Lobbyists and ....

I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, November 10, 2007

All candidates talk about taking on the lobbyists. They claim to oppose lobbyists' influence over Washington and loudly and proudly talk about not take money from lobbyists. But what really happens when the camera and lights go off? The facts have been reported on the internet but in very large part, the MSM has virtually ignored this issue. You decide:

the Illinois Democrat's policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.

Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.

snip ...

Some of the most influential players, lawyers and consultants among them, skirt disclosure requirements by merely advising clients and associates who do actual lobbying, and avoiding regular contact with policymakers. Obama's ban does not cover such individuals.

snip ...

In Tallahassee, Obama held a fundraiser attended by several statehouse lobbyists, taking checks from lobbyists for trial attorneys, the insurance industry, fast-food chains and sugar cane growers. State and federal issues often are related, as noted by the law firm Akerman Senterfitt, whose Florida-based members donated $7,000 to Obama. On its website, Akerman notes it combines Tallahassee connections with "an involved federal political action committee" to provide its clients "with an enviable level of access."

snip ...

On May 2, Obama is scheduled to attend a $2,300-per-ticket breakfast 10 blocks from the Capitol. The hosts include 22 lawyers. Although they are not federal lobbyists, three in the past have been registered lobbyists; they all work at firms that have Washington lobbying operations or hire outside lobbying firms to contact lawmakers. ... One lawyer co-hosting the Obama event has represented companies fending off litigation over toxic waste cleanup, and another represents employers on affirmative action requirements, force reduction and early retirement programs, their firms' websites say.

- An Asterisk To Obama's Policy On Donations, Dan Morain; Los Angeles Times; Apr 22, 2007; A.1

So, is it only a matter of semantics, or is it more of the same? "I don't take money from lobbyists," only from the lawyers that represent them and their corporate interests. Is this a distinction without a difference? If a candidate or Senator is willing to mingle with, to lend an ear, to accept large sums of money from those in DC and the 50 states who represent lobbyists, and large corporate and monied interests, then what do words really mean?

Maybe its all about truly ignoring lobbyist influence and not allowing money and lobbyists to influence legislative agendas. That would be a good thing. You decide:

Away from the bright lights and high-minded rhetoric of the campaign trail, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has quietly worked with corporate lobbyists to help pass breaks worth $12 million.

In his speeches, Obama has lambasted lobbyists and moneyed interests who "have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play."

"It's an entire culture in Washington -- some of it legal, some of it not," the Democratic hopeful told a New York crowd in June, rallying support for his ethics reform agenda.

But last year, at the request of a hired representative for an Australian-owned chemical corporation Nufarm, Obama introduced nine separate bills exempting the company from import fees on a range of chemical ingredients it uses in the manufacture of pesticides and herbicides. Nufarm's U.S. subsidiary is based in Illinois.

- The Blotter: Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists' Interests; Justin Rood; ABCNews.com; July 6, 2007

But, Obama responds that he was really only helping his constituents in Illinois. He was simply making those foreign products from NuFarm more available and cheaper for his constituents. Now, that sounds good, working hard on Capitol Hill for local constituents. But, then reality sets in:

In a statement to ABC News defending the measures, Obama's spokesman echoed Junker's argument.
"Just like he fought for funding to ensure Chicago's transit system remains affordable and to invest in ethanol research, Senator Obama helped keep costs low for Illinois residents by helping them get the goods they need to do their jobs," Ben LaBolt wrote.

But the company's financial reports indicate that may not be the case. In a glowing financial report issued just two months after Obama introduced Nufarm's numerous tariff-lifting bills, Nufarm told its shareholders it was making more money than ever before in North America because it had increased its prices on its U.S. and Canadian customers, predominantly farmers.

Nufarm saw "strong revenue growth" in North America, it said in a July 31, 2006, company report. "Net profit was also up strongly," driven in part by "price rises on key products," it said. Nufarm trades on the Australian Stock Exchange.

- The Blotter: Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists' Interests; Justin Rood; ABCNews.com; July 6, 2007

And, what about lobbyists and monied influence and protecting the environment? That's a key issue in the current campaign, right. Against lobbyist influence, and pro-environmental reform? You decide:

However, the Illinois senator's stance on pending legislation and his adviser's ties to the mining industry are raising questions in a state where mining is an economic engine in rural areas. Democrats will vote in presidential caucuses Jan. 19, and Obama's position could help him against rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, who have not taken a clear position on the bill.

snip ...

The General Mining Law of 1872 allows the mining industry to pull gold, silver and other minerals from federal lands without paying royalties. The industry opposes changes to the law and several efforts to reform it have failed.

