PUMA in WA will unite together!

PUMA stands for "People United Means Action!" You may know that there is another, more defiant meaning for the acronym P.U.M.A. There will be no unity in the Democratic party until the voices of the 18 million voters who support Hillary Clinton are heard and heeded.

We are motivated to action by our shared belief that the current leadership of the Democratic National Committee has abrogated its responsibility to represent the interests of all democrats in all 50 states. They are misleading our party and aim to mislead our country into nominating an illegitimate candidate for president in 2008. Our goals are fourfold:


1. To support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton in 2008 / 2012.

2. To lobby and organize for changes in leadership in the DNC

3. To critique and oppose the misogyny, discrimination, and disinformation in the mainstream media, including mainstream blogs and other outlets of new media

4. To support the efforts of those political figures who have allied themselves with Hillary Clinton and who have demonstrated commitment to our first three goals

DAILY Rasmussen Poll:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 49% of the vote while John McCain earns 46%.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Learn HOW the suffragettes won!

From a reader:

I would like to share a women's history learning opportunity.

Thanks to the suffragettes, women have voices and choices.

But most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won.

Now readers can discover the shocking truth of how the suffragettes did it, and it's as easy as opening their e-mail.

"The Privilege of Voting" is a new e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.

Two beautiful and extremely powerful suffragettes -- Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt and two gorgeous presidential mistresses.

There are tons of heartache for our heroines on the rocky road to the ballot box - but in the end - they WIN!

Presented in a unique sequential e-mail series -- each inspiring episode is about 10 minutes -- perfect to enjoy during coffeebreaks, or anytime.

Subscribe free at

www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/tpovpage.html

ELECTABILITY WATCH (EW)

Rasmussen: Obama 44%, McCain 42%

Gallup: Obama 45%, McCain 44%


Ewers:
You are such heroes! When it was the conventional wisdom that Obama would poll high and higher over the summer and ride into the Convention to be coronated, you took the time from your busy lives to contact the Super Delegates to ask them to keep an open mind and to remind them that they have the awesome job of selecting the electable Democrat to get us back into the White House.

Long shot? Sure sometimes seemed that way until the polls began to reflect what we knew/know - that BO was selected to be the presumptive Democratic nominee, and that the more voters learn about Obama, the more they reserve support just as during the primaries, the more voters learned about BO, the more they voted for Hillary!

Over the coming week and then next weekend as the SDs go to Denver, your communications will have special resonance. Wherever possible, please try to call your SDs and make contact - or leave messages - about how we are counting on them to review all the information from the primaries and the months since, and select Hillary Clinton as the only electable Democrat. Please thank them for receiving your communications all summer and for taking leadership and having the courage of their convictions to vote for Hillary. We know that the BO/DNC pressure is very intense for many of them, we want them to know that we are there for them.

More...

For some this will be sticking with their original commitments, for some it will be encouraging them to return to Hillary, and for some it will be to start from scratch, remembering that nothing they have said or done is relevant to their vote at the convention. All that is relevant and will be remembered is their vote for our country, the party and the world - their vote for Hillary Clinton at the Convention.

Ironically, as some of you may have seen on ABC, that was the only snippet Charles Gibson and Kate Snow used from a much longer interview I had with them. But it is the essence of our contacts with the SDs.

In addition to calling and contacting your SDs, as their constituent and maybe contributor, please also call, write or fax your Governor, Congressional representative and your Senators to ask them to cast their SD vote for Senator Clinton.

It is more important that a Democrat sit in the White House, even if it means that Mile High Stadium sits empty for a night!!!

GO GO GO!
RIcki

THOSE OF YOU GOING TO DENVER, PLEASE BRING ALL YOUR HILLARY GEAR AND WEAR IT. A HIGHLY VISIBLE HILLARY PRESENCE WILL HELP SOME OF THE HRC DELEGATES WHO MAY BE FEELING WITHOUT SUPPORT.


Some Q+As that have come in to me over the past week:

Q: Are you pleased that Hillary's name will be allowed into nomination?

A. Somehow, I do not think we have to be grateful to a fellow democrat for "giving" us what we we are due by Democratic Party tradition. I feel a little like someone who has been pickpocketed, received my wallet back but having to thank the pickpocketer for the privilege of having it returned.

Q. Is it worthwhile to continue contacting SDs?

A. More so than ever!

Q. Should we also be contacting pledged delegates?

A. Yes! I am encouraging EWers to continue with the SDs as they ultimately will be the decisionmakers, but also to contact local HRC delegates in order to confirm that they will be voting for HRC to thank them, and to report back if they have been flipped or intimidated in some way...

Q. Can Hillary really win?

A. YES. IF the delegates who were elected as HRC delegates vote the intent of their constituents, and IF the Super Delegates watch the polls, consider the trends from the primary with Hillary winning 18m votes, in the blue and swing states needed for the Electoral College, and that she was leading McCain in polls which showed Obama flat or behind McCain

Q. What about the argument that she is supporting BO?

A. This is a time of mixed messages and each of us/we all have to continue to do what we believe is right for ourselves and our country. I do not believe any of the rumors about her vote in Denver.

Q. I've heard new talk about caucus fraud. How does this affect the vote in Denver?

A. There is every reason to believe that some or all of the caucuses were manipulated with some fraudulent results which skewed the delegate count. At a minimum, the DNC should have provided better supervision, investigated the complaints immediately, and invalidated some of the results. That the DNC did not do this, and committed their own televised outrage in Michigan by assigning delegates to Obama who never voted for him and further stealing 4 of Hillary's delegates, suggests that the final delegate count was indeed corrupted. As a reuslt, the SDs should be all the more encouraged to cast their votes for HRC to both select the electable Democrat and also to help correct the corrupted results.

Q. Who are the HRC pledged delegates most resistant to supporting HRC in Denver?

A. Probably union delegates whose Union have now endorsed BO. They may feel more loyal to their unions than to those back home who elected them as HRC delegates. Please be as positive and reinforcing if you encounter these delegates.

Q. May I send the EW nightly emails to others?

A. Yes!!!

ROOMS, etc? Several volunteers and protesters and looking to share rooms in Denver. If you have space or know someone who does, or any private residences taking renters, please notify Mary Ellen Courtney at . Also, if you are a delegate or volunteer, please send Mary Ellen your contact information in Denver - phone, email, lodging. We are helping to assemble lists of HRC supporters who can help out inside the Convention Center and outside as well.


--
Ricki Lieberman
610 West End Avenue
New York, New York 10024
212.580-5516

Yes, it *IS* Time for Unity...

From "Athena":

Until now, the call for unity has had one meaning: Clinton supporters must change and start supporting Obama. The term ?unity? is equated with ?supporting Obama?. What is always omitted from every news report, blog post, and pundit commentary is that unity can just as easily be achieved by Obama fans giving their support to Hillary. On the issue of party unity, I have always said that Obama supporters are welcome to support Hillary. More...

n fact, Obama supporters have just as much power to embrace unity and put the Democratic party back together again. They are free to exercise their power to end the division within the party by backing Hillary.

Every argument that Obama supporters have for getting a Democratic president makes sense. What no one will tell you is that every single argument for all Democrats getting behind Obama is equally valid for all Democrats getting behind Clinton. And when you consider the vote cancellation which will occur when Democrats disgusted with the party leadership vote for McCain, it would make more sense politically to change to Hillary and keep those votes in the Democratic column.

Unity - or lack of it - is just as much the responsibility of the Obama supporters as it is the Clinton supporters.

