Where's Your Messiah Now?

Andrew Sullivan has a valuable analysis of what some perceive to be Obama's messianic tendencies, centered around his line "We are the ones we've been waiting for." As Sullivan points out:

The phrase is actually a self-indictment as well as a self-congratulation. The point is surely that we shouldn't wait for someone else to save us, or lift us up, or fix our problems or address our fate. We are the only ones who can do this. And we're responsible for our own failure. The sentence is actually a criticism of Obama's own supporters.
What makes Obama's liberalism different from both the technocratic meliorism of the Clintons and the 1970s big government liberalism that preceded it is that it is an inclusive, self-help kind of liberalism. It is participatory, not passive. It is not about government saving us; it is about us saving the government.

I think its also worth looking at Obama's own website, in the section about Service:

I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate; I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States. This will not be a call issued in one speech or program; this will be a cause of my presidency.

And breaks down his plans to help "Enable Americans to Serve to Meet the Nation's Challenges." Remember the guy did spend the beginning of his career as a community organizer - this is what he's about.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

You're the Inspiration

Robert Reich, a member of Bill Clinton's Cabinet and long time friend of the former President, posts on his blog about Obama, Clinton, JFK & RFK:

...[Obama's] appeal is for more civic engagement, not necessarily more government. He has the voice and wields the techniques of a community organizer (which he was on the streets of Chicago), asking people to join together, calling the nation to form a more perfect union. Not since the sixties has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals. Not since then has America-- including, especially, the nation's youth --been so inspired....
...Neither John F. Kennedy nor his brother Robert were idealists. They were realists who understood the importance of idealism in the service of realism. They grasped the central political fact that little can be achieved in Washington unless or until the public is energized and mobilized to push for it; the status quo is simply too powerful. The ideals they enunciated helped mobilized the nation politically. That mobilization contributed to the subsequent passage of civil rights and voting rights laws, Medicare, and environmental protection. For purposes of practical electoral strategy as well as high-minded moral aspiration, they never tired of reminding the nation of its founding principles -- most fundamentally, that all men are created equal.

Oh, and yes, the title of this post is a Chicago reference.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Brain Trust

Great New Republic article, "The Audacity of Data," about Obama's main policy advisors with the crucial judgement:

Despite Obama's reputation for grandiose rhetoric and utopian hope-mongering, the Obamanauts aren't radicals--far from it. They're pragmatists--people who, when an existing paradigm clashes with reality, opt to tweak that paradigm rather than replace it wholesale. As Thaler puts it, "Physics with friction is not as beautiful. But you need it to get rockets off the ground." It might as well be the motto for Obama's entire policy shop.

Good especially for those who harbor some strange fear he is some ideological loose cannon - he's about pragmatic change. Keep Reading (if there's more)...

BREAKING: Saturday Night Live Was Actually Funny!

Funny takedown of media's Obama love, Hillary's "qualifications" and more. (LINK UPDATED UNTIL THEY TAKE IT DOWN AGAIN)


RIDICULOUSLY, Clinton is now saying SNL shows how biased the media is against them and that people should watch it! I guess they don't realize it makes fun of them too! ("It has been a lifelong dream of mine to lose to Barack Obama in Maryland"). Seems desperate. Keep Reading (if there's more)...

"Honorable" Lobbyists

Ok, so the NY Times publishes an iffy article implying and unproven affair between McCain and a lobbyist. Not sure about that one, but it has spurred some other reporting, including "The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists" detailing how many of McCain's top campaign staff are lobbyists, including one who conducts their business directly on the "Straight Talk Express."

McCain has at least 59 federal lobbyists raising money for his campaign, compared with 33 working for Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani and 19 working for Democrat Clinton.

Interesting for a guy who was instrumental in investigating Jack Abramoff. Don't know what to make of it all. He says his lobbyists are "honorable." Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Ugh.

Don't think this is gonna help.

Hillary mocks obama
by dollarsandsense123
UPDATE: I should also note, magic wand excepted, special interests definitely won't disappear when they are funding and running your campaign. But I guess she's banking on people not finding that out.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Wordly Wise

Chicago Tribune assesses the claim that Obama is just about words -

In fact, read side-by-side with the other candidates' current stump speeches, the Obama script makes at least as many references to policy proposals as do theirs. Kindly put, though, those ideas aren't the crowd-pleasing part of his presentation. 

Though if you got trapped watching his speech after winning in Wisconsin, you already knew this - the hard way! 

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

For It Before She Was Against It

As the campaign has moved to blue collar Ohio Hillary has been attacking an Obama mailer that trumpets her support for NAFTA. Admittedly, the mailer's actual "quote" regarding her support appears to be a distorted mush of a Newsday article, which is disappointing for a campaign (Obama's) that at least claims to stick to a different kind of politics.

But there is no question the actual content is accurate - she supported NAFTA and has written about it as one of Bill's major achievements. Huffington Post's David Sirota summarizes some of her other statements of support. 

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Thirsty? Want some Kool Aid?

Frank Rich's latest, worth a read as always:

Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating...

This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.

Check this earlier post for another discussion about how Obama's and Clinton's campaigns have been run as indicators of their actual leadership potential. Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Mission Accomplishment

Earlier in the week, I posted and posted again about Obama and Clinton's actual legislative achievements in the US Senate. This Washington Post looks at Obama's record in the Illinois Senate, Judge Him By His Own Laws:

People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.

The article focuses several achievements, especially a bill Obama championed to videotape police interrogations to stop the beatings of suspects, a bill in which he faced strong Republican and police opposition, and succeeding in winning them over and passing it 35 to 0.

Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a "unique" ability "to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people." In other words, Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric.

UPDATE: The NY Times has this helpful chart about Obama's Illinois Senate Record (where he introduced over 800 bills). Keep Reading (if there's more)...

More Beef

The experience/accomplishment question has produced some very interesting and valuable information about Obama's actual Senate record -which some find to be more substantive than Hillary Clinton's - turning her experience argument on its head.

