Apparently, Obama’s decision to give a “rock-star” acceptance speech at a stadium seating over 75,000 people is not only designed to associate him even further with the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. - he will be speaking on the anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech - but has a precedent, set by none other than John F. Kennedy.
Although the occasion he is marking is highly appropriate - the nomination of an African-American candidate is an important step towards fulfilling MLK’s dream - it is also a high-risk move in two ways: Obama’s speech will have to avoid paling in comparison with King’s, and the venue could provide an opportunity for some nutcase to make Obama “emulate” MLK and JFK (and lest we forget, RFK) in the worst possible way. For some reason, the idea of it is frightening - I have visions of Icarus flying towards the sun, the wax in his wings slowly melting…
I wish Barack Obama well, and sincerely hope he will not disappoint his legions of supporters, including me. But I fear the effects of hubris. Like Caesar, he should always have someone on hand to whisper: “Remember, you are only a man.” Michelle Obama, perhaps?
I’ve been struck how segments of the Muslim community - particulary the courageous Muslims against Sharia - are enraged with Obama for his failure to add a “so what if I were?” to his denial that he is a Muslim. He has changed the accusation on his “Fight the Smears” site to “is a secret Muslim,” but that has done nothing to assuage the fury.
First, I believe that Muslims against Sharia are absolutely right - Barack Hussein Obama should and could have taken a firm stand from the very beginning. If blacks and women have a right to be elected President of the United States, then so do Muslims - there is nothing in the US Constitution to the contrary.
Branding someone a terrorist because he or she is a Muslim - or is a Christian with a Muslim name - is just as absurd as it would have been to call everyone with an Irish name a terrorist when the IRA were setting off bombs in Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK. That would have included every Kyle, Kevin and Connor in the US of A. (I’m also reminded of the time when Kennedy’s opponents railed against him because he was a Catholic, claiming that he would be controlled by the Pope.)
Although Obama should have said “I’m not a Muslim, but even if I were, there would be nothing wrong with that,” the Muslims’ worst enemies are Karl Rove and all those who use Rovian tactics, Fox News commentators and conservative bloggers and emailers who fuel and pander to prejudice and bigotry by sending out scurrilous libels of Obama and, by association, the Muslim community, such as emails and comments about 99% of terrorists being “Muslim males between the ages of 18 and 40″ (try Googling the words in quotes or variations thereof). The injustice to the Muslim community is so staggering that the fact that Obama is 46 and a Christian seems hardly worth mentioning. Even NY Mayor Bloomberg has denounced the “whisper campaign“. In this regard, it is worthwhile reading this NY Times article on how lies live and grow in the brain.
If Senator Obama is elected President of the United States, I hope he will feel secure and confident enough to take a firm stand in favour of the peaceloving Muslim community and start the healing process. They, too, have a right to fight off slurs and live the “American dream.”
The ease with which smears and innuendo are spread through the Internet have intensified the power of what are now known as ‘Rovian tactics’. A column by Paul Krugman published in today’s New York Times makes a point that is well worth repeating and reflecting upon - how quickly the media and public jump to conclusions, and how easy it is for spin-meisters like Karl Rove to manipulate the opinions of those who either don’t bother to read or watch the news (and are content to have it relayed to them second-hand) or don’t pay close attention.
For example, Krugman writes: “Al Gore never claimed that he invented the Internet. Howard Dean didn’t scream. Hillary Clinton didn’t say she was staying in the race because Barack Obama might be assassinated. And Wesley Clark didn’t impugn John McCain’s military service.” In other words, the Obama campaign may have lost yet another valuable player and possible VP candidate - General Wesley Clark (Ret.), a man with impeccable military credentials - due to an impolitic remark that was blown out of all proportion.
However, as a comment in The New Yorker pointed out in 2007, there is another secret to Rove’s success that goes well beyond the Internet: “He was consistently better than the other side at reaching the groups that felt shut out of politics, usually through local organizing. There are plenty of these groups on the left as well as on the right, but Democrats have let the muscles needed to reach them grow slack. Organizing is hard, unglamorous work; the language it requires is combative, self-interested, and non-seigneurial.”
As a former community organiser in Chicago, Obama is well qualified to do this ‘hard, unglamorous work’ without resorting to Rovian tactics.
People in England should welcome Barack Obama’s call for a ‘re-calibration’ of US-UK relations so they become more equal. In his telephone address to US expatriates in London, Senator Obama confirmed the view of British Government officials that he is the most pro-British of the three Presidential candidates.
The recent comments are the clearest indication yet of a potential sea-change in Anglo-American relations if Mr.Obama is elected in November. Unqestionably, the ’special relationship’ that has dured between our two Countries since the World Wars, has been placed under strain by Tony Blair’s unquestioning support of President George W.Bush during the Iraq War.