But why should the majority give in to the minority within the party? In other words, why should Obama supporters have to change for a few Clinton hold-outs? The facts show that this is not the case.

The results of the primaries showed that Democrats supported both candidates equally. A statistically equal number of Democrats voted for Clinton and for Obama. There is just as much support for Hillary as for Obama, and just as much reason for Obama supporters to change and get behind Clinton.

Unity is being prevented by the Obama Democrats just as much as it is being prevented by Clinton Democrats.

So when people try to blame Clinton supporters for disunity or for Democrats losing an election, remind them that the Obama supporters bear an equal share of the responsibility.

Darragh vs. the Obama Bots


Political Diary
August 17, 2008
The WSJ

If he can't face down the Pumas, how will he ever face down Putin? That question may have been in the back of a few Democratic minds last week, but Hillary Clinton's fans were all smiles over their success in rolling a possible president-to-be before he ever takes office.

"We're very happy with the news," Darragh Murphy, executive director of PumaPAC, tells us. "This is the first time in six months the DNC has stood up for the Democratic process." More...

"Puma" in her case stands for People United Means Action," though Ms. Murphy is happy to acknowledge the more common pre-existing meaning ballyhooed in the blogosphere (see here). She says the group has gathered 10,000 members and more than a million page views just since its launch in June. An early John Edwards supporter -- "to my everlasting shame at this point," she says -- Ms. Murphy has enjoyed her own meteoric rise to fame. We reached her by phone yesterday just as she was coming from an appearance on "Hardball."

A product of the Dorchester section of Boston, "I've always been a Democrat," she says. "But the most I'd ever do come election time would be to hold a sign at the Rotary." That hasn't stopped some from noticing that she voted for John McCain in the 2000 GOP primary and muttering about suspect motives. "People try to paint me as a Republican," she sighs.

How much Mr. Obama should worry remains to be seen. The New York Observer recently surveyed several wealthy Clinton backers like Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild who claim to be committed to making the case for Hillary in Denver. Ms. Murphy says her own members are "hoppin' mad" and "convinced" that Mr. Obama's nomination is "coming from above," forced down the throats of the Democratic rank-and-file by Howard Dean.

"Fall in line, get on the Obama train, go to the Obama indoctrination session and don't mention Hillary Clinton" is the message Ms. Murphy says the DNC leadership is pushing. "The Obama campaign has become a movement of transcendence that is practically religious, with a wave of money and religious fervor taking over the party."

Ms. Murphy happily acknowledges hosting "secret" strategy sessions in a northern Virginia hotel last weekend, shielded from infiltrators she calls "Obama Bots." But she says any protests in Denver are intended to be peaceful. "Who knows what will happen on the convention floor? Many of our members hope there will be a spark of some kind."

-- Robert Costa


An Oldie but Goodie

(CBS) The following is Sen. John McCain's letter to to Sen. Barack Obama regarding ongoing Congressional efforts towards bipartisan lobbying reform:

More...

February 6, 2006

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.

You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

Sincerely,

John McCain
United States Senate

Love You. Mean It.

By John Dickerson of Slate Magazine

It's going to be hard to watch the political conventions after the Olympics. We'll have to switch from events with real drama and results to pageantry with neither. This is the political equivalent of hours of Michael Phelps celebrations with no actual swimming. Plus, there's the fakery. The crowd shot of the audience at the GOP convention may look racially and ethnically diverse, but we know the party is less so. Barack Obama may promise not to engage in old-style politics, but we know he's not lived up to his own standard all along the way and isn't likely to in the future. More...

And yet at this year's Democratic convention, one of the key dramas—the multiday Clinton-Obama reconciliation play—will require genuine acts of sincerity. Or, at least, as close to genuine acts of sincerity as we're likely to get at a political convention. Without that, Obama will have to spend precious post-convention time—time he should spend engaging with John McCain—addressing this weakness in his coalition and distracting press stories examining it.

Here is how the sincerity exchange must play out: Barack Obama must make a sincere show of respect for Hillary Clinton so that she and her husband will make a sincere appeal to bring along those supporters of theirs who are still reluctant about Obama. There are hurdles. Bill Clinton clearly is still ticked that Obama's allies painted him as a racist. Many in the Obama camp (including, perhaps, the candidate) think the Clintons have forgotten that they actually lost the primary.

There's a premium on sincerity because Obama needs the votes of the wary Clinton supporters, and he needs the image of a unified party for the fall campaign. Hillary Clinton so clearly meant what she said about the unique strength of her own candidacy during the primaries that some of her supporters are pretty sure she can't be sincere now when she says "elect Obama." A recent Pew poll showed that 28 percent of Clinton supporters say they will not back Obama (18 percent intend to vote for McCain). As Leon Panetta, the former Clinton administration official asked by the Obama campaign to help with the reconciliation, put it to the Times of London: "There is a sense of entitlement that almost seems to be inbred. They are convinced Hillary is the one who should be assuming the mantle and it's tough to crack that."

While I still think the group Clinton needs to convince won't have the impact on Election Day some would suggest, they are enough of a concern that Obama has gone out of his way to accommodate Clinton by allowing her name to be put in for a roll-call vote. Whether or not the so-called PUMAs ("Party Unity, My Ass") reconcile Clinton loyalty with pulling the lever for Obama, or at least keeping quiet, the reconciliation must be ratified as sincere—by the press, anyway—so that the Obama team can get back to putting forward its message.

Conventions are usually concerned with an idealized presentation of the candidate. And there will be plenty of focus on the buff and shine applied to Obama. But this is the first convention since 1976 in which that can't be the only show because a political party must add a cease-fire ceremony to the balloon drops. What does Clinton need to do to quell the doubts, given that she has been working hard to show her support for Obama—as yet to no real avail? It's probably going to take more than raising her arms in unison with her former rival. In 1976, Gerald Ford made a show of unity with his former rival Ronald Reagan by interrupting his own acceptance speech. Ford spoke and then invited Reagan from his skybox down to the podium. That was clever, though, in the end, Ford didn't pull through.

This time around, as in any good family-therapy session, each of the participants will have to do something that makes him or her uncomfortable. That's often what it takes to make others think you're sincere. Bill Clinton will have to behave, which means staying out of the spotlight and ceasing to seem so reluctant to say that Obama is prepared to be president. Mrs. Clinton will have to turn around women who see Obama as the man who waltzed in and took the prize from the hardworking, better-qualified woman. There are other reasons her supporters may not like Obama, but he has the potential to fix those—the unfair/sexism charge is one Hillary is best positioned to confront. Sen. Obama, for his part, could declare that he never thought the Clintons used his race against him. And Michelle Obama, who will play a central role in the convention, will have to find a showy way to embrace the former first couple, too.

Despite these challenges, my guess is that it'll all work out. The Democratic Party wants to move forward to take the White House back. This gives the base good reason to bless a plausible show of sincerity as real. The Clintons can be good political performers, and they'll know what to do. The former president knows that his apparent reluctance until now will make his endorsement of the heir apparent seem all that much grander—burnishing his image as well. He might even turn the charges of race-baiting that have been used against him on their head by heralding Obama's candidacy as the final blow to the segregation he witnessed as a boy in the South. Barack Obama knows that he needs the Clintons, so he'll do what's necessary to earn the declaration that he was "gracious" and "magnanimous." It will be in everyone's interest to give a hug at the end of the Denver therapy session. Then we'll just have to wait to see whether the voters buy the pledge of a new relationship.


