Monday, December 31, 2007

Barack Obama for President


THE CONS OF PRESIDENTIAL NEPOTISM
by Pearl Jr.


Currently, there have been two families that have held either the position of President or Vice President of the USA for the past 27 years and that has resulted in this country moving further and further away from the basic truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness:

George Herbert Walker Bush - (Vice President) - 1981-1989 (under Ronald Reagan)
George Herbert Walker Bush - (President) - 1989 - 1993
Bill Clinton - (President) 1993 - 2001
George Walker Bush - (President) 2001-current

Once again, racism is on the rise, the racial economic gap has grown, the rich have gotten richer, the poor poorer, leading to too few controllin! g too much. Do you ever get the impression the rulers are now big corporations and not the American people?

Presidential nepotism simply promotes that those that have power will maintain control via family ties. The United States of America is a democracy to which the people rule the government; the government isn't supposed to rule the people. If this type of nepotism continues, we'll be contemplating that Jeb Bush is the most qualified because his father and brother were Presidents, meanwhile grooming the Bush twin daughters to run for a duet Presidency right after Chelsea Clinton finishes her first two terms.

Following that logic, then George W. Bush should have done a better job as President because his daddy was Vice President and President of the USA. To the contrary, many are saying George W. Bush is the worst President EVER due to the fast declining American economy, the housing fiasco, the humongous deficit, the state of foreign affairs, the war, the health care crisis, and a failing educational system. All of which are in the worst shape of the past 60 years.

Most people would agree that a Democrat will most likely win the race of being the ! 44th President of the USA, due to this Republican administration's complete failures to move the country forward.

The most profound similarity between the top two democratic candidates is they are both lifelong public servants. Both have law degrees. Mr. Obama earned his from Harvard and Mrs. Clinton from Yale. Barack has accomplished many "first" as a Black person and Hillary has many "first" for a woman. The major difference is Hillary governs from the top (corporations and leaders) down and Barack from the bottom (people) up.

The supposed Achilles heel of! Senator Barack Obama (Illinois) has been his reported lack of experie nce, which is for the direct benefit of Senator Hillary Clinton (New York) and raises her value to deserving the democratic nominee. When one looks deeper, that's not necessarily the truth, especially since Hillary is 14 years older than Barack, which has given her additional time to accomplish more.

Now, Barack Obama has been an elected official as a State Senator (Illinois) since 1997 (to 2004) and then elected to the US Senate in 2004. Hillary has been an elected official only since 2000, so judging by this, Barack Obama actually has more experience in elected life than Hillary Clinton.

Many people are including Hillary's ties to her husband, Bill Clinton, as her accolades: She was First Lady of Arkansas and the First Lady of the United States, only because her husband was Governor of Arkansas and President of the USA. O.K. so Hillary chose a very ambitious man to be her husband and from that she is supposed to be the most experienced--HOGWASH!

Furthermore, Hillary will not be a better President just because she slept in the White House for 8 years. Bill has way too many enemies inside and outside the USA to not consider him as a liability, instead of an asset. Can anyone say aspirin factor bombing, Whitewater, travelgate, and Monica Lewinsky? The Clintons bring the country backwards because of the fires that are smothering underneath the surface and it is estimated that the Clintons will have way too many antagonists who are set in place to under mind their Presidency-Oops, her Presidency!

As far as on the international front, Obama is African and Anglo-Saxon, who was born in the South Pacific US state of Hawaii, grew up in Indonesia and has a half Chinese sibling. He understands Muslims because he grew up in a Muslim country, his wife is African-American, and he is a devote Christian-now that's international and connecting internationally! Most importantly, Barack doesn't have international enemies, and THAT could be his best asset of all--representing a fresh new start in foreign affairs.

Nepotism is rarely fair. Bill Clinton is constitutionally disallowed to run the country again due to the 22nd Amendment that set Presidential limits to two terms (1947). The "Herbert Walker" and "Walker" Bush nepotism directly following a possible Bill and Hill loophole manipulation can lead to other c! onstitutional changes, which can spell Monarchy instead of Democracy-a potential danger to the American way of life, indeed!

After watching Hillary for the past year, it is fair to finally stop with the Hill is the brain behind Bill delusion. She's losing that perception with each and every debate. Furthermore, Bill is the man who earned every vote because no one played that saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show but Bill. Of course, this race is Hillary's to lose because as Bill has enemies, he does have devoted followers that will support his wife Hillary. Nonetheless, the Karl Rove, brain behind the power, perception can finally be laid to rest. After all, Hill just ain't Bill!

So taking all this into serious consideration, I'm not for Hill or Bill, but I do believe that Obama is the one to get Osama because Barack realized long ago Bush was looking under the wrong rock and going backwards finishing his Daddy's unresolved business, which was Saddam Hussein. Do we really want to go backwards again with Bill and Hill? Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is bragging about killing 3000 Americans and putting on makeup for his many photo shoots telling us, you better watch out, I'm not finished yet.

Lastly, it's only fair to write a word or two about the nationally leading Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani. Just because Mr. Giuliani was the Mayor of New York City during the biggest attack on American soil EVER, surely cannot make Rudy and Judy the best person(s) to handle the important job of protecting the country.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Barack's bir-racial challenge


December 29, 2007
The Long Run
A Biracial Candidate Walks His Own Fine Line
By JANNY SCOTT
The 2006 Democratic primary campaign for the presidency of the Cook County Board of Commissioners was vintage Chicago politics.

The incumbent was an aging party loyalist, mayoral confederate and institution in black Chicago. His opponent was younger and white, a reform-minded independent Democrat who had helped Barack Obama in his Senate race two years earlier.

Both sides wanted the support of Mr. Obama, a vote magnet in Chicago. The challenger, Forrest Claypool, 48, had the backing of the major newspapers and a couple of liberal members of Congress. The incumbent, John Stroger, 76, had the party organization, many of the city’s blacks and Mr. Obama’s political benefactor, the State Senate president, Emil Jones.

So Mr. Obama remained neutral. He was blasted in blogs and newspapers for hedging rather than risk alienating people he needed, though others said he had made the only shrewd choice.

“Those relationships are complex,” said Mr. Claypool, who lost the primary race to Mr. Stroger (who never served because of illness) and is now working on Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign. “No politician takes important relationships for granted.”

Much of Mr. Obama’s success as a politician has come from walking a fine line — as an independent Democrat and a progressive in a state dominated by the party organization and the political machine, and as a biracial American whose political ambitions require that he appeal to whites while still satisfying the hopes and expectations of blacks.

Like others of his generation, he is a member of a new class of black politicians. Too young to have experienced segregation, he has thrived in white institutions. His style is more conciliatory than confrontational, more technocrat than preacher. Compared with many older politicians, he tends to speak about race indirectly or implicitly, when he speaks about it at all.

After Hurricane Katrina, he did not attribute the lumbering federal response to the race of most of the storm’s victims. “The incompetence was color-blind,” he said, adding that the real stumbling block was indifference to the problems of the poor. After six black teenagers were charged with attempted murder in the beating of a white schoolmate in the “Jena Six” case in Louisiana, he said the criminal justice system needed fixing to ensure equal justice “regardless of race, wealth or circumstances.”

And when Mr. Obama announced his candidacy in February, he chose the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., a place imbued with the spirit of Abraham Lincoln. He spoke of his work in “Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods” and of ending poverty; race came up only glancingly, as in, “Beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people.”

But the postracial style has its pitfalls.

‘Acting Like He’s White’

Earlier this fall, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, an Obama supporter who ran for president twice, was quoted by a reporter as saying Mr. Obama “needs to stop acting like he’s white” (words that Mr. Jackson has variously said that he would never say and that were taken out of context).

He added, “If I were a candidate, I’d be all over Jena.”

More recently, Mr. Jackson accused the Democratic candidates except for John Edwards of having “virtually ignored” the plight of blacks. (His son, Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, fired back in an op-ed column in The Chicago Sun-Times under the headline, “You’re wrong on Obama, Dad.”)

“A black candidate doesn’t want to look like he’s only a black candidate,” the Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights activist, who ran for president in 2004, said in an interview about Mr. Obama. “If he overidentifies with Sharpton, he looks like he’s only a black candidate. A white candidate reaches out to a Sharpton and looks like they have the ability to reach out. It looks like they’re presidential. That’s the dichotomy.”

In a telephone interview, Mr. Obama denied that he had spoken less about race issues than other candidates. But he said he focused when possible on “the universal issues that all Americans care about.” His aim, he said, is “to build broader coalitions that can actually deliver health care for all people or jobs that pay a living wage or all the issues that face not only black Americans but Americans generally.”

He suggested that his critics were comparing him not with Mr. Edwards or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton but with Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton. “That comparison is one that isn’t appropriate,” he said. “Because neither Reverend Jackson nor Reverend Sharpton is running for president of the United States. They are serving an important role as activists and catalysts but they’re not trying to build a coalition to actually govern.”