Others have been doing their own digging. In "I Refuse to Buy Into the Obama Hype (now a supporter)" a mother explains her own investigation, not trusting the Obama hype, but not in love with Hillary either:

I came away from my research really knowing a lot more about what is important to Hillary in her heart: kids and their well being. My research changed my feeling about her significantly. About 40% of her bills dealt with health care and/or kids. As a mom with small kids, I like her passion for children's issues...But most of her other bills are much smaller in scale and scope — more targeted and more careful.

She compares bills by both senators dealing with lead paint:

The difference is in the scope and the approach...Obama's bill shows how he thinks big: do everything we can to make sure that lead-painted Thomas the Tank Engine toys don't get into the hands and mouths of millions of toddlers in this country. Or Hillary: encourage people by offering tax credits to clean up lead paint in old buildings. People have been talking about lead paint in old buildings hurting kids in living in inner cities, since, well when I was a kid — for decades. If it is still a big problem, is offering tax credits for clean up, i.e. scrape down the walls and repaint, the best way to protect kids from lead? How many of you parents have lead paint problems? How many have (or had) toxic Thomas the Tank Engine Toys ...Obama's bills risk pissing off the toy industry and the Chinese. Hillary's risks nothing.

And her further research into Obama, which changed her mind:

...I was blown away as I started going through his record. I've already mentioned his bills on health care and energy. In addition he had introduced bills on Iran, voting, veterans, global warming, campaign finance and lobbyists, Blackwater, global poverty, nuclear proliferation, and education.

Another entry from another Kossack "I Found the Beef" provides these numbers about Obama's Senate record:

Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.
Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.

Of the bills he introduced:

Most of his legislative effort has been in the area of Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills), health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills), consumer protection/labor (14 bills), the needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills), Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills), Foreign Policy (10 bills) Voting and Elections (9 bills), Education (7 bills), Hurricane Katrina Relief (6), the Environment (5 bills), Homeland Security (4 bills), and discrimination (4 bills).

As this poster writes "Next time someone asks you "where's the beef" in Senator Obama's Senate record, please feel free to send the link to this diary."

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Fun with Legislation!

Blog Obsidian Wings has done everyone a great service: they've actually gone through and catalogued legislation and amendments that both Obama and Clinton have been responsible for in their years in the US Senate. Its a useful reference.

But beyond that, the blog also contains some analysis about Obama's record. Here's some excerpts:

...I follow some issues pretty closely, and over and over again, Barack Obama kept popping up, doing really good substantive things. There he was, working for nuclear non-proliferation and securing loose stockpiles of conventional weapons, like shoulder-fired missiles. There he was again, passing what the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet" -- though not as strong as Obama would have liked. Look -- he's over there, passing a bill that created a searchable database of recipients of federal contracts and grants, proposing legislation on avian flu back when most people hadn't even heard of it, working to make sure that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were screened for traumatic brain injury and to prevent homelessness among veterans, successfully fighting a proposal by the VA to reexamine all PTSD cases in which full benefits had been awarded, working to ban no-bid contracts in Katrina reconstruction, and introducing legislation to criminalize deceptive political tactics and voter intimidation.

On his bipartisanship:

...all this bipartisanship stuff sounds very nice, but how do we know it actually works? Isn't this just happy talk that will evaporate in the face of reality? Or, alternately: doesn't this sort of thing involve selling our souls to our supposed partners in compromise? Curiously, Obama has an actual legislative record, and so it is possible for us to see both how he approaches bipartisan cooperation and what results it yields. And it turns out that Obama does achieve results by working with Republicans, and doesn't tend to compromise on core principles....Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle.

And also contains a great rundown of his policies pushing greater transparency and accountability in government. Check it!

ALSO: This discussion of Hillary's record of "solutions":

...I don't see any significant legislation with her name on it...I don't see any accounts describing how she worked vigorously behind the scenes to further progressive goals - particularly on national security matters...in looking at her accumulated "solutions," I'm not seeing much. And that, of course, is the larger problem. Obama and Clinton's policies are pretty much the same - and they're both smart, capable candidates. The question is which one is actually going to stick out his or her neck to fight for, as they say, solutions. To me, the best evidence of future willingness to "solve" comes from past behavior. And "fighting for solutions" is not exactly how I'd characterize her 7+ years in the Senate. "Ostentatious centrism in preparation for a general election" seems closer to the mark.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Master of (Hillary's) Domain, continued...

Been doing a little more digging and reading about Mark Penn, Hillary's chief campaign strategist, and think some more of this deserves exposure. He's really like Hillary's Karl Rove. 

According to the article "Spinning Hilary Centrist" from The Nation I linked to last night, his first firm Penn, Schoen & Berland:

...defended Procter and Gamble's Olestra from charges that it caused anal leakage, blamed Texaco's bankruptcy on greedy jurors and market-tested genetically modified foods for Monsanto. Penn invented the concept of "inoculation," in which corporations are shielded from scandal through clever advertising and marketing. Selling an image, companies realized, was as important as winning a legislative favor...

The company he is now CEO of, Burson-Marstellar: 

The firm has represented everyone from the Argentine military junta to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India, in which thousands were killed when toxic fumes were released by one of its plants, to Royal Dutch Shell, which has been accused of massive human rights violations in Nigeria. B-M pioneered the use of pseudo-grassroots front groups, known as "astroturfing," to wage stealth corporate attacks against environmental and consumer organizations. It set up the National Smokers Alliance on behalf of Philip Morris to fight tobacco regulation in the early 1990s. Its current clients include major players in the finance, pharmaceutical and energy industries...

...Yet despite occupying such a divisive place in the Democratic Party and outsized role in the corporate world--and despite his company's close ties to Republican political operatives and the Bush White House--Penn remains a leading figure in Hillary's campaign, pitching the inevitability of her nomination to donors and party bigwigs...Politically, his presence means that triangulation is alive and well inside the campaign and that despite her populist forays, Hillary won't stray too far from the center. "Penn has a lot of influence on her, no doubt about it," says New York political consultant Hank Sheinkopf, who worked with Penn in '96. "He's not going to let her drift too far left."

