I like Barack Obama. I like him even though he didn’t put his hand over his heart the last time he heard the national anthem. I like him even though he doesn’t wear an American flag on his lapel. And I still like him, even though he plans to appear on stage with Donnie McClurkin, an “anti-gay” gospel singer. I like Barack Obama because Obama is trying really hard to get me to like him.
I can understand his desire for popularity—after all, isn’t that what buys a presidential victory? Still, watching his recent campaign performances, I can’t help but wonder if Obama is trying a little too hard. Take the senator’s South Carolina Gospel Tour, for example. The Gospel Tour features predominantly African-American acts, including “ex-gay” Reverend Donnie McClurkin and other gospel singers. This sensational political strategy, focused on a state where half of the democratic voters are black, was intended to be a vehicle through which this presidential hopeful could compete with Hillary’s popularity among black voters.
Yes, Obama is trying to be original. He is trying to build support from a grassroots level by taking part in a powerful cultural identity. But in his attempt to win the support of black voters, Obama has provoked the LGBT community. His on-stage companion, Reverend McClurkin, has made homophobic remarks regarding the need to “break the curse of homosexuality,” prompting the Human Rights Commission (HRC) to condemn the senator’s affiliation with the gospel singer. Instead of taking a stance either way, Obama attempts to neutralize McClurkin’s incendiary effect by tacking on an openly gay minister to the front of his tour. The situation that ensues is abominably awkward. Obama does not support McClurkin’s homophobia, nor does he want to take any chances at offending the black community by renouncing the reverend’s partnership. By catering to both sides, he seems unassured and hesitant where he should be decisive.
Barack Obama wants everyone to like him, and that’s his biggest problem. People do like Barack Obama. He seems to be a genuinely good guy. But the HRC is not asking for him to be buddies with a gay minister. They—along with the rest of America—are looking for leadership. They’re looking for a man with the backbone to stand up for real values and to make real change.
The Barack Obama I like tries to befriend everyone and offend no one. He cracks jokes, organizes concerts, and relates to voters on a personal level. But the Barack Obama I might vote for is a man with vision, passion, will, and the agency to replace ideals with actions. I believe in his message. I believe in his visions for the future, in his hopes and his fears. What’s more, I believe that he has the potential to make his dreams for our America into our reality. But when Obama favors popularity over principal, voters lose confidence in his efficacy as a leader. It is when he stands soundly behind his own opinions, and delivers his message with the confidence of a president of the United States, that Barack Obama becomes a man who voters can believe in.
I like Barack Obama, but I’m crossing my fingers.
This weekend Nomadic Theatre is putting on "The Exonerated", about the experiences of six people who were wrongfully convicted but still lost years of their lives on death row.*
Our justice system, though, is systemically unjust. It is racist, ineffective at deterring crime, often erroneous, and extremely expensive.
And yet... almost all our Democratic candidates -- including every single frontrunner -- support the death penalty. Clinton is a long-time advocate. Edwards believes "some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty". Obama, for all he is touted as a religious and moral man, and for all he believes that the death penalty "does little to deter crime", still would execute prisoners.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised, but Kucinich is in the only one on the field who vocalizes what I am convinced is the only appropriate approach. "Morally," he writes, "I simply do not believe that we as human beings have the right to 'play God' and take a human life – especially since our human judgments are fallible and often wrong." Along with him comes Gravel, who has been silent on capital punishment so far in this campaign but was opposed at least back in 1972, when his book Citizen Power came out.
I'm dismayed that once again, it's only the "crazy" and "ridiculously unelectable" candidates who are talking sense. (It reminds me incredibly of that debate where it was only these two who would lower the drinking age so that young people who are called to die for our country could also buy a beer. Yeah.)
Why is that? I think Liliana Segura has it pegged: "They know that as long as no one holds them accountable, it is a political stance that costs them nothing. It’s their “soft on crime” trump card." Kucinich (and to some extent Gravel) can say these things only because he isn't considered a real candidate.
Cynical? Yes. Unfortunately, it also rings true. How crazy is Kucinich really?
*It was a wonderful performance, and one that I suggest you all look into attending before the show ends this weekend.
Those of you who know me and my politics know I’m a big fan of the third way-type politics of moderate Democrats like Bill Clinton and the organization he once headed, the Democratic Leadership Council. Once a required stop for any presidential hopeful, the Politico reports that the DLC got dissed this cycle, as every single ’08er will be skipping over its convention in Nashville this week (even HRC, whose husband built the DLC into the political powerhouse it is today). But the Big Three, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, (+Gravel and Kucinich, if you care, which I don’t) all managed to find time to swing by Columbia, South Carolina last week to address the annual College Democrats of America convention at the University of South Carolina.
I was there, and let me tell you, it was electrifying. Being surrounded by hundreds of other informed, active college students is nothing short of inspiring. I met dozens of future officeholders and political staffers, and it was refreshing to be surrounded by young people who can school you in political history by day, rattling off the names and victory margins of all our 2006 senatorial candidates, and drink you (should you be of legal age, of course) under the table by night.
Barack Obama spoke on Friday and wowed the convention with a powerful speech exhorting College Dems to "prove the cynics wrong", saying "let's show that you do make a difference, that America is ready to listen to the next generation." After the speech, the crowds surged towards Obama the way most college students would towards Dave Matthews.
Ask any College Dem, and I’m sure they’ll tell you which one is the bigger rock star.
391 days ‘til CDA 2008 in Denver! Hope I’ll see you all there.
With Vilsack dropping out of the race, the fundamental dynamics of the race for 2008 have changed. Vilsack was never a big player, but the fact that he was from Iowa had a chance of putting one of the three frontrunners in a devastating fourth place finish.
No longer is that possible. With Vilsack out, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards will surely each place in the top three, meaning Iowa is now a less decisive state, since no one will be eliminated or severely weakened by Iowa. The field will merely be sorted.
With Iowa and New Hampshire likely to each move up a week, Nevada actually becomes more important, and so do New Hampshire and South Carolina. If any of the top three win in Iowa, it may or may not give them momentum into New Hampshire, which will likely give Obama or Clinton a win. If Clinton were to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, I think there is really no chance of preventing her steamroll to the nomination. But if Edwards or Obama wins in Iowa, and Obama wins in New Hampshire, Nevada becomes a contest between Obama and Edwards and South Carolina a contest between all three candidates. Even if Biden or Richardson or Dodd were to win second or third in any of these contests, the sheer number (approaching 20 now) of states with wealthy media markets on February 5th eliminate the chance of any of the second tier candidates winning without coming in first in one of the first four states. With the possibility that Florida could move up to the middle of January, that will probably boost Clinton, and give her a delegate lead heading into February 5th.
