2nd of the "Super-Big" superdelegates endorse Obama---- Gov. Richardson

One can say that there are bigger or more important "superdelegates" than the normal run- of-the- mill superdelegates, as in merely a DNC or elected official. So like any other endorsement or commitment one's apparent influence towards others, meaning those who are in the "rank-in-file" , voters, local party officials or other superdelegates and even elected officials. Today, as I write this post, Governor Bill Richardson (NM) and former presidential competing candidate and former Clinton cabinet member is formally endorsing Barack Obama. One can state with authority that Richardson is in the unique top class of Democratic Party leaders & superdelegates; President Bill Clinton, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. Ted Kennedy, John Edwards and V.P. Al Gore.

Now the impact of this endorsement cannot be mitigated in the process of Obama gaining the nomination and winning the 2008 Presidential Election. Richardson's speech was as strong as it comes endorsing Obama is a leader that only comes along once in a generation, who possesses the courage and conviction needed for today and our nation's challenges. But it goes further than the spotlights that the media will have on this event in the news cycle, it will resonate in the superdelegate battle. MSNBC reports that Richardson held that:

"There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation's security is on the line," Richardson said. "He showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has shown it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally."

Underlining the aforementioned superdelegates; the score is now 2-to-1 with four still on the fence, (that said Bill Frist's son is working for the Clinton camp and has already been identified performing a dirty trick back in '07). The next class of superdelegates that I identify are; Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Raul Emmanuel, Dennis Hoyer, John Kerry and Howard Dean. In this next class of superdelegates lies the actual national political power in the Democratic Party where again Obama holds a 2-to-1 advantage (4 remaining neutral) with support from Senators John Kerry & Chris Dodd. The last "Big" superdelegate class is probably better described as the party's elders; President Jimmy Carter, former presidential candidates, Walter Mondale & Michael Dukakis, Geraldine Ferraro, Tom Daschele and Dick Gephardt. In this class Clinton holds the old school slate of 3-to-1 (two remaining neutral). By this count the superdelegate race is tied 5-to-5 in areas of the "Big" superdelegates.

The count now is 246-to-211. Finally I was told yesterday privately from a deep inside political wok friend, that the speech in Philadelphia which stemmed the bleed in the Obama campaign is about to move a couple more of those "Big" superdelegates where they are now looking to make a very practical political decision, folding in this campaign and coming in behind Obama for unity. I was not told about Richardson but this coincides with the Ted & Caroline Kennedy endorsement before Super Tuesday where that also stemmed the tide against Obama and where now Obama has gained gathered 45 or more superdelegates to Clinton losing a handful. Watch this dynamic for if Edwards or Biden come out in the next week I was told Gore might not be far behind in looking to end this ordeal of tearing down the top of the ticket.

Kitchen Sink Strategy not working as desired---evidence another superdelegate for Obama

Today Obama confirmed that Carol Ronen (DNC-IL) is the most recent endorsement by a superdelegate where she is endorsing an Obama-Clinton ticket. The Clinton camp announced that Pat Maroney (DNC-WV) making the numbers 246-210, just 36 from a tie. This leads us into the following analysis from the NY Times.

After Obama's 10-string victory backed against the wall (again) the Clinton camp told the press privately that they were going throw the "kitchen sink" at Obama and attempt to take back the nomination. This was not meant so much as the voters and pledged delegates but an a final appeal at wrestling the nomination through the superdelegates. The New York Times reports this strategy albeit tactically effective in knocking down Obama from a pedestal is not working as desired with the superdelegates. In Adam Nagourney's article a Political Memo,Clinton Facing Narrower Path to Nomination, he writes:

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers had hoped that the uproar over inflammatory remarks made by Mr. Obama’s longtime pastor that has rocked his campaign for a week might lead voters and superdelegates to question whether they really know enough about Mr. Obama to back him. Although it is still early to judge his success, the speech Mr. Obama delivered on race in Philadelphia to address the controversy was well received and praised even by some Clinton supporters

As critically important it was evident that the Clinton campaign hopes that Obama after having been battered over the last five rough weeks hoping to raise questions about his past, including his pastor’s incendiary comments, that would legitimize Clinton’s warning to Democrats that they were rallying around someone who was untested and unvetted.

