Ganz was born in Bay City, Mich., and grew up in Fresno and then Bakersfield.He entered Harvard in 1960 but after two years took some time off. When he returned to Cambridge, he found that one of his roommates had joined Students for a Democratic Society and another had joined the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.He volunteered for the Freedom Summer of 1964 in Mississippi and was in training when volunteers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner disappeared. They were found dead several weeks later.Ganz decided to forge ahead -- and found his life's work."I had friends involved in SDS, and they would have these big ideological discussions, which never had any appeal to me," Ganz said. "What worked for me was to work with the people, going around and meeting people."As a way to connect with the black community, the rabbi's son taught adult Sunday school in Mississippi -- Old Testament only. Ganz returned to the Central Valley in 1965 and soon joined Chavez's fledgling farmworkers union, where he helped organize workers, lead boycotts and negotiate contracts until internal divisions led him to quit in 1981.He then moved into political organizing full time, targeting infrequent voters.The strategy turned out 180,000 new voters, primarily in low-income Latino and black neighborhoods, who helped Sen. Alan Cranston win a tight reelection battle in 1986. In 1991, 28 years after he left, Ganz was back in Cambridge, where he earned a master's degree and, in 2000, a doctorate and then marked another transition: from student to teacher.The challengeGanz stands at the front of a Harvard lecture hall, a diet Dr Pepper on the table in front of him. About 80 students fill the room, some from the Kennedy School, others from the Divinity School."Today we get into leadership," Ganz says. It is a skill most needed during times of uncertainty, he says, and best done by forming teams."Do not try to organize your project alone," he says, a titter moving through the crowd. "Get other people to help you. . . . It's not so much about exercising your own leadership as it is developing the leadership capacity of others. That's where the power comes from."For the next 80 minutes, Ganz lectures a bit but also poses questions. He doesn't nudge the students toward any specific engagement, but it's clear that several have the political bug.For a class project, Norena Limon, 25, of Chino was planning to skip a few days of classes to help Obama's grass-roots efforts out of state.Limon represents the long-term challenge for the Obama campaign -- and for Ganz: how to harness and nurture the enthusiasm of the young and the idealistic, whose energy could dissipate if Obama fails to win the White House.Ganz has faith that the seeds have taken root. If Obama loses, many of the disenchanted will disengage. But others will stay involved as community activists. They will organize others.Forty years after history slipped through Ganz's fingers, he feels optimistic again."I just love the fact that hundreds of organizers are going to be unleashed on the country," he said, sitting with his coffee mug at the kitchen table amid all those stories. It's Marshall Ganz's army, and it's marching your way.scott.martelle@latimes.com
Unfortunately, the historic parallels have only become stronger, and are nearly perfectly crystallized in yesterday's New York Times op-ed by Susan Faludi, the award-winning white feminist author, congratulating Clinton for running a campaign that has advanced the feminist movement in America:
In the final stretch of the primary season, [Clinton] seems to have stepped across an unstated gender divide...We are witnessing a female competitor delighting in the undomesticated fray. Her new no-holds-barred pugnacity and gleeful perseverance have revamped her image in the eyes of begrudging white male voters... It's the unforeseen precedent of an unprecedented candidacy... Not once has she demanded that the umpire stop the fight. Indeed, she's asking for more unregulated action, proposing a debate with no press-corps intermediaries. While the commentators have been tut-tutting, Senator Clinton has been converting white males, assuring them that she's come into their tavern not to smash the bottles, but to join the brawl. ... The strategy has certainly remade the political world for future female politicians, who may now cast off the assumption that when the going gets tough, the tough girl will resort to unilateral rectitude. When a woman does ascend through the glass ceiling into the White House, it will be, in part, because of the race of 2008, when Hillary Clinton broke through the glass floor and got down with the boys.
My original post comparing the present situation to that following the Civil War is included below. The short version is this: after the war, a major schism erupted among abolitionists over whether to campaign first to grant the vote to former (male) slaves, and then to press extend the vote to women (of all colors), or whether to fight for both at the same time. When it became clear that the majority of abolitionists favored pressing the black vote first, two of the most prominent white women's rights activists broke with the movement and began to campaign for white woman suffrage on explicitly racist grounds. They argued that giving white women the vote would protect the nation from the unsavory political influence of former slaves and Asian immigrants. The result was a split in the movement for woman suffrage that hobbled that movement for 50 years.
