Obama on Race: Breadth, Depth, and Respect

A funny thing happened on my way to blog about Obama's speech on race. I saw the Reuters headline: Obama denounces preacher; says can't disown him. Not inaccurate, but is that really the headline?

True, Obama talked at length about his relationship with Rev. Wright and distanced himself from his former pastor's remarks without denouncing the man. But isn't that what we all expected? Couldn't that headline might have been written last night?

Here's the real headline. Obama talks honestly about race in America (video). He put the whole festering, difficult tangle of issues on the table for open discussion without pandering or patronizing. It's never happened in any presidential campaign I can remember.

What astonished and heartened me about the speech was its breadth, depth, and respect.

Breadth, in that it encompassed the full sweep of race relations in this country from slavery, through constitutional compromise, segregation, and hopeful future.

Depth, in that it embraced our shared and separate experiences from both black and white perspectives—acknowledging resentments and suspicions on both sides—all channeled through the lens of Obama's multi-ethnic heritage.

Respect, in that the tone, structure, language, and argument of the speech appealed to our heads as well as our hearts, adult-to-adult.

Oliver Willis wrote this after the speech:

"One of my personal maxims has been that politicians will disappoint you... With Senator Obama, for the first time in my life, I have watched a political leader who I don’t worry if he’ll be up to the task."

Mickeleh's Take: If I may borrow from Rep. Ferraro, we're very lucky he is who he is.

What the Media Never Bothered to Answer About Rev. Wright

No question that Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made outrageous remarks in his sermons. The clips that have been most played on YouTube and TV are harsh, inflamatory, and disturbing. There's no easy way to spin, "God Damn America." Obama did what he needed to do, in written and video communications he distanced himself and denounced the statements. (see below for excerpts and clips).

How is it that this story—based solely on excerpts from old, long-available videos of sermons—was covered breathlessly as breaking news? It was covered with the urgency of of a crane falling and demolishing a New York building or an investment bank suddenly sucked into a sinkhole of bad credit, or the revelation that a righteous governor went to high-priced whores.

We got a lot of "what?" But very little "Why?" and not a bit of "Why now?" Does anyone know the flashpoint of the Rev. Wright firestorm? Anyone tracking that down?

Missing from the coverage was any sense of the context of the Rev. Dr. Wright's remarks. Here are some of the things what I wish the press would have told me.

1. Who is Rev. Wright (other than Obama's former pastor)? What's his bio?
2. What has he accomplished in his community? With his congregation?
3. What, taken as a whole, is his message to his congregation? to the African American community? to the Christian Church, to America?
4. What do his colleagues think of him?
5. What do members of his congregation think of him? What do they think his message is? Why are they drawn to him?
   
6. What is the background of Rev. Wright's black liberation theology?
7. What were the sermons with the nasty bits actually about? What was their message? What did they ask of the congregation?
   

Instead, the standard media play was: Here are some awful things that Obama's minister preached; will it sink his campaign or will it just get people to stop talking about Geraldine Ferraro?

The best main stream attempt to answer any of this came this morning in The Wall Street Journal in an article by Suzanne Satalin and Douglas Belkin. They quote Melissa Harris-Lacewell, associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University

"America is our country and we love her, yet she has done such awful things. We have to have a place where we say…'This is not okay. I'm still hurt about this.' "

The best perspective piece I've seen on Rev. Wright is not in the traditional media, but in this blog post by Kim Pearson on BlogHer.

Mickeleh's Take: If you want to take an even longer view: Rev. Jeremiah Wright's namesake, the prophet Jeremiah delivered even harsher messages against Israel and Jerusalem than anything Rev. Wright has said about the United States. In a ministry spanning the last days of the Kingdom of Judeah through the destruction of the Temple of Solomon, Original Jeremiah was even charged with treason, and indicted on a capital offense for his troubles. He railed against prophets who say all is well, all is well, when it's not well at all. (You probably know the more famous translation, "They cry 'peace, peace,' when there is no peace." Or the more recent version, "'The surge is working, the surge is working,' when the surge is not working.")