Mr. Obama’s legislative record does not diverge sharply from that of other black legislators, some who have studied it say. For example, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which grades members of Congress on their support for its agenda, gave Mr. Obama a 100 percent score. The difference between him and some others lies more in life experience, approach to politics and style.

And while Mr. Obama’s advisers say he is entirely comfortable with his identity — as he has said, proud to be an African-American but not limited by that — he carries a peculiar burden as a presidential candidate: whether or not he calibrates his words, blacks as well as whites are likely to parse them for anything they might signal about racial issues.

“There is a special expectation and opportunity that we have to talk about the ways race works in America,” said Gov. Deval Patrick, a friend of Mr. Obama and the first black to lead Massachusetts.

But, Mr. Patrick said, “sometimes I think advocates want one note from us. I think our experience in our lives and in our politics has been that there’s much more than the one note — and sometimes a cacophony.”

There was a time when black politicians had little in common with white politicians. They had been educated in segregated schools and historically black colleges; many had entered politics through the civil rights movement, social activism or the black church. Their districts and constituents were overwhelmingly African-American. They were “race men” who had built their careers advocating for blacks.

Winning a Mixed District

They tended to be more liberal and militant than the Democratic Party as a whole, said Michael C. Dawson, a University of Chicago political scientist. They opposed rising military budgets and military intervention abroad, favored economic redistribution and were willing to consider such things as demands for reparation for slavery.

Hanes Walton Jr., a University of Michigan political scientist, said, “Once you got African-American elected officials in the 1960s and 1970s, there was huge demand from the black community about getting things done. Some of these elected officials came on with fairly rough edges because they were making consistent and hard demands. In many ways, that couldn’t be escaped. These elected officials knew that they were elected from the black community.”

Mr. Obama, by contrast, grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, far from any center of black life. He graduated from a private prep school in Honolulu, Columbia College and Harvard Law School. Though he has belonged to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago since 1987, he was not raised in the traditions of the black church, which Ange-Marie Hancock, a Yale political scientist, says “nurtured generations of black politicians” and “that almost exclusive emphasis on race — and race in a black/white framework.”

Mr. Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 — not from an overwhelmingly black district like those that elected early black legislators but from a racially and economically mixed neighborhood, Hyde Park, home of the University of Chicago. In a state where Irish-American dynasties dominate Democratic Party politics, he sprang up as an outsider — a former community organizer without party or machine support.

Mr. Obama never fit any easily recognizable model of a black politician during his seven years in Springfield. He was a progressive Democrat who worked with Republicans; a black man whose weekly poker-game partners were white; an independent Democrat whose mentor, Mr. Jones, was one of the most powerful black politicians in the state and supported by the Chicago machine.

In his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama recalls sitting with a white, liberal Democrat in the Senate and listening to a black, inner-city legislator, whom he identified only as John Doe, speechifying on how the elimination of a particular program was blatant racism. The white colleague turned to Mr. Obama and said, “You know what the problem is with John? Whenever I hear him, he makes me feel more white.”

Mr. Obama finds a lesson in that moment: White guilt has exhausted itself. Even fair-minded whites resist suggestions of racial victimization. Proposals that benefit minorities alone cannot be a basis for the broad coalitions needed to transform the country, he concluded. Only “universal appeals” for approaches that help all Americans, he wrote in his book, “schools that teach, jobs that pay, health care for everyone who needs it” can do that, “even if such strategies disproportionately help all Americans.”

Mr. Obama has never had difficulty appealing to whites. In his ill-fated 1999 campaign against Representative Bobby L. Rush, a four-term Democratic congressman and former Black Panther, Mr. Obama won the white vote but lost the black vote in a district that was overwhelmingly black. Abner J. Mikva, a former Illinois congressman and longtime supporter, said, “It took him a while to realize that it’s a vote that has to be courted.”

Hermene Hartman, the publisher of N’Digo, a weekly newspaper in Chicago, recalls advising Mr. Obama to talk less about his experience as the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review. “What I was saying early on was, ‘Harvard Review will play at the University of Chicago, it won’t play on 55th and King Drive,’” Ms. Hartman said.

Mr. Mikva says Mr. Obama learned to campaign in different ways without changing the substance of what he was saying. He learned to use rhythms, analogies, “quotes that resonate better.” Others say he simply worked hard at becoming better known, consolidating his support among black elected officials, black ministers, labor organizations and community groups, skating nimbly among factions.

Straddling Interests

Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Jackson extends back at least to the early 1990s. Mr. Jackson’s daughter, Santita, was a friend of Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, and was a bridesmaid at their wedding. The Congressional district of Representative Jackson included Mr. Obama’s State Senate district; they have worked together on issues, endorsed some of the same reform-minded candidates against the party slate and sought each other’s advice.

At the same time, Mr. Obama has remained close to his longtime mentor, Mr. Jones — an old antagonist of Representative Jackson, who defeated him for Congress in 1995. Alan Gitelson, a political scientist at Loyola University in Chicago, said, “The skill of Obama is that he’s been able to straddle the two major factions among blacks in Illinois.”

Mr. Obama has also cultivated a working relationship with Mayor Richard M. Daley. Mr. Daley, who backed an opponent of Mr. Obama in the 2004 Senate primary, this year endorsed Mr. Obama for president — around the time that Mr. Obama endorsed Mr. Daley for re-election, annoying some supporters and passing over two black candidates considered unlikely to win.

“I can tell you, having worked for both of them, they are both pragmatists who want to get things done,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s chief strategist and a longtime consultant to Mr. Daley.

By the time Mr. Obama began running for the United States Senate, he “didn’t have to run as a black candidate,” said Don Rose, a longtime political consultant in Chicago. Illinois had already elected one black senator, Carol Moseley Braun, and Mr. Obama had nailed down overwhelming black support. According to Mr. Axelrod, he ended up with 92 percent of the black vote in a competitive field.

Yet race was a subtext of a television advertisement widely believed to have helped Mr. Obama win, Mr. Rose believes. The advertisement featured Sheila Simon, the daughter of former Senator Paul Simon, a Democrat who was a revered figure in Illinois politics, lionized by white progressives and admired by some conservatives. Mr. Simon, who had worked with Mr. Obama on ethics reform, had intended to endorse him but had died unexpectedly after heart surgery in 2003.

So Mr. Axelrod had asked Ms. Simon to make an advertisement about the similarities between her father and Mr. Obama. He said the commercial might help explain Mr. Obama’s unexpected success in white, working class neighborhoods on Chicago’s Northwest Side, which had been hostile to black candidates in the past. Mr. Rose believes that the advertisement’s subtext, intentionally or not, was gender and race: “It is saying, ‘People, I’m a white woman, and I’m not afraid of him.’”

Dining With Sharpton

In Washington, Mr. Obama made it clear almost immediately that his career would not be defined by his race. One of the first acts of the new Congress was to certify the results of the Electoral College. Some members of the Congressional Black Caucus moved to contest the certification of the Ohio votes. Mr. Obama did not join them. In a hastily arranged maiden speech, he said he was convinced that President Bush had won but he also urged Congress to address the need for voting reform.

In his office, he hung paintings of Lincoln, Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., all of whom he calls his heroes.

In recent weeks, Mr. Obama has turned some of his attention to courting black voters. Nine months into his campaign, he held his first fund-raiser in Harlem, at the Apollo Theater, where he said, among other things, he was in the race because he was “tired of reading about Jena.” Then he went on tour with Oprah Winfrey, whom he had gotten to know when she interviewed him after his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

Mr. Sharpton, who has yet to endorse anyone, says Mr. Obama began his campaign as “the alternative to guys like me.” But in recent months, Mr. Sharpton said, “he’s been calling us.”

Mr. Obama also arranged to dine with Mr. Sharpton, in the presence of a herd of reporters, before his appearance at the Apollo.

“A portion of black voters want Obama to give them some raw meat,” said Julian Bond, chairman of the board of the N.A.A.C.P. “Because they want so badly to have their concerns addressed and highlighted, and they expect it of him because he’s black.”

