was it really just about me?"

Bill Clinton's best line:

It was really more of a moment. Go see Oyster's highlights. I think it came at the end of Oyster's orange. President Clinton speaks to "the example the Republicans have set" and absolutely roasts them.

American workers have given us consistently rising productivity. They've worked harder and produced more. What did they get in return? Declining wages, less than ¼ as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s. American families by the millions are struggling with soaring health care costs and declining coverage.

Then he pivots emotionally, getting angrier while still preserving an appropriate enthusiasm, showing that authenticity that have the GOP fits for so many years. He brought down his finger and said with an inflection that suggested he was gritting his teeth in outrage:

I will never forget the parents of children with autism and other severe conditions who told me on the campaign trail that they couldn't afford health care and couldn't qualify their kids for Medicaid unless they quit work or got a divorce. Are these the family values the Republicans are so proud of? What about the military families pushed to the breaking point by unprecedented multiple deployments? What about the assault on science and the defense of torture? What about the war on unions and the unlimited favors for the well connected? What about Katrina and cronyism?

America can do better than that. And Barack Obama will.

But first we have to elect him.

That crescendo was perfect. Here's the video, the passage in discussion hits at around the 11 minute mark.



And of course, Jeffrey is right about the line about "Katrina and cronyism." I'm happy with it, not just because it was placed to get a big audience pop, but because it is a catchall that implicates Ray Nagin (an unequivocal embarrassment to national democrats) as a friend of the Bush administration just as much as it does Halliburton and the Shaw Group.

===

The DNC box score thus far:

Home Runs: Michelle Obama, Sasha Obama, Malia Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.

Josh Marshall is also all about John Kerry's speech. It was excellent.

Key line: "Are you kidding me folks?"

Watch it:




There were late rumors of Kerry maybe being vetted as an Obama veep. I think the Biden choice is better but Kerry would have been pretty compelling given how toughened he has become. John Kerry is a good Democrat. In 2016 when Tim Kaine or one of the Udall boys from out west or Donna Edwards (if we're lucky) is the Democratic nominee for President, he or she could pick John Kerry as the 'experienced attack dog' running mate.


A Double Down the Line: Joe Biden

The life story telling went well. The family photo ops went well. The delivery was solid. It just wasn't as well-written as some of the others. Biden just got called up off the bench, it's hard to get a good swing on the ball when you've been riding the pine. So Biden took the pitch he was given and went the opposite way, blooping one over the first baseman's head and hustling into second base. I have full confidence in Joe Biden's talent. He'll be swinging a hot bat the whole rest of the summer and will be batting cleanup by the World Series this October.

Strike Outs: The DNC farm system.

The rookie call ups were nervous. Mark Warner can give a good speech and the substance within probably works well in centrist swing Virginia. But as the key note, there wasn't so much to wow over. Brian Schwietzer showed some promise out of Montana but needs some more seasoning. I expected more polish from Missouri's Claire McCaskill.

It's not as if the DNC is devoid of young talent. I would have enjoyed to seeing Udall out of Colorado or Udall out of New Mexico. Rep. Donna Edwards out of Maryland brought down the house at Netroots Nation; I would have loved to have seen her get in a few swings at the DNC. What about giving a shot to a few long-shot Senate candidates from this cycle that maybe could use some cash. We're really threatening to get 60 in the Senate. Why not give Noriega from Texas an opportunity to close the gap on Cornyn. Or what about Allen in Maine? Or Cowboy Kleeb from Nebraska? Or Rice from Oklahoma? Or Hagan from North Carolina? Look how close the Dems are to 60 in the Senate. They just need to push a little bit harder to get there and they could have used the convention pulpit to help out in Oregon, Maine, North Carolina, Texas, etc.

Also it would have been nice to have a John Edwards speech at this thing. Too bad he blew that for us.

I hope so

I hope this is true.

I don't like the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket.

I do like the idea of Hillary Clinton being instrumental in the drive for universal healthcare reform, whether it from a powerful Senate role or from Obama's cabinet.

Hillary Clinton: Graceless In Defeat

This is exactly the kind of desperate campaign flailing that we do not need.

When Bill Clinton tried to marginalize Barack Obama as the "black candidate" by comparing him to Jesse Jackson, he was condemned nearly universally.

Now, Hillary Clinton is trying to make herself into the candidate of white people and is putting forth some sort of argument that says that Barack Obama only appeals to African Americans.

Senator Clinton had a choice. She could have dropped out and begun supporting Barack Obama's efforts to defeat John McCain in November or she could have let the primary schedule run its course and admit defeat May 20th or June 15th or whenever the inevitable becomes official.

Instead, she has decided that she is going to cleave up the Democratic Party by brazenly declaring that her coalition of white people should be able to overrule the primary system that all candidates agreed upon before the campaign began.

The Senator now is attempting to galvanize her white supporters to come out full force in protest of Barack Obama solely because he is an African American candidate. That is their reason. That is what they mean when they question his "electability" even though Mr. Obama is polling just as well against John McCain as she is and even though polls pertaining to an election that will occur 6 months from now are mostly invalid predictors.

Senator Clinton, you're going to sandbag any chance you had at the Vice Presidency, an important role in the Senate, or a future Presidential nomination. What for?

It can't be just about pride, can it?

I'm sure you'll be very proud of yourself for trying to carve up the Democratic Party solely on racial lines and aiding Mr. McCain in the process. You're campaign is getting pathetic. I hope your white supporters (i.e. your supporters) are capable of seeing the destructive nature of your plan for prolonging your own defeat. Voters of West Virginia and Kentucky can do us all a great service by rejecting Senator Clinton's bat-shit crazy declaration of war.

