Create the Hate

If you listen to the political experts out there, you would think the primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was the worst primary battle ever. People are depressed because the differences between the Barack camp and the Hillary camp are sooooo irreconcilable. I think people tend to exaggerate the tensions between people running against each other in the primaries. I don't think the primary race betweeen Barack and Hillary is any better or worse than any other primary race. In fact, I can see President Barack Obama working together with one of his strongest allies in the Senate, Hillary Clinton, many times over the next eight years.

The George W. Bush-John McCain primary fight of 2000 was much more brutal and malicious than anything we have seen this year. In South Carolina, McCain was accused of having a black daughter born out of wedlock. Cindy McCain had visited an orphanage in Bangladesh run by Mother Teresa in 1991 and returned to the United States with a three-month old baby. The McCains adopted this baby and named her Bridget. Bridget was 9 years old in 2000 when George W. Bush's henchmen labeled her a "black bastard" because of her dark skin. Around the same time, McCain was labeled a "Manchurian Candidate" because of his five and a half years as a prisoner of war. Of course, the topic of what George W. Bush was doing during this time was dismissed as old news.

One of the reasons why I do not mind that Hillary Clinton is still in the race is because it keeps a conversation going. Political parties need to be constantly adjusting to the changing times. On some issues, Hillary Clinton probably has some really good ideas. And Barack Obama would benefit from running with some of them. Pundits out there seem to think that a political party will just break apart because people are running against each other. But they forget that political parties have always been made up of different sets of ideas and beliefs. If you think you are a better candidate, run as hard as you can. If the belief that competition in primaries is bad then that would have precluded Obama from running for president this year since Hillary Clinton was seen as the presumed candidate in 2008.

I am pretty sure that idea wouldn't have flown with Obama's millions of supporters back then as we are seeing that that idea doesn't fly with Clinton's millions of supporters now.

Greed is Good

There was an editorial by Elizabeth Edwards in The New York Times yesterday, entitled "Bowling 1, Health Care 0," where she criticized the press for focusing on Barack Obama's bowling score instead of more worthwhile subjects like Joe Biden's health care plan. She seems to be saying that the press is more inclined to chase stories that it deems exciting rather than stories that are more substantive. An example of press-think: Barack Obama is much more interesting than "just another old white guy" Chris Dodd so we will act like Chris Dodd doesn't even exist. I agree with Mrs. Edwards' observations completely except for one thing. She thinks this is a bad thing and I think it is inevitable.

Should we be surprised that newspaper companies want to sell more newspapers? We shouldn't be. Newspaper companies want to make money first. Of course they will tell us stuff like they are in it for the public good. If they think this line of b.s. will sell a few more newspapers, why not say it? By all accounts, fewer and fewer newspapers are sold every year. I kind of feel like every newspaper I read will be the last one I will ever read. Just like people a hundred years ago took one last ride in a horse-drawn carriage before they disappeared forever. If Barack Obama's picture on the front page sells a few more newspapers, can you blame the newspaper companies for highlighting him over other so-called "boring" presidential candidates like Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter and Mike Gravel?

We hear conservatives constantly bemoan the "liberal mainstream media" and "liberal elites out of Hollywood." The strange thing about this argument is that the media and Hollywood are both pretty pure "supply and demand" institutions. (I remember a day when conservatives talked about "supply and demand" and "free markets" and it was almost believable. Now they make me laugh when they talk about such things.) The media and Hollywood don't create a product and hope the public likes them. They aren't pushing any kind of agenda. The media and Hollywood think about what the public wants and then tries to create a product to satisfy them. If this is done right, there is a whole lot of money to be made. Money is it. That is what media companies and Hollywood studios care about. They aren't trying to push a liberal agenda. If pushing a conservative agenda sold, I think they would sell that too. But that just doesn't sell these days. They are looking out for their bank accounts. Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money, I guess.

Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Most of us are doing the same thing on a smaller scale. Heck, I daydream about how much money I am going to make as a lawyer so that I can retire to Italy. Elizabeth Edwards is criticizing the press for not being serious about covering the presidential campaign. I wish I existed in a world where the press existed to inform a public wanting to be informed in a substantive way. But that ship has sailed. Maybe the press never existed to serve the greater good.

I also doubt if the public wants to know much more than Mr. Obama's bowling score or which campaign volunteer Hillary Clinton chewed out today. Sadly we are a nation of Jaywalkers. Have we become a country led by elites? Yes we have.