A House-passed bill would impose a royalty of 4 percent of gross revenue on existing hard-rock mining operations and 8 percent of gross revenue on new mining operations. The reform bill also would put new environmental controls on hard-rock mining, set up a cleanup fund for abandoned mines and permanently ban cheap sales of public lands for mining.

Obama said the legislation, favored by environmentalists, "places a significant burden on the mining industry and could have a significant impact on jobs." He also opposes the proposed fees.

Obama's statements are largely in line with the those of Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, a miner's son who has long fended off significant reform and defended the industry as critical to the rural West. Nevada is the largest gold-producing state in the nation and ranks behind only South Africa, Australia and China internationally.

Vassiliadis, a longtime Nevada power broker, is a member of Obama's Nevada steering committee and has contributed $2,300 to his campaign. He is a lobbyist for the Nevada Mining Association at the state level and the chief executive of the advertising and lobbying firm hired by two mining companies to lobby for them in Washington.

Denver-based Newmont Mining Co., one of the world's largest gold producers, hired Las Vegas-based R&R Partners' Washington, D.C. office in January. The firm has represented silver and gold miner Coeur d'Alene Mines Corp., in Washington since 2006.

Obama-Mining Lobbyist Ties Scrutinized; WJLA-TV; November 14, 2007

Monied influence seeps from political campaigns. That includes Obama's and his opponent's. Actions and facts belie public speeches and the oft-stated position that lobbyists will not influence actions.

To Embargo or Not to Embargo, That is the Obama Question

In the past, Obama has repeatedly stated that he opposes or would end the U.S. Cuban embargo. His position, at least in the past, has been based on principle, to help the Cubans, and because it has not worked. He has described it as a failed policy of the past. I agree with that position. He has also said he would meet with the Cuban leader without precondition:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said at tonight’s CNN debate in Austin that he would be willing to meet immediately with Cuba's new leader, Raul Castro. But Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she would not.

In fact, Obama broadly extended his policy of being willing to meet with dictators without preconditions, while Clinton holds the more traditional position that a U.S. president should hold such negotiations only after extensive groundwork has been done.

“Not just in Cuba, but I think this principle applies generally,” Obama said. “I recall what John F. Kennedy once said: We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.

In January 2004, he stated:




In 2003, when running for Senate in Illinois, Obama stated:

in 2003, while running for a Senate seat, Obama filled out a questionnaire saying he favored normalized relations with Cuba without any qualifiers.

His position was clear, honest, and fresh.

Now, when speaking before Cuban-Americans this week, Obama flipped his position. CBS reports:

Sen. Barack Obama, who once said he would meet Cuban leader Raul Castro without preconditions, added Friday he would do so "only when we have an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States and to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people."

Any meeting would occur "at a time and place of my choosing," the likely Democratic presidential nominee told an audience of Cuban-Americans that applauded his remarks.

He said he would maintain the existing trade embargo to use as leverage for winning Democratic change in the Communist island-nation.

TPM also raised the issue recently:

I asked a serious person, Susan Rice, what she thought of our US-Cuba policy on a recent Obama campaign conference call. I respect Rice who is on leave from Brookings now while advising the Obama campaign. However, her response on the embargo seemed the same kind of triangulation on the issue that a calculating political cynic might offer -- not a campaign ready to crash through cynicism and more optimistically rewire and redraw the lines of how we think about U.S. foreign policy challenges.

I asked Rice if Obama -- who has been the most progressive among the three standing presidential candidates on US-Cuba policy -- would at least go back to the 'status quo' during the Bush administration in 2003. Before Bush tightened up the noose on Cuban-American family travel, remittances, and other exchanges, there was quite a bit of "non-tourist" travel to Cuba -- usually for educational and cultural reasons.

Rice's response was "no." She said that those kinds of openings for non-tourist travel would depend on Cuba having "fair and free elections", releasing political prisoners, adherence to human rights conventions, and the like.

This is out of the playbook of Republican Congresspersons Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the Diaz-Balart brothers of South Florida.

Now, what could be the reason for Obama's change in opinion, policy or principle? What is going through his mind that he would abandon a principled position so utterly and completely? From my perspective its political pandering pure and simple; the basest form of politics. After abandoning FL and its voters for months now, after repeatedly telling Floridians their votes don't count in the Democratic primary, Obama now must face his music and the facts: the fact that he needs FL in the fall if he is nominated; the fact that the voters in Florida do count and they do vote; the fact that now that he thinks he is getting close to nomination and a general election, he knows he must carry FL. And, he knows he needs the large Cuban-American population to do so. So, he abandons principle, and panders voters. The same pandering and the same old political nuance he claims to disdain.

