To those of you who so kindly congratulated me for Tuesday’s election outcome, as if Barack Obama’s victory resulted from my personal and deeply committed efforts. I thank you for your generous comments.
To those who may have wondered how I fared in “radio silence” for six weeks on the Ohio battleground. Be assured that I survived.
To those who do not know me or are unfamiliar with my previous descriptions of the realities and ironies of the 2008 election. What follows is the final chapter of my life as a political activist, a missionary for democracy, an apostle of Change. Hopefully you will also understand how it is that for the first three nights after I returned home I woke up from the same dream in which I wander nameless streets in search of faceless voters.
The Buckeye State
On September 23 I joined the Ohio Campaign for Change as a member of its newly created Vote Corps. The invitation had warned of 14-hour days, seven days a week, right up through Election Day. I accepted because the Obama campaign considered this important enough to make it a paid position and because it was in the one state McCain had to win to become President.
I left home certain that my life experiences -- in retail sales, as diplomat and political officer, and Obama volunteer in seven states – would be useful in the Buckeye State. Stopping at Starbucks on the way out of Burlington that Sunday morning, I noticed the first trace of red on the outer edge of a leaf on a small maple tree in the parking lot. I realized that by the time I returned to Vermont the leaf peepers would have come and gone. Fortunately, it turned out to be a mild autumn in Ohio that showcased the Buckeye State’s own colorful foliage.
The Akron Vote Corps
A hundred of us reported to Columbus for Vote Corps training and by the first night we were already deployed across the state. I was assigned to the city of Akron, birthplace of Cleveland Cavaliers star LeBron James and Pretenders’ singer-songwriter Chrissie Hynde, who wrote about her birthplace in “My City Was Gone”. The Akron Campaign for Change Office was headed by Regional Field Director Max Lesko. In charge of Summit and Portage Counties, he proved himself a very capable and genial manager. My hosts, Cathy and David, and their daughter Nicky, lived in a northwest suburb. Their friendship and cozy accommodations would be my home for the next six weeks.
At first the Akron Vote Corps consisted of six whites, from metropolitan DC, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Texas and California. Like most of the Obama staff and volunteers I met during the primaries, they were young and well-educated. In fact, I was two-and-a-half times their average age. By the end of the second week we lost one and gained five new members. Our new team-mates were all African Americans, from California, Texas and Georgia. Their average age was early forties and many had worked on Kerry campaign. One of my first initiatives was to buy half a dozen fingerless gloves for our new friends from the warm weather states. Our Vote Corps was rounded out by a “Lead,” a young lawyer from Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown’s Washington staff.
The Vote Corps’ mission was to register voters, identify supporters and get out the vote for Barack Obama. Our primary targets were “Sporadics,” first time voters and people who voted Democratic in the past, but did not always turn out. For a while we were also instructed to knock on every single door in a targeted neighborhood. I successfully resisted attempts to create competition within our group for most doors knocked, “Doors” being the campaign’s primary measure for the work accomplished by staff and volunteers. My feeling was that competition focused on this imperfect metric would distort our effort, demoralize some members of our group, and sacrifice quality for quantity. For in the end, the real measure of our success would be the vote count on Election Day. And to that end, it was would be our diligence after the “knock” that would impact the outcome.
Registration
Our first task was registering new voters and re-registering people who had moved before the deadline of October 6. We knocked on doors and scoured bus stops and other public places to register as many people as possible. Most people were already registered, as they clearly understood the importance of this election. Those who had not yet done so enthusiastically signed up, particularly in the African-American community. My first Saturday in Akron, I missed my first grandchild’s first birthday party back in Virginia. But my reward on that day was registering many first-time voters, including former felons who had recently regained the rights of other free men and women.
Many of our Sporadics were transients who frequently moved from one run-down Akron neighborhood to another. This city was in decline for a long time, and the recent economic downturn just aggravated conditions. In older residential neighborhoods there are a growing number of abandoned homes or houses soon to be vacated due to lost jobs or foreclosure. Many porches are marked by hand-painted signs announcing “Copper Already Stolen” or littered with trash by people who have given up. It is in this environment that we spread our message of Hope and Change.
Starting on September 30, we entered “golden week” when voters could both register and vote early. Ohio’s new rules allowed “no fault” early voting by absentee ballot or in person. A single polling place was created for Summit County at the Job Center in northeast Akron. The Job Center is well-known, because job losses here have been ongoing there for many years. The building, also known by locals as “the old library,” is next to another landmark, the County’s Auto Title Office. For those without cars, bus number 12 took people there from downtown in 15 minutes.
Early Voting
Registration and early voting at the Job Center was very convenient. Open every day, including Saturday and Sunday, there were 50 polling booths and seating for voters waiting for their paper ballots. But many Ohioans, especially African Americans disenfranchised in previous elections were suspicious. They worried that ballots were going to “disappear,” as reportedly happened in 2004 in Cuyahoga County. Overcoming these legitimate concerns required some persuasion. Our most important argument was: “Barack Obama wants his supporters to vote early.” That usually did it. We helped to spread the word that this process would protect, not suppress voting rights. And by November 3, the early vote turnout had grown from hundreds to thousands, the wait from 15 minutes to three hours.
By my third week I had developed a routine for creating a multiplier effect in conversation with early voters. Once they had made an Early Vote Commit, I introduced community organizing techniques to build on the widespread desire to help Obama get elected. Within the family, a grandparent or parent, or maybe the principal driver would agree to take responsibility for getting the entire household to vote early. I also encouraged that voters take along a relative or friend, or a neighbor who needed a ride.