With an end to the ”Yo Blair” era, comes an opportunity to build a new epoch of economic, diplomatic and cultural links to advance the democratic values we both share.
Despite almost unanimous acceptance that the race is over in the media, Hillary Clinton today announced that she intends to remain in the presidential race “until there’s a nominee.”
It is difficult to understand why - although she is perhaps banking on a rebound from almost certain victory in the upcoming primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky - she is (for now) claiming that she will soldier on despite every possible argument for not doing so, including the inclusion of non-contests in Michigan and Florida, now being lost.
Continuing the contest, despite news that last month her campaign was only perpetuated by loaning herself $6.4 million, can only cause harm to the Democratic Party she claims to love. As other Democrats despair, superdelegates again trickled toward Obama today - a trickle which surely must soon become a flood if they are to end unnecessary division.
Having fought a campaign mirroring the worst of the Republican tactics which Obama last night said we should move beyond, the Clinton campaign has few friends, no argument, and diminishing support. She perhaps hopes to claim that the nomination was ’stolen’ from her by the very superdelegates she was relying on to overturn the choice of voters, but in her heart she knows (being a consummate politician) that the race is over.
The superdelegates now need to reinforce last night’s message - that Obama is going to fight McCain - to avoid a needless distraction of a horse race between a thoroughbred and a lame filly. If they can do so without pulling out the pistol, all the better. If not, there are many who will happily supply the bullet.
In many Democrat minds, the contest in November was always going to be best defined by the candidate who had the judgement to oppose the Iraq War from the start, but Obama’s surprising appeal and his ability to raise massive fortunes from over 1.5 million individual donors has also not gone unnoticed. A message of ‘the future not the past’, fought between a 72 year old Republican and a young Senator barely tarnished by Washington politics-as-normal, will also help in a year where voters are already demonstrating a desire for change.
The future is tall, black, and dynamic. It is not old, muddled, and tarnished.
This site was first established as an homage to the breath of fresh air Barack Obama would bring to international affairs and, although it’s evolving into a wider advocate of Obama, it’s clear that there is still support throughout the world for our would-be President.
We can’t vote of course, but we can now show our support for Obama via a unique little website called A letter for Obama.
The site is brilliant in it’s simplicity. At the top is a little note:
Dear Mr Obama,
I just wanted to drop you a quick note just to say, “Thank you”. Thank you for giving us hope that America will be lead by a true American for the first time in twenty years.
As Henry Ford once said, “Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.”
We look forward to coming together again and building a better place for everybody today, and for our children tomorrow.
Yours sincerely,
The other 95% of the planet
Below is the opportunity to endorse the message and select which country you come from. Your name is then added to the rolling list together with a flag icon and the time you ’signed’ the letter. It took me 30 seconds to join the rapidly growing list, so there’s no reason why you shouldn’t too.
The Democratic Party is desperate to start fighting their real opponent John McCain, but is sadly still locked in a battle between Obama and Clinton, even though Obama has effectively already won the nomination.
So it’s no surprise that progressive organisations such as MoveOn are already looking past this primary contest, to the battle between McCain and Obama in November.
They have recently been holding an online contest for ordinary Americans to make 30 second political adverts, just as they previously did 4 years ago against President Bush, but this time all of which are supporting Obama for President.
MoveOn, in case you’re not familiar, is a grassroots organisation originally founded to counter the media hounding of the Clinton Presidency over the Monica Lewinsky affair. But MoveOn, like much of the activist base of the Democratic Party, have themselves moved on from the Clinton years and have endorsed Barack Obama.
Their Obama in 30 seconds initiative is not just an exercise in online participation - the winner of the competition will see their film aired on national television as part of the general election campaign.
England for Obama will be showing some of the best contesting films in the days ahead too. Our first offering is shown above.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s dwindling support within her own Party has caused consternation and bitterness, which was demonstrated when the Huffington Post recently managed to catch her off guard at a private fundraiser.
This is not what you say if you want to represent your Party for President!
“We [her campaign has] been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party…Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down.”
Besides the news and political discussion programmes, occasionally other TV shows touch on the Presidential race too. That candidates appear on comedy programmes is one example, another is when commentators spontaneously endorse one candidate or another. So it was today when CNBC had not one, but two, Nobel Prize winning economists on a business programme.
Asked the question “who do you think will be better for the economy - President Clinton, President Obama or President McCain…and why”. Both backed Barack as the best candidate for the economy.
The surprising aspect is that the first, Joseph Stiglitz who won the prize in 2001, was connected to the Bill Clinton presidency. He called Obama’s recent speech on the economic problems America faced “brilliant”.