PostScript: Obama's statements.

"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

—Huffington Post

He also sat for a friendly interiew with Keith Olbermann (MSNBC), and a prosecutorial one with Major Garrett (Fox News) and then addressed the issue again at a rally in Plainfield Indiana.

(Tags:Barack Obama, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's_Pastor, Media, Liberation Theology)

Ferraro's Game: Segment and Conquer

Former Congressional Rep. Geraldine Ferraro is playing a nasty, cynical game. It's a game I know well because I play it professionally. She's not a racist. She's a marketer.

Ferraro is just working the old dodge of market segmentation and positioning. And the Clinton campaign is eagerly playing along.

Ferraro's original claim (in the Daily Breeze) that "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position" frames the competitive product as a candidate for blacks and elitist, latte-swilling liberals. What's that leave for her own product (Clinton)? The much larger segments combined from white working-class and rural voters and women.

She's not a racist, but she's dog whistling to them along with whites who resent black progress and to feminists who think that the woman candidate deserves to go first while the African American candidate waits his turn.

Will Bunch calls it "Hillary's 'Archie Bunker' Strategy," and he reminds us that Ferraro was Archie's congresswoman.

Adam Hanft exposes the preposterousness of taking Ferraro's claims at face value by asking us to imagine the impact of a white candidate who had the education, skills, perspective, and vision of Obama.

But Ferraro herself exposes her own cynicism (or idiocy) in the defense she made on ABC yesterday morning.

"I was celebrating the fact that the black community in this country came out with a pride in a historic candidacy, and has shown itself at the polls. You'd think he'd say, 'Yeah thank you for doing that.'"

Right. That's just what you'd think. Obama, whose signature is broad appeal to black and white, old and young, gay and straight, Democrat and Republican is about to thank you for defining him as the niche candidate for the black community.

It's a shameful game. And more shameful is the record of the Clinton campaign moving slowly and gingerly to ever-so-slightly distance itself from it. But the Clinton campaign has no shame.

Even the master shamer of cable TV, Keith Olbermann won't move the Clintonistas. But he has moved me, and I'm hopeful he will move you. His rant is up all over the Web in the left blogosphere. But just in case you've somehow missed it, here it is again.



Mickeleh's Take: Segmentation and positioning are powerful tools in politics as well as marketing. The Clinton campaign has chosen the route of Segment and Conquer.

Obama Netted +13 Delegates Last Week

Kos has revised his delegate math since I posted earlier. Turns out his California total rose (after certification), and it turns out there were even more superdelegates declaring for Obama. So the net gain for Obama is thirteen delegates on the week.

Clinton Obama Takedown Comes in Three Sizes

The Clinton camp continues to trash Obama's ability to serve as commander in chief. As of this morning we have the Poppa Bear, Mama Bear, and Baby Bear versions:

Baby Bear was Gov. Ed Rendell, yesterday on Meet the Press said Obama is qualified, but Clinton more so: 

I think he's qualified. I don't think he's as good a potential commander in chief right now as Hillary Clinton is. But I certainly think he's qualified. And I will work my heart out for him if he's our nominee,

Mama Bear was Sen. Clinton Herself, leaving out a direct pronouncement on Obama's qualifications:

I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,”

Today, Papa Bear, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said no. And then preposterously added that he could get better by Denver (to qualify as Clinton's running mate).

We do not believe that Senator Obama has passed the commander-in-chief test. But there is a long way between now and Denver."

Mickeleh's Take: Wolfson is spinning so hard, he's in danger of disintegrating. Obama is not qualified if you're voting in a primary. But by Denver, if you're voting for Veep, maybe he will be. I wonder if Governor Rendell got a reprimand for speaking honorably.