I'm "white" and I have always supported Barack Obama for President.

Hillary cannot defeat John McCain without me. How's that for electability?


Update: Mark left this link in the comments. It's a good read. There are a few other good ones on the same theme that are equally worthwhile to check out. I especially appreciate this piece by Joe Conason that has been making the rounds.

You're a figher

I know you want to keep fighting. I know you've said again and again how you won't quit.

There is something called grace and honor, Senator Clinton.

You have a career. You have a lot of leadership to offer. You have a lot of service to offer this country. You jeopardize all of that every second that you choose to remain in this race. You cannot continue to galvanize a working class white coalition against Senator Obama. It is time to unite. Exit with grace.

You have no path to victory. If you keep fighting, you will still lose.
You career is not over right now. You're putting it on the line by keeping up this charade.


I can't find a transcript but last night on MSNBC, Pat Buchanan of all people made an uncomfortably accurate point. It was kind of courageous actually.

He asked, and I guess I'm paraphrasing here:

"How long is Hillary Clinton and her coalition of white working class voters going to whip Barack Obama, the African American nominee, before he deserves to move on and face John McCain?"

He's right. It's getting that uncomfortable.

The argument of Clinton surrogates, on display here, that somehow Mr. Obama represents the abandonment of white working class people is an abommination.

You're a fighter. Help us fight John McCain.

UPDATE:

Now you're ignoring phone calls from your most loyal Senate backers.

Senator Feinstein would like to know how you expect to win from here.

It is clear that you have no path to victory and that you have no viable answer for the Senator.

There's no need to keep going. It's not the end of the world, it's not the end of your career.

You don't have to feel like a loser but first you're going to have to stop acting like one.

Help us elect Senator Obama. Concede the nomination and help us fight for the Presidency.

Hard Faught, But It's Time To Concede

Hillary Clinton, you should concede the nomination.

You have until tomorrow morning.

You have to realize that there's no honorable way to victory and you're going to tear this Party apart if you keep going. We cannot have it. You will hand this country to the Republicans again by doing this. It means nothing that you poll well against McCain right now, the election is months from now. You can't win the nomination.

It can only get ugly from here, Senator.

Save the Party, save the country. Do the right thing.

We must elect Barack Obama over John McCain this fall.

Reverse Racism and the Race in PA

The best take on the Geraldine Ferraro comments comes from Dick Polman of Philadelphia.

I agree with him.

Ferraro's comments touch a bad place in American society. I don't appreciate her sentiments one bit.

Obama and Philadelphia

This a simplification of a very complicated situation. I know that.
I still think you'll find helpful insights, particularly if you'd like to become more familiar with the situation in bee-you-tee-ful Illy Philly, my home town and my one true love.

Mr. Obama made a really stupid mistake very early in his Presidential campaign.

He took the wrong side in the Philadelphia Mayoral Primary last year around this time.

-
Then, there was a tight three way race for the mayoral nomination.

The first two candidates I'll describe represent two the traditional electoral coalitions that have battled for political supremacy in Philadelphia for several decades. On one side, you had Chaka Fattah. He's been a powerful African American leader in the city for a long time. He has served the city in Congress for several terms. I actually like his personality and he has a pretty good reputation for actually championing the issues of poor and working class people.

Nonetheless, he is an entrenched political entity that has gotten caught up in some bad alliances. He is extremely close with John Street, our unpopular recently departed Mayor. The city became disenchanted with Mr. Street for a number of reasons. He was always somewhat of a polarizing figure in city politics as Street unapologetically courted an African American majority, but the actions of his administration really magnified frustration with the old way of governance. Fairly or unfairly, the perception was that Mr. Fattah rose within the pay-to-play culture, represented entrenched business interests, and would govern as a continuation of the Street legacy.

The other candidate representing a traditional political base was Tom Knox, a self-financed business man from the Northeast section of Philadelphia. He staked himself out as a political outsider and a reformer. Largely, however, he represented the old white political majority. Without necessarily being connected to Frank Rizzo, a local political legend comparable to the senior Daley in Chicago, Knox nonetheless drew his support from the same base of blue collar whites.

A contest between these two men would have been largely similar to many Philadelphia mayoral races of the past. It would have been racially polarizing and Chaka Fattah likely would have emerged victorious depending on the relative popularity of other candidates diluting the field.

This race, however, was very different. There was this intriguing new guy. His name is Michael Nutter. An African American, he was able to build a different kind of electoral coalition. He served on City Council and emerged as the loudest voice in favor of wholesale reformation of ethics laws and the entrenched machine-based political culture. He was extremely critical of the Street administration. Known generally as a wonky-type (whatever that means), he courted a highly developed progressive internet community and wealthy white educated liberals. He developed a motivated base of young supporters in the high school and university communities.

Philly politics was transforming all over. In 2006, progressives organized to challenge ward leadership positions. Philadelphia's current Boss Tweed, a lifelong nemesis of yours truly, State Senator Vincent Fumo looks like he's done. He just suffered a heart attack in the midst of both a vigorous primary challenge and an impending corruption trial.