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Obama on Drug Use

Every presidential election year there is a news cycle about candidates' drug use. The "I did not inhale" statement by then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton was one of the most humorous and pitiful "admissions" that still makes the eyes roll. Another pathetic example of hypocrisy came from George W. Bush. "Mr. Straight Shooter" still refuses to answer questions about his "youthful indiscretions," and the record has been expunged. In this context, Sen. Barack Obama's honesty on this topic was so refreshing. In his book, Dreams from My Father, Obama openly admits to not only smoking marijuana but trying cocaine. We also have read about Obama's current struggles over giving up cigarettes.
Why should any of us be surprised that any politician, whether it be Sen. Obama, former Vice President Gore, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, has tried (and maybe even enjoyed) marijuana or other drugs. Remember, despite 40 years of attempting to make a "Drug-Free America," half of all high school students have tried marijuana before they graduate from high school.
Tens of millions of Americans still use drugs (alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, Viagra, cocaine, caffeine, prescription drugs) both for pleasure and to soothe pain. The fact that Obama used drugs in his youth only humanizes him. I believe that it will backfire for Hilary and her campaign to try to “Willy Horton” Obama on the drug question. Hillary is still facing anger from voters for her cynical support of Bush's devastating war in Iraq. Far from showing leadership, Hillary has constantly been behind the curve and public sentiment regarding the war in Iraq. And now Hillary is showing that she is behind the curve when it comes to the other war: the war on drugs.

Not only is her campaign trying to take down Obama with drug baiting, she is also backwards when it comes to our racist drug laws. Federal mandatory minimums enacted by Congress in the 1980s punished sellers of crack cocaine 100 times more severely than those convicted of powder-cocaine offenses. Five grams of crack means an automatic five years in jail. It takes up to 500 grams of powdered cocaine for the same punishment. This has not led to less drug use but, instead, a prison system that mass incarcerates African Americans and Latinos. While drug abuse doesn't discriminate, our drug policies do. Despite equal drug use among blacks and whites, blacks go to jail on drug charges at 13 times the rate of whites. Hillary Clinton is the only major Democratic presidential candidate who did not support the sentencing Commission’s unanimous vote this week to apply recent sentencing reductions for crack-cocaine offenses retroactively.

The war in Iraq and the war on drugs are two unwinnable wars that have caused unimaginable suffering and death. The country is looking for leadership and for exit strategies that will allow us to heal from these catastrophes. Hillary has decided to put her chips on the Bush Administration's fearmongoring. Hillary is tone deaf and living in the past. In upcoming elections it is going to be "drug baiting" and support of inhumane and racist laws that will cost more votes than having tried marijuana when you were young.

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Oprah Winfrey Hits Campaign Trail for Obama


December 9, 2007

By JEFF ZELENY
DES MOINES, Dec. 8 — When she begins a typical show, seldom does Oprah Winfrey question the power of her brand or wonder aloud about the influence that accompanies her golden seal of approval.

But when Ms. Winfrey strode onto a stage here Saturday, imploring Iowa voters to support the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama, she acknowledged not knowing whether her endorsement would matter. And as she waded into American politics like never before, she declared: “I feel like I’m out of my pew.”

Still, with three weeks before the presidential nominating contest begins here, Ms. Winfrey’s arrival on the campaign trail and her irrefutable appeal was threatening enough for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York to invite a famous guest of her own, Chelsea Clinton, who has waited in the wings for a moment like this.

It was, perhaps, the best way Mrs. Clinton could be assured attention on a political day devoted to Ms. Winfrey, who drew more than 15,000 people here and a second audience of about 7,000 in Cedar Rapids. In a state awash in presidential politics, with a competitive fight on both sides of the ticket, it was the largest spectacle of the campaign cycle.

“Oh my goodness,” Ms. Winfrey said. “At last, I’m here.”

The intersection of politics and celebrity began the moment that Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama, declared, “It is my honor to introduce to you the first lady of television, Oprah Winfrey.” A wave of camera flashes illuminated a downtown convention center here as Ms. Winfrey entered to a thunderous roar.

Ms. Winfrey, of course, is hardly a stranger to speaking before large crowds. But as she explained her rationale for supporting Mr. Obama, of Illinois, she stood behind a lectern, reading from prepared remarks. She paused for a moment, saying: “Backstage, somebody said are you nervous? I said, damn right I’m nervous.”

But for 17 minutes, Ms. Winfrey delivered an emotional testimonial for Mr. Obama, arguing the nation was at a critical moment in its history that required a new direction, a new face, a new way. She did not mention Mrs. Clinton or any of their rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, but dismissed suggestions that voters should chose a candidate with the most Washington experience.

“If we continue to do the same things over and over again, I believe we get the same results,” Ms. Winfrey said. Later, she added: “When you listen to Barack Obama, when you really hear him, you witness a very rare thing, You witness a politician who has an ear for eloquence and a tongue dipped in the unvarnished truth.”

In his quest to win the party’s nomination, and become the first black president, Mr. Obama is working to expand his reach beyond the traditional set of Democratic primary voters. The campaign is hoping to use Ms. Winfrey’s visit to Iowa on Saturday, followed by New Hampshire and South Carolina on Sunday, to expose his candidacy to a new audience of prospective supporters.

“I am not here to tell you what to think. I am here to ask you to think — seriously,” Ms. Winfrey said. “I’m not here for partisan beliefs. Over the years, I’ve voted for as many Republicans as I have Democrats. So this isn’t about partisanship for me.”

She ticked through a list of Mr. Obama’s accomplishments, from his days as a community organizer to a state senator to a United States senator. When she hailed his opposition to the war, “long before it was the popular thing to do,” the crowd responded with a roar of approval.

The Obama campaign captured the names and addresses of thousands of those who attended the rallies. Those who agreed to volunteer for at least four hours over the past two weeks received premium tickets.

“I think Oprah is John the Baptist, leading the way for Obama to win,” said Dale Cobb, 40, of Des Moines, who has never participated in the caucuses before. Yet, she added: “I’m still kind of in between Hillary and Obama.”

Cate Doty contributed reporting.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Will Clinton's Obama Attacks Backfire? -- Printout -- TIME


Will Clinton's Obama Attacks Backfire? -- Printout -- TIME


Back to Article Click to Print Tuesday, Dec. 04, 2007
Will Clinton's Obama Attacks Backfire?
By Jay Newton-Small/Washington

It started in earnest a couple of weeks ago when Hillary Clinton questioned how much Barack Obama's time spent living in Indonesia as a child could actually help him make foreign policy decisions as a commander-in-chief. "Voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face," Clinton said November 20 in Shenandoah, Iowa. "I think we need a President with more experience than that."

Then Clinton announced in an interview with CBS that she was sick of being a punching bag for Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards and that she intended to fight back. "After you have been attacked as often as I have from several of my opponents, you cannot just absorb it. You have to respond," she said.

Since that declaration Clinton has done just that, attacking Obama's plans for health care, Social Security reform and diplomacy with Iran. She even went so far as to dig up a kindergarten essay of Obama's entitled "I Want to Be President" to accuse him of lying about not having a lifelong lust for the Oval Office. "So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one ... or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate," Clinton said in Iowa Monday. But at a time when two new Iowa polls show Obama actually pulling into the lead and Clinton losing support among women, some political observers are wondering if Clinton will come to regret her newly assertive strategy. She already has the highest negative ratings in the race, and the shift in tactics comes only a month before the Iowa caucus — where voters are famous for their distaste of negative campaigning. Launching the attacks herself, rather than with via surrogates, only makes the move even riskier.

"The attack will backfire in two ways: it will reinforce the negative stereotype of Mrs. Clinton as a cold and calculating person who will do whatever it takes to win," said Stephen J. Wayne, a government professor at Georgetown University and author of The Road to the White House. "And two, it will make Mr. Obama seem to be the less shrill and more emotionally mature candidate."

John Norris, who ran Senator John Kerry's Iowa campaign in 2004 and now serves as an adviser to Obama's campaign, said that's what they were banking on. "Barack positioned himself as drawing distinctions with Hillary," Norris said in an interview. "You don't want to get too negative — he's come close to the line but I don't think he's gone over it with Iowa voters." Clinton is "the one who made it personal by calling him naļ¶„ — that was the first personal attack in the campaign," Norris said. "It's not a good position to be in — being forced to go negative in the last month."

The Obama campaign has started a website which almost gleefully tracks all of Clinton's attacks. And in an e-mail sent to supporters Monday asking for donations, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe cited the Des Moines Register poll that also showed Clinton with the highest negatives of any candidate. "And sure enough, less than 12 hours after the poll results were released, the Clinton campaign launched multiple frantic, baseless attacks against Barack Obama," Plouffe wrote, calling for 10,000 people to donate over the next 48 hours in response. "The emerging pattern is disturbing: as Senator Clinton's poll numbers slide, the campaign of 'inevitability' becomes more desperate and negative by the day. Barack will always respond swiftly and forcefully with the truth when attacked."

Negative campaigning has not had a history of success in Iowa. In 2004 Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean committed what some described as "murder-suicide" with their attacks on each other, opening the door for Kerry. In 1988 John Glenn's attacks on Walter Mondale helped to hand Garry Hart a surprise victory in the caucuses. The person who could stand to gain the most this time from the negative attacks is John Edwards. His campaign, which hasn't been shy about attacking Clinton in recent months, remained remarkably silent in recent days. "Edwards has been a pretty harsh critic of the Clinton campaign himself, so one could argue that when everybody goes negative no one gains from it," said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist who is remaining neutral this cycle.