Obama's Democratic Party - by Dana Goldstein & Ezra Klein, American Prospect


Barack Obama might be running on a post-partisan platform, but he is more focused on building the Democratic Party than any other candidate in recent history.

An unassuming building at 430 South Capitol Street, in a forlorn corner between the Capitol and a highway overpass, is the home address of the Democratic Party. But though mail still gets delivered to the Washington, D.C., address, many of the Democratic National Committee's employees--the men and women who make up the party's central infrastructure--are no longer around to receive it. They are in Chicago, where Barack Obama moved them after he captured the Democratic Party's nomination. More...

It was a peculiar decision for Obama, who had built his campaign, and even his political identity, around an eloquently stated, post-partisan revulsion with the divisiveness of modern party politics. Following the strategy of "outsider" candidates before him, Obama set his headquarters outside the District in order to create distance, both physical and perceptual, between himself and the consultants, interest groups, party hacks, and congressional busybodies who populate the nation's capital.

The effort was so successful that some feared the Obama phenomenon--the millions of young people passionate about his campaign, the thousands who have lined roadsides just to wave at the Illinois senator's motorcade--had become a force unto itself, indifferent to the fortunes of the traditional Democratic Party, unbound by a commitment to progressive ideology, and wholly dependent on the character of Barack Obama. As blogger Matt Stoller writes on OpenLeft.com, "Power and money in the Democratic Party is being centralized around a key iconic figure. [Obama] is consolidating power within the party."

This was a new critique of Obama: not that he was beyond parties but that he had personalized them. That rather than building the Democratic Party, he was building an Obama Party, with all the good and bad that that centralization entailed. Though some were nervous when Obama sent the moving trucks to South Capitol Street, further tightening his hold over the party apparatus, the relocation neatly fit the broader, and rather unexpected, reality of this campaign: For all the talk of post-partisan "unity," Barack Obama has been proving himself the most party-focused presidential candidate in recent history--possibly ever. Paradoxically, although Obama's success has been more dependent on personal charisma than any recent nominee's has, he's been leveraging that charisma to build a broader Democratic infrastructure less dependent on the presidential nominee.

This should be no surprise. Though Obama himself is a newcomer to Washington, the upper echelons of his Senate and campaign staff are populated almost exclusively by experienced Democratic Party operatives. Continuity with the established party infrastructure is a defining characteristic of the Obama campaign. When Hillary Clinton conceded the nomination, Obama's first major staff change was not the incorporation of a former Clinton operative meant to heal the divisions of the primary, nor the elevation of a national-security graybeard meant to reassure general-election voters of Obama's commander-in-chief credentials. Rather, it was to install Paul Tewes, the skilled organizer who served as the architect of Obama's crucial victory in Iowa, at the DNC to head up the committee's election-year efforts. A few weeks later, it was announced that the DNC would cease accepting contributions from lobbyists or political action committees.

Then it came out that much of the DNC was moving to Chicago. In the months that have followed, the Obama campaign has announced plans for training camps that will turn out thousands of new organizers dedicated to electing Democrats, and has signaled that it will spend millions in blood-red states where Democrats haven't seriously invested in building party infrastructure for decades. The campaign has constructed a fundraising machine based around small-donors that promises to end the age-old competition for dollars between different wings of the Democratic establishment, enabling the creation of a unified electoral strategy. It has argued that "real change" requires the sort of legislative successes that only a strong congressional party can produce. In short, the candidate running on his exhaustion with traditional party politics has directed his campaign to build a new kind of Democratic Party--one that may put to shame anything that came before it.

***

The aftermath of the 2002 elections was a low point for the Democratic Party. Much of the blame fell on the shoulders of Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt, the Senate and House party leaders judged responsible not just for the political failure of losing seats in the midterm election but for graver substantive deficiencies: Gephardt was complicit, some would say crucial, in George W. Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq. Daschle was, at best, ineffectual against it. Both paid for those failings. In 2004, distracted by events in Washington, Daschle lost to Republican John Thune, and Gephardt retired after losing the Democratic presidential primary to John Kerry. Their staffs paid, too; come January of 2005, the experienced legislative tacticians and political operatives who had served the party's congressional leadership found themselves abruptly unemployed.

The bright spot of the 2004 election was the emergence of a brilliant, charismatic, young African American politician named Barack Obama. Obama burst onto the scene with a keynote speech at the Democratic Convention that would probably be remembered as little more than a neat piece of oratory if Kerry hadn't lost and congressional Democrats hadn't been wiped out. But, in a dark moment for Democrats, Obama was one of the very few points of light. Which is probably how he got a meeting with Pete Rouse in the first place.

Often called "the 101st Senator," Rouse, an understated 62-year-old with 30-odd years of Capitol Hill experience, had been Tom Daschle's powerful chief of staff. When Daschle was ejected from the Senate, he hoped Rouse would continue to work with him in the private sector. But Rouse received an expected call from Cassandra Butts, the policy director on Dick Gephardt's 2004 presidential campaign and an old law school chum of Obama's. Butts asked Rouse to meet with the newly elected Obama. Grudgingly, Rouse had lunch with the young senator. Obama asked him to sign on as chief of staff--a demotion of sorts, dropping Rouse from the office of the most powerful Senate Democrat to that of the most junior member of the body. Rouse politely declined. Obama kept asking. Eventually, Rouse accepted.

Most outsider candidates for the presidency recruit an outsider team to deliver it. Bill Clinton's main strategists in 1992 were the little-known Paul Begala and James Carville. His first chief of staff was Mack McLarty, a childhood friend who had risen to become chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party. It was a team untainted by Washington but also unschooled in how Washington worked.

The Obama campaign and Senate staff, by contrast, are full of Daschle and Gephardt veterans--an unexpected rebirth of the power bases and reputations of two politicians who had long been written off. Obama's chief of staff is the aforementioned Daschle associate, Pete Rouse. His deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, managed Daschle's 2004 campaign. His director for battleground states, Jennifer O'Malley Dillon, and his director of communications, Dan Pfeiffer, were both deputy campaign managers for Daschle in 2004. Obama's foreign-policy director, Denis McDonough, was Daschle's foreign-policy adviser, and his finance director, Julianna Smoot, was head of Daschle's PAC. Many of those who didn't come from the Senate minority leader's office came from the House minority leader's office. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, was Gephardt's deputy campaign manager in 2004. His head of delegate operations, Jeff Berman, played the same role for Gephardt. His national press secretary, Bill Burton, was Gephardt's Iowa press secretary. Dozens of others come from related arms of the party, in particular the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

It's a tremendous operation for a first-term senator who hadn't worked a day in Washington before 2004. But it's exactly the team you'd expect a former chief of staff to the Senate minority leader to construct. "The person most responsible for this was Pete Rouse," says Tom Daschle, sounding almost wistful. After all, Obama's campaign was in part based on plans Rouse had drawn up for Daschle in 2004, before Daschle decided to sit out the presidential race. The Obama staff's familiarity with the workings of the party and comfort with its procedures proved crucial in the primaries. Obama won the nomination largely because his team better understood the byzantine mechanics by which the Democratic Party chooses its nominee: The campaign used proportional-apportionment rules to hold down Clinton's delegate totals in large states and pumped resources into caucus states to run up Obama's delegate numbers. The Obama campaign succeeded, in other words, through a superior respect for the party's internal infrastructure.

