Turning Point

Much to the consternation and I'm sure shear disappointment of the McCain-loving mainstream media, what happened this past weekend with the Iraqi PM endorsing Obama's withdrawal plan is nothing short of a turning point in this campaign. While McCain and his media cohorts will continue to extol the false notion that the surge has worked--just because you say it over and over again doesn't make it true--the facts on the ground (yes, those facts) dictate that the Iraqis want us out and we want out, so why not make everyone happy and get out! Call it a time "horizon" or a timetable or whatever you want; we're done and over with Iraq.

And the McCain campaign knows it. One strategist told Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, "We're fucked." That's a simple way of putting it, but basically it's right. Especially in light of McCain saying in 2004 that if we were asked to leave he would honor that commitment. Even after the Iraqi PM's spokesman claim that Maliki was misquoted, the Times has obtained the audio version, and a straight-forward interpretation shows that there is no confusion at all. In fact, Maliki, not the magazine, brought Obama and the words "timetable" and "withdrawal" into the conversation!

With Obama in Iraq today, after having a successful trip in Afghanistan over the weekend, the media will be swirling around him like vultures, prepared to pounce at any slight mistake or even the whiff of a mistake, so that they can then run a 24/7 Obama Campaign Death Watch on the cable shows (a la Jeremiah Wright). Except, it won't matter. The pictures of soldiers cheering Obama as he enters a mess hall, coupled with presidential-like meetings with top government officials, will out shadow anything the McCain media attempts to stir up.

This is all to drum up the big finale on Friday. The speech in Berlin. They're estimating that up to 1 million people could attend. Ask yourself: can you imagine McCain getting that many to attend a speech? No, not 1 million for McCain. Maybe a thousand or a hundred. Or maybe just no one at all. The Europeans know who the next president of the US will be. And now so do we.

Veep Speculation

We're nearing the point at which both Senators McCain and Obama will be selecting their respective Vice-Presidential running mates. Both Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic and Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post have put in their thoughts. Overall, I'm not comfortable with the list presented for Senator Obama, and I certainly hope that McCain picks Romney or Carly Fiorina. Either of those two would be like manna from heaven!

As for Senator Obama's choices, here's a rundown with complimentary commentary (taken from Marc Ambinder's list):

Sen. Chris Dodd (the insurance capital of the world)--can't really seeing it happen. Although, if truth be told, it was Dodd who broke Hillary Clinton's back. Remember in November of 2007, during the now famous (or infamous) Philadelphia debate where Dodd jumped all over Hillary's bobbing and weaving over giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. It was Dodd's dirty work that did Hill in.

Gov. Tim Kaine (the DC Beltway)--won't get it, even though he was an early backer of Obama's. He's pro-life for one and two he's inexperienced--more so than Obama. And Obama is already competitive in Virginia without Kaine's presence on the ticket, although his selection may just seal the deal. But, he's experiencing some political troubles at home, which isn't a good sign, either.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (where the Wizard of Oz took place)--another early supporter of Senator Obama's, she is the female counterpart of Obama. She's center-left and appeals to Republicans because of her sensibility and practicality. She won't help Obama carry Kansas, though. Right now, he's behind by about 20 points. No running mate can solve that conundrum.

Sen. Evan Bayh (a state no one knows about)--dull, boring, stale: all words to describe Senator Bayh. Although, his political resume is quite impressive. Governor and Senator of a red state and very popular. He endorsed Hillary, but never really said anything to disparage Obama's image. This would be a "safe" pick for Obama. I don't think he's looking to play it safe. At least, I certainly hope so.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (fly over country)--this is my personal choice, although I think his chances of receiving the spot are as narrow as Hillary's, if not more so. He appeals to the Midwest, independents, and disaffected Republicans. Plus, Vietnam hero, opponent of Iraq War, he has the military and foreign policy credos which Obama currently lacks. His trip with Obama to the Middle East next week may be mere window dressing or a preview of things to come.

Al Gore (the Earth)--just threw himself out of contention, telling ABC News that he has placed on himself a term limit for the vice presidency.

John Edwards (son of a mill worker)--he may very well end up in the spot. The Edwards of '08 is not the one from '04. He's tougher, stronger, and better at campaigning. I can't imagine Edwards appeasing to the other side during a VP debate this fall, as he did with Cheney four years prior. Edwards message during this campaign was similar to Obama's, except he was never able to raise enough money or appeal outside of Iowa (he was the Dick Gephardt of the '08 campaign). Also, the Edwardses are a strong pair. Standing with the Obamas, I can see it happening.

Joe Biden (Long-Winded)--I had always thought that he would be Secretary of State, and I still think he'll be at Foggy Bottom come January 2009. His experience in foreign policy is unmatched; he would be able to go after McCain with credibility and authenticity. His most famous contribution to the '08 campaign was this line: "There's only three things [Rudy Giuliani] mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11." Although, his mouth often gets him into trouble. Lest we forget that Obama is "articulate and bright and clean."