Clinton has insisted that her attacks against Obama are substantive, not personal. "There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," Clinton told reporters traveling this past weekend with her in Iowa aboard the first press plane of Clinton's campaign. That difference, she said, is "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk." Asked directly whether she intended to raise questions about Obama's character, she replied: "It's beginning to look a lot like that. You know, it really is." (When asked if former President Bill Clinton would also be stepping up the heat on Obama or Edwards, Clinton spokesman Mo Eilleithee would say only, "I think you'll see him out there talking about his knowledge of her, because no one knows her better.")

Clinton's harsh new rhetoric has not won much support, either from pundits or other Democrats. "I could see the desire to raise the salience of personal traits — because her strengths are experience and strength of character," said Stephen Ansolabehere, a political science professor at MIT and author of the book Going Negative. "But her choice surprised me — she might be emphasizing the wrong thing. Given how close this is in the polls, especially a month out, this might be a very risky strategy for her."

"This series of slurs doesn't serve HRC well," said Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, in a blog post. "It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up."

Perhaps the biggest downside to Clinton's negative attacks is that the press seems to be focusing on nothing else, at least for the moment. "What's tough about the stories from this weekend is that they're telegraphing — they're more about going negative than the substance of the attacks," Simmons said. "It underlines the case that Edwards and Obama have been making that she's practicing politics as usual." And for Clinton, that kind of an association could be the costliest negative of all.

Click to Print Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1690519,00.html

Monday, November 26, 2007

In West Iowa, Obama’s Man Thinks Locally - New York Times


In West Iowa, Obama’s Man Thinks Locally - New York Times
November 26, 2007
In West Iowa, Obama’s Man Thinks Locally
By JEFF ZELENY
MISSOURI VALLEY, Iowa, Nov. 24 — Rory Steele had bounced along a gravel road that rides like a washboard to get to the farmstead. He stepped across a few rows of soybeans, climbed up the steps of a red Case combine and squeezed into a seat next to Lyle McIntosh, who was circling a field.

Mr. Steele drove 17 miles from his office in Council Bluffs that crisp October morning to see how the harvest was coming along. He had no stake in the crop yields or commodity prices, but another question weighed on his mind: Would the work be finished in time for Mr. McIntosh to help drum up support for Senator Barack Obama?

For all the uncertainties in presidential campaigns, Mr. Steele would not have guessed that a soggy, unusually long harvest would complicate his task of building an organization for Mr. Obama. Yet since arriving here in March, he had learned to think like a local, which in this part of Iowa means only gently pestering people about politics.

Mr. Steele, a 29-year-old former marine who has worked as a truck driver in the Pacific Northwest and a crab fisherman in Alaska, is the face of the Obama campaign in western Iowa. His territory of 21 counties, the largest in the state, is an essential front line in one of the most competitive presidential races that anyone here can recall.

The outcome of the Iowa caucuses, a set of 1,781 precinct meetings to take place across the state on Jan. 3, hinges on creating a strong and loyal person-to-person network. Mr. Steele is among the hundreds of Democratic and Republican campaign aides stationed in Iowa responsible for building — and sustaining — those networks throughout the state’s 99 counties.

That is precisely what took Mr. Steele to the soybean field. In August, Mr. McIntosh signed on as Mr. Obama’s Harrison County co-chairman, so Mr. Steele drops by from time to time to see if Mr. McIntosh is satisfied with the campaign’s direction and to replenish a supply of Obama DVDs he lends to neighbors.

“If I could make one suggestion, I would get the senator to Dunlap or Ottaway or Missouri Valley,” said Mr. McIntosh, 64, talking over the combine’s purr as he referred to three nearby towns. “I realize he can’t go everywhere, but we really need to get him over here.”

On Saturday, after more than a month of negotiating and planning by his campaign, Mr. Obama bounded onto the auctioneer’s platform at the Dunlap Livestock Auction and was greeted with applause from more than 300 people who filled the orange seats usually occupied by cattle buyers. (The campaign advance team wanted to hold the event in the local high school, but Mr. Steele and other aides fought that option, which pleased Mr. McIntosh.)

Mr. Steele is a political strategist, an office manager, a real estate prospector, a party planner, a life coach, a cheerleader, a concierge and a problem solver. Even in a campaign that has raised more than $80 million and spent $5 million on TV spots in Iowa alone, getting the office computer printer to work falls on his abilities to beg and barter.

“I can only control what I can control,” he said, “or I’d spend all day freaking out.”

So neither Mr. Steele, a soft-spoken, bearded man, nor his ever-growing cadre of young staff members spend time tracking daily campaign developments on cable television or the proliferating blogs. They seldom have time to watch the presidential debates. Their lens is purposefully microscopic.

On the ground floor here, which the campaign has designated Region 5, he and his team are recruiting precinct captains, the supporters who will organize Obama followers on caucus night. Finding a reliable captain for the Ashton Belvidere precinct in Monona County is far more important than fretting over poll numbers.

“I’m trying to find a gong,” Mr. Steele said. “Every time we get a new precinct captain, I will ring it.”

To inspire his troops, he not only encourages “Snoop Dogg breaks” — brief naps on the sofa near the front doorway of the campaign office — but he also holds competitions. On the Fourth of July, he vowed to have himself tattooed with the initials of whoever turned in the most signed supporter cards. Delane Adams, a campaign organizer from Chicago, won by submitting 33.

So on Mr. Steele’s right bicep, just below a Marine Corps tattoo, is another work of art: “DA 33 July 4.” (“I thought it would have been weird to tattoo “Obama” on my arm,” he said, “but now I have some dude’s initials on me.”)

For all this, Mr. Steele is paid roughly $2,300 a month (plus occasional mileage reimbursements) to supervise about a dozen workers and scores of volunteers. He took a temporary apartment in Council Bluffs, where he relocated for the presidential race — his first — after working the last election cycle for local Democratic candidates in Washington State.

Since arriving here eight months ago, he has logged nearly 26,000 miles on his red Chevrolet S-10 truck. He has listened to a recording of “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama’s second book, four times. He is intimately familiar with Mr. Obama’s voice, his positions and his biography, yet Mr. Steele has had only a few passing conversations with him.

Mr. Steele has never seen the campaign’s sprawling national headquarters in Chicago, on the 11th floor of a downtown skyscraper, with views of Lake Michigan and the Ferris wheel at Navy Pier. From his sparse office on the first floor of a Council Bluffs office building, a window overlooks nothing.

Across the rolling bluffs and the flat plains of his territory, in towns like Defiance and Denison, Honey Creek and Harlan, it is his responsibility to know which caucusgoing Democrats are supporting which candidate.

And if the answer is someone other than Mr. Obama?

“Like a girlfriend who cheats on you, we don’t give up on people,” Mr. Steele said during an evening drive to a house party in Greene County. “We never want to burn those bridges and we never — ever — speak ill of another candidate.”

Beyond civility, there is also a practical reason for this. With six Democrats running serious campaigns for the nomination here, candidates who do not receive 15 percent of support in a caucus are deemed unviable in that caucus, so their supporters have to make a second choice. Mr. Steele does not want anyone in his region to be irked at Mr. Obama.

That does not mean he is not constantly looking for poaching opportunities, particularly a “maven,” which is campaign shorthand for a community leader, party official or, quite simply, someone who can persuade others to join the Obama team.

Consider the story of Karl Knock, a vice president of a Creston bank.

On a late-summer afternoon, Mr. Steele and Mr. Adams, the tattoo contest winner, drove two hours across southern Iowa to see Mr. Knock, a prominent Democrat who was undecided but had favorable feelings toward Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware.

Mr. Steele had been eying this maven for weeks. He had already given Mr. Knock a free ticket to attend an Obama fund-raiser in Omaha with Warren Buffett. Now, he was hoping to sign him on as leader for Mr. Obama’s effort in Union County.

In a basement conference room of the bank, over cans of soda, the three men talked for more than an hour. Mr. Steele mostly listened and took pages of notes on a yellow legal pad, writing down Mr. Knock’s concern about presidential powers and what he fears are threats to the Constitution and the politicization of the Justice Department.

“I like what I see with Senator Obama,” Mr. Knock said as the meeting drew to a close. “But I’ve got to figure out how I can step away from Biden. They gave me the cellphone of his national political director and his niece!”

In his daily report to state headquarters in Des Moines that evening, Mr. Steele passed along a summary of the meeting. Within a week, a campaign policy aide from the Chicago office was on the phone, answering Mr. Knock’s specific questions.

When Mr. Obama went to Creston a month later, Mr. Steele arranged a brief one-on-one meeting between the senator and Mr. Knock, who signed on to the campaign soon after.

