Post any thoughts or comments on the Edwards endorsement here. I've seen much talk saying he's a coward for waiting, and that he's endorsing now because it's his last chance to play kingmaker in any meaningful way. Others speculate that he's been in the bag for a while, and Obama was waiting until he needed him to change the story. Maybe he waited until after NC in deference to Hillary, perhaps at his wife's request. Perhaps he wanted to avoid being seen as embarrassingly weak in NC, compared to Obama, reminding voters that he couldn't carry the state in 2004. Edwards is weaker in NC than most people realize. Many suspect Mrs. Edwards isn't supporting Obama, but she will likely stay quiet to avoid undermining her husband.

Edwards spent so much time in the beginning talking up Hillary, for a second I almost thought he was going to Pwn Obama by using his crowd to try to endorse Hillary! He would have been booed so loudly it would have messed up his hair, but that would have really been something.

Obama and Edwards really looked like a ticket tonight, but I hope and trust that Obama wont invite Edwards to join the ticket.

Prediction: I also think Hillary will suspend her campaign before the end of the month, maybe before the end of next week.

Labels: Barack Obama, Democrats, John Edwards, politics, predictions

West Virginia is Hillary Clinton's kind of state. Most projections have her taking the state by 25-35%. Fortunately for team Obama, it doesn't really matter. I'm most interested in seeing whether or not the irrelevancy of this contest will diminish the vote total. No one likes to go out and vote in an election that's already over, for a candidate who has already lost. Perhaps a bandwagon effect will give Obama a surprisingly good night, but the best he could hope for is to lose by only 20%.

If Hillary wins by more than 40% and there is a heavy turnout, she could net over 100,000 votes, and cable news may try to make the win seem significant, citing the plausibility of her taking the lead in the popular vote.

For those of you who still choose to closely watch this race, I want to direct you to a tremendous resource I've been reading lately, that Chris at the Outside Report got me hooked on. It's a blog with very detailed analysis and polling data, where the polls are weighted based on the polls past performance (and other factors). Check out FiveThirtyEight.com, and if you're interested, here is their WV primary preview.


Update from Buck B.

Further re-enforcing the "everyone-hates Republicans" thing I wrote about below, Democrats have, incredibly, won Mississippi's 1st Congressional District in a special election today....by eight points! This is a district Bush won with 62 percent of the vote in 2004. Republicans have now lost three special elections in a row this year, all in heavily Republican districts.

Oh, and as expected Hillary has officially cornered the market on ignorant white people who will likely vote Republican in November anyway. Congratulations, Sen. Clinton.

Labels: 2008, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, politics

While Archimedes-in-a-pantsuit tries to rewrite the laws of mathematics, the rest of the nation has properly begun to weigh the Presidential contest between Sens. McCain and Obama.

Obama has, however, learned a valuable Clinton trick from this protracted primary--how to obliquely reference the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" to misdirect people's attention away from glaring, personal deficiencies.

During his victory speech in North Carolina on Tuesday night Obama said, "We know what's coming...the same names and labels they (Republicans) pin on everyone who doesn't agree with all of their ideas."

Actually, we have some new names and labels thanks to Mr. & Mrs. Obama's own words and ideas, as well as the Senator's cozy relationships with corrupt influence peddlers, domestic terrorists, and a hateful, bile-spewing spiritual advisor.

That right-wing conspiracy shtick--being "Swift-boated"--is going to work out about as well for Obama as it did for Clinton and for the same reason-because it is without merit.

"Swift-boated" has been added to our political lexicon by the Left to lament the alleged unfair attacks to which John Kerry was subjected in the 2004 Presidential race.

And yet, it was John Kerry who made his military service an issue. He sought to use his service to distinguish himself from President Bush and to characterize both Bush and Cheney as reckless chicken-hawks.

It was John Kerry who saluted the nation nearly four years ago and said, "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty." It was John Kerry who brought several of those with whom he had served in Vietnam on stage at the Democrat National Convention to show them off to the country.