The Case Against McCain...and Obama...and Clinton

The Wind Beneath Hillary's Wings

Hillary Clinton has been criticized for her decision to continue to run for the Democratic presidential nomination. I don't know if her decision is the right decision or the wrong decision. But if it is the wrong decision, she is not the only party guilty for keeping this nomination fight going. Other people to blame include undecided superdelegates and voters in primary states (like Pennsylvania) who continue to vote for Mrs. Clinton. These sets of people have kept hope alive in the Clinton campaign. Mrs. Clinton would have quit a long time ago but for the continuing support of voters in the so-called big states (Ohio, Texas, California, and Pennsylvania) and the seemingly inability of superdelegates to make up their minds.

I suspect that Barack Obama has deemed it impolite (and probably stupid from a political point of view) to criticize voters for dragging out the primary battle he is engaged in. He will need these same voters in the fall if he wants to have a chance of beating John McCain. But a case can be made that Mrs. Clinton has millions of people supporting her candidacy. Heck, near 2.5 million voted for her yesterday in Pennsylvania. I wonder how these people would feel if they felt that their ability to choose a candidate was taken away from them just because a long drawn out primary season is bad for the party. I suspect they would think a lack of choice is bad for the party too.

Millions of people in these primary states have at least some reservations about Mr. Obama. His scolding them for keeping the primary race going would just feed into the image of Mr. Obama thinking he is better than the average voter. Mr. Obama needs to think of the remaining primary states as small laboratories when he can continue to strengthen his message. Most people agree that he is getting better and better as a candidate. That is because he has been forced to by continuing competition from Mrs. Clinton. But much work remains on his part. Some weaknesses have emerged. Mr. Obama's so-called elitism needs to be debunked. I rather we work on this problem now rather than in October. But a problem that doesn't exist is that this primary season is going on way too long. Mr. Obama should just let it ride. Concentrate on fixing any perceived problems his campaign have. If anything, stop talking about Hillary Clinton and start talking about John McCain. John McCain never really talked about Mike Huckabee. He acted like a front-runner when he became the front-runner. Mr. Obama has been the front-runner for awhile now. He should start acting that role.

As things stand now, we have the constructed fiction that Hillary Clinton is alone in wanting her campaign to continue. This is obviously false. People in the upcoming primary states haven't got the memo saying this race is over. Mrs. Clinton is at least getting a look-see from voters in those states. Mr. Obama does control his own destiny though. If he would just beat Mrs. Clinton in one state that she is supposed to win, this race would be over. He hasn't done that yet. He will need to beat Mrs. Clinton to prove that he is a strong candidate for the fall. Her just dropping out could have the effect of showing that he could not beat someone who has proven to be a rather ineffective national candidate.

On a related note, since a long and drawn out primary season is supposedly such a terrible thing for the Democrats, why do we even have all these primaries and caucuses scheduled for after Super Tuesday? Super Tuesday was supposed to be the day that decided who the winner would be, either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton. That didn't happen. Why wouldn't the Democrats put all these primaries and caucuses early, early, early if they were so worried about a primary battle "taking forever"?

No Country for Old White Men

Here is an email I just received from my brother-in-law Hector. I assume he is joking:

Regardless of who wins the general election in 2008, this year promises to be of historical significance.

If Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, we will have our first female President.

If Barack Obama wins the Presidency, we will have our first Kenyan-Hawaiian-American President.

But if John McCain wins, we will have the 44th consecutive white man as President!!! It will be a record-breaking, unprecedented streak for white men holding office in the United States. In fact, never before in the history of the United States have we had 44 white men in a row be President!

Personally I think everyone should vote for the White Man this year. After all, consider this country's progress under White Power. Over 95% of companies in the US are owned and managed by white men. A super-majority of congressmen, governors, cabinet members and military leaders are white, and continue to be so.

You may say "But what about the Iraq war? A white male President brought us into this mess!" Well, you could scapegoat the White Man for this disaster, but if you take a more nuanced view, you would realize that this war started under the watch of the first non-white Secretary of State. (I know its confusing, but Colin Powell is technically not white). And what happened under the watch of the first non-white, non-male National Security Advisor? 9/11, that's what.

Let's look at other examples of white greatness:
White bread continues to outsell wheat, or any other variety.
White appliances hold over 95% of the market
Milk... white
Elmer's Glue... white
Santa Claus... white
Bob Barker... white
Whiteboards... white
Lab coats... white
the paper cup holding my coffee... white
sugar in my coffee... white
person serving me coffee... white
Walmart... white
Disneyworld... white
the Devil... red! not white, red!
The first man on the moon was white... the rocket that took him to the moon was white... hell, the moon is white!
And Jesus Christ himself... white man!
Also, look at the success of the Roman Catholic Church... and they have had even more consecutive white guys... 267!

We could take our chances with a White Not-Man President or a Not-White Man President, or we could continue to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with a White Man President!