This month at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines, the Democratic Party’s marquee event of the year, who was seated at Mr. Obama’s table? Mr. Knock and his wife, Jan. Later, Ms. Knock told her husband that Mr. Obama had “swept her off her feet,” but she remained a committed supporter of former Senator John Edwards.

This could be Mr. Steele’s next project. He has less than six weeks.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Obama - the early years in New York City


October 30, 2007
The Long Run
Memories of Obama in New York Differ
By JANNY SCOTT
Barack Obama does not say much about his years in New York City. The time he spent as an undergraduate at Columbia College and then working in Manhattan in the early 1980s surfaces only fleetingly in his memoir. In the book, he casts himself as a solitary wanderer in the metropolis, the outsider searching for a way to “make myself of some use.”

He tells of underheated sublets, a night spent in an alley, a dead neighbor on the landing. From their fire escape, he and an unnamed roommate watch “white people from the better neighborhoods” bring their dogs to defecate on the block. He takes a job in an unidentified “consulting house to multinational corporations,” where he is “a spy behind enemy lines,” startled to find himself with a secretary, a suit and money in the bank.

He barely mentions Columbia, training ground for the elite, where he transferred in his junior year, majoring in political science and international relations and writing his thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament. He dismisses in one sentence his first community organizing job — work he went on to do in Chicago — though a former supervisor remembers him as “a star performer.”

Senator Obama, an Illinois Democrat now seeking the presidency, suggests in his book that his years in New York were a pivotal period: He ran three miles a day, buckled down to work and “stopped getting high,” which he says he had started doing in high school. Yet he declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years.

“He doesn’t remember the names of a lot of people in his life,” said Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman.

Mr. Obama has, of course, done plenty of remembering. His 1995 memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” weighs in at more than 450 pages. But he also exercised his writer’s prerogative to decide what to include or leave out. Now, as he presents himself to voters, a look at his years in New York — other people’s accounts and his own — suggests not only what he was like back then but how he chooses to be seen now.

Some say he has taken some literary license in the telling of his story. Dan Armstrong, who worked with Mr. Obama at Business International Corporation in New York in 1984 and has deconstructed Mr. Obama’s account of the job on his blog, analyzethis.net, wrote: “All of Barack’s embellishment serves a larger narrative purpose: to retell the story of the Christ’s temptation. The young, idealistic, would-be community organizer gets a nice suit, joins a consulting house, starts hanging out with investment bankers, and barely escapes moving into the big mansion with the white folks.”

In an interview, Mr. Armstrong added: “There may be some truth to that. But in order to make it a good story, it required a bit of exaggeration.”

Mr. Armstrong’s description of the firm, and those of other co-workers, differs at least in emphasis from Mr. Obama’s. It was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm, with about 250 employees worldwide, that helped companies with foreign operations (they could be called multinationals) understand overseas markets, they said. Far from a bastion of corporate conformity, they said, it was informal and staffed by young people making modest wages. Employees called it “high school with ashtrays.”

Many workers dressed down. Only the vice president in charge of Mr. Obama’s division got a secretary, they said. Mr. Obama was a researcher and writer for a reference service called Financing Foreign Operations. He also wrote for a newsletter, Business International Money Report.

“It was not working for General Foods or Chase Manhattan, that’s for sure,” said Louis Celi, a vice president at the company, which was later taken over by the Economist Intelligence Unit. “And it was not a consulting firm by any stretch of the imagination. I remember the first time I interviewed someone from Morgan Stanley and I got cheese on my tie because I thought my tie was a napkin.”

Mr. Obama arrived in New York in August 1981, at age 20, from Occidental College in Los Angeles. According to his memoir, he passed his first night in an alley near 109th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, unable to get into his apartment. The next morning, he bathed at a hydrant alongside a homeless man.

Like other transfer students, Mr. Obama lived off campus and bounced from one apartment to another. For a while, he said, he lived with a Pakistani whom he calls Sadik. He recalls that when he lived in a walk-up on East 94th Street, he would chat with his Puerto Rican neighbors about the Knicks or the sound of gunfire at night.

He writes that “it was only now that I began to grasp the almost mathematical precision with which America’s race and class problems joined; the depth, the ferocity, of resulting tribal wars; the bile that flowed freely not just out on the streets but in the stalls of Columbia’s bathrooms as well,” where the graffiti was both racist and anti-Semitic.

In a long profile of Mr. Obama in a Columbia alumni magazine in 2005, in which his Columbia years occupied just two paragraphs, he called that time “an intense period of study.”

“I spent a lot of time in the library. I didn’t socialize that much. I was like a monk,” he was quoted as saying.

He said he was somewhat involved with the Black Student Organization and anti-apartheid activities, though, in recent interviews, several prominent student leaders said they did not remember his playing a role.

One person who did remember Mr. Obama was Michael L. Baron, who taught a senior seminar on international politics and American policy. Mr. Baron, now president of an electronics company in Florida, said he was Mr. Obama’s adviser on the senior thesis for that course. Mr. Baron, who later wrote Mr. Obama a recommendation for Harvard Law School, gave him an A in the course.

Columbia was a hotbed for discussion of foreign policy, Mr. Baron said. The faculty included Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser, and Zalmay Khalilzad, now the American ambassador to the United Nations. Half of the eight students in the seminar were outstanding, and Mr. Obama was among them, Mr. Baron said.

Michael J. Wolf, who took the seminar with him and went on to become president of MTV Networks, said: “He was very smart. He had a broad sense of international politics and international relations. It was a class with a lot of debate. He was a very, very active participant. I think he was truly distinctive from the other people in that class. He stood out.”

Mr. Obama graduated in 1983. In his memoir, he says he had decided to become a community organizer but could not persuade anyone to hire him. So he found “more conventional work for a year” to pay off his student loans.

“Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors — see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand — and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve,” Mr. Obama wrote.

Cathy Lazere, his supervisor at Business International, described him as self-assured and bright. “He was very mature and more worldly than other people — on the surface kind of laid back, but kind of in control,” she said. “He had a good sense of himself, which I think a lot of kids at that age don’t.”

After about a year, he was hired by the New York Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit organization that promotes consumer, environmental and government reform. He became a full-time organizer at City College in Harlem, paid slightly less than $10,000 a year to mobilize student volunteers.

Mr. Obama says he spent three months “trying to convince minority students at City College about the importance of recycling” — a description that surprised some former colleagues. They said that more “bread-and-butter issues” like mass transit, higher education, tuition and financial aid were more likely the emphasis at City College.

“You needed somebody — and here was where Barack was a star — who could make the case to students across the political spectrum,” said Eileen Hershenov, who oversaw Mr. Obama’s work for Nypirg. The job required winning over students on the political left, who would normally disdain a group inspired by Ralph Nader as insufficiently radical, as well as students on the right and those who were not active at all.

Nearly 20 years later, Mr. Obama seemed to remember the experience differently. Gene Karpinski, then executive director of U.S. PIRG, a federation of state watchdog groups, met Mr. Obama in Boston. It was at the time of the 2004 Democratic convention, when Mr. Obama delivered the speech that made him a party luminary. Mr. Karpinski introduced himself. And, he recalled, Mr. Obama told him: “I used to be a PIRG guy. You guys trained me well.”

Monday, October 29, 2007

Barack Obama Becomes More Assertive


October 28, 2007
Obama Promises a Forceful Stand Against Clinton
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Oct. 27 — Senator Barack Obama said he would start confronting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton more directly and forcefully, saying Friday that she had not been candid in describing her views on critical policy issues, as he tries to address mounting alarm among supporters that his lack of assertiveness so far has allowed her to dominate the presidential race.

Mr. Obama’s vow to go on the offensive comes just over two months before the first votes are cast for the Democratic nomination, and after a long period in which his aides, donors and other supporters have battled — and in some cases shared — the perception that he has not exhibited the aggressiveness demanded by presidential politics.

In an interview on Friday that was initiated by his campaign to signal the change of course, Mr. Obama said “now is the time” for him to distinguish himself from Mrs. Clinton. While he said that he was not out to “kneecap the front-runner, because I don’t think that’s what the country is looking for,” he said she was deliberately obscuring her positions for political gain and was less likely than he was to win back the White House for Democrats.

Asked in the interview on Friday if Mrs. Clinton had been fully truthful with voters about what she would do as president, Mr. Obama replied, “No.”

“I don’t think people know what her agenda exactly is,” Mr. Obama continued, citing Social Security, Iraq and Iran as issues on which he said she had not been fully forthcoming. “Now it’s been very deft politically, but one of the things that I firmly believe is that we’ve got to be clear with the American people right now about the important choices that we’re going to need to make in order to get a mandate for change, not to try to obfuscate and avoid being a target in the general election and then find yourself governing without any support for any bold propositions.”

For months, Democrats, including some within his campaign, have questioned whether his promise to pursue a brand of politics that transcended partisanship had so handcuffed him that he could not compete in the most partisan of arenas.