February 5th could, if Clinton wins the first four or five contests, be a coronation. If the top three split the first four or five states, I think you are likely to see Clinton emerge with a delegate lead but just barely, with Obama winning a huge chunk of delegates and Edwards taking a number of states himself.
With this split decision, each of the other second tier candidates will drop out and Edwards, Clinton, and Obama will split up the rest of February's winnings until the minnier Super Tuesday on March 6th.
That day will likely see Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Maryland take center stage, and you can expect Obama and Edwards to do better than Clinton in those states.
We are then likely to see no candidate emerging with a majority of delegates and head into the August convention with no clear winner. There will be a convention fight and after one or two ballots, Edwards, who I think will come in third, will throw his support to Obama and give him the nomination over Clinton.
I know this seems biased, but I think that unless Clinton wins Iowa and New Hampshire, this is the situation that will play out. Tell me what you think.
With Tom Vilsack dropping out of the race, I have become dismayed. As a democratic moderate, I have seen candidate after candidate drop out of the race. First I volunteered for former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, who dropped out of the race for family reasons. Next came Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who dropped out probably because of a bleak future at fundraising. Finally, we've come to Mr. Vilsack, who was not as moderate as the other two, but nonetheless was in my opinion the only one who had sofar taken clear strong stances.
The need for a moderate candidate may not seem so obvious for more liberal-minded people, but this party is a very large part moderate now. We see candidates who regularly tote the party line, but I don't see a declared candidate who can stand a chance in states in the South, the Rockies, or the Prarie States to Republicans like McCain and Giuliani. Being in constant communication with people back home in Ohio (and from a very conservative 2nd district), the only democratic candidate that even sparks any interest is Senator Obama, but I doubt that his amazing rhetorical ability will be able to see him through to election.
As for the future, well, I only see one candidate that even peaks my interest. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico would be the best moderate candidate available. He's fiscally and economically smart, creating job growth and lowering unemployment, and began turning around a state that chronically lags behind in virtually every category, from health care to teacher's salaries. Even Steve Forbes, President and CEO of Forbes, inc., has lavished praise on Governor Richardson. His amazing foreign policy record doesn't hurt either (4 Nobel Peace Prize nominations and being former US Ambassador to the UN will give him more than enough credibility). But enough of my dreaming. He'll probably drop out too.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in a cat fight! As Kramer would say, maybe they'll start kissing!
Kucinich auditioned in Nevada (make sure you pronounce it right or you'll be Stephanopoulosed) yesterday to be Spinning-Instructor-in-Chief.
Mike Gravel has a $250 suit. When asked whether it was made by American workers, he said it was made in the land of has-beens and long-shots.
Bill Richardson wants Democrats to run a positive campaign. Didn't he get this memo?
Al Gore will win the Oscar for Best Documentary on Sunday. When asked what he will wear, he said it would be a carbon-neutral Gucci see-through dress.
Prince Harry wants to go to Abu Ghraib prison when he gets to Iraq. He hears the sex there is kinkier than at Buckingham palace.
That's a wrap!
So I surfed on over to Obama's campaign site last night, and what made me happiest (apart from the intriguing sun-rising-on-the-US/jello-mold logo) was the bottom of his page. His staffers, I remarked to my friend in delight, are actually on to something. The first link is a button to Facebook, the second is to the DNC's Party Builder. After the natural "register to vote" link, there are links to YouTube and Flickr. "What a brilliant political move!" I boggled. My friend noted that he's also giving groups space to blog and come together on his own site (see the Georgetown Students for Obama group she created). It seems like he's actually taking advantage of Web 2.0 and emerging social media. That, after all, is the only way to play it. *
There are lots of people on the internet who want to elect him; refusing to harness that would be a fatal mistake for him. And the bulk of the internet literati today are hanging out in Web 2.0 places: blogs, social networking sites, wikis, other user-generated content. He can't rely only on Dean's strategy -- four years is dozens of decades in internet time. But he also simply cannot overlook the power of the modern internet.
To me, it looks promising so far. At the same time, however, it's also caught cautious-to-negative attention from bloggers, and has caused people to draw comparisons of being like the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy TV-based race. I'm not sure whether that is a result of these bloggers being insecure about having their own internet-space being infringed upon by not-quite-as-savvy-as-them politicians, or if it's something else -- but the development of Web 2.0 in political campaigns is certainly something to keep an eye on in these next few months.
* Clinton, it seems, has only just begun to look into this new medium of communication -- her site offers an opportunity to do "guest blogging" (the posts are first screened, however), and as far as I can tell, nothing else by way of generating user interaction and investment in the campaign. Disappointing.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a Giuliani or McCain (as I understand it, they are the primary Republican candidates at this point) campaign site to compare them.
Obama has quit smoking to run for President. Now, there's a man who is in it to win it!
Also, check out this video from Students for Barack Obama's rally for Senator Obama this past Friday at George Mason University. If you look to the far right of the screen, you may see me wearing a brown Georgetown shirt.
Everyone asks me, why do I support Obama? It's a legitimate question to ask. After all, what has he done in the US Senate after only two years to warrant that he would be a great presidential candidate? I could list the list of bills he's sponsored, he's authored, he's passed. I could talk about his speech on faith, his speech at the DNC in 2004, how he has demonstrated tremendous leadership of example in his trips around the world and in the US.
But those aren't the reasons why I support him. In the end, people can make their own judgments about why a Presidential candidate should get their support. But for me, it's quite simple. I want a President who can analyze policy, synthesize complicated solutions, and articulate an argument to the Congress, the media, the American people, and the World about why it should be implemented.
Intelligence is a key ingredient for me in my selection of a Presidential candidate. I don't doubt that John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, or Tom Vilsack are intelligent or competent, they surely are. Some of them may even know more about particular policy issues that Senator Obama.
But Obama is the full package on intelligence. He reads voraciously, and he has very clearly studied great works of philosophy, literature, history, and theology. He understands the Constitution the way that a constitutional scholar would. He talks about foreign policy the way an analyst at the Defense Department would. He understands health care policy the way a hospital administrator would. He can talk about education the way a teacher or a principal can.
