Barack Obama has publicly pulled out of the Michigan primary due to the fight between the state and federal Democrats.
Michigan moved its primary to January 15th. This upsets the federal party and, like Florida, puts its delegates at risk IF the candidate campaigns there.
Quite some time ago, I thought that this was not a smart move.
Michigan is a blue collar state with many African-Americans, and would normally be a great state for Obama to pick up early.
Even if the federal party took away his delegates, it would be a great symbolic victory.
Also, let us not forget, that Jesse Jackson won that state in 1988 by 55%.
So why did Obama let it go, possibly to the famous front runner that would undoubtedly have an advantage due to national poll position?
Maybe. Just maybe. He didn't.
Jesse Jackson Jr. is a strong supporter of the Obama campaign.
Jesse Jackson Sr., the winner of the state in '88, is a supporter, but less vocal.
There is evidence that the Jackson machine may be assisting the Obama campaign, on the sly, in the Wolverine state.
http://www.topix.com/city/jackson-mi/
2007/10/jesse-jackson-hosts-forclosure-forums
This would be an enormous benefit to the campaign if they pull it off.
Not only would it be a surprise victory early in the primary season, but Obama would keep all the delegates because he had not personally campaigned there.
If its true, I said it first.
Watch for it on the 15th!
Monday, November 12, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
Is Keith Olbermann the last American Patriot?
If you haven't seen it.
If you missed it.
If you were like me and you thought the debate over Mukasey (and water boarding, and his non-response on its legality) was over.
Watch it.
I am not exaggerating when I say that I wept when watching such a cogent courageous defense of the American system in the face of such an obvious, insidious attempt by this administration - and its democratic enablers - to subvert it.
Watch it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
(for the full text - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21644133/ )
What immediately struck me after I heard this speech was the horrible realization that it was not, in fact, courageous at all but obvious and beautiful in the simplicity of its truth. What struck me, was that everyone else in the press and the media has forgotten why they love their country. Why in fact, America IS better than other countries.
What struck me is that everyone ELSE has forgotten that there are some issues that do not have two sides... that there are things in this world that are right and wrong. More importantly, that their president is on the horribly wrong side of a struggle that has DEFINED freedom and humanity for hundreds of years, not just in America but in the world.
The unique role of America, The United States of America, was to define human endeavors, in politics and government, in a way that would always preserve human rights and human dignity. This is what we all should embrace, and this is what will allow this country to defeat any foe and support any friend. This country is defined by an allegiance not to a king, and certainly not to a president (created as this president would define it: as a king by another name), but to an ideal. That ideal is the rule of law, the proposition that all men are created equal and hold in their hands the true power of the nation. No force, least of all the president should be able to squander such an ideal.
No doubt he will be attacked in the following days for saying what he said.
He did suggest, and rightly so, that this president should fear not only impeachment but incarceration for his decisions regarding torture in the past 5 years.
He is right.
If anyone else in the government believed an ounce of their patriotic rhetoric, not only would they not confirm this attorney general nominee, but they would be in the midst of impeachment proceedings for high treason against this president.
Thank you Keith.
Thank you for saying it.
Thank you for adding a true patriotic voice to this debate.
If you missed it.
If you were like me and you thought the debate over Mukasey (and water boarding, and his non-response on its legality) was over.
Watch it.
I am not exaggerating when I say that I wept when watching such a cogent courageous defense of the American system in the face of such an obvious, insidious attempt by this administration - and its democratic enablers - to subvert it.
Watch it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
(for the full text - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21644133/ )
What immediately struck me after I heard this speech was the horrible realization that it was not, in fact, courageous at all but obvious and beautiful in the simplicity of its truth. What struck me, was that everyone else in the press and the media has forgotten why they love their country. Why in fact, America IS better than other countries.
What struck me is that everyone ELSE has forgotten that there are some issues that do not have two sides... that there are things in this world that are right and wrong. More importantly, that their president is on the horribly wrong side of a struggle that has DEFINED freedom and humanity for hundreds of years, not just in America but in the world.
The unique role of America, The United States of America, was to define human endeavors, in politics and government, in a way that would always preserve human rights and human dignity. This is what we all should embrace, and this is what will allow this country to defeat any foe and support any friend. This country is defined by an allegiance not to a king, and certainly not to a president (created as this president would define it: as a king by another name), but to an ideal. That ideal is the rule of law, the proposition that all men are created equal and hold in their hands the true power of the nation. No force, least of all the president should be able to squander such an ideal.