Alan D. Solomont, a former contributor to both Clintons who is now raising money for Mr. Obama in Boston, said there was a growing consensus that Mr. Obama had to ratchet up his intensity and draw sharper distinctions with Mrs. Clinton, of New York, and other rivals.

“The only way that he’s going to be able to be clear with the American people,” Mr. Solomont said in an interview, “is to draw a distinction between his candidacy and his ideas about change and those of other candidates. It’s fair to say that he is beginning to do that, but he hasn’t done enough yet.”

In the interview, Mr. Obama acknowledged that he had held back until now, though he asserted it was a calculated decision to introduce himself in early voting states before engaging opponents. He said he regularly took lines out of speeches prepared by his campaign that he felt were “stretching the truth.”

But Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said the plan had always been for him to begin taking on Mrs. Clinton more directly in the fall. And he glared and responded no when asked if he lacked the stomach for confrontational politics. “It is absolutely true that we have to make these distinctions clearer,” he said. “And I will not shy away from doing that.”

The interview came amid growing signs that Mr. Obama was looking for a fresh start for his campaign after nine months in which his aides said they were startled by the effectiveness of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, and worried that her support was not as brittle as they had once believed.

Mr. Obama has built up his campaign war room, started frequently traveling with a speechwriter — reflecting concern of his aides that his public speeches tend to be long-winded — and begun spending more money on television advertising in Iowa and New Hampshire.

His senior aides said they were now spending much of their day fielding calls from concerned donors and other supporters asking why Mr. Obama was not challenging Mrs. Clinton more forcefully and warning that he could cede the role of the main anti-Clinton candidate to former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who is running an aggressive campaign in Iowa. Typically, one aide said, the supporter asks some version of the same question: “What happened to the Obama we saw at the 2004 Democratic convention?”

At the same time, aides said there was disagreement in the campaign about whether he should now begin investing all his time in Iowa, where polls show him to be running neck-and-neck with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, hoping that a victory there would give him a lift in New Hampshire, where polls show him trailing.

Morale at his Chicago headquarters, aides said, has been dragged down by the perception that Mrs. Clinton is lapping Mr. Obama. And aides said that they had been struggling for weeks for a balance between offering a contrast with Mrs. Clinton and avoiding the anger that they said had marked Mr. Edwards’s candidacy.

In a 53-minute interview over breakfast aboard a chartered jet that brought him here from Chicago, Mr. Obama said Mrs. Clinton had been untruthful or misleading in describing her positions on problems facing the nation. He accused her of “straddling between the Giuliani, Romney side of the foreign policy equation and the Barack Obama side of the equation.” He said that she was trying to “sound or vote” like a Republican on national security issues and that that was “bad for the country and ultimately bad for Democrats.”

Mr. Obama suggested that she was too divisive to win a general election and that if she won, she would be unable to bring together competing factions in Washington to accomplish anything.

“There is a legacy that is both an enormous advantage to her in a Democratic primary, but also a disadvantage to her in a general election,” he said. “I don’t think anybody would claim that Senator Clinton is going to inspire a horde of new voters,” he said. “I don’t think it’s realistic that she is going to get a whole bunch of Republicans to think differently about her.”

Asked about Mr. Obama’s remarks, Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said: “Senator Obama once promised Americans a politics of hope. But now that his campaign has stalled he is abandoning that strategy and is engaging in the same old-style personal attacks that he once rejected. We are confident that voters will reject this strategy, especially from a candidate who told us he would do better.”

Mr. Obama said he was not concerned by a repeated spate of national polls showing lopsided support for Mrs. Clinton. “The national press for the last three months has written glowingly about her and not so much about me, so it’s not surprising,” he said. He described himself as an “underdog” running against a campaign that has “a 20-year head start when it comes to managing the spin of the national politics.”

Many people are only beginning to focus on the race now, and early front-runners can easily stumble when the voting starts. But the Obama campaign has faced a political narrative in recent weeks that even Mr. Obama’s aides have described, in no small part because of a succession of polls, as establishing Mrs. Clinton as the front-runner. In one small example, a member of Mr. Obama’s national finance committee, Robert Farmer, told the campaign last week that he was formally switching allegiances to the Clinton campaign. Mr. Farmer contributed money to five Democratic presidential candidates this year, including the maximum amount allowed to Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards.

Though Mr. Obama’s criticisms of Mrs. Clinton were sharper than he has voiced during this campaign, they were, nonetheless, still somewhat restrained, certainly when compared with the criticisms that have been voiced of Mrs. Clinton by Mr. Edwards and much of the Republican field.

Mr. Obama rejected the suggestion that he had been constrained in taking on Mrs. Clinton more forcefully because of his promise, at the start of the campaign, to avoid the bitter partisanship of past campaigns. Mr. Obama, who aides suggested might be spending too much time reading blogs and newspaper clippings about the campaign, dismissively noted how the Clinton campaign regularly raised that line against him.

“I’ve been amused by seeing some of the commentary out of the Clinton camp, where every time we point out a difference between me and her, they say, ‘What happened to the politics of hope?’ which is just silly,” he said, laughing.

Asked why it was silly, he responded: “The notion that somehow changing the tone means simply that we let them say whatever they want to say or that there are no disagreements and that we’re all holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya’ is obviously not what I had in mind and not how I function. And anybody who thinks I have, hasn’t been paying attention.”

That said, Mr. Obama and his campaign have until now frequently avoided potential confrontations. Mr. Obama’s aides said, for example, that they had declined an invitation from some networks to appear on Sunday morning talk shows after Mrs. Clinton the day she appeared on five in one day to talk about her health care plan.

Monday, October 1, 2007

Never Trust Anybody Over 49 - New York Times

Never Trust Anybody Over 49 - New York Times
September 29, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Never Trust Anybody Over 49
By GAIL COLLINS
Earlier this year at a campaign rally, Bill Clinton said that when he was at Yale, he told Hillary: “I have met all the most gifted people in our generation and you’re the best.”

Now, it’s always nice to hear a husband say he thinks his wife is tops. But I can’t get past the idea that while Bill Clinton was still in law school he believed he already knew every baby boomer worth knowing.

“I didn’t even know everybody in my dorm,” said a friend when I told him this story.

Obviously, Clinton wasn’t including Barack Obama, who was only about 12 at the time. Now, Obama’s campaign is the revenge of Gen XYZ — an inconvenient reminder to the 50- and 60-somethings that they’ve become part of the system they used to decry. His big rally this week in Greenwich Village was an event that Hillary could never have pulled off — politics as a dating scene. Thousands and thousands and thousands of mostly young people swarmed into Washington Square Park where they were warmed up by a 25-year-old Asian-American rapper named Jin, who announced that Obama was going to be getting “my first vote ever.”

To this crowd, Clinton is what you hope you won’t have to settle for at the end. Better than Bush, of course, but not a real agent for change. “There are competent people who will manage the system the way it is,” said Obama about you-know-who, and, of course, the crowd cheered that no, they wanted someone braver and better and maybe even ... younger.

The Democratic Party seems to be gradually acclimating itself to the idea that Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee. It’s a little like that frog in a beaker of water that Al Gore talks about in his global warming speech — the one who won’t notice he’s being boiled to death if you turn up the heat ever so gradually. Day by day, debate by debate, poll by poll, the sense of Hillary’s inevitability seems to be seeping in.

She thinks she’s got it nailed as long as she doesn’t make any mistakes, and that can be a trap. It is possible to be so careful that you drive everybody crazy, make them so itchy for adventure, for a noble mission instead of a winnable hand of poker, that they’ll be willing to undo all your hard work just to juice things up.

During the latest Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton was exactly that kind of candidate. When she was asked if she favored lifting the cap on Social Security taxes (currently only the first $97,500 in income is taxed), all she would say was that she wanted to “put fiscal responsibility first.”

As opposed to all the other people who want to put it last.

When the moderator, Tim Russert, asked whether she was completely ruling out the idea of lifting the cap, this is what Clinton had to say:

“Well, I take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don’t think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.”

This is an excellent example of how to string together the maximum number of weasel words in one sentence. It was also pretty typical of Hillary’s entire evening. It’s one thing to refuse to answer a hypothetical question about whether there is any circumstance under which you might ever use nuclear weapons against Iran. It’s another to refuse to commit on who you’d root for if the Yankees played the Cubs in the World Series. No young person is going to fall in love with politics because of a candidate who says: “I would probably have to alternate sides.”

The Republican debates have become an ongoing suspense drama in which viewers try to guess which of these unlikely suspects will actually become a presidential nominee. The Democratic ones, meanwhile, are becoming less about the competition and more and more focused on how Hillary performs. That’s bad for the Clinton camp, since her strategy is all about not losing. She never gets caught in a disaster, but if you’re waiting for her to say something unexpected or pointed or forthcoming, you may have a long night.