On the contrary, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were effective with their anti-Kerry message because it was a substantive one. The facts were on their side. The fact was that Kerry's entire chain of command, every officer under whom Kerry served in Vietnam, questioned his fitness to be Commander-in-Chief. Many Kerry detractors were Democrats but they were also proud and decorated veterans who believed that Kerry had acted dishonorably and that his campaign was being run disingenuously. Theirs was a legitimate perspective for the country to hear.

Similarly, it is Barack Obama who has presented as his core argument that he possesses the superior judgment to be President. That demands a thorough examination of both his personal history and professional record.

The process demands and will extract the same from John McCain.

So as we begin the compare and contrast on the matter of the two men's judgment, at the behest of Obama, consider these two snapshots at a watershed moment in each one's life:

At the same respective points in their lives as grown men in their early 30s, Obama decided to sidle up to Chicago political machine bosses and their financiers and the chichi Hyde Park set of pseudo-intellectual socialists to advance his political career. That earned Obama an appointment to a State Senate seat in 1996.

At a similar age, John McCain made an important decision as well. He decided to forgo his early release from a North Vietnamese POW camp, an offer extended to him because of his father's position in the military. McCain would not walk unless the other POWs who had been captured before him were also released. That earned McCain an additional five years of torture in a Viet Cong prison camp and, for all he knew at the time, was a decision that would cost him his life.

What would you have done if presented with the same offer with which McCain was presented?

What do you think Barack Obama would have done as you have watched him over the last couple of months provide ever-evolving answers and, ultimately, denunciation of his 20-year pastor (only because Rev. Wright wasn't properly concerned about Obama's campaign)?

These snapshots of course do not tell the whole story of either man, but they do tell an important part of the story for each, about the values that have informed their lives.

Call it "Swift-boating" if you want but Obama's ethereal campaign will be done in by his own bad judgments measured against the very standard he has set to define the race for President.

Labels: Barack Obama, Dan Proft, Swift-boated

Note: The following exercise in Obama wankery and bitching about the media is only for those with a high tolerance for such things. All others should use caution. In other words...

We won, bitches! Suck it!


Buck B: Can I just say that this is the fucking awesomest thing ever?

Brian Pierce: I keep thinking that it's finally, finally over, and then realize there's a whole general election campaign left

Buck B: Yes. But I was a lot more worried about Hillary than I was about whoever the Republicans nominated.

Brian Pierce: I'm not worried as much as I am exhausted. But, yeah, it's a fun night. Nice to see none of the nonsense the past few weeks has hurt him.

Buck B: Amazing, really. Maybe people are actually. waking up.

Brian Pierce: Yeah, for all the talk about Obama not responding effectively, it seems like in reality he has an almost uncanny ability to cut through bullshit in a way that is actually persuasive to voters.

Buck B: It's called "telling the truth".

Brian Pierce: No kidding! I think it's not so much that people are waking up, but that the media has this weird view of what "regular people" think that kind of assumes they're all really dumb. So you hear a lot of talk about, "Well, Hillary may be totally full of shit on the gas tax holiday, but it's good politics!"

Buck B: Right. The media won't just give the candidates to the people directly and let them make up their minds, they think they have to analyze it for them. It's hard to build a convincing case in 15-second sounds bites followed by five minutes of analysis.

Brian Pierce: And analyze it not based on what's true, but what's "effective."

Buck B: Yup. With "effectiveness" based on absolutely no empirical evidence.

Brian Pierce: I mean, it should be extraordinarily offensive every time some pundit says that this gas tax holiday stuff was good politics and then in the same breath say that it's bad policy. Yet they say it totally un-self-consciously. Even though there's no way that could be true unless you are saying, "The American people are too stupid to understand they're being lied to."

Buck B: Well...unfortunately, that's at least partly true. But that's why it's so important the media take on the role of informing them. And not reporting on them like they're some sort of amusing beast.

Brian Pierce: Yeah, it's true to great extent because the media doesn't even attempt to ascertain whether the claims politicians are making are true or false. Every time I see Tim Russert chuckling about spin I want to punch him in the face.

Buck B: That's why I prefer partisan media.

Brian Pierce: Ideological media.

Buck B: I don't like wasting energy trying to figure out how a reporter is responding to spin. I want to know what his position is from the start. Who the fuck's side is Russert on? What is he doing? No one knows.

