Friday, January 4, 2008

Could he be the one?


It's Obama Time: What Does His Stunning Iowa Win Mean?
By Eric L. Hinton
© DiversityInc 2007
When Barack Obama pulled off a stunning victory in Thursday's Iowa caucus, one of the whitest states in the nation, some hailed his victory as proof that a black man could be president.

Are we there yet?
In the past several months, Obama has successfully hurdled questions of "Is he black enough?" and "Is He a Muslim?" on his way to capturing 38 percent of support among Iowa caucus-goers. John Edwards gained 30 percent of the vote while Hillary Clinton, the prohibitive frontrunner in the months leading up to the caucus, finished a disappointing third with 29 percent.

Approximately 25 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers interviewed in entrance polls were younger than 30. Obama received 57 percent of their votes, compared with 14 percent for Edwards and 11 percent for Clinton, reports The Associated Press (AP). Obama also won the highest percentage of independents, first-time caucus-goers, self-identified liberals, and women, according to the AP.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, who's been campaigning on a largely anti-undocumented-immigrant platform, won with 34 percent of the vote, followed by 25 percent for Mitt Romney.

So was Obama's victory in Iowa just a blip on the radar screen or the first step in a massive transformation in American politics? That's what the political pundits are trying to analyze this "day after" as campaign managers go into spin mode and the campaign trail moves on to New Hampshire, which holds its primary on Tuesday.

Obama's historic victory "proved that a black man running for president can have success among voters in a predominantly white state," writes BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"To his credit Barack Obama has carefully cultivated an image as a 'change' candidate who takes the higher ground, one that talks about race -- but not racism," writes New American Media columnist Roberto Lovato. "Iowa confirms that, in doing so, he can make even the whitest electorate feel like it's voting to overcome the catastrophic legacy of racial discrimination."

Obama's campaign seemed to kick into overdrive once he was joined on the campaign trail by Oprah Winfrey. It's hard to determine what impact 'The Oprah effect' actually had. But as the Des Monies Register reported in December after Obama received Winfrey's endorsement, he attracted more than 18,000 to a Des Monies event and more than 15,000 in Cedar Rapids. Newsweek says many pundits discounted Winfrey's endorsement despite her the largely female audience, which Obama was trying to capture, "but when MSNBC reported that Obama had won the women's vote in Iowa by several points, the crowd went wild," Newsweek reports.

How important was Obama's Iowa win? It may be difficult to believe with 49 states still unheard from that the first--particularly Iowa which is 95 percent white--could be a deciding factor. But Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist at Newsweek, says the Iowa win has made Obama the prohibitive favorite to be the Democratic presidential nominee.

"It's hard to believe a few thousand votes in Iowa can have so shaken the political landscape, but the front-loading of the primary process--originally meant to settle on Hillary Clinton early so she could concentrate on defeating the GOP in November--has backfired badly for the Democratic Party establishment," writes Alter. "The only one who can stop Obama from making history is Obama."

The Clinton camp has a different perspective, obviously. Clinton's campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle offered congratulations to Obama while saying the battle was far from over. "This race begins tonight and ends when Democrats throughout America have their say," Doyle writes on the Clinton campaign web site. "Our campaign was built for a marathon and we have the resources to run a national race in the weeks ahead."

Timing is everything. It's possible Obama may be the last candidate to ride the Iowa wave to a party nomination, should he go that far. Some political analysts are suggesting that Iowa, largely rural, white, conservative and sparsely populated, exerts far too large an influence over the political process.

"The major parties would be far better off if the presidential nominees were chosen much later in the process," says Steven S. Smith, a political expert at Washington University who predicts Iowa's special role in party politics may end after this year. "It's a lousy way to elect a president. Is it reasonable to allow states like Iowa and New Hampshire to have such a disproportionate impact on the presidential race?"

The New York Times concurred. On its editorial page, the Times urged that "this year's Iowa-New Hampshire rush to judgment will be the last."

"We don't question the enthusiasm of the commitment of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire. But Iowa, where a huge turnout amounts to less than 10 percent of the population, is about 92 percent white, more rural and older than the rest of the nation," says the Times.

How interesting, then, that Iowa's sawn song with its predominantly white populace may be propelling Barack Obama to the Democratic nomination.