An article online at Bloomberg.com inquires whether these corporate ties might be a conflict of interest:

Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said Penn is currently working only with Microsoft Corp., a longtime client, and on the election campaign, although he's free to handle and solicit other clients. "The real question from the campaign perspective is whether Senator Clinton is comfortable with what Mark is doing, and the answer to that is yes, unequivocally,'' Wolfson said. Penn's internal blog -- several months of which were obtained by Bloomberg News -- suggests that all along he has been working with multiple clients. He downplayed his role in Clinton's presidential campaign, saying he is "not a policy adviser, I'm a communications adviser.'' Others say he's the most powerful figure in the campaign, and an April 30 Washington Post profile said he "has become involved in virtually every move that Clinton makes.''

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Master of (Hillary's) Domain

So I just read Josh Green's revealing look inside the firing of Clinton's campaign manager, and the disconcerting truth that emerges is how much Hillary values loyalty over performance, a characteristic I find disturbingly echoes our current president.

But it also led me to discover this NY Times profile, which is a key article to understand the main "strategist" who is running Hillary's campaign - Mark Penn. He's the guy out making genius comments to the press over this last week. He also is CEO of a PR firm, Burson-Marstellar, that does "perception management" - spinning positive PR for tobacco companies, Saudi Arabia after 9/11, or military contracting firm Blackwater after recent controversies. Apparently created a strategy of setting up faux grassroots organizations for corporate clients to attack environmental or consumer groups. Wonderful stuff. A Hillary loyalist, he has with her during her first Senate campaign in 2000, when this article was written (after joining the Clinton cadre during the '96 election). It is incredibly illuminating even now (especially to those who wonder what I mean when I complain everything the Clintons do is calculated and focus grouped down to the word!):

For years now, aides to the Clintons have insisted that they use polls not to decide which policies to support but to learn how to persuade others to share their positions -- not to follow, in other words, but to lead. It's not true. They use polls for both purposes, and that is why to understand the state of American politics and government you need to know about Mark Penn. For the Democrats who have used market-tested ideas and language to redefine the party, he is the man who writes the questions and interprets the answers. By adding and then dividing you, turning you into a percentage and stamping you with a label, he serves as your conduit to power. And theirs.

You should know this about Penn: For the decade before Dick Morris brought him and his partner Doug Schoen to work for the Clintons, Penn served mostly corporations like Texaco and Avis. Along with corporate marketing techniques, it was a particularly corporate view of reality that he put in the service of the Clintons. He thinks about voters not just in terms of ideology -- with the cold war over, who really has one anymore? -- but in terms of lifestyle and attitude, the sitcoms they watch and the music they listen to. He searches for the little spaces where politics and government might fit between work and trips to school and soccer games.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Are YOU Experienced?

Joe Klein at Time has an interesting take (that I've also seen separately mention at Andrew Sullivan's blog) on the experience issue: pointing out that with all three remaining candidates being senators without any actual executive experience, we should take a look at how they have run their campaigns.

If nothing else, a presidential campaign tests a candidate's ability to think strategically and tactically and to manage a very complex organization. We have three plausible candidates remaining--Obama, Clinton and John McCain--and Obama has proved himself the best executive by far. Both the Clinton and the McCain campaigns have gone broke at crucial moments. So much for fiscal responsibility. McCain has been effective only when he runs as a guerrilla; in both 2000 and '08, he was hapless at building a coherent campaign apparatus. Clinton's sins are different: arrogance and the inability to see past loyalty to hire the best people for the job and to fire those who prove inadequate. "If nothing else, we've learned that Obama probably has the ability to put together a smooth-running Administration," said a Clinton super-delegate. "That's pretty important."

ADDITIONALLY: Illuminating read: check "Inside the Clinton Shake Up" by Josh Greene at the Atlantic about how loyalty has determined who Clinton has running her campaign, in a frightening echo of how Bush has run things. (actually that article is really good -gonna explore more in its own post later) Keep Reading (if there's more)...

McMaverick

McCain already caused controversy last week by voting AGAINST banning waterboarding, after being one of the most outspoken critics of the current administration's policy of torture. This is an interesting little article from The New Republic amusingly titleed "Maverick vs. Iceman" discussing why we maybe shouldn't be that surprised:

The prevalent view of McCain is that he is a generally conservative figure with a few maverick stances and an unwavering authenticity. Nearly every liberal editorial board that has made a Republican endorsement has chosen McCain, and nearly all have offered variations on the same theme. "Voters may disagree with his policies, but few doubt his sincerity," editorialized The Boston Globe. "The Arizona senator's conservatism is, if not always to our liking, at least genuine," concluded the Los Angeles Times. This is the consensus: McCain's basically a right-winger, but at least you know where he stands.

Actually, this assessment gets McCain almost totally backward. He has diverged wildly and repeatedly from conservative orthodoxy, but he has also reinvented himself so completely that it has become nearly impossible to figure out what he really believes.

UPDATE: Nicholas Kristof writes about "The World's Worst Panderer" Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Presence

This has already been explained a few times, but it keeps cropping up in attacks on Obama: here's a little article from the NY Times - explaining Obama's "present" votes as a state senator (from another state senator):

Senator Barack Obama was not ducking his responsibility in the Illinois Senate when he voted “present” on many issues...In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill. Mr. Obama was an outspoken member of the Illinois Senate, and not someone known for dodging questions, whether they were on ethics, police responsibility, women’s choice or any other hot-button issue.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Now With Labels!

All posts now have labels, allowing you to view articles by topics that interest you. Hope it helps!
(hurrah for being stuck at home sick!) Keep Reading (if there's more)...

MoveOn/USA Today Petition

Add your name to this petition! They're petitioning superdelegates to wait to pledge their votes based on primary results - they hope to get 300,000 names and publish in USA Today.

Also, add them as a group on Facebook. Keep Reading (if there's more)...