Obama said on an episode of Oprah in October that the most important quality that his mother impressed on him was empathy. She told Obama to constantly understand how other people felt, to step in their shoes, to look through their eyes, to understand what they feel, what they think, and why they act the way they do. Obama approaches every issue from that perspective, he understands people in a gut way, the way Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, and Franklin Roosevelt had the power of empathy.
I just finished a long argument with a friend of mine who is a conservative Republican, a Navy ROTC student, and a very smart kid. We talked about the surge in Iraq and what we thought the best solution to the situation would be. We didn't fight, we didn't yell, we talked calmly, and we didn't interrupt each other, something many of you probably thought I couldn't do.
But my friend and me spoke about American interests, about what we thought our nation really needed, about security in Baghdad, about terrorism, about regional catastrophe. We talked about soldiers on Haifa Street in Baghdad and how an Iraqi unit that was embedded with them accidentally fired on the Americans. We talked about cultural norms in Iraq, about increasing CIA personnel, about increasing the number of Arabic linguists in our Baghdad embassy. We discussed troop levels, but more importantly, we talked about command structure and strategic mission.
This was not a conversation I think most presidential candidates would have. Most would get too frustrated early on, give up, and stick to their position, and probably go over to another person who completely agrees with them and talk about how smart they are. They wouldn't argue, they would listen to the other side, they wouldn't challenge themselves to understand that what the other side has to say is legitimate and that we both just see things a little differently, but that when we listen and talk to one another, we may both come a little closer together in what we think.
I didn't walk away from my conversation with my friend agreeing with the idea of a surge, nor did he come away agreeing that we should redeploy to Iraq's perimeter and change our strategy. But we agreed that the President and the Democratic majorities in Congress should get off their asses and read details about what's happening there, that they should talk and agree together on what ideas are best for the situation in Iraq, that the State and Defense departments should get along for once, that we should try different political strategies in the reconciliation process. None of these ideas are certain to work, and we both agreed on that. But what I really got out of that conversation is an understanding of what my conservative friend thought and why he thought it.
He believed that security fundamentally comes first, and I believed that political reconciliation clearly precedes any advancement in security goals. He believed we had an interest in ending the Iraqi civil war, and I believed our interest lay in preventing a regional war. But we walked away from that conversation with a slightly different perspective, not exactly from each other's eyes, but closer than we had understood each other before.
I don't want our next President to dismiss the other point of view. I also don't want our next President to give in to the other side because it is politically expedient. I want our next President to believe in some strong, core principles and then talk to the other side, learn from them, step into their shoes, and come to an agreeable solution that can produce the smartest, most productive policy.
I've read Senator Obama's two books, I've listened to all of his major speeches, I subscribe to his podcast, and I read his bills. I've done the same for all of the other candidates. But what I see differently from Senator Obama and the other candidates is that the other candidates seem to not really agree with what they're saying. It's either written by a political operative, with views that are different from the views of the candidate, or by a policy wonk that seems to overwhelm the understanding that the candidate has about the issue.
When Senator Obama speaks or writes, he knows what he's talking about. He makes sure of it. He hungers for intellectual discourse, and wants to question his own beliefs constantly. He is an intellectual heavyweight. He wants to talk to the other side, he wants to be convinced of the best policy. He knows what his convictions are, but he's not beholden to a particular policy just because people are for it. He wants to go farther, he wants to be better, he wants to challenge the conventional wisdom and the talking points and delve deeper.
What else should we expect from the President of the United States?
You may not agree, you may think that I haven't provided sufficient information about why Obama is all of the things I just talked about. Maybe it is gut instinct, maybe it is real. But what I am sure of is that my gut, my heart, and my brain tell me that the other candidates, while great, are not the whole enchilada. Neither is Senator Obama, but I think he's closer to it than anyone I've seen in politics in my lifetime.
That's what I think, in all honesty and simplicity. Make up your own mind, but consider the standards you have for a candidate and truly evaluate them, and think, just a little bit, about when a crisis with a country arises, or when a Hurricane hits a major American city, how will that react? Will they rise above the politics, grasp the nation by the hand, inspire us, think deeply about what has happened, pursue alternatives, and choose the smartest policy there is, or will they give up and give in?
That is the test. Obama has passed mine.
As most of you know, I'm a big fan of Barack Obama. But as a political handicapper, I can be somewhat objective. I'll take the time now to predict the outcomes of the Presidential nominating fights on both sides.
Let's start with the Democrats. Assuming New Hampshire isn't a jerk, and Florida isn't stupid, the order of the primaries will be Iowa on January 14th, Nevada on January 19th, New Hampshire on January 22nd, and South Carolina on January 29th, with a barrage of states on February 5th, with California, New Jersey, Florida, and Michigan likely participating. That day will include more than a dozen contests, with possibly as many as a third of the Democratic convention's delegates at stake on that one day. At least that's the situation for the Democrats.
The Republicans will hold their Iowa and New Hampshire contests on the same day as the Democrats, but will hold South Carolina a few days after the Democrats do, but before February 5th. The February 5th national primary day will be the same for the Republicans.
So, this is where I think the race stands. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are competing for the top three spots in Iowa with former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. None of the other candidates realistically think they have a shot in Iowa with those four in the race. Because Vilsack is from Iowa, he is in an impossible situation. He must come in first in Iowa just to be a viable candidate, but a win in Iowa is no guarantee he will be a factor anywhere else. If Vilsack comes in anything less than first, he will drop out of the race.
Edwards, because he is the Iowa frontrunner and came in a close second three years ago, he also must win the Iowa caucuses. A second place finish will not kill him, but he'll be sigificantly weakened. A third or fourth place finish would nearly end his campaign. Obama and Clinton, because of their national organizations and frontrunner status, can afford a second or third place finish without being significantly wounded. A first place finish would give either of them unstoppable momentum, but a fourth place finish for either would weaken them severely. The point is, one of those four will be nearly kicked out of the race from Iowa. Iowa is an eliminator.
So then we go to Nevada. Edwards, because of his union support, must get first or second here, anything less would be deadly to him. Bill Richardson, who is from the Southwest and is Latino, must also come in first or second in Nevada to have any relevance in the process whatsoever. Clinton and Obama must come in at least third place, or will be viewed as weak and won't be able to recover. Therefore, Nevada is an eliminator, as one candidate won't survive it.