And last but not least, Sen. Hillary Clinton (Hell)--if this happens, cue the theme from Jaws.

Questions to McCain

My Uncle Mark, God Bless him, sent a copy of George Will's May 5th column in Newsweek magazine, which, for some reason, I cannot find online, so you'll just have to trust me that it exists. His column, titled "Questions to Obama," is classic Will--all fluff and no facts. So, I decided to respond to my uncle's email with my own questions for John McCain. The follow is what I sent him--and I'm still waiting for his reply . . .

I wish the so-called liberal media had nerve to ask these questions to McCain:

1) Senator, just yesterday in your press conference, you referred to the country of Czechoslovakia, and about three months ago, while appearing on the racist Don Imus radio show you talked about working with said country. And you said it again last year in a debate. Actually, Senator, Czechoslovakia hasn’t been in existence for over 10 years. Do you know that Czechoslovakia is no longer a country? If not, how can you claim to be the foreign policy candidate when you don’t even know that a country hasn’t been in existence for more than a decade? (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/mccain_again_refers_to_czechos.php)

2) Senator, it seems you have a problem with mixing things up, or just plainly making things up. Coincidentally, or ironically, it almost always is in relation to foreign policy, your supposed forte. On several occasions, you have referenced Sunni and Shia but incorrectly. Even your pal, Senator Joe Lieberman, had to whisper into your ear the correct answer. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/08/869803.aspx)
With all due respect Senator, we already have one president who didn’t even know about the sectarian tribes and rivalries in Iraq before invading, so why should we trust you as well? Oh, and one more thing: who actually jokes about killing another country’s people? (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/08/mccains_latest_iran_joke.html)

3) Senator, the other day, your senior advisor, ousted, fired, discredited, disrespected former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina, said that it was unfair that health insurance companies discriminate against women because they would cover Viagra for men but not birth control for women. At first, you said that you hadn’t thought that much about the issue before, yet you had actually voted in the past AGAINST a bill mandating that insurance companies cover birth control. So, Senator, have you not thought about it enough to actually vote against it before or did you just forget? Can we please have some of that "straight talk" you’re supposed to be spewing?
(http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-carly10-2008jul10,0,228806.story)

4) Senator, you said recently in an interview with The New York Times, "I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself." Um, how long should it take you to "learn" to get online? You point and click. With all due respect, even my grandmother, who is actually older than you, can use the computer and can log onto the Internet. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin) And she knows what "Google" means. (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/09/mccain-its-a-google/) Don’t you think it would be important as president of the most powerful country that you should know how to at least use a computer?

5) And Senator, who really speaks for you? You say that only you speak for yourself. Yet, your top economic advisor says that Americans paying $4 for gasoline, higher insurance premiums, and more for college tuition, are just "whiners" and they should get over it. You have even said that Americans are "depressed." Bu you disagree with him, so you must be disagreeing with yourself, or are you mixing that up, too? And, by the way, why is he still with your campaign? And, why did you send him to speak to the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board the day that you rejected his comments? Maybe you should learn how to send him a text message.
(http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/who_speaks_for_john_mccain.php)
(http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/top_mccain_surrogate_describes.php)
(http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/mccain-i-would-imagine-we-are-in-a-recession/)

They Misunderestimate Obama

Watching the Sunday morning shows has really become a dull exercise in witnessing stupidity and ignorance. Having lived near and worked in Washington, DC for a brief period of time (back in the late summer and fall of 2003), I understand well the extent to which the "beltway bubble" exists for those who reside in the District or its suburbs in Virginia and Maryland. However, having gratefully escaped these confines and now experiencing politics from outside the DC establishment but still watching its members blather endlessly among themselves, I can only shake my head in puzzlement and bewilderment. That these people get paid--and some of them, large figures--to recite the talking points of the McCain campaign is enough to lead any one watching to throw themselves at the mercy of anything more interesting, even if it is a congressional hearing repeat on C-SPAN.

My rant against the DC media elites stems from their futile attempts to discredit and perhaps in the end even destroy Barack Obama. While it is true that the media were harsher on Clinton than Obama (at least during the first half of the primary; the debate in Philadelphia moderated by Stepinfullofshit and his bff Charlie Gibson) it cannot be argued, at least convincingly and at this point in the general election campaign, that the press has favored Obama over McCain. Just the opposite, in fact. Week after week, mistake after mistake, gaffe after gaffe, the media have given McCain and his allies "Get Out of Jail Free" cards. Barack Obama and his wife exchange a "fist bump" and its the lead story on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, with one commentator even calling it "a terrorist fist jab."