“The superdelegates are not going to really decide until June,” Mr. Penn said. “He’s just going through a vetting and testing process that didn’t happen a year ago and is now happening. The whole vetting and testing process will make a big difference.”

..."It is in the interest of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign to portray the contest as being highly competitive. Her campaign is intent on combating Mr. Obama’s efforts to pick off superdelegates. And it is increasingly concerned that any sign that the window is closing could lead a Democrat like Al Gore or Speaker Nancy Pelosi to step in and urge Democrats to back Mr. Obama in the interest of unity.

In truth, in interviews, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said that task was tough and growing tougher and that the critical questions were what would happen with Florida and Michigan and the possibility of developments involving Mr. Obama’s relationship with his spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

Finally, Mrs. Clinton’s aides hope that disclosures about Mr. Obama’s past like the one involving Mr. Wright could give superdelegates’ pause. Mr. Devine said he thought that at least in terms of Democratic primary voters Mr. Obama had turned the furor to his advantage with his speech on race.

"Obama, confronted by an issue that was boiling, seemed to wade into it with a speech that was in many ways profound,” Mr. Devine said. “As a result, now these people who were so interested and awakened by his candidacy are back with him again. Instead of this being a setback, it becomes an opportunity.”

But the audience now is as much the Democratic superdelegates, who are especially attuned to politics and questions of electability in the fall, as it is rank-and-file voters.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election.

That argument could be Mrs. Clinton’s last hope for winning this contest.

The Power of You...Six Degrees of Separation

This came to me last night, six degrees of separation and the political power of the individual. Each of us have the power of authenticity and influence on others in our personal and professional/organizational network. Simply by making the statement, coherently and concisely describing why you declare your support and some actively volunteer for Obama's candidacy to your personal network will have an enormous impact on that individual. It must be a personal statement, conversation or communique be it a letter or email. It needs to be presented in a non-confrontational manner and should simply say that you feel this is important to you and why the recipient should know why you are doing this. Do not directly ask for their support or persuade them except that you would welcome them to talk to you about your support of Obama and how they could help out or get involved.

Just to let you know the six degrees of separation theory is:

"...if a person is one step away from each person he or she knows and two steps away from each person who is known by one of the people he or she knows, then everyone is an average of six "steps" away from each person on Earth."

..."While the exact number of links between people differs depending on the population measured, it is generally found to be relatively small. Hence, six degree of separation is somewhat synonymous with the idea of the "small world" phenomenon."

Just for the effect this would be a general letter I might write to a sibling or old personal friend.

Dear Brother:

Spring time has arrived and again we haven't found the time to connect in our busy lives. The kids continue to grow and things continue to get tougher financially. I hope you are doing well. Anyway it is a Presidential election year and as usual I am involved again as you probably have heard. But unlike the past I think it is important that I tell you why I am so heavily involved in the Obama campaign. I am not here requesting that you suddenly "get religion" and jump on Obama's volunteer bandwagon or anything but, I think this time, this year you really know how I am thinking about this election.

First, brother, I want you to know I had gone to some Obama social meetings all the way back in the spring of 2007 as even back then I felt that this nation was thirsting for change. Since then I got involved in the campaign through the Obama volunteer network in county. Eventually I became a co-coordinator and Obama precinct captain and helped lead the county convention. The imbalances in our society and economy had already grown so profound and now unfortunately appear to be taking roost as even Greenspan is saying we are heading into the worst recession since World War II. We are feeling it now and only fret how deeper this will go. Naturally you know I was against the War in Iraq from the start and believe we are only there because this government has become absolutely unresponsive to its citizens. All I can say is simply look at how Dick Cheney responded to ABC News' question that two-thirds are against the war and Cheney's response was "SO"! We both know that the majority of Americans has been against this war since before the 2006 elections and yet what has been done---absolutely nothing. But it goes even deeper than that.