Next is New Hampshire, where Clinton and Obama are viewed as strongest. This contest will be decisive, as both Obama and Clinton must win, and definitely not come in less than second. Chris Dodd has also staked his claim to the nomination on New Hampshire, since he is from New England. He must place at least third to remain in the game. An Edwards finish lower than fourth would also kill his campaign. Therefore, New Hampshire will eliminate a candidate or severely wound them as well.
Finally, South Carolina is a must win for both Obama and Edwards. Edwards, who won South Carolina in 2004, was born there, and is a son of the South. If he loses the primary, he will be finished. If Obama, who is black, loses a primary where almost 50% of the electorate will be African-American, he will also be finished. Clinton must, simply because of her status, get at least third here. Joe Biden has decided his strategy to the nomination runs through South Carolina, and therefore, a less than third place finish here will kill him.
So after these four contests, where seven candidates all must score in the top three at some point, at least four will be eliminated, and the contests will sort the remaining three in terms of strength. Therefore, our party goes into February 5th with no more than three candidates, with one or two probably stronger than the rest.
Therefore, February 5th has the power to decide the nominee or prolong the fight till early March, when another Super Tuesday will occur. The only people who will have the standing and the money to win on February 5th are Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, and if one of them is already eliminated before that day, it will be decisive. Unfortunately for Edwards, out of the four big states, New Jersey, Michigan, California, and Florida, that hold contests that day, he has no strength in any of them. Therefore, the outcome of that day could depend on whether Clinton or Obama win big on the 5th.
In the end, I think that Edwards will probably not do as well as expected (it's hard when you're the frontrunner in Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina, you've got to place first in all three or look weak), and Clinton will probably place low in a number of the early contests, weakening her. I think all of the second tier candidates will all flounder, with maybe one exception, who will be eliminated after February 5th. On February 5th, Edwards, who will already be weak form the first few contests, will not do well, eliminating him. Obama and Clinton will probably pretty evenly split wins on February 5th, which will set up a contest leading up to the next Super Tuesday in March. Obama will probably do well in Ohio and some other states that day and Obama and Clinton will be neck and neck until the convention. In fact, I see a convention fight as likely in 2008. I know I'm out there in left field with this thinking, but I believe that Edwards will probably stick it out to the end, as a distant third place, and one of the lesser candidates will also have a sizable delegate count and will stick it out till the convention too. With Hillary and Obama nearly even in the delegate count and both with less than 50% of the delegates, I think we will see this fight go to a second ballot at the convention. The second ballot will probably see some of Edwards' votes go to Clinton and Obama pretty evenly, and Edwards will decide to endorse one or the other on the third ballot, and then we will have our nominee. I think Edwards is likely to endorse Obama, but who knows.
As for the Republicans, who I know a lot less about, I think Iowa will be very decisive. McCain is strong there, but Brownback and Huckabee might surprise some people. I think McCain may end up losing Iowa in an upset, and Brownback and Huckabee will be propelled into the top tier. New Hampshire will be a fight among McCain, Giuliani, and Romney for the country club Republican vote, which I think Rudy will win. We then go to South Carolina, where McCain, who will be weakened at this point, will square off against Gilmore, Hunter, Brownback, and Huckabee. The winner of that primary, and the second place finisher, will set up a contest between Rudy, McCain, and either Brownback or Huckabee. I do not think that Romney stands a chance, and I've spoken to evangelicals who tell me that Mormonism is going to really hurt him. We then will go to February 5th, where the conservative alternative, likely Huckabee or Brownback (all the former governors and congressmen in the race will have dropped out by now and Gingrich won't run) will not do very well. Rudy and McCain will clean up, and they will fight it out till March, when a bunch of Southern states will support the conservative alternative. I think, similarly to the Democrats, Republicans will have a brokered convention, where Giuliani and McCain will be roughly tied in the delegate count, and the conservative alternative will have a substantial 10%-20% of the vote. This will set up a second ballot that I think will escape from Rudy to McCain and the conservative and eventually Rudy will endorse McCain on the third ballot in exchange for a VP slot. McCain, in my opinion, will turn out as the nominee.
That's my view of the race, what's yours?
One of the most important developments in the history of political campaigning happened late last week, and (almost) nobody noticed.
“What?” you ask. “Of course everyone noticed! Are you kidding? The first woman and the first African-American with serious shots at winning a major party nomination announced last week! You’d have to be living under a rock not to know that, just shut up about Barack and Hillary and glass ceilings already, and let me go back to [insert personal activity of choice here: flossing my teeth, procrastinating at Midnight Mug, liberating silverware from Leo’s, etc.] in peace!”
While Senators Obama and Clinton have indeed walked into the history books with their groundbreaking campaigns, that’s not what I’m talking about.
What I’m talking about is Hillary Clinton’s decision to forgo federal matching funding in both the nominating and general election campaigns. While many candidates have opted out of public financing for primary campaigns before, Sen. Clinton is the first to declare that she is capable of raising more than the $150 million that would be provided to her under the federal program for the 2008 primary and general campaign elections. Sen. Clinton’s decision to ask donors for a maximum donation of $4200 at this point in her campaign—rather than the $2100 maximum donation she would receive were she to accept federal matching funds in the general election—will set off a chain reaction among her opponents, making prospects difficult for candidates who aren’t capable of raising such huge sums on their own.
The federal matching funds program, introduced in 1976, works as follows:
-Any primary candidate who raises at least $100,000 in personal donations receives federal money to match the first $250 of each donation. For 2008, candidates could received matching grants of as much as $25 million for the primary season and about $15 million for a nomination convention.
-In the 2008 cycle, general election candidates could received up $83 million.
However, with Sen. Clinton’s decision to decline federal matching funds (with opponents expected to follow suit, although opponents including Sen. Obama declined to comment on any similar decision), analysts are expecting the two candidates who make it to the general election to raise more $500 million each—meaning a presidential campaign that will end up costing more than a billion dollars come November 2008.
Already, the New York Times is reporting that John McCain has begun to solicit private donations for both the primary and general elections, with the option of returning them. Sen. McCain, who has long been a proponent of campaign finance reform, removed his name as a co-sponsor of a bill to expand the presidential public financing program.