Leaving aside the media's continuing meme that Obama should be polling well ahead of his current standing (as of today, according to the Real Clear Politics average, he is ahead of McCain by 7 points, which is a larger lead than even President Bush had against Senator Kerry in 2004), it has become their weekly, if not daily, ritual to deliver mulligans to McCain but beat Obama over the head with a nine iron. For example, this past week, McCain senior advisor Charlie Black received attention for saying in Forbes magazine that a terrorist attack would bolster McCain's chances in November. Outside of Keith Olbermann's show, neither CNN or FOX or the major news networks ran major stories about Black's comments. McCain supposedly distanced himself from his advisor, saying that he disagreed with them, but would not let him go from the campaign. The McCain-loving media took his answer with a spoonful of gullibility and moved on. Then, Grover Norquist, current president of the right-wing Americans for Tax Reform, described Senator Obama as "John Kerry with a tan." His remarks, made to the Los Angeles Times, didn't even warrant an actual news story; it was only posted on the paper's political blog. Again, besides Keith Olbermann's show, the MSM closed its eyes, plugged its ears, and ran screaming in the other direction, completing ignoring the general election campaign's first use of overt, blatant racism. And, just today, there is a report that McCain and his beer-magnate millionaire wife have not paid taxes on one of their seven properties. Of course, it didn't make the nightly news.

Even as the media continue to attempt to drag down Barack Obama, with the aid of the McCain campaign no less, they do so at their own peril and stupidity, for they have already lost sight of one of the most remarkable feats of this campaign season: For the first time in nearly three decades, the Clintons have been defeated, at the hands of a first-term, black Senator. That Barack Obama has accomplished what the Republicans have attempted to do at least since the early 1990s, and have spent millions of dollars while doing it, should signal, at the very least, to the MSM and the McCainites that Barack Obama and his legion of followers are a force unrecognizable to them and others who have studied American politics for the past half century. That they think they can merely use the same old Rovian tactics and scare voters with Internet smears about Obama, and that they would ironically enlist the so-called liberal MSM as their partners in these endeavors, reveals that they are still living in a fallacy. The old ways of campaigning--the textbook ways of communicating, branding, and attacking--will not work this time around. And they have not worked. If the Republicans and their media whores think that by labeling Senator Obama an elitist, urban liberal who is untested and naive and ill-prepared to answer the phone at 3am, it will break voters into submission and vote for the septuagenarian, just ask the Clintons as to how well that tactic worked out for them.

Turdblossom Strikes Again!

Today, Karl Rove reared his cytoplasmic self to spew more bullshit. He told a gathering of Republican insiders, and no doubt card-carrying members of various country clubs, that Barack Obama was "coolly arrogant" and "Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

The blogosphere lit itself on fire--and rightfully so. Jake Tapper of ABC News nicely sums it up: "Interesting that Mr. Rove would use a country club metaphor to describe the first major party African-American presidential candidate, whom I'm sure wouldn't be admitted into many country clubs that members of the Capitol Hill Club frequent." Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo agrees with Tapper's characterization of Rove's comments as subliminally "uppity" although Matthew Yglesias of The Atlantic disagrees. A reader of Ben Smith's blog hits it more directly.

Indeed, the Republicans for over a year--no, for almost a decade, at least since 2000--have been bracing to fight Hillary Clinton and now that they have Barack Obama they're just swinging at anything, hoping to land a few punches here and there to bring him down. Except, inevitably, they are bound to end up hitting themselves and knocking themselves out instead! It's more than an act of desperation: it's the sign of a truly desperate and flailing party in denial over its own failures to lead this country in a time of war and economic insecurity. That Karl Rove, whom Bush famously (or infamously) calls "turdblossom," is left preaching to a bunch of crusty, white, rich Republicans about the supposed elitism and the country club attitude of a black man is a sure sign that they are scared shitless.

Sunday Morning Show Round Up

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

On Expanding the Electoral Map and Declining Public Financing

It is no accident that Senator Barack Obama's campaign decided to forgo federal matching funds, in exchange for relying on his million-plus donor base, while at the same time begin running his first national campaign advertisement in 18 states. Yes, that is right: he is running television advertisements in almost a quarter of the country, and it is only June! These two actions are not mutually exclusive and, I'm sure, were not separately reached within the Obama campaign. Instead, they tie perfectly together. By tapping into his unprecendented campaign bank account, Obama is able to run the first truly national presidential campaign. Forget the 2004 anthem of "Ohio, Ohio, Ohio!" Screw the 2000 opera called "Florida, Florida, Florida!" The 2008 campaign playbook is being rewritten. It is called, "How to Win a National Election withour Losing Your Soul."

This strategy is queerly unfamiliar to the mainstream media and to Senator McCain's campaign. Exclusive allies, McCain and his media whores on television, radio, and the internet pounced on the Obama campaign's decision. George Stepinfullofshit on ABC News called it a "flip flop" and both NBC and CBS ran fairly negative stories on it. Taking their cues directly from the McCain campaign's direction, the media pretended to act in horror and shock that Obama would even consider anything but political suicide by accepting only $85 million in federal matching funds from August through November, when it is estimated he could potentially raise more than $500 million. Of course, poor John McCain, who can only muster a couple hundred people to a campaign event, compared to Obama's tens of thousands, is forced to fund his campaign with taxpayer dollars. Isn't he the one who is supposed to support less federal spending? By my calculation, Senator Obama just saved the American Taxpayer another $85 million. No doubt, it'll find its way into the sinkhole that is Iraq, however.