***

Historically, the Democratic Party has operated less as a strong party than as an uncertain coalition. It has been regionally fractured, racially divided, ideologically torn, and economically disparate, frustrating those who believed that voting for the more-left party should further a progressive policy agenda. A broad ideological range is good for constructing raw congressional majorities but tricky when you're trying to reconcile the fiscal conservatism of the Blue Dogs with the social investment favored by liberals. Rather than acting as a single institution united around a common agenda, the party was all too often a nominal nation-state in which sets of warring fiefdoms protected their properties and sought expansion.

By the early 1990s, this incoherence had left the party bereft of a single agenda and full of tired incumbents interested in little but the protection of their own power and patrons. As a result, the Democratic brand had turned toxic, a scarlet D that national candidates had to hide or publicly burn off. "I was the polling adviser for the Democratic Leadership Council back then," says pollster Stan Greenberg. "Clinton's candidacy, and that effort, was very much focused on addressing the historical problems of the Democratic Party." Those problems included a long-standing perception that the party was soft on crime, captured by an array of entrenched interest groups, fiscally profligate, and, at least in Congress, simply corrupt. Before Clinton could build a new image of the party, however, he had to get elected. That meant not strengthening the party but holding it at arm's length, except as a useful vehicle for fundraising. This was explicit in his campaign: Clinton ran as a "New Democrat," a symbolic break from the actual Democratic Party--especially its liberal wing.

That strategy had its logic, but it also had its drawbacks. "Clinton became very identified with the presidential wing of the party," says a former member of Clinton's famed campaign war room. "But there was a lot of resentment from the Daschle and Gephardt people to the way they were treated by the Clinton people. I think the people who acted in Clinton's name didn't generate an awful lot of goodwill for them." This wasn't widely understood until 2008, when Hillary Clinton ran for president only to find that the party's leadership was devoid of individuals with any connection or loyalty to her husband's administration. Of the three most powerful Democrats—Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean—none could be considered Clintonites, and Dean's ascension was, in many ways, an explicit repudiation of the Clintons. The cool relationship between the Clintons and the leadership continued down into Congress. "Obama got more Senate endorsements than Hillary did," continues the Clinton insider. "That's incredible. The guy's been there for three fucking years!"

***

Obama's staff, however, had been there much longer. His is a political team whose understanding of power is inextricably linked with the central question it asked every day in Congress: "How many votes do we have?" Thus, Obama's campaign operation was built to amass two different types of votes: those that will win Obama the election and those that will pass his legislation if he becomes president. For Obama's advisers, years in the party's non-executive wing have bred a visceral understanding that the president is simply one part of a larger political infrastructure, and if the president is to succeed, the rest of that infrastructure must be healthy. It's an unusually sophisticated and holistic understanding of political power, and it's come to underlie Obama's campaign for the presidency.

But the will to build the party would have been little more than an airy pile of good intentions if the party's brand, coherence, and finances hadn't improved since the 1980s and 1990s.

A fairly good indicator of the health of a party is the attitudes of young voters who are being exposed to it for the first time. In the 1990s, Generation X was coming of political age, and according to polls conducted by the Pew Research group, Republicans held a 1 percent edge in party identification. In 2008, it is Generation Y that is choosing political allegiances for the first time, and these under-30-somethings show an astonishing 24 percent preference for the Democrats. Even Generation X, which gave Republicans a 3 percent edge as recently as 2004, now prefers Democrats by a margin of 12 percent. In sharp contrast to the early 1990s, it is Republicans who now have a nominee best known for his apostasies against his own party. Democrats don't have to run from their party anymore. And so Obama hasn't. Rather, he has run against polarization, against legislative gridlock, against special interests. This is why he could bring the DNC to Chicago: The problem isn't Democrats. It's the atmosphere and working relationships that impede their work in Washington.

There's also a sense that the party is more ideologically unified than it has been in the past. "There's no center-left divide in this nominating fight," says Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama. "All the candidates lined up within 20 yards of each other on virtually every question. That is an important, interesting change that shouldn't be overlooked in the Democratic Party." It is, in part, the function of being in the opposition. But it's also the product of the electoral realignment of the last 15 years, in which white Southerners moved solidly into the Republican bloc and socially liberal suburbanites finally became Democrats.

Money has also proven a powerful unifying force. Partly as a result of the party's increasing health, and partly as a result of the birth of Internet-driven small-donor democracy, the party and many of its candidates suddenly found themselves flush with funds. "Fundraising was a zero-sum game for a significant part of the Democratic Party's recent history," says Davis. During the 1990s, the Clintons had worked assiduously to build out the party's capacity for fundraising, putting legendary moneyman Terry McAuliffe in charge of the Democratic National Committee. "Clinton viewed the DNC and the party in general as a vehicle for fundraising and media," says Mike Lux, a former special assistant to Clinton. It was an outlook born of the pre-McCain-Feingold period, in which Democratic candidates were strapped for cash, while the DNC was free of many of the current legal restrictions on fundraising. That spurred candidates to treat the party as an ATM of sorts, responsible for generating as much cash as possible, from any source willing to donate.

This cycle, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has raised over $70 million. The Democratic National Committee has raised over $80 million. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has raised over $100 million. And Obama has raised almost $330 million, much of it from small donors. "When you were raising your money mostly through large donors and PACs, there was a continual sense that there was a limited amount of money that could be raised, and if you spent it now, you couldn't spend it later," Greenberg says. "Now there's a totally different view of money: the more you spend, the more you raise." That view, however, is not the work of Barack Obama. It is the work of his predecessor, Howard Dean.

***

If Barack Obama is, in some ways, the accidental beneficiary of the long-delayed strong-party opportunity, he is also succeeding because he, and the party veterans who surround him, understand the moment's promise and consciously chose a strategy capable of fulfilling it.

Their approach has amounted to picking sides in what has been an unusually bitter battle over the correct strategic direction for the party. In 2004, John Kerry ran as the nominee of an impoverished, regionally fractured Democratic Party. The Democratic National Committee was still headed by a Clinton loyalist, Terry McAuliffe. Though Howard Dean had run a revolutionary primary campaign, using the Internet to mobilize grass-roots support and attract more small donations than ever before, the party's Beltway apparatus seemed more frightened than inspired by his example. In the meantime, congressional candidates across the country were forced to compete with one another for the attention and resources of the DNC, which was working off of a small list of swing states targeted by Kerry's people and McAuliffe.

Chris Gates, chair of the Colorado Democratic Party from 2003 to 2005, remembers the resentments bred by the party's targeting plan. The Kerry campaign painted a big red bull's-eye on Colorado, in no small part due to the efforts of Gates, who understood that being "targeted" could mean the difference between map-changing victories and down-the-ballot losses. The DNC set up dozens of field offices in Colorado and flooded the state with hundreds of staff and volunteers. The Kerry campaign ran television and radio advertisements there, and although Kerry lost Colorado by about five points, Democrats picked up a Senate seat with Ken Salazar and a House seat with his brother, John Salazar--one of only two Democratic House pick-ups that year.

"We benefited from the thing people complained about, which was that Kerry was hardcore about targeting," recalls Gates. "If you were targeted, you got everything you needed, and if you weren't, you got nothing. People who weren't targeted were pretty bitter being told that if they wanted buttons they had to go to the Kerry Web site and buy them," Gates says. "As good as it was for Colorado, it wasn't a sustainable model."