No doubt he will be attacked in the following days for saying what he said.
He did suggest, and rightly so, that this president should fear not only impeachment but incarceration for his decisions regarding torture in the past 5 years.
He is right.
If anyone else in the government believed an ounce of their patriotic rhetoric, not only would they not confirm this attorney general nominee, but they would be in the midst of impeachment proceedings for high treason against this president.
Thank you Keith.
Thank you for saying it.
Thank you for adding a true patriotic voice to this debate.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Big Debate Bounce for Obama
Take a look at the recent primary state polls taken after the debate, and one can easily see a post debate bounce for Obama.
In New Hampshire, an American Res. Group poll taken after the debate puts Clinton and Obama tied (the previous CNN poll had Clinton up 33 to 25). In a similar American Res. Group poll for South Carolina, Obama has over taken Clinton by 33 to 29 (the previous Insider Advantage poll had Clinton leading by a whopping 43 to 28!). This is significant given the percentage of African American voters in the State Democratic Primary and the conventional confusion thus far on the fact that they have not (yet) moved toward Obama. This shift may be starting.
The next reasonable question is what triggered this shift in the polls. One does not have to look that far to see that it is likely the recent exchange between the candidates regarding their approach to diplomacy. Clinton tried to draw blood in the debate, and afterward, by highlighting her opponents youth and inexperience. It backfired big time, and hopefully this will explain why.
In a posting by this author after the first NC debate, it was predicted that this was a winning strategy for Obama, and now we see the proof in the pudding.
Allow this author a brief recap...
In the April 30th, 2007 post, I stated...
"If Obama can find the right language ( and this is a tough one ) he can mute this difference and turn it back into a pure positive. Does the base of the party really want a candidate who's views of the world are 'Bush Lite'? If they do, why wouldn't they just vote for Guiliani? The truth is, it is a dangerous skate that Clinton is performing by moving to the right on war issues. If Obama continues to win the Democratic left, and the independent anti-war, Clinton may quickly have nowhere to go."
It now seems clear that the Obama camp recognized the same thing, and attacked as they needed to.
1) Allowing a continued attack from Clinton regarding foreign policy would have shown weakness, and would have garnered statements that the 'rock star' had a glass jaw.
2) Obama's strength in the primaries is clearly that he is new and unfettered by the
kind of traditional thinking that lead us into war. Obama can turn the page, Clinton will keep fighting the dorm room arguments of the sixties.
3) He let Clinton hit first.
4) He hit back in a way that put him on par in stature to the former first lady. A big achievement for a rookie Senator.
Obama used the 'Bush-Lite' line beautifully. The Clintonian reserve and experience is now painted as the same old problem that is leading this country over the cliff. It will be interesting to see what she does with it, but she may never again pick a fight on the foreign policy turf. This would be an enormous victory for Obama.
Obama did something else that was brilliant. The fact that Clinton attacked first, allowed him to maintain his moral high ground in the exchange. At the same time, her phraseology of Obama being 'irresponsible, and frankly, naive' was turned on its head by Obama bringing up the war vote.
Throughout the week, personalities like Chris Matthews were clearly sympathetic to the Obama side, as was shown by his repeated quoting of Kennedy's famous 'let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate' line in this inauguration speech. Chris Matthews also shamelessly repeated the Obama attack by questioning her surrogates if 'voting for the resolution and not expecting to go to war' was naive. Awesome.
It got so bad for Clinton, being pummeled in the press by Obama supporters, that Bill had to step in and 'make peace' through his 'Democrats are all better than Republicans on the issue of diplomacy' comment. Fine, it was a good time to stop, but the blood was already drawn. For, now and until the primaries, supporters and enemies will use this fight to create daylight between the two candidates, and this will help our freshman Senator from IL. More importantly, it was a fundamental mistake by the former president in how it judges the mindset of the Democratic primary voters, and it will get them in trouble in the future. The misjudgment is on how much the core Dem voters want change. They don't want a little less torture, a little less domestic wiretapping and a little less lying to get us into war. They don't want any of it. If Clinton continues to present herself as the 'compromise' Democrat - because she fears the labels that could be thrown at her in the general - she will quickly be seen as the 'say anything' candidate. No one wants a candidate who ONLY takes safe positions in order to be most electable. This is her Achilles heal and this is what will, in the end, remove her from consideration come January.
