There is a lot of concern about how this election is going to wrap-up, and a lot of people have been discussing the possibility that this will end up being decided in smoke-filled rooms by super delegates. My personal concern is that for each of these super delegates there is some exchange going on for the endorsements. I would like to think that each endorsement is made based on what the super delegate thinks is best for the country, but I have a hard time accepting that across the board.
So, I propose that we shine some light on the 'quid pro quo' process for trying to engage superdelegates. One of Obama's key strengths is in grass roots organizing and small donation fundraising. As local citizens, we should be contacting the super delegates in our states, many of whom are local congressman who are up for reelection in November, and offer to work for them if they support Obama in the primary. Let them know of the other volunteers in your neighborhood who will also help them get reelected if they show some leadership in endorsing Barack Obama. Let them know about the fact that there are new Democratic activists who have given money to a candidate and will look to do so again if they have reason to be inspired.
The Obama campaign may not want everyone chasing superdelegates, but I am talking about getting involved and supporting those that are leading the way towards improving, even reforming our Democratic party. The fundraising alone may be enough to make them think twice about an offer of a beauracratic position in a Clinton administration.
The media continues to overhype the Obama campaign and build expectations that will not be met. Lacking any specific polling data the media has been continually predicting that all of the following February primaries & caucuses will go Obama's way. I have very specific reasons why that will not happen:
Washington: The two state senators have both endorsed Clinton. It is a caucus which means this type of support will heavily help turn-out & control of the caucus process. Similar to Nevada where the Reid family helped control the caucus process. Also, Californians supported clinton, and Washington most resembles California in it's population demographics. Finally, Asian-Americans in California showed clear support for Clinton, and Washington has a high percentage of Asian Americans.
Louisiana: Hurricane Katrina greatly altered the demographics of Louisana and African-Americans do not have as great of a majority as they once did. Add in Clinton's strong and visible work after the Hurricane and Louisana shows strong potential for a Clinton win.
Maine: Clinton won neighboring states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts by significant majorities. Maine has supported strong female candidates for Senate.
Virginia: The rural south has been strongly supporting Clinton in low African-American areas. There is enough of a balance demographically in Virginia for this to be heavily contested. Additionally, the DNC has a strong presence in Virginia and a lot of the heads have already endorsed Clinton including: Terry McAuliffe, Jennifer McClellan, and Susan Swecker.
I do think the remaining states still hold advantages for Obama, but these four show that she can easily hold her own through the month of February and into March.
The recent challenges by the Clinton campaign need to be met. I know it is an old political trick to challenge the other side to a debate. And, I know it is a sign of weakness on their side that they are resorting to this.
But, most people will see his not answering the challenges as weasely, and they will not let it drop. He needs to respond to her requests with scenarios and dates that work best for him.
Challenge her to an open forum debate where thousands of people can come in Nebraska.
Challenge her to a debate in Hawaii :)
Challenge her to a debate at Tulane University only with students.
The thing is, you can't let the challenges go unmet or they will use it against the campaign. The other risk in a debate is that people like both candidates and want a split ticket. That inevitably leads to Clinton on top. To avoid this, in the debates, you should avoid being to overly flattering of Clinton. Don't swing the other way and be overly aggressive like in South Carolina, but don't offer unnecessary compliments or "I agree with Senator Clinton"'s.
So, Super Tuesday is two days away and there is a lot of information about what is going to happen. The best write up I have seen was written as a diary on Daily Kos. It has a breakdown of each super tuesday state and where each candidate stands in terms of support on several levels. However, this was written on Thursday and since then, the momentum towards Obama has continued. It has been an excellent resource to use as a baseline and to compare polls to that point in time to see how he is faring.
At this point in the race I think we have it stands as follows:
Strong Clinton: NY, Oklahoma, Arkansas, (3)
Lean Clinton: Tennesee, Arizona, Mass (3)
Toss Up: California, New Jersey, Missouri, Minnesota, Connecticutt (5)
Lean Obama: Colorado, Alabama, Idaho, Delaware, Kansas, New Mexico (5)
Strong Obama: Illinois, Georgia, Utah (3)
No idea: North Dakota, Alaska (2)
I went to my local Malden ward caucus yesterday to see what it is all about. The purpose of the local caucus is simply to select delegates to go to the State Convention in June. When I arrived, I was the youngest person in the room, though our city councilman who is also around my age did arrive a little later. There were about 12 people and they had already posted a Hillary sign on the wall and several were wearing Hillary stickers. It was suprising to me to see how much support Hillary had and how outspoken it was in the display.
Overall, the people were very welcoming and a few people who were there asked me some questions on Obama's support for Veteran's issues. I didn't have the answers on hand, but it turns out he is on the Veteran's committee in the Senate and has some strong proposals. I am going to bring the information by their center today.