Barack Wins IOWA



4, 2008
Obama Takes Iowa in a Big Turnout as Clinton Falters; Huckabee Victor
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
DES MOINES — Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a first-term Democratic senator trying to become the nation’s first African-American president, rolled to victory in the Iowa caucuses on Thursday night, lifted by a record turnout of voters who embraced his promise of change.

The victory by Mr. Obama, 46, amounted to a startling setback for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 60, of New York, who just months ago presented herself as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. The result left uncertain the prospects for John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, who had staked his second bid for the White House on winning Iowa.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, who edged her out for second place by less than a percentage point, both vowed to stay in the race.

“They said this day would never come,” Mr. Obama said as he claimed his victory at a packed rally in downtown Des Moines.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who was barely a blip on the national scene just two months ago, defeated Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, delivering a serious setback to Mr. Romney’s high-spending campaign and putting pressure on Mr. Romney to win in New Hampshire next Tuesday.

Mr. Huckabee, a Baptist minister, was carried in large part by evangelical voters, who helped him withstand extensive spending by Mr. Romney on television advertising and a get-out-the-vote effort.

“Tonight we proved that American politics is still in the hands of ordinary folks like you,” said Mr. Huckabee, who ran on a platform that combined economic populism with an appeal to social conservatives.

Mr. Huckabee won with 34.4 percent of the delegate support, after 86 percent of precincts had reported. Mr. Romney had 25.4 percent, former Senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee had 13.4 percent and Senator John McCain of Arizona had 13.2 percent.

On the Democratic side, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, Mr. Obama had 37.6 percent of the delegate support, Mr. Edwards 29.8 percent and Mrs. Clinton had 29.5 percent. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico was fourth, at 2.11 percent.

Two Democrats, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, dropped out of the race after winning only tiny percentages of the vote.

A record number of Democrats turned out to caucus — more than 239,000, compared with fewer than 125,000 in 2004 — producing scenes of overcrowded firehouses and schools and long lines of people waiting to register their preferences.

The images stood as evidence of the success of Mr. Obama’s effort to reach out to thousands of first-time caucusgoers, including many independent voters and younger voters. The huge turn-out — by contrast, 108,000 Republicans caucused on Thursday — demonstrated the extent to which opposition to President Bush has energized Democrats, and served as another warning to Republicans about the problems they face this November in swing states like this.

Mr. Obama’s victory in this overwhelmingly white state was a powerful answer to the question of whether America was prepared to vote for a black person for president. What was remarkable was the extent to which race was not a factor in this contest. Surveys of voters entering the caucuses also indicated that he had won the support of many independents, a development that his aides used to rebut suggestions from rivals that he could not win a general election. In addition, voters clearly rejected the argument that Mr. Obama does not have sufficient experience to take over the White House, a central point pressed by Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Obama took the stage, smiling broadly and clapping his hands in response to the roar of cheers that greeted him.

“They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose,” Mr. Obama said. “But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do.”

The result sent tremors of apprehension through Mrs. Clinton’s camp, and she promptly turned her attention to New Hampshire, flying there on a plane that left at midnight. Aides said that former President Bill Clinton would go there immediately and spend the next five days campaigning in a state where he has always been strong. Mrs. Clinton, in her concession speech, sought again to embrace the mantle of change that has served Mr. Obama so well, even as she was flanked on the stage by Mr. Clinton, his face frozen in a smile, and Madeleine K. Albright, who was Mr. Clinton’s secretary of state.

“What is most important now is that, as we go on with this contest, that we keep focused on the two big issues, that we answer correctly the questions that each of us has posed,” Mrs. Clinton said. “How will we win in November 2008 by nominating a candidate who will be able to go the distance and who will be the best president on Day One.”

Mr. Edwards in his speech suggested that he had benefited from the same electoral forces that lifted Mr. Obama to victory. “Continue on,” Mr. Edwards shouted at supporters from the stage, his voice sounding hoarse. “Thank you for second place.”

In fact, he drew 29.8 percent of the delegates awarded, to Mrs. Clinton’s 29.4 percent.

Mr. Huckabee declared victory at a boisterous rally in which he rejoiced in his ability to overcome his better-financed opponent, who had spent much of the past year building up for a victory and had hammered Mr. Huckabee with negative advertisements over the past month here.