Don't change horses in mid-stream. VOTE WHITE MAN IN 2008!

The Florida Question

The Democrats face a tricky situation regarding the Florida and Michigan primary results. Both states decided to jump ahead of their assigned slots in the primary schedule as determined by the Democratic national party. As punishment, both states were stripped of their delegates.

Back when these primaries were held and their delegates subsequently stripped, there was some thought that these two states wouldn't matter much because it was assumed that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be the clear winner in the race to win the Democratic nominee. That has not happened. Michigan and Florida may be the tipping points to put one of these two over the top.

So we see people down in Florida trying to solve this problem.

Why does the input of the Obama and Clinton campaigns matter in how Florida Democrats decide how to solve their primary problem? It seems to me that both of these campaigns could have motives that would go against the interest of the people in Florida. For example, Barack Obama would be happy to split the Florida delegates half-half even though this isn't necessarily how Floridians would vote. (Hillary Clinton, at this point, would be favored to win the Florida primary if another one was held.)

I would think Florida Democrats would just decide how they want to run their own primary, the opinions of the Obama and Clinton campaigns be damned.

Reversal of Fortune

I remember the campaign where I first started following politics as intensely as I do now. I picked my candidate for a variety of reasons but mostly because I admired his competence and his ability to work really hard. A few of my former graduate school buddies and I had peculiarly discovered all at the same time an interest in politics. We all started having frequent jam sessions about this particular presidential race. I tried making the case for my candidate but due to my inexperience with politics and because of my candidate's low-key personality, my arguments never really won any converts.

My candidate lost that November. I was a little sad but had learned that candidates seen as "boring" or "pedantic" or "stiff" had an extra burden they had to overcome. I was able to admit at the time that I didn't find my candidate all that likeable. But he wasn't going to be my friend. I wasn't ever going to drink a beer with my candidate. But I knew my candidate would intensely think about the problems facing our country. That was a quality I was looking for when I decided who I was going to vote for.

My candidate's name was Al Gore.

Today he is seen as the greatest guy ever. I saw him give a speech in Houston in 2006. Everyone sitting by me laughed loudly at every joke Gore said. When he was talking about something serious, they listened intently. When he ended his speech, there was a minutes-long standing ovation. "Boring" and "pedantic" and "stiff" weren't going to be words thrown around to describe this speech. Al Gore had been reborn as Justin Timberlake. He was bringing wonky back.

My, how times have changed.

We are all so willing to make snap judgments about a person. We hold these judgments to be self-evident. But sometimes, we are proven to be spectacularly wrong. Al Gore is proof of this. I am happy for Gore. I liked him back in 2000 when it wasn't yet cool. He was a good person back then too. Nice to see some people jump on the bandwagon after the fact.

Hillary Clinton will undergo a Gore-like transformation too, I think. Now it is held that she is a shady character who helped preside over that terrible decade known as the 1990s. She is seen as promising "more of the same" of the Bush/Cheney years. (Strange since I thought the Clintons and the Bushes were rivals.) Clinton seemingly doesn't even know the definition of the word "change." (Ironic since if she was elected, she would bring the most "change" to the all-boy's club known as the United States Presidents.)

Clinton's place in history, whatever happens with her run for the presidency, will be to stand on the pedestal of great women leaders like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Alice Paul and Victoria Woodhull and Rosa Parks.

Some of us are "Hillary Clinton" early adapters. We get what she is saying. And what she is trying to do. The others? They will come around.

The "Agony" and the Ecstasy of Rush Limbaugh

Last week featured the imbroglio with John McCain and the New York Times and and, my personal favorite, an extramarital affair with a blond lobbyist. (In my honest opinion, I think blond lobbyists are just the pits. So full of themselves they are.) Like clockwork, Rush Limbaugh got all upset about how the liberal media is going tough on Republicans while taking it easy on Democrats such as Barack Obama and, especially, Hillary Clinton.

Um, excuse me, Rush? Rush also explained last week how the New York Times and the rest of the liberal media would never do a tough story on Hillary Clinton. Once again, excuse me, Rush? It seems to me that Hillary Clinton is has been scrutinized by the press to an extreme degree. Granted, you should invite a lot of press scrutiny when you decide to run for public office. But do y'all remember all the "headband" stories about Clinton from the 90s? Remember the political agenda of Hillary's headband? How she was trying to disguise herself as a regular working mom so that she could gain the support of women everywhere which would allow her to push her socialistic message? She can't even dress herself without people questioning her motives.