Brian Pierce: And because Tim Russert doesn't have a particular stake in anything, there's much more of a focus on game-playing.

Buck B: Yes. Surprisingly, taking a particular side makes you focus more on issues and less on politics.

Brian Pierce: In part because a focus on politics leads the public to view everybody as being the same, because it's just this confusing haze of spin. But if you're trying to advocate one side, you're going to be jumping up and down trying to draw clear distinctions on issues.

Buck B: And because you assumably believe in what you're advocating, you're going to want to build sound and convincing arguments.

Brian Pierce: That's why I used the term "ideological media" before, rather than "partisan." If you're advocating a particular point of view (as opposed to being purely partisan), you will be willing to call even candidates of your own party on shit you don't like. Fox News is just a partisan version of CNN, but with all the same flaws as CNN that we're talking about.

Buck B: Good point. That kind of distinction might be the eventual death of the two-party system.

Labels: Barack Obama, media, politics

In much the way that Charlie Murphy was awed by the aura of Rick James, so too the electorate has seen an angelic aura surrounding Obama . . . at least until recently. I have predicted for many weeks, but neglected to publicly post, that no politician can endure a competitive presidential election with their luster and aura in tact. I no longer consider that to be a prediction but rather a description of Obama's present reality.

Mini-scandals have compounded and eroded the mystery of Obama. Reverend Wright converted Obama from a person of ambiguous race to a full-fledged African American, which has harmed him with the less progressive elements of moderate voters, especially white moderates. The God and Guns bitter comment converted Obama from an optimistic unifier to an elitist liberal who looks down on the lives of middle America. Ties to Rezko have eroded him too. To be clear, these are the perceptions of the voters, not my own feelings. I think that both sentiments have logical difficulties but in politics logic is rarely vital.

Even Brian, the once faithful servant and worshiper, wrote to me, "Both candidates are over-hyped. Obama is over-hyped b/c people think his above-average qualities (good speaker, etc.) are more important than they are." Brian also admitted that just as he views McCain as a "normal politician," so too he views Obama in the same light.

McCain has lost it too. In 2000 he created the template for Obama's current campaign, but in the eight intervening years he lost his luster from the cruel barrage of speculation and accusation that stabs at every public figure. All great politicians were during their time just another normal politician. George Washington's military and political abilities were constantly assaulted. John Adams was viciously hated and attacked by Hamilton, Jefferson and others. Controversy swarmed Jefferson during his presidency. Lincoln endured lies and personal attacks.

If Iraq stabilizes and Middle Eastern democracy flourishes, it's possible that even Bush will be viewed favorably in the future. It's possible that McCain and Obama will be viewed with luster and glow in the future, but it is impossible for them to be viewed as such now. This impossibility is sad in some sense, we all yearn for a politician capable of fundamentally changing politics. Someone honorable and brilliant and moderate in the right ways and progressive in the right ways and conservative in the remaining ways. Perhaps that person exists, but lacks the political fortitude and pragmatism to survive the political tournament. It is only once our immediate passions have been tempered by the steady logic borne from the passage of time that we view a politician as a Statesman and a Great.

Labels: Barack Obama, Billy Joe Mills, presidency

Hillary Clinton is arguing that she has overtaken Obama in the popular vote. She counts her margin in Florida and all of her votes in Michigan, she has more votes than Obama. While a semi-reasonable argument can be made for counting Florida, the argument that Michigan should count doesn't pass the straight face test, since Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. Hillary making this argument is a net plus for Obama because the ridiculousness of counting Michigan reinforces the notion that she is intellectually dishonest and fundamentally untrustworthy.

Obama can use light humor and assert that her math is beyond fuzzy -- it lacks common sense. How do you make an electability argument relying on data from a race in which you were the only one on the ballot?

Obama has another opportunity, and a difficult math problem of his own. The popular vote doesn't include everyone who voted. Many of the caucuses are conducted in a manner that results in those voters being excluded from the popular vote. As you know, Obama has smoked Hillary in the caucuses. Here's my question to the Agora: How should Obama count the voters who caucused for him? Imagine you are his communications director - what approach would you take?