When he dropped out of Council to run for Mayor, Nutter adeptly ran to the left and to the right. His calls for government reform and his academic attention to tested progressive policy positions were extremely attractive to white liberals. Meanwhile, Mr. Nutter also emerged as the most vocal Mayoral candidate on Philadelphia's skyrocketing violent crime problems. He embraced "stop-and-frisk" as a workable option for high crime neighborhoods. This not only peeled away some blue collar white support from Mr. Knox, but it also resonated strongly within Congressman Fattah's base of older African American voters tired of seeing baggy pants. I use this link of Bill Cosby's speech to the NAACP as emblematic of this debate within Black America. (For the record, my own feelings on this debate are more reflected by the great Dr. Michael Eric Dyson)

Simultaneously, Mr. Nutter's record as a reformer capitalized on a larger statewide political revolt in Pennsylvania politics. The 2006 midterm election was a massacre of entrenched politicians of both parties. Not only did Pennsylvania voters resoundingly repudiated Rick Santorum, one of the most vile neocons ever to reach the US Senate, but voters helped deliver Congress to the Democratic Party with the overthrow of several GOP incumbents, particularly in the Philadelphia suburbs. Additionally, there was a bipartisan taxpayer revolt against members of the PA legislature that voted for a pay-raise for themselves.

Thus, it began to appear that Congressman Fattah, once seen as the favorite in the race due to his name recognition, entrenched political organization, national party support, and fund raising prowess, actually faced quite a challenge from this upstart.

So he began to look for shot in the arm for his campaign.

He reached out to Barack Obama.

Now, I can imagine how Mr. Obama's logic went:

-- Mr. Fattah was a huge Clinton ally in the '90s along with former Mayor and current Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. He's a superdelegate with major party machinery and street cred amongst African Americans. His support would be a huge coup for my campaign, a stolen base right out of the gate against Mrs. Clinton. He could easily be the next Mayor of Philadelphia. Besides, there's little to lose, the primary fight will be over well before it gets to Pennsylvania.--

So, Barack Obama helped out Mr. Fattah instead of an obvious natural ally in Mr. Nutter.


Meanwhile, Mr. Nutter continued to surge in the polls and won the Democratic Mayoral Primary with relative ease. Then he won the general election this past November by the largest margin in Philadelphia history. After inauguration, he made a call to public service that yielded an impressive number of applications. Look, the point is that Michael Nutter is the man. He's ridiculously popular right now across boundaries of age and race. He has juice, as they say. He would be a major, major asset to a candidate trying to reach voters in the Philadelphia area.

In short, Michael Nutter is Barack Obama in Philadelphia. The two of them should be bff.

But they're not. Obama injected himself into a local race he had no business getting involved in. People with knowledge of Philly politics, people from Philadelphia, scalded Mr. Obama for this choice at the time he made it, though nobody realized how damaging the decision would become. I was so upset on that day that I called Obama HQ and wrote a letter or something.

Stupid decision. Stupid, stupid decision.

Mayor Nutter endorsed Hillary Clinton.

And that's a shame. Obama's early overreach into Philadelphia's local election not only cost him a great deal of credibility amongst local progressives in the know, but also cost him an endorsement from Mayor Nutter that had previously seemed likely.

Now this is only one small piece of the Pennsylvania primary puzzle. I still believe that Obama can win there but I sure wish he hadn't erected his own hurdles in the same Philadelphia he'll be banking on to deliver him a large margin on April 22nd.

Who Should The Democrats of SE Louisiana Support?

According to the Times-Picayune, there are a lot of undecideds amongst our elected officials.

Just who will William Jefferson Jefferson decide to support?

Rep. William Jefferson Jefferson is a superdelegate, his endorsement lies in a briefcase buried in his backyard.

What might convince him to wake up before his wife to go dig it up and place it under the mailbox at an undisclosed location?

What could Mr. Jefferson possibly need to hear from Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama in order to lock up his nomination vote this summer?

Because certainly, an open endorsement from Mr. Jefferson is counterproductive to one's campaign hopes. Maybe that's less certain here, but it would certainly look bad everywhere else.

Mr. Jefferson's support is worth more than a public opinion boost. This felon-elect actually has power in the convention process.

--

And Mr. Nagin, our venerable mayor, he's an undecided too!

In an e-mail, Nagin said he is "waiting to see what their specific platforms are relative to supporting the full recovery of New Orleans." So far, Nagin said, he has heard pieces, but not their "whole plans."

Good call, Mr. Mayor. You wouldn't want to just support somebody that only has a vague idea as to how to fix things around here. You want somebody that is competent and accessible. You wouldn't want anyone that can't perform basic functions or anyone that disappears from the public eye randomly and without explanation. I mean, we're looking for someone that supports the full recovery of the city!

I'm sure your celly is ringing all day and all night as intermediaries of the Presidential hopefuls try to get in touch with you to court your influential backing...

---

Of course both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are well aware of the negative implications of being endorsed by Mayor Nagin...

...How hilarious and sad would it be if Mr. Nagin endorsed one of the candidates only to have that person hastily arrange a press conference to denounce the Mayor.

Do you think Barack Obama has to tell the Mayor of Omaha not to show up at one of his campaign events?

Or maybe the Mayor's just looking for an endorsement of his own. He's a dreamer, remember?

An Unfortunate Attitude

Recently, I've become concerned with aspects of American disillusionment and the upcoming Presidential campaign of 2008...


What does "progress" mean?

How can we improve the United States of America?

--

You know, some people say that the government is broken. People say that it is more than the pro-business, reactionary tone of the neo-conservative alliance that has run Washington D.C. for much of recent memory.

Nobody absolves the Republicans, but many people also blame the opposition Democrats for giving a rubber stamp to a wrong-headed policy agenda.

They say the two-party system itself has become castrated, incapable of making substantive improvements to the state of the nation.