Faludi's argument fits into this historic parallel perfectly. Clinton, we are told, has done a favor for all American women by campaigning with "new no-holds-barred pugnacity" and "joining the brawl." Incredibly, Faludi neglects to mention the content of what Clinton's closest advisors referred to last week as her display of testicles: racism and war-mongering.
The day after the most recent primaries, Clinton told USA Today that she must continue because she has growing support among "working, hard working Americans. White Americans." It is worth your while to go to YouTube and hear this statement for yourself. When you hear her inflection, it comes off even worse than it does in print. She begins to say that Obama is losing support among "working" Americans, then pauses to specify what she is actually referring to is "hard working Americans," then pauses and specifies even more precisely "white" Americans. She then continues, noting that "whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
OK, Hillary, we hear you. As opposed to all those lazy blacks and do-nothing white college grads, you've got the support of the people who actually work hard in this country - uneducated white people. That is, in essence, exactly the appeal made by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton after the Civil War: the same argument, made to mobilize the same constituency.
The first time around, this agenda created a split in the movement for woman suffrage that would hobble the movement for 50 long years until American women finally won the right to vote in 1920. The whole sordid history is a painful chapter in American feminism that causes American feminists discomfort even today, nearly 150 years later. Some feminists have promoted Anthony and Stanton as historical heroines and role models, and in the 1970s Anthony became the first woman to appear on American money when the Susan B. Anthony dollar was minted. Other feminists strongly object, arguing that ignoring the racist legacy of these women only exacerbates the racial divisions that have plagued feminism in America.
But racism was not the only appeal on which Clinton based what Faludi sees as her effort to "remake the political world for future female politicians." The other was war. In order to convince those uneducated white voters that she had sufficient testosterone to be Commander-in-Chief-from-Day-One, she flatly stated that she would have no qualms about "obliterating" another country, leading her confidant James Carville to state that if Hillary gave Obama one of her balls, "they'd both have two."
This statement, coming from a leading presidential candidate in the only country in the world to ever have used nuclear weapons, was so egregious that it merited a rebuke from the Secretary General of the United Nations. I cannot remember another time when any world leader in any country, trying to drum up last minute votes in an election, made a statement so outrageous as to draw comment from the UN Secretary General.
So, no, I cannot agree with Faludi that Clinton's "strategy has certainly remade the political world for future female politicians." It is simply not news that a female politician who outdoes the guys in appeals to race and war can be successful. Think Margaret Thatcher. The fact that she ran on a machine largely created by her husband, whom she regularly employed to wallow in a gutter even lower than that to which she herself had sunk, makes Faludi's argument even more ludicrous. Incredibly, in Faludi's entire article summing up the political impact of the Clinton campaign, the words "Bill," "William," and "husband" do not appear. Clinton has not even withdrawn yet and the re-writing of history has already begun.
Here is my post from March:
The recent behavior of the Clinton campaign and its allies has disturbing parallels in the earliest days of the woman suffrage movement. Then, in the face of a short-term set-back, the most prominent woman suffrage campaigners broke with the abolitionist movement and espoused explicitly racist politics. The result was a debilitating split in the movement for woman suffrage, and a half century of defeat. The women in question are Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Like other early women's rights advocates, Stanton and Anthony initially became politically active in the abolitionist movement, and through this activism began formulating an increasingly articulate feminist agenda (though the word "feminism" was not available to them at the time).The civil war put women's rights on hold, as abolitionist women threw their energies into the union war effort. After the war, the question of voting rights for freed slaves moved to the top of the national agenda. Slavery was ended, but whether the freed slaves would be granted the full rights of citizens, and most particularly the right to vote, was anything but certain. To Stanton and Anthony, the debate on voting rights was an open door for a push to extend the vote to all adult citizens regardless of race or gender. They took it as given that the political coalition which had achieved abolition and was now poised to campaign for the Fourteenth Amendment would see things the same way. It was inconceivable to them that the nation might grant the vote to black men yet leave black women - and white women - disenfranchised.Most abolitionist leaders, including prominent white women such as Lucy Stone, took an opposite tack, arguing that it was the "Negro's hour" and women would have to wait. In their view, while black suffrage and woman suffrage might be linked logically, the political reality was that the fight for black male suffrage would be a difficult one, and complicating the matter by raising woman suffrage would put the fruits of the tremendous sacrifices of the civil war in jeopardy. Victory for black suffrage, they argued, would open the door for women, whereas a defeat for black suffrage