A few options:
(1) for each state where the vote wont count, multiply Obama's percentage of the vote by the best turnout estimate and claim the result as the popular vote. It may help to give this number a name like "the true popular vote"
(2) say Obama won X states where none of the folks are counted in Hillary's popular vote total
(3) just keep saying an estimated X voters are left out of her equation - estimate of total number of voters - and say most of these supported Obama
(4) concoct your own method

A few considerations:

• reminding people of the specific states may remind folks that most of these are unwinnable for dems
• some of these states have small populations
• making up a number might make him look as sketchy as Hillary

Labels: Augur, Barack Obama, communications, message, politics, tactics

One of the most commonly quoted "facts" about Barack Obama on conservative talk radio is that he is the "most liberal member of the Senate." The National Journal does an annual study where they rank Senators on a political spectrum by cobbling together the results from a sample set of "key votes." Here is a link to the oft quoted report. This report itself is critiqued and refuted all over the blogosphere. I wont address the methodology here or discuss potential bias or motivation for picking the votes to lead to this result, thought it probably does bring in a few dollars. Instead, I want to make a brief tactical suggestion:

The Obama campaign should quietly approach 3-5 other publications and public interest groups and have other studies with a different methodology find him in the middle of the pack, say the 42nd most liberal Senator. Doing this costs the campaign very little, and it creates a nice rebuttal for the National Journal piece. It creates the following helpful argument: "Wait, that's just one of several rankings. The Clinton supporting National Journal just wanted to sell magazines. All the other studies show Obama in the middle of the pack."

A little something for all the little John McCainiacs out there, as Mother Jones points out: "This line from the NJ press release is awesome: 'Republican presidential candidate John McCain did not participate in enough roll calls to receive a composite score.'"

Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, politics, tactics

Tonight may be the final Democratic debate. Lets use this thread for any debate predictions, and for anyone who is interested, to live blog comments on the debate. A few previews: WaPo, Politico & ABC.

Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, live blog, politics, predictions

The argument between a Yale law grad and a Harvard law grad as to who is most in touch with working class Americans is like listening to a debate about which is the tallest skyscraper in Wichita.

Welcome to the Kabuki Theater that is the Democrat Presidential primary.
Hillary Clinton downs a boilermaker at a local watering hole in Crown Point, Indiana, and we are supposed to understand that symbolic act to mean she is a regular Johnny Punchclock?

We know instead that Hillary would bite the head off of a live kitten and drink the blood from its still twitching carcass if that should earn her one additional vote.

Barack Obama offers condescending statements about small town Americans who "cling" to "guns or religion or antipathy to people that aren't like them" at a San Fran funder with his effete, liberal friends, but he just chose his words poorly.

In response to the firestorm, we get glibness from Obama to make it all better, "Now I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose I chose badly, because as my wife reminds me, I'm not perfect," so said Obama.

Actually, Obama was not the first to admit it and he only reluctantly conceded the point after being pressed on the issue. Further, Obama's imperfection is not being hotly contested. It is rather his perfectly clear mischaracterization of those who have not embraced his candidacy.

But is not the pandering or the indignation that most clearly exposes both Clinton and Obama as tasked, in their minds, with having to save all of us mouth-breathing troglodytes across the American countryside from ourselves.

It is that both believe that they are entitled to make choices for which others should not be similarly endowed.

Both Clinton and Obama can send their children to expensive, private schools but believe that low-incomes families in failing school districts should not have such a choice.

Both Clinton and Obama can make millions of dollars through politics but target producers in the private sector with class envy politics and redistributive policies.

So is it Clinton or Obama who is the elitist? Yes.

Labels: Barack Obama, Dan Proft, Hillary Clinton

Check out this post by Chris at the Outside Report on the recent PPP poll showing Obama up 45-43%. The Obamaniac in my wants it to be true, but it doesn't really seem possible. I think Chris's explanation makes a lot of sense. Because it's short, I'm going to copy the full post here.

I've gotten a couple of emails from people asking me whether the PPP poll showing Obama up 45-43% was real. The one thing I've learned from watching polls over the last several years is to look at the baseline poll number for the poll compared to other polls and look at the number of undecideds. Basically, in virtually every recent poll of Pennsylvania, including Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, and Quinniqupac, Obama's numbers range from 41%-45%.