A prediction came true (yes, I'm patting myself on the back), or advice followed (even better), it matters not. What matters is that the proof is in the polls and Hillary was wounded for the first time in the contest. Despite everything, she is beatable, and this exchange proved it.
In New Hampshire, an American Res. Group poll taken after the debate puts Clinton and Obama tied (the previous CNN poll had Clinton up 33 to 25). In a similar American Res. Group poll for South Carolina, Obama has over taken Clinton by 33 to 29 (the previous Insider Advantage poll had Clinton leading by a whopping 43 to 28!). This is significant given the percentage of African American voters in the State Democratic Primary and the conventional confusion thus far on the fact that they have not (yet) moved toward Obama. This shift may be starting.
The next reasonable question is what triggered this shift in the polls. One does not have to look that far to see that it is likely the recent exchange between the candidates regarding their approach to diplomacy. Clinton tried to draw blood in the debate, and afterward, by highlighting her opponents youth and inexperience. It backfired big time, and hopefully this will explain why.
In a posting by this author after the first NC debate, it was predicted that this was a winning strategy for Obama, and now we see the proof in the pudding.
Allow this author a brief recap...
In the April 30th, 2007 post, I stated...
"If Obama can find the right language ( and this is a tough one ) he can mute this difference and turn it back into a pure positive. Does the base of the party really want a candidate who's views of the world are 'Bush Lite'? If they do, why wouldn't they just vote for Guiliani? The truth is, it is a dangerous skate that Clinton is performing by moving to the right on war issues. If Obama continues to win the Democratic left, and the independent anti-war, Clinton may quickly have nowhere to go."
It now seems clear that the Obama camp recognized the same thing, and attacked as they needed to.
1) Allowing a continued attack from Clinton regarding foreign policy would have shown weakness, and would have garnered statements that the 'rock star' had a glass jaw.
2) Obama's strength in the primaries is clearly that he is new and unfettered by the
kind of traditional thinking that lead us into war. Obama can turn the page, Clinton will keep fighting the dorm room arguments of the sixties.
3) He let Clinton hit first.
4) He hit back in a way that put him on par in stature to the former first lady. A big achievement for a rookie Senator.
Obama used the 'Bush-Lite' line beautifully. The Clintonian reserve and experience is now painted as the same old problem that is leading this country over the cliff. It will be interesting to see what she does with it, but she may never again pick a fight on the foreign policy turf. This would be an enormous victory for Obama.
Obama did something else that was brilliant. The fact that Clinton attacked first, allowed him to maintain his moral high ground in the exchange. At the same time, her phraseology of Obama being 'irresponsible, and frankly, naive' was turned on its head by Obama bringing up the war vote.
Throughout the week, personalities like Chris Matthews were clearly sympathetic to the Obama side, as was shown by his repeated quoting of Kennedy's famous 'let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate' line in this inauguration speech. Chris Matthews also shamelessly repeated the Obama attack by questioning her surrogates if 'voting for the resolution and not expecting to go to war' was naive. Awesome.
It got so bad for Clinton, being pummeled in the press by Obama supporters, that Bill had to step in and 'make peace' through his 'Democrats are all better than Republicans on the issue of diplomacy' comment. Fine, it was a good time to stop, but the blood was already drawn. For, now and until the primaries, supporters and enemies will use this fight to create daylight between the two candidates, and this will help our freshman Senator from IL. More importantly, it was a fundamental mistake by the former president in how it judges the mindset of the Democratic primary voters, and it will get them in trouble in the future. The misjudgment is on how much the core Dem voters want change. They don't want a little less torture, a little less domestic wiretapping and a little less lying to get us into war. They don't want any of it. If Clinton continues to present herself as the 'compromise' Democrat - because she fears the labels that could be thrown at her in the general - she will quickly be seen as the 'say anything' candidate. No one wants a candidate who ONLY takes safe positions in order to be most electable. This is her Achilles heal and this is what will, in the end, remove her from consideration come January.
A prediction came true (yes, I'm patting myself on the back), or advice followed (even better), it matters not. What matters is that the proof is in the polls and Hillary was wounded for the first time in the contest. Despite everything, she is beatable, and this exchange proved it.