In that last debate, the candidates were asked if they thought it was appropriate for a teacher to read young children a story about a handsome prince who marries a — handsome prince. Clinton started off by taking an all-purpose stand against divisiveness and ended with a plug for hate crimes legislation. In between, she said this: “With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion. I think that, obviously, it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children understand the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation.”

Now people, don’t you think the most gifted person of her generation could do better than this?

Loyal Network Backs Obama After His Help - New York Times

Loyal Network Backs Obama After His Help - New York Times

October 1, 2007
Loyal Network Backs Obama After His Help
By CHRISTOPHER DREW and RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
In 2000, after losing a Congressional race, Barack Obama was looking to revive his political fortunes. And he soon found a springboard — a group of black entrepreneurs also trying to break out.

Month after month, Mr. Obama, then an Illinois state senator, showed up at the Chicago group’s meetings, listening to members’ concerns about the difficulties they faced in getting government and corporate business, and asking them what he could do to help.

And help them he did. Members of the group, the Alliance of Business Leaders and Entrepreneurs, say Mr. Obama checked into their problems and helped start a drive that enabled minority investment executives to win millions of dollars in business from the state’s giant pension funds.

If Mr. Obama was able to deliver by helping the executives overcome some of the historical barriers facing minority-owned companies, he also would subsequently benefit from his ties to the group. Several of the businessmen or their wives would help clear the debts from his Congressional race, and six of the group’s members are now among the top fund-raisers for his presidential campaign, according to campaign finance records.

All told, employees at more than 30 of the 42 companies listed on the group’s Web site and their relatives donated more than $300,000 to help Mr. Obama win his seat in the United States Senate in 2004 and set fund-raising records early in the 2008 presidential race.

In his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama has been running on a platform of reducing the influence of money in politics. But with Mr. Obama, as with every politician, money has been the blood flow of his campaigns. And at a critical point in his career, he greatly expanded an early pillar of his fund-raising network while trying to help the black entrepreneurs secure work with the state.

The senator’s courtship of the Chicago group and its members is a little-known chapter in his political development that shows the inextricable link between money and politics and the different interpretations people attach to it.

Jay Stewart, executive director of an Illinois watchdog group known as the Better Government Association, said that in helping these and other executives as a state senator, Mr. Obama also benefited from the kind of special-interest-driven politics he now decries.

“Raising large chunks from special interests was common in Illinois,” Mr. Stewart said. “Obama did that too. Now he’s talking about chasing away special interests; that’s great. But that doesn’t change the past.”

Mr. Obama says his involvement with the alliance reflects his longtime passion for ensuring that minority businesses are treated fairly, and there is no indication that he helped the businessmen simply to secure their donations.

“The suggestion that these pioneering leaders would need my help or anyone’s help in order to succeed is troubling, to say the least,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “I’m proud that I’ve spent my career fighting to ensure that minority-owned businesses would have a chance to compete, and I will continue to do so as president.”

Mr. Obama also recently pointed to his work on the Illinois pension issue as a model for what he would do as president to promote minority-owned companies.

In that push, Mr. Obama met with three state pension boards and introduced a bill on the executives’ behalf. He also worked closely with the state’s top legislative leaders to encourage the pension funds to increase the share of their investment portfolios managed by minority-owned firms. That share has risen to 12 to 20 percent now from 1 to 3 percent in 2000.

Other alliance members said Mr. Obama also looked into whether they could get state business in other areas, including legal work on bond issues and the printing of official notices. As Stephen H. Pugh, a lawyer who belongs to the group, said, “He wanted to understand what our needs were and how government could help.”

Mr. Obama, Mr. Pugh said, “would be our representative — our advocate — to bring our views back to state government.”

The alliance was founded in 1992 to help Chicago’s top black executives and entrepreneurs share business tips and push for greater opportunities. According to the group’s Web site, the companies — which also include architecture, engineering, transportation and communications firms — average 65 full-time employees and annual revenues of $19 million.

The goal was always “to open up doors,” said John W. Rogers Jr., the chief executive of Ariel Capital Management, one of the investment firms that received state business. “It was, as the Rev. Jesse Jackson has eloquently put it, to force other industries to have their ‘Jackie Robinson’ moment.”

During its early years, the group’s main political patron was State Senator Emil Jones Jr., who later became the State Senate president and one of Mr. Obama’s chief mentors. In 1993, Mr. Jones took the first crack at opening up the pension business, persuading the Legislature to pass a bill encouraging the multibillion-dollar funds to use minority-owned firms “to the greatest extent feasible.”

But by the time Mr. Obama, then a junior state senator, began meeting regularly with the group in 2000, little progress had been made. As a result, said Hermene Hartman, the alliance president, the pension issues got “a lot of attention” in the discussions with Mr. Obama.

The investment firms were also among the largest and most prominent companies in the group, and some of their executives were among Mr. Obama’s closest friends.

Mr. Rogers, who also sits on the boards of the McDonald’s Corporation and other major companies, played basketball at Princeton University with Mr. Obama’s brother-in-law. James Reynolds Jr., the chief executive of Loop Capital, a brokerage firm, had been a top fund-raiser for Mr. Obama’s Congressional race.

Mr. Rogers said the investment managers also solicited support from Michael J. Madigan, the powerful Democratic speaker of the Illinois House. In 2001 and 2002, Mr. Madigan and Mr. Obama — at times joined by the investment executives — made formal pitches before three of the state pension boards.

And after Mr. Jones became the State Senate president in 2003, he assigned Mr. Obama to a committee looking into the pension questions to help raise his political profile.

During this period, campaign finance records show, executives from Ariel, Loop and two other leading Chicago investment firms, Holland Capital Management and Capri Capital, sharply increased their donations to Mr. Obama’s State Senate campaign fund. And once he began his campaign for the United States Senate, they quickly became a fund-raising core that has carried over into the presidential race.

Mr. Rogers, who is one of three people at his company who have each bundled at least $50,000 in donations for Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign, said that his financial support for the senator had “no connection” to his company’s efforts to win state contracts, but that it reflected the broader excitement over what Mr. Obama’s success meant for blacks in America.

Pointing to his parents’ struggles to break into the legal business in Chicago, Mr. Rogers said that pushing for greater opportunities was “in your blood, and when you have a peer come along like Barack, who is your own age and lives in your neighborhood, you can’t wait to help him.”

Mr. Reynolds of Loop Capital, who is also one of the bundlers in Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign, did not return calls for comment.

In the end, Mr. Obama dropped off the State Senate committee in late 2003 as his United States Senate race heated up, and just as the panel began a series of hearings that produced the most substantial changes.

Still, William Atwood, the director of the Illinois State Board of Investment, said Mr. Obama regularly asked about minority participation in the pension funds when their paths crossed. “He would ask: ‘How are we doing? Are we making progress?’” Mr. Atwood recalled.

The changes have generated several million dollars in fees for some of the investment firms, although the complete totals could not be obtained. Loop Capital, for instance, saw its brokerage fees related to one of the pension funds shoot up to $2.4 million last year from just $5,700 in 2001. All told, Loop Capital received $5 million in fees from managers for that fund over those six years.

Still, things have not worked out as well for some of the investment managers. Both Ariel and Holland were given several hundred million dollars to invest. But one of the funds dropped Ariel and two dropped Holland last year after their investment returns lagged behind those of other firms.

Mr. Rogers, the Ariel chief executive, said his firm’s value-oriented stocks tended to lag in fast-rising markets, and other state funds say they are sticking with Ariel for now because it has produced impressive long-term returns. Officials at Holland declined to comment.

But Mr. Rogers also complained that the Illinois funds, which are free to hire minority managers from anywhere in the country, have given much of their business to out-of-state firms owned by women and Asian-Americans.

And while Mr. Obama recently told the Urban League that if he was elected president he would use the same model in helping black-owned businesses nationwide as he did on the pension issue, Mr. Rogers said, “Actually, it is a model of how hard it is to get sustained traction.”

Friday, September 28, 2007

As Barack Obama Fires Up N.Y., Michelle Obama Talks Iowa Strategy


As Barack Obama Fires Up N.Y., Michelle Obama Talks Iowa Strategy

When Senator Barack Obama ran through the arch and strode onto stage tonight in Washington Square Park, he paused and sized up the crowd standing before him, many of whom were waving blue signs into the air emblazoned with his last name.
“Look at this crowd!” Mr. Obama said. “It is good to be back in New York. Some of you know, I used to live in New York City. I used to hang out in Washington Square Park. I know a little something about Greenwich Village.”
He added: “I was going to say I know some of the bars around here, but I think my communications director was trying to cut that off.”
While there was no indication that Mr. Obama had been drinking tonight – he is, in fact, a light drinker, who two years ago declined a shot of vodka with a group of government officials in Russia – he did seem as though he had taken an energy boost from his appearance at a debate Wednesday evening in New Hampshire.
Throughout the course of a 41-minute speech, Mr. Obama essentially asked voters to take a leap of faith on his candidacy. “There are easier choices to make in this election,” he said.