If the two frontrunners for their parties’ nominations—Clinton and McCain—do indeed make it Election Day 2008, we can say good-bye to the days of public financing. Candidates these days spend as much time fundraising as they do campaigning. This is positively absurd—do you think of any other position where you spend more to get the job than you make once you have it? Though the Supreme Court struck down spending caps on campaigns as an unconstitutional abridgment of your right to free speech, it is time to consider new alternatives for a broken system. What about lowering the donation threshold from, say, $2100, to $500? This would greatly increase the ability of your average Joe to participate as fully in the political process as his wealthier fellow citizens, and for all the ado that was made about Howard Dean’s ability to fundraise using small donations through the internet, the reality is that the majority of campaign funding still comes from influential donors who have as many votes as the rest of us do—one—but exercise outsize influence on democratic process. While I am by no means a proponent of full federal financing for all campaigns (the taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for vanity campaigns of candidates like the Rev. Al Sharpton), there must be a solution here. Our Founding Fathers—who considered it embarrassing to personally campaign for the presidency, let alone raise money for advertising—would be aghast at the feeding trough our presidential electoral system has become. Something must be done before this system gets even more out of hand—I want my vote to count just as much as anyone else’s, don’t you?
Zogby's Iowa Telephone Polling from January 15-16
DEMOCRATS
Edwards 27%
Obama 17%
Vilsack 16%
Clinton 16%
Biden 3%
Kerry 3%
Kucinich 1%
Richardson 1%
Not sure 13%
Read the entire article on the John Edwards blog:
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/17/162741/659
As some of you may know, today was a new day for the United States of America. For years, what we have seen in our nation is a reduction in our hope, our belief in a better future, our bond with our fellow Americans. What we have seen is a divided America, intolerant, disagreeable, angry, disappointed, and cynical. What we have seen is our loss of what it means to be an American.
It doesn't have to be that way. Senator Obama is a different kind of politician with a different notion of politics. He believes in the common good, that we all have a stake in each other's lives, that we must work to better all of our lives, that we are all in this grand experiment called America together. And whether you came over on slave ships, the Mayflower, the Bering Strait, or a transcontinental airliner, we are all in the same boat now.
Senator Obama's life is exactly why he understands where we as a country must go. He was born to a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother. He grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. He overcame economic adversity, drugs, the seduction of a life outside the law, and worked to go to college, graduating from Columbia University with a degree in International Relations. He could have gone anywhere after that, graduate school, law school, investment banking. He chose a different path. He became a community organizer, moving to Chicago, committing to a lower income, and working to help the impoverished, the homeless, the uneducated, and the despondent overcome the odds and achieve what is our country's greatest gift, the promise of the American Dream.
Senator Obama has spent ten years in public service, in the Illinois State Senate and now in the United States Senate. He hasn't passed budget supplementals, learned the powers of committee chairmen, or passed major reform. But in the Illinois State Senate, he fought for universal health care, writing a comprehensive bill to implement it in Illinois. He fought to eliminate poverty by cutting taxes, reform the death penalty by fixing our broken system of obtaining confessions, passed a law banning racial profiling, and increasing funds for education.
In the United States Senate, he has opened up the earmark process to full public disclosure, is the sponsor of the broadest ethics reform legislation in the history of the United States, championed a law to remove nuclear weapons from the hands of terrorists, and has sponsored new and innovative strategies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming. He has traveled to Kenya, inspiring millions to get tested for HIV/AIDS, and demonstrating that even a US Senator can get tested, with no fear of stigma. He has traveled throughout the Middle East and Central Asia and the former Soviet Union, meeting with world leaders.
Senator Obama opposed the war in Iraq, and throughout 2002, he was a leader arguing that an invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq would be disastrous. He was right. Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, and all the others running for the Democratic nomination for President supported the War in Iraq. They have admirably recanted, but what their decisions demonstrated was a lack of good judgment. Senator Obama had the foresight, the expertise, and the perspective of someone who had lived abroad, worked in local communities, and understood that an ill-conceived war based on fragile justifications was a recipe for the largest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history.
Senator Obama's strength lies in his detachment from the culture wars of the past. Senator Obama, unlike the politicians of the 1980's through today, rejects the idea that Americans are inevitably divided by values. He believes we all share the same core values that America has instilled in us, hard work, honesty, integrity, compassion, and hope. He has worked with both Democrats and Republicans, not to compromise our principles, but to get things done, bridge the divides, and make America a better place. He transcends the divisions, and is exactly the right man to be President at this time. As President, he will unite our country, renew American leadership and moral authority in the world, and reintroduce the American Dream to those who have lost all hope.
A brighter day is ahead of us, and you can join us at Students for Barack Obama or at Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign.
Watch this video.
And this one.
Ciro Rodriguez won a stunning upset victory in TX-23 yesterday even after this horrible ad ran there calling him a terrorist sympathizer. This gives Democrats 233 seats in the House of Representatives, to 202 seats for Republicans. This could still change if there is a new election in FL-13. But the point is that Democrats, with 233 seats, hold a larger majority than Republicans ever held during their twelve-year Republican Revolution. So for those pundits that say that this country is still a center-right, conservative country, just realize that Republicans have not held this large a majority in the House of Representatives since 1952. And by the way, of the Democrats' 30 seat pick up this year, only half were in states that Bush won in 2004. Therefore, even without those Red-state Democrats winning this year, Democrats would have a majority in the House of Representatives.
Karen Carter lost her race against corrupt Democrat William Jefferson in LA-02. This is a setback, but we will run another Democrat against him in 2008, and this time, we'll beat him, if he's not already thrown in jail by then.
Dennis Kucinich announced he's running for President again. I think Dennis Kucinich is kind of a nutjob and obviously far too liberal for this country, and as a passionate, hardcore liberal, that's saying a lot. But I support his getting into the race, not his candidacy, but his voice. With Russ Feingold out of the race, there are actually few, if any liberals, running in the Democratic primary this year. Barack Obama, John Edwards, and John Kerry come closest, but they are not down-the-line liberals, really. Dennis Kucinich adds a voice, for single-payer universal health care, for gay marriage, for ending the war in Iraq immediately, that no other candidate in the primaries will advocate. We are a big tent party, and it's necessary that we have all ideas in our debates this year, especially so the Democrat who actually becomes President (God willing) will have heard liberal ideas.
Barack Obama, my personal favorite in the 2008 race, gave a roaring appearance in New Hampshire this weekend. He was on the front page of all local, and most national newspapers, after a speech that gave an inkling of the kind of campaign he would run if he decides to make a bid for the Presidency. You can watch the speech here. By the way, for all those detractors that say that Obama has no pieces of major legislation with his name to it, even in the minority as a freshman Senator, take a look at this.