Monday, April 30, 2007
More Obama Buzz
There was a comment from Howard Fineman (Chris Matthews - Apr22, 07) recently that knocked my socks off and I just have to repeat.
On the "tell me something I don't know" segment, Fineman claimed that Obama was talking to Colin Powell about foreign policy. He rightly views this as his Achilles heel, and he is asking a well respected elder statesman for advice. It matters greatly that this stateman is a (possibly former) Republican. If he gets Powell's endorsement, this could shake up the campaign. I have yet to read any confirmation of this buzz. Anyone want to comment?
On the "tell me something I don't know" segment, Fineman claimed that Obama was talking to Colin Powell about foreign policy. He rightly views this as his Achilles heel, and he is asking a well respected elder statesman for advice. It matters greatly that this stateman is a (possibly former) Republican. If he gets Powell's endorsement, this could shake up the campaign. I have yet to read any confirmation of this buzz. Anyone want to comment?
SC Democratic Debate
Some quick notes on the first Democratic debate at South Carolina State.
Initially, I thought Obama looked shaky compared to his normal oration in front of a large crowd. This, I'm sure, will improve with time. The real headline was the comfort and ease of Clinton. She nailed virtually every question, and clearly was well prepared for the event.
Gravel was an interesting addition, and made Kucinich look like a mainstream candidate.
Richardson looked prepared and knowledgeable, but allowed a serious question about his judgment to continue. He repeated that he did not call for the resignation of AG Gonzales because he was a fellow Hispanic. The press down played the gaff, but it is a serious one. Imagine if Clinton said that about a woman, or if Obama said it about an African American.
Big no no.
Biden was good and competent. I do hold out hope that his demeanor does not prevent him from breaking into the top tier of candidates. He is certainly more qualified than Edwards.
Obama did better in the later sections of the debate. He was the first to mention inner city poverty, and he was the first to highlight the real difference in his candidacy. I'm not refering to the corruption question by Brian Williams, he did not answer that particularly well, although it will do no damage. It is already abundantly clear that he is the money-cleanest of the top tier candidates.
No.
I'm referring to the abortion question. He answered it in a way that has a hope of winning over the vast majority of the population that believes that abortion should be rare and legal. Obama chose to stress aspects of the problem that 'we can all agree on' - programs for reducing teen pregnancy through counseling. This is smart, and if he does this in every debate he will score points.
Clinton's much touted "national security" question response was impressive. She was the first of the candidates to use the word 'retaliate' when it came to an attack on the American homeland. This was repeated often among the pundits... always foaming at the mouth for a win or lose moment.
The truth is, however, more complicated
Think about the base of the Democratic party and what they want and how they think.
Do they really want another cowboy? No, and she did use the word 'prudent' when she talked about the response, but lets play this out.
Her stance on the Iraq war has been less than pure to say the least as far as the base is concerned. How far does her "Machismo" extend. Does it extend to a cryptic policy on torture? Does it extend to a continuation of Guantanamo? The far left may be wondering just that right now.
If Obama can find the right language ( and this is a tough one ) he can mute this difference and turn it back into a pure positive.
Do the base of the party really want a candidate who's views of the world are "Bush Lite"? If they do, why wouldn't they just vote for Guiliani?
The truth is, it is a dangerous skate that Clinton is performing by moving to the right on war issues. If Obama continues to win the Democratic left, and the independent ant-war, Clinton may quickly have nowhere to go.
This election represents a focal point for change that is not just American, but may be truly world wide if one considers the enormous global impact of US foreign policy. Clinton is playing a safe game, old-style politics, that targets the traditional pillars of the Democratic party - firefighters, unions, etc...
Obama is successfully playing game based on change and hope.
Initially, I thought Obama looked shaky compared to his normal oration in front of a large crowd. This, I'm sure, will improve with time. The real headline was the comfort and ease of Clinton. She nailed virtually every question, and clearly was well prepared for the event.
Gravel was an interesting addition, and made Kucinich look like a mainstream candidate.
Richardson looked prepared and knowledgeable, but allowed a serious question about his judgment to continue. He repeated that he did not call for the resignation of AG Gonzales because he was a fellow Hispanic. The press down played the gaff, but it is a serious one. Imagine if Clinton said that about a woman, or if Obama said it about an African American.
Big no no.
Biden was good and competent. I do hold out hope that his demeanor does not prevent him from breaking into the top tier of candidates. He is certainly more qualified than Edwards.