Much like New Hampshire and virtually every other state, it is Clinton's numbers
that greatly vary, ranging from 53% to 43%. What does this mean? It means that
PPP, as a telephone poll, needs to push its undecided voters more. Obama is
probably pulling 43% of the Pennsylvania vote, but Hillary is still likely
pushing the mid-50%. The problem is Hillary's supporters are notoriously hard to
poll.

They appear fickle with telephone pollsters but in fact, they almost never
change their mind. When Hillary is "under" attack, they are less likely to say
who they support, but ultimately they support her. This has been true in every
state. Obama pulled "even" with Hillary in Texas and in Ohio, but ultimately,
her voters always come back. Remember that when reading these types of
polls.

Labels: Barack Obama, Outside Report, politics, polling analysis

Viewing someone's tax forms is like undressing them in the middle of the Quad. Nothing can be hidden from the IRS. I've heard stories of criminal drug dealers reporting their drug money on their IRS forms but having no fear of the local or federal police authorities because they feared the IRS far more.

Obama is a mystery, but perhaps we can gain an honest viewing of him from his tax returns as dissected by Bloomberg.com:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

Bill Burton, campaign spokesman, said the Obamas gave as much as they could afford. He also said the Obamas gave $240,000 to charity in 2007, though they have yet to make last year's tax returns public.

Burton should have kept his mouth shut. The Obamas gave as much as they could afford...oh really? $10,772 out of $1.2 million is all they could squeeze out? That's a 0.8977% donation rate from 2000-2004.Besides these numbers being disturbing, especially given Obama's supposed devotion to bettering the world and uplifting everyone from poverty and hope and change and yada yada yada, I am suspicious of the fact that his holiness' donation rates have increased in recent years given that he knew he would be running for President in the near future and that these sorts of things would come under public scrutiny. Keep in mind that he hit the national political scene in 2004, is it a coincidence that the very next year his donation rate soared to an incredibly high and generous 5%? In other words, even the slightly higher donation rates were doubtfully inspired by genuine empathy for the world's suffering. Furthermore, we do not know what causes Obama is donating to, they could be things like the Chicago Symphony or the University of Chicago, and not things like preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa. Obama's low donation rates, and the hypocrisy it implies, troubles me more than anything else I know about him.

The hypocrisy, of course, is this lack of donation contradicts Obama's vision that government use higher taxes to collectively pool the incredible wealth that laissez-faire capitalism has generated in order to lift up those who have been left behind. If this is a fair statement of his philosophy, then it is also ironic that he seeks to impede the same American capitalism that has generated that immense wealth by converting us to a Euro-welfare state.

More generally it is important to note comparative generosity, "Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income."

Also bizarre is that the Obama's appear to own no stocks and do not maintain a 401(k) plan. One reason to not keep a 401(k) plan is if you predict vastly higher tax rates in the future, something his chief economics adviser, Austan Goolsbee, warned of in 2006. Perhaps Obama is planning on future taxes being high because he is planning on raising them himself.

For Prescott and other tax nerds, here is Obama's actual 2006 tax return.

Here is the CNN article describing Obama's challenge of Clinton to release her own tax statements.

Labels: Barack Obama, Billy Joe Mills

The following was posted at the Huffington Post by Joshua Roman, a friend of Urbanagora:

Lee Hamilton is a true statesman. His endorsement of Senator Obama should carry great weight in the national dialog about who would be the most capable President and Commander in Chief. Hillary Clinton's chief Hoosier surrogate is perennial Vice Presidential hopeful Evan Bayh. With the Indiana primary quickly approaching, how should Hoosiers weigh these endorsements?

Lee Hamilton's endorsement proves Barack Obama is ready. Evan Bayh's endorsement proved to voters he wanted to be Hillary Clinton's Vice President.

Evan Bayh built a career trading on the legacy of his legendary father Birch Bayh. In Indiana, Evan Bayh is a popular former Governor and part of a political dynasty. However, inside the Beltway, Evan Bayh is thought of by many as a pretty boy in an empty jacket. He looks like he shares a stylist with John Edwards, and he sounds like a conservative centrist without charisma.