While John McCain and the media continue to scream and shout and jump and up down like sore losers standing in the corner of the room, Senator Obama is preparing something unprecendented: he is running a campaign in all parts of the country, from Florida to Alaska. In addition to the traditional "big three"--Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan--Obama's campaign is running its first advertisement in states that have not voted for a Democratic candidate for president in more than a generation. States like Alaska, which Lyndon Johnson last won in 1964. Since then, not a single Democratic candidate has received more than 36% of the vote. Polls already show Senator Obama besting the previous eight Democratic nominees in Alaska. How about Indiana? Last voted for Johnson, too. North Carolina? Jimmy Carter in 1976. Virginia, the former home to the Confederacy's capital? Johnson again. Barack Obama is competitive in states that shouldn't be competitive, especially for a black man with his name, background, and voting record.

So what is happening? As the national media continue to pretend that the race is a lot closer than it really is--just look at their lukewarm response to national polls only showing Senator Obama ahead by 6 to 8 points--Obama is preparing for a fall campaign that will have him flushed with hundreds of millions of dollars of cash to run advertisements, register new voters, galvinize his base, and bankrupt McCain, Inc. To think that a first-term Senator, with no national experience, and no discernible political accomplishments, could first vanquish the most potent political force of the past two decades and then destroy an American hero who sacrificed himself for the sake of his country, in the span of less than 12 months, we must be witnessing the most talented and gifted political icon since FDR and, before him, Lincoln and Jefferson.

The Next Vice President is the Former Vice President?

Right now, I'm watching Al Gore endorse Barack Obama for president. First impression: seems like Gore has lost some weight. Maybe 10 pounds, up to 20 pounds? He's still heavier than when he ran for president in 2000, but he appears a lot lighter than four years ago, when speculation was high that he would, once again, take the plunge. Second impression: this isn't the Al Gore version 2000. Hell, it's not Gore v. 2004. This is the Al Gore who looks as though he's running for Vice President again. Final impression: this Al Gore is ready to get back into the White House.

Obama has already leaked that throughout the primary campaign he spoke with Gore at least during a weekly basis. Although, Gore isn't exactly a profile in courage, having withheld his endorsement until well after the primary has concluded, when it will have negligible effect and probably sway only a handful of voters. Nevertheless, I highly doubt that Obama ever expected Gore to endorse him while Senator Clinton was still a viable candidate. And Gore's support of Obama will not likely cause a major bump in the polls, either.

Yet, with all of these caveats, Gore has just delivered a pitch-perfect, nearly flawless Vice Presidential-like introductory address. He hit all of the right notes: attacking Bush and McCain, defending Obama, and exhorting Americans to choose change. He was statesman-like and profound. If Obama is serious about selecting a Vice President who has the experience and the wherewithal to be President, where else could he go but to guy who once held the job and who now openly and rightfully calls himself "the former next President of the United States."

I highly doubt that Gore stands a better chance of being VP, as opposed to the likes of Webb, Biden, Clark, or Nunn. All of these men have tremendous years of experience in foreign policy and/or the military and all could possibly be assets to an Obama administration. However, none of them know from personal experience the consequences of losing the presidency and then witnessing the devastating effects from that election. With more than three quarters of the American people now believing that the country is headed in the wrong direction, the selection of Gore as VP would underscore that eight years ago there as a choice and things as they are today could have been different. Gore's record over the past eight years has been stellar: he opposed the war, blasted Bush on wiretaps and foreign surveillance, endorsed single-payer health care, and championed climate change, and the result of the latter was the Nobel Peace Prize. In many respects, Gore has accomplished more as an ex-Vice President than as Vice President.

Which then leads to this question: why would Gore entertain the Vice Presidency once more? If he is comfortable with his current lifestyle--and he is--and if he is having a greater effect on people's lives--and he is--than agreeing to be the second in command would be a step down, no? Except, this time around, he would not be Vice President under a maniacal, ego-centric, selfish, sexual deviant, but a man who is comfortable enough with his insecurities and his limits. Obama and Gore compliment each other nearly perfectly. Obama-Gore: I like how that sounds.

Frank Rich Nails it Again

Frank Rich's column in this morning's New York Times is an indictment both against the media and the media-whore that is the McCain campaign. He rightly points out the ignorance and false hopes of the McCain campaign's strategy in attempting to garner support from female voters, particularly those who pledged at the altar of the Church of Saint Hillary Rodham Clinton. On the night when the general election campaign came fully into swing, Senator McCain praised his colleague from New York and even went so far as to blame the misogynistic media and the male-dominated DNC establishment for her campaign's demise. This, too, has been the refrain of Hillary apologists, including those in the media. Everyone else is to blame for Hillary's demise, except for Hillary. And don't even dare touch Bill. Or else the pitchforks will come out!