would close all possibility of enlarging the franchised population for years to come. Those advocating this course included movement superstars William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, both of whom had consistently been far ahead of the pack in their support of female abolitionists formulating a program for women's rights.The issue came to a head in 1867 in Kansas, where citizens were asked to vote simultaneously on two separate constitutional amendments, one enfranchising black men, the other women. The outcome would finally decide the debate over whether the political rights of slaves would be defined as the "[male] Negro's hour" or a "more complete democracy." With so much on the line, the split between those campaigning for just one or both amendments became predictably bitter. On election day black suffrage won, while woman suffrage lost overwhelmingly.The real political catastrophe, however, was not this set-back but the ugly politics that ensued. What had begun as a principled disagreement with reasoned arguments on both sides degenerated into a political debacle as one side in the debate refused to accept that its position would lose. Stanton and Anthony had been the most prominent woman suffrage campaigners in the Kansas election, and as they sensed victory slipping beyond their reach they tried to shore up their prospects by reaching out to racists. They developed a close relationship with a flamboyant racist named George Francis Train, who stumped for them around the state. Attacks on the intelligence of blacks were fundamental to Train's standard appeal, and he employed them as an argument for voting rights for women. The collaboration between two top woman suffragists and such a blatant racist horrified many other suffragists. Stanton and Anthony shocked their friends by refusing to budge in the face of withering criticism. "So long as opposition to slavery is the only test for your platform," Stanton angrily wrote to the abolitionists, "why should we not accept all in favor of woman suffrage to our platform and association, even though they be rabid pro-slavery?"The following year, Stanton, Anthony and Train launched the Revolution, a newspaper which broke much new ground for women's rights in America, discussing prostitution, infanticide, sex education, cooperative housekeeping. But the paper also carried on with explicitly racist appeals to white women. "American women of wealth, education, virtue, and refinement," Stanton warned, "If you do not wish the lower orders of Chinese, Africans, Germans and Irish, with the low ideas of womanhood to make laws for you and your daughters, ... to dictate not only the civil, but moral codes by which you shall be governed, awake to the danger of your present position."Thus began a split in the movement for woman suffrage that would hobble the movement for 50 long years until American women finally won the right to vote in 1920. The whole sordid history is a painful chapter that causes American feminists discomfort even today. Some feminists have promoted Anthony and Stanton as historical heroines and role models, and in the 1970s Anthony became the first woman to appear on American money when the Susan B. Anthony dollar was minted. Other feminists have strongly objected, arguing that ignoring the racist legacy of these women only exacerbates the racial divisions that have plagued feminism in America.The parallels with today are obvious. As the Clinton campaign began to feel the chances of Hillary Clinton becoming the first female president slip away, the campaign has resorted to increasingly racist appeals. One wonders if, decades from now, Hillary Clinton will be a hero in the feminist pantheon or, like Stanton and Anthony, a reminder of a painful episode that future feminists will prefer to forget.
The women in question are Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Like other early women's rights advocates, Stanton and Anthony initially became politically active in the abolitionist movement, and through this activism began formulating an increasingly articulate feminist agenda (though the word "feminism" was not available to them at the time).
The civil war put women's rights on hold, as abolitionist women threw their energies into the union war effort. After the war, the question of voting rights for freed slaves moved to the top of the national agenda. Slavery was ended, but whether the freed slaves would be granted the full rights of citizens, and most particularly the right to vote, was anything but certain. To Stanton and Anthony, the debate on voting rights was an open door for a push to extend the vote to all adult citizens regardless of race or gender. They took it as given that the political coalition which had achieved abolition and was now poised to campaign for the Fourteenth Amendment would see things the same way. It was inconceivable to them that the nation might grant the vote to black men yet leave black women - and white women - disenfranchised.
Most abolitionist leaders, including prominent white women such as Lucy Stone, took an opposite tack, arguing that it was the "Negro's hour" and women would have to wait. In their view, while black suffrage and woman suffrage might be linked logically, the political reality was that the fight for black male suffrage would be a difficult one, and complicating the matter by raising woman suffrage would put the fruits of the tremendous sacrifices of the civil war in jeopardy. Victory for black suffrage, they argued, would open the door for women, whereas a defeat for black suffrage would close all possibility of enlarging the franchised population for years to come. Those advocating this course included movement superstars William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, both of whom had consistently been far ahead of the pack in their support of female abolitionists formulating a program for women's rights.