All of you know how much I love the junior senator from Illinois. Well, the Washington Post wrote a great story today about Barack Obama's absolute coolness (he can even sing well). Check it out. I don't think Barack will run, but I'm hoping he'll change his mind.
Also, if any of you missed Jack Murtha on Meet the Press this morning, check it out too. Murtha is planning to run for majority leader if Democrats take back the House, which I believe they will. I think he'd make a fantastic majority leader: he's exactly what I like in a Democrat, smart, tough, unapologetic, principled, honest, authentic, a straight-shooter, and non-ideological (he's a moderate Dem, I don't just like liberals). If we win back the House, I expect to support Murtha 100% for Majority Leader.
I thought it would be good to take a look at the upcoming landscape for the 2008 Presidential race. I'll update this monthly and hopefully try to keep my personal preferences out of the objective analysis (I love Barack Obama and wish he gets into the race, I am also working for Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana). Here we go:
The Democratic Side
Clearly, Hillary Clinton dominates any analysis of the race, and each candidate in the race will have to work to take her down. In fact, Democratic candidates in this race has a doubly difficult effort -- take down Hillary Clinton and overcome all of the other candidates to look like the best alternative.
Hillary Clinton will start out with enormous advantages (money, establishment support, great staff, a brilliant husband, huge name recognition, rock star status, and a very talented political instinct). She, however, is vulnerable. Hillary's move to the right (actually, I think Senator Clinton has always been more conservative than her critics give her credit for, after all, this woman was a Goldwater girl in 1964, and she was President of the Wellesley College Republicans) will make her extremely vulnerable on the left of the party, among those who are looking for someone who will espouse traditionally liberal Democratic values.
But a candidate coming from the left won't do it alone. Democrats want it all in 2008; they want a Democrat with a spine, someone who will stand up to Republicans, a candidate who can win the general, who inspires, who will be an excellent President, who has experience, and who will leave the Democratic Party in better shape than he/she found it. A candidate who fits this profile will win the nomination.
John Kerry is seriously done with presidential politics. Though he is clearly running for President, he has zero chance of winning as he is registering at about 15% in national primary polls, even though he was our nominee in 2004 and has 100% name recognition. John Kerry, even though he has shown spine with his call for a troop withdrawal by the end of 2006, still cannot shake the flip-flop nature of his political persona.
Tom Daschle, while an exemplary public servant, has no chance of winning the Presidency (he is seriously considering it, as he has made numerous trips to Iowa.
Wesley Clark, a fantastic retired General, does not have the domestic or political credentials necessary to win the nomination.
Russ Feingold, once thought to be the challenge from the left that would give Senator Clinton a run for her money, has appeared recently to be a gadfly in the race. He has recently called for federal gay marriage (a position I wholeheartedly support), a position that will crush him in the general election. Senator Feingold no longer seems serious about being elected President, a sad change of affairs since he is so good at communicating progressive positions. His unelectability will kill him in the nomination fight, though he may gain some netroots support early on that may make him a force in New Hampshire.
This brings us to the serious contenders in the race for President. Many believe that a red state governor is necessary to win the White House, a theory I think is speculative at best. Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Mark Warner, and Evan Bayh all fit this profile. However, many who have heard Tom Vilsack and Bill Richardson speak realize that their ability to communicate to big crowds is inadequate at best. Bill Richardson, a Latino governor of a red state in the Southwest, a swing region, who has enormous foreign policy credentials, would make a formidable Vice-Presidential candidate. Tom Vilsack won't win his home state of Iowa in the primaries, and he will drop out after that.
Mark Warner and Evan Bayh are different. Mark Warner, an extremely popular governor of a red state, has achieved star status in the progressive blogosphere, even though his positions on issues is less than progressive. He is a one-term governor, the only elective office he has ever held, and has no foreign policy experience, and has a very undeveloped understanding of foreign policy. But he is loaded, estimated to be worth $200 million, enough to go head to head with Senator Clinton's estimated fundraising ability.
Evan Bayh has a great story. He was elected five times statewide in a red state, a very red state, that hasn't voted for the Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslides. Bayh has won each election by huge margins and remains immensely popular. He was a popular two-term governor, who has a host of accomplishments to tout, and he has extensive foreign policy experience, being on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees in the Senate. He has a demonstrated fundraising ability; he has $10 million in his bank account now, the thrid highest among Democratic candidates (Kerry has $15 million and Clinton has $20 million). But he has problems, he is a virtual unknown throughout the country and is more likely to get confused with his father, Birch Bayh, who was also an Indiana Senator. He also has very centrist positions on most issues, including abortion, which has angered abortion rights activists. He will need to raise an enormous amount of money, campaign heavily in Iowa and New Hampshire to raise his name recognition, and prove to the left that he is a mainstream Democrat who cares about progressive Democratic values.
Then there is Joe Biden and John Edwards. Joe Biden is a great and brilliant Senator, but he lacks charisma and tends to go on speaking like a professor. He is very smart, understands his crowd extremely well, and can articulate a message better than most Democrats. But he lacks stature. He cannot muster the left or the center, he brings no state to the fold, he lacks executive experience, and he has low name recognition.
John Edwards is a force to be reckoned with. He has very high name i.d. He is a rock star in the Democratic party, registers high in Democratic primary polls, second only to Senator Clinton, is an impressive speaker with a great social justice, pro-labor, anti-poverty message, can raise impressive amounts of money from trial lawyers and labor, and has built up a network in Democratic politics, and has loyal supporters still in Iowa and New Hampshire. He is young and attractive, smart and charismatic, and has already done well in Iowa (he came in second to Kerry with 32% to Kerry's 38% in 2004). If he can raise money, convince Democrats that Senator Clinton is unelectable, and garner the support of the left, he will be a formidable candidate. However, he is a former Senator, and is running from no current office. His relative inexperience may hurt him, and he will need to work overtime to convince the entire party that he is the strongest general election candidate, the strongest liberal, the most courageous partisan, and the best President.
But this all depends on the fortune of Senator Clinton. Many say she is unelectable in the general election. But Senator Clinton is one of the smartest and most talented politicians around. She will no doubt barnstorm through Iowa and New Hampshire and galavanize women, African-Americans, and other Democratic groups. Unless most Demcrats are convinced Senator Clinton is entirely unelectable, not liberal enough, too politically calculating, and would not make a good President.