Certain people say that the Democrats and Republicans are too similar, too entrenched in a corporate system to be capable of making any kind of structural improvements.

Other people say that the Right and the Left are too ideologically opposed. They say that the partisan gridlock in Washington has rendered the federal government unable to solve basic problems because of a material inability to forge compromise.
l
How do people go about fixing their government?

Some decide to vote for third party candidates whose political ideology aligns more directly with their own. Sometimes these candidates fall into the group that believe that the two major parties are too similar - the Green Party and the Libertarian Party come to mind. Those that believe that the major parties are too different work to find moderate insurgencies. The Unity '08 movement surrounding Mr. Bloomberg, Senator Hagel, and others comes to mind.

Other people are disillusioned with the two party system in a different way. They believe that the US government is so broken that it is beyond repair, as far as electoral politics are concerned. Some decide that the system is so stacked against the alternative party/ideology of their liking or they decide that none of the candidates in either major or minor parties truly represents their values. They opt not to vote at all. They determine it isn't worth it to do so.
-

Then, I think about my own values, my own virtues, my own ideas.

I think about how far away we are from achieving the Utopian America that I have envisioned in my brain and in my heart.

And we are so far... so far away from reaching it. There are times I've felt we are so far away that I think about scenarios in which I might consider giving up entirely.

Some people that are disillusioned shake their heads at those that decide to back a major party candidate:

...Naive, they are. They'll never get real change with candidate X. They might make a positive adjustment or two here and there but everything will be the same, for the most part. We'll still be far far away from the ideal America and then someone else will come in and take us backward in a circle to where we started the first time...

Sometimes, these attitudes make me upset. And it's not because I think the two party system is the ideal model for good governance, popular representation, or democracy. It's not because I don't agree that this nation needs striking and substantive change at some point or another.

I do agree. I do agree this country needs way more than an oil change. It needs more than new break pads.

There are major problems with the engine. I agree.

This country does totally messed up stuff to people all over the world. Our own government does totally messed up stuff to us here at home.

I agree!

A lot of people do, t00. So many people.

---
But I think about progress and I think about how to improve the United States of America.

I realize that there are also a lot of people out there that hate my Utopian America. There are so many ignorant, hateful, misinformed, reactionary people that have an irrational fear of all adjustments that I think would improve this nation.

I know that those people will fight my attempts to make changes.

I know that there are so many changes I'd like to make that the couldn't happen in one day, even if I were king of the world. Certain things would have to wait until day two or week two or year two, I mean, a man's gotta eat and nap and catch a ball game now and then.

But I'm not king of the world (yet)...

The closest person to king of the world is the President of the United States of America. We are going to elect a new one soon.

Which candidate will get us closer to the Utopian States of We Could Be Famous?

Which one is more likely to succeed in making enough lasting change during their four or eight years in office so that in 2010 I'm typing about the NEXT logical set of changes that need to be made to get us that much closer to the US of WCBF?

Some people that I agree with on a lot of things thought that that person was John Edwards and were planning to vote for him.

I like John Edwards and I can't really be mad at people that believed his policies would represent the most progress of the major candidates. I understand arguments that Mr. Edwards would have been the strongest candidate against the Republicans in the fall.

Now that Edwards has dropped out of the election, some of his former supporters are now lining up behind Barack Obama, who has always been my choice for most capable of leading a sustained generational push for a more progressive America. He is their second choice, they believe he is at least marginally more capable of creating positive progress than the other electorally viable choices available.

Others believe that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are too similar to each other or too similar to the Republicans.

These people may not vote at all. Some might consider voting for Ralph Nader, a candidate that will not win but provides a ballot choice for those wanting to express their disillusionment in electoral form.

I like many of Mr. Nader's ideas. I like his fearlessness in expressing politically unpopular realities that neither major party has the boldness to address.

But I don't think a disgruntled, self-righteous vote for Mr. Nader or a disillusioned, self-righteous decision to abstain from voting helps one iota.

Barack Obama's candidacy, even if you think it is mostly rhetoric, even if you think his enthusiastic supporters have become irrational followers of a personality cult, even if you don't think it advocates for authentic change, represents something substantially different from the candidacies we've seen from the Democratic Party in decades.

You might not agree that his ideas are any different. Other things are different, however.

Mr. Obama's grassroots support through small donations and his ability to attract large crowds is impressive and unprecedented in the TV age of politics.

His galvanization of young voters is unprecedented in the TV age of politics.

His appeal amongst independents is something that I have not witnessed from a Democratic candidacy in my lifetime.

These things are encouraging developments. I like these things. I believe that his policies are decent. I disagree with him on lots of things. I want his health care plan to be more universal, I want him to end the death penalty, I want him to favor gay marriage.

But I think he can lead an electoral coalition that can get us closer to the Utopian States of We Could Be Famous than any other major candidate left running. I think he can get us closer than Ralph Nader could, even if Mr. Nader magically broached the magical 5% number to earn the media coverage of a major party candidate.

That marginal moral victory would bring way less change than a landslide victory for Barack Obama would.

A landslide victory, a mandate would allow at least some changes. Depending on Mr. Obama's competency it could lead to a few medium-sized changes. It would allow people like me that want to see big changes to demand them in an environment receptive to arguments about change-oriented policy. A Democratic Presidency, if it succeeds in making improvements to this country, would allow a person like myself, a person that wants big changes, a better environment for the advocacy of my longterm policy ideals. A Democratic Presidency, if it fails to make this country better, puts me in a better position to criticize politicians for not offering enough change or for being too complacent.