The issue came to a head in 1867 in Kansas, where citizens were asked to vote simultaneously on two separate constitutional amendments, one enfranchising black men, the other women. The outcome would finally decide the debate over whether the political rights of slaves would be defined as the "[male] Negro's hour" or a "more complete democracy." With so much on the line, the split between those campaigning for just one or both amendments became predictably bitter. On election day black suffrage won, while woman suffrage lost overwhelmingly.
The real political catastrophe, however, was not this set-back but the ugly politics that ensued. What had begun as a principled disagreement with reasoned arguments on both sides degenerated into a political debacle as one side in the debate refused to accept that its position would lose. Stanton and Anthony had been the most prominent woman suffrage campaigners in the Kansas election, and as they sensed victory slipping beyond their reach they tried to shore up their prospects by reaching out to racists. They developed a close relationship with a flamboyant racist named George Francis Train, who stumped for them around the state. Attacks on the intelligence of blacks were fundamental to Train's standard appeal, and he employed them as an argument for voting rights for women. The collaboration between two top woman suffragists and such a blatant racist horrified many other suffragists. Stanton and Anthony shocked their friends by refusing to budge in the face of withering criticism. "So long as opposition to slavery is the only test for your platform," Stanton angrily wrote to the abolitionists, "why should we not accept all in favor of woman suffrage to our platform and association, even though they be rabid pro-slavery?"
The following year, Stanton, Anthony and Train launched the Revolution, a newspaper which broke much new ground for women's rights in America, discussing prostitution, infanticide, sex education, cooperative housekeeping. But the paper also carried on with explicitly racist appeals to white women. "American women of wealth, education, virtue, and refinement," Stanton warned, "If you do not wish the lower orders of Chinese, Africans, Germans and Irish, with the low ideas of womanhood to make laws for you and your daughters, ... to dictate not only the civil, but moral codes by which you shall be governed, awake to the danger of your present position."
Thus began a split in the movement for woman suffrage that would hobble the movement for 50 long years until American women finally won the right to vote in 1920. The whole sordid history is a painful chapter that causes American feminists discomfort even today. Some feminists have promoted Anthony and Stanton as historical heroines and role models, and in the 1970s Anthony became the first woman to appear on American money when the Susan B. Anthony dollar was minted. Other feminists have strongly objected, arguing that ignoring the racist legacy of these women only exacerbates the racial divisions that have plagued feminism in America.
The parallels with today are obvious. As the Clinton campaign began to feel the chances of Hillary Clinton becoming the first female president slip away, the campaign has resorted to increasingly racist appeals. One wonders if, decades from now, Hillary Clinton will be a hero in the feminist pantheon or, like Stanton and Anthony, a reminder of a painful episode that future feminists will prefer to forget.
In hope of preventing some of this hysteria (especially my own), I thought it'd be helpful to keep a few things in mind during Tuesday night's results -- from Hillary's "victory" speech to the blizzard of spin that's sure to follow:
1. Remember that there's no way Hillary can become the nominee without a superdelegate coup -- which would alienate a generation of young Democrats and dangerously fracture the party.
2. Remember that her campaign leaked internals showing an eleven point lead (as a means of firing up her supporters and getting out the vote). Therefore, any win smaller than eleven points should be considered a disappointment by her own assessment.
3. Remember that every time Hillary begins a sentence with "you know," or "my opponent," the next thing out of her mouth is a lie.
4. Remember that when Clinton surrogates say "this proves Obama can't win the big states," they're ignoring the fact that he actually won more delegates in Texas -- not to mention twice as many states as she has.
5. Remember that when the pundits argue that Obama can't win in white rural areas because they broke for Hillary, they're ignoring the fact that he won (in alphabetical order): Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
6. Remember that when Hillary talks about who will be "better against John McCain in the fall," she's talking about the fall of 2012.
7. Remember that Hillary's campaign is $10M in debt, while Obama's has more than $40M in cash on hand.
8. Remember that Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania was as a high as 26 points only a month ago.
9. Remember that Hillary's late Pennsylvania rebound was forged in the fires of negativity and fear-mongering.
10. Remember that the only manufacturing job Hillary ever brought to Pennsylvania was the manufactured notion that she was a middle-class, whisky-swilling duck killer, and not an anti-union multi-millionaire.