Obama's Top Five Wins Last Week

No question that Hillary has had a good run these past two weeks. She snapped her 11-state losing streak with wins in Ohio and Rhode Island, and the perception of a win in Texas. Her "kitchen sink" strategy planted doubts about Obama's fitness as commander-in-chief and his forthrightness. She successfully worked the refs (with an assist from SNL). She won the spin cycle when two of Obama's key advisors (Goosling and Power) were caught talking trash. She managed her public personas, tamping down the over-the-top "shame on you," scold and "the sky will open" sarcasm.

Conventional wisdom says all this has rattled the Obama campaign and thrown it off stride. I hope not. Because he's had a terrific week and Clinton has given him ammunition to come out of this stronger than ever.

1. IL-14. Former Republican House speaker Denny Hastert's house seat went Democratic (53-47) in a race where Obama endorsed victorious Bill Foster and John McCain endorsed the loser. This district hasn't voted Democratic since the 70's. Obama's camp should flog this win heavily. Obama has coattails. Superdelegates notice those things. Here's Obama's TV Spot. (By the way... Foster himself counts as one more superdelegate for Obama.) Extra bonus: Foster opposes retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

2. Wyoming. It's not just that Obama won, but his win gave the Clintons one more chance to repeat their disrespectful spin that some states just don't count. (I live in Washington, and I'm tired of hearing from Clinton camp that we don't matter.) And more important, it gives the Obama camp an opportunity to remind superdelegates in a majority of states that Clinton dismisses them as unimportant.

3. McCain. Hillary Clinton actually rated the Republican standard bearer as more qualified than Obama (while out of the other side of her mouth she touted Obama as a potential "dream-ticket" running mate). What a golden opportunity to tie Clinton to McCain/Bush. Clinton needs to be held to account and penalized for creating sound bites and video clips for the Republicans.

4. Delegates. Kos did the delegate math for the week. In all the primaries and caucuses (OH, RI, VT, TX, WY), Hillary nets a gain of four. Obama picked up a total of four supers (including Foster). But, according to Kos, it doesn't end in a tie, as there's an "unpledged" delegate in Wyoming who will be selected by the elected delegates. Since Obama has a majority of Wyoming's elected delegates, he's going to get that one too. So Obama's net for the week is plus one.

5. Focus. The downside spin is that Obama is rattled and thrown off stride. Here's the upside. Last week was a wake-up call. Obama's got the more disciplined campaign engine (Goosling and Power notwithstanding); he's got the cleaner, larger donor base; he's got a huge dollar advantage; he's all got charisma. But, it seems, he's been coasting in a bit of a complacency bubble which just popped.

Mickeleh's Take: This is going to be a fine, fun week for Obama fans.

(Tags: campaign, Obama, Barack Obama, Hillary, Hillary Clinton, delegates, superdelegates)

Do Florida and Michigan Supers Fall to Clinton by Default?

The DNC, the states, and the campaigns continue to wrestle with the issue of the disqualified delegates from Florida and Michigan. Chuck Todd (NBC) points out that the two states have 53 superdelegates between them who will owe a big debt to Sen. Clinton if her efforts to get them seated pay off.

Mickeleh's Take: The Clintons launched their campaign with a YouTube video that cast them as the Sopranos. I'll bet they know a thing or two about collecting debts.

Obama's Gloves

Eriposte in The Left Coaster compiles a long list of negative attacks from the Obama campaign against Clinton.

He says it's a "fairy tale" that Obama has run a purely positive campaign.

Mickeleh's Take: Obama fans: is this good news or bad? Pundits keep saying Obama needs to take the gloves off. What if they've been off and nobody noticed?

Nader in; Takes "Oldest" spot from McCain

Ralph Nader, 73, whose spoiler role in the 2000 election enabled the Bush victory, is running again. So, now, John McCain, 71, isn't the oldest candidate in the race.

Mickeleh's Take: Nader, who saw no practical difference between Bush and Gore is unsafe at any age.