Bathed in the glow of floodlights, Mr. Obama addressed thousands of people who stood shoulder-to-shoulder, stretching from one side of the park to the other.
“There are those in this race for the presidency who are touting their experience working the system, but the problem is that the system isn’t working for us,” Mr. Obama said. “There are those who are saying you should be looking for someone who can play the game better, but the problem is that the game has been rigged. The time is too serious the stakes are too high to play the same game over and over again.”
In February, Mr. Obama drew 20,000 people to the Town Lake in Austin, Texas. In March, 10,000 people crowded into a plaza outside City Hall in Oakland, Calif. In April, he attracted 20,000 at an outdoor rally at Yellow Jacket Park in Atlanta.
And tonight, he drew what the campaign said was 24,000 people to Washington Square Park. That number was impossible to verify – unlike the other locales, where police provided a crowd count – but the audience clearly was one of the largest of the year.
So why did Mr. Obama spent the evening in New York, rather than addressing a group of early-state voters in Des Moines or Manchester? The New York primary on Feb. 5 – one of 21 states scheduled to cast votes that day – could offer a delegate boost.
While New York’s Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is expected to carry the state, Democrats split their delegates proportionally. So if Mrs. Clinton wins New York by 65 percent, for example, she would get 65 percent of the delegates. In a drawn-out fight for the nomination, Mr. Obama believes he can pick up enough delegates in New York and other states to make a difference.
“We heart New York,” said Steve Hildebrand, a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, who oversees the strategy in the early states. “Delegates are proportioned by congressional district – not winner take all. We firmly believe we can come out of New York with a sizeable delegate piece for Barack.”
We’ll find out on Feb.

Monday, September 3, 2007

Obama's Not from Washington Brand

September 3, 2007, 1:00 pm
Obama Touts His Outsider Theme
By Jeff Zeleny

MANCHESTER, N.H. – It has become clear, by now, that Senator Barack Obama is hoping to brand himself as the not-from-Washington candidate in the Democratic presidential race. To make his point, he referred to Washington 22 times in a Labor Day speech here today.
“There are those who tout their experience working the system in Washington,” Mr. Obama said, speaking beneath a cloudless sky at a downtown park. “But the problem is that the system in Washington isn’t working for us and hasn’t for a long time.”
Mr. Obama, of course, was referring to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who one day earlier sought to impress upon voters in New Hampshire that she is the candidate who can most effectively navigate the political channels of Washington to bring about change.
In a speech before a crowd of several hundred people at Veterans Memorial Park, Mr. Obama introduced several new lines, previewing the argument he intends to make in the closing four months of the presidential primary race.
“I might not have the experience Washington likes, but I believe I have the experience America needs right now,” Mr. Obama said. “Hope and change – hope and change — are not just the rhetoric of a campaign for me. Hope and change have been the causes of my life. Hope and change are the story of our country.”

If a set of bookends could be placed on the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign, they surely would be stamped CHANGE and EXPERIENCE, with the leading candidates hoping to reassure voters that they have the right combination of both. Today, Mr. Obama added a dash of vinegar to his line about pundits who believe he lacks experience.
“To this bunch, only the years you spend in Washington count. Only time in Washington translates into wisdom,” Mr. Obama said. “I think they are wrong about that. I think they’re wrong about that. Recent history suggests otherwise.
“There were a couple of guys named Cheney and Rumsfeld who had two of the longest resumes in Washington and they led us into the worst foreign policy fiasco in recent history,” he added, speaking over the applauding crowd. “So it’s pretty clear to me and it’s pretty clear to the American people that time served doesn’t guarantee judgment. A resume says nothing about character.”
For Mr. Obama, his aides believe, the moment is now to start hammering away at a perception that Mrs. Clinton is the perceived front-runner for the Democratic nomination. At the same time, the argument also works with most other candidates in the race, all of whom have served longer in Washington than Mr. Obama.
To present the new themes, Mr. Obama used a Tele-prompter, which was positioned against the bright sunshine. (Mrs. Clinton, dusting off a new campaign speech of her own on Sunday in Portsmouth, did not).
Before heading off to his next campaign stop – a Labor Day parade with his wife and two daughters in the town of Milford – Mr. Obama also left voters with another fresh thought: humility.
“I’m reminded every single day that I am not a perfect man. I will not be a perfect president,” he said. “But I can promise you this: I will always tell you what I think and where I stand. I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face.”

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Whats Black Enough? Michelle Obama Fed Up With Debate

Whats Black Enough? Michelle Obama Fed Up With Debate

People should give up their narrow-mindedness and embrace Barack Obama for who he said he is. He has married a black woman, not a biracial woman. He has two girls who are black. What is it with people? Is this to distract Black voters? I hope they can see through this stupid smoke screen. Enough on this topic already. Barack Obama
is a black man. Even if he is not a Black man he is the best candidate that would bring a spot of colour to the White House.

Saturday, August 4, 2007

Clinton VS Obama

Aug 4, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Political Animal) OBAMA vs. CLINTON REVISITED....Mark Kleiman thinks there's more to the Hillary-Obama foreign policy contretemps than I'm giving it credit for. I'm not so sure, but it will take a little bit of in-the-weeds explaining to say why. Here goes.

First, on the question of striking al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan, Mark says:
Obama is rejecting the "our sunuvabitch" strategy of making nice to Musharraf (and, I think, the House of Saud as well). HRC says that's "naive" and "irresponsible." The MSM agreed, until the polling showed that Obama had the country with him.
I think there's a huge amount of projection going on here. Obama just flatly didn't say anything like this at all. The only thing he said was that "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." That's it. Nothing about reducing our support for Musharraf and certainly nothing about reducing our support for the House of Saud. That would be a massive change in U.S. foreign policy, and there's just no way that Obama intended to telegraph something that big with that one oblique sentence.

As for Hillary Clinton's response....well, there wasn't one. (The "naive" and "irresponsible" comment was from last week's spat over negotiating with foreign dictators.) Obama later made clear that he was talking about "highly targeted" strikes and apparently Clinton doesn't have a problem with that. There's just not much daylight between the two here.

Now onto the next subject: nukes. The analytical problem here is quite different: namely that AP screwed up this story pretty badly. Here's the first version of the AP dispatch that crossed the wire on Thursday (via Nexis, no link):
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance."

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."
An hour later AP had changed the lede to add "to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan" to the end of the first sentence, but the damage had already been done. If you saw the first version of the story and didn't read the whole thing carefully, there's a good chance you thought Obama was forswearing American use of nuclear weapons very broadly. Even the second version is only a little clearer, which makes Clinton's criticism ("I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons") seem pretty reasonable. The AP story, especially the first version, implied something much wider than a simple declaration that Obama didn't plan to lob nukes into caves in the Hindu Kush.

For the record, on Friday AP finally released a transcript of the conversation:
AP: Sir, with regard to terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan ...

OBAMA: Yeah.

AP: Is there any circumstances where you'd be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden?

OBAMA: No, I'm not, uh, there has been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss.

AP: Not even tactical?

OBAMA: No. I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance. Uh, if involving you know, civilians... Let me scratch all that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table so...
Frankly, even now it's not entirely clear what Obama meant, and his "scratch all that" comment suggests that even em>he thinks discretion is the better part of valor where nukes are concerned. In the end, it was an offhand response to an unexpected question, he didn't handle it very well, his opponents took the chance to toss a few barbs at him, and that's about it. There aren't too many larger lessons here except that AP ought to be more careful about how they report stuff like this.

For now, I'm sticking with my original impression: there's way more heat than light here. In substantive terms, both Obama and Clinton agree that we should be willing to negotiate with bad actors (this was last week's argument); both support the use of targeted strikes against high-value al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan; and both seem to agree that although we aren't going to use nukes to take out those leaders, it's probably best not to say anything definitive one way or another where nuclear weapons are concerned.

Now, there's no question that Obama and Clinton are taking different tones on these questions. But I'm getting increasingly irritable that we're allowing them to get away with this. A different tone may be nice, but we aren't mind readers, and if either one of them has a serious difference of opinion with the other, they should be able to do more than tease us about it. I'm not willing to let Obama get away forever with nice speechifying that sounds fresh but doesn't really step away from liberal conventional wisdom much at all, and I'm not willing to let Clinton get away forever with tossing barbs at Obama without herself explaining if she has any substantive differences with him. Tone matters — and in foreign affairs it sometimes matters a lot — but analyzing these recent squabbles is like trying to decipher Kremlin May Day photographs. Enough's enough.