San Gabriel Valley volunteers excited by Sen. Barack Obama's past as a community organizer - and his local ties - are working through the holiday season for his presidential campaign.
Local groups work overtime on behalf of Dem candidate
By Dan Abendschein, Staff Writer Article Launched: 12/26/2007 10:48:35 PM PST
A Pasadena group will be canvassing for Obama at the South Pasadena farmers market today, as it does most weeks, and a Monrovia group held its regular phone-banking session Wednesday night.
Throughout Los Angeles County, Obama volunteers are divided into groups based on congressional districts, and volunteers from each group learned how to organize their groups, make phone calls and canvass for their candidate at a central event held last June, called "Camp Obama."
"I was amazed how much some of our volunteers learned about running a campaign from attending the event," said Julia Bailey, 42, a volunteer in the 32nd Congressional District.
The 32nd Congressional District is represented by Hilda Solis, D-El Monte. It includes the communities East Los Angeles, El Monte, Covina, West Covina and Azusa.
Bailey added that she thought the camps were particularly helpful because so many volunteers are political novices.
"This is my first time getting involved in politics, and it is the same for everyone I talk to in the campaign," said Bailey.
Lonnee Hamilton, a organizer for the 29th Congressional District group in Pasadena, agreed that few in her group had ever been politically active.
"I was just a hold your nose and vote Democratic person," said Hamilton. "This is my first time actually volunteering, and I talk to other volunteers who say they haven't even voted in 30 years."
The 29th Congressional District, which is represented by Democrat Adam Schiff, includes the communities of Monterey Park, Altadena, Pasadena, Temple City, San Gabriel and Alhambra.
Hamilton hosted a fundraiser at her aunt and uncle's house for Obama that she says raised more than $500,000.
Obama attended the event and excited people by talking about his time spent in Pasadena while attending Occidental College, she added.
Mike Barako, 33, a special education teacher in Pasadena and volunteer in the group, said Obama appeals to him because of the senator's time spent as a community organizer in Illinois.
"He is a good community leader who has shown he wants to help local people solve their problems," said Barako, who added that he had never volunteered for any other candidate.
For now, groups from the 19th, 32nd, and 26th district say they are having dozens of volunteers call voters in their areas to ask them to support Obama, but in the weeks running up to California's Feb. 5 primary they plan to be out knocking on doors.
"So far we have only been able to use a few dozen people for phones," said Hamilton. "But hundreds of people have shown willingness to volunteer, so we'll be out in full force next month."
dan.abendschein@sgvn.com
(626) 962-8811, Ext. 2105
It's all kind of wonderful, isn't it? Someone indulged in special pleading and America didn't buy it. It's as if the country this week made it official: We now formally declare that the woman who uses the fact of her sex to manipulate circumstances is a jerk.
This is a victory for true feminism, in its old-fashioned sense of a simple assertion of the equality of men and women. We might not have so resoundingly reached this moment without Mrs. Clinton's actions and statements. Thank you, Mrs. Clinton.
A word on toughness. Mrs. Clinton is certainly tough, to the point of hard. But toughness should have a purpose. In Mrs. Thatcher's case, its purpose was to push through a program she thought would make life better in her country. Mrs. Clinton's toughness seems to have no purpose beyond the personal accrual of power. What will she do with the power? Still unclear. It happens to be unclear in the case of several candidates, but with Mrs. Clinton there is a unique chasm between the ferocity and the purpose of the ferocity. There is something deeply unattractive in this, and it would be equally so if she were a man.
I call it that because it seems to me now less like a dynastic tug of war than a symptom of deterioration, a lazy, unserious and faintly corrupt turn to be taken by the oldest and greatest democracy in the history of man. And I say sickness because on some level I think it is driven by a delusion: "We will be safe with these ruling families, whom we know so well." But we won't. They have no special magic. Dynasticism brings with it a sense of deterioration. It is dispiriting.
I am not sure of the salience of Mr. Obama's new-generational approach. Mrs. Clinton's generation, he suggests, is caught in the 1960s, fighting old battles, clinging to old divisions, frozen in time, and the way to get past it is to get past her. Maybe this will resonate. But I don't think Mrs. Clinton is the exemplar of a generation, she is the exemplar of a quadrant within a generation, and it is the quadrant the rest of us of that generation do not like. They came from comfort and stability, visited poverty as part of a college program, fashionably disliked their country, and cultivated a bitterness that was wholly unearned. They went on to become investment bankers and politicians and enjoy wealth, power or both.