I can see how the strong old school Democratic establishment in Massachusetts has a strong base of support for Hillary, and that base is going to be hard to overcome. In spite of the endorsements of Kennedy, Kerry and Deval Patrick, the older generation of Democrats is still loyal to the Clintons.
WIth Obama's big win in South Carolina has come a string of impressive endorsements. In one day he has received the following. I am listing them in order of the best written. Definitely read Caroline Kennedy and Tom Hayden's if you haven't already.
Caroline Kennedy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Tom Hayden
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/an-endorsement-of-the-mov_b_83478.html
Superdelegates: Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Gov Kathleen Sebelius (D-KA), State Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
Newspapers:
Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080127_Editorial__2008_Presidential_Primaries.html
Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0127edit1jan27,0,847324.story
San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0127edit1jan27,0,847324.story
The Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2004145661_obamaed27.html
Have I missed anything?
Today Obama said that he is still the underdog. I would have to agree. So far the only states he has won were Iowa and South Carolina. Both states where the campaign had the time to organize so much that they doubled the predicted size of the party turnout in both places. That opportunity will not present itself over the course of 9 days in 22 states.
It is up to thousands of volunteers to take the momentum of South Carolina and talk to their neighbors, go to local meetings, make phone calls, or do anything they can to get out the vote in their home state.
If you live in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada, then visit a state that is voting on Feb.5th. Lord knows we annoyed you all for months on end. This is your chance for payback.
It is too late for people to register in many Feb 5th states, but it is not too late to change minds. If we don't do anything, then Clinton will win because she is the conventional choice. As an underdog you can't take any vote for granted.
History says, Don’t hope
On this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up
And hope and history rhyme
Sophocles -- Philocetes (translated by Seamus Heaney)
Former aide and speechwriter to Martin Luther Kin Jr. wrote a great piece on the recent flap about Obama and MLK.
"I've been to the mountaintop... And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land."
The candidacy of Senator Barack Obama may just be part of the Promised Land that Martin believed we as a people would get to, even though he prophetically said he may not there with us. The possible election of Senator Obama in 2008 as President of the United States may very well be more powerful than the march of mighty armies -- an idea for which the time has come.
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world and that is an idea whose time has come."
--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence-b-jones/clinton-vs-obama-lest-w_b_81667.html
Today Barack had the following quote in an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal:
“I have a pretty good sense of my strengths and my weaknesses,” he said today during a meeting with the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board.“I am very good at teasing out from people who are smarter than me what the issues are and how we resolve them,” he said. “I don’t think there is anybody in this race who can inspire the American people better than I can. And I don’t think there is anybody in this race who can bridge differences ... better than I can.“But I’m not an operating officer. Some in this debate around experience seem to think the job of the president is to go in and run some bureaucracy. Well, that’s not my job. My job is to set a vision of ‘here’s where the bureaucracy needs to go.’”
I think this is the most sensible line of attack that Obama can take at this stage. Hillary is positioning him as all talk and her as action. Well, they are running for President of the United States of America, which is not the same as trying to run a small business or even as being a legislator. I have to agree that nothing is more inspiring than a speech by Obama and the same can't be said about Clinton.
I am getting really frustrated that the Clinton attack on Obama that he is all words and no substance is starting to catch on. I think this line of attack was actually started on the liberal blogs by a lot of the Edwards supporters. They would accuse Obama supporters of just supporting the candidate for his speaking ability and identity and not having any policy awareness behind them.
Well, Obama has done, I think, the best job of all the candidates at outlining his policy proposals. He has issued more position papers earlier in the process than any other candidate. In comparison to Hillary in particular he has given much more specific policy proposals.
What's more, the infomation is easily accessible. Just go to www.barackobama.com an click on the Issues tab. When a radio talk show host, blogger, or other talking head accuses Obama of all style and no substance, it just shows that the person hasn't taken the time to educate themselves on where the candidates stand on the issues.
I honestly think that Obama's base of support did not come from his speaking ability, but from his writing about where he stands on issues so eloquently in Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope. The large majority of the volunteers that I have interacted with have read one if not both of these books and left the experience thinking that his point of view on various issues makes a lot of sense.
Be prepared for more of this attack, and educate yourself more on where Obama stands on issues.
This morning at the gym they had Fox News on and they spent a good 10 minutes discussing whether Friday's stock market losses could be attributed to the fact that Obama and Huckabee won in Iowa. At the begining of the discussions I laughed out loud because I knew the unemployment numbers had been released on Friday morning and were directly responsible for the stock market tank. Well, they spent 10 minutes tossing this theory around. Hale Stewart has more on it at Huffington Post and what a ridiculous idea this is.
Anyway, it occured to me, that this is another way for people to show their support for Obama, and to show them that Wall Street is really made of people who have control over their own money. With every Obama victory, if each Obama supporter directed $100 into the stock of their choice, it would definitely have an influence on the days stock market. For supporters, it could be considered an investment and a sign of economic optimism based on the future under an Obama presidency.