The "Rules"

Many of us out here talk about the Democratic Party Delegate Selection "Rules." But, how many of us who talk about them have actually read them, especially those who condemn Hillary Clinton for making her stand in state after state. You can find them here: DNC Delegate Selection Rules

Despite many loud claims to the contrary in the media and from Clinton opponents:

1. There is no Rule "agreed to" by the candidates, but there is a Rule imposed by the party which prohibits a candidate from campaigning in a state that violates the early primary rule: Rule 20.C.1.b. Candidates did sign a pledge not to campaign in FLA and MI, including television ads.

2. There is also evidence that Obama may have violated that pledge or Rule: Obama's national television ad plays in Florida.

3. The DNC Rules do not call for or mandate a complete loss of delegates for holding an early primary; they call for a 50% reduction in delegates and alternates: Rule 20.C.1.a and 20.C.4. (Yes, I realize the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may choose to impose greater sanctions: Rule 20.C.5.)

4. Even if a state changes the democratic primary date to an impermissible early date, according to the "Rules" that state should not suffer any penalty at all if it is shown that the change was a result of a "state law" and that the Democratic leaders took all positive steps and acted in good faith to oppose that change in state law moving the primary date: Rule 20.C.7.

Of course we all know that the Florida State Legislature is 2-1 Republican and that it has a Republican Governor (Jeb Bush). Let me know how the Dems were supposed to stop the maneuver by the Republican majority to move the date to an impermissible date.

5. You will also find among the party "Rules" many are fond of talking about that any ruling or decision by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (the committee which chose to impose the death penalty on Michigan and Florida voters) may be appealed to the National Convention in Denver. In other words it is provided for in the "Rules" to challenge any ruling by the committee, including its decision to disenfranchise the FLA and MI voters. It is the Convention that is the final rule maker. Rule 23.D.

6. You will see nothing in the "Rules" which calls for ignoring the popular vote as an indicator of a candidates support.

7. You should also know that Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot; and, he did so in a blatant (albeit successful) attempt to pander to the voters in Iowa (and notice the dates on these articles):
Michigan, Iowa and the Games the Politicos Play
Off the ballot in Michigan

There simply is no DNC rule that a candidate must remove their name from the ballot in a state with an impermissible early primary or caucus. So of those so inclined, yell all you want that Obama wasn't on the ballot so we can't count the votes in Michigan. The "rules" do not support your, pardon me, Obama's, position. In an act of political pandering Obama chose to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. It is fair to say then that he must live with his decisions, good or bad in the end, after all he is running for the presidency. Because he voluntarily chose to remove his name from the ballot due to political pandering that fact certainly should not be used to support an argument that Michigan voters should be disenfranchised. Obama did it to himself.

8. People can accuse Clinton all thay want about the rules, but I believe it is the height of hypocrisy for anyone to run a self-styled campaign of "inclusion" and then turn around and say "don't count the votes."

Hillary Clinton will follow the Rules as they were written and adopted. And, just like Obama, she will use the ones that help her case. She won't ignore the Rules or break them; she will use them, just like Obama. Now that the Rules are known, Obama's arguments seem to be less genuine and much more political.

Although "Clumsy," Obama's Remarks Are a Critical Democratic Issue

Obama's word choice was clumsy, as he stated himself, there is no doubt about that. And while I do not believe that an apology is required, his remarks indicate political pandering to an audience very much unlike the subjects of his words. Pandering is politics, you can't please everyone all the time, and often words are used to get votes, this is Washington politics and Obama is not above it and employs it on a regular basis.

But the conversation about his remarks needs to be steered away from the controversy, and towards Obama's underlying intentions with the statement. He clumsily brought up a critical voting bloc issue that has plagued the Democrats for the past few election cycles: the so-called "values voters" voting Republican. These are the working-class, predominantly white voters that have given their allegiance to the Republican party of late. As Dan Schur astutely points out in a New York Times op-ed , these blue-collar Americans routinely "cast their ballots on social and values-based issues like gun ownership, abortion and same-sex marriage rather than on economic policy prescriptions." Democratic presidential candidates have been vexed as to why this is, and I think Obama was addressing this phenomenon because it is something that needs to be tackled if the Dems are to win the White House. They have to convert these former Reagan Democrats. It is a must for them to convince these voters to not vote solely on gun rights, immigration, and religion, and to win them back Obama and Clinton must appeal to their economic needs.