Finally, I would make the following pitch:
“I’m working for Obama and I want you to work for him too. So I’m going to deputize you. No badge, no pay, just the satisfaction of knowing you helped to elect Barack Obama."
That always earned a smile. Then I continued:
"Now I'm sure you know someone who wouldn’t vote unless you drag their lazy a-- to the Job Center to vote. Do you know anyone like that?”
I could tell when they were hooked. Eyes turned skyward. Faces revealed minds thinking of who they would get to early vote. A knowing smile indicated they knew exactly who they would take along. In closing I urged them to let everyone know how easy it was to vote at the Job Center and that Obama wanted them to do so. By the time I left their door, the early voter had been empowered and had taken ownership of the Obama campaign. Now it was their campaign too.
Get Out The Vote
During our last week in Ohio, the Vote Corps was dissolved. We were detailed to assist Field Organizers with their neighborhood teams of volunteers, which were part of the Ohio get out the vote (GOTV) strategy at the precinct level.
I was assigned to Barberton to work for Sol, an energetic field organizer from Texas. My main “turf” was the south Akron neighborhood of Kenmore. Unlike my earlier work with Sporadics in largely African American neighborhoods, I was instructed to “persuade” and “motivate” the remaining “Undecided” voters. But with Election Day closing in fast, there would only be minutes to talk to any single voter.
In Barberton and Kenmore, the Undecideds were predominantly white, working class Democrats. Most did not want to vote for McCain, but were not yet sure about Barack Obama. I understood their concern. Not only was Obama a relatively new and unknown political personality. Most of these voters had supported Hillary in the March primary. And like voters elsewhere, they were being bombarded with smear emails, Republican mailings about Ayers and NRA propaganda warning Obama would take away their guns.
With openly racist voters there was the curt “Thanks for your time.” But it was not difficult to pull the other undecided voters off the fence, especially with the credibility of being an older white man with a knowledge of history and 23 years of federal service under five US Presidents. These voters knew that Obama and Hillary shared a common policy agenda and that she was campaigning hard for the Democratic ticket. They also recognized Rove tactics and our argument that: “They can’t win with the truth, so they are attacking him with lies.” Second amendment concerns were easily neutralized with Biden’s quote: “No one’s taking away my Beretta.” But the simplest most effective argument was “Are you happy with the way things are going or do you want change?” And Change is what voters wanted more than anything this year.
Election Day
November 3rd and 4th were taken up with the final GOTV effort, primarily distributing door hangers and reminding voters of their polling places. From 3:30 pm on Election Day until it was too dark to read house numbers, I scoured for remaining undecided voters who had yet to cast their ballots. I actually found several and they agreed to go to their local poll station, which by then was no longer crowded.
I was at the Barberton volunteers’ party at Lake Anna Hall when MSNBC announced Ohio for Obama. Having already won Pennsylvania, I knew it was all over except for reaching 270 electoral votes. While happy, I was so physically and mentally exhausted that the victory did not seem real. I headed back to my host family home and watched the candidates’ speeches before turning in and resting for the long drive home. Now as my dreams of knocking on doors in Ohio recede, the enormity of our achievement and the challenges facing Barack Obama are coming into better focus. I have no idea what my next step will be, but I will continue to do what I can to get our country back on the right track.
Epilogue
After 40 days of walking the streets of Summit County, I had knocked on or distributed campaign literature at over 4000 doors.
More importantly, I had in-person conversations with more than 1500 voters and obtained about 1000 Early Vote Commits, which probably understates the number of people who were convinced to go to the Job Center. Along the way I also helped remove several hundred bad addresses from our “Turf,” easing the task of later attempts by volunteers to find our voters.
The Akron Vote Corps’ effort over five weeks contributed greatly to the early vote turnout, which by Election Day totaled 90,000, or fully one-third of the 272,000 ballots cast in Summit County. And while he won Ohio’s 20 electoral votes with 51% of the state’s popular vote, Barack Obama won Summit County with 57.45%.
wizinit is the nom de guerre of a veteran diplomat and fan of the late columnist Art Buchwald who writes serious analysis and political satire. If you would like to be notified whenever he posts a new article join Food Tasters For Obama.
I got the call last week and tomorrow I leave for the American heartland to join the Obama campaign officially. My “deployment” is not a total surprise, as I did my “basic training” in Chicago at Camp Obama in June 2007 and since then have volunteered in seven states. Independent of the campaign, I conducted “psy-ops” on the net as a blogger and worked with other supporters in “rapid response” to online critics and negative media. But now I am called to official duty and by this time next week I will be on the “front lines” in a crucial swing state.
Am I to be part of a Pre-electoral “Surge”, a sort of “counter-insurgency doctrine” applied to this election in the closing days of the Presidential campaign? That may be what Obama’s deputy national campaign director Steve Hildebrand has in mind to ensure Victory on November 4. He is the “four-star general” who won the first battle for the nomination when Obama took the Iowa caucus. Lately Hildebrand has been moving his troops around in what looks like an attempt to “clear, hold, and build” support in swing states. That is where organization, registration, and turnout could deliver the vote margin that spells the difference between “victory and defeat.”
Reports from Georgia confirm Hildebrand has “drawn down” his forces in Georgia and redeployed elsewhere. That does not imply Obama has abandoned Georgia, but does mean a greater reliance on remaining staff backed by an army of local volunteers who delivered a decisive primary win. At the same time, the redeployment reflects a need to strengthen Obama’s presence in states where he lost to Hillary Clinton and did not develop as much grass roots support. It looks and sounds like its erstwhile namesake in Iraq, but this surge too can only succeed if certain other conditions apply.