The hosts seemed a bit surprised by this and offered the second economist, Edmund Phelps who won the 2006 prize, the opportunity to move on to the next question without answering, but he volunteered his endorsement of Obama instead.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign has lost no time trying to frame her victory in the Pennsylvania primary in terms which might appeal to superdelegates. She has to, because her win yesterday does little to advance her cause in the delegate race. In fact, before yesterday’s contest she needed to win 66% of the remaining delegates. Now she needs 71%!
That’s why she’s not only ignoring the fact that it is a delegate race, but she’s also having to manufacture a whole new contest and dictating how it has to be interpreted. Hillary’s new contest, indeed the only possible measure she even has an outside chance of claiming legitimacy with, is the popular vote. So today she is claiming to be ahead in the popular vote, and is telling the press this with gusto. It’s nonsense, and here’s why:
Bad contests in, good contests out!
In order for her to claim to be ahead in the popular vote, she first requires Obama’s victories in the State caucuses to be ignored, as if they mean nothing. So she’s striking Iowa; Nevada; Alaska; North Dakota; Washington; Maine; Hawaii; and presumably Obama’s caucus-based victory in Texas off the map!
Next, and this is ironic as well as desperate, she’s including the votes in Florida and Michigan, which did not hold legitimate contests. The Florida primary, as mutually agreed, was not contested by Obama and shouldn’t have been by Clinton either. In Michigan Obama wasn’t even on the ballot, and nor would Clinton’s if she had kept her pledge.
So, let’s get this straight: If you exclude Obama’s caucus victories but include two non-contests, Hillary is winning? Hmmm…
What the superdelegates will be looking at is not only who’s winning - and by any real measure that’s Obama by a mile - but also the advantages and disadvantages of each candidate when matched up against John McCain. Nobody so far has summed these up better than Professor Lawrence Lessig, who has made a 10 minute film about it for us, and the superdelegates (shown above).
So the results are in and she’s likely to pick up between 12 and 14 delegates more than Obama as a result of Pennsylvania, although this still leaves him with a still unassailable delegate lead.
The Obama team apparently predicted that they would lose Pennsylvania by 5%, so it’s important that they take sober assessment of what went wrong, and there’s no shortage of advice from pundits. Much of that advice centers around Clinton’s negative campaign, here’s ABC’s take:
The tough tone of the Pennsylvania Democratic campaign tarnished both candidates — more so Hillary Clinton, with 68 percent of voters saying she attacked Barack Obama unfairly.
Yet it appears to have worked: Late deciders favoured Clinton by a wide margin, boosting her to an essential victory in the state.
By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.
But they too went on to berate Obama for responding to the negative agenda:
Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.
I am also critical of the Obama team for allowing itself to be sucked into Clinton’s new negative strategy. Barack Obama speaking last night in Indiana, the next must-win state for Clinton, attacked the tone of the Pensylvania primary saying:
After 14 long months, it’s easy to forget what this campaign’s about from time to time, to lose sight of the fierce urgency of this moment.
It’s easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit-for-tat that consumes our politics, the bickering that none of us are entirely immune to, and it trivializes the profound issues: two wars, an economy in recession, a planet in peril, issues that confront our nation.
That kind of politics is not why we are here tonight. It’s not why I’m here, and it’s not why you’re here.
Perhaps this was a concession that his campaign faltered by getting “caught up in the distractions”, but maybe this is just wishful thinking, we’ll have to wait and see.
What was encouraging, and this is my humble prescription for countering future negative campaigns by Clinton, was the emphasise on attacking his real opponent - John McCain and the Republican’s policies.
Although he resolutely only responded to Clinton’s attack ads in Pennsylvania, it still tarnished Obama’s message, with 50% saying that he unfairly attacked Clinton. That’s still much less than the 68% who said that Clinton attacked Obama unfairly, but it demonstrates that the perception was that both campaigns went negative.
If that lesson is to be learned and acted upon, there appear to be two choices open to Obama’s team: Take the gloves off and follow Clinton’s low road of character assassination, or take an even higher road than before. I favour the latter course.
When Clinton’s camp air negative ads, he should not respond in kind as he did in Pennsylvania. Instead he should use his superior resources to brush these off as “more of the same old politics”, but stick to his own message of hope and change on the real issues that matter and, if he needs to attack, reserve the attacks for John McCain.
As the final video shows, Barack Obama can no longer be beaten in delegate numbers. In this delegate race, he is already the winner. He should now be assuming the mantle of presumed nominee and refuse to get caught up in the distractions and silliness. Only time will tell what actual path the Obama team shall take, but more of the same simply will not do.
This website has been created by English supporters of the only possible 2008 American Presidential Candidate who
can bring real change and enthusiasm to the world...