It's pronounced "Mill-wah-que"

So Wisconsin is the next big state voting on Tuesday. And today the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel announced their endorsement of Obama (following visits from both candidates). Here's some of what they have to say:

There is only the tiniest sliver of daylight separating Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the issues, with the notable exception of health care reform...The similarity of views is, in truth, why the candidates return so much to the themes of change and experience...Obama still has the edge. His experience as community organizer, state legislator, U.S. senator and campaigner who took a dream and became a credible contender measures up well against Clinton's experience as poverty lawyer, first lady and U.S. senator...In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board on Wednesday, the first-term senator proved himself adept at detail and vision. They are not mutually exclusive...In Clinton, there is the potential for déjà vu all over again. Right or wrong, she is a polarizing figure who excites all the wrong kinds of political passions...And much of the antagonism she engenders in the right is simply irrational.

And my friend Jackson has forwarded this article "Wisconsin Should Be A Showdown" analyzing the Clinton campaign's efforts in that state and why an Obama victory is far from a foregone conclusion.

Go here to volunteer to phone bank Wisconsin voters, or here to Donate to Obama.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Clinton Campaign Puts Foot In Mouth, Swallows Leg Whole

The Clinton campaign has been out disparaging Obama's recent string of wins:

Bill Clinton, for instance: "the caucuses aren't good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change."

Of course, besides being on the surface absurd (upper income voters don't need a president - huh? isn't this a democracy?), its also patently untrue. The caucuses Obama won in Iowa, he won all income brackets, not just upper income, and has also won lower income brackets in contests in Virginia, Missouri, etc. Also, the Clintons aren't exactly throwing back "wins" in the Nevada or New Mexico caucuses.

Then her chief strategist, PR wonk Mark Penn, posed the question this way: “Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois?” Chief Strategist Mark Penn said. “That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”

So now the Clinton campaign is telling states like Colorado, Missouri, Washington, Minnesota, Virginia, Maryland, Maine, Delaware, Iowa, and Connecticut that they don't matter, cos they didn't vote for her. Way to ingratiate yourself for the fall election.

Anyhow, these ludicrous arguments have even insulted and infuriated Clinton supporters like Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall:

...good spin is clever and forward-leaning pitches of actual realities, facts. The word in the sense we use it today actually came into being in the early 90s and to a great degree around the '92 Clinton campaign, which had such mastery in its practice. But this Clinton campaign has been doing it in a weird parody mode. Not sharp 'spins' on favorable realities, but aggressive pitches of complete nonsense. So now you have Penn successively saying caucus wins don't really count, small state wins don't really count, medium state wins don't really count, states with large African-American populations don't really count, all building up to yesterday's gem [the above Penn Quote]..."

Atrios:

Like I said yesterday, all this "spin" bugs me. Not because I'm being spun, but because spin should make your candidate look good, not bad. Mark Penn's pronouncements, and others from the campaign (he's not the only one), give me that watching-an-Ari-Fleischer-press-conference feeling. It's the utter contempt for everyone not on board with the candidate, an attempt to just assume them all away.

And this isn't even broaching the "screw the voters, I'm gonna get nominated by super delegates" maneuvering currently going on.

But check Kos's "I Voted for Obama Hence I Don't Matter" post for a rundown of all of this plus the superdelegate strategizing that lies behind it.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Indie Appeal

Obama's totally indie, moreso than McCain, or even Clap Your Hands Say Yeah. An interesting item of note from the Virginia primary on Tuesday:

Virginia Democratic primary voters who did not identify themselves as Democrats were more likely to back Barack Obama, according to exit polls...One out of every five Democratic primary voters were independent — and those voters chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, 67 to 32 percent. Seven percent of the voters in that contest were Republican voters who decided not to vote in their own party’s primary – they chose Obama by an even larger margin, 71 to 25 percent over Clinton. Self-identified Democrats also chose Obama, 59 to 20 percent.

Interestingly, the independents that voted Republican voted for Huckabee, not McCain. Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Not Just Talk

Increasingly I've been hearing from people who feel Obama is good at giving an inspirational speech, but only talks in generalities. This is not true - his policies are thorough and considered. For instance, check out this great recent speech on his economic policy. I've already partially discussed this in an earlier post: Sure Sounds Nice But Where's the Beef? where Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz discusses an Obama speech that was filled with policy proposals:

How, then, has Obama been saddled with an image of being long on inspiration and short on details? The answer is that journalists are not accustomed to covering a candidate who moves crowds the way Obama does, who uses speech cadences and rhythm like Martin Luther King Jr. without making his talk explicitly about race. Sen. Clinton already owned the policy-wonk slot, so by default, Obama was cast as the poetic one.

Though I think there are certain reasons this concern is resurgent at the moment. First off, it happens to be the new Clinton (and now, McCain) campaign talking point - Obama's all talk, we're solutions. Secondly, I think the problem is that the most immediately appealing thing about Obama are his speeches, which are often shown decontextualized in clip form, or in the form of an "inspirational" music video like the "Yes We Can" clip. Initially I found myself thinking reacting the same way: I like what he says, but "change" is a rather vague message. Although I appreciate his ability to stir emotions, I distrust someone who ONLY plays on our emotions. But looking into his policies, looking at who advises him, comparing his approach to Clinton's I know that there is real intellectual acumen and a fresh pragmatic approach behind his message: its not all talk. Keep Reading (if there's more)...

McCain.i.am

Two funny take offs of the Obama video:

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Now This is Happening.

A Personal Testimonial from a Friend:

I apologize to anyone who hates politics or supports someone besides Obama, but I had to add this to the email stream. Maybe it's the fact I'm stuck on a train in New Jersey in an ice storm at midnight because some old guy is stone cold drunk (they just took him off the train in handcuffs) or maybe it's the tallboy Buds talking (wow that could have been me), but I wish each and every one of you could have seen what was going on this past week in Virginia and the DC metro area. Jef and I went down to campaign, and speaking for myself, who has campaigned in every election since 1996, I was amazed. People of all ages, races, genders, classes and religions came together to work for something they truly believed in. I myself spent the better part of today walking around Falls Church, VA in dress shoes in freezing rain working for Obama. By the time I was finished, I was one solid ice cube, but a pleased ice cube all the same, what with tonight's outcome. IF any of you are supporters of Obama, and it's no problem if you aren't, I highly recommend you take any opportunity you have to volunteer for the campaign. There are so many things to do, some of which you can do at home; you won't regret it. We really have a unique opportunity as Americans to radically alter the path this country is on, thanks to this year's elections. The stakes couldn't be higher. Thanks.