Perhaps the most important of those conditions is “political reconciliation.” The Denver convention speeches of Hillary and Bill Clinton marked a symbolic end to internal Democratic opposition to Obama’s nomination. Some small “rebel factions” of the party had intended to continue “resistance”. But John McCain’s subsequent nomination of Sarah Palin as his running mate sparked a “civil awakening” and the rebellion fell flat. Now former adversaries are working to elect Obama and avoid the frightening prospect of a “fundamentalist” religious right Republican Administration. What remains for the Obama forces is to reassure independent voters and moderate Republicans that Obama is a “safe” choice who will represent their interests.
The Obama campaign also benefits from improved intelligence on voting conditions in some key swing states where there were serious problems at the polls in 2000 and 2004. His base is alert to Republican tactics designed to intimidate and disenfranchise voters, and sabotaging elections. As they obtain “actionable intelligence” the campaign will be able to address problems promptly. And after replacing some local elected officials with Democrats, they can count on better cooperation to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.
As I leave for the front I anticipate this will be my last posting for a while. But I expect that this surge too will succeed “beyond our wildest dreams.”
Okay. Before the campaign gets really serious again, here is your chance to vote for Sarah Palin -- that is for the best impersonation.
And there are two really great impersonators too. You may already have seen Saturday Night Live's "A Nonpartisan Message from Sarah Palin & Hillary Clinton". In case you missed it, click on the pic for Tina Fey and Amy Poehler in their SNL opening skit:
But Tina's got competition! Here name is Lisa Vega (aka Lisa Donovan), who was once featured on MADtv, and she has done three Palin sketches already. The first had her corner Obama on a stairwell as he comes home, and she browbeats him till he turns into the "angry black man"; this may explain why the clip is no longer available. But her parental guidance skit called "Is McCain Palin's Bitch?" is already a YouTube classic, and showcases the other side of Sarah:
You can click on the photo. That's Dan Oster as John MCcain.
So here's your guilt-free chance to vote for Sarah Palin (impersonator, that is). Please cast your vote below in the comment section.
There may be no state in the country considered as “safe” for Barack Obama as the Green Mountain State.It is after all the home of former governor and current Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.But I wonder what happened over the past two weeks to explain why 538’s state-by-state survey of electoral outcome probabilities slipped Obama’s chances of winning the Green Mountain State from 100% (a unique status it had shared with the District of Columbia) to 99% (with Rhode Island and Hawaii).
I doubt it is related to the size of Obama’s official campaign presence here, currently one full-time staffer embedded in the Vermont Democratic Party campaign office in Burlington.Attendance at recent Obama county organizing meetings in Chittenden and Addison was respectable considering it is mid-summer and the election is 3 months from now.After all, grass roots activists had no difficulty gathering required petition signatures, conducting canvasses, registering new voters, raising funds and mounting visibility long before the official campaign arrived in Vermont just 2 weeks before the March 4 primary. And that effort built a strong foundation for the general election.
No public opinion polls have been published in Vermont since February, but these would probably be a waste of money.Two polls conducted just weeks before the Democratic primary projected Obama beating McCain by margins of 34 and 21 percent.How reliable were those polls?The same polling organizations at the time showed Obama leading Clinton by 24 and 14 percent (Rasmussen 57-33 and Research 2000 53-39).The far less scientific AOL straw poll at the same time showed him with a 20-point lead (60-40), very close to the actual primary results (59.31% to 38.59%).So go figure.
Well, that’s exactly what fivethirtyeight.com has done. They have adjusted the February data to a current projection of 59.7% to 38% for Obama over McCain. Since volatility is not a Vermont voting trait, barring some major development, you can probably bank on 538’s prediction holding on November 4.
While most Vermonters are excited about bringing CHANGE to Washington DC, the same does not necessarily apply to their state capital, Montpelier.This is a very unique election year.Neither of Vermont’s highly popular Senators, Democrat Patrick Leahy nor Independent (democratic socialist) Bernie Sanders, is up for re-election.And Representative Peter Welch, finishing his first term as one of the country’s most effective freshman in Congress, will have no Republican opponent in November, though he will face an anti-war activist in the Democratic primary and a Progressive Party candidate in the general election.So, all attention is on the Governor’s race, with Republican Jim Douglas running for his fourth two-year term against Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington, with Progressive Party candidate Anthony Pollina as her potential spoiler.
So far, Election 2008 looks to be a bifurcated event that will focus far more resources on the state race than on the national contest. Both Democrats and Republicans have already raised the specter of coattails effects in November.Democratic Party officials talk of Obama drawing enough new voters to the polls to help Symington overcome the State’s tradition of voting for candidates irrespective of party affiliation. Republicans cautiously whisper of a reverse coattail effect, with McCain benefiting from a loyal turnout to re-elect Douglas.These may be prime examples of wishful thinking.It is doubtful that “coattail” is going to become a causative verb in Vermont any time soon.Why? Because the ties that connect these local candidates vertically to their national tickets are nebulous when compared to the strong ties that bind them horizontally to other state party officials.
Top Vermont Democrats like Leahy and Welch certainly boarded the Obama bandwagon early in the primary race. But their party has failed to court Obama’s most active grass roots supporters who are engaged in politics for the first time.
Perhaps more importantly, while most Clinton supporters in Vermont will certainly vote for Obama, it is not clear what role her state campaign chair, former governor Madeleine Kunin, is going to play at the Denver Convention.