A Republican Presidency puts in me in a place where I'll be arguing against more reactionary and backward policies. It forces me to abandon my Utopian States ideas in order to argue against the agenda of neo-conservative dystopia advocates that they'll be a better position to put forth.

Why is it stupid for like-minded people that hate the neo-conservative agenda to resoundingly unite behind a candidate, even if he's not the most perfect thing of all time? Isn't it worth it to work together to see how much change we can get? To see how far along we can get? To move this nation to a new set of debates?

Franklin Roosevelt was an awesome President that changed lots of things about this country for the better. He also made some vile and sinister decisions that violate my ideals regarding liberty and human rights.

But I'd certainly take him as President over and over again. He was able to forge a generational coalition that lasted for a long time and made substantial progress in terms of establishing a social safety net and extending civil rights.

Now I want a better social safety net and I want civil rights extended further. He didn't finish the job. I don't expect Mr. Obama to do so either. I think we could move the boulder, though.

If it isn't worth it to give it a shot, then why are you living in this country still?

I'm ready to leave when I reach that determination, myself. I want to live in a society that I respect. I think America still is that society, I'd like to think we can make it a better match.

When I don't think that's possible anymore, I'm gone.

It seems like people that are conscientiously abstaining from voting or voting for Ralph Nader have already made that determination. They're engaging in the discourse without really engaging in the discourse.

Give this coalition a shot. It's not perfect, it never is going to be. We can get closer to it though.

Why is it not worth it to enthusiastically support Mr. Obama's coalition? What is there to lose?
Don't we have more to lose by remaining disillusioned? Don't we have more to lose when an enthusiastic change coalition could mean the difference between another backward Republican administration or a Democratic one receptive to making things at least somewhat better? Don't we have more to lose when an enthusiastic change coalition could be the difference between an anemic Democratic administration that struggles to force the passage of progressive bills in Congress and one that has a mandate from the American people and wide majorities in the House and Senate?

I disagree with Mr. Obama on many fronts. I am not seduced by the hope he inspires.

But I have hope. I have hope that this country can be better if we can build a coalition of like-mined people, even if we differ on a lot of different little things. Mr. Obama provides as viable a pretext for progressive unity as I've ever experienced in the United States of America.

How could this not be worth a shot?

I'm gone if it fails and we're left in the same position we're in now in eight years. But, I tell ya, I'm gone sooner if we don't try.

Baby Boom to Fizzle

Work with me for a moment as I make some connections. Tell me if I'm force-feeding...
I've got a crazy work schedule and have had to write this in parts. And I won't have time to proofread or edit... enjoy.

When I discussed this piece by Andrew Sullivan about the significance of Barack Obama's candidacy, I was especially fascinated by the way he framed Obama's ascendancy as a fundamental change from the 40 years worth of baby boom-driven political battles:

Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us. So much has happened in America in the past seven years, let alone the past 40, that we can be forgiven for focusing on the present and the immediate future. But it is only when you take several large steps back into the long past that the full logic of an Obama presidency stares directly—and uncomfortably—at you.

At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a mo­mentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.

When I think about the last 40 years, I can see it all unfold. The divisiveness of the Vietnam War. The backlash to the Civil Rights Movement. White flight. The rise of political evangelicalism. Phyllis Schlafly's undoing of the Equal Rights Amendment. Roe v. Wade. The Moral Majority. LGBT awareness.... And so on and so forth... The ebb and flow between cultural liberals and conservatives. The Clintons vs. the Bushes. The Kennedys vs. Reagan....

You can sense the way that several of these cultural issues: race, abortion, women's equality, and gay rights have, in one form or another, dominated the pitched political battles of the last 40 years. These cultural battles go on to inform our other debates. (i.e. the backlash to progressive social policies as a reaction to perceived racial entitlements; the push to force religion into the public sphere and changing cultural values in regards to the role of women in the family, the morality of sexual preferences)

You can also see the juxtaposition between Hillary Clinton, disciple of the women's movement and Barack Obama, who is too young to have taken a side on these issues on a national level.

Now, you can either agree or disagree with Mr. Sullivan's paradigm. I don't necessarily consider it to be an analysis of Mr. Obama's chance at winning this nomination.

It is, however, an extremely fascinating lens with which to examine the historical significance of this nomination fight.

And a lens that I think can be extended beyond representations of the differences between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.
---
First, let's stay within the Democratic umbrella. Behold this op-ed from today's Washington Post that tracks the reluctance of traditional African American political leaders to endorse Senator Obama.

The most amazing thing about the 2008 presidential race is not that a black man is a bona fide contender, but the lukewarm response he has received from the luminaries whose sacrifices made this run possible...

...That's because, positioned as he is between the black boomers and the hip-hop generation, Obama is indebted, but not beholden, to the civil rights gerontocracy. A successful Obama candidacy would simultaneously represent a huge leap forward for black America and the death knell for the reign of the civil rights-era leadership -- or at least the illusion of their influence.

The most recent example of the old guard's apparent aversion to Obama was Andrew Young's febrile YouTube ramblings about Bill Clinton being "every bit as black as Barack Obama" and his armchair speculation that Clinton had probably bedded more black women during his lifetime than the senator from Illinois -- as if racial identity could be transmitted like an STD. This could be dismissed as a random instance of a politician speaking out of turn were it not part of an ongoing pattern.