(Tags:Ralph Nader, Nader, Campaign)

Who Won Last Night's Debate? Here's a Clue.

Note: McCain-Obama First Debate Who Won?

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had strong debate showings last night. Many folks are calling it a draw today. And in the sense that the debate probably changed no votes, it was a draw. Which, of course, means that Clinton lost.

Mickeleh's Take: There were two memorable moments last night and Clinton owned both: When she dissed Obama with a cheap joke, she was boo'd. And when she praised him at the end and promised unity no matter who got the nomination, she got a standing ovation.

I think that says it all.

(Tags:Hillary Clinton, Hillary, Clinton, Barack Obama, Barack, Obama, Debate, Democratic Party, Campaign)

Viva Obama

Mickeleh's Take: Yum.

Jokes You Can Xerox

That plagiarism thing came up again. Obama said Deval Patrick is one of his national co-chairs, and gave him the line. Clinton said, Obama should use his own words. Otherwise it isn't "Change you can believe in. It's Change you can Xerox."

So where did Hillary get that line? Anybody out there think she wrote that joke? Anybody?

Obama and Hillary on Edwards: Both gracious, one masterful.

With John Edwards dropping out of the race for the Democratic nomination for president, the two remaining candidates are both reaching out to Edwards supporters on their websites. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lead with gracious nods to John and Elizabeth and to the issues and causes that they championed in the campaign.

As an Edwards supporter, I appreciate both statements. But it is Barack's statement that gets my vote. Here's why:

Hillary' statement is in her prosaic voice:

John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it - by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate.

John ran with compassion and conviction and lifted this campaign with his deep concern for the daily lives of the American people. That is what this election is about - it's about our people. And John is one of the greatest champions the American people could ask for.

I wish John and Elizabeth all the best. They have my great personal respect and gratitude. And I know they will continue to fight passionately for the country and the people they love so deeply.

—Hillary Clinton

It praises John, identifies with his issues, and wishes John and Elizabeth well. By the numbers.

Now read Barack's statement. It is a much more savvy embrace of the tonality and history of the Edwards campaign.

John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americas can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.

—Barack Obama

In the opening sentence Obama acknowledges that the media largely kept John in shadow and silence. He chides the media for horserace coverage rather than issues and causes. He personalizes abstract issues with examples in the way that Edwards did in his stump speeches. He then uses his own campaign lexicon of "believe" and "change" to embrace the Edwards quest. And he closes by embracing Edwards key phrases "cause of my life," and "one America."

Graphically, Obama's site has absorbed Elizabeth and John into its own design language, while Clinton has posted a news photo.

The Hillary statement feels obligatory. The Barack statement feels like John's voice is still heard.

Mickeleh's Take: Regardless of whether John Edwards chooses to endorse either of the remaining candidates, Obama has already endorsed Edwards issues and embraced his supporters.

(Tags:Edwards, John_Edwards, Barack, Obama, Barack Obama, Hillary, Hillary Clinto, HRC, Campaign, Democratic, Primary)

Ann Coulter, Christian Revisionist

Isn't it off message for Coulter to talk about "perfecting" the Jews? I thought the object of the game was to "save" us.

She called Christianity the FedEx version of Judaism. As in, "There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold And she's buying the FedEx to heaven."

Mickeleh's Take: In Coulter's view of her religion, she gets to think of herself as being perfect, without actually having to be decent.

(Tags:Ann Coulter, Coulter, Jews)

Money Talks

Tristero at Hullabaloo explains how it works.

President Bush or President Betray Us?

The freedom to dissent got a double-barreled blast yesterday—from the President and the Senate. (Yes, the same Senate that earlier failed to restore the right to Habeas Corpus.) Both condemned the "General Betray Us?" ad that MoveOn.org placed in the New York Times last week.

Are we now supposed to hold our General in the same reverence that the Muslims hold their Prophet?