UPDATED: She is currntly a leading advocate for an Obama-Clinton "dream ticket", choosing for now to play the yenta. But there are forces within the Democratic Party, like PUMA and the Denver Group, ready to cause havoc at the convention who would be more than happy to seize on "Hillary for VP" as their battle cry, as well as highlighting the party's schism through a roll call vote for President. By late August, Kunin may have to choose between party unity and loyalty to Hillary and her personal cause of promoting women in politics. And that decision ironically could affect both her state party's prospects of electing another female governor as much as the national party's opportunity to elect the first biracial President.
On the Republican side, Governor Douglas knows he is better off distancing himself from his party’s standard bearer.Otherwise, he risks having to defend McCain’s erratic personality and unpopular positions before a skeptical electorate.It will be much easier to present his own narrative of a steady demeanor and record of cautious stewardship.In fact it is his Lieutenant Governor, Brian Dubie, with whom he forms Vermont’s sole surviving Republican “team”, where coattails may help if at all. But this November, it is probably going to be casual Tuesday.And that means “No Ties, No Tails”.
wizinit is the nom de guerre of a veteran diplomat and fan of the late columnist Art Buchwald who writes serious analysis and political satire. If you would like to be notified whenever wizinit posts a new article click on the logo to join Food Tasters For Obama.
With exactly two weeks to go to August 4, participants in Barack’s Birthday Bake Off are franticly preparing for the big day.Most are happy just to celebrate while organizing for the campaign. But many are admittedly drawn by the chance to win an attractive t-shirt with the Food Tasters logo (see sample); I know I’d be.So here is our best effort to answer your questions and lay out the contest rules:
2. All contestants, except employees of the Obama campaign, must be registered as a member of “Food Tasters for Obama” at my.barackobama.com no later than midnight August 4.Not yet a member?Sign up at http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/FoodTastersforObama.
3.One Food Tasters for Obama t-shirt will be awarded to the winner in each for the following three categories: a) best recipe, b) best birthday campaign organizing idea, and c) photo of the best decorated desert.
4.After you have complied with requirements 1 and 2 above, submit your entry via email to markwiznitzer@gmail.com.Entries must be received no later than 11:59PM EDT on August 5 (in European that’s Greenwich 04:59 on 060808). To be considered the subject line of the email submission must read: “BARACK BIRTHDAY BAKE OFF CONTEST”. Sorry, as good as it may taste, we won’t be able to personally sample your baked goods (unless you happen to be in the Champlain Valley on August 4, in which case, let us know).
5. Entries need not be your own original, recipe, idea or decoration, but then you must indicate the source of your inspiration. Winning recipes, campaign organizing ideas and decorations remain the “property” of their owner, but will be shared with the world by Food Tasters for Obama. By your entry you acknowledge your compliance with these conditions.
6.We are not responsible for any emails that are not receive on time, are blocked by spam or other internet security filters, attached files that cannot be opened or viewed, or any terrorist incident or acts of public disorder, floods, earthquake or other natural disasters that may interfere with our ability to recognize your brilliant effort and reward you with a t-shirt.
7. Selection of winners will be entirely subjective, but this competition is open to anyone who supports Barack Obama for President, including but not limited to employees of Price Waterhouse, the Obama campaign, its surrogates and volunteers, first-time voters, former Hillary backers, Obamicans, or any minors or non-US citizens who would vote for Obama if they could.
Obama wipes his forehead at a Montana campaign event in May.
McCain's handlers think they were owned. Photo-analysis suggests that Barack Obama may have been play-acting when he pulled out a hanky and patted his forehead at a campaign appearance in Montana two months ago. And the two lost months may cost McCain the election if the candidate, who is known for his volcanic temper, has a Nixonian moment of perspiration during the Presidential debates this Fall.
It's all part of a game of hot potato that the two camps have been playing, trying to stay cool under the constant glare of media scrutiny. Until today McCain's people believed they were going to win because Obama had fallen for the Republican's challenge to visit Baghdad, where the average high this month is 115 degrees. But then the news reported: "No sweat."
The confirmation was contained in today's AP story about Obama's suspicously frequent workouts, in which photo-journalists were quoted as saying that:
"even when he shot hoops earlier this year with members of the University of North Carolina varsity men's basketball team, they didn't see Obama sweat."
The report has the McCain campaign in a panic, for what was suspected and feared is now confirmed: Obama is cool, literally as well as figuratively. It's not just that he made the cover of Rolling Stone, GQ and Vibe. They knew McCain didn't stand a chance going one-on-one against Obama for the Metromale vote. That was a given. But it's the image of McCain as a sweaty old guy who turns off Hillary Clinton's women voters they were counting on to win that has them worried.
Sources who did not want to be identified because they are not authorized to discuss the sensitive subject confirm that a hush-hush project code-named "Operation Bikram" has been launched from an inconspicuous office at Republican National Committee headquarters. GOP operatives are simultaneously scouring the aisles of drug stores nationwide to find the most effective anti-perspirant and reviewing comparison tests of moisture wicking underwear. Separately a top-secret team of technicians, specialists in heating and cooling, is ready to move in and take over any debate venue that registers above 65 degrees.
These precautions are all intended to manage McCain's known tendency to get hot under the collar at the slightest provocation. And when really provoked McCain is known to breathe fire and sweat bullets. "It's hard to get John to cool off after one of these incidents," says an old family friend. "But that's why he has been so happy with Cindy, becuase he knows that at the end of the day he'll go home to an ice-cold Bud."
wizinit is the nom de guerre of a veteran diplomat and fan of the late columnist Art Buchwald who writes serious analysis and political satire. If you would like to be notified whenever wizinit posts a new article click on the logo to join Food Tasters For Obama.