As I learned more about Obama, his vision, and the people who have come to support him, what the idea of "Change" is about comes down to this; taking back our democracy. As much as it was what Obama represented, the policies and political stands he took and expressed, it was who was supporting him, not some superdelegate or political leader, but the regular people around me---they were not political woks---they were all sorts of people from all walks of life and previous political persuasions. But as time went on what became the most apparent was the authenticity of Obama, his campaign and those normal people volunteer and activists that have come together. Sure there are those who have this problem with him, a previous political event or stance, whether he didn't protest his ministers rantings or his explanation there of, that he might be a liberal or a Democrat, that he has a Muslim derived name, that his supporters seem to almost worship him, or that he is a bi-racial man, mostly Black-American by some, or whatever. But the real problem is that he is authentic and thus he really means he is about change and that scares some. But in my opinion change is necessary.

Brother, as you probably cognitively know or can feel we are about to enter a real test of our nation's soul. By all accounts we are going to experience an economic distress such magnitude that only our parents or grandparents witnessed or felt in their youth. On top of that, we are going to have to find a way to remove our nation's military from Iraq and attempt to make peace with the Middle East. This will require a global solution. Then, just to add more crisises to that historical complexity, we face an energy-environmental crisis that could be more profound than our military misadventures and economic recessions. Then there is the personal and social complexity where we have to find a way to begin taking care of our nation's health care needs.

Not that Obama or his minions have all the answers, but at the very least through this campaign has been the only one who has been authentic and brave enough to confront the tough issues. This past week he has shown this mettle, where he faced America and addressed an emotional and personal issue that every other politician would have cowered and run away from. Yes race is an issue we have never adequately dealt with in our nation or lifetime but Obama faced it with a dignity and knowledge that no one before him did.

This is why I am supporting Obama. This is why I have taken my free time to telephone people, and knock on strangers doors, and why I writing you about how I feel. It is time for regular Americans to step up and make democracy work for us so we can solve the problems and issues that have put us in this place. I hope this has been informative to you and I am willing to discuss this with you if you feel comfortable.

The Day after "the speech" reactions, another speech, the Clinton's superdelegate endorsement

The day after "Obama's defining speech" on race and religion the reaction has been courageous, enlightening, sparking a national discussion, not enough, politically risky, contradictory, best speech since, lacking in any BS, but the best description comes from the New York Times in their op-ed: Obama's Profiles in Courage;

"There are moments — increasingly rare in risk-abhorrent modern campaigns — when politicians are called upon to bare their fundamental beliefs. In the best of these moments, the speaker does not just salve the current political wound, but also illuminates larger, troubling issues that the nation is wrestling with.

Inaugural addresses by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt come to mind, as does John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on religion, with its enduring vision of the separation between church and state. Senator Barack Obama, who has not faced such tests of character this year, faced one on Tuesday. It is hard to imagine how he could have handled it better."

Maureen Dowd, the provocative and sometimes contentious overly feminist leaning NY Times columnist said in her reactive piece Black & White & Gray:

"In many ways, Barack Obama’s speech on race was momentous and edifying.

You could tell it was personal, that he had worked hard on it, all weekend and into the wee hours Tuesday. Overriding aides who objected to putting race center stage, he addressed a painful, difficult subject straightforwardly with a subtlety and decency rare in American politics....

...A little disenchantment with Obama could turn out to be a good thing. Too much idealism can blind a leader to reality as surely as too much ideology can. He should be congratulated on the disappearance of the pedestal. Leaders don’t need to be messiahs. Gray is a welcome relief from black and white.

Other scholarly comments were collected in the NY Times report: An Effort to Bridge the Divide:

The speech violated several conventions of campaign discourse — for one, the injunction that all politicians must speak about racial and ethnic groups in upbeat stereotypes. “He didn’t romanticize us,” said Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor of Politics and African-American Studies at Princeton University, who used to attend services at Mr. Wright’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, when she lived in Chicago.

“We’re brilliant, and we’re stupid,” she said, echoing Mr. Obama. “We’re hopeful, and we’re angry.”

The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson's piece titled: Obama's Road Map on Race

"Once again, the conventional wisdom proved stunningly unwise. Barack Obama was supposed to be on his heels, forced into a backpedaling, defensive crouch after racially charged remarks by his former pastor, delivered from the pulpit years ago, suddenly became the hottest story of the presidential campaign. But instead of running away, Obama issued a challenge to those who would exploit the issue of race: Bring it on.