... Taken as a conglomerate, Jackson, Young, Sharpton and Georgia Rep. John Lewis represent a sort of civil rights old boy network -- a black boy network -- that has parlayed its dated activist credentials into cash and jobs. Jackson, a two-time presidential candidate, has become a CNN host; Young was mayor of Atlanta and sits on numerous corporate boards; and Lewis is essentially representative-for-life of the 5th Congressional District in Georgia. Sharpton is younger than the others but a peer in spirit.

Hmm. One line there really struck me.

the death knell for the reign of the civil rights-era leadership -- or at least the illusion of their influence

It reminded me of something I've covered here at We Could Be Famous.

It reminded me of the way the SCLC and the BPP behaved and were received by the crowds at Jena.

And it reminded me of what was said when the SCLC threatened to boycott the city because Council was investigating some sham contracts with some waste disposal companies. And it reminded me of Oyster's response.

(Now, it turns out that the national SCLC is one of the few old guard African American movement orgs. that HAS decided to support Senator Obama, but this doesn't preclude me from using the prior bizarre actions of the SCLC to highlight the diminishing significance of ALL Civil Rights movement organizations and personalities within the African American community at-large.)

Now think about all that.

It certainly is interesting to examine the position of the many African American old guard leadership, the battles they fought over the last 40 years, and their waning political relevance today in the face of an America in which those baby boom battles look more and more like a stalemate every election cycle.
---
Now I'd like to take the lens provided by Sullivan over to the other side of the baby boom divide. There is change afoot in the Republican caucus as well. It's name is Mike Huckabee.

I've written about him a lot lately. I've tried to cast his meteoric ascendancy within the Republican Presidential nomination fight as somehow linked to the change movement put forth by Senator Obama. If you follow that link, you'll read my argument about the increasing political empowerment of grassroots evangelicals and their growing frustrations with their historic alliance with the Republicans of Wall Street.

Now, read this article from the New York Times. It's title sounds remarkably similar to those discussing what is occurring on the Democratic side:

"Huckabee Splits Young Evangelicals and Old Guard"

Then go back and read Andrew Sullivan's article again.

Pretty interesting stuff, huh?

The baby boom is so 40 years ago.

I read him daily

His name is Dick Polman and I go to him for his take on the election whenever he posts.

This is a perfect example why.

Go read about Hillary Clinton's Nevada surrogates and their attempts to disenfranchise voters.

All campaigning is ugly business, there's no doubt about it.

But when your tactics so directly conflict.... just go read the article and you'll be mad at her too.

John Kerry Endorses Barack Obama

Immediately when I read that Senator Kerry had lined up behind Barack Obama, I thought that it was bad for Barack Obama.

I remembered that John Kerry was a spineless and fearful candidate that lost to a weak sauce George W. Bush.

John Kerry makes progressives mad. He makes me mad.

But I thought about it a little more and I think it's probably a good thing for the Obama campaign.

Obama seems to have young folks on lock down.

Older, traditional, paper media democrats have been more reluctant. They're the old-school baby boomers that Andy Sullivan was talking about. Obama has largely struggled to earn "legitimacy" with this bunch because of the entrenchment of the baby boomer narrative that Mr. Sullivan discusses. Kerry's endorsement of Senator Obama is, in a way, a repudiation of his own electoral strategy in 2004.

It may help Obama reach voters that have been content to go with the establishment choice. Kerry's large database of contacts and supporters from 2004 may in fact include a lot of Clintonian Democrats.

I could be way off because:

Anecdotally, in my head, I just sort of associate Kerry and Clinton. I consider the stereotypical proactive Kerry supporter of 2004 to be more enthusiastically pro-Clinton than pro-Obama here in 2008. Is that an unreasonable assumption?

What do you make of the Kerry endorsement?

The timing of the announcement is perfect, though. I do have to throw that in here.

So This Morning

It's just such a shame that everyone saw the blowout coming. Because Barack Obama's candidacy is still an unprecedented, unforeseen, and unpredictable phenomenon.

He sent his supporters an email today titled "we knew this would be hard."

There is still something special about the way people respond to Senator Obama and something special about the way he is framing his electoral coalition as something more powerful than simply being a democrat in the executive branch.

One thing that I want to understand better is the female vote and Hillary Clinton. This was the most glaring difference between Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, Barack beat Clinton among women and in New Hampshire, Senator Clinton was the resounding choice of female voters. A lot of the pundits last night repeated over and over again that Hillary Clinton's crying incident clearly had an affect over the last 48 hours of the campaign. This morning, NPR spoke to some female voters that specifically cited that incident as a turning point for them.

Really? What's up with that?

I am not suggesting Clinton's crying moment was staged. I think it was sincere, actually. I related to her more, I guess. But, really? It caused a 15 point swing? Really? That easy?

Is Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy at this point to appeal to a sense of loyalty amongst female voters?

Would she decide ultimately to play up identity politics in the face of a rival, in Barack Obama, that has hinged his whole political persona as being the antithesis to identity politics?

Won't she ultimately lose with that type of message? Though, I guess we've learned the hard way that division helps some people win sometimes.

I also thought that calling Obama's inspirational campaign "false hopes" and saying his supporters are in need of a "reality check" would ultimately make Hillary and Bill Clinton look reactionary and spiteful. That may still happen if they decide to continue with those types of lines.

I have to go to work but I am looking forward for articles to emerge that place New Hampshire in a context more useful than, "wow, us mediafolk sure were taken for a ride."

It's Just So Frustrating

Barack Obama is going to be President I still think. This whole process is so ridiculous.

Brokaw on MSNBC was in the middle of destroying Chris Mathews about the way the way this campaign has unfolded in the media when he was interrupted by Senator Clinton's victory speech. I'd like to find video of that somewhere for you.