As the aforementioned NY Times Op-ed suggests, the manner in which Obama discussed the matter was ill-conceived, however. The words "cling" and "bitter" connote an air of elitist thought over these voters. Whereas the environmentally sensitive, pro-choice, pro-stem cell, pro-tax upper class San Franciscan Democrat is lauded for his open-mindedness and financial selflessness, a rural Pennsylvanian who "clings" to guns and xenophobic grudges, his vote must be justified for some reason, to be written off as simply "bitterness" over economic hardships. As Schur points out, it is a double standard to "diminish these cultural beliefs as a byproduct of economic discomfort." Their vote is as thought out as their San Franciscan counterpart, and to insinuate that their vote requires some justification is ill-advised if you are seeking to win their vote.

To finish, I don't believe Obama was intentionally being insensitive, but I do understand those that were upset with the comments. He was addressing an important Democratic issue for the fall, one that both candidates must win in order to reclaim the White House.

The Iraq Stategy

What we learned today from the New York Sun:

A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

According to the Sun, Colin Kahl, the author of the confidential paper, is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign's working group on Iraq.

Keeping between 60,000 and 80,000 American troops means that we will be keeping half of our current troop levels in Iraq under Kahl's plan.

To be fair, Mr. Kahl stated that the paper did not express the campaign's position. But, what is the Obama campaign's actual position on Iraq. If his main adviser on Iraq advocates keeping up to 80,000 American troops in Iraq until the end 2010, then what will Obama do if he is elected? Throw out his adviser, change stated policies, or more likely, keep his current policy which does seem to allow for what Kahl advocates. The Sun article also reminds us that during the Iowa campaign. Obama stated that he was not opposed to having American troops remain in Iraq to train Iraqi military forces, and that he would remove combat troops but would keep a residual force of American troops in Iraq.

His campaign web site under "Bringing our Troops Home" indicates that he does intend on keeping what might be called residual troops in Iraq.

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

But, it doesn't say how many or for how long. Does Kahl's confidential paper reveal some unstated specifics of the Obama strategy for Iraq? If it does, is it a good plan? If residual American troops remain in Iraq, what will happen if the insurgency attempts to draw them into the Iraqi civil war? How will we keep them from remaining targets for insurgent attacks?

Dean Offers Hope To Enfranchise Floridians

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has not figure out a resolution to the electoral debacle that once again is Florida. But he has offered hope.

"It is our intention to do everything we can and we believe we will absolutely seat the delegation from Florida at the convention," Dean said. But, he added, it's "critical'' that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are ‘‘comfortable with the compromises that have to be worked out."

So, basically the situation has not changed, but there is at least movement on the ground to seat the Florida people's voices at the convention in some fashion, and this is a positive step in the nomination process. It would be an egregious injustice if these delegates are not seated. Dean has pointed out that is now up to the candidates to compromise on a resolution to this debacle, and it is going to be interesting to see how both approach the situation as we get closer to June, if the race is still as close or even closer than it is now. From Dean's comments, it seems that Florida will be seated, but the effect that this will have is still unclear, and the manner in which the delegation is seated rests in the candidates' hands.

Is The Tide Turning In The Media?

Lou Dobbs, with whom I rarely agree, seems to have gotten it right. In strongly worded comments he recognizes and acknowledges the inherent unfairness in the national mass media treatment of Clinton when it comes to the delegate count and each respective candidate's ability to win the nomination.

He recognizes the media's overt fondness for saying that Hillary cannot win, while ignoring that Obama also cannot win enough delegates. He points out the media's "compulsion, this insistence" that Clinton cannot win when "neither can Senator Obama."

The media has allowed the Obama campaign to frame the issue, to write the script, and to prematurely write-off Clinton. But, maybe, just maybe, the media is finally realizing that it has been taken for a ride, and that it has been ridden by Obama like a wet horse. That the media has become Obama's mouthpiece on this issue of carrying the nomination. Well, maybe it's about to end and people will realize that the numbers are the numbers, and the rules are the rules.

Who Has The Numbers

I have hesitated to write another post about the Democratic Primary, but too much hot air is being blown by too many party big wigs and mass media lately about how Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race. These party big wigs cite two reasons for their somewhat self-serving declarations: one, that the primary battle is bad for the party's chances in November, and two, that the delegate numbers are against Hillary.

The delegate numbers may be against Hillary, but, those same numbers are also against Obama. The simple fact is that neither Obama nor Clinton currently has enough delegate votes to win the nomination and neither will have enough next week, or next month, or in June. Neither Clinton nor Obama has been able to convince enough voters or caucus goers to take a majority of delegates, and neither will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination by the time this primary season is over in early June.

Just as important, from all accounts, this extended race is bringing in many,many new voters to the Democratic Party in PA, which bodes extremely well for our party and our country come November.  