Backlash took the form of Howard Dean's 2005 campaign to become DNC chair, which was calibrated to answer the frustrations of party activists in states written off by the party establishment. Dean promised a "50-State Strategy" in which the DNC would send paid organizers to every state in the nation, even to the Deep South. Not every state would receive the same resources--swing states like Ohio, Nevada, and Florida would still be the subjects of intense targeting efforts--but every state would receive something.

The theory was simple: Dean believed winning county-executive and school-board races today would mean winning congressional seats and electoral college votes in coming years. He believed the DNC was well situated to focus on the party's long-term future rather than its short-term fortunes; it just needed the courage to do so. Grass-roots Democratic activists agreed, electing Dean chair.

Dean's vision brought him into conflict with those accustomed to the party's more traditional role. In 2006, Rahm Emanuel, then-chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, got into a screaming match with Dean over the 50-State Strategy. Emanuel, whose outlook was typical of former members of the Bill Clinton war room, was furious because he didn't feel Dean was raising enough to justify spending dollars in states Democrats had no chance at winning. Dean was organizing when he should have been fundraising.

Dean saw things differently. As an insurgent candidate in 2004, he had outraised the scions of the establishment with ease, riding an enthused base to a huge cash advantage. His comportment at the DNC reflected his residual trust in that base: If the party spoke to its supporters, the money would be there. Dean was proven right. The party picked up 31 House and six Senate seats in the 2006 midterm elections, and many 50-State skeptics became supporters.

Among those watching was the Obama team. Obama's field operation essentially implemented a 50-State Strategy modified for the primary season. So in part, it was no surprise that once he clinched the nomination, Obama chose to keep Dean in place as DNC chair, even as he merged the DNC into his own campaign. The two men have been remarkably in sync. "I am proud of the fact that we're the first campaign in a generation to run a 50-State Strategy," Obama told the Netroots Nation convention in Austin, Texas, in a taped statement. "Not a 50 percent-plus-one strategy, but a 50-State Strategy made possible by the volunteer activism and organizing you and others have made on the ground and support by Governor Dean's efforts at the DNC."

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign's most aggressive effort to influence the down-ticket races that Democrats traditionally ignore is playing out in solidly Republican Texas. In June, Obama sent his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to Houston to deliver an important message to Texas Democratic funders. The Obama campaign had decided, Axelrod announced to a crowd of 250 at the downtown Wortham Center, to send 15 paid staffers to the state and organize thousands of volunteers to get out the vote, an unprecedented commitment of resources to the Lone Star State from a Democratic presidential campaign. The goal isn't for Obama to win Texas' 34 electoral votes. Rather, by registering Democrats, Obama hopes to help the Texas Democratic Party regain control of its state legislature, which would allow Democrats to redistrict the state's congressional delegation for 2010, potentially winning House seats in the process. That's not simply down-ballot organizing--it's way down-ballot organizing, reaching into state legislatures to influence coming congressional reapportionments in order to create large national majorities years down the line. Obama, looking ahead to governing with as large a congressional majority as possible, is determined to take advantage of a population boom in the Houston area, which is increasingly dominated by immigrants.

At times, the campaign's down-ticket energy takes on a life of its own. Jeremy Bird, field director for Obama's record-breaking victory in South Carolina, likes to tell the story of Stephen Wukela. Wukela, an attorney in his early 30s, was an Obama neighborhood team leader in Florence, South Carolina. Energized by his work with the campaign, Wukela decided to challenge Frank Willis, the 13-year incumbent mayor of Florence. It seemed a quixotic idea, but Wukela tapped into the activist network built by Obama's organizers, ran a campaign straight out of his hero's playbook ("a Real Democrat for Real Change"), and won--by a single vote. "It shows what we were able to do," says Bird, "which is not only win, but leave something behind, so we can begin to turn South Carolina blue in the years to come."

***

Of course, Obama's party-building may not be successful in winning him the presidency, and there are still skeptics within the Democratic Party who question some of his tactics. There has been some grousing from congressional Democrats that the Obama campaign isn't coordinating with them enough and has a tendency toward insularity. The 50-State Strategy remains controversial, particularly with those Democrats who were seared by the experiences of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. They see it as a waste of money and staff time.

Chris Gates, the former Colorado Democratic Party chair, says that Obama has smoothed over tensions in the Democratic Party about field organizing but that fault lines still exist under the surface. "The 50-State Strategy is certainly not the unanimous strategy," he says. "If Obama were to lose, those folks would come out of the woodwork."

On the other hand, some grass-roots activists worry Obama isn't committed enough to the 50-State Strategy. Aside from sharing information from the newly centralized DNC voter list, the campaign has no uniform way of coordinating with state Democratic parties. In Iowa, the Obama team took over the state party's door-to-door operation, leading to worries that state-legislature candidates would be given short shrift by the White House–focused national campaign. In Colorado, Obama's staff is doing its own fieldwork, despite the existence of a state party–coordinated campaign in support of the entire Democratic ticket, somewhat of a duplication of resources. And in Ohio, Obama canvassers are joining the already-existing, locally coordinated ground campaign, going door to door to identify undecided voters for both congressional races and the presidential.

There is even some eye-raising at Obama's ties to the congressional Old Guard. After all, the candidate promising to change the culture of Washington hasn't surrounded himself with 20-somethings forged in the crucible of the Netroots, but rather with veterans of the party's impotent era. Independence from Congress can be just as important as the ability to work within its internecine power structures, says Rep. George Miller, a 33-year House veteran who serves as chairman of the crucial Education and Labor Committee. "There are a lot of people in this Congress who are heavily invested in the status quo," Miller says. "Obama has got to guide Congress to get the results that he wants. It's a tough relationship."

What Obama wants is, in some ways, the key question. If Bill Clinton's project for the Democratic Party was mostly ideological, Obama's is mostly organizational. Clinton sought to change the party's ideas; Obama is more interested in building its infrastructure. But for what? Obama's health-care plan was the least ambitious of the three major candidates, and his recent gestures toward the center on government wiretapping, choice, and gun control have some of his supporters concerned. At times, Obama can seem so focused on building that it's unclear if he's really thought through the blueprints.

Obama's supporters have invested so much in their candidate that betrayal, or even insufficient fulfillment, could be devastating. It's bad enough to be disappointed by a candidate you don't believe in. Being let down by the one who inspires you is a much more demoralizing experience. "The issue," says Joe Trippi, who ran both Dean's and John Edwards' presidential campaigns, "is not what happens if Obama loses or if he wins and continues to build, but if he gets there and leaves out his grass roots." winning elections, counting votes. There's little new about that. Obama's theory of change is simultaneously less inspiring and far more pragmatic than he's given credit for. It relies less on a new vision of politics than on an uncommon mastery of old procedures, institutions, and organizing tactics.

"We're building lasting infrastructure which will not only help us win in November but build the progressive movement for years to come," Obama says. "Our 50-State Strategy isn't just about winning the presidential election but lifting Democrats up and down the ticket. We have a historic opportunity to elect more Democrats at every level, from city councils to state legislatures to the United States Congress, and that's how we're going to bring about a working Democratic majority, and that's how we're going to see real change in America." It is a vision of political power that requires more than a strong president: It requires a strong party. The strategy is not necessarily in opposition to Obama's top-level message of bringing the country together and healing partisan divisions, but it mostly seeks to do so through the machinery of the Democratic Party, by building party organizations in counties where voters haven't had a respectful conversation with a Democrat in decades, and electing the sort of governing majorities that can end the legislative gridlock that so enrages the polity. The theory is that Democratic successes--or at least Obama successes--will ease divisions because voters will be glad to see something finally getting done.