The Obama campaign has launched an all-out effort to help Hillary Clinton retire her debt. Obama’s national finance team members (bundlers) are being asked to go back to the well and get their donor friends to kick in up to $2300 (maximum allowed by law) to Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign. Donations will be designated for Hillary Clinton’s “2008 Primary Election Debt Retirement”. Donors are being assured that the money will not be used to pay back Hillary and Bill Clinton’s personal loan to her campaign, which they reportedly are recognizing as a loss. The campaign’s message is that this financial help is critical to ensure party unity and secure the support of Clinton’s backers – both donors and voters – for Obama in the general election.I’m not convinced.
On a four-man ballot including independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, voters chose Obama over McCain ... 48% to 33%. Nader ... and Barr ... both appear to siphon more votes from McCain than they do from Obama. When Nader and Barr are added to the ballot, they draw most of their support from voters who said they would otherwise vote for the Republican.
Now, factor this in to the following with respect to the head-to-head match-up between McCain and Obama:
The great majority of Clinton voters have transferred their allegiance to Obama, the poll found. Only 11% of Clinton voters have defected to McCain.
Based on these numbers, I wonder if the addition of Nader to the mix is siphoning off a large chunk of the 11% of angry Clinton voters that might otherwise choose to support McCain as a second choice in a protest vote resulting from Clinton not getting the nomination.
After all, you'd hope that those 11% would be rational enough to realize that McCain would be disastrous for most of the policy positions that Hillary Clinton supports and that Nader would be much closer to Clinton that McCain would be (at least on most issues).
Could it be possible that in this kind of calculus, Nader could actually be worse for McCain than for Obama? Hmm...
So, long-time friend of Obama's campaign tsar David Axelrod, Chicago-native and seriously super-connected former Clinton campaign official Patti Solis-Doyle is hired this week by the Obama campaign.
Obama and all of his key surrogates have been going out of their way for the last few weeks to praise Senator Clinton for her historic candidacy and scold people at rallies for booing her.
So, why, are anonymous Clinton donors and insiders running to the press over the last couple of days with vulgar, hateful screeds like this:
"You don't hire Patti Solis Doyle for her operational expertise," said the bundler. "You don't do that. This is someone who failed dramatically at her job. You only bring her on to f**k someone else."
Hiring Solis is the "biggest f**k you I have ever seen in politics."
Now, contrast this with the official statement from Clinton spokesperson Mo Elleithee:
"Patti will be an asset and good addition to the Obama campaign. After nearly two decades in political life, she brings with her the ability to tap an extensive network that will be a huge asset to Senator Obama. As Senator Clinton has said, we're all going to do our part to help elect Senator Obama as the next President of the United States."
There have been all sorts of rational, not-so-rational and downright loony theories on what this all means. See here for a few.
I am really having a hard time understanding this and can't imagine that the Obama campaign had any malevolent intentions. He knows how important party unity is in this election, which is why he has been going out of his way to praise Clinton every chance he gets.
Why the anger? Why the conspiracy theories? Is it really just as simply as being wounded and dealing with grief?
Over the next few weeks the Obama campaign will be in transition –– drawing on a broader pool of consultants, making major new staff hires, and building operations in critical states. As far as reaching into the Clinton circle for new staff, the Obama campaign has made a few savvy choices –– an Ohio specialist and a famed opposition researcher:
In one telling example, he is moving to hire Aaron Pickrell, the chief political strategist of Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio — who helped steer Mrs. Clinton to victory in that state’s primary — to run his effort against Mr. McCain there.
In another, aides said, he has tapped Dan Carroll, an opposition researcher who gained fame digging up information on opponents’ records for Bill Clinton in 1992, to help gather information about Mr. McCain.
Where else can the campaign gain from the Clinton team? Although often criticized for not preparing for a lengthy primary season, there was a lot that the Clintons did right. Early in 2007, they were already hard at work lining up national Latino leaders like Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa --- nailing down a constituency that would be keep the campaign alive nationally.
When Richardson left the race, the Clinton campaign immediately pounced, rounding up his crucial circle of advisers specializing in Western politics, like Michael Stratton, who ran Ken Salazar's Colorado Senate campaign in 2006. These voices are valuable for Latino outreach nationally, but they also simply have experience running campaigns in Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico --- all crucial states for Obama in the fall.
In comparison, the Obama campaign has often been accused of complacency when it comes to Latino outreach, even by their own supporters, though recently they've been getting creative, including Obama dutifully learning phonetically a short message in Spanish for a commercial in Puerto Rico.
The Clinton campaign almost always outperformed Obama among Hispanic voters, despite the fact that Obama is better on some of the more specific issues of Hispanic voters:
The campaign’s mistake may have been in believing Obama's more aggressive stance on immigrants' rights would speak for itself, without active promotion.
While both Obama and Clinton supported the comprehensive immigration reform bill that failed in Congress last year, only Obama has promised, if elected, to return to the issue during his first year in office. Obama also supports driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants; Clinton does not.
And during the Jan. 31 Democratic debate in Los Angeles, Obama struck the more conciliatory tone on illegal immigration. In response to a question that blamed immigration for African American unemployment, Clinton agreed with the premise, while Obama called it "a case of scapegoating that I do not believe in, that I do not subscribe to."
Make no doubt about it, Latino voters will be crucial to the future of the Democratic party, and Clinton's outreach team may be one of the best. Now's the time to poach from it.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein reiterated that Clinton had won the popular vote -- an assertion that is not accepted by Illinois Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's camp and one that, if repeated often, could harm Democratic attempts to unify behind him.