The press coverage of Hillary Clinton's campaign for the president has also been pretty tough. The media seems to think that everything she does in her campaign emerges whole cloth out of some sinister reason. I concede that Hillary Clinton has pulled some shady tactics against her opponent, Barack Obama. (South Carolina was just sad.) But the narrative that emerges if you read the press is that mean lady Hillary is always trying to pick on that innocent choirboy Barack Obama. A narrative that has some truth but only some. It is way easier for the press to pick out a narrative that sells a lot of papers and just keep running with it ad nauseum. They are a business like any other.

It is the best of times and the worst of times for Rush Limbaugh. He is a man without any proactive ideas to push. We know this because Rush is so full of himself that he would totally brag about 'em if he had 'em. But, sadly, he is an empty void, bereft of any ideas that could be useful to us Americans. Thus, he needs stories of malfeasance that feed into his normal tropes. Oh, woe is me, the New York Times is so evil, says Rush. How I hate those university professors because of their fancy book learnin'. Damn ACLU and their trial lawyer buddies. And don't get me started on those feminazis. Somebody go tell them to please shave their legs.

Oh sure, Rush Limbaugh will feign anger and agony when the New York Times does something wrong. But I am not fooled. Rush is ecstatic because a negative story that fits into El Rushbo's world view buys him another day of relevance. Another day to collect a big paycheck. One day, a day that can't get here soon enough, the world according to Rush Limbaugh will be seen as realistic as something written by J.R.R. Tolkien. With Rush Limbaugh starring as Saruman.

Operation Hail Mary

"Saturday Night Live" dropped a bombshell last night, coincidentally a Saturday, when they reported that former Governor Mike Huckabee was launching a top secret and last-ditch effort to overtake John McCain to win the Republican presidential nomination. Huckabee's plan, codenamed Operation Hail Mary, was to steal superdelegates out from underneath Senator Barack Obama. Governor Huckabee has reportedly promised some sort of quid pro quo if a superdelegate was willing to switch his or her vote from Obama to Huckabee. What is Governor Huckabee promising in return for this? His band will cover Bob Dylan songs at your wedding, kid's birthday party, or whatever office parties you have coming up.

If all this fails, Governor Huckabee has promised to implement a sinister and insidious Plan B, codenamed Operation Chuck Norris Will Whip Your Ass, All While Not Even Breaking a Sweat.

And in the unlikely event that even Chuck Norris fails, Governor Huckabee will implement a much more moderate, and potentially much more entertaining, Plan C - he will star in the movie version of Bill Clinton's autobiography "My Life" in the title role of "Bill Clinton." Emma Thompson is slated to play a character named "Hillary Clinton." Hollywood Liberal Rob Reiner will direct.

Chuck Norris will play all the rest of the roles (Al Gore, Tipper Gore, Madeline Albright, Janet Reno, George Stephanopoulos) because, well, he wanted to.

So What Have They Done?

So an important meme out there is that Hillary is oh so accomplished and gets results, while Obama is oh so green and is nothing but words.

I have to admit, that for the last couple of months, I've had the feeling that both memes were wrong but never looked into it, so I didn't have any proof for my words. Well, finally, I got off my lazy bottom and did do some research...

For those of you who are lazy like me the long and short of what I found is this:

Barack Obama actually has accomplished some things, and crossed the aisle to do so.

Hillary Clinton also has a record of accomplishment, but not that much greater than Obama's.

So here's what I found.

We'll begin by looking at their respective records while in the U.S. Senate. By the way I decided to list the bills that they sponsored by themselves. I listed rather than described them...that way you, our faithful readers (both of you) don't have to go anywhere else...however, I've cited my sources at the end. Finally, I didn't include bills that did more 'pedestrian' things such as naming Post Offices and giving out other kinds of recognition.

Bills sponsored by Hillary Clinton alone that actually became law:

1.) S.1425 : A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York City Watershed Protection Program.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 7/17/2003)
Note: For further action, see H.R.2771, which became Public Law 108-328 on 10/16/2004.

2.) S.1622 : A bill to extend the period of availability of unemployment assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in the case of victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 11/1/2001) 
Note: For further action, see H.R. 3986, which became Public Law 107-154 on 3/25/2002.

3.) S.2496 : A bill to provide for the establishment of investigative teams to assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 5/9/2002) Note: For further action, see H.R. 4687, which became Public Law 107-231 on 10/1/2002.

Bills sponsored by Obama that actually became law:

S.2125 : A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 12/16/2005) Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-456

It is hard to get a bill through the senate sponsored only by a singular senator. As a result it probably is more revealing to look at bills that were co-sponsored. Co-sponsoring a bill is a bit confusing. Often, a senator will sign on as a co-sponsor without having done any work. As a result, I've highlighted co-sponsored bills here, rather than listing like above.