Obama has a lot of momentum right now, but its not over yet - by a longshot. There's still big contests ahead in Ohio and Texas on March 4, and Pennsylvania in April. If you are interesting in supporting Obama: DONATE OR VOLUNTEER! You can help canvas or phone bank to call voters in one of these states.

Here's some links (though his servers appear to be deluged at the moment):

Donate

Search your neighborhood for events

Make Calls

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

That Just Happened.

Ok, it is according to Drudge Report, but:

In the Chesapeake Rout, according to exit polls in Maryland, Obama won:
Latino Voters By Six Points: 53-47
All Religions (Including Catholics)
All Age Groups (Including Seniors)
All Regions
All Education Levels
And Women by TWENTY ONE POINTS...

And good news for Dems in general from Daily Kos:

Barack Obama didn't just beat Hillary in Virginia. He didn't just get more votes than John McCain. In "red" Virginia, Obama got 142,000 more votes than all the Republicans put together. And that was with Hillary Clinton taking 100,000 more votes than John McCain.

He kicked butt, took names, and did it with both hands tied behind his back.

Oh, and in Maryland, with 40% of the vote in, Hillary is beating all Republicans put together while losing by 27%. You could probably limit Democrats to only left-handed voters, or red-haired voters, or left-handed red-haired voters whose names start with 'Q,' and the Republicans would still be in trouble.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Been Caught Stealing?

The New Republic on Hillary's gambit for the (disqualified) delegates from Florida And Michigan:

These days, you will commonly hear Obama supporters, and even many undecided Democrats, describe the Clintons as mendacious, brutal, willing to bend (or break) any rule in pursuit of power. Not all of these criticisms are fair. A decade's worth of resentment has come rushing out, as Democrats have suddenly felt free to despise the Clintons without worrying that their venting might aid Republicans. In certain quarters, it's an old-fashioned pile-on. Looking at their plight with any detachment, it is even possible to develop a measure of sympathy for the Clintons. Or it was, anyway, right up until the point at which Hillary threatened to steal the nomination. And theft is the only way to describe the plan she has floated for certifying the Florida and Michigan delegations...Democrats need to recognize this potential gambit for what it is: a cynical, selfish hijacking of the democratic process.

Read the rest here! Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Look Ma, No Lobbyists!

Worth noting, from Bloomberg:

Democrat Hillary Clinton has raised more money from lobbyists than any other presidential candidate while Republican John McCain has more of them assisting his campaign...Clinton took in $823,087 from registered lobbyists and members of their firms in 2007 and the second-biggest recipient was McCain, who took in $416,321, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based group which tracks political giving. Barack Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, doesn't take money from registered lobbyists, although he received $86,282 from employees of firms that lobby, according to the center.

She takes more lobbyist money then any of the Republican candidates did. Doesn't sound like change to me. Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Wow.

You gotta check out this new Frank Rich op-ed to understand how the Clinton campaign tactics may be dividing and, in the end, destroying the Democratic party. The title says its all: "Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War."
It centers on the (intentionally) divisive claim by the Clinton campaign that "hispanics don't vote for black candidates":

It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists...The real point of the Clinton campaign’s decision to sow misinformation and racial division, Mr. Rodriguez concluded, was to “undermine one of Obama’s central selling points, that he can build bridges and unite Americans of all types.”

On reinforcing that (false) division for future races:

The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little. That’s why you now hear Clinton operatives talk ever more brazenly about trying to reverse party rulings so that they can hijack 366 ghost delegates from Florida and the other rogue primary, Michigan, where Mr. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. So much for Mrs. Clinton’s assurance on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall that it didn’t matter if she alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot because the vote “is not going to count for anything.”

And on the hope for negotiating a compromise before the convention:

But does anyone seriously believe that Howard Dean can deter a Clinton combine so ruthless that it risked shredding three decades of mutual affection with black America to win a primary?

A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Obama still beats McCain

According to the latest Time poll. Obama would win 48-41 - Clinton would tie 46-46. The reason? Independent voters would go to Obama. I'll just keep bashing this point over and over so people get it (cos I still get people who don't)
TIME Poll: Clinton More Beatable than Obama Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Get A Load Of This Guy!

Our esteemed President George W threw his 30 percent approval weight (featherweight?) into the ring today, saying that a lot was at stake maintaining his policies in the November elections, and that "prosperity and peace are in the balance." Seriously. He said that. Who writes his stuff? This guy cracks me up! He doesn't live in a bubble, he lives in an impenetrable fortress of reinforced ignorance.

I think John McCain is probably saying "Thanks, but no thanks" for the support. You'd have to be a masochist to run as referendum on Bush's policies. Keep Reading (if there's more)...

The Teflon Candidate

Peggy Noonan, former Reagan speechwriter, with some great insights into electability vs. the Republican attack machine. The whole thing is worth reading, but the choice quote:

Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they'd be delighted to go at her. They'd get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.

The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof.

The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented--"He's too young, he's never run anything, he's not fully baked"--the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.

The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Achtung! Hillary

Politico explores five reasons why "Hillary should be worried" after Tuesday's results. Check the article for actual analysis, but here's the bullet points:

1. She lost the delegate derby.
2. She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote.
3. She lost more states.
4. She lost the January cash war.
5. The calendar is her enemy.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

What do Republicans fear? (Hint: It ain't Hillary)

Look guys, I'm not making this up. I keep saying it, but people don't buy it: justified or not Republicans unite in hating Hillary. Whereas Obama has the potential to pull in moderate Republican votes. And the Republicans fear him. Check this article "Hillary the lesser threat to McCain" from the conservative newspaper Washington Times. Some choice quotes:

Pollster John Zogby agreed, saying, "Obama does better against McCain than Hillary does because she is so polarizing. ... A lot of people will simply be voting against her."