If this meme keeps getting repeated, it will metastasize the (largely justified) disappointment and hurt that Clinton supporters are feeling right now and will solidify for them the notion that Hillary was somehow robbed of the nomination.
Unlike in the general election where every state has their citizens cast a ballot for President, the democratic primaries involve both primaries (where each person casts their vote) and caucuses, where people gather in a room, express their support for their candidate and, from such internal voting, delegates for each caucus are apportioned to the state convention. As a result, the popular vote numbers that you see are not apples-to-apples comparisons.
Now add to the mix that Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan (from which state Clinton supporters continue to unfairly insist that Obama got zero votes, even though the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee reached a compromise and apportioned all of "uncommitted" delegates to Obama). In addition, none of the candidates were allowed to campaign for votes in Florida. Further stir into the Michigan and Florida equation the fact that hundreds of thousands of people did not vote because they were told that their vote would not count at the Convention (as reflected in the fact that both states' voter turnout was far lower than expectations) and you get a highly polluted set of data from which to draw "certain" or "unquestionable" conclusions.
Final data point. In Washington, Iowa, Maine and Nevada, these states did not release an official estimate of voter turnout. However, Clinton supporters like Sen. Feinstein are content to completely disregard any tabulation or estimate of the turnout in such states in order to make the damaging argument that Sen. Clinton somehow "won" the popular vote. Are voters' voices in Washington, Iowa, Maine and Nevada not supposed to be heard?
From the above analysis, I hope most of you will agree that the fairest assessment of the popular vote is to give the "uncommitted" Michigan votes to Obama and give both candidates the estimates of voter turnout in Washington, Iowa, Maine and Nevada.
There are only two conclusions to draw:
If you tally up the popular vote in the fairest and even-handed way described above, you'll see from RealClearPolitics that Obama is ahead of Clinton by 61,703 votes.
If you decide to tally up the popular vote in some other skewed and selective manner, the vote tally you come up with is too questionable to be asserted by our nation's respected leaders as unquestionable fact.
Here is where we stand:
Obama is now the presumptive nominee.
Hillary Clinton has suspended her campaign and endorsed Obama with a ringing call for party unity.
In the interest of party unity, as so eloquently expressed by Senator Clinton yesterday, we all need let the whole popular vote argument go. It can only serve to make people angry, prolong the grieving process and hurt the Democrat's chances in the fall against John McCain.
Just last week, Bill Clinton complained that he'd "never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running." Well look again, Bill. Because your wife just succeeded in performing a 10-point-perfect double-dis against Barack Obama. First she stiff-armed his historic claim to the party's nomination with her "victory" speech on Tuesday night. Then the next day she ignores the most basic courtesy of telling her party's nominee she is dropping out of the race. She even passed up the opportunity to do so in person at the AIPAC conference. What a class act!
All's not well in Hillarywood. The problem with this picture show is the "suspension of disbelief."
Suspension of Disbelief
In the world of fiction you are often required to believe a premise which you would never accept in the real world. Especially in genres such as fantasy and science fiction, things happen in the story which you would not believe if they were presented in a newspaper as fact. Even in more real-world genres such as action movies, the action routinely goes beyond the boundaries of what you think could really happen.
In order to enjoy such stories, the audience engages in a phenomenon known as "suspension of disbelief". This is a semi-conscious decision in which you put aside your disbelief and accept the premise as being real for the duration of the story.
Suspension of disbelief only works to a point. It is important that the story maintains its own form of believability and doesn't push the limits too far.
Hillary Clinton herself introduced the concept last September when told General Petreus that his Iraq progress report required "a willing suspension of disbelief." But then so did much of her production of "Hillary the Inevitable", which regularly stretched the imagination to convince the media and public that she really had earned the nomination.
For example, her suggestion that party caucuses are undemocratic, that caucus state voters don't count, or that popular votes including the unsanctioned primaries in Florida and Michigan determines the winner. For five months we almost forgot that the story was all about delegates. So we have to concede she put on a fine show.
Sure, there were those plot lines that just did not seem to work because the evidence was so obvious. Like landing under sniper fire at Tuzla, or the policy on drivers licenses for non-resident foreigners, or the gasoline tax holiday. But as always, the talented Clinton Producer-Director-Acting team gave us a performance that spanned the spectrum of emotions. In fact, those scenes, from tears in NH to that distinctive laughter at the debates, will live on in memory long after show is over.
Sequel: Dream Ticket
Before we have even seen the last episode of their previous production, here comes the sequel, in which Bill and Hillary decide she would make the ideal Vice President. But now the suspension of disbelief is really to be tested.
First item is the casting. We don't yet know what part if any Geraldine Ferraro, who in the original production effectively portrayed the angry-older-white-woman with a hint of racist rage, will be allowed to play this time around. It looks like Bill Clinton, who previously as the male lead pretentiously suggested Barack take the minor part as her running mate even though he was ahead by every measure, will have fewer lines and be assigned a far smaller role at best. This is bound to make the entire story far less exciting.
BET founder Bob Johnson has already proven himself entirely miscast as the supplicant to the Congressional Black Caucus for Hillary-as-running-mate, which was just plain unconvincing. And everyone will miss Terry McAuliffe (last seen doing shots of Bacardi with Mika Brzezinski, presumably on their way to rehab) and Howard Wolfson, both of whom should be way too busy selling their tell-nothing books in the months ahead.