The first general election campaign poll was released this week, by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal. It showed Senator Obama leading Senator McCain by 6 percentage points, which is outside the margin of error and larger than any lead the former has had against the latter this election cycle. However, to judge from the media's reaction, the results were actually in reverse. NBC News' own Chuck Todd went on TV and wrote online that Senator Obama still had two major problems: he was behind by more than 20 points among white men and he was losing white suburban women by single digits. To think that these two groups of voters could swing the election in John McCain's favor is preposterous! As Rich points out in his column, Obama is beating among among white female voters generally by nearly 20 points and holds an even greater lead among Hispanic voters, both of which were keys to George W. Bush's success four years ago.

But the media narrative has been--and probably always will be--throughout this campaign cycle that Barack Obama can't seal the deal, he can't win over the critical Appalachian male vote, he can't beat Senator McCain in the big swing states. Part of the problem of this media narrative isn't necessary the narrative itself but the voices and writers and the dodo heads in TV who are delivering it. The crux of Rich's argument is thus:

"That story is minimized or ignored in part because an unshakable McCain fan
club lingers in some press quarters and in part because it’s an embarrassing
refutation of the Democrats-in-meltdown narrative that so many have invested in.
Understating the splintering of the Republican base also keeps hope alive for a
tight race. As the Clinton-Obama marathon proved conclusively, a photo finish is
essential to the dramatic and Nielsen imperatives of 24/7 television coverage."

And therein lies what we will continue to read and hear and watch until November: the infantile media drinking its mother's milk from John McCain's nipple.

Just Asking . . .

Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision this week to uphold the rights of detainees at Gitmo, Senator John McCain called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” I wonder which other cases he considers to be worse than the one that preserves the Constitution and the centuries-old tradition of habeas corpus. Perhaps, he ranks Boumediene v. Bush right up there with Marbury v. Madison or Brown v. Board of Education or Griswold v. Connecticut or Loving v. Virginia or Lawrence v. Texas or, for that matter, any decision the High Court has made over its 200-plus history to protect the civil rights and liberties of those living in the United States or our territories, including, yes Senator, at Guantanamo Bay.

I wish the media would follow up with McCain regarding his comment and ask him which other decisions he considers to be just as malicious, if not more so. I’m anxious for his reply, although I’m not about to hold my breath. For if the media finally takes their balls out of their purse, they might actually question the good Senator. After all, he did once favorably comment that the media was his “base.”

Americans' Real Bitterness

Senator Barack Obama has gone and done it again: he has said something which every politician (both Republican and Democratic), every reporter, every member of the press corps, every political operative, and even every voter recognizes to be true but is too afraid to say it out loud. To paraphrase Wilde, it is the issue that dare not speak its name: the middle class, small-town, blue-collar voter has been voting against his economic self-interest for quite some time, at least going back to Reagan’s election in 1980, while voting for their cultural self-interests, or, as it has been commonly referred to, the three G’s—God, Guns, and Gays.

Obama rightfully commented that these voters “cling” to any number of issues, such as religion, xenophobia, and gun culture in order to escape the doldrums and blues of their daily lives. The politically-convenient truth is that politicians aren’t supposed to say these things, at least publicly and definitely not at a fundraising on the Left Coast and never in the commie-pinko haven of San Francisco for God’s sakes! Unless you want to appear elitist, out-of-touch, professorial, and too intelligent, you risk losing the support of the ever-important, blue-collar, exurban/rural, white voter who lives in a swing state with lots of electoral votes.

Except, Senator Obama’s candidacy has been about changing all that—change in policies, from Iraq and the economy to healthcare and the environment, change in our politics, from bitter partisanship to bipartisan consensus, and change in our discourse on any number of controversial issues, like race, immigration, and class. On so many levels, in order to successfully secure the nomination and win the general election, this campaign has to experience a confluence, a perfect storm, of events, feelings, and attitudes. If there is ever the slightest chance for the candidacy of a first-time United States Senator, whose name, Barack Hussein Obama, is so foreign to so many Americans, whose message is rooted mostly in airy concepts rather than detailed policy proposals—if this campaign strategy is to ever succeed, then 2008 is the year.

The American people are anguished, frustrated, upset, disturbed, depressed, and yes even bitter over what has happened to our country over the past eight years. Actually, I believe our frustrations run deeper. For my generation, it’s been since the ‘90s, for my parents the 1960s. Each generation collectively feels as though our country’s morals and values are decaying. A recent New York Times poll concludes that nearly eight out of every ten Americans believes we are heading in the wrong direction. Those aren’t just voters from one political party either; Democrats, Republicans, Independents, whites, blacks, males, females, of all ages, feel as though America is no longer America.

No wonder the level of anxiety and distrust is so pervasive among such a broad swath of the electorate. We have witnessed an administration that has stood by while innocent Americans have died in New Orleans and while American soldiers have been in the crossfire of a civil war in Iraq. We have seen our country become increasingly dependent on foreign oil, while oil companies in the United States gauge prices and pocket billions of dollars in profits. Our educational system has remained stagnant while the rest of world continues to excel and move ahead. Our so-called “free trade policies” have been a race to the bottom, where the American worker gets to train his replacement in another country. Healthcare premiums, college tuition, mortgage and rent payments all go up, every year, sometimes by double digits, but our wages barely cover inflation. It is very difficult to love your country when you feel as though your government is solely interested in political gamesmanship and wealthy contributors.