"Hillary Clinton will help drive conservatives and independents McCain's way overnight," said Republican strategist Scott Reed. "I believe that would be a more attractive race for Republicans."

Or this mean spirited, ugly entry from the conservative blog "RedState" about Obama, which at least illuminates their mindset (these guys are NEVER going to vote for someone they call the "She Devil"):

Wow...

I don't know about the rest of y'all, but this guy freakin' scares me to death.

I don't agree with the vast majority of his public-policy positions, and yet I still find myself getting sucked in when he speaks.

I understand all of the reasons why Obama shouldn't win the presidency even if he ends up being the dem nominee, but something tells me we should all start praying that the She-Devil pulls this thing out.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

For All the Mac Geeks

NY Times asks: Is Obama A Mac and Clinton a PC?
Not much substance beyond discussing Obama's webpage design, but my answer to that question would have to be a "yes."

(Thanks to Lyssa for linking off her Gchat!) Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Before I Pass Out....

Was up early doing Get Out the Vote, so crashing. Obama won't win California, hopefully it will be close enough to get some delegates. Missouri's really tight. And I leave you with this:

Analysis: Clinton and Obama Start Anew

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Brooklyn!

It was given Hillary was going to win NY - heck, its her state. It was just a question about getting enough votes to take some delegates from her. And she did win - but check it out: of all the boroughs, you made it close, Brooklyn!

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

McCain's New Ad: The Worst Written Commercial In History?

I had to start on the Republicans sometime!
I keep seeing this on TV, and this mashed together mess of Republican catch phrases gets funnier each time. It is totally incoherent.

"As a prisoner of war, John McCain was inspired by Ronald Reagan." Huh? Like...while in solitary confinement in Vietnam he achieved the power to see into the future? Or did he hold onto the image of then Governor Ronald Reagan as a way to keep a grasp on his sanity during his long imprisonment? If that's what he's fantasizing about in solitary, I think his base might have some issues with that.

"The leadership and experience to call for the surge strategy in Iraq - which is working." Who wrote this? That has to be the worst constructed sentence I've heard since 2nd grade. Who is the subject of this sentence? I like how they throw in a quick "which is working" quickly at the end, as if its a "limited time offer."

I really hope this commercial doesn't speak to the intellectual level of the base conservative voters McCain is trying to convince he is a real Republican, but I'm very very scared that's exactly what it does. Keep Reading (if there's more)...

The BS Starts Again

I was starting to dig and respect Hillary's campaign a lot more, but then they start this kinda thing all over. This from the Clinton campaign after their win in Massachusetts:

One of the biggest surprises of the night is Massachusetts. Despite the fact that Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry were actively supporting and campaigning for Obama, Hillary Clinton won the state. Despite the fact that the Governor of Massachusetts endorsed Obama, Hillary Clinton won the state. Despite the fact that Obama visited Massachusetts just last night, Hillary Clinton won the state. This is a strong victory and shows that Hillary Clinton has strength in places where Barack Obama was expected to win.

Sounds good. But its not true. Yes, Obama had the support of Kerry and Kennedy - for the last week (ok, Kerry for a week longer). But Massachusetts was a stronghold of Clinton support - if Obama had won there it would've been a HUGE upset. Look at this:

That's the poll trends over the past YEAR. She was up as much as 20 points in polls a week ago. You can see Obama closed the gap to about 10 points in the last week - pretty amazing in and of itself, but in no way was he expected to win. Again, spin is one thing, but trying to manipulate the public by hoping they are not paying close attention and spinning an expected win as a come from behind triumph? C'mon. 

NOTE: Just saw this nearly identical post at AmericaBlog "Massachusetts was not an upset."

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Highlights to Consider Before You Vote

If you read nothing else: 

Why Obama? (LA Times Endorsement) - Great summary comparison of the two candidates and explanation of why Obama should (strongly) be your choice. If you just read one article, I recommend this.

The Electability Question

The Experience Question

The Race Question

Get Some Inspiration (and some Kennedys!)

Why Obama Over Clinton?

Don't Let Fear Make You Vote Differently Than You Might Feel!

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

The Electability Question

Can Obama win? YES and he has a better chance then Clinton.

• Obama does better against Republican candidates head-to-head than Clinton in polls.
• Obama has demonstrated an ability to draw Independent and Republican support (see here, or here for his history of doing so), whereas Clinton galvanizes a fractured Republican base against her. 
• Obama's campaign has generated amazing enthusiasm including record rallies even in Red States.
  

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

The Experience Question

To me this is a non-issue. As Robert DeNiro stated today in endorsing Obama ""He wasn't experienced enough to authorize the invasion of Iraq."

First off, Obama has a proven record of public service from the grass roots up as an organizer, seven years in Illinois Senate, four years in the US Senate.

As others have pointed out to me, the "experience" argument would lead us to believe our best elected officers should've been those with the most government experience by the time they reached elected office - which would be Richard Nixon or Dick Cheney. And we know how they worked out. Or JFK vs Nixon was decided by the experience argument, we'd likely have had Nixon as President during the Bay of Pigs and none of us would be here right now.

I think it is true, as Obama says - not just to be ready on day one, but be right on day one -- the greater question for a President is good judgment and the courage of conviction. As the LA Times states in its endorsement, "experience has value only if it is accompanied by courage and leads to judgment. Nowhere was that judgment more needed than in 2003, when Congress was called upon to accept or reject the disastrous Iraq invasion. Clinton faced a test and failed, joining the stampede as Congress voted to authorize war." On this ground, Hillary has disqualified herself with her politically expedient vote for the Iraq war and her willingness to go back on her word for crass political purposes. (More here) Keep Reading (if there's more)...

The Race Question

Some have expressed to me disbelief that Obama can truly win, because they fear the country is still too racist. Polls say he can, but they fear the polls are inaccurate because people are lying to pollsters - saying one thing, voting another.  Facts don't bear this out. Food for thought:

• Obama won handily in Iowa which is 97% white. 
• He tied Hillary in South Carolina in the white male vote (though she did beat him in the white female vote). 
• This great Op-Ed by author Michael Chabon about Obama, racism and fear.