However, the greatest challenge to the suspension of disbelief will be those plot lines we just skimmed over the last time around. There is that little matter of being "fully vetted" and 35 years of experience. For a start, the new script-writing team of Johnson, Kennedy and Holder will have to struggle with Hillary's first radical law work in San Francisco and the performance review of her part in the Watergate investigation. And of course there are all those comments she made about Barack Obama over the past several months.
It's also not clear how the next episode will treat the problems hinted at by Vanity Fair. Forget about undocumented sexual innuendo. After Sex in the City and Larry Craig in the Minneapolis airport, that part is probably a sleeper. No, I'm thinking of Bill's high-flying friends and library donors. And those hints of influence peddling disguised as speaking and consulting fees on the joint tax returns. Now those issues could be a real problem reconciling with Obama's political themes. And if Obama adheres to the "no-drama" genre of inspiring documentary, the Clinton sequel could well be scrapped for a lack of both political and financial support. Just stay tuned.
wizinit is the nom de guerre of a veteran diplomat who is a fan of the late columnist Art Buchwald and comedian Andy Borowitz. If you would like to be notified whenever wizinit posts serious analysis or political satire, click on the logo to join Food Tasters For Obama.
I think we all need to lighten up on Clinton. There's a high chance at this point that she'll be fitting the VP position, despite all that is wrong with her - the Rev. Wright egging on, non-committal answers about Barack's religion, political exploitation of Florida and Michigan, and ad hominem attacks. We've gotten what we've wanted, Barack on the ballot - now we have to help the Democratic party as a whole.
This is a really weird and tough email to write. I'm the biggest Obama supporter in my small town and have rallied a coalition of fellow high school students around the cause (I will be eligible to vote in November). I've never been able to stand Hillary as a person, but I still believe that at this point in history, we can't afford to keep making negative comments about her.
Even after this long primary season and all of the Clintons' dirty tactics, I largely agree with him on the first point about turning down the heat on Clinton (after Saturday) but disagree with him on the VP nod.
Now that Hillary Clinton will be endorsing Obama on Saturday and suspending her campaign, I agree that further commentary on her machinations would largely not be fruitful. This, of course, comes with a caveat. I will take her at her word that once she suspends her campaign and endorses, she will campaign strongly for Obama and do nothing to undermine him. If this comes to pass, I will hold my tongue fingers.
However, as to the VP question, I must respectfully disagree. As I've noted here before, I think that she would be a terrible choice for VP, for a variety of reasons. For full disclosure, I have come to dislike her as a person and a candidate. I don't trust her and believe she has little capacity for honesty or integrity. However, there are a host of less emotional reasons not to want her as VP:
As recently reported, the big "deal-breaker" would likely be Bill's refusal to fully disclose and open for vetting his questionable business activities after leaving the White House and the donors to his presidential library. Any VP and their family must be vetted and if this can't happen, it's a non-starter.
One important quality of a VP is the need for them not to overshadow their boss. Take your pick of what Hillary brings to the table that has the huge potential to overshadow Obama.
As a philosophical matter, Hillary represents (rightly or wrongly) the precise kind of sleazy, do-anything, say-anything Washington insiderism that Obama is running against. Bringing her onto the ticket would tarnish his image as a reformer.
There are many other posts that Obama could offer and be seen as magnanimous to Clinton supporters, especially if Hillary subsequently discusses how she never wanted the VP job in the first place and that Obama offered and she declined.
Hillary Clinton on the ticket, whether in the primary or subordinate role, would do for John McCain what he is unable to do himself -- galvanize the Republican base and bring out a better voter turnout.
There are SO many other good VP picks out there that do not have Hillary's high negatives. Obama can pick a running-mate with solid bona fides without getting tarnished by the 51+% of the country that does not trust Hillary.
From here on out, I will stop painting Hillary Clinton in an unfavorable light on my blog and on Daily Kos, subject of course to the proviso above.
We have a lot of work to do to expose John McCain for the outdated Republican shill that he is and I will devote my time to extolling the virtues of Obama and failings of McCain.
Party leaders will be making a statement tomorrow morning to end the process. Will they recognize Obama as the presumptive nominee?
In the absence of a concession speech from Sen. Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night, top figures in the Democratic Party are set to go public, urging all uncommitted officials to declare their presidential affiliations.
Sources have confirmed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, and an official with the Democratic Governors Association are planning to release a public statement on Wednesday morning requesting that the party close its ranks and prepare for the race against Sen. John McCain.
The unthinking news media talkingheads are dutifully sidelining Obama's locking up of the nomination tonight and doing Clinton's bidding by talking about her as a Veep choice ad naseum. Is there nothing we can do to skewer the evil lumbering beast the news media has become over the last couple of decades?
Ok, deep breath, I can hardly watch news on TV anymore. Mom, keep it off for now.
The Clinton campaign has repeatedly fallen back on criticizing the process after every loss --- challenging the right of students to caucus in college towns when they realized they would turn out in large numbers for Obama; challenging the Nevada Democratic party's right to set up worksite caucus locations for casino workers otherwise disenfranchised once their union endorsed Obama; challenging the entire caucus process once they had repeatedly been out-organized and defeated by large margins.
At no point in 2007 did Hillary Clinton critique the caucus format, nor did she challenge the Rules and Bylaws Committee's initial decision to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates. These decisions were made only later, only after they became necessary to keep her chances alive.
The most dangerous moments at Saturday's RBC hearing were when Harold Ikes repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of the process, arguing that although the Clintons might lose, the party process was fundamentally unjust and an Obama nomination illegitimate.