Yesterday morning, in what may be remembered as a landmark speech regardless of who becomes the next president, Obama established new parameters for a dialogue on race in America that might actually lead somewhere -- that might break out of the sour stasis of grievance and countergrievance, of insensitivity and hypersensitivity, of mutual mistrust...

The Chicago Tribune's John Kass wrote in his op-ed; "Obama sounds presidential but speech isn't about race"

Sen. Barack Obama not only confronted race in his speech Tuesday, he transcended it, and no honest American ear could ever be immune to the pitch, tone and quality of his words; not yours, not mine.

So much of what he said was undeniable and true and honestly spoken, in the calm and clear voice of a reasonable man explaining America's most unreasonable and hateful topic.

The LA Times's Tim Rutten's piece: Obama's Lincoln Moment,

The lawyer was Abraham Lincoln, and the speech was the famous"House Divided" address with which he accepted the Republican Party's nomination as a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Lincoln lost to Stephen Douglas, but the address changed the national conversation on slavery and, two years later, Lincoln was on his way from Springfield to the White House.

America's political story is studded with such addresses -- historical signposts that divide that which went before from all that followed on an issue of crucial national importance. Franklin Roosevelt's "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" speech fundamentally changed Americans' expectations of their government in times of social and economic crisis. John F. Kennedy's address on Catholicism and politics to the Greater Houston Ministerial Assn. in 1960 forever altered the way we think about religion and public office.

On the news front Senator Clinton earned Congressman John Murtha's endorsement today bringing her to 245 to Obama's 210.

Obama's "Philadelphia Race Speech"...being compared to MLK Jr's "I have a dream speech"

Today Barack Obama went from being a "political 'hero' to a national legend" with his speech on race and religion today in Philadelphia, at the National Constitution Center, not far from where the Declaration of Independence Hall. Even with my 50-year old cynical ears it was a stunning, no, it was speech that stopped people, pundits, opposition in their tracks. Obama "put it all on the table" described by MSNBC conservative-tilting Pat Buchanan, taking on the "Race Anger"in this country. Buchanan seemed to search for ways to be critical and said it might be one of the greatest speeches since the Martin Luther King Jr. "I have a dream speech".

Obama confronted frontally America's long-legacy of racial division straight on, taking on things like: black grievance, white resentment and the uproar over his former pastor's incendiary statements. He drew on his politically unique bi-racial half-black, half-white roots as no other presidential candidate could personally address as he asserted:

"This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected."

He went on to characterize the understanding of the passions on both sides or the racial divide in what he described as:

"a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years...

...But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races,"

The "speech" discussed issues regarding divisions from slavery to the O.J. Simpson trial to the government's efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Furthermore, he recognized his own race as being a major issue in this presidential campaign that has now taken on in the last few weeks:

"...particularly divisive turn."

Obama emphatically said the sermons delivered by Rev. Wright

"...rightly offend white and black alike."

While Obama absolutely rejected what Wright said, he also remained loyal to the man who had inspired his religious faith, officiating at his wedding, baptizing his daughters and who has been his spiritual guide for nearly 20 years.

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community," Obama said, speaking in front of eight American flags. "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Obama's speech continued where he admitted he knew Rev. Wright to occasionally be a fierce critic" of U.S. policy" and that his pastor sometimes made "controversial remarks in church that he disagreed with", but then he said

"...he never heard Wright talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms". These comments that have become a source of debate recently "were not only wrong but divisive" and have raised questions among voters...

...I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way. But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man...

...Wright's comments have sparked a discussion that reflect complexities of race in the United States that its people have never really resolved...

...We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow...

...The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning...

...the anger often distracts from solving real problems and bringing change. But he said it also exists in some segments of the white community that feels blacks are often given an unfair advantage through affirmative action...

...If we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American," Obama said, drawing a rare burst of applause in a somber address...

... the tasks of his campaign to be the first black president is to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America."

Another superdelegate discovered for Obama!

WBBM T-780 AM radio in their report regarding Margie woods committing stated that Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL) last week committed to Obama, this makes my count 210 (MSNBC has it 217), while I have Clinton's holding at 244. As noted Obama now has gained 49 superdelegates since Super Tuesday while Clinton has lost 7.

