God Bless America

The new face of America has arrived and it is everyone who was at Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois, November 4, 2008.  

Obama's Speech on Race

Here's his speech from today:

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

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 – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. 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.

The fact is that 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. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Rev. Wright: What Are People REALLY Worried About Here?

So this whole Rev. Wright thing has gotten me thinking about a million different things. But two things stick out in my mind.

First, sure, his comments were inflammatory -- to say the least. (Obviously, making a lasting impression on listeners is a preacher's job, whether a rabbi, imam, catholic priest or congregationalist minister -- so factor that into the analysis here.)

But what do those condemning Barack Obama for listening really worry about? That he's going to say "God Damn America" in his inaugural address? He won't. That he's going to implement policies that punish white people for centuries of oppression? He won't, and Congress won't let him. That he's going to not scramble jets to protect America when Canadian Fighters are inbound to Washington, D.C.? C'mon.

Seriously, what precisely is it that people are worried about actually, practically happening here? I've thought about this and read as much as I can over the past week and STILL have yet to see one concrete, realistic, plausible concern that could arise.

If anyone can point me to one, feel do so, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

Second point: anyone who has studied the racial history of this country knows that what Rev. Wright said about the history of the government treating African Americans as less than a whole person IS RIGHT. You can start in the 1600's and continue right up to 2008 in New Orleans. Black people are not treated the same by our government, by our laws, by our society as white people. They (and I say they because I am an over-educated white, anglo-saxon protestant who can't even dream of knowing what it is like to be Black in America) have, and will continue to have for a long time, every right in the world to complain, to be nasty, to begrudge this nation for what it has done to them. And I suspect that even Rev. Wright would tell you that when Barack Obama is inaugurated on January 20, 2009, African Americans will be the first ones to do the most honorable, Christian, biblical, Jewish, Muslim, Bhuddist, Hindu thing of all: forgive. Not forget, but simply forgive. And then we can all truly say, God Bless America for making us who we are. Until then, we say God Bless America out of a need for healing, a need for
reconciliation, a need for true prayer that will play a crucial role in healing our country.

More on the Clinton Strategy

In order to win the nomination, Hillary Clinton will need to convince unelected insider delegates that even though she is in second place in all of the major categories (delegates, states and popular vote), she deserves the nomination.

If Hillary gets the nomination, there will be lingering discussion over how she "stole" it, how she turned her back on the will of the people, how she did not deserve to have it.

If Barack gets the nomination, there will be none of that. There will be relief that people feel knowing that the right outcome came to pass. There will be relief that we won't have to go through all the bullcrap that her nomination would bring. There will be relief that we can focus our time and money on a once-in-a-generation candidate who will restore America's status in the world and who will allow America's citizens to prosper beyond their wildest dreams.

If Barack gets the nomination, America will be proud. If Hillary gets the nomination, America will remain on the electoral-shenanigan road we started on in Bush v. Gore. We need to get off that road and get on a new path to greatness.

Hillary Campaign Admits She Can't Catch Up

In a fascinating post today, Greg Sargent over at TPM Election Central gives us an insider's recap of today's Clinton campaign Hillraiser Summit.

In short, the campaign admits that it is not going to be able to catch up in pledged delegates and thus will need to rely on superdelegates for her to win the nomination.

Here's the key graf from Sargent's post:

The presentations had a tone of optimism tempered by realism, the fundraiser said, adding that Ickes didn't try to persuade his listeners that she would be able to catch up with Obama in pledged delegates.

Rather, the clear message emerging from the presentations was that Hillary's success depends on the campaign's ability to persuade the super-delegates that they should be considering three "data points," as this fundraiser puts it, in considering whom to back: The pledged delegate count, the popular vote, and the specific states won by each candidate.

I read this to say that the Clinton campaign admits that its sole route to success is to convince party insiders to annoint Hillary the nominee, regardless of whether she has struck out on all three pitches - total delegates, total states and popular vote. (You could even throw in a fourth strike - strength combined with results in getting to 271 electoral votes.)