Yes, Obama currently leads in pledged delegates (but it is well-know that he will not carry enough to Denver to win), and he leads in the so-called popular vote. But, by how much. According to RealClearPolitics, his current lead is less than 3% if you do not count FL or MI. If you count FL then his lead dwindles to 1.4%. (Yes, I will count FL for two simple reasons, it is the right thing to do and the DNC's ruling only strips delegates not the popular vote. Floridians count as much as any other people in the popular vote, and more so in November as a swing state).   

It also looks more and more likely that Clinton will close, and perhaps overtake some of the present pledged delegate and popular vote gap with expected primary victories in PA, KY, WV and PR, and maybe IN.

And, Clinton leads in electoral votes, which are what counts in the general election.

 

Both Obama and Clinton will need a lot of so-called superdelegate votes to win the nomination, and both are campaigning for them.  It is totally legitimate for both to do so.  Those are also the rules.   

So, let's just all relax. Let's not be afraid of the process and the voters. Let's welcome all those new voters and new Dems. Let's not be afraid. Let's continue.

Evenly Split

There are even more poll numbers showing that the Dems are evenly split, and I mean right down the middle. Rasmussen reports that among Democrats, 22% want Clinton to drop out of the race, and 22% want Obama to drop out. Also, in an indication that at least Democrats want this to go on, 67% say they are not ready for the race to end.

So, where does that leave us?

It's simply too easy to say that either candidate should drop out. In my opinion, the media and the pundits have all too often called a race over when fewer than 1% of the party members have voted, right after the IA and NH caucus and primary, maybe waiting until after SC. But, the people, at least Democrats, are speaking now, let us vote too, and it's about time the media settled down and let the voters vote.

In this day and age with a dozen cable news channels frantic to find something to say 24 hours a day, 7 days a week it has become almost impossible for any candidate to speak candidly. Their words are taken out of context, their mistatements become lies, their gaffes become headline news for several days, and their policy statements garner little more than a short article in the paper, or a few seconds on the nightly news. And, both Democratic candidates fuel this problem with the media. They pander to the press, slipping photos to reporters, irrationally emailing so-called news about the other candidate to the media, eagerly and constantly exaggerating the perceived errors of the other candidate.

It's no wonder other polls temporily show people claiming to want to jump from the party. In the end, McCain should lose much of that thin, very thin, current support.

That's not to say that during the heat of a campaign a candidate should not point out the other's mistakes, engage in argument, call -out her/his opponent on issues that matter, and even on their character. Those are all legitimate issues for the candidates and the voters. And, the Rasmussen poll numbers showing that 67% of us want this race to continue indicates that Democratic voters agree. But the level of drama over disagreements about things like Democratic party rules, whether elevated by a willing 24 hour a day media out for ratings, by unwitting (or witting) candidate accomplices, or by lowly supporters, should be tamped down before the alienation becomes permanent.

Democratic Infighting Could Spell November Disaster

Do Democrats really want John McCain as their future President? Do they want, as Barack Obama has dramatically put it, "four more years of George W. Bush?" The latest polling seems to suggest that the intense Obama-Clinton race, with the media coverage feverishly playing up only the negative aspects, has become a bloodbath between both the candidates, and, more importantly their supporters. It has produced a kind of bitterness that surely only aids McCain's pursuit of the White House. The latest Gallup Poll shows some startling figures:

28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain over Obama, while 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Clinton.

What is going on here??

If you are a hard-nosed, yellow-dog Democrat it borders on lunacy to abandon your party and either vote for John McCain, or ignore the voting booth altogether. What good does that do? Again, as I have stated before, Obama and Clinton are glaringly similar on policy, and I would think that (call me naive) most fair-minded Democrats would rather see a Clinton or Obama White House than a McCain one. At any cost. Myself being more of a moderate, independent voter, a McCain presidency is not the end of the world for me, but to see these rank and file Democrats polling like this is surprising to say the least. These are significant percentages, and could hand McCain victory.

I do want to stress that these are just polls in March, in the heat of the battle, and that of course things will be different come September. But these numbers should not be cast aside entirely, for they serve to highlight the growing divisiveness of this contest as it drags on. Hatred is brewing between the two camps, and although I believe that much will be reconciled by November (quite possibly by a shared ticket to appease both camps), if even a small percentage of Democrats stay home or pull the lever for McCain, in the tight contest I believe the general election will be, those votes will matter and could decide the outcome.