Who is looking out for us? Doesn’t the Constitution read, “We the people”? Didn’t Lincoln famously declare, “A government of the people, by the people, for the people”? Under this administration, the Constitution has been shredded, ignored, and invisibly rewritten by right-wing judicial appointments and Supreme Court justices, along with signing statements and torture memos. Congress has mostly been impotent. Those running for president, namely Senators McClinton, offer the same policy prescriptions for the same illnesses that still seem to have no cure. Bold, brave political leadership has been absent; our elected officials are too timid and feeble to appeal to the better angels of ourselves.

Except for Senator Obama. His campaign promises to bring about the best that America has to offer. It is about a return to our common ideals, restoring our standing in the world. It also offers us the chance to look at ourselves in the mirror, to see who we are as a people, what we want to become, what we want to leave behind to future generations of Americans. Senator Obama’s candidacy is unlike any other we have experienced. It is about us, the people. His campaign’s slogan is, “Change we can believe in.” But, first we have swallow yet another bitter pill and wait until January 20, 2009.

Obama: Man in Full

The Barack Obama we saw on Tuesday was, to borrow a phrase he has often used during this campaign, the one we’ve been waiting for.

Senator Obama could have given a cookie-cutter, template speech on race relations in America. Like other politicians in the past, including ones I worked for, he could have talked about the challenges still confronting black America, casting a brief eye towards the past, while emphasizing the progress made over the past decades—the rise of the black middle class, increased black homeownership, reductions in poverty, better educational opportunities, etc. Senator Obama could have delivered a sermon similar to the one Bill Clinton gave in Memphis in 1993, and because of Obama’s oratorical skills, the media still would have declared that speech to be successful, he still would have been heralded as visionary and presidential, and he would have easily righted his campaign’s wayward ship.

That is not the speech which Senator Obama delivered. His was the exact opposite. Entitled, “A More Perfect Union,” the speech—which was really more than just a speech and more like a sermon, a lecture, a homily, and political address all wrapped into one—contradicted the media’s predictions, confounded many, angered some, and not completely solved his political problems. In fact, some have even argued, perhaps correctly, that his political standing has only worsened, for he has further aggravated the uber-important middle-class, blue collar, high-school educated, mostly exurban and rural white voters in big swing states that truly matter, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. The media has claimed that Obama himself has been marginalized as “the black candidate,” to no fault of their own or to say the least of Senator Clinton’s campaign, either.

If the purpose of Senator Obama’s speech was to quell the controversy swirling around his former pastor, if it was intended to change the media narrative, if was supposed to reassure this niche voter—then it failed. Reverend Wright is still the Senator’s former pastor, the media are still talking about race and will continue to do so, and preliminary reports and polls suggest that the Senator has not completely regained his former standing. Those were not his objectives, however.

The Senator’s speech on March 18, 2008 revealed to the American people just how a President Obama would handle his duties as Commander-in-Chief starting on January 20, 2009. How would he confront the problems facing this country, how would he tackle the difficult and complex issues around the world? To use a Clinton campaign analogy, how would Senator Obama answer the red phone at three o’clock in the morning? The answer: he would be many things: thoughtful, inspirational, powerful, considerate, passionate, dynamic, historical, responsible, nonjudgmental, and sometimes even controversial.

His acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention was supposed to be when voters viewed him as the future Forty-fourth President of the United States. Not so. This past Tuesday, Senator Obama revealed himself in full to the American people as their president. Instead of delivering the “race speech,” as everyone in the media, and perhaps some in his inner circle, were predicting and hoping for him to give, he delivered his very first State of the Union. It was about our country’s challenges and its opportunities. It was about race and history, hope and prosperity, divisions and generations. He revealed that the state of our union for far too long has been in a “racial stalemate,” which has hindered progress on multiple levels, from the economy to education and health care. To overcome these challenges, he told the American people, we need to actually begin addressing them. Unlike in the past when we talked about race, where we merely presented a laundry list of wrongs and then accomplishments, we forgot to mention what still needed to be done. The penultimate message of his speech: electing him would be a monumental first step towards confronting and resolving these problems.

Great presidents of the past have not told us what we’ve wanted to hear, but what we’ve needed to hear. We needed to hear Senator Obama’s speech. Americans, old and young, of all races and ethnicities, upper and middle class and poor alike, needed to hear for the first time an honest assessment of the issues that have plagued this country for centuries. Du Bois famously predicated in 1903 that the problem of the twentieth century would be “the problem of the color line.” In his speech, Obama argued that this problem is still with us in this new century and that “race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.” If past Tuesday’s speech is any indication, Obama is picking up where Du Bois left off. As he put it, this “is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger.”

