The Imprimatur

Imprimatur - noun
1. an official license to print or publish a book, pamphlet, etc., esp. a license issued by a censor of the Roman Catholic Church.
2. sanction or approval; support.

After a brief hiatus from blogging, I finally find the need again to add to the debate. In an effort at full disclosure, I have been disgusted at the discourse that has evolved in the Democratic race and was so angry that I felt it wise to hold my keyboard. I'm glad. The things that I would have said in the last few days would have not been responsible toward the Clintons. That being said, I will proceed.

Today, in an editorial in the New York Times, Caroline Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama for President. Here is the final paragraph and inspiring finish to her piece:

"I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans - Barack Obama."

Today Maureen Dowd, a columnist for the New York Times was on Meet the Press with Tim Russert and said "I think this is huge... this is very much like the moment that Bill Clinton pushed when he shook JFKs hand at Boys Nation. The Clinton campaign made that the Arthurian moment where Galahad took the sword out of the stone. Now Caroline has done that for Obama but its a real moment because she is saying 'you are like my father'. After decades of politicians pretending to be like JFK, and Gary Hart chopping his hand and Dan Quayle trying to act like he was JFK she is giving him the Imprimatur and I think its huge."

It was her term used to describe Obama's new legitimate claim to the Kennedy dream and the Kennedy legacy. After weeks of the Clintons trying to cut down this new national hero, here is the first family of Democratic politics - in effect - giving Obama the reverse of the Dan Quayle moment. The Kennedy clan is saying effectively "We knew Jack Kennedy and this man is the closest thing we have to Jack Kennedy." If Senator Edward Kennedy gives his endorsement on Monday this will be the full weight of the surviving Kennedy clan effectively telling the Clintons that they are wrong - that this new political phenomenon is the real thing.

This is why I wanted to lead with this term. Imprimatur - a latin term not often used in english conversation - it hearkens to the Old English prose of Camelot, and reinforces the weight and profundity of a clan that still leads the ideological heart of the Democratic party.

Will the Clintons dare sully this new vision? A new grass roots movement that carries with it the real dream of a new Camelot?
They should do with the full knowledge that the core of the party is rapidly losing patience with them.

I have long believed that the Democratic party establishment support for Hillary Clinton was always soft. They were not so much in love with her, but in hope of winning the White House. They knew that this couple could win, and they were willing to hold their noses in order to prevent another Republican president. As the tide of red state endorsements for Obama grows, will the support of the establishment, or the super delegates be sustained? This blogger thinks there is a chance that it will not.

There is no denying that Barack Obama represents something new and powerful in the country, yet the Clintons are hell bent on painting him as something old and failed. They compare him to Jesse Jackson - a black candidate that Al Gore and Dukakis both mercilessly tried to pigeon hole as a single constituency candidate with no real chance of winning. They mock the comparison to Dr. Martin Luther King by lowering King's achievements and saying that he 'needed a president - Johnson - to pass the legislation. The code they are using is not subtle and not vailed. What they are saying is 'slow down', 'wait your turn', 'we'll take care of you'. The implication is that two white folks are better suited to take care of black interests than a black candidate. I expect this language from the old Dixiecrats, or the Republicans not the new Democratic party. It is a shameful testimony to the Clintons that they would stoop to this level in order to win, and the rage - if my friends are any measure - is spreading like wild fire. You can't just do anything to win, this is a democracy and you need to deserve to win. Right now, the Clintons deserve to be served up a round of eye opening defeats.

In the two states that Barack Obama has won so far he has done so with an overwhelming turnout, and an overwhelming turnout in traditional Republican states - Iowa and South Carolina. In the two states that he lost, he lost narrowly and with a strong wide coalition of voters. He has attracted record numbers of young people to the process, and has raised money from a bigger coalition of Americans than any campaign has acheived - ever.

In Iowa, as in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton would have won if the turnout was what it was in 2004. She won 140,000 votes in South Carolina and in 2004 the total turnout was 290,000. The trouble is that Barack Obama has changed the game. Barack Obama convinced a record number of blacks and young people to come out and vote. He won more votes than the ENTIRE democratic turnout in 2004!!

If he can do this in the general election - atleast 5-6 red states on the border and in the south are now in play. The Democratic party CAN NOT turn this down. If they do, they deserve another decade of defeats.

Hope is real. Hope drives people to volunteer. Hope drives people to vote. Hope wins elections.