Clinton has vowed to stay in the race through the end of primary season, which means another two and a half months at least. And while I believe it is well within her rights to see how some key midwestern primaries shape out and to see the end result of the Michigan-Florida debacle, her commitment to the cause means the bitterness will only grow stronger and could push right up to the convention in August. This will leave the Democratic Party with precious little time to launch a general election campaign to thwart the Republican machine. Let's hope both candidates run a civil and noble campaign focused on the issues from here on out, and that embittered Democratic voters do not trade in their values for pride in November.

Obama Campaign Leaks Bill Clinton-Reverend Wright Photo

I had mentioned in an earlier post the inevitability of Barack Obama succumbing to "the real world of Washington politics," and that he would eventually go negative. Well he has done just that. Late yesterday, the above photo of President Clinton and the now infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright shaking hands was provided to the NY Times by the Obama campaign. The shot was taken at a 1998 annual prayer breakfast at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, where Bill Clinton addressed a group of high-profile clerics, outlining his affair with Lewinsky and confessing his sins.

Why, oh why, would Obama release this photograph at this time? Perhaps to divert attention away from the Wright mess he brought on himself? What is he saying here, that Hillary Clinton should be subject to the same ridicule over Mr. Wright that Obama has? Just because the Clintons invited him to this prayer breakfast? Come on. That is weak, and reflects so poorly on Barack. It shows vulnerability in the face of the first big challenge of his campaign. There can be no other explanation for releasing the photo than to play negative politics. No other reason. And what is funny is that it is not even good negative politics, how does this hurt Hillary? I don't see how. The American people are not going to fall for this ill-advised tactic, and I hope Obama gets some flak for it. Alluding to a prior post, is Obama abandoning his promise of "no negative attacks?" I think he is on a slippery slope, and if he falters then his campaign is running on an idea of nothing. No change, just same old, same old. Clinton spokesman Jay Carson put it best by saying:

"The Obama campaign put this photo out? How pathetic. Less than 48 hours after calling for a high-minded conversation on race, the Obama campaign is peddling photos of an occasion when President Clinton shook hands with Rev. Wright. To be clear, President Clinton took tens of thousands of photos during his 8 years as president."

I fully agree with the Clinton camp, and I believe America will as well. Weak, Obama... weak.

McCain Takes Fallible Stance For Facing The Blues

McCain finally got back in the headlines by suspending a staffer today for posting a video about Obama and his pastor Wright. Apparently aired on YouTube, the video implied that Obama was somehow unpatriotic and included the now recognizable clips of the Reverend's sermons.

What is interesting here though, is not the scandal of the video, but the stance that McCain is taking. He is touting, publicly, that he will not engage in personal attacks with Democrats. Does he expect us to forget his campaign against Mitt Romney. Granted, Obama and Clinton are distracting enough but you cannot imagine the people who are truly passionate about politics to forget the heated debates where Huckabee pleaded to be heard with comments such as: "I didn't come here to umpire a ballgame between these two [McCain and Romney]... I came to take a swing at a few myself."

I do not think this is an attempt to gain media attention; he did the right thing to refute his staffer's opinions. I do think that he his choosing his words a little too carefully. We have seen him succumb to personal attacks before so why would that be different when he is facing opponents that aren't even a part of his own party? It seems like he might be trapping himself.

No one should ever intentionally say things meant only to hurt feelings or point out baseless flaws, but occasionally there are aspects of a person's life that should be highlighted in order to get a better view of the whole picture. By promising not to use personal comments in debate, he may be gaining some short term publicity and respect for his ethical decisions, but he will be limiting himself in the future at best, and at worst, he will be condemned as a hypocrite. This is a lofty strategy and one that could come back to haunt him.

Clinton Tops Polls; Still Faces Uphill Battle

In the latest Gallup Poll, Senator Clinton has taken a sizeable advantage over Senator Obama. Clinton took her first lead in the weekly poll since Super Tuesday, with Democratic voters now handing her a 49% to 42% edge over Obama. In another poll, Clinton has more than doubled her lead to 16 points in Pennsylvania, 51% to 35%.

Is this due to the Reverend Wright episode? While we may never be completely sure, it is a telling statistic that the week Obama faces his first wave of scrutiny of his past or the people he associates himself with, he slides dramatically in a national popular poll. At the same time, we should keep in mind that these polls were taken before Obama's response speech on Tuesday. Even so, Obama's surge to front-runner status has been viewed by observers like me with skepticism and bewilderment, and both the Wright fiasco and these polls perhaps indicate that some Americans are feeling tentative about nominating a politician with which they have precious little history. This is Obama's first negative press, and while I think he handled it sufficiently, I do believe it proves that he could be susceptible to harsh attacks in the general election, and his slipping in the polls may put question to his electability.