Obama did better in the later sections of the debate. He was the first to mention inner city poverty, and he was the first to highlight the real difference in his candidacy. I'm not refering to the corruption question by Brian Williams, he did not answer that particularly well, although it will do no damage. It is already abundantly clear that he is the money-cleanest of the top tier candidates.
No.
I'm referring to the abortion question. He answered it in a way that has a hope of winning over the vast majority of the population that believes that abortion should be rare and legal. Obama chose to stress aspects of the problem that 'we can all agree on' - programs for reducing teen pregnancy through counseling. This is smart, and if he does this in every debate he will score points.
Clinton's much touted "national security" question response was impressive. She was the first of the candidates to use the word 'retaliate' when it came to an attack on the American homeland. This was repeated often among the pundits... always foaming at the mouth for a win or lose moment.
The truth is, however, more complicated
Think about the base of the Democratic party and what they want and how they think.
Do they really want another cowboy? No, and she did use the word 'prudent' when she talked about the response, but lets play this out.
Her stance on the Iraq war has been less than pure to say the least as far as the base is concerned. How far does her "Machismo" extend. Does it extend to a cryptic policy on torture? Does it extend to a continuation of Guantanamo? The far left may be wondering just that right now.
If Obama can find the right language ( and this is a tough one ) he can mute this difference and turn it back into a pure positive.
Do the base of the party really want a candidate who's views of the world are "Bush Lite"? If they do, why wouldn't they just vote for Guiliani?
The truth is, it is a dangerous skate that Clinton is performing by moving to the right on war issues. If Obama continues to win the Democratic left, and the independent ant-war, Clinton may quickly have nowhere to go.
This election represents a focal point for change that is not just American, but may be truly world wide if one considers the enormous global impact of US foreign policy. Clinton is playing a safe game, old-style politics, that targets the traditional pillars of the Democratic party - firefighters, unions, etc...
Obama is successfully playing game based on change and hope.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The Big Picture in Iraq
There is an undercurrent in the present Iraq debate that is dishonest and bares exposure, and I feel that I must comment on it.
So much has been spouted back and forth regarding 'victory or defeat', and an endless re-definition of why the war was fought in the first place and why we are still fighting it. Can we salvage victory? Can we turn this pile of crap into something that is less horribly disastrous for American prestige that it now seems to be? Hmmm. Really, Mr., and Mrs., politician? This is really what is occupying your brain? I doubt it.
What is clearly at the top of the agenda is so obviously a fight over who can turn this pile of crap into a partisan political victory.
Why else would Bush create this standoff over the current war budget? Not because he himself could never tolerate milestones (he must have them internally), not because he himself believes that US troops will be there forever (not even the most extreme lefty would portray him as that big a buffoon)... but because he sees this as the only way to clutch onto hope of an internal US political victory.
If the congress cuts funding, Republicans will always be able to claim that 'hey, we were winning, and we would have won if you guys hadn't cut off the funds!"
This would forever muddy the waters of historical perspective on this conflict and forever give the Republicans their 'surrender monkey' label for the Democratic party.
How do I know that this is the game? I know because this is exactly what happened in Vietnam, and exactly what prevented 20 years of Republican political defeats for continuing such a ridiculous foreign policy blunder.
Is this how bad American politics has become? That the cost of an ideological victory at home can be paid for by hundreds of billions of dollars and the blood of thousands of young Americans?
It is possible that the American people are waking up to this shamelessness. The problem is that congress may be so afraid of this tactic, that thousands more Americans will die before the election cycle can rectify the issue in 2008.
So much has been spouted back and forth regarding 'victory or defeat', and an endless re-definition of why the war was fought in the first place and why we are still fighting it. Can we salvage victory? Can we turn this pile of crap into something that is less horribly disastrous for American prestige that it now seems to be? Hmmm. Really, Mr., and Mrs., politician? This is really what is occupying your brain? I doubt it.
What is clearly at the top of the agenda is so obviously a fight over who can turn this pile of crap into a partisan political victory.
Why else would Bush create this standoff over the current war budget? Not because he himself could never tolerate milestones (he must have them internally), not because he himself believes that US troops will be there forever (not even the most extreme lefty would portray him as that big a buffoon)... but because he sees this as the only way to clutch onto hope of an internal US political victory.
If the congress cuts funding, Republicans will always be able to claim that 'hey, we were winning, and we would have won if you guys hadn't cut off the funds!"