“We’ve learned that people really are more important then the purse,” he said.

Mr. Romney will now make a stand in New Hampshire, where he has also invested heavily.

“Congratulations on the first round to Mike,” Mr. Romney said on Fox News.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, had campaigned intermittently here over the past month, at one point hoping to take advantage of the unsettled field here to come in third. Instead, he came in sixth place, garnering just 3 percent.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee face very different circumstances heading into New Hampshire and the states beyond. Polling suggested that a once overwhelming lead enjoyed by Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire was vanishing even before the results of Thursday’s vote. Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have long worried that a loss here would weaken her even more going into New Hampshire, stripping her both of claims to inevitability and to electability.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama — as well as Mr. Edwards — face a rigorous and expensive run of nearly 25 contests between now and Feb. 5. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton appear far better-positioned, in terms of organization and money, to compete through that period, than Mr. Edwards. Though Mr. Edwards presented second place as a victory, he fell far short of winning — as he had once sought to do — and might find it difficult now to raise more money or find new supporters.

Compared to Mr. Obama Mr. Huckabee’s situation is much more tenuous, and his victory on Thursday did little to clarify the state of the Republican field. In New Hampshire, polls have shown Mr. McCain on the rise and little support for Mr. Huckabee. Mr. Giuliani has invested much of his time and money in Florida. And, as Mr. Romney’s advisers noted tonight, he has more a foundation of money and support in many of the coming states.

Iowa seemed particularly fertile ground for Mr. Huckabee. Polls of Republicans entering the caucus sites found that 60 percent described themselves as evangelical, and by overwhelming numbers they said they intended to vote for Mr. Huckabee.

The polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool of television networks and The Associated Press, also left little doubt about the reasons for Mr. Obama’s convincing victory here. He did much better among young voters.

Voters here were far more interested in a candidate promising change — as Mr. Obama was — than one citing experience, the heart of Mrs. Clinton’s appeal. Half of Democrats said their top factor in choosing a candidate was someone who could bring about change. Just 20 percent said the right experience, Mrs. Clinton’s key argument, was the main factor.

For all the talk about electability, barely one in 10 respondents said it was the main factor in their decision.

There was a sharp generational break in support of the two candidates. Mr. Obama was backed by 60 percent of voters under 25 while Mrs. Clinton was supported by about 45 percent of voters over 65.

The survey of Democrats entering the caucus sites found that more than half said they were attending their first caucus — and they divided with about 40 percent for Mr. Obama and about 30 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

Student Voting Legal


Student Voters Supressed in Iowa
By Rick Hasen, Election Law
Posted on January 3, 2008, Printed on January 4, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/72583/
We've all seen the cry of "voter fraud" being used for political purposes in recent years, but this latest example would be amusing if it weren't so pernicious: David Yepsen, a leading political reporter for The Des Moines Register, has suggested that Senator Obama's encouragement of college students to vote in the Iowa caucuses amounts to "fraud." President Bill Clinton too has gotten in on the action. Recognizing that such voting could well help Obama who has energized students on college campuses, beat his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton has discouraged such voting, telling college students to use their consciences in deciding whether or not to participate in the caucuses. But the bottom line is that voting by Iowa college students is perfectly legal, and indeed such voting could help to compensate for the otherwise anti-democratic nature of Iowa's role in the presidential election process.

Let's start with the law. Iowa residents can participate in the presidential caucuses, and the Iowa Code specifically provides that a "student who resides at or near the school the student attends, but who is also able to claim a residence at another location under the provisions of this section, may choose either location as the student's residence for voter registration and voting purposes." The state Democratic Party agrees that "[a]ny student who attends an Iowa college or university may participate in the Iowa caucuses provided they are 18 by November 4, 2008, and are a registered Democrat in the precinct in which they wish to caucus." Indeed, before raising his charge of fraud, Yepsen conceded in his column that voting by college students is "quite legal."

So what is this really about? Apparently Yepsen is upset that out-of-staters -- particularly college students from Illinois, whom Yepsen says are used to voter fraud -- are going to "skew" the results of the races. This kind of charge is hardly new. Indeed, back in 1965, the Supreme Court considered Carrington v. Rash, a case in which Texas sought to exclude state residents on military bases from voting in elections. Texas argued it had "a legitimate interest in immunizing its elections from the concentrated balloting of military personnel, whose collective voice may overwhelm a small local civilian community" The high Court, while recognizing the state's right to limit voting to bona fide residents, unanimously rejected the argument: "Fencing out from the franchise a sector of the population because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible."