I doubt if Fox would end up reporting that the stock market's rise is do to Obama supporters, but eventually a story could catch on. Any thoughts on why this may be a really bad idea?
"One game at a time."
Bill Belicheck started the philosophy in New England with his Patriots a few years back when the hype started to build around his team. It has lead them to a sensible approach to each game, and prevented them from being suprised by a 'let-down' game.
Over the past year we have seen the Red Sox and Celtics adopt the same philosophy, giving each contest everything they have and leaving thier hearts on the field or floor every night they play.
It is time for the Obama team, including all of us in New England, to take the Belicheck philosophy to heart and fight for a New Hampshire win with everything we can give it. Knock on doors, Get out the vote, Call from home, e-mail anyone you know in New Hampshire.
And after New Hampshire, focus on the next state.
These were the final polls for the Iowa caucus
ARG Clinton +9
CNN Clinton +2
Insider Advantage Obama +1
Strategic Vision Obama +3
Zogby Obama +4
Des Moines Register Obama +7
It looks like there is a valid reason that the pollster analysis of most reliable polls found the Des Moines Register as the best. They were the most accurate prediction of the final result. Congratulations to Ann Selzer who stuck to her guns and nailed the polling.
This is what America is about. A man who was the son of a Kenyan, raised by a single mother, lived in Indonesia as a child, experimented with activism and drugs in college, has now become the favorite to be President of the United States of America.
Why? Because he is authentic and wise.
I am so proud to be a part of America today.
Congratulations to everyone who was involved.
So Iowa is here. It is Christmas day all over again. I know it doesn't make sense to think of this as the end of the presidential election, but there are two possibilities here where the presidential election will almost be decided.
Assumptions:
1. The Democrats are most likely going to win the presidency in November (caveat McCain).
2. If someone wins Iowa by more than three percentage points, they will experience a bump of around 10 points in NH.
3. If someone wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it will be very challenging to turn that momentum around in one months time.
So, If Hillary or Obama have a convincing win over the other, then the winner has a very strong shot at being our next president.
And... all signs point to that person being Obama. I hate that expectations are so high, but if you don't put it on the line, then you can't win. Intrade, RealClearPolitics Fantasy Election, and Politico Kingmaker all show an overwhelming prediction that Obama is going to win. The most respected polls and most predictions are pointing to the same result.
I guess we will know tomorow morning. Regardless, this has already been a historic election that has increased my sense of pride in America by 100 %.
The headlines coming out of the Iowa Des Moines Register Poll is that Obama has maintained his lead in front of Edwards and Hillary. This has obviously irritated the Clinton and Edwards campaign and they have been quick to release memo's questioning the validity of the poll. The net roots are furious to see Edwards slipping.
What I don't get is why isn't the big news, the exciting news, that Obama is expanding the Democratic party in historic ways. If the DMR's turnout prediction is accurate, Obama has the potential to double the size of the Democratic party.
I understand the arguments for Edwards and Hillary. People want a fighter who will fight for the accomplishments of a liberal majority. I disagree, George Bush was a fighter, and his sticking to his convictions has destroyed the Republican party. If Democrats are the first to grab the political middle of America, then the potential to maintain a long held Democratic majority can be realized.
Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic has an unofficial endorsement of Obama and McCain that dwells on the essence of running on hope vs. fear.
Hillary is running her campaign, as George W. Bush has lead his presidency, based on promulgating the fears of Americns and presenting herself as the only possible solution to these fears. Leadership by fear-mongering can be very effective, and several of the most notorious leaders of the twentieth century employed these tactics to bring their countries where they wanted to go. The problem is that the generation of fear can cause people to abandon their own sense of rationality and act irresponsibly.
I recently watched the movie "In the Name of the Father" starring Daniel Day-Lewis. It is about an innocent Irish man who is arrested and convicted by the English government as an IRA terrorist bomber. It turns out that this twenty + year old movie is highly relevant in today's America. The thing that struck me was that the English seemed very aware and concerned about the actions they were taking that were in contradiction with their government. In today's world, with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, it seems that fear has allowed people to abandon their better selves.
"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt
A lot has recently been made in the analysis of Iowa that Hillary will be getting her core support from women who are 55 and older. I am not suprised that this is a popular meme in the media, since Hillary is a woman who is in that demographic.
What does suprise me is that the anecdotal evidence in my life doesn't match up with this measurement. Over the holiday's I have heard from several women in this demographic (I won't name names, because none of these woman would want to be publicly acknowledged as part of this demographic :) and one after another came out as Obama supporters. There seems to be a tide of recognition that Obama offers an authenticity and wisdom that is lacking in the other candidates.
I feel that Hillary's recent spate of attacks on Obama have backfired particularly with this group. They are tired of the back and forth polarized environment that our government has become. It is time for the politicians to show some maturity, and Obama demonstrates that.