And these ideas filter down to Clinton's supporters. According to Newsday:
And many of her supporters are vowing to fight on despite the odds. Some have circulated a 17-page critique of the party's primary rules prepared by Clinton supporter Stephen Herbits.
It's titled: "The 2008 DNC Presidential Nomination Process: A Crisis Of Legitimacy."
This group is not connected to the campaign, but they are pursuing the campaign's logic to its natural end and accepting the campaign's rhetoric.
I've never ceased to be amazed at the ultimate insiders on the Clinton campaign --- people like former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe or Harold Ickes --- express shock (shock!) at the way elections are conducted around here. They could have been voices for reform during any time in the last two decades that they dominated the DNC.
Hillary Clinton personally has made arguments comparing the DNC's initial decision not to seat Florida and Michigan delegations --- a decision she herself explicitly agreed with and which her surrogates on the RBC (Ickes included) voted for --- to Zimbabwe's corrupt government, to apartheid, and to the civil rights movement.
The Clinton campaign has spared absolutely no fire when turning not only on Obama but on the Democratic party. In Nevada, they tacitly supported a lawsuit against the state Democratic party to close caucus locations where Obama supporters might caucus. On Saturday, as the DNC tried to work out a compromise to meet both campaigns halfway, Clinton surrogates repeatedly threw up their hands at the injustice of it all. Harold Ickes made open threats.
Continue your run for president, continue to try to sway superdelegates. Fine. And be a voice for changing the nomination process for 2012.
But don't try to change the rules after the fact. Don't challenge the Democratic party's nomination procedure as unjust and illegitimate after you've lost, or treat in bad faith the DNC's constant attempts to remain neutral, find compromises, and mediate between the two campaigns --- that's what will be so destructive to the party and will ultimately give Clinton supporters an excuse to sit out the election in November.
Hillary Clinton must eventually recognize that she lost --- fair and square. The future of the party depends on it.
Too much is at stake in this election. Another seat on the Supreme Court. The opportunity to finally end the war in Iraq. A historic opportunity of having a solid Democratic majority to pass a progressive agenda on health care and poverty. That's what this election is about, not Hillary Clinton.
First, there have been conflicting rumors tonight about Clinton's plans for Tuesday, along with word that the Clinton campaign is starting to let go of staff. Via Ben Smith:
Members of Hillary Clinton's advance staff received calls and emails this evening from headquarters summoning them to New York City Tuesday night, and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending...
The advance staffers -- most of them now in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana -- are being given the options of going to New York for a final day Tuesday, or going home, the aides said. The move is a sign that the campaign is beginning to shed -- at least -- some of its staff. The advance staff is responsible for arranging the candidate's events around the country.
With the future of her campaign in doubt, Clinton hasn't announced her plans for the final election night of the primary cycle or beyond, but the aides said she would stage her election night event in New York City. Her entourage is currently expected to wake up Tuesday in New York and to arrive in Washington, D.C. Tuesday night.
Some suspect that an event in New York is a signal she could be preparing to end her campaign for president. It's also possible, however, that Clinton is merely shedding some staff now that there will no longer be any primaries and hence less active campaigning. With the Clinton campaign already deeply in debt, she would need a leaner organization if she intended to survive until the convention.
Second, from the British newspaper Telegraph, there are rumors that Obama's staff is preparing a package for Clinton to convince her to leave the race. I don't attribute much value to rumors from the British press, since they rarely seem to be accurate, and they probably lack the inside sources their American counterparts have.
And please note that all of these anonymous sources are second-hand, twice-removed and twice-anonymous. "Colleagues" who heard from "senior figures." A "Democrat" who discussed strategy with "friends" in Obama's "inner circle."
But so the rumor goes, the Obama campaign, unwilling to nominate Clinton for vice-president, will instead put together a concession package.
Senior figures in the Obama camp have told Democrat colleagues that the offer to Mrs Clinton of a cabinet post as health secretary or to steer new legislation through the Senate will be a central element of their peace overtures to the New York senator. [...]
The Obama camp, however, remains nervous about Mrs Clinton’s intentions and ambitions, and is preparing a face-saving package that will allow her to continue to play a role in health care reform, which has been her signature issue for more than a decade. Despite pressure from some Clinton allies, Mr Obama and his advisers do not wish to ask her to be his vice-presidential running mate. “They will talk to her,” one Democrat strategist close to senior figures in the Obama camp told The Sunday Telegraph. “They will give her the respect she deserves. She will get something to do with health care, a cabinet post or the chance to lead the legislation through the Senate.”
Another Democrat who has discussed strategy with friends in the Obama inner circle said that Mr Obama was openly considering asking Mrs Clinton to join his cabinet, alongside two other former presidential rivals: John Edwards, who is seen as a likely attorney general; and Joe Biden, who is a leading contender to become Secretary of State.
Mr Obama hinted at the plan last week. “One of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln,” he said. “Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his cabinet because whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was 'how can we get this country through this time of crisis?’ And I think that has to be the approach that one takes.”
I post these ideas less as reality and more as genuine possibilities worth pondering.
Barack’s Birthday Bake Off are franticly preparing for the big day.
Obama wipes his forehead at a Montana campaign event in May. 
The report has the McCain campaign in a panic, for what was suspected and feared is now confirmed: Obama is cool, literally as well as figuratively. It's not just that he made the cover of Rolling Stone, GQ and Vibe. They knew McCain didn't stand a chance going one-on-one against Obama for the Metromale vote. That was a given. But it's the image of McCain as a sweaty old guy who turns off Hillary Clinton's women voters they were counting on to win that has them worried. 