The Clinton campaign's strategy may pay off, but we Democrats will pay the price if it does.

What Happens in June

OK, so let's project forward into the future a little bit and ponder a possible scenario:

Let's say we get to the end of the primary season in June and we're still in the same place as we are now. In other words:

Obama leads Clinton in elected delegates by around 130.

Clinton has won all of the "big" states (NY, CA, OH, PA, TX, MA) except for Illinois.

Obama has won more states overall.

Obama leads the popular vote by around the same small margin (~600K) as he does now.

Clinton leads the SuperDelegate tally, but a 200-300 remain uncommitted.

Michigan and Florida do not ultimately get "done over" and Howard Dean gets everyone to agree on some compromise that enables MI and FL delegates to participate but not be a determining factor (I can't figure out how that would work, but let's assume something gets worked out).

No major gaffes have occurred on either side, no new scandals have emerged, no surrogate has said anything deadly to the campaign.

The momentum see-saw has flopped back and forth a couple of more times.

What happens then?

Why Hillary Should Drop Out Now

Hillary Clinton should drop out today. Here's a list of reasons why:

1. She is not going to overtake Obama in either delegates, superdelegates or a combination of both.

2. She has staged yet another "Clinton Comeback" and ought to go out on a positive note a la Brett Favre.

3. She has spent her ammunition on Obama to get to this point and will only sully herself further if she lets Mark Penn lead her further into the gutter.

4. She is not going to have the chance to win another primary for at least 7 weeks.

5. If she drops out now, she gives Democrats enough time to unite, because her supporters, who would undoubtedly be crushed if she dropped out, would come back around to support Obama come the Fall.

6. If she waits to lose it outright, she will have recklessly divided the Democratic party at a time when unity ought to become our defining mindset. The goal of energizing the Democratic base has been accomplished and we know that turnout will be huge for Democrats in November. Now is the time to begin harnessing that support into a coordinated, organized ground game that will blow the Republic party away.

7. She could assume the role of king-maker were she to drop out now and wield great behind-the-scenes influence, which, as we all know, is often more impactful than being the candidate oneself.

8. She could become Senate Majority Leader and play an even more important role in the future of the nation than if she were President. (See the role Massachusetts Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi plays for an example of the power wielded by a legislative leader.)

9. Were she to become Majority Leader, she could assist hundreds or thousands of politicians across the country with their political efforts, all of which would greatly aid her daughter Chelsea's inevitable political ambitions.

10. She could write the final chapter in her and her husband's political story and make it one of grace and eloquence. As of now, that story is a mish-mash of fabulous economic success and disturbingly icky politics.

Tim Russert Should Be Fired

Tim Russert's questioning of Barack Obama's views on and relationship with Farrakhan were reprehensible, out of line, and dirty. His gotcha-style interrogation of Hillary Clinton's tax returns was dumb, cheap and low class.

Tim Russert should be ashamed of himself and he should voluntarily take a long leave of absence to clear his head. If he does not, I call on NBC/Universal to fire him so that he learns a lesson a la Don Imus.

Obama Returns the Finger

So, Barack wins Wisconsin. Hillary comes out at 9:30 EST for an early speech. After a week where the Clinton campaign has basically been giving the Obama campaign the finger with this whole "words" thing, Obama decides to return the favor by starting HIS speech at 9:40.

It's petty, stupid and incendiary inside the campaign offices, but I LOVE IT!!!

Hilarious.

Superdelegates: Obama's Secret Strategy

OK, here are my thoughts on this whole superdelegate rigmarole:

Obama is secretly happy that we're all only talking about delegates and superdelegates because when he splits the vote in WI, TX and OH, but still gets more delegates, it will be reported by the media as a "big win." And this wouldn't be possible if we weren't spending so much time talking about delegates and superdelegates and instead were only focusing on wins and losses.

The result, then, will be that there will be a "feeling" or "aura" surrounding the Obama campaign which will make it even more difficult for superdelegates to support Clinton because then it will look like they're making her the winner when she shouldn't be -- even if their supporting her is totally legit and within the rules.

We shall see...