Hillary has co-sponsored numerous bills but, as is common practice, has often not spoke on them or done much work on them. The bills on which she has taken an active role include a bill to achieve emission reductions and cost savings through accelerated use of cost-effective lighting technologies in public buildings, and for other purposes, and a number of revisions to laws, including issues related to environmental concerns, consumer protections. She is also consistently involved in bills related to improving things for veterans. I will say that there is a nice range of issues to which she has at least attached her name.

Obama, also co-sponsored numerous bills that were sponsored by numerous senators. However, Obama, who campaigned in 2004 on the issues of ethics reform and nuclear non-proliferation work, actually crossed the aisle for work related to both. His biggest accomplishment came last year when he joined with Richard Lugar (R-Ind) to update the Nunn-Lugar Framework for securing loose nukes. It also extended the scope of the act to include conventional weapons such as RPG's.

As for ethics reform he was appointed by Senator Reid as the senate's point person on the ethics reform and co-sponsored a number of the bills that made up the package that passed in 2006, called the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 .

I don't think either of these is insignificant. As for his promise to get past the political divisions of the past 30 years, he has shown an ability to work with members of the Republican party while in the U.S. Senate. He also demonstrated this ability while in the Illinois Senate. The most famous example is his work on a bill that made videotaping mandatory for police interrogations in Illinois. When he proposed this bill, he had little support on his side of the aisle. In addition, the police unions opposed it as did the Illinois governor. Through real legislating, working with other members in the Illinois senate, working with the police unions and eventually the Illinois governor, he was able to get the bill signed into law.

My conclusion is that both have experience. Reading through Hillary's record I realize she is not quite as calculating as is sometimes portrayed, she has worked hard on issues that she cares about. Reading through Obama's record also confirmed that he works hard on issues he cares about and confirmed (at least to me) his assertion that he has the abilities to change (not end but make some change) the partisan atmosphere in Washington politics. Who knows though, I can only think of one way to find out.

Finally, one other thing, while searching for info about, I found that Obama has introduced a bill that is on the Senate Calendar for this year (and Hillary has co-sponsored it.) So there you go Thomas, he's trying...technically it was introduced in late 2007 but I think it counts for something.

Sources:
Thomas, the LOC resource for all things legislatively related.

I also got a lot of information from the blog Obsidian Wings, which is a very interesting read.

Hillary's Inspirational Power

Sorry it's been a while since I posted or commented...I've been busy scouring all the political blogs as I follow this presidential nominating contest way too closely.

In fact, I've become quite obsessed with following the races on both sides...I will have more to say about that in the coming days...

For today, all I have is this (thanks to a tip from my friend Scott...) It is clear, unequivocal evidence of the fact that Hillary can inspire as well, and boy does she get results.

The Lonely Beacon

I live in Seattle, Washington. We just had our presidential caucuses here last weekend as reported on by my fellow co-blogger, that intrepid reporter Josh Moore. Barack Obama won in what can only be described as a major league landslide, besting Hillary Clinton by more than a 2 to 1 margin. Hillary Clinton, to me, seems to be quickly fading from the presidential landscape, likely forever.

Alas, the Clintons will remain highly visible politicians. Hillary Clinton will remain the most famous senator in the United States. Bill Clinton will see his stumbles in South Carolina fade from memory when Obama assumes the presidency because no lasting harm was done. Bill will become what he was before, kind of a traveling ambassador for the United States. But the Clintons will be slightly diminished because there is no potential for growth there anymore. This was Hillary Clinton's chance to become president and it just didn't happen.

Rush Limbaugh's dream has finally come true. The Clintons are through with presidential politics. Rush won't have the Clintons to kick around anymore. The right wing of the Republican Party will have to create new objects of their "affection," I guess. But that is what they do and they are good at it. Still, I am betting that the right wingers are embarrassed. They tried and tried and tried to take down the Clintons for years and they couldn't. They were taken down by a first-term United States senator from Illinois.

I don't agree that Obama was that much of an underdog when he started his presidential campaign in February of 2007. He was probably the second most famous senator in the United States partially due to his unique (for politics) life story. (His dad was from Kenya and his mom was from Kansas.) He had given a now near-legendary speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. At a time when most people had turned against the Iraq War, Obama was against it from the beginning. And in a time of lethargy in our country, Obama was a beacon of hope and reconciliation.