Isn't General Petraeus is fighting for our liberty to make cheap puns on his name? Or don't we have that freedom anymore?

Bush, on the other hand, is fighting to equate dissent with treason, subvert our Constitutional liberties, and gather dictatorial powers to the Presidency.

Yesterday he came up to (maybe over) the line of warning the Democrats not to irritate the military. He does this while cherishing the privilege of his political allies to smear honorable opponents with lies and innuendo. He said, "I felt like the ad was an attack, not only on Gen. Petraeus, but on the US military." (Hats off to Prof. Lakoff who presciently declared yesterday "Metonymy Day.")

I'm embarrassed and infuriated that twenty-two Democrats made it possible for the Dornyn amendment to pass. (SEE BELOW for the names.) Thought experiment: how many Republicans would join with Democrats in condemning the Swift-boating of Kerry, the smears of Max Cleland and John Murtha?

Turning an ad (whether you liked it or not—and I didn't like much, BTW) into a issue worthy of Presidential threats and Senatorial condemnation is not simply an attempt to distract from weightier matters (cholera breaks out in Iraq; Blackwater security guards ordered to leave by Iraqi government, etc.). It's an attempt to chill dissent. (Please see the excellent post on Kos by hbjackson.)

To guard against having all of our liberties frog-boiled away by slow increments, I'm reviving and adapting the old Homeland Security alerts to track attacks against our freedoms. I'm raising the threat level to Orange.

I'm also signing up and sending MoveOn.org some money to continue their fight. Please do likewise. Liberty: use it or lose it.

Mickeleh's Take: Bush claimed, after 9-11, "they hate us for our freedoms." Maybe he thinks that suppressing our freedoms will make them hate us less.

Here are the Democrats who voted to condemn the ad: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Cardin (MD), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Feinstein (CA), Johnson (SD), Klobuchar (MN), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Leahy (VT), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Mikulski (MD), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Salazar (CO), Tester (MT), Webb (VA)

Three Democrats avoided the issue: presidential candidates Biden (DL) and Obama (IL), and my own Iraq-tightrope-walking, needle-threading Sen. Cantwell (WA).


(Tags:MoveOn, Petraeus, MoveOn.org, Betray Us, Dissent, Libery, Senate, Bush, Iraq)

Five Questions Following Senate's Failure to Restore Habeas Corpus

1. Why is the headline: "Senate Rejects Habeas Legislation" and not "Republican Minority Blocks Vote on Habeas Legislation"?
2. Why does Majority Leader Reed accept cloture votes and move on rather than forcing Republicans (plus Joe Lieberman) to go to the diapers and actually filibuster?
3. Why don't Democratic Party leaders (including the presidential candidates who have the media spotlight) make Republican obstructionism the issue—leaving Republicans a clear field to make "Democrat" ineffectiveness their issue.
   
4. If we support the Democratic campaigns to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, will we actually see progressive legislation?
5. Is the Ralph Nader claim that there's no significant difference between the parties starting to look any better to you?

Mickeleh's Take: Congressional approval polls are even lower than Presidential approval polls. Bonus question: How politically risky would it be for the Democratic leaders to more assertive?

Edwards Fundraising: Smart, Postitive, Uplifting

In a word, here's how politicians raise money: fear.

The typical fundraiser is an appeal for money to keep the boogeyman du jour at bay. You've seen 'em: If so-and-so wins the world will end and you'll lose your immortal soul and your Google stock.

Can we stand four more years of the Bush war? Can we stand to have Hillary in the White House? Can we stand by while gays destroy the sanctity of marriage? While abortionists murder the unborn? While the Republicans shred the Constitution? While Al Qaeda plots to murder us in our beds? While Republican senators and airport policemen spend all afternoon hogging the toilet stalls, preventing decent travelers from finding a place to poop? etc.