So much for Yepsen's implicit argument that resident Iowa college students are not "real Iowans" who should not be permitted to skew the results of the election. Yepsen also seems to idealize the Iowa caucuses, but the caucuses are not the paragons of democracy they are cracked up to be. They are likely to have very low voter turnout and operate with some quirky rules, including no right to a secret ballot (in the Democratic caucuses), unequal weighting of votes, and lack of transparency in the process.

Finally, there's reason we as a nation should actually be happy that candidates like Obama encourage Iowa college students to vote in the caucuses. Iowa and New Hampshire have inordinate influence over the choice of the president. Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire are representative of the interests of the country as a whole. Allowing Iowa and New Hampshire to go first already has a great "skew" on the presidential process, creating (or ending) momentum of presidential candidates. College students, who come to Iowa from across the U.S. and are likely to be more diverse (in numerous ways) compared to other Iowa residents can serve as a partial antidote to this skew.

Yepsen concludes his piece by stating that "If Iowa can't get this right, then Iowa shouldn't get this sort of influence." Indeed.

This article first appeared on Rick Hasen’s Election law blog (www.electionlawblog.org).

Rick Hasen is the William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

Obama Wins Big Time


What Obama's Iowa Win Means for Everyone
By Arianna Huffington, HuffingtonPost.com
Posted on January 4, 2008, Printed on January 4, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/72596/
Even if your candidate didn't win tonight, you have reason to celebrate. We all do.

Barack Obama's stirring victory in Iowa -- down home, folksy, farm-fed, Midwestern, and 92 percent white Iowa -- says a lot about America, and also about the current mindset of the American voter.

Because tonight voters decided that they didn't want to look back. They wanted to look into the future -- as if a country exhausted by the last seven years wanted to recapture its youth.

Bush's re-election in 2004 was a monument to the power of fear and fear-mongering. Be Very Afraid was Bush/Cheney's Plans A through Z. The only card in the Rove-dealt deck. And it worked. America, its vision distorted by the mushroom clouds conjured by Bush and Cheney, made a collective sprint to the bomb shelters in our minds, our lizard brains responding to fear rather than hope.

And the Clintons -- their Hillary-as-incumbent-strategy sputtering -- followed the Bush blueprint in Iowa and played the fear card again and again and again.

Be afraid of Obama, they warned us. Be afraid of something new, something different. He might meet with our enemies. His middle name is Hussein. He went to a madrassa school. A vote for him would be like rolling the dice, the former president said on Charlie Rose.

And the people of Iowa heard him, and chose to roll the dice.

Obama's win might not have legs. Hope could give way to fear once again. But, for tonight at least, it holds a mirror up to the face of America, and we can look at ourselves with pride. This is the kind of country America was meant to be, even if you are for Clinton or Edwards -- or even Huckabee or Giuliani.

It's the kind of country we've always imagined ourselves being -- even if in the last seven years we fell horribly short: a young country, an optimistic country, a forward-looking country, a country not afraid to take risks or to dream big.

Bill Clinton has privately told friends that if Hillary didn't win, it would be because of the two weeks that followed her shaky performance in the Philadelphia debate.

But it wasn't those two weeks. Indeed, if we were to pinpoint one decisive moment, it would be Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose, arrogant and entitled, dismissive and fear-mongering. And then Bill Clinton giving us a refresher course in '90s-style truth-twisting and obfuscation -- making stuff about always having been against the war, and about Hillary having always been for every good decision during his presidency and against every bad one, from Ireland to Sarajevo to Rwanda.

So voters in Iowa remembered the past and decided that they didn't want to go back. They wanted to move ahead. Even if that meant rolling the dice.

Again, this moment may not last. But, for tonight, I am going to savor it -- and cross my fingers that it may stand as the day that fear as a winning political tactic died. Killed by an "unlikely" candidate -- as Obama called himself again and again -- who seized the moment, and reminded America of its youth and the optimism it longs to recapture.

Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.

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.