All this aside, I haven't caught the Obama wave yet. I love being inspired. But I gather my inspiration from books or movies or music or good deeds done for one's neighbor or stories on NPR. I don't really expect to gather inspiration from our political leaders. I like to consider myself a student of history and I have spent a fair amount of time looking for inspirational political leaders. I haven't found many. Even my favorite presidents (Truman, Lincoln, FDR) showed wide streaks of cunning and duplicity and political expediency. And you know why? Because they had to. The world is so complex and confusing and difficult to navigate. Sure, presidents will give speeches that aim to "inspire." But that is a tool to further their agendas. A tool by itself does not tell me anything about a person. An agenda is something different. Barack Obama is inspirational to millions of people. But what is his message underneath the way he is pitching himself? I am not sure yet.

I know Barack Obama must be an immensely intelligent man. I am a fellow lawyer so I know what kind of people made law review. (I am not one.) And he was president of the law review of probably the most prestigious law school in the country. But I think he is overly relying on his inspirational pitch. I mean, it must be hard to not overly rely on this pitch because it is working so well. Millions of people are starting to believe that Barack Obama is some kind of miracle worker. I hope Obama is able to please them by doing a good job as president. He will need to do some work to be able to get to the level he will need to be at to satisfy the enormous expectations people have for him.

In a little postscript, I wanted to say a few things about Hillary Clinton. I have always liked her. I think she is an extremely smart woman and, even more importantly, a very hard worker. She seems to be fighting the right battles. I cannot imagine what it must be like to wake up every morning knowing that people just hate you. Hillary is doing what she was supposed to do - she worked hard in school, she got into good schools, she fought to make the lives of children better. And, to millions of people, she is evil. (Witness Mitt Romney's tasteless speech when he dropped his bid for the presidency. He said that if either Hillary or Barack won the White House, they would just "surrender to terror." Can I see a future where Mitt Romney's picture will be found in the dictionary next to the term "sore loser"? Yes I can.)

The origin of "Clinton hate" spewed by Republican right wingers sprouts from a rather mundane explanation. The Clintons were successful against the Republican machine. They angered the Rush Limbaughs and the Tom DeLays and the Mitt Romneys of the world because they pushed back against the Republican machine successfully at times. Would Rush and Tom and Mitt care about the Clintons if they were losers? No.

Showing some political expediency of his own, Barack Obama has used polarization of the Clintons against them. He says he is not as hated as the Clintons. That is true of Obama. But the very success he is experiencing now means that the Republicans are sharpening their knives and dreaming up their attack ads. These knives and ads won't be enough to stop Obama this election. The Obamamania now sweeping the land is just too great. But Republicans are anything if not patient. They will have Obama's whole presidency to tear him down. By the end of eight years, "Obama hate" will rival the "Clinton hate" all of us are familiar with now.

Why I'm for Hillary

Plus I just heard that Obama Girl wouldn't even vote for Obama. Man, that's just sad. To think you couldn't even get somebody named Obama Girl to vote for you if your name is Barack Obama.

On a somewhat similar note, it is a little known fact that I ran for school board when I was living in Houston. I ended up getting 20% of the vote which I considered great especially since I only spent about $200 against the incumbent school board member. I do know for a fact that I carried the "Thomas Girl" vote pretty spectacularly.

Who would have thought there would be five different people named Thomas Girl in my district? And that I would get three of their votes?

I Should Run for President

I totally agree with what this guy is saying. Barack Obama is the frontrunner. He has more money. He has won more states. He has won more delegates. He has won some key establishment endorsements. The primaries over the next month (Louisiana, Wisconsin, Maryland, Virginia) favor him. I just want to know where exactly Hillary Clinton is beating him. You know, in any categories that matters.

There are benefits that come with being considered the underdog. You can talk about taking on the "establishment." (Kind of akin to "sticking it to The Man even though you are The Man.") You can run as an "outsider to the Washington system." You can criticize "the old way of doing things in Washington" when you are the underdog. As you can see, I am not quite convinced by Barack Obama quite yet. (Sorry, Josh.)

The Barack Obama message is that he is not the establishment candidate. (All while taking on all the accoutrements of an establishment candidate.) Hmm, interesting. The Barack Obama message is he was right on the single biggest issue of our time (going to war in Iraq) and Hillary Clinton was wrong. The Barack Obama message is that he is unique candidate because of his all-encompassing racial heritage.

All these are true. But there is some nuance missing. (Remember nuance? It has done gone missing since George W. Bush became president in 2001.)

