Mere Words

Casey Knowles, the sleeping girl in Hillary Clinton’s 3AM-Red phone ad, has spoken out against the “politics of fear” used in it. She says she rejects the tactics used that drive us apart. In an ironic turn of events for the Clinton campaign, Casey is actually an active Obama supporter and a was even a precinct captain in Washington’s caucus.

The Clinton campaign used stock footage of Casey (then 8 years old) sleeping at home in bed, then asked: “Which candidate would you want answering the phone at 3am?”. Clearly, it was fear mongering, an attempt to play upon voters deepest fears of an attack and scare up votes.

According to a CBS Poll on 3/20, Barack Obama will weather the Pastor Wright controversy with little damage to his viability as a candidate. CBS conducted a random poll among the same registered voters on 3/15, 3/18, and 3/20:

After his speech on race and his former pastor Tuesday, voters with a favorable opinion of him (43%) still outweigh those with a negative (30%).

A majority of Americans still believe he would unite the country (52%) though that is down from 67% in February.

70% of voters said the events would not effect their decision to vote for the Senator, 14% said it would make them more likely to vote for him, and 14% said it would make them less likely.

His standing with independents did drop slightly, with 13% saying it would make them less likely to vote for him, while only 11% say they would now be more likely to vote for him. And 75% say it will make no difference.

Among voters supporting Obama over McCain in the general election, 23% said they would no be more likely to vote for Obama. Only 6% said they would be less likely, and 69% said it would make no difference.

All in all, it appears that Barack will come out of the controversy relatively unscathed. 70% of Americans say it will make no difference in whether they will vote for him. Nearly 25% of his supporters now support him even more, and his standing with independents was not damaged as badly as some thought.

Good news for Obama supporters, and more proof that he really is a resilient candidate with the ability to win the general election.

Coming from Eschaton here’s a quote from former President Bill Clinton earlier today:

It’d be a great thing if we had an election where you had two people who love this country, who were devoted to the interest of the country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues instead of all this other stuff which always seems to intrude on our politics.

I find it amazing that Clinton is able to condemn all this other “stuff” that intrudes into our politics and calling for debate on the issues, while in the same breath insinuating Barack Obama doesn’t love this country. He has the audacity to complain that the campaign is veering away from the issues, while pushing the Pastor Wright story to superdelegates?

Come on Bill, you are better than this…

Today I read a blog post by Roland S. Martin (a CNN pundit) discussing the controversy over Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. Deciding not to jump the gun and form a decision based on a 10 second sound clip, he researched and watched the sermon in question. I think it is illuminating, and when you take the quotes in context, while radical, they are much less controversial:

As this whole sordid episode regarding the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has played out over the last week, I wanted to understand what he ACTUALLY said in this speech. I’ve been saying all week on CNN that context is important, and I just wanted to know what the heck is going on.
>I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall.” It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001.

One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation.

He was quoting Peck as saying that America’s foreign policy has put the nation in peril:

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

He went on to describe seeing the photos of the aftermath of 9/11 because he was in Newark, N.J., when the planes struck. After turning on the TV and seeing the second plane slam into one of the twin towers, he spoke passionately about what if you never got a chance to say hello to your family again.

“What is the state of your family?” he asked.

And then he told his congregation that he loved them and asked the church to tell each other they loved themselves.

His sermon thesis:

1. This is a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families.

2. This is a time for social transformation (then he went on to say they won’t put me on PBS or national cable for what I’m about to say. Talk about prophetic!)

“We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,” he said.

Wright then said we can’t stop messing over people and thinking they can’t touch us. He said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice, and greed, instead of war on other countries.

“Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation’s healthcare system that leaves the nation’s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.”

3. This is time to tell God thank you for all that he has provided and that he gave him and others another chance to do His will.

This doesn’t explain anything away, nor does it absolve Wright of using the N-word, but what it does do is add an accurate perspective to this conversation.

The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth.

Overnight, Barack Obama dealt a blow to Hillary Clinton’s nomination hopes by picking up the support of the nation’s only hispanic Governor, Bill Richardson of New Mexico. This could be a key endorsement for Barack since it may help to shore up his apparent weakness with the hispanic vote. The Governor had this to say about Obama:

“I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America’s moral leadership in the world….