A focus on legislative achievement as an answer to polarization was always, to some degree, implicit in Obama's rhetoric. He described divisiveness as the result of ineffectual politics and unity as the reward for effective policy-making. "I think the American people are hungry for something different and can be mobilized around big changes, not incremental changes, not small changes," said Obama last January. "I think that there are a whole host of Republicans, and certainly independents, who have lost trust in their government, who don't believe anybody is listening to them, who are staggering under rising costs of health care, college education, [who] don't believe what politicians say. And we can draw those independents and some Republicans into a working coalition, a working majority for change."

At the time, observers focused on Obama's promised outreach to independents and Republicans. His rhetoric has often signaled an appetite for compromise that has left some wondering about what, exactly, Obama's core policy commitments would be in office. But less attention was given to what Obama seemed to think would attract folks from across the aisle: real policy-making, which Obama's campaign believes requires a Democratic Party infrastructure strong enough to pass the president's priorities. In other words, strong parties aren't the problem; they're the solution. And now that he has one of his own, Obama is determined to prove it.

Obama Tilt Toward Rubinomics Stirs Warning From Organized Labor

By Kristin Jensen and Matthew Benjamin

Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) -- AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka delivers a slap at former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin in a slide show exhorting union members to back Democrat Barack Obama for president.

Blaming unfettered global trade and inadequate government regulation for lost manufacturing jobs and a staggering economy, Trumka's presentation cautions that ``it will do us little good if, when the next Democrat moves into the White House, Wall Street takes command of our country's economic policy.''

More...

Trumka leaves no doubt that the rebuke is aimed at Rubin, Wall Street's most prominent Democrat. It's ``hard to tell the difference'' between Rubin and Republican Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the presentation says. Trumka's critique reflects the concern among organized-labor officials that Rubin and like- minded Democrats may win the behind-the-scenes battle to shape Obama's economic thinking.

``I'm hearing Rubin's name more and more associated with the campaign's economic policy,'' says James Torrey, a top Obama fundraiser and chief executive officer of New York-based Torrey Associates LLC, a hedge-fund investor.

Rubin, who became chairman of Citigroup Inc.'s executive committee after leaving President Bill Clinton's Cabinet, represents policy priorities that would favor free trade and more emphasis on deficit-cutting budget discipline if Obama beats Republican John McCain on Nov. 4. Meanwhile, Trumka and his boss, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, are pushing trade policies that would protect U.S. industries, universal health care, and spending on highway construction and other projects that would create union jobs.

Growth and Fairness

Rubin, in an interview, says Obama isn't favoring either faction's agenda. ``Very much as President Clinton did, he's focusing on both competitiveness and growth on the one hand, and distribution and fairness on the other,'' he says. ``It seems to me that's where he ought to be.''

Still, the Wall Street contingent's clout has grown within the Obama camp in the two months since Rubin's first-choice candidate, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, conceded the nomination.

A Rubin protege, Jason Furman, is now the economic-policy director of Obama's campaign.

Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's closest friends and confidantes, attended a meeting hosted by Rubin, 69, several weeks ago and says they've talked by telephone several times.

Outnumbered at Forum

At an economic forum last month, Sweeney, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, and union advocates were outnumbered by the likes of Lawrence Summers, Rubin's successor as Treasury secretary; JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon; former Republican Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill; and former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William Donaldson, like O'Neill an appointee of President George W. Bush.

``Senator Obama made it clear that he would be reaching out to members of that group in the future,'' says another participant, Laura Tyson, who worked with Rubin as the head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

Labor's apprehensions surfaced after the June 9 appointment of Furman, a Brookings Institution scholar and former Clinton White House aide. One reason: In 2005, Furman published a paper saying Wal-Mart Stores Inc. creates productivity gains and consumer savings that outweigh the low wages it pays workers.

`Very Strong Ideas'

Furman, who turns 38 today, disputes the notion that any faction holds sway. ``Barack Obama is somebody who has very strong ideas about economics,'' he says. ``And no one, not Bob Rubin, not Bob Reich, not Rich Trumka, is going to walk into a room and change his fundamental, underlying priorities.''

Even so, some union leaders are already girding to fight for influence in any future Obama administration. If the Rubin camp were to win out, it would boost the odds that an Obama presidency might sidestep significant trade restrictions and sacrifice spending programs for the sake of deficit reduction.

``I worry about his influence,'' says Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers.

Trumka, 59, says the AFL-CIO began months ago to look for candidates for Cabinet posts, including the Treasury and Energy Departments, as well as the Federal Reserve.

``This will not be business as usual for us,'' Trumka says in an interview. ``They're not going to be able to pat us on the head and say, we'll let you give us three names for the secretary of labor, and think that we'll be happy.''

Getting Out the Vote

Obama, 47, can't afford to alienate organized labor. Union households account for almost one in four U.S. voters, and labor is crucial to turning out the vote. The 10.5 million-member AFL- CIO, the nation's largest labor organization, plans to use 250,000 volunteers to contact 13 million voters in 24 states; the Steelworkers plan to deploy 250 paid election workers across 27 states.

One of Obama's biggest challenges, in fact, may be winning a significant share of rank-and-file union voters, who backed Clinton by large margins in Ohio and other industrial swing states.

So far, Obama's economic promises satisfy most union goals. The Illinois senator has said he would reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement. He backs universal health-care coverage, middle-class tax cuts and spending for infrastructure and education.

``I'm very comfortable with the way Senator Obama personally has laid out his agenda,'' Gerard says.

Radio Ad

Obama's rhetoric has often veered toward protectionism. A radio commercial in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania says McCain appeared at a Sturgis, South Dakota, motorcycle rally after opposing rules that would make the government buy vehicles from U.S. manufacturers such as Milwaukee-based Harley-Davidson Inc.

``It's time to hear the roar of a strong American economy again -- and stop John McCain from shipping our jobs overseas,'' the ad says.

After criticizing Nafta while stumping for primary votes in states that have lost manufacturing jobs, Obama rarely brings up the trade deal since claiming the nomination. He told reporters on June 20 that ``there was some overheated rhetoric'' about trade during the primaries, while reiterating his opposition to Nafta.

Since Rubin began advising the campaign, Obama and his team are also talking more about deficit reduction, a Rubin priority that may threaten union-backed spending programs.

Strong Dollar

At an Aug. 5 town hall meeting in Berea, Ohio, Obama touted the benefits of a strong dollar, a cause Rubin championed at the Treasury. ``A strengthening of the dollar'' would mitigate rising gasoline prices, he said.

The statement appalled economists aligned with unions, which fear that a stronger dollar would make imported goods cheaper and hurt export sales. ``The strong-dollar policy is very harmful,'' says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. ``There's some real fundamental differences between the Rubinites and the labor people, and I don't know how you get them on the same page.''

Obama seems to be trying. Last month, he told reporters that, while he planned to cut the deficit, ``it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America's families.'' In an Aug. 9 radio speech, he mentioned the budget deficit, then pledged to close tax loopholes that he said encourage companies to move jobs overseas.

In the end, the competition for influence between laborites and Rubinites may actually prove politically helpful, says Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

``What you need is two loud voices in the room to keep Obama down the middle, which is where he needs to be to get elected,'' Cook says.