It's Deval's Time

One of the most memorable political lines of my adult life was delivered in 1993 by Bill Clinton at his first inaugural.

He said,

Thomas Jefferson believed that to preserve the very foundations of our nation, we would need dramatic change from time to time. Well, my fellow citizens, this is our time. Let us embrace it.

I can't find an audio or video link to that speech at the moment (I'm a YouTube search novice. Help anyone?), but whenever I hear a clip of that, I get chills. I was there for it too, and though it was a bit muffled miles away on the Washington Mall, it was powerful then.

More recently, Barack Obama has used that line. In New Hampshire last month, he said,

"What's hard, what demands courage, what's truly audacious, is to hope," he said. "People are hungry for something new. They are interested in being part of something larger than petty politics we have seen in the last few years. This is our time - a new generation that is preparing to lead."

A good speech can change people. As I mentioned, I was lucky enough to be in Washington on 1/20/93. I was also lucky enough to be at the Fleet Center for Barack's memorable speech in 2004.

Today is Deval Patrick's time. It's time to start out on a new path to hope, a new path to prosperity, and a new path to true equality. I hope his speech does that - his Convention Speech was solid, but I hope this surpasses that.

Good luck, Governor Patrick.


p.s. - I'm baaaaaaaaaaack.......

Deval Patrick Is Too Liberal To Beat Kerry Murphy Healey

Anyone remember that argument?

Mr. Gabrieli, Mr. Reilly, care to chime in?

Thought not.

When You're Down Double Digits You Gotta Go Double Barrel

Yep, Deval's pissed.

And Murph is hiding. (Remember when they wanted to have people call her "Murph"? I'm going to go back to that, because it's funny.)

Instead she's putting her whipping boy Tim O'Brien out to get flogged (does this guy have a crappy job or what?) and by the looks of this statement, they're setting themselves up for a bigtime backlash. Here's why:

The media (read: the Globe, Phoenix, Weekly Dig, South End News, Valley Advocate, T&G, Eagle - i.e. anyone but the Herald) is now going to focus like a laser beam on finding out who leaked this story to the Herald. And that will get out - don't even think for a minute that it won't. And when that happens, Healey will be branded a "liar" for not telling the truth about her sources. Now, maybe this is why she's not saying anything and is instead putting her campaign manager out there -- so that when the source is revealed, she can fire him, yada yada.

But I think there will be some reporter out there who will want to find out the source. I can bet you that the Globe would love to front-page this on Sunday if they can. If it turns out it was the sex offender registry office, that will tie back to Healey too, because she's the titular vice-chief of the executive branch.

And how could it NOT be Healey/tied to Healey? I mean, who else has the motivation to spend money on an opposition researcher to investigate Deval's family?

Remember, someone here had to make a conscious decision and say: "Yes, let's investigate and do criminal background checks on Deval's family members."

Make no mistake - that decision was affirmatively made by someone with authority - the question is what authority. Perhaps it was the Republican Governor's Association, perhaps another group. But someone who can undoubtedly be easily tied to Murph made this decision. And it will cost her her chance at being Governor.

I just can't see any way this ends up helping Healey - she's going to get burned in the end and people are now so used to campaign revelations that they don't get as worked up about Horton-Swift-Boat-esque events as they used to. There are a lot more important things going on in this world too, and people know it.

Hey, when you're down double digits you gotta go double barrel, I guess...

Green-Rainbow LG Candidate: An Inspiration

It's been prety quiet around these parts for ol' Hoss. Real world time pressures have kept me from posting as much as I could over the summer.

But this morning's Globe profile of Green-Rainbow Lieutenant Governor Candidate Martina Robinson has prompted me to stir. She is truly an inspirational figure and we as Democrats ought to be ashamed of ourselves for letting her go.

Before I go on, let me state this: I support Deval Patrick and Tim Murray completely. I will vote for them in 4 weeks, I will continue to support them with my time and money. But I hope all of us take a look at Ms. Robinson when we think about how much we really have to complain about in life.