As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama’s unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation.”

The Democratic primary season will end on June 3rd with Montana’s and South Dakota’s primaries. Barring landslide victories in the remaining primaries by one candidate, neither will have the 2,024 delegates needed to secure the nomination. This would mean that they would need the support of a majority of super delegates to win the nomination. With the Democratic Convention, when super delegates vote, over two months later, Senators Clinton and Obama would likely spend the summer attacking each other rather than uniting the party and preparing to face John McCain.

Tennessee Governor and super delegate Phil Bredesen has come up with a plan to avoid a “brutal summer” of attacks between Obama and Clinton leading up to the convention in August. He suggests after the last primary that the Democratic National Committee should bring together all of the unpledged super delegates for a couple days to try to form a consensus. In doing so, the then presumptive nominee will be able to spend the summer consolidating support and preparing to beat John McCain in the general election, instead of fending off attacks from within their party as well as Republicans.

The idea makes so much sense, and is so elegantly simple, that obviously there must be something wrong with it, right? Hopefully, the Democratic leadership will make a smart political decision and move forward with Bredesen’s plan. They need to quit shooting themselves in the foot like they did with Florida and Michigan.

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, a group of men gathered and with those simple words launched America’s improbable experiment with democracy.

Yesterday, Barack Obama began what I believe is the most memorable speech of his career with those same words. Senator Obama prepared the speech as a firestorm of controversy spread over the caused by remarks from his former pastor. This controversy not only raised questions as to why he would associate with such a divisive figure, but also as to the issue of race in politics today.

His response to these questions was the most honest speech I have ever seen. Without alienating whites or African Americans, Obama was able to address the issue of race and start a genuine dialogue throughout the country. His ability to embrace both the fears and concerns of whites and the anger and crushed hopes of many blacks was something I have never seen from a candidate before.

He made it clear he understands that all of our nations problems will not be addressed in one election cycle, or in our lifetime. Its a constant struggle, an evolution as we come nearer and nearer to this idea of a perfect union with each generation.

Throughout the speech Barack made it very clear as to his opinion of Pastor Wright’s remarks and political views. He strongly disagreed, and condemned those remarks as divisive and wrong. Why then, did he remain in the church?

Obama made the case that to turn his back on the church and pastor would be like turning his back on family. Pastor Wright had guided him to Christ and had been a spiritual leader. He was married in the church, his daughters were baptised there. After twenty years as his pastor neared retirement he chose to dissent quietly and not turn the comments of a man he believed to be good into a political spectacle. He chose to hate the sin, but love the sinner.

In a stellar conclusion, Barack Obama gave us two choices in this election.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism… We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children….

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care…

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit…

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged…

Which will you choose?

Lately, I have been hearing a lot about the importance of experience when choosing a president. Lets have a mock election, shall we?

In one corner, we have the experienced Democratic nominee. Weighing in with over 20 years in Washington politics, he knows how the game is played. He has spent 10 years in the House, 10 years in the Senate, and 4 years as the Secretary of State, just to name a few of his credentials. Watch out for his mighty right hook of political expertise.

And in the other corner, we have our green Republican nominee. With only 8 years in the Illinois state legislature, two years in the House, and a few years as an attorney, this candidate is an experiential lightweight.

Who did you choose? If you chose the Democratic nominee with all the experience, congratulations! You have chosen James Buchanan, who most historians rank as the second worst president, losing only to Warren G. Harding.

If you picked the Republican nominee with very little experience in the realm of American government, kudos! You have chosen Abraham Lincoln, who most historians rate as the greatest president ever.

Other presidents with little experience in government ranked in the Top 10 Presidents include: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower.

Obviously, experience is not always needed to make a great President. Experience doesn’t guarantee a great President. Sometimes, the more important qualities are vision, rhetorical skill, and the ability to bring people together from both sides of the aisle. These were all qualities Lincoln possessed.