Mr. Obama should go after them, not a generation but a type, the smug and entitled. No one really likes them. They showed it this week.
Barack Obama has a great thinking look. I mean the look he gets on his face when he's thinking, not the look he presents in debate, where they all control their faces knowing they may be in the reaction shot and fearing they'll look shrewd and clever, as opposed to open and strong. I mean the look he gets in an interview or conversation when he's listening and not conscious of his expression. It's a very present look. He seems more in the moment than handling the moment. I've noticed this the past few months, since he entered the national stage. I wonder if I'm watching him more closely than his fellow Democrats are.
Mr. Obama often seems to be thinking when he speaks, too, and this comes somehow as a relief, in comparison, say, to Hillary Clinton and President Bush, both of whom often seem to be trying to remember the answer they'd agreed upon with staff. What's the phrase we use about education? Hit Search Function. Hit Open. Right-click. "Equity in education is essential, Tim . . ."
You get the impression Mr. Obama trusts himself to think, as if something good might happen if he does. What a concept. Anyway, I've started to lean forward a little when he talks.
But he doesn't stand a chance, right? His main competitor, Mrs. Clinton, is this week's invincible. She broke through 50% for the first time in a big national poll--53% saying they would support her, a full 33 points more than Obama. Her third quarter fund raising beat everyone else's. "It's all over but the voting," said Rep. Tom Petri, who will probably get pummeled a bit by the campaign for premature triumphalism. But he only said what a lot of people are starting to think.
Some Democrats seem proud they already know who their candidate is, unlike those messy Republicans who haven't been able to resolve the issue. But should it be resolved before people vote?
Has the Democratic Party noticed it actually has some impressive candidates? They should not be written off, and when you think about it, it's weird that they're being written off. Joe Biden used to seem mildly giddy, vain but in a small way, not a big and interesting way. (Big is LBJ: Ah will impose mah will. Small: Where's my hair-sculpting gel?) But it has been 35 years since he became a figure in Washington, and in the past few years in particular he has been ahead of his peers on Iraq--ahead with warnings, ahead with tripartite thinking, ahead with a seriousness and sobriety about the fix we're in. He is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he's been reading daily threat reports for a long time. He is impressive. Why don't the Democrats notice?
Chris Dodd is the head of the Senate Banking Committee, and nothing if not sophisticated. In the post-9/11 world, sophisticated is not so bad. He's been in the Senate 27 years. In earlier years his thinking on government, his assumptions about what can and should be expected of it, veered from the utopian to the world-weary, and were sometimes both at once. But if you listen to him and watch him in debate, you might legitimately conclude this is a candidate who understands how it all works and what time it is. He's one of the grown-ups.
Anybody notice?
Mr. Obama's experience, as we all know, is as limited as Mrs. Clinton's, which is to say limited indeed. She has held elective office for only 6 1/2 years. Before that she was first lady of Arkansas and then first lady of the United States. He has held national office for only 3 1/2 years, and before that was a state legislator for eight years. But he has impressed people, and not with money, résumé or clout but something rarer, natural gifts. That's not nothing. Big talent is rare, and deserves consideration.
And yet the Democrats remain in their Hillary trance.
Not all, of course. Each candidate has his band of supporters, his little base. Mr. Obama is fortunate to have one with the grace and vigor of Ted Sorensen, John F. Kennedy's great staffer and speechwriter, who told me this week, "I am supporting Obama." He has known and liked the other main candidates, has "no objection to a female commander-in-chief and no ill feelings stemming from the Clinton stains on the escutcheon of the White House." But Mr. Obama is "the one serious potential nominee of the Democratic Party who is most likely to win" and most likely "to end the tragic occupation of Iraq on terms compatible with our country's best interests and traditional values."
When I asked if his support was connected in any way to the idea of breaking away from the Bush-Clinton-Bush rotation, he said, "Above all, I believe this country needs change, and continuing the 20-year hold on the White House of the same two families is not my idea of change."
That to me gets to the heart of the problem and the heart of The Trance. Mrs. Clinton is so far ahead so early on for the same reason Mr. Bush was so far ahead so early on in 2000, and after only six years as governor, with no previous offices behind him.