Martina has cerebral palsy, yet she is a three-time candidate for Belchertown Selectman. I, for one, hope she runs again so that we netroots-ers can propel her to victory. I hope she runs for Rtate Representative or Senator someday. She is someone who we need in the political realm in Massachusetts. Senator Berry has been a leader on disability issues, but he's as much of an insider up on Becaon Hill as anyone else.

Martina also has what could be the line of the race thus far and does a good job summing up what the LG actually does:

Compared with some of her greater challenges, Robinson said, the job she seeks looks pretty easy.

``I've chaired lots of meetings," she said. ``I can do that in my sleep."

As far as the LG debate goes, here's what should happen: it should be extended to 90 minutes, Ms. Robinson should be invited and given the opportunity to have an aide repeat her answers if she wants, and Tim Murray ought to be the first person advocating for her to be there. Let's face it: no one is going to watch the LG debate, so it doesn't matter if it's 30 minutes longer. And I would also hope that the broadcast networks wouldn't balk at adding 30 minutes. It's the right thing to do if it's what is necessary to allow Ms. Robinson the time she needs to answer the questions facing our state.

I strongly urge the Patrick/Murray campaign to advocate for this or a similar measure if it is not already doing so.

Damn You Ferson! I Thought I Could Quit You!

Aggh! I've been attacked for my wrong, incorrect and stupid Scott Ferson insinuations from last March!

I've been trying to lay pretty low for the past week since the primary, mostly because I need to do the work I actually get paid for... But I've been drawn back in by the WonderTwins.

Looks like the braniacs over at HubPolitics have decided to use the usual GOP playbook and pounce on disproven theories as the basis for their statements (WMD, anyone?). This time they accuse Mihos and Ferson of being in cahoots to bring down Muffy.

I wish.

Hey, dingbats: I WAS WRONG. I WAS A CLUELESS BLOGGER WHO JUST DISCOVERED THE INTERNETS BACK THEN. SCOTT FERSON IS A DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST WHO WAS PART OF THE TEAM THAT JUST WHOOPED SOME SERIOUS ASS IN THE LG RACE.

I think they know that they are right to be very afraid that Ferson et. als. are going to unload another can of that whoopass on MuffDawg.

Even Keller gets in a dig. I LOVE it.

Hat Tip to BMG for noting this.

LG Race: All Tied Up

In a Suffolk University/Channel 7 poll released today, the LG race is too close to call.

The numbers are as follows (with their increase over the prior Suffolk poll from 8/22):

Deb Goldberg: 25% (+19%)
Tim Murray: 22% (+11)
Andrea Silbert: 20% (+15%)

In the commentary put out by the pollster along with the results, this interesting nugget about the LG race was included:

“When you consider all the races, this is the one that could come down to a re-count,” said Paleologos. “However, Deval Patrick supporters could end up deciding the Lt. Governor winner by discussing it on the Deval Patrick internet platform.”

In an August 22nd poll, the results were as follows:

Tim Murray: 11%
Deb Goldberg: 6%
Andrea Silbert: 5%

It's pretty clear that they are all gathering traction and that Deb's millions are NOT allowing her to pull away.

This means that the Silbert and Murray field operations (which I would think track the Patrick operation in various communities) will play a key role in the outcome, because Deb likely has no field operation a la Gabrieli and is relying on name recognition.

Inside the LG Poll Numbers: Closer Than It Seems

While the poll numbers put out by the Globe show the LG race at 26/20/18 in the overall horserace and 27/27/16 in the "definitely vote" category, given the large numbers of undecideds remaining, it's interesting and helpful to look inside the numbers to get a sense of where things really stand.

The Globe's Political Intelligence blog points to the cross-tabs can be found here at the UNH website.

What do these numbers tell us and what do they mean?

A couple things.

First, and most obviously, this race is too low of a priority for voters to be able to predict who will win.

Second, Deb Goldberg's purported lead is not as large as it seems, and her support is not as solid as it ought to be given the money she's spent.