A common concern with Barack Obama is that he does not have the experience required to be President. I think that he has a lot of common with our greatest president. Both practiced as a private attorney, served in the Illinois legislature, and had only one term in Congress under his belt when he ran for president. Both rose to national prominence after a powerful speech at his parties nominating convention.

Do not be so quick to dismiss Senator Obama since he has not been in politics as long as his competitors. Focus instead on his dreams for this nation, how he plans to achieve true change for our country. Look at his ability as a speaker to make people believe in themselves and their country. Look at his character as a man and record as a citizen. You will not be disappointed.

As of Tuesday March 18, 2008 the race for the Democratic presidential race is as follows*:

Senator Barack Obama: 1613 total delegates, 1404 Pledged, 209 super delegates. Popular votes: 13,230,638

Senator Hillary Clinton: 1493 total delegates, 1249 Pledged, 244 super delegates. Popular votes: 12,518, 824

Pledged delegates are those elected in primaries or caucuses pledged to vote for a candidate. Super delegates are party leaders who are free to chose whichever candidate they want to.

The magic number to win the nomination is 2,024 delegates

There are 907 delegates outstanding, 566 pledged delegates, and 341 super delegates.

What does all this mean?

Well, Obama is the clear front-runner leading Hillary by 120 total delegates. His path to the nomination will be much easier than Hillary’s. To secure the nomination, Barack only needs to win 412 of the total remaining delegates, or 45%. Hillary would need to win by a margin of 56% or greater.

Total delegates do not really tell the whole story. Many party leaders, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, say that the super delegates should and will follow the will of the voters. This means whichever candidate has a majority of the pledged delegates going into the Democratic convention will be the candidate the super delegates throw their support behind.

In that case, what does Clinton have to do to take the lead in pledged delegates?

As of 3/18 Barack will have a 155 pledged delegate lead going into the Pennsylvania primary. With only 566 pledged delegates to be assigned in the 9 remaining primaries and caucuses, Senator Clinton has an uphill battle if she plans to take the lead. To take a majority, Hillary would need to win each state by a 64% margin. Hillary has only won one state with a 60% margin or better, Arkansas, which she won 70-30. She has only won 6 primaries by a margin of 55% or better**. Clearly, without a major shift Hillary will not be able to end the primary season with more pledged delegates than Obama.

Thus, the only likely way Hillary Clinton could win the nomination would be by the super delegates going against the will of the people. Barack Obama will have won more states, more popular votes, and more pledged delegates.

So, what effect will Senator Clinton’s remaining in the race have on the general election in November against John McCain?

There are two potential scenarios. Either Hillary secures the nomination via a coup by the super delegates, or Hillary remains in the race until the convention but Obama still wins.

In the first scenario, the super delegates will have snubbed the millions of voters who supported Obama. Many of his core supporters have said they would not vote or would vote for John McCain in the general election if Obama lost the nomination due to super delegates.

The feeling many primary voters would have would be extremely similar to that of Gore supporters in 2000 when he won the popular vote but lost the general election. They would feel disenfranchised and disgusted with the entire system. Many of Obama’s supporters are first time voters who are drawn to the polls by his call for change.

In the second scenario, Obama will still win the nomination after the weeks of campaigning leading up the Democratic National Convention in August. Instead of focusing on Senator John McCain and winning the general election, Obama will have to combat attacks from Hillary. Instead of allowing Obama the time to solidify support within his party, as McCain is doing now, Clinton will continue to divide the party between both candidates. Come November, Obama will be a weaker candidate due to being sniped at from all sides. With the last couple elections being won by a slim majority of votes in swing states like Florida, the longer the the race drags on, the harder for a Democratic win in December.

No matter which way you look at it, Hillary remaining in the race will be bad for the Democratic Party. If she truly wanted a Democrat in office next January, she would recognize the writing on the wall and drop out of the race. If she truly desired an opportunity to change our health care system, find an exit strategy for Iraq, and fix our ailing economy, she would return to the Senate as a powerful leader and force for change.

*All the math does not include Florida or Michigan since currently there is no plan in place to have their delegates count.

** Those primaries are: Massachusets (56%), New York (57%), Oklahoma (55%), Rhode Island (58%), and American Samoa (57%).