Evan Bayh's father Birch Bayh is an Indiana hero, a courageous leader who was willing to take unpopular stands to promote justice, and a visionary who was ahead of his time. His fidelity to progressive values cost him the Democratic nomination in 1980. It is a shame for Indiana and for America that Evan Bayh isn't more like his father. No one would ever accuse Evan Bayh of being ahead of his time. He doesn't stick his neck out or take unpopular stands. Don't expect a Profile in Courage.

Although Bayh is a member of Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, he hasn't distinguished himself by showing leadership on tough issues. Bayh treads the cautious line of a future-candidate, more concerned about running the races of someday, than tackling the issues of today. He is a lightweight who appears afraid to take tough, principled stands, perhaps in part because of what happened to his father.

Lee Hamilton is an academic powerhouse, a heavyweight. He devoted over forty years to serving America. Most recently he co-chaired President Bush's Iraq Study Group and served as the vice-chair of the 9-11 Study Group. He currently sits on numerous boards and advisory councils, including both the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and Homeland Security Advisory Council, and he is the President of the prestigious Wilson Center. He spent 34 years in Congress and chaired the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committees. As Senator Obama said "Few public servants have done more to advance American foreign policy."

Lee Hamilton's name is synonymous with wisdom, diplomacy, service and statesmanship. Speaking of his faith in Obama's foreign policy capabilities, Hamilton said, "He will work with our friends and allies. Obama will strengthen our ability to use all the tools of American power, and relentlessly promote the American values of freedom and justice for all people."

Lee Hamilton endorsed Senator Obama because of he is impressed with Obama's unifying capacity and his approach to both National Security and Foreign Policy. When Evan Bayh endorsed, he was impressed foremost with Senator Clinton's ability to make him Vice President. Midwesterners understand that motives matter. Despite Evan Bayh's popularity, Lee Hamilton's endorsement should carry more weight.

Labels: 2008, Barack Obama, endorsements, Joshua Roman, legends, politics

Check out this blog entry at the Huffington Post. It is by Joshua Roman, a friend of Urbanagora.

With Hillary gaining in both nationwide and head to head polling, and with the campaigns becoming dirtier and dirtier, there is a good chance the Clinton campaign will again hint at the formation of a joint ticket. This post discusses: the implications of a dream ticket, how Obama's campaign should respond if a joint ticket is suggested again, why people assume Hillary would head the ticket, who needs who as a VP, and the impact Hillary Clinton would have down ticket if she were Obama's VP.

In other news:
(1) My least favorite Democratic Rep. John Murtha has hit the trail in PA for Clinton. Prediction: within the next two weeks he will say something so stupid it will dominate the news cycle.
(2) More proof that Obama is a rock star. People bother watching videos of him just relaxing and talking on the phone.
(3) Senator Bird is still going strong.
(4) New Obama Girl hotness.
(5) As expected, very few will actually spend their rebate checks, but this isn't about economic policy, it's all about politics.
(6) Dr. Kevorkian to run for Congress! This will reinvigorate the assisted suicide debate. I remember talking to Dr. David Gill when he was running against Tim Johnson about this issue. Doctor Gill rejected my suggestions that he lose this element of his platform. In part because unlike Tim Johnson (arguably the single biggest disgrace to the U.S. Congress), Doctor Gill has integrity. Gill was convinced most of America was ready to support this. I'm not sure we are there yet, at least not in the Midwest, but it will be interesting to see this infused into the national debate.
(7) Interesting things are happening with Puerto Rico. They are moving up their primary. It didn't make much news, though it should have, but recently Puerto Rico changed its primary system from a caucus to a primary, and from being winner take all, to a hybrid proportional system. This move was evidently done to favor Obama. Obama is doing surprisingly well in Puerto Rico, due in part to a campaign blunder by the Clinton campaign. As I heard it, the Clinton campaign cancelled a meeting with the Governor of Puerto Rico, and Obama's camp heard about it and swooped in the next day. This agility appears to be paying dividends. It is curious that no other states have tried to increase their clout exponentially by making their Dem primary winner take all. Probably for fear of push back from the DNC.
(8) Hillary Clinton totally lied about Bosnia.
(9) My favorite GOP operative Roger Stone pwn3d Spitzer. Check it out. For more on Stone, you should seriously check out this amazing write up. I love his comic approach, his showmanship, and his rules to live by. Also, anyone who gets a tattoo of Nixon's face on his back is someone you don't want to mess with.
(10) David Brooks on Clinton's odds.

Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, David Brooks, heroes, Hillary Clinton, Joshua Roman, politics, pretty girls, Roger Stone

Editors note: This is a guest post by a friend of mine who will be commenting here and occasionally writing a guest post under the name "Satya." She was introduced to me by one of my smartest, most talented colleagues as "my smarter, more talented sister." Unlike most of us who pontificate about Obama while remained firmly planted on our asses, Satya has actually spent the last year working for the Obama campaign.

~by Satya

Barack Obama's landmark speech on race was not the best he has given thus far. His speech at the JJ dinner in Iowa, despite reaching most people via YouTube, surpassed this week's speech, and many still continue to hail his 2004 DNC keynote address as his finest.

What was remarkable about Barack's speech this week was the content. His critics accuse him of sounding great, but being light on content. This speech was all content. He apprised white people of things they either don't know, aren't cognizant of, or combination of the two because of white privilege.

His interview after with ABC News really drove this point home when he explained to Terry Moran about how differently white and black people react to the news of major crime. He explained it to him, as I [as a person of color] have many times in a nonthreatening way, how one's initial reaction to news of the major crime is to worry that the perpetrator might be of your subculture. Barack then clearly illustrated to him the privileges of being white in America by asking him if he would ever be worried about resembling someone who had done something bad.

Jon Stewart, as always, nicely summed up Barack's big gamble now. He has treated us like adults, put forth subtleties and difficult questions for us to digest. He got his message across, despite being asked idiotic question like, "Are you a black man or an American first?"

(Funny how being black is like being Muslim...you're still not allowed to have multiple identities if you're American.)

Labels: 2008, Barack Obama, Jon Stewart, politics, race, Satya

Maybe his friend Oprah can hook him up with Dr. Phil?

After watching Sen. Barack Obama's major speech on race in America yesterday (read: Rev. Jeremiah Wright), I am convinced he is dissociative.

Webster's dictionary defines the psychological condition of dissociation as "the separation of whole segments of the personality or of discrete mental processes from the mainstream of consciousness or of behavior."

Obama's speech was thoughtful, history-rich, deftly composed, and, in parts, refreshingly candid about racial divides in America and the sources of those divides.

However, he spoke as if he was an innocent bystander to the history he recounted.

Obama discussed our nation's failings as though he was powerless to act previously or presently.

Obama lamented, "Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students."

That is true.

Although I would offer another notion that may help explain those achievement gaps. What about the cowardly politicians in the pockets of the teachers unions who pay lip service to education while they let generations of low income kids be forced into schools that they know will fail them?

That is what Obama did as a state senator representing Chicago's south side. And that helps explain why, when he left his state senate seat, there were more than 12,000 kids in failing schools in his district (according to the No Child Left Behind standards).

Obama had seven years in the Illinois General Assembly to do something about perhaps the worst urban public school system in America. He did nothing except propagate the status quo. It is Sen. Obama who has countenanced the pernicious philosophy of "separate but equal" for the children of low income families during his time in public life.

Obama called for white and black middle class Americans to focus on the "real culprits of the middle class squeeze" decrying a Washington that is "dominated by lobbyists and special interests."

Yet, as Illinois annually contends for the title of most politically corrupt state in America, what was Obama's record here?

Well, last week Obama appeared before the editorial boards of both Chicago daily newspapers to answer questions about his association with Tony Rezko, an influence-peddling, fundraising impresario who is under federal indictment for a variety of alleged pay-to-play schemes that involved shaking down companies that did business with the state of Illinois. In other words, illegal special interest politics.

Late last year Obama pegged the total amount of campaign contributions he had received from Rezko in the $50K range. Upon further review, Obama disclosed last week that the number is more like $250K.