This would forever muddy the waters of historical perspective on this conflict and forever give the Republicans their 'surrender monkey' label for the Democratic party.
How do I know that this is the game? I know because this is exactly what happened in Vietnam, and exactly what prevented 20 years of Republican political defeats for continuing such a ridiculous foreign policy blunder.
Is this how bad American politics has become? That the cost of an ideological victory at home can be paid for by hundreds of billions of dollars and the blood of thousands of young Americans?
It is possible that the American people are waking up to this shamelessness. The problem is that congress may be so afraid of this tactic, that thousands more Americans will die before the election cycle can rectify the issue in 2008.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Why Obama Matters
It was Bill Clinton that supposedly remarked "Republicans like to fall in line, Democrats like to fall in love".
This recently lead to George Will's remark that "Democrats have fallen in love, just not with Hillary". They've fallen in love with Barack Obama and there are no signs that this affair is just an infatuation.
If one studies the present back and forth between the Democratic front runners, that about sums it up. Hillary had one major strategy, and that was to out raise the Obama campaign by over two to one in order to build the aura of invincibility.
At this, she will fail.
I know this is just a guess at this point, but I put Obama either ahead in money raising by the end of March, or at least within 10-20 points. This will cause shock waves in the community and will foster a real horse race between possibly the first woman president, and the first African American president. I am guessing this from both the buzz on his campaign trail, and from recent comments by Howard Fineman (Chris Matthews - Mar11, 07) and others that Obama is raising money faster than anyone expected. In fact, his comment was that the Clinton people were complaining that every time they called a big donor they had already been called by Barack Obama HIMSELF. This is a big scoop. He is working hard and he wants to shock the establishment.
But does it matter? If, deep down, Hillary and Obama are more or less aligned on all the major issues, then... does anyone care?
The answer is yes, because this country is in urgent need of upheaval and Obama is the right man for the right time. I think it matters and I will tell you why.
Over the course of the next year, there will be much written about where the two stand on iraq, education, health care, welfare, minimum wage, abortion, etc.. etc.. but lets keep in mind what these questions are supposed to tell us.
Do we really care that a candidate agrees with us 95% on everything compared to 80% for the other one? No. This leads to over-calculated poll-driven politics. It also leads to a White House that has to run everything through the political advisers before making policy. That's exactly what we have now, Rove driven disasters. That is also the kind of White House that Hillary will create. The signs of it are already written on the wall from the way she is running her campaign.
Look at her Selma response. Look at her attack at the Geffen statement. Its politics as usual, and its the same old trap that leads to an electorate that can barely hold their nose by the time they finally make it to the voting booth.
Obama is different. Here is why.
There is no question that this man has thought about running for president for more than 2 years. Did this cause him to make a calculated political decision to support the war or "the resolution but not the war" or some such nonsense that came out of Kerry in '04, and Clinton in '07? No.
He said what he knew was right and he let the voters fall where they may. He was honest and he took a risk.
This is the kind of leadership America needs and this is what Obama represents.
If Obama were a conventional calculating politician, he would have waited. He would have taken a deal from the establishment, supported Hillary and would have run later with more experience in '12 or '16. He would still be young enough to run then, but he didn't. He recognized an opportunity, with lots of risk and he went for it.
Leadership.
How is he running his campaign? The same way. He's not afraid to shake the tree in Clinton's home turf in New York, and he's gathered major support in Hollywood. He is also not afraid to bring religion into his stump and into his campaign. This is something that definitely contributed to the Kerry loss.
Can he win in a general. Yes.
The way he is running his campaign shows it all, with a very important comment. If you listen to the way Clinton talks about republicans, she says things like "I know them, I can beat them".
Divisive, acrimonious, old politics.
Even her first major sound bite "I'm in it to win it" represents a mis-step in my opinion. Think about it. Is winning all that matters? Or is the struggle and the endeavor, the end goals most important? A candidate should be an agent for achieving results not an end in itself.
Here is also something to remember. What makes Clinton represent politics as usual is her methods, her words and her beliefs, not her sex. Yes, she would be the first woman president, but she would be more divisive than any male that came before her. Likewise, what makes Obama new and fresh is not his skin color. It has nothing to do with how "black" he is. It has everything to do with what he says, how he says it and what he truly believes.