Barack Obama says he was against the war back before it was popular to be against the war. You know what? So was I. Barack Obama points out he was president of the Harvard Law Review. I can't say that I was the president of the Harvard Law Review or that I went to Harvard Law School but I can say that I am a lawyer. Barack Obama says he turned down high-paying jobs to go work as a community organizer in poor neighborhoods in Chicago. I can't say that I have turned down many high-paying jobs but I did go work as a high school teacher in a poor neighborhood in Houston. Barack Obama likes to talk about his mixed racial heritage. I got this one beat. I have a mixed racial heritage AND a mixed religious heritage. My dad is white and Jewish. My mom was from the Philippines and Catholic. Barack Obama mentions his strong support from the Kennedy family. Well, my dad joined the Peace Corps, went to the Philippines to serve for 2 years, and met my mom while there. The Peace Corps was started by John F. Kennedy.

Part of me wonders if I should run for president. I mean, I am about to turn 35. I am so fired up and really ready to go too.

Yes We Can

Oh the power of the viral video....will this be the election which is remembered as the one in which media was wrested by the commoners and used to make their voices heard? Maybe not but it is pretty interesting to consider that things like the Hillary/Apple commercial mash-up would never have seen the light of day just four years ago. This weekend the viral video world embraced a video made by Will.i.am and Jesse Dylan (plus a bunch of friends.)

I know a lot of hay has been made about the nice words verses actually doing things issue. The problem for me is that the criticism of Obama that he gives a nice speech but doesn't have the experience necessary to do the job is an appeal to fear and a bit of a straw man argument (Obama has a lot of experience just not quite as much nationally.) Anyway, I don't know about you all but, this election has made me think a lot about the X-Files, and specifically Molder's office, and the poster that he had behind his desk...the one that said 'I Want To Believe.' I've been in the Obama camp for a long time now but I've been awfully shy about it. No more. I want to believe (in his ability to change the direction of this country, not in UFO's) and chances are I'll probably be disappointed but at least for a season I'll hope and that's worth something. Enjoy.

The Yutes

I heard this story on the way into work this morning and it reminded of a blog I wrote four years ago during the last election. The story was part of a series on the different voting blocks and today's story was about the youth vote. Of course the big question of the story was will the yutes actually vote. As a high school history teacher getting the yutes involved politically is a primary goal and I have been frustrated not so much with the yutes but by how much the system didn't understand why yutes weren't voting and why they were so disengaged.

The phrase 'b.s.' meter came up in one of the interviews and I think it is very appropriate. Yutes are onto the politicos and all they hear is B.S. In addition, unlike us non-yutes (yes I realized while listening that sadly I'm no longer in the yute demo....) who feel that showing up and pulling the lever counts as being involved (maybe writing a check or two) the yutes want authentic, tangible and direct involvement. The problem is that few of the politicos actually trusted them. Well this election cycle, that does seem to be changing. Both Obama and Clinton have well structured organizations for involvement of the yutes.

One last note. I have been stunned by the frenzy of excitement amongst students about this election. The day after the Iowa caucuses, my students were abuzz about Obama's victory and the visceral feel was akin to what I've noticed after some big TV event. The difference was that instead of talking about who got snubbed or what a bad singer so and so is, they were actually talking about policy and I heard them dialoguing about the differences between Clinton's ideas and Obama's ideas. After the New Hampshire primary the mood was somber and I have to admit I was a bit worried that a Clinton nomination might lead youth voters to feel snubbed again. However as the race has continued the policy discussions have continued and I believe that the youth vote will make their voice heard this election. They are ready to be involved and are just waiting for the call.

Anyway here's what I wrote last time we had this discussion and I think a lot of the ideas still apply.

Posted on May 3, 2004
Young Voters Sought After Again, Still Noone Listening

I can still remember the first Rock the Vote shows on MTV back during the '92 election. I had mixed emotions. I was seventeen and wouldn't be old enough to vote in the presidential election, so part of me didn't care. And I also thought it over-the-top pandering. The other half of me, thought that it was way cool that there was so much attention being given to youth. Finally, I remember thinking, young voters matter, and maybe the national discussion will be about something other than prescription drug benefits.

However things didn't turn out that way. Issues like Social Security and health care dominated politics in the 90's and the youth vote actually shrunk. Don't get me wrong those are issues that are important to all ages, but it's hard to get excited about Social Security when you're 19.

As a result Rock the Vote is back and so are a number of other youth-oriented campaigns, all with one purpose: get out the vote.

All are also predicated on the notion that this year's presidential election is going to be close.

All this is good, I guess. I have to admit the ironic, pessimistic side of me sees some of these campaigns as extremely exploitive and condescending. For example, the Republicans are rolling an 18-Wheeler with X-boxxes and plasma screen TV's to college campuses across the country. I mean come on, the same trick has been used for everything from Mtn. Dew to Tony's Pizza.

On the one hand (again) I'm revolted, but if it works and they get people to sign up to vote, does it then become a good thing?

Maybe.