Don't let fear of racism make your vote perpetuate it. 

(not to mention you're playing into what the Clinton's were trying to orchestrate after South Carolina labelling him as the "black" candidate even after he'd won lily white Iowa!)

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Get Some Inspiration (& Some Kennedys!)

Obama

Obama + music + celebs

The Kennedys & Obama:

Caroline Kennedy's Endorsement "Like My Father"

Ted's Endorsement

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Why Obama Over Clinton?

The divisive political approach the Clinton campaign was using, especially during the SC race, was what propelled me to start this blog.

She is skilled but shackled by the "Wrong Experience"

How about judgment? She voted for Iraq.

She will say or do anything, including go back on her word, in order to win.

And there's Wal-Mart.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Still on the fence?

Don't be afraid.

Michael Chabon (author of "Kavalier & Clay," "Wonder Boys," etc) wrote this op-ed "Obama vs. the Phobocracy" in today's Washington Post. I think it applies to a lot of the reservations I'm still surprised to hear people say they harbor about voting for Obama, even with abundant evidence to the contrary:

Since I started talking and writing about Obama I have come to see that this ruling fear, and nothing else, lies at the back of every objection or reservation people raise or harbor regarding the man and his candidacy.

Fear whispers to us that white voters have a nasty tendency to tell pollsters, friends and neighbors that they support an African American candidate, then go into the voting booth and let the fear known as racism pull the lever.

Fear tells us that ugliness, rage and brutality are the central facts of human existence, that decency and tolerance are luxuries on whose altar our enemies will be only too happy to sacrifice us.

It is through our fear of falling prey to the calamity and misadventure from which the media promise faithlessly to protect us --a fear manufactured and sold by the media themselves -- that we accept without question the media-borne canard (tainted, in my view, by a racism as insidious as any that hides behind the curtains of voting booths) that Barack Obama, a seasoned and successful 46-year-old husband and father of two, a man sweeping into the prime of his life with all his sails and flags unfurled, is too young and inexperienced for a job that demands vitality and flexibility and that, furthermore, has made nonsense of glittering resumes, laughingstocks of practiced old hands and, in a reverse of Popeye's old trick, ravenous alligators out of years of accumulated baggage.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

"The Wrong Experience"

Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek writes:

This is the problem with Hillary Clinton. She is highly intelligent, has real experience and is an attractive candidate. But she is terrified to act on her beliefs. In fact, she seems so conditioned by what she sees as political constraints that one can barely tell where her beliefs begin and where those constraints end....

Def worth a read. Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Obama's Superbowl Statement

Ha ha. Do you remember laughter?

A reminder - seven years ago, a patriotic group of Americans had to make a choice between conventional experience and change they desperately needed. It wasn’t an easy decision. Both options were compelling in their own right, but when it was time to make a decision, the choice was clear. The New England Patriots started Tom Brady over Drew Bledsoe, and Brady went on to be the MVP of Super Bowl XXXVI. Now that’s change we can believe in.

Though, even though Brady is a Michigan alum, think I am going for the Giants on this one. Sorry O. Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Yes We Can

I'm not a big fan of these group celeb "cause" videos (especially when the Black Eyed Peas are involved), but hell, it is a good speech. (Thanks to Dave for the heads up)

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Red State Appeal

Obama had an event yesterday (saturday) in Idaho - as the Post states, "one of the most sparsely populated and heavily Republican states in the country..."

14,000 people showed up, three times the amount that even turned out for the Dem primaries in '04.

Wash Post: Obama's Private Idaho Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Race Matters. So Does Hope

A few people have written me, expressing disbelief that our country, with its history of racism, could actually elect a black president. Pointing out polls that indicate, yes, clearly we can, and in fact, chances seem pretty good doesn't seem to do the trick. Or pointing out that Obama won in Iowa, a state that is 97% white. Or that he got as large a share of the white male vote in SOUTH CAROLINA as Hilary Clinton in his win there(she beat him in white females). 

An Op-Ed in the Washington Post discusses this questions as well: 

The idealism of young people should not be underrated. They have a lot to teach us cynics, and they give us plenty of reason to hope. "Hope" for them is not a political prop; they seem to be plumbing its deeper meaning. For them in particular, Obama seems to have made hope cool and exquisitely tangible. That's why, instead of "Race doesn't matter," they should adopt "Hope matters" as their mantra. It implies a collective wish for a turning point in this country, a time when we resolve to accept, not pretend to erase, our inherent racial biases and look beyond them to find each other's humanity.

Maybe now is that time.

We can only hope.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Ask Not What JFK Can Do For Obama

Frank Rich's latest at the NY Times is interesting and wide ranging as always, discussing the JFK/Obama comparisons:

Before John F. Kennedy was a president, a legend, a myth and a poltergeist stalking America’s 2008 campaign, he was an upstart contender seen as a risky bet for the Democratic nomination in 1960...“He had to touch the secret fears and ambivalent longings of the American heart, divine and speak to the desires of a swiftly changing nation — his message grounded on his own intuition of some vague and spreading desire for national renewal.”

And some interesting tidbits about Clinton I wasn't aware of:

You’d never know from Mrs. Clinton’s criticisms of subprime lenders that one of the most notorious, Countrywide, was a client as recently as October of Burson-Marsteller, the public relations giant where her chief strategist, Mark Penn, is the sitting chief executive. Other high-level operatives in her campaign belong to Dewey Square Group, an outfit that just last year provided lobbying services for Countrywide.

Plus a discussion about how Obama's policy of "transparency" is really a method to reveal and then hopefully change, the influence of special interests. Keep Reading (if there's more)...

"Obamacans"

A little article from Newsweek about Obama's appeal to Republicans (see, I wasn't making it up)

Former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough, who anchors MSNBC's "Morning Joe," says many conservative friends—including Bush officials and evangelical Christians—sent him enthusiastic e-mails after seeing Obama's post-election speeches in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. "He doesn't attack Republicans, he doesn't attack whites and he never seems to draw these dividing lines that Bill Clinton [does]," Scarborough told NEWSWEEK.