Things have looked brighter for Clinton of late, and although she has widened her leads in PA and US polls, she still has a mountain to climb. The New York Times notes that Clinton needs "three breaks" to take the nomination from front-runner Obama. She absolutely must defeat Obama soundly in Pennsylvania, we are talking by at least 15 points if not more. The above poll definitely boosts confidence for Clinton's campaign on this note. Second, and with much more difficulty, she needs to come to the Convention in Denver with a lead in the national popular vote. Let's face it, she is not going to make up the pledged delegate deficit, so count that out. But having a lead in the popular vote will make her case to be the nominee much more credible. Finally, The Times states that she must win over the hearts and minds of superdelegates.

For her efforts in trying to seat Michigan and Florida's delegates, the Obama campaign will go on portraying Clinton as a politician who will do "anything to win", which is the Obama camp playing Washington politics at its finest. I have been disheartened to see Obama ducking the issue with generic responses like "we will play by the rules" and will do "whatever the DNC proposes to seat these delegates," yet castigating Clinton for her attempts to enfranchise these voices. Obama is playing the way he needs to play to win, and so is Clinton. You cannot tell me that if the situation were reversed, that Obama would not be lobbying day in and day out for those votes to count. Let's be real people. Clinton needs these votes to cut into both his delegate lead, and more importantly, his popular vote lead. So what she is doing is perfectly normal. If FL and MI are not counted, she has what seems to be an insurmountable hill to climb.

It’s Not Guilt By Association; It’s Guilt By Participation

Yes, we can all agree that Obama gave a very impassioned speech on race in America. In many, if not most, respects he is right. The American experience revolves around race, for all of us. For asking us to look at those issues, he should be thanked. It was a very good speech. Especially when taken out of the primary presidential campaign context. Obama would be much more believable on the issue if he had made this speech at the beginning of his campaign; if he had acknowledged that race was an issue in his campaign early on, instead of repeatedly denying that fact. In this speech made toward the end of the primary campaign, he finally admits that race is, and always has been, an issue for him and his community, much as it has been for most citizens of this great country.

But, did Obama actually address the real issue before him and those of us who must choose the nominee of our party, or the next president; the issue of the hateful, divisive, ugly words and ideas professed many, many, times by his pastor, his self-admitted spiritual advisor for these past twenty plus years, for virtually his entire adult life.

I do not believe he did.

The fact is that Obama made this speech, at this moment, out of political necessity, not out of any moral imperative. He saw his support falling dramatically over the past week, and he knew that he had to change course, to take on an issue that he had before publicly chosen to ignore. And, while that certainly does not mean he was insincere in most of what he said; it does mean that he saw a political reality, so he changed his mind. I am convinced that he would not have made a similar speech if he had not been confronted by public disclosure of the hateful divisive language uttered by his pastor, at least not during the campaign.

He did artfully and impressively manage to change the issue from that of anti-American hateful religious rhetoric to one solely about race. I will not repeat what Wright told his congregation on all those Sundays. I realize that race is a factor in what Wright preached, but it certainly is not the only or greatest factor. Politics played just as important of a role in those sermons. Just replay the one about Hillary Clinton. That was pure politics.

Obama skirted around the political tone and content of Wright’s preaching and focused on race. I believe he did so because as a politician in a close race for the nomination he could in no way politically justify his past close and continuing relationship with an individual who preaches that we Americans are responsible for 9-11-01; that we Americans are responsible for HIV/Aids; that we Americans intentionally infected people of color with HIV/Aids in some racially inspired war. Such words are political suicide for any presidential candidate. They are also words not only about race, but about politics, and beliefs deeply held. So, in the end Obama disowns the words, but continues to embrace the man who preaches them.

Obama chose the following words: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother … .”

It is simply is not fair or genuine to suggest, as did Obama, that choosing to remain a member of a religious congregation is the same as remaining a brother or grandson or nephew; that choosing and keeping a spiritual advisor is the same thing as loving or keeping a daughter or mother or cousin. Obama chose to join Wright’s congregation. He chose to stay in the pews and listen for 20 years. He chose to stay with his pastor despite hearing those hateful and inflammatory words. He chose to place Wright on his presidential campaign committee knowing that he had uttered those sermons; and Obama chose to keep Wright on his campaign committee until news about those sermons broke. Obama chose to stay and participate in Wright’s congregation.

In the end it is not an issue of guilt by association; it’s an issue of guilt by participation.

Obama Delivers Passionate Speech on Race in America

Amid the race and gender firestorm that has recently engulfed the Democratic presidential nomination contest, Sen. Barack Obama today delivered a heartfelt and passionate speech focused race relations in our country and on his own experiences as a biracial American. Watch and read the full text of the speech here.