I'll talk about these results more after I've had time to think about it.

Caucus Prediction Time

Big day for soap opera fans. This storyline has been tirelessly built since 2006. The first payoff is tonight.

Did you buy into the inevitability of Hillary Clinton's victory? Remember when she was considered unbeatable? It happened. Shame she just blasted through so many millions of dollars... because Iowa democrats are voting the anti-establishment ticket.

I never believed that invincibility bullsh*t. That never appeared to be the case to me. Nice narrative for the media to run with, though.

'90s Democrats are out.

Progressive populism is in.

Flannel is in.

Patterned zip-up hoodies are out.

When these turn out to be the results tonight, I will be happy happy:

1. Barack Obama: 40%
2. Jon Edwards: 33%
3. Hillary Clinton: 27%

I'm having a harder time handicapping the Republican race because Republican voters are... I just won't say anything.

For weeks, I've been going back and forth with Oyster and Jeffrey regarding this race. I've been saying again and again that Huckabee would be able to sustain his momentum enough to carry Iowa. I still believe that argument is compelling.

He is uniquely positioned as the grassroots populist Republican answer to the progressive movement that is threatening to unite Democrats on the other side.

Romney and Giuliani are actually quite similar candidates due to their position changes on a variety of social issues and they're support for and from the traditional bastions of economic and industrial neo-conservatism.

McCain holds down prudent, moderate lane. The thinking man's Republican, as it were. Still crazy, but seems less crazy.

I've been arguing that this would be enough, in spite of the traditional Republican thirst for a war-hawking type.... I thought that McCain would surge a little bit and I thought Romney would continue his collapse. Mostly, I thought Huckabee would take the caucus with surprising ease.

But Huckabee's recent MAJOR AND INEXCUSABLY EMBARRASSING gaffes on foreign policy, namely the idiotic statement he made last week about illegal immigration from Pakistan, have really poisoned his candidacy.

Thus, Romney has inexplicably regained ground in spite of the fact that he's Gordon Gekko with a creepy sweater. So the Republican race is going to be tighter than I initially thought.
Either way McCain is in great position. He'll be in third, I believe. He'll easily be able to spin third place as a big plus given how he's largely ignored campaigning in Iowa as he did in 2000. He's rocking in New Hampshire right now and blast ahead to a surprisingly easy victory there, riding the momentum and positive media attention from his better-than-anticipated Iowa showing.

Here we go:

1. Huckabee: 27%
2. Romney: 27%
3. McCain: 20%
---
I don't think Obama is going to finish lower than first in a single primary until Nevada. I think he's going to get Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina before pundits even have the chance to find this blog to anoint me caucadomis.

What an honorable way to get famous!

I'm like totally proud of this girl in Iowa that like totally stood up to the Clinton campaign.

Brave is the new cowardly.

Bush-esque

Hillary Clinton responds to harsh questioning from her own campaign staff:

"Will you be a GREAT President or will you be the GREATEST President?"

"Why is your healthcare plan better than those put forth by your rivals?"

"What are some mistakes that the sitting President has made?"

The message here is that Hillary Clinton is "hip" and "youthy." She is not afraid to open up her campaign to spontaneous and candid questioning...


Where did she pick up this trick? Are their any other examples of campaigns corrupting the very sanctity of the Democratic process? I mean, who would plant questioners at a press conference?

Hillary, you've got a double-digit lead. You know that your area of greatest vulnerability is your insider status, the sense that the Bushes and the Clintons are simply different factions of the same corrupt, authoritarian, do-nothing cabal... Do you really need to open yourself up Bush-comparisons by coaching questioners at an event for students who are going to be largely supportive of you?

Obama Strategy Session

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Over the last nine months, her leads in national and early primary state polls have only grown. Her fund-raising prowess continues. She's been left to present herself as the experienced candidate in debates and speeches.

Pundits and politicians have all but anointed her as the Democratic nominee for the Presidency.

Barack Obama has competed neck and neck for money. He entered the race on a wave of popular momentum and arguably has the most galvanized grassroots support base. Yet his campaign seems to have stagnated, if you consider polls to be viable indicators.

For months, many have wondered how long Mr. Obama could stick to his above-the-fray approach toward criticism of his rival candidates, particularly Senator Clinton.

Recently, Obama pledged to enter a new phase of his campaign in which he would be working less on presenting his own biography and more on highlighting differences between himself and his rivals.

To a limited extent, he has done so.

Maybe they're effective attack lines. Maybe they'll chip away at Hillary's lead.

I don't know. I don't really care. I've adjusted my thoughts on how Obama needs to go about running this campaign.

I still believe that Democratic candidates are largely giving Hillary Clinton a free pass on her ties to large corporations and the Washington insider elite. There is a lot of unused ammunition here.

Yet, clearly, the attack is not Obama's style. He would rather not have to.

The main reason so many people flock to him with such passion is that they believe in his promises to be a different politician. Obama's supporters believe that he has sound judgment. They believe that he can be a uniting leader. They believe that his eloquent, honest style of speech separates him from the typical politician and insulates him from their attacks. They think his books are fantastic. When Barack Obama talks about restoring transparency and ethics in government, people get excited. When Obama talks about stopping the bickering, ending the political game playing, and forcing government to focus to solving social problems, well, people like that. They like the idea of an outsider coming in and changing the game.

So when analysts of this race talk about Obama being caught between a rock and a hard place, they're describing Obama's attack dilemma. If he doesn't attack Hillary Clinton, she'll walk away with the race. If he does attack Hillary Clinton, he'll be undermining his above-the-fray image, the strength of his campaign.