And now the deeper findings based on the numbers:

Deval's Voters Favor Silbert: Of the 224 people who responded to the poll who said they were voting for Deval, 24% said they'll vote for Silbert, 24% for Goldberg and 22% for Murray. But if you look at the favorability ratings for the LG candidates amongst the 227 Deval voters, the spread widens, with 32% having a favorable rating of Silbert, 27% see Murray favorably, 26% see Goldberg favorably.

What does this mean? Well, if Deval's voters come out in higher numbers, Silbert's chances go up.

Fav/Unfav: Deb's unfavorables are twice Silbert's or Murray's, which is likely a result of people seeing her more on TV and more people having the opportunity to decide they don't like her. He favorables are also higher, but that's probably for the same reason - more exposure. Another interesting note is the Silbert's favorability rating is slightly higher than Murray's, although is within the margin of error.

Goldberg v. Silbert In "Voter Belt": In the 128 to 495 belt, the race is essentially tied between Goldberg (28%) and Silbert (25%) with Murray at 18% there. This area includes, I presume everything from Woburn all the way around to Framingham, Franklin and Walpole. As people move out of the Boston area and as the commuter suburbs extend north, west and south, these are the towns where the race will be won or lost. Interesting that Murray isn't doing well here, although the margin of error is certainly in play.

Murray Cleaning Up in CMass, Low Interest in WMass; Silbert leads on Cape: In the area identified as "Central Mass", Murray gets 36%, Silbert 24%, Goldberg 17%. In Western Mass, it's only 15% Murray, 14% Goldberg and 5% Silbert. On the Cape and Islands, Silbert is at 21%, Goldberg 18% and Murray 14%.

Interestingly, the sample included the same amount of respondents from WMass (61) as from the Cape and Islands (63). Anyone know why? Are the population numbers that similar? CMass had a sample of 84, 128-495 had 144, inside 128 was 158.

Bottom line? None of us know what's going to happen.

Murray's CMass Turnout Bet: Risk vs. Reward

Well, it's finally been revealed: the hunger, the drive, the desparation of the Murray campaign has been revealed in two recent articles.

First, in this Worcester Magazine article, the secret Murray strategy has been revealed.

...Murray’s... talking predicted voter turnout in Worcester with [campaign manager Joe] O’Brien. “Only 66,000 four years ago,” says Murray. Joe calls for 100,000 this time around, at least.

So there it is: the Murray campaign is counting on increasing turnout in Worcester County by 40,000 voters. If they do that, good on them, but any seasoned political operative knows an extraordinary field/GOTV operation is good for 3-5% points. Even with Deval Patrick's purported unprecedented field operation statewide, increasing turnout by 66% is a pipe dream. Taking it one step further, if they are able to increase turnout in Worcester County by that large an amount, presumably working in concert with the Patrick campaign's GOTV operation, it will be because something bigger than any of them is happening in the state and turnout across the board will be greater - which will help the other candidates and lift all boats.

As I've said all along, if Murray can re-write the downballot campaign playbook and win a primary without competing on the airwaves with the bigger spending candidates, I will be happy because it will get us back to where we ough to be - running and winning grassroots campaigns. However, as we move farther and farther away from those grassroots years, I fear that we can't return to that model in non-top-of-the-ticket races.

So, that's one element of Murray's plan.

Here's the other element of it: a hunger, a drive, and indeed a sense of desparation amongst Worcester-area political operatives who can barely contain themselves about the possibility that one of their own will be elected statewide. They thought they had a shot with D'Amico back in '86, but that fizzled. And now they have the (pasty) white knight they've been dreaming of for decades. Take this quote from "Worcester man-about-town and Democratic Party activist extraordinaire" John Brissette in today's Worcester T&G while he was directing the set up for Murray's election night party:

“How long’s it been?” Mr. Brissette said as he directed logistics in the middle of Union Station’s expansive marble-floored entry hall yesterday afternoon. “We’ve got a shot in Worcester to do something really big. We can’t blow it.”

There you have it. These guys feel a sense of ownership, which is good. But there's also that sense of desparation; if their man doesn't win, it seems like these guys won't know what to do with themselves. But another excerpt from this article shows how confident they are:

If he wins, Mr. Murray will deliver a speech to local supporters before being whisked to Boston to appear on stage with whoever is victorious in the primary for governor.