UPDATE: Dwight Eisenhower's granddaughter, Susan, writes an Op-Ed for the Washington Post about why she is endorsing Obama.

If the Democratic Party chooses Obama as its candidate, this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected and encourage him to seek strategic solutions to meet America's greatest challenges. To be successful, our president will need bipartisan help.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING: LA Times Endorsment - READ IT!

The LA Times today published an endorsement of Obama - they have not endorsed presidential candidates since the 70's. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND READING THE WHOLE THING - its a great endorsement of Obama and a concise explanation of why he deserves your vote more than Clinton. But here's a few excerpts:

...We urge voters to make the most of this historic moment by choosing the Democrat most focused on steering the nation toward constructive change: We strongly endorse Barack Obama...
...With two candidates so closely aligned on the issues, we look to their abilities and potential as leaders, and their record of action in service of their stated ideals. Clinton is an accomplished public servant whose election would provide familiarity and, most important, competence in the White House, when for seven years it has been lacking. But experience has value only if it is accompanied by courage and leads to judgment.

Nowhere was that judgment more needed than in 2003, when Congress was called upon to accept or reject the disastrous Iraq invasion. Clinton faced a test and failed, joining the stampede as Congress voted to authorize war...she has made much of the fact that Obama was not yet in the Senate and didn't face the same test. But Obama was in public life, saw the danger of the invasion and the consequences of occupation, and he said so. He was right...
...Clinton's return to the White House that she occupied for eight years as first lady would resurrect some of the triumph and argument of that era. Yes, Bill Clinton's presidency was a period of growth and opportunity, and Democrats are justly nostalgic for it. But it also was a time of withering political fire, as the former president's recent comments on the campaign trail reminded the nation. Hillary Clinton's election also would drag into a third decade the post-Reagan political duel between two families, the Bushes and the Clintons. Obama is correct: It is time to turn the page...
...An Obama presidency would present, as a distinctly American face, a man of African descent, born in the nation's youngest state, with a childhood spent partly in Asia, among Muslims. No public relations campaign could do more than Obama's mere presence in the White House to defuse anti-American passion around the world, nor could any political experience surpass Obama's life story in preparing a president to understand the American character. His candidacy offers Democrats the best hope of leading America into the future, and gives Californians the opportunity to cast their most exciting and consequential ballot in a generation...

READ IT !!! Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Other Endorsements Today

Read Here: MoveOn.org & California's SEIU Union Endorse Obama

Check out this article about how a former Nixon & Reagan speechwriter, arch conservative Jeffrey Hart, backs Obama as "a Great Communicator in the mold of Reagan, John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt, a leader who can inspire Americans to work together on the problems of the 21st Century." Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Hillary & Wal-Mart

It's a little known fact that Hillary was on the board of Wal Mart from 1986-1992. My friend Ely pointed out this story exploring how she stood by while the company waged a major campaign against organized labor. Check out the article (with vintage video!) Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Debate Aftermath

Seems to be an evolving consensus the debate was fairly even, until Iraq came up, and then Obama pulled ahead. Even a group of undecided voters on Fox News thought so!

A whole lotta links here and this from the The New Republic blog:

The debate was tepid, very substantive and saw minimal distinction between Clinton and Obama. Then came Iraq. And it ceased to be close.

Obama made the full-spectrum critique of the Iraq war -- tougher on terrorism than she was, comprehensive in his reappraisal of foreign affairs, vociferous on the need to get out of Iraq and what its implications are...This is his closing argument against Hillary, and then McCain.

And Clinton had... nothing. A tiny incompetence-dodge argument, an obfuscatory pretense that she didn't actually vote for the war, and a refusal to consider the error an error even when predicating her support for leaving Iraq on the fact that the war is filled with... errors. (Not that she was naive for backing the war!) For ten minutes, Hillary Clinton looked like her caricature. By the time Barack Obama started his reminder that the vote Clinton cast in October 2002 was a vote for the war by saying "I don't want to belabor this..." it was like a mercy killing.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...

Judgment: Right from Day One

In case we forget:

Every Democrat who voted for the Iraq war has fallen back on the "was just giving Bush the option but hoped he would pursue diplomatic avenues first" defense.  But lets not let foggy memory change the fact: there was no question to anyone at the time that the vote was authorizing WAR - whether it was cast by Clinton, Kerry, Edwards (who later apologized for his vote) or anyone else. No matter what dissenting statements or qualifiers they recorded for posterity on the Senate floor, the media and the American people knew what was being voted on. Bush I's National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft was publishing Op Eds in the month before pleading "Don't Attack Saddam." Check some headlines after the resolutions passed Congress:

CNN:

 "Senate approves war resolution: Administration applauds vote"

"House gives Bush authority for War with Iraq: Bush "US must confront Iraq fully and finally"

The Washington Post:

"Congress Passes Iraq Resolution. Overwhelming Approval Gives Bush Authority to Attack Unilaterally"

The fact is, if you remember, the Bush administration pushed up the vote in order to make it an issue for the Democrats in the upcoming election season. 

Clinton was fairly new to the Senate at that point, she was not running for reelection, but she did vote for the war. Why? Did she truly believe war was necessary? Was it political pressure? Was it a symptom of a sexist society: a female Senator having to prove she was "tough"?  Yet even then she had it both ways - she recorded a statement on the Senate floor stating she was not for a pre-emptive or unilateral war, yet she still voted for one. Was she, even then, doing what she thought was necessary for the future of her political career? 

Regardless of anything, I do think if anything shows someone's judgment, it is the decision to send people to risk - and sacrifice - their lives in a war. And I do think, in that, Clinton - and Kerry, and Edwards-failed. 

Obama admittedly didn't have to make that decision- at that time he was a state senator- but here is what he said in a speech after that vote:

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein....He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

Pretty accurate - 5 years ago, before a single bomb fell. Before thousands of American lives, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were lost. Before billions of dollars spent, with no end or exit strategy yet in sight.
Judgment.

Keep Reading (if there's more)...