To contact the reporters on this story: Kristin Jensen in Washington at kjensen@bloomberg.net; Matt Benjamin in Washington at mbenjamin2@bloomberg.net

Visceral trumps cerebral

By Dick Pulman

Any Obama fan who believes that the presumptive Democratic nominee is well positioned to woo anti-abortion voters - indeed, any Obama fan who is giddily anticipating an easy November victory - would be well advised to check the transcript, or view the video, of the faith forum hosted on Saturday night by pastor/author Rick Warren. More...

Any Obama fan who believes that the presumptive Democratic nominee is well positioned to woo anti-abortion voters - indeed, any Obama fan who is giddily anticipating an easy November victory - would be well advised to check the transcript, or view the video, of the faith forum hosted on Saturday night by pastor/author Rick Warren.

As I outlined here last Thursday, Barack Obama is trying to give equal time in the party platform to anti-abortion voters, mostly by signaling that he supports expanded alternatives to the procedure, with the aim of reducing over time the total number of abortions. The potential problem, however, is that few voters pay attention to party platforms. What the candidates say on TV - and how they say it - is probably more persuasive. Which brings us to the nationally-broadcast forum at the evangelical Saddleback megachurch.

Warren brought up the abortion issue, and then asked Obama, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Obama then replied, "Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue..."

One hour later, with John McCain in the chair, Warren asked virtually the same question: "At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?"

McCain did not hesitate. He replied: "At the moment of conception."

Which response is likely to resonate with the vast majority of anti-abortion voters - the unequivocal declarative sentence....or the evasive rumination that (to many people) probably comes off as stereotypical Democratic intellectual dithering?

By the way, the abortion portion of the evening actually got worse for Obama after his "pay grade" evasion. He quickly tried this segue: "The goal right now should be - and this is where I think we can find common ground...is how do we reduce the number of abortions, because the fact is that although we've had a president who is opposed to abortions over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down." Warren heard him out, and then asked him the perfect follow-up question: "Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?"

Obama's response: "I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions if there is an exception for the mother's health. Now, from the perspective of those who, you know, are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate. And I respect their views. I mean, one of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue..."

And off he went on another extended ramble, which failed to mask the fact that he never answered the question, never cited any past votes to reduce abortions. And along the way, he also made a factual error. Warren didn't call him on it (luckily for Obama), but I will. Whereas Obama claimed that, during President Bush's tenure, "abortions have not gone down," the data shows otherwise. According to the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute, the most respected keeper of such stats, there were eight percent fewer abortions in 2005 (the latest year available) than in 2000. And during that initial phase of the Bush era (2001 through 2005), the total number of abortions declined each year.

All told, I doubt that anti-abortion voters were drawn to Obama's cerebral ruminations. It's certainly true that McCain is hardly the anti-abortion diehard that he purported to be on Saturday night - back in 1999, he stated that “in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade," and he has never supported a federal constitutional amendment banning all abortions - but he did not ruminate on any of that (nor did Warren ask him, either). All the viewers saw was how he answered on camera: short, direct, declarative. Hence, easy to remember.

The same stylistic gap - cerebral versus visceral - was evident at several other points in the forum, again to Obama's potential disadvantage. Such as the exchanges about the nature of evil.

Warren asked Obama: "Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?"

Obama's response: "Evil does exist. I mean, we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil in parents have viciously abused their children and I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world...Now, the one thing that I think is very important for us is to have humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, but, you know, a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil...And I think one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that, you know, just because we think our intentions are good doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good..."

One hour later, Warren asked McCain the same question about evil and what we should do about it. McCain's response began this way:

"Defeat it."

Then he segued right into his comfort zone, and stayed there: "My friends, we are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century, radical Islamic extremists...If that (suicide bombing) isn't evil, you have to tell me what is, and we're going to defeat this evil...and we face this threat throughout the world. It's not just in Iraq. It's not just in Afghanistan. Our intelligence people tell us that al Qaeda continues to try to establish cells here in the United States of America...We must face this challenge and we must totally defeat it..."

Most Obama supporters undoubtedly believe that McCain came off as simplistic, that he sounded like a talking point for the politics of fear. But from the perspective of a low-information swing voter, I'd bet that McCain came off a lot better than Obama.

The biggest gut factor in this campaign is whether these swing voters can envision Obama tackling effectively with a national security crisis in the middle of the night. A ruminative ramble about evil, about the need for "humility" when trying to confront the evil that may exist in Darfur or in American households or wherever, does not have nearly the same visceral punch as a terse, focused response about al Qaeda (indeed, Obama never even got around to mentioning al Qaeda).

I'm not suggesting that McCain's qualitiative arguments were better or worse (he riffed yet again about "victory" in Iraq, as ever ill-defined). I'm suggesting only that, with respect to the communicative arts in this media-saturated culture, nuanced thoughtfulness is arguably less effective than declarative directness; indeed, the former is particularly perilous for any Democrat, since, fairly or not, millions of low-information swing voters still view the Democrats as insufficiently resolute. These voters are likely to favor the declarative approach anyway, if only because it is easier to ascertain where the candidate stands.

And this is potentially a warning bell for Obama, as the autumn debate season draws near. McCain will be far tougher in those three sessions than many Obama fans assume. Obama might be well advised to lose the nuance and punch up his responses; after all, as a general rule, visceral trumps cerebral.


Posted by Dick Polman @ 11:13 AM

Yet another reason to loose respect for Ms. Pelosi...

How can our animosity towards her get any worse, right? I didn't think it was possible.

UNTIL NOW:
[Obama] was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
ick...

SOURCE: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_I_will_win.html

Africans for Obama 2008 sending delegates to Denver?

It's interesting to focus on people who can't vote and aren't citizens let alone fellow democrats. Then I guess now that Wesley Clark's not coming there's more room...

At “citizen of the world” Barack Obama’s My.BarackObama.com official website, there is a “members only” Africans for Obama community blog and an East Africans for Obama open community blog. There is also the Africans for Obama Campaign Committee which describes itself as

… “a national organization that brings together Africans, people of African descent, and friends of Africa who are supporting Senator Barack Obama’s campaign for president of the United States of America. The headquarters is located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, with branches in various states and cities.”

But there’s more.

More...

Would it surprise anyone to know that Africans for Obama 2008—which is headquartered in Nigeria—plans to send a delegation to the DNC convention in Denver?

Would it surprise anyone to know that in July 2008 efforts were made “to secure more tickets to enable more Nigerians [to] attend the Democratic Party convention”?

Would it surprise anyone to know that Eric Wright, reportedly a South African who is Obama’s policy maker for Africa, was not only present at an Africans for Obama 2008 fund-raising dinner held on Obama’s behalf on Monday, August 11, 2008, at the Shell Hall Muson in Lagos, Nigeria, but purposely flew in from South Africa in order to attend it?

To be perfectly honest, it is getting more and more difficult to find anything to be surprised about when talking about the Obama campaign. Up is down, down is up … you all should know the drill by now.

Let’s start with the mysterious Eric Wright. Although RBO cannot be certain, it is possible that Eric Wright is the J. Eric Wright whose LinkIn profile says that he is CEO of Africa Venture Partners, which has been “active in African telecommunications and technology for more than 15 years”, and previously the head of private equity at Citicorp. His profile also shows him with the LinkedIn group Obama for America. This would be the same James Eric Wright who is a 1992 Wharton School graduate that headed private equity and venture capital for Citigroup in South Africa. (P.S. This is about investments in Africa, is it not?)