I was thinking about this whole situation. It's a tough call for Obama. Campaign strategy.... talking points.... memo.... press release.... flip-flopper....er, swift boat..... blurp, is he black enough... gr... bleep... blorp... if I had known then what I know now.... raise your hand if you believe in evolution....KABOOM!

Screw that.

Barack Obama, you are a United States Senator. You have an important job with a high profile. You've got a lot of campaign cash and you haven't used much of it. You don't need to get on CNN to raise your national profile anymore. You're on popular magazine covers. They call you a rock star. Voters know your name. You've kissed plenty of babies and shaken a lot of hands. You've been to lots of small town diners and sat across from us normal people with a concerned look on your face as we express ourselves. Great job.

But if you're running as a different kind of politician, a new kind of leader. If you're not going to disappoint us...

You can prove it as a Senator.

Today.

Be first in line to confront the President on his path to war with Iran.
Be the one to negotiate the veto-proof majority on the SCHIP program.

Skip a debate and get your ass to the Senate. The cameras will find you.

When I read stories like this:

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) released a letter today, signed by himself and 29 Senate colleagues, warning Bush not to take military action in Iran without Congress's consent. Webb's office said the goal was to "clarify any ambiguity as a result of a recent Senate amendment urging designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization," and to express "concern that the administration's increasingly provocative rhetoric has undermined diplomatic efforts with Iran."

One of the 30 signatories was Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who voted for the Senate amendment and has taken grief from her Democratic opponents ever since. The measure, written by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), was opposed by many Democrats for giving Bush too much leeway, including Webb, who was one of the amendment's harshest critics.

Sen. Barack Obama, who missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote but said he opposed it in principle, was not on the list. Nor has Obama endorsed either of the two pending Senate bills that would require Bush to seek congressional approval before invading Iran -- including one written by Webb and cosponsored by Clinton.

Or this:

Clinton, Dodd and Obama were all absent Thursday when the Reid abruptly scheduled a vote on the latest version of the children's health insurance bill, a huge Democratic priority that Reid had tried to delay until next week, to no avail. For a few hours, Democratic leaders worried that they would not be able to muster the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster. In the end, they found the votes. But Reid can't take chances as he tried to push through the huge spending agenda that must be completed before the year's end.


Well it raises questions about just how different you actually are.
If you're candidacy is anchored in the belief that Americans are smart and will vote for honesty, integrity, reason, and rationality... if your campaign is based on the belief that Americans can look past the pundit attacks and media feeding frenzies...

...you're going to have to prove that you're actually the alternative. Campaigns don't prove anything about you other than you can stage photo ops. And as much as we love photo ops in America, we need somebody that can do their job. Go to work, Barack.

Obama Turns Corner

Already Barack Obama is delivering on his promise to begin a new phase of his campaign. With slipping poll numbers and a relatively stagnant 3rd quarter fund-raising total, Senator Obama and his advisers have decided to take a more aggressive approach. I wrote last month about the free ride Hillary seemed to be getting from her supposed rivals for the nomination. Last Thursday, I discussed Obama's planned new phase:

If Obama's 'new phase' is indeed new, he will have to come at her on issues related to fund raising. Saying that Hillary Clinton supported the War in Iraq in a louder voice does not make it a different line of attack. He has got to do more. If he is the different type of politician he says he is, now is the time to point out how. By announcing that he is ready to really roll up his sleeves for phase two, people will be looking for him to deliver, and quickly.

Well today the Obama campaign sent a fundraising email to its supporters with the subject line "Hillary's Money."

Hillary Clinton aggressively seeks money from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. She's even said that these lobbyists represent real Americans.

She's wrong.

I think it's time to turn the page on that kind of politics, and that's why I have not accepted a dime from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs in this race. We rely on a network of more than 350,000 ordinary people to make us competitive -- more supporters than all the other Democratic candidates combined.

Washington lobbyists have chosen their candidate and are determined to provide her with an overwhelming advantage. But you can even up this contest.

In the face of the most entrenched political machine in Democratic politics, I believe a movement of ordinary Americans can change our country. And you can prove that right now.

I need you to make a donation to close the gap

This is fresh evidence that he does intend to highlight Hillary's connections to Insiders and Lobbyists, but he's walking a thin line. He alludes to the time she said that some lobbyists represent the interests of real Americans, citing social workers. He even takes the comment out of context to make her look worse.

I dunno, man.

There is no need to do that, Barack. Why resort to such a cheap line? You can attack Hillary's record on lobbyists, corporate donations, ties to special interests with substance. And it wouldn't take you that long. Here is a link to a story about Norman Hsu flying Hillary's campaign staff to Las Vegas for partying. Here is one about a senior adviser's role at Blackwater. Here's one about the money she's received from lobbyists for this campaign. Here's one more link about Hillary Clinton's relationship with Walmart.

Mr. Obama, you can raise serious and intelligent questions about Senator Clinton's relationship with The Establishment and how that might preclude her from enacting serious ethics and campaign reforms. This is important to Americans! You don't have to do it with a snarky, "she's even said that lobbyists represent real Americans."

Surface criticisms using that type of stock tone will be dubbed by her people as desperate attacks. Challenge her directly. Challenge her views and history on these issues and force her to defend her ideas as opposed to herself.

If Hillary Clinton is to be caught by a Democratic rival, it will be because voters learn about her shady dealings with these various insider interests.

Here's video from the August debate in which Hillary Clinton says that lobbyists represent people.