The man nailed it on the head. There is no doubt about that. Already well-known as a great orator, Obama's speech today has only served to enhance that reputation. His assessment that "race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now... that we would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality" is spot on. He acknowledges that race is the terrain of American society that we have not yet conquered when he says, "the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect."

It was good to see him address race. I apologize if this is an inaccurate assessment, but it seems that he has somewhat just glazed over the subject in this campaign, with the occasional word but no in-depth speech like this. It was a breath of fresh air to hear him say that race is not something we need to dodge as a campaign subject, it is something we need to discuss in a calm and politically correct fashion.

I implore all of you to read the transcript and watch the speech.

Full Transparency?...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In addition to his tax returns Senator Obama has just released his congressional earmarks for the last three years and has asked Senator Clinton to do the same. This combined with her reluctance to release her tax returns is leading towards a trend of not-so-full-disclosure and could potentially indicate that she is hiding something. First off I find it frustrating that legislator's earmarks are not public domain. Are there any arguments for keeping them private? Secondly, obviously Clinton has the right to keep her tax returns private, but considering that she is running for President of the United States shouldn't she release them?

Is Obama's Pastor a Liability?

Here is an article I ran across that says some pretty radical things about 9/11. Read the article and decide for yourself if this man is a potential problem for Obama's campaign.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

Obama and Race

This past week, former Congresswoman and Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro asserted the following:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

I want to pose a question regarding her statement. How much of Obama's current lead is attributable to his race? Personally, I feel that Ferraro's statement was ill-conceived, but not "patently absurd" as Obama has described it. I do believe that in a way, particularly for his upper class, well-educated white constituency, Obama has been able to transcend race. Many people are looking at his message of change and hope before they see his race, and for them, race becomes a non-issue. But what about the black vote? I do believe that if Obama wins such a tight contest, he will have to look back and recognize that it was largely due to him overwhelmingly carrying the black vote. This has historically been a major base for first Bill Clinton, and later Hillary. For him to take that base, I believe, will be what helps him defeat Clinton (should he do so). While I disagree with Ferraro's ludicrous statement that Obama is "lucky to be who he is" (which is just flat-out dumb), I do want to underscore that his being black should not be entirely lost when we analyze why he has catapulted to front-runner status, because a major base for the Democratic Party, black people, have shifted their allegiance from the Clinton family to the Illinois Senator, and could be the catalyst that sends him to the White House.

Dems Stay in Headlines with Mail-In Mess

The democratic party is tricky. Everything in this year's primary has created so much free media coverage for all of the candidates left of the line. Now, not only do we have an incredibly close race between the possibly first black and possibly first female candidates, but we also have a growing debacle in the states of Florida and Michigan.

If your head has been under a rock for the past few months, Florida and Michigan did not have their votes counted due to a decree made by the DNC (Democratic National Committee). They, the states, were being punished because they violated party rules and scheduled their primaries too early. Since the stakes are ever so high, this ruling is being scrutinized by many in the political arena. Howard Dean, the chair of the DNC, has suggested a mail-in ballot re-vote to fix this circus show (1).

Now that a seemingly fair solution has been identified, Dean can wash his hands of the whole affair, sit back and watch the show. And what a show there will be. The main question that needs to be addressed is how will the DNC pay for this? In an election where both candidates have generated millions of dollars in donations, it will be interesting to see where the funds come from and who thinks they have a chance to gain in this decision. It is almost reminiscent of the recent NBA decision to allow the Miami Heat to replay the last 51.9 seconds of a game they had lost to the Atlanta Hawks due to an erroneous foul out of Shaquille O'neal (2).

Much like that game, changes have occured since the initial vote, the players are different (well sort of because there are only 2 now) and the stakes are higher for those involved. This seems like a complete and total mess because we all know how inept Florida is at any kind of election process, let alone one done completely by mail.

That aside, the bigger piece to this story is the fact that Democrats are going to continue to win the headlines in the pre-general election media battle. Every day will be a new development and every week will be a new celebrity endorsement. The question I have though, is whether or not problems like this one will win the democrats votes in the presidential election or whether these continued dilemmas will cast a poor light over the blue candidates.

Source (1)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/09/michigan.florida/?iref=mpstoryview
Source (2)
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3282078

"Power" Struggle for Obama

Barack Obama's senior foreign policy adviser is hurting her candidate with her words, an Obama strength. Two stories:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/39Hillary-Clinton39s-a-monster39-Obama.3854371.jp

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Power_on_Obamas_Iraq_plan_best_case_scenario.html

She has since resigned as of today.