Just in case Wright should develop a sudden case of Obamnesia, we do have a number of details that were published about the fund-raiser in Nigerian online sources. For example, at the Shell Hall

… the floor was covered by a 25 metre long rug with the inscription YES WE CAN, Obama’s campaign slogan. There were also very large posters of Obama at the entrance and the stage. The decoration inside was splendid with the roof covered with various colours. At the dinner, a documentary by celebrity presenter, Bisi Olatilo, was aired.

Additionally, lest Wright has forgotten already, Simon Ateba of OnlineNigeria wrote the following on August 12, 2008:

Wright said that he did not speak for Obama or for the campaign team.

He was however evasive about how an Obama presidency will handle African issues.

He said there was no policy for Africa at the moment. He explained that if Obama becomes President, Africa will be closer to Washington than it is at the moment. He did not address the issue of an American military base in Africa and did not go into details.

Sonala Olumhense commented August 17, 2008, at Nigeria Village Square:

The obvious contradiction is how a campaign that cannot possibly accept funds from a foreign constituency send a
representative to, in effect, help collect damaging financial support.

The questions now begin to pile up:

  • Why in the world was Wright present at the fund-raiser?
  • How many tickets to the Democratic convention have Africans for Obama 2008 purchased?
  • Have these “tickets” been reported to the FEC in fund-raising totals by the Obama campaign?
  • Does the FEC know about this?

What is perfectly clear is that there is some major fund-raising hanky panky afoot, not to mention possible interference with a U.S. presidential election.

Africans for Obama 2008 was launched July 18, 2008, at a World Press Conference held at the Golden Gate Restaurant, Ikoyi, Lagos, Nigeria, by the organization’s chairman, Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke, Ph.D., OON, who is chairman of Transcorp and Director General for the past decade of the Nigerian Stock Exchange.

Lolade of the Lagos City Photos Blog, who attended the press conference, provides some background on the Obama - Okereke-Onyiuke connection:

(CNN, 02/08 in Tanzania) Its a personal project of hers [Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke] because she said she met Barack Obama in 2005 at a dinner where she was honoured by the American Congressional Black Caucus and the Senator had joined a long queue that wanted to take pictures with her. She had been pleasantly surprised two years later when the young man had declared his intention to be president of America. Hence, what better way to support him than by calling for all Africans who have kith and kin in America (about 3 million naturalised Africans are eligible to vote in America according to the group’s figures) to influence their people to vote enmasse for Obama.

Here we must insert another question.

  • What connection is there, if any, between the Congressional Black Caucus and Okereke-Onyiuke and her Africans for Obama 2008 fund-raising—and presidential election support—efforts?

On August 13, 2008, Tamunobarabi Gogo Ibulubo, an AfricaNews reporter located in Niger Delta, Nigeria, reported on the Africans for Obama dinner and concert:

… Lagos participants agreed that there was need to foster efforts and marshal out ways of raising voting awareness that would make Africans in America vote massively for Senator Obama to the win the election. [...]

The Africans For Obama 2008 was formed last Month to provide leadership for similar groups in other Africa countries in raising voting awareness among Africans to support Obama.

The Nigeria platform is being used because it is home to about twenty per cent of African 830 million people.

In the July news report, Ambassador Dr. Erieka Bennett (pictured here with Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.), the group’s Vice Chairman in Ghana, and Interim Chairperson of the Diaspora African Forum, called for Nigerians to support Obama: “I challenge all of you today to make calls to all your naturalised family in America and encourage them to go out and vote”. Bennett pointed out “with the population of African-Americans standing at 36.4 million, Americans of African descent should have a shot at the presidency given that America was home to all races and colour.”

Another question:

  • Since it is obvious from the photograph above that Rev. Jackson—who just so happens to also be an Obama supporter—has a relationship with Dr. Bennett, where might he fit in with Africans for Obama 2008?
  • Or does he at all?

Electoral Map - Obama only +12 with no Toss up states

The race is drawing MUCH closer...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

Beneath Contempt

From Anglachel's Journal, reposted here to share

So Howard Dean called the Republican Party "the white party". Strategically speaking, this insult (he has said it before in other situations so it is neither a gaffe nor an accident) is beyond tone deaf and is sheer political idiocy. This moronic mouthing off plays into every standard stereotype of an arrogant Stevensonian elitist and adds fuel to the race-baiting fires already burning through the Democrats' support this year, thanks to Obama's smear-and-run campaign. More...

This is a different claim than if Dean had gone after the Republicans as the "racist party" or even the "anti-minorty party", which is what he probably thought he was doing. By making an insult out of a biological fact instead of a pattern of behavior, Dean has declared that he (and thus Democrats as such, being as how he is the DNC Chair) think that "white" is a suspect and dangerous category of person. He did a crude inversion of racist claims about non-whites and it says a hell of a lot about the moral and ethical midden between Dean's ears.

What has Dean done? He has replaced political claims with personal morality, and has attached that moral condition to a biological one. One of the things this electoral cycle has thrown into relief is the way in which Stevensonians like Dean make shame stand in for policy, and reduce structural problems in society into questions of personal choice. This approach intellectualizes material problems, such as health care or just compensation, rejecting relationships of power or even common sense evaluation of actual living conditions in favor of finger wagging at the people on the short-end of the stick. Retrograde social beliefs (Guns & God!) are the reason for economic stagnation, not the gutless behavior of Congress or state legislatures. It looks aside from power relationships that keep socio-economic elites in control, and doesn't want to sully its pure ideas with "pandering" i.e., providing material benefits to woo rank and file supporters away from the other side. "You people" should know that we are your salvation from your benighted lives. You should be smart enough to know better than to vote for the other guy, and you can't be mad if we dump on you for being so stupid. If you won't do what you know you should do, I'm going to call you WHITE, so there!

This is both insult and challenge. It offers only stick and no carrot, and it does so by trying to shame people for inhabiting a condition they cannot change - their own skin. This is why racial categories are so deeply pernicious; how can you stop being you genetic condition? Race rather than racism, a condition rather than a behavior, is targeted with no way out.

This has to be the absolutely worst way to try to get people to abandon their cultural identification. It is reducing the complexity of an individual to a stereotype rather than teasing out the parts of that identity that can be built up in opposition to the artificial simplicity of that stereotype.

What can it mean for an incredibly privileged male of Northern European ethnic decent to snear that the main opposition party is the "white party"? He may imagine that everybody who hears this of course understands that he means a particular mode of societal privilege that is normative for how individuals are ranked and treated and which is encapsulated in a speech act that accompanies the term "white", which is not equivalent to genetic inheritance but is rather a socially constructed patterns of rules, behaviors, unarticulated expectations for relative treatment accorded to specific individuals without regard for their particularity, but most people think Howie just said, "White people suck." And how is it that Dean can exempt himself and all of his predominantly white and male cohorts from that incendiary claim?

Like it or not, Howard Dean has just made the claim that if you are white, you are A) racist and B) Republican, your actual acts and deeds in this world not withstanding. The only way to be relieved of this taint is to vote Obama. Not even Democrat - you must vote for Obama. If Obama should fail at the polls, then all "white" Americans stand indicted for racism because that is the only way he can fail and the only reason for failing to vote for The Precious is you're just a racist white Republican at heart.

The impulse among old-line Stevensonian leadership to accuse other people of racism at the drop of a hat, categorically condemning millions of white voters, will do nothing to bring voters of all ethnicities together to support progressive politics. This is a fundamental failure of this faction within the Democratic Party and is why we consistently lose national elections.

Anglachel