With a state police escort, I presume? There's some Herald front page fodder for ya...

But their arrogance doesn't stop there. In that same T&G article, the Murray campaign is blatantly asserting that their candidate is the one to pick if Deval Patrick wins.

Are you kidding me? I'm not asking that for political reasons, because projecting confidence is important. And each of the LG candidates can make a credible political argument why they are the most appropriate running mate for Deval Patrick or any of the others too. But could you BE more presumptuous, arrogant and disrespectful? People don't like being told who to vote for, and an article like this certainly won't help that. People want to vote for winners, people who instill confidence, but when they detect a candidate's sense of entitlement, that don't work.

I'd advise the Murray campaign to tone down that rhetoric in tomorrow's debate because the whiplash can getcha everytime.

So, there's the playbook: increase turnout in Worcester County and environs and hope that investing in direct-mail advertising and gotv will trump advertising on television. I hope for the sake of democracy they're right. Otherwise those State Police will have to shift from escort duty to suicide watch.

WBUR Helpful Candidate Interviews - Gov and LG

WBUR has a helpful page that contains links to interviews with each of the candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

WBUR's Election Page.

Deval Patrick.

Chris Gabrieli.

Tom Reilly.

Andrea Silbert.

Tim Murray.

Deb Goldberg .

These interviews are perhaps a better way of deciding who to vote for than reading a position paper or blog because you get to hear who these people are and how they talk to you.

For anyone who is still undecided after reading and studying the candidates, perhaps listening to these clips will help you make up your mind.

Goldberg Whines While Silbert Shines

Apparently Deb Goldberg has taken out a full page ad in today's Brookline Tab complaining about the Tab's failure to endorse her and instead endorse Andrea Silbert for Lieutenant Governor.

Does anyone else find this hysterical?

Now I have not seen the ad, but the Boston Globe noted that she'd done this, as did onBrookline.com's editor, and former Tab columnist, Jim Conley who posted this excerpt from the print ad.

“Your misstatements of fact and mischaracterization of dedicated and hard working public servants are not worthy of refutation (sic).”

This is absolutely pathetic on Goldberg's part.

First of all, it confirms what many of us already believe about her: that she is thin-skinned and can't take the heat.

But it also re-confirms something I already know, which is that she feels entitled to support from her hometown and is incredulous that it is not forthcoming.

Lastly, it shows me how off-base her priorities are. Can you imagine the scene at the Goldberg HQ last week when the editorial came down? I guarantee that her staff spent valuable time this past week working this ad, time that could have been spent on getting in touch with voters. I also am sure that Deb wasted hours on the phone speaking to her Brookline homies who were, like her, SHOCKED.

(I'm sure they are all hot at Dan Payne who informed the world outside the Blogosphere today that the Tab hadn't endorsed Debbie and insted went with Silbert. Payne's a Newton guy, part of that whole Brookline/Newton political crew that grew up with JFK, came of age with Barney Frank and The Duke, and now think that they're god's gift to politics. Think again, folks, because the people who matter most in Mass. politics these days live in towns like Wayland, Ashland, East Bridgewater, Wakefield and Franklin.)

If the people who know Deb Goldberg best do not think that she is ready to be our LG nominee, should the rest of us? I think I answered my own question.

Well, it all plays well into Ms. Andrea Silbert's hands, because she, apparently, has been spending the last week getting a story about her in papers around the state just about every day - something which ain't too shabby for an unelected candidate who supposedly has no base.

But don't forget, Andrea's a Brookline native too, and she got a ton of support at the convention from Deb's hometown delegates who knew Deb and liked Andrea better.

Deb, it's too bad it's come to this. I said to myself last week that I thought your $2 million could innocculate your campaign from worrying about these kinds of things, but that's evidently not the case. Actually, I should clarify: I'm sure your campaign staff wasn't worried about it, but you made them worry.

I wish you luck on Tuesday because you're going to need it now more than you needed it yesterday.