The only person I can see beating Senator Clinton with little difficulty isn't running. Barack Obama could definitely beat Senator Clinton, yes, but I was actually referring to another Clinton, first name Bill.
Republican nomination outlook coming up tomorrow.
I'd like to thank Or for his arguments in the last post. This is an important debate to have. We need to discuss these issues so that we can choose a nominee in 2008 that reflects our values and our hopes and who is able to lead not only our party to victory but our country into the future. I do not believe Senator Clinton is the person to do that. I have looked to the rest of the primary field and I fail to find an alternative either. Evan Bayh is too cautious, Mark Warner is severely inexperienced, John Kerry is old news, John Edwards lacks gravitas, Wesley Clark is too new to politics, Bill Richardson doesn't inspire, Tom Vilsack is too boring, Tom Daschle is nuts to run, Russ Feingold is creating a perception of radicalism, and Joe Biden has been in the Senate far too long. This does not mean I will not eventually throw my weight behind any of these candidates. One of them will probably be our next president, or at least our nominee; but I fear that we as a party have an opportunity, presented to us by the failed policies of the conservative movement, to do something more than win an election. We have the chance to win in the battleground of ideas. Let me elaborate further.
Democrats are too timid. We lack a spine. There is no reason we shouldn't call for universal pre-school, universal college, universal health care, a balanced budget, and a concerted effort to eliminate poverty in our nation and around the world. Our policies are not unpopular with Americans; they're unpopular with corporations. I have not seen a single poll showing that the American people think that only the rich should get treatment for illness, that only the children of CEO's should go to college and pre-school, that only a few should have the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.
The reason I have called on Senator Obama to run is because he is the only person who I believe deeply cares about and understands these issues and the people affected by them, and the only person I believe has the ability to effectively communicate our values as a party. If this is too early, then maybe Senator Obama will fail. Maybe, like Ronald Reagan, who ran in 1968 after two years as governor, he will run again and again until he wins (Reagan ran again in 1976 and 1980 before being elected to the Presidency). But I am not calling for Senator Obama to run because I want him to eventually be President, I am asking him to run now because we need him to be our President.
Our country is in serious pain. I hear it on my dorm floor. Conservatives scream at me for wanting to kill babies, for destroying religious freedom by allowing deviant homosexuals to marry, for depressing the morale of our troops in Iraq by calling for them to come home, and for wanting to take away the "hard-earned money" of CEO's making $7 million bonuses so that poor kids can go to college. They call me a racist for supporting affirmative action simply as a temporary solution so minorities can seek their potential until we fix our broken educational and economic system. On race, religion, political affiliation, gender, age, sexual orientation, ideology, and nationality, there are enormous divisions in our country. It saddens me that we fail to look to the long-term and address dangerous problems like global warming, anti-Americanism in every continent, growing global poverty, HIV/AIDS, the financial insolvency of Medicare (while Social Security is very solvent for at least three generations, I will post on this later, Medicare will be insolvent in the next decade), the unnerving effects of globalization, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the problem of the uninsured and the undereducated. We need serious leaders committed to tackling these tough issues now, who have strong principles but who are willing to compromise to achieve good ends, who can challenge and inspire our nation to sacrifice a little self-interest for the common good, who will once again make the United States the moral and political leader of the free world, and who will debunk all the myths and lies about politics by demonstrating to the American people that our elected leadership genuinely cares about helping others and serving their communities.
Senator Obama is that man. He is the product of an interracial and international marriage (his father was Kenyan, his mother was Kansan). He used drugs as a teenager and got involved with gangs. But he also went to college (Columbia University) and law school (Harvard, where he was President of the Harvard Law Review, the first African-American in the position) because he worked hard, played by the rules, changed his life around, and believed in the American Dream. He was a practicing Muslim in his youth, and converted to Christianity, and is as devout as any evangelical. He moved to Chicago and New York after law school, not to seek big money, but to help the little guy by being a civil rights lawyer and then creating a voter registration initiative that registered 100,000 people in 1992 in Chicago. He has lived the lives of Americans from all walks of life and understands the issues that we all face. But through all the pain (his father left the country when he was two and Obama never saw him again), he never lost hope; even with a "funny name," this skinny kid is a United States Senator from the Land of Lincoln. In all the poverty that he has seen, he still believes that anyone in America can get ahead. With racism and intolerance subtly permeating every institution in our country, Senator Obama sees a world where African-Americans stop viewing intellectualism as "white" and where white people become better by working with and learning from their black friends. Senator Obama is the embodiment of the American character and the country needs him to lead.
Or makes good points about the political ramifications of Senator Obama's age and experience in comparison to other "lucky" Presidents like Wilson and Carter. But the winds are changing, and Senator Obama has only beaten the odds and pulled major upsets (he was running fourth in the Dmeocratic primary polls in Illinois until the primary and won a decisive majority in a large field). Senator Obama, even before the GOP changed candidates and the sex scandal with Jack Ryan came out, was ahead of his opponent by 22 points, before he was well-known. Senator Obama stuns people; he stuns me. I still believe in an America that challenges the conventional wisdom, embodied by Charlie Cook (whom I think is brilliant), and surprises the world. We have a choice in our party in 2008; do we want to win an election, do we want to defeat the Republicans, do we want to govern effectively, or do we want to change the world for the better? I want to do all of these things, and I strongly believe that there is no one in our party better suited than Senator Obama to accomplish them.
Maybe it is too early for Senator Obama, and maybe he will fail. But maybe he won't, and maybe we will see an America again that amazes us all, and makes us believe in miracles again.
Like most Democrats, I'm an enormous fan of Barack Obama. I want him to be President. But I don't think Obama should run in 2008. Adam's right in that race is more an asset than a liability for Obama. However, I have a few problems with his argument about age, and completely disagree with his argument about experience. Finally, Adam leaves something important out of the equation: opposition.
Let's start with the section on age. Obama is definitely not physically too young to be president. However, in politics, actual age matters a lot less than perception of age. Kennedy was a young president, Clinton was not. The three years didn't make a difference; Kennedy was just "youthful." Similarly, Edwards was a young candidate. It doesn't matter at all that he was 51; the same youthful good looks that made certain people on the GUCD board fall head over heels for Edwards made sure that everyone saw him as a young guy. Of course, a good campaign can define the candidate as whatever age it wants to, but it takes a considerable amount of effort to redefine a "young" candidate as "seasoned." With that said, Obama's age is not an insurmountable obstacle, and with some effort, he can make his youth work for him strategically. However, it's not the non-issue Adam makes it out to be.