On a lighter, more gleeful note, Senator Obama’s speech was also a huge middle-finger to the elite press corps, right-wing talk radio, and the beltway chattering class. The days leading up to his speech, these card-carrying members of the Know-It-All Country Club had all been clamoring over him like vultures on a corpse. Their righteous indignation over Jeremiah Wright’s condemnation of America’s foreign entanglements was almost as apocalyptic and nihilistic as the Reverend’s Sunday sermons. With the speech’s first sentence, a recitation of the introduction to the Declaration of Independence, Senator Obama was signaling that this time something very different. It was as though he was saying to all them, “Fuck you. I’m my own man, and I run my own campaign the way I want to. And if you want me to talk about race, we’re going to talk about race in a way that has never been discussed before in this country.”

Senator Obama used words that make traditional politicians stutter and most voters cringe. Slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, discrimination, black, white, bussing, affirmative action—these were all in one speech! It was striking to hear a major presidential candidate say that our Constitution “was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery.” It was even more shocking to hear him quote a major American literary figure, William Faulkner, who is not exactly a household name. Some in the press, most notably the dodo heads on cable, concluded that the speech was not successful because it didn’t speak to the “average” American. To which I responded, “Halleluiah! I don’t want a president who speaks down to people. I want one who lifts us up and challenges us.” As Peggy Noon put it in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, Senator Obama delivered “a thinking man’s speech.” She was clearly not criticizing him, either.

Given his name, background, and biography, his lack of political, military, and foreign policy experience, and that his campaign has not centered around specific policy proposals—like health care, education, or the war—but instead one-syllable symbols—such as change and hope—Senator Obama’s candidacy has proven to be anything but conventional, textbook, or predictable. Provided the disadvantages inherit with this campaign—the fact that he has had to run against not one of greatest political minds of the past quarter century but two of the best, his other worthy opponents being current chairmen of major committees in the Senate, one past Vice-Presidential nominee, and the other a former congressman, United Nations Ambassador, Secretary of the Energy, and current governor—Senator Obama’s candidacy has hardly seemed cliché, a slam dunk or a shoe-in. If there is one lesson that we can already take away from the Senator’s campaign, particularly after Tuesday’s speech, it is this: unlike his opponents, Senator Obama has demonstrated exactly how he would carry out his duties as President of the United States.

Dinner with Dad and Obama's Speech

While at the end of dinner, my father and I said we loved each other, this time our words sounded remote and robotic, almost fake and phony. Just a few minutes prior, I had called him out as an old, ignorant, white guy, too afraid to admit his own prejudices, too timid to challenge his own beliefs, and too afraid to face reality: for the first time in our country’s history, we have the potential of electing the first black president, an achievement hardly fathomed by his generation and only recently conceived by my own.

My father and I had engaged in a serious political discussion, which is in itself an achievement, since most of our conversations revolve around the weather, sports, work, and anything but politics. We sat in a packed restaurant, our fellow diners pawned off as audience members watching the tragedy unfold in front of them. It didn’t help that we had each drank way too much: I alone had a bottle of wine and he at least several beers. The exact genesis of our conservation is a mystery—like all major disagreements, major conflicts, even wars, you never remember how it commences, how it starts, who pulls the trigger, only how it ends, what silence sounds like after a series of successive rounds. There was no victor or no one waving the white flag. The dénouement was peaceful and civil, unlike the actual battle.

If it is not already abundantly clear, let me state unequivocally that my father and I rarely agree on anything. We are very different. And that is why we rarely—if ever—discuss politics or other controversial issues with each other. While we are different, we have not allowed our differences to divide us. Our familial bond has united us for a quarter century, and nothing that happened last night will evaporate our relationship. We will always be bound together, through blood and personality, whether we like it or not.

For the first time in my life, however, I had told my father what I had long felt about him. I didn’t immediately regret my remarks. To a certain extent, I still believe in what I said. Yes, I had gotten caught up in my anger and indignation. Sparks flared, fires erupted, blows landed—we didn’t actually engage in fisticuffs, but after I spoke truth to power, after my father witnessed my indignation and frustration over him, his face grimaced, his eyes lowered, and he looked deflated, defeated, and he knew it.

Reading, listening, and watching Senator Obama’s speech today, I could not help but wonder: Was my father watching this? Would he be viewing it later? How would he react? Would he find it offensive or not enough to alter his opinion? Would it suffice and calm his fears? Would it ease his discomfort over voting for someone whose name doesn’t resemble those of the previous forty-three presidents? Or, would it merely confirm his initial suspicions and verify his bigoted attitudes and opinions?

At this Sunday’s Easter supper, when we all hold hands at the dinner table, rejoicing in grace and sacrifice, what will he be thinking then? I know what I will be praying for.

Pilot

“The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.” Now, Hillary, it’s a vast left-wing conspiracy that is against you and your husband. Where do I sign up?