Moreover, while Rezko was widely reported to be the subject of an ongoing federal probe in 2005, Obama transacted a hinky land deal with him that ultimately resulted in Obama purchasing a parcel of land from Rezko for about $300,000 less than the original asking price.

Obama now calls the land deal with Rezko a mistake.

Obama has also refused to take money from lobbyists and PACs--in his presidential campaign. That is a luxury he can now afford.

When it was not such a luxury regarding the financing of his campaigns in Illinois, Obama was not so doctrinaire, choosing instead the path of least resistance relative to "special interest" campaign cash. This is typical of how Obama cleverly dissociates himself from such previous unpleasantries, as if it was a failure of the system he wants to fix and not his personal choice.

Following the Obama editorial sit-down with the Chicago Tribune, columnist John Kass quoted Obama as saying, "I know that there are those, like John Kass, who would like me to decry Chicago politics more frequently. I'll leave that to his commentary..."

The implication of Obama's glib remark is that it is not his job to rail against rampant political corruption in Chicago and Illinois. That is a job for op-ed writers. When, in fact, that is precisely part the job, particularly in Illinois, of someone who seeks to be a leader in public life.

The operative word being "leader".

When Obama fails to venture into the fray, we are told that he is transcending politics as we know it. What it may instead be is a willingness to do the right thing amidst controversy or political danger only as a last resort.

And that brings us to good ole Uncle Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor and spiritual advisor.

Obama's answers to even the most basic, staple questions from the media about his relationship with Wright and his knowledge of Wright's views have clearly "evolved" over the last several days as the controversy went from percolating to boiling over.

I will leave the parsing of words to Obama and rather note the more general observation that, here again, for two decades Obama had the opportunity to go on the record, publicly or even privately (of which he has made no mention to date), and rebuke Jeremiah Wright's hate-filled spewage.

For two decades, Obama had the opportunity to open up the frank and rational discussion on race that he was forced to endeavor to facilitate yesterday in order to create space in the public's consciousness between Wright and him.

For two decades, Obama chose to instead go along to get along--with a radical, anti-American, bile-discharging "man of God", just as he did with the Chicago political machine bosses and their financiers.

Do I think Obama subscribes to the kooky conspiracy theories and overheated rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright? No, I do not. That is only my sense from those who know him well, however, because Obama certainly has not earned the benefit of the doubt on this score.

Going along to get along, not standing up when he knew better, has finally caught up with Barack Obama.

The consequence is that Obama will not be able to dissociate from this political reality: his 35-minute treatise on race relations in America will quickly evaporate into the ether whereas the videos of Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright's fire-breathing denunciations of the "U.S. of KKK A" are hermetically sealed to his candidacy.

Labels: Barack Obama, Dan Proft, Wright

The great Eric Zorn posted a link to a series of six short, funny videos illustrating Hillary Clinton's logic in the primary campaign. Zorn tells us the videos are by Chicago filmmaker Steve Delahoyd and Schadenfreude.

My favorite two are based on the Michigan Primary and her overstated claims about her experience.

Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, Eric Zorn, funny

Obama quickly responded to the political controversy of the day: several controversial statements from past sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Instead of making a public statement, he wrote this Op-ed for the Huffington Post.

Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, politics, religion

Finally the Obama campaign is starting to hit back at Hillary's preposterous overstatements about her foreign policy experience. The media has been guilty of giving her a free pass on this issue, hopefully the memo released today by Greg Craig (Former Director of the Policy Planning Office at the State Department) will inspire the media to take a closer look at her foreign policy claims.

I want to be clear that I am not arguing Obama has as much foreign policy experience as Hillary Clinton. But he isn't guilty of (1) being casual with the truth and (2) trying to overplay a card that would surely be trumped by McCain in the fall. Clinton is guilty on both counts.

The Craig memo begins: "When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record."

Here's the section most likely to be quoted at length:

"There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in
foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in
on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance.
She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part
of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security
staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they
were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no
evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred
in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton
never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national
security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day."

Craig then refutes her exaggerated claims about Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and China.

The first 'graph of the conclusion nails it:

"The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it."

Labels: 2008, Barack Obama, foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, politics, strategy and tactics