John Edwards decided to go a different way. Contribute to his campaign and you'll be entered into a drawing to go to New Orleans with him to work with him "alongside families who are rebuilding their homes and their lives."

Mickeleh's Take: A politician ppealing to goodness, generosity, and our better natures? Hmmm. Isn't this newsworthy in the traditional "man-bites-dog" sense? Which means it will go unnoticed in a media world where the top stories are a girls doing an awkward dance in her undies and a football player turned murderer makes a grab for sports memorabilia.

Here's my suggestion, John. You want coverage? While you're in New Orleans, get your hair cut in a local barber shop. And throw the guy a $400 tip.

Francine's Take on Alive Day Memories

Francine Hardaway has written a deeply moving reflection on watching the HBO documentary Alive Day Memories, in which James Gandolfini interviews troopers who had been seriously wounded, physically and emotionally in Iraq. She notes

The war goes into its fifth year. Bush goes on doing whatever he wants. Congress goes on doing nothing. And I wonder how the voters feel about staying in Iraq forever.

While I was reading it, iTunes randomly selected The Band's "Tears of Rage" as the soundtrack.

Mickeleh's Take: This quick note is no substitute for reading Francine's blog. And reading her blog is no substitute for watching Alive Day Memories. And watching Alive Day Memories is no substitute for ... what? What are we doing to stop this?

"Return on Success"? Nah, Impeach on Failure

Whatever happened to the fearsome Republican phrasemaking A-team? You know, the folks who brought us "the death tax," "clear skies initiative," "defense of marriage." Have they all left the building? Is there nobody left who can do better than "Return on Success"?

The phrase can't help but stir echoes of "Return on Investment." We have made an investment of 3776 dead (3637 since "Mission Accomplished"), 27,848 wounded, (at least 500 with amputations), and a cost surging well past $400 billion. The Bush proposed investment will see us to at least another thousand U.S. dead and a cost mounting toward a trillion dollars. (And that investment, of course, doesn't see us to the end. It leaves us with more troops in Iraq than we had before the surge began.)

What is our return? Well, we got Saddam and Bush got to prance around and parade his package in a flight suit. And I think some Iraqi schools got painted. And there's a market somewhere that U.S. politicians can visit if they are sufficiently well guarded.

Any other returns on our investment? Iraqi deaths number, by the most conservative estimates, about 70,000. By more likely estimates, they are multiple hundred thousands—and a story by Tina Susman in this morning's L.A. Times says the Iraqi toll may pass one million. Dead.

The U.N estimates more than 4 million Iraqis have been forced from their homes, some 2 million are now living in other (mostly Arab) countries. We've fueled worldwide recruiting for al-Qaeda.

And the other day, our poster-boy for "success" in Anbar province, Sheikh Sattar Abu Reesh was blown up near his heavily guarded compound.

Krugman, this morning, notes that Bush political crony and member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Ray Hunt has gone and cut a side deal with the Kurds in Iraq for oil. Talk about insider trading—here's a guy in a position to know and he's betting on the failure of Bush's proclaimed policy of seeking a united Iraq. Over the line, Smokey puts in more plainly: "Bush's pals begin the looting of Iraq."

That's just a partial accounting of our return on investment.

But "return on success" is not a bad choice simply for its echo of "return on investment." It's downright monstrous in its own right. It seems to place the burden of coming home squarely on the shoulders of the soldiers and marines in Iraq. Get the job done and you can come home.

As if the job is theirs to do. As if they had the power to deliver success.

Everyone (but Bush and Cheney) agrees that there is no military solution to Iraq. The only way out is diplomatic and political. But there, we got nothin'.

So, Bush is holding our military force hostage pending a "success" that they cannot influence, a success that he has so far refused to pursue with any vigor, commitment, or competence.

Mickeleh's Take: When Bush lists all the awful things that might happen if we pull out, he comes up with a list that's very close to the things that have happened since we invaded. How about replacing "Return on Success" with "Impeach on Failure"?