Next, let's talk about experience. The past presidents section is nice, but by only counting raw time as an elected official, it's missing a lot. I'll go through these guys one by one:
Wilson: Sure, he won election after being governor for only two years... with less than 42% of the vote. Wilson had the distinction of facing not one, but two serious Republican contenders for President. I'm sure Obama would win if, say, McCain and Frist both ran in the general election. Too bad that's not going to happen. Also, Wilson was a governor, and as we all know, being a governor is a lot better than being a senator if you want to win an election for President. There's a world of difference between being one of 100 legislators and being an executive, not to mention the contradictory morass you generally have to get yourself into in order to be an effective senator. This is going to be a recurring theme.
I'd like to take the time to argue my case that Senator Barack Obama is the right man to be President come Janurary 20th, 2009. All of my Democratic friends, including many in GUCD maintain that Senator Obama is too young, too inexperienced, and too black to be President of the United States. As we heard from Charlie Cook a few weeks ago, Barack Obama would not even theoretically jump into the 2008 race. This is a mistake. Senator Obama should run and this is why:
1. Barack Obama has more than enough experience and he is not too young to be President. If inaugurated on January 20th, 2009, President Obama would be 47 years old. Sounds young, right? Well, actually not. He would be older than Bill Clinton (46), John F. Kennedy (43), Teddy Roosevelt (42), and Ulysses S. Grant (46), all of whom are generally regarded as above average presidents. For all those who supported Senator John Edwards for President in 2004, upon inauguration, Senator Edwards would have been 51 years old (I doubt that 4 years adds much to a person in preparation for the Presidency). Senator Obama also will have more experience in elected office than a number of Presidents. Having served eight years in the Illinois State Senate and what will be four years in the U.S. Senate upon inauguration in 2009, Senator Obama has more experience than Ronald Reagan (eight years as governor), George W. Bush (six years as governor), Jimmy Carter (four years in the Georgia state senate and four years as governor), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (two years in the New York state senate and four years as governor), Dwight D. Eisenhower (no elected experience), Woodrow Wilson (two years as governor), and many other Presidents. To say that Senator Obama is too young or too inexperienced to be President suggests that all the great young and inexperienced Presidents listed above should never have been President.
2. For those that want to defeat Senator Clinton in the primary for a number of reasons (she can't win, she is too conservative, she won't make a good president, she will divide the country), Senator Obama is the only person who can easily beat Senator Clinton. Take a look at this Quinnipiac poll measuring the feelings of Americans toward Senator Obama in comparison to other well-known elected officials:
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain are the hottest figures in a Quinnipiac University national 'Thermometer' survey, in which almost 1,900 voters rate their feelings about national leaders.
The two Republican presidential front-runners and Sen. Obama, who is not yet on the '08 guess list, are more warmly received than Sen. Hillary Clinton and other contenders. The independent poll asked voters to rate leaders from 0 to 100 on a "feeling thermometer," with the highest numbers reflecting the warmest feelings.
The top 10 mean scores are:
(1) Rudolph Giuliani.........................63.5
(2) Barack Obama.............................59.9
(3) John McCain..............................59.7
(4) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice......57.1
(5) President Bill Clinton...................56.1
(6) Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards..50.8
(7) Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.........50.7
(8) New York Sen. Hillary Clinton............50.4
(9) Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.............49
(10) Virginia Sen. George Allen...............48.6President George W. Bush is at 44.1 and Vice President Dick Cheney gets 41.
Think about that! Senator Obama, who does not have 100% name recognition around the country has the second highest rating, above John McCain, President Clinton, and Senator Clinton. The people that know Senator Obama love him and as he becomes more well-known, more will come to love him too. There is not a single Democrat I've met who doesn't love Senator Obama, and many I speak to can't stand Hillary Clinton. I have no personal dislike for Senator Clinton, who is a great Senator and leader in our party, but Senator Obama clearly has the support of national Democrats and of all voters nationwide. If we're looking for someone to beat John McCain, this national thermometer shows that Senator Obama, while not as famous as Senator McCain, is more popular.
There are also those that say that a black man can't win the Presidency. Well, according to SurveyUSA's latest survey of all 100 US Senators shows Senator Obama is the fourth most popular Senator in the US Senate and the second most popular Senate Democrat in his mostly white, moderate, Midwestern state, with 70% of the state approving of his job performance. In fact, 68% of white voters, 69% of seniors, 57% of conservatives, 76% of moderates, 49% of Republicans, 69% of Independents, 60% of pro-life voters, 67% of regular church-goers, 73% of suburban Chicago voters, and 63% of downstate rural Illinois voters approve of Senator Obama. As one can see, Senator Obama has broad-based support across Illinois, transcending racial, partisan, ideological, religious, and geographic lines. In comparison, Senator McCain has only 67% of white voters in his mostly white, much more conservative state of Arizona, approving of his job performance, with 64% of all Arizona voters approving of his job performance. Senator John Kerry, a white Senator in the much more liberal Massachusetts, has only 52% of white voters approving of his job. For those that argue that Senator Obama can't win an election because he is African-American, just look at the numbers. Senator Obama can win both the primary and the general election.
3. Senator Obama is the right man to be President. He is charming, charismatic, smart, thoughtful, and has an enormous record of accomplishments. As an Illinois state Senator, he created Illinois' Earned Income Tax Credit, moving the working poor out of poverty, he expanded early childhood education, giving all Illinoisans the opportunity to get ahead, and he passed legislation that increased safeguards for capital cases to prevent the use of capital punishment on falsely-convicted inmates. In the US Senate, he has continued to push for important issues including taking the lead on preventing a catastrophic avian flu pandemic in the US and working on nuclear nonproliferation issues in the former Soviet Union with Richard Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has even cosponsored a bill to provide full disclosure of federal appropriations with Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, an extremely conservative Senator. Senator Obama has tackled tough issues with enormous diligence and thoughfulness and has the ability to reach across our nation's divides and unite our country and inspire us to be the great beacon of liberty we should be. If you really want to know why Senator Obama should be our next President, just listen to his 2004 Democratic convention speech; it is the best speech I've ever heard and I challenge anyone to show me a better written and better delivered speech. Watch it here.
If you guys disagree, write comments, but I am putting in my vote of support for a Barack Obama run in 2008. Run, Barack, run!
read more...