If you listen to Obama he says of republicans "I will talk to them." "We are all Americans. There is no red America or blue America. There is the United States of America". That can win a general. Hillary's comments will pull us back into politics as usual. No one wants to be beaten down. No one wants their beliefs trivialized. No one wants another winner take all candidate. Everyone, now more than ever, wants a true political discourse and wants a true leader to be in charge.
Barack Obama is a leader. Barack Obama is new. He just happens to be black.
This recently lead to George Will's remark that "Democrats have fallen in love, just not with Hillary". They've fallen in love with Barack Obama and there are no signs that this affair is just an infatuation.
If one studies the present back and forth between the Democratic front runners, that about sums it up. Hillary had one major strategy, and that was to out raise the Obama campaign by over two to one in order to build the aura of invincibility.
At this, she will fail.
I know this is just a guess at this point, but I put Obama either ahead in money raising by the end of March, or at least within 10-20 points. This will cause shock waves in the community and will foster a real horse race between possibly the first woman president, and the first African American president. I am guessing this from both the buzz on his campaign trail, and from recent comments by Howard Fineman (Chris Matthews - Mar11, 07) and others that Obama is raising money faster than anyone expected. In fact, his comment was that the Clinton people were complaining that every time they called a big donor they had already been called by Barack Obama HIMSELF. This is a big scoop. He is working hard and he wants to shock the establishment.
But does it matter? If, deep down, Hillary and Obama are more or less aligned on all the major issues, then... does anyone care?
The answer is yes, because this country is in urgent need of upheaval and Obama is the right man for the right time. I think it matters and I will tell you why.
Over the course of the next year, there will be much written about where the two stand on iraq, education, health care, welfare, minimum wage, abortion, etc.. etc.. but lets keep in mind what these questions are supposed to tell us.
Do we really care that a candidate agrees with us 95% on everything compared to 80% for the other one? No. This leads to over-calculated poll-driven politics. It also leads to a White House that has to run everything through the political advisers before making policy. That's exactly what we have now, Rove driven disasters. That is also the kind of White House that Hillary will create. The signs of it are already written on the wall from the way she is running her campaign.
Look at her Selma response. Look at her attack at the Geffen statement. Its politics as usual, and its the same old trap that leads to an electorate that can barely hold their nose by the time they finally make it to the voting booth.
Obama is different. Here is why.
There is no question that this man has thought about running for president for more than 2 years. Did this cause him to make a calculated political decision to support the war or "the resolution but not the war" or some such nonsense that came out of Kerry in '04, and Clinton in '07? No.
He said what he knew was right and he let the voters fall where they may. He was honest and he took a risk.
This is the kind of leadership America needs and this is what Obama represents.
If Obama were a conventional calculating politician, he would have waited. He would have taken a deal from the establishment, supported Hillary and would have run later with more experience in '12 or '16. He would still be young enough to run then, but he didn't. He recognized an opportunity, with lots of risk and he went for it.
Leadership.
How is he running his campaign? The same way. He's not afraid to shake the tree in Clinton's home turf in New York, and he's gathered major support in Hollywood. He is also not afraid to bring religion into his stump and into his campaign. This is something that definitely contributed to the Kerry loss.
Can he win in a general. Yes.
The way he is running his campaign shows it all, with a very important comment. If you listen to the way Clinton talks about republicans, she says things like "I know them, I can beat them".
Divisive, acrimonious, old politics.
Even her first major sound bite "I'm in it to win it" represents a mis-step in my opinion. Think about it. Is winning all that matters? Or is the struggle and the endeavor, the end goals most important? A candidate should be an agent for achieving results not an end in itself.
Here is also something to remember. What makes Clinton represent politics as usual is her methods, her words and her beliefs, not her sex. Yes, she would be the first woman president, but she would be more divisive than any male that came before her. Likewise, what makes Obama new and fresh is not his skin color. It has nothing to do with how "black" he is. It has everything to do with what he says, how he says it and what he truly believes.
If you listen to Obama he says of republicans "I will talk to them." "We are all Americans. There is no red America or blue America. There is the United States of America". That can win a general. Hillary's comments will pull us back into politics as usual. No one wants to be beaten down. No one wants their beliefs trivialized. No one wants another winner take all candidate. Everyone, now more than ever, wants a true political discourse and wants a true leader to be in charge.
Barack Obama is a leader. Barack Obama is new. He just happens to be black.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)