It is the nature of modern politics. A political family gains allies--retainers, supporters, hangers-on, admirers, associates, in-house Machiavellis. The bigger the government, the more ways allies can be awarded, which binds them more closely. Your destiny is theirs. Members of the court recruit others. Money lines spread person to person, company to company, board to board, mover to mover.
The most important part is the money lines. Power is expensive. The second most important part is the word "winner." The Bushes are winners; the Clintons are winners. We know this, they've won. The Bushes are wired into the Republican money-line system; the Clintons are wired into the Democratic money-line system. For a generation, two generations now, they have had the same dynamics in play, only their friends are on the blue team, not the red, or the red, not the blue.
They are, both groups, up and ready and good to go every election cycle. They are machines. There are good people on each side, idealists, the hopeful, those convinced the triumph of their views will make our country better. And there are those on each side who are not so wonderful, not so well-meaning, not well-meaning at all. And some are idiots, but very comfortable ones.
Is this good for our democracy, this air of inevitability? Is it good in terms of how the world sees us, and how we see ourselves? Or is it something we want to break out of, like a trance?
It would be understandable if they were families of a most extraordinary natural distinction and self-sacrifice. But these are not the Adamses of Massachusetts we're talking about. You've noticed, right?
Live Blog: We showed our enthusiasm For Obama with smiles today on Colorado Blvd. in front of the Bill Clinton book signing! We waved signs, sold buttons, sang songs and enjoyed our impromtu rally for our Sen. You must Read Below, and Stay tuned for pictures from the Media that interviewed your Pasadena grassroots street team.
Go Annabelle, Lance, Ralph & Mike! CA CDs 26, 29, 32...
In a flurry of emails, I got the message to be at Vroman's Bookstore on Colorado Bvld in Pasadena at 2:00 on Tuesday afternoon as Bill Clinton (some said Hill would be there too, but she wasn't) would be speaking, signing books, SOMETHING!!! SO I snuck into the Targeee parking structure, as I usually do for the movies next to Vroman's, and found the lot totally full. I knew something was going on, and that a lot of other people knew of my movie strategy!I walked over towards Vroman's, having picked up the broom I had shortly before been using to sweep the drive, slapped on a couple of Barack Obama for Prez signs, and walked towards the bookstore. I immediately saw the line. The celebrity line. This was halfway down the side street block, too. Broom in hand, and buttons flashing, I walked across the street and followed the line up and around the corner til I was in front of the store.I walked up and back a few times, heard my name called, and Mike Barako appeared. Then buddy Ralph Walker. We pedaled our message to a crowd that was mostly friendly, wiling to talk and some even asked questions. There were the inevitable folks who were just looking for a verbal fight, but we were marching under the banner of Mr. Negotiator, and just smiled and announced the forthcoming publication of the softcover edition of Audacity of Hope.Met Jennell from the Valley, ardent Barack supporter, and many who said they would vote for him if the Hill weren't running...also suggestions that he should be Vice Prez for her. (not part of my agenda). Lance from Monrovia showed up as well, and the four of us walked, talked and listened as passing cars honked for US, that is, Barack Obama.(eat your heart out Mr. Bill!)At some point, Ralph and Mike found a young fellow who was willing to talk. Tommy Harrison, about 8-10 years old, had a discussion with the guys, and they then huddled around the fire hydrant, and I took their picture...1/2 hour later, his mom and I were talking, and she let me know that the other guy in the yellow shirt was from Public Access station 56 in Pasadena, and had interviewed Tommy talking with Mr. Clinton. Apparently he was asked, among other questions, if he were of voting age, who would he vote for? His reply?? You guessed it, OBAMA. Very Smart Kid. Ralph and Mike sure know how to pick them!AnnabelleTuesdaySeptember 18, 2007Altadena
P1020442.jpg
P1020449.jpg
P1020453.jpg
P1020455.jpg
P1020459.jpg
P1020466.jpg
P1020472.jpg
P1020479.jpg
P1020493.jpg
P1020496.jpg
P1020501.jpg
California Congressional District 29 for Obama! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4343659953
www.barackobama.com
If you live in Alhambra, Altadena, Burbank, Glendale, Monterey Park, Pasadena, San Gabriel, South Pasadena, or Temple City, then this is the group for you! (See the map in the 'photos' section below for a close-up layout of the Congressional District)
or check us out at www.PasadenaForObama.org