Lost in the fury in the controversy swirling around Geraldine Ferraro’s comments regarding Senator Barack Obama was the timing of her remarks. Her interview to that bastion of superior journalism The Daily Breeze was given on the weekend before the Texas and Ohio primaries. The day after, when the media anointed Clinton the next comeback kid, Ferraro’s comments caused ire. Everyone naturally assumed that Ferraro’s remarks were a continued extension of the Clinton campaign’s “kitchen sink” strategy; sliming Obama with anything they had, including tagging him as the “black candidate.” Actually, since they were made at a desperate and despondent time for the Clinton campaign, Ferraro’s feelings reveal a bitter, angry, frustrated, and even resentful supporter, who ardently believed that perhaps her only chance of ever seeing a female politician elected president was slinking down that very same kitchen sink.

What Ms. Ferraro said wasn’t racist; she didn’t claim, for instance, that Obama was inferior because of his ethnicity. Her comments were really bigoted. She believes—as she told us over and over again in the days after—that because of his race he is receiving preferential treatment from the media and even some voters. Her claim is that Obama’s success, as luck would have it, is because everyone is “caught up in the concept” of cleansing America’s sins by electing our country’s first non-white president. Ferraro was only one step shy from calling out Senator Obama as little more than an Affirmative Action candidate: he’s not qualified to be president, he’s not up to the job, and he does not deserve the presidency. She was practically shouting on various TV talk shows that he’s taking the one and only spot that has been historically held by white men.

The Clinton campaign mantra has been: experience trumps change and party longevity surpasses bipartisan naïveté. Ferraro had the audacity to argue the hidden gem of the Clinton campaign’s strategy: gender trumps race. So why did Geraldine Ferraro get into a fit? Because Barack Obama had the audacity to jump ahead of the line. “Didn’t he get the memo?” she seemed to be asking. It’s not supposed to be his turn! The Clintons are the most able, effective, and successful Democratic politicians of the past twenty years. How dare he, a neophyte, Junior Senator from a smaller, less important state, whose only claim to fame is a speech, declare himself to be the next Kennedy or Roosevelt!

Geraldine Ferraro’s comments and the Clinton camp’s kitchen sink strategy underscore a sense of entitlement and arrogance. For example, they have recently argued that if nominated Senator Clinton would select Senator Obama as her running mate. They are arguing that Obama is getting ahead of himself. Clearly someone of his stature is not ready to be president on Day One. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? The pro training the rookie?

Except the voters have something else in mind. Barring a major misstep on the part of the Obama campaign and the seemingly insurmountable lead he has on pledged delegates and the popular vote, the Clinton campaign and their supporters know that, in all likelihood, they’re going to lose the nomination—the very nomination which they have been mapping out for decades, the very prize which was supposed to be theirs, the very history-making event which was supposed to endear the Clintons for generations to come and rewrite their legacy in the history books. Except, instead of the rookie making all of the mistakes, he has made the pros look like amateurs.

Geraldine Ferraro’s comments were not truly directed at Barack Obama. Her frustrations and bitterness underscore the pent-up disappointment that many supporters feel towards Clinton’s flailing campaign. They can’t publicly express these exact sentiments. The Clintons have made plenty of examples out of those who have betrayed them in the past. Instead, Ferraro turned to the most primal and vile emotion which one feels when their well-laid plans disintegrate into thin air. She blamed it all on the other guy’s race.

Ferraro exploited Obama’s ethnicity as an excuse and a cover up for what has been perhaps the most poorly run and mismanaged presidential campaign in modern political history. Her gut instinct was to call out Obama’s race and use that as justification for Clinton’s failures. Her sentiment is not any different than when one feels they have been passed over, or not even considered, for a job because of they are white and the successful applicant is black. Opponents of affirmative action have beaten this fallacy into the minds of Americans for the past quarter century or more. On issues ranging from the economy to education, they have argued that affirmative action, or preferential treatment, allows for those less-deserving and those less-experienced the right to take away a position that is rightfully yours.

Coincidentally or not, the Clintons have used this argument, repeatedly pointing out that picking a president is akin to a job interview. On paper, they argue, Obama is less experienced, less qualified, and less knowledgeable on national and global affairs. How then does he deserve the job? Why should they be passed over for someone who clearly does not meet the job description’s requirements? To do so would mean you were giving preferential treatment. Electing, let along nominating, Barack Obama would be filling a quota, not picking a president.

If this is what remains of the Clinton’s kitchen sink strategy, they are in an even worse off position than before Ohio and Texas. Of the ten remaining contests, few favor Clinton; Obama is expected to win a majority of the outstanding primaries and caucuses, further padding his lead in pledged delegates and popular vote. However, the Clintons are not ones to think short-term. They have been ruminating over the presidency for over three decades—and they will not relinquish power or the chance to regain it. Their only hope is to damage Obama enough so that he loses in November and then they can claim that they were right all along. However, Obama has confounded the Clintons, and so too he probably will prove to be masterful in his campaign against McCain. After all, the American people are picking a president, not a resume.