I think there is a huge misconception about why young-adults don't vote. The overriding assumption is that either they are too apathetic to care or that the message isn't being brought to them in 'their language.' Which explains why organizations bring out the TV's and the video games, the old carrot and stick approach, because they think this is the language of youth.

However, just because some one signs up to vote doesn't mean they will. What percentage of registered voters actually votes anyway?

I think the real problem is that the youth of this country are relegated to a second-class citizenship. They are viewed as either apathetic consumers or used as a token display of the nice things that so-and-so politician has done for youth.

As a teacher, I work with young people everyday and as a whole, young people do not strike me as more or less apathetic than any other age group. They do not strike me as more or less engaged in the issues of our time. I know that there are many days where I would rather sit on the couch and pop in a DVD than go to a teach-in or work on a campaign. In fact, on a daily basis, I'm impressed with how hard most teenagers and young adults work and how much they care about the world around them. I'm also impressed with how they think about the world, and given the chance talk about it. (Please note that I hate making generalizations and talking about a whole group of people like some sort of misunderstood species, but it seems necessary to get to my point, which I'm coming to quickly, I promise:)

The key to engagement (not the married kind) is to talk with people.

It's simple, but time consuming, which is why people in politics don't do it in large numbers.

Instead, our youth are either ignored (how many stories on prescription drug benefits can one person read or watch anyway?) or they are given a glitzy-star studded, 'the more you know' spiel from some hack on MTV. There's no dialogue, no sense that what our youth have to say is important.

If politicians and pundits are really concerned about getting youth involved in our civic life it will require more than an x-box or a concert. What will it take?

Here's a couple of ideas:
- Instead of focus groups, how about community outreach groups in every county across the country. Consider it the Peace Corps of our time. Fully fund groups that actively recruit youth (check out Young Life for how to do this), educate them on the issues and then (here's the key) give them a chance to do something about it. That's right, connect them with programs or create opportunities for these groups to put their new knowledge into action. People, regardless of age, need to direct the energy and flow of ideas that accompanies new knowledge.

- Instead of having the token youth appear at the convention or Young Republicans, build youth outreach into every plank of the party platforms. The assumption is that youth don't care about the issues (which is true, but why don't they care about them should be the question) and need their own seperate slate of issues (this leads to the second-class treatment I was talking about.) I think the real problem lies in that the way the issues are presented to the youth.

- Finally, lower the voting age to 16. 16-year olds pay taxes if they work, isn't this a form of taxation without representation? The other benefit, is that, as students are talking about civic issues in school, they'll be coming into the voting age and be able to act (remember what I said about the connection between knowledge and action.) You could also register students at school (how easy would that be) and use a day or two (hopefully more) before each election to educate on the issues and candidates.

I've said way too much and I'm sorry, but I do have one more thing to say, and it's that I think the voter apathy is exactly what the people in power want. The less engaged our citizens are in the politics of our nation, the less likely we are to interfere with their plans.

The "Cool Kids" Election

Imagine you are at a party. You are a single guy. You look around and see a lot of single ladies. Making a good impression on a few of them is in your own self-interest. You go up to a group of them and start chatting. Eventually the topic of politics come up. People start talking about who they like for president. And you chime in to say you like Mitt Romney because he represents "real change in Washington." You know what happens next? You are not only standing there by yourself but you may also find yourself being asked to leave this party.

Let's talk about all this talk about "change" going on. Coming from a Republican, this is just plain silly talk. Mitt Romney supports George W. Bush and his policies. Where does Romney disagree with Bush? I am not sure. If anything, Romney wants to out-Bush Bush. You may remember him saying he wants to "double Guantanamo." Heck, even Bush said he wants to close Guantanamo down. Romney just picked up on the "change" message when cool kid Barack Obama used it in spectacular fashion in Iowa and in South Carolina.

I just have trouble believing that this particular rich white guy named Mitt Romney can represent change. What in his past shows that he has been fighting for change? I mean, beyond three weeks ago, what? What in Mitt Romney's past shows he has been interested in anything besides making money?

This is going to be a "cool kids" election. Barack Obama is an historic candidate. Hillary Clinton is an historic candidate. Either of them becoming president would move us past the little narrow paradigm we have chosen to live in for far too long. (I myself am aiming to be the first half-Asian, half-Jewish president. I am turning 35 this year. We shall see.) Now I am not saying that being a white guy should disqualify you from being president. But white guys running for president are going to have to bring their "A" game from now on.

What is Mitt Romney's "A" game? Well, he doesn't have one. Ronald Reagan had one. Bill Clinton had one. Even George W. Bush had one. All of these candidates could create a kind of unity with wide swaths of people. Their communication skills allowed this. Mitt Romney, not so much.