Another day another superdelegate commitment...to Obama

OKAY the weekend is over and the Obama camp is beginning to understand what it means to challenge power, for power knows no shame when it is attempting to hold onto its power. The power I am talking about is the power that is behind both the GOP and the Clinton contingency, it is the power that bails out Wall Street and is not even paying attention to Main Street, be it housing, healthcare, energy, jobs or education---meaning the "common good". Unfortunately for power when it forgets to properly manage the "common good" it loses all its underpinnings and trust within the governed allowing itself to be overturned---or as Thomas Jefferson said---a "revolution". Historically speaking it is self-evident that this election is going to have huge implications---or as 'DICK' Cheney once uttered..."elections have consequences [even those that were corrupted]. Today MSNBC reported that Greenspan stated that the current downturn in the economy could be the worst recession since World War II, [or in reality the Great Depression].

I will always remember the haunting passage in Paul O'Neill's pre-2004 book, "The Price of Loyalty" when he stated he had to resign his post as Secretary of Treasury because the Administration was not interested in doing competent policy but political-only policy. The thing is this draining of our economy and the further draining of our society is not just a Republican thing, the old leadership in the Democratic Party has also some accountability in mismanagement of the "common good". What Obama represents in mind and soul is to fundamentally change this entire system as Lincoln looked at the system in 1860 where the North and new West felt they were "aggrieved" with the South's stranglehold on the Federal Government with its slave-state economy and politics.

Now with the news of the day, Margie Woods (DNC-IL) committed to Obama today, the Minority Leader on the Will County Board, (part of the district that just elected a Democrat to succeed GOP'er Dennis Hastert), citing Obama ability to unite the country:

“I support Barack Obama for president because he is an inclusive candidate who is trying to unite our country, democrats, independents and republicans, around a common purpose. I have spent decades in public service, and I’ve never seen our young people so engaged and enthusiastic. Barack Obama hasn’t forgotten where he’s come from, and I believe he has the experience and the character to lead this great nation forward.”

In the other big news of course is Obama's 9-delegate gain in the Iowa County Conventions
Statewide: Obama won 52%, Clinton 32% and Edwards 16%. There are 16 delegates split up proportionately with Obama nabbing 8 delegates to Clinton's 5 and Edwards' 3.
picking up some of Edwards support and garnishing 52% of the county votes to Clinton's 32%.

Cong. District 1 (6 delegates): Obama won 54% to Clinton's 31% and Edwards' 14% (no viability). Obama won these delegates 4-2.

Cong. District 2 (7 delegates): Obama won 51% to Clinton's 30% to Edwards' 19%. Obama won these delegates 4-2-1

Cong. District 3: (6 delegates): Obama won 51% to Clinton's 31% to Edwards 18%. Obama won these delegates 3-2-1.

Cong. District 4: (6 delegates): Obama won 55% to Clinton's 34% to Edwards' 11% (no viability). Obama won these delegates 4-2.

Cong. District 5 (4 delegates): Obama won 47% to Clinton's 37% and Edwards' 15%. Obama won these delegates 2-1-1.

All told the count for each candidate: 25 for Obama, up from 16 from caucus night Jan 3rd, ), 14 for Clinton in that she lost one from her projection on caucus night 6 are still attached to Edwards, a loss of 8 since that historical night. MSNBC's overall delegate count is

• Pledged Count: Obama leads 1,409-1,250
• Superdelegates: Clinton leads 253-217
• OVERALL TOTAL: Obama leads 1,626-1,503
  

Obama netted 10 delegates from this new Iowa phase, which is more delegates than Clinton netted out of Ohio. som people in the political world are thinking that the Clinton campaign negative comments towards the caucuses is costing Clinton more delegates as now other caucus states meet for state convention final voting for national delegations.

Presidential election of Obama pivoting on how he handles Rev. Wright

Make no mistake, Rev. Wright is more than provocative, some of his comments and characterizations are incendinary, inciting, inflammatory statements, which are often made by ministers of all this country. I have personally heard what I consider "looney things" from Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, Unitarian-Universalist preachers, Buddhist monks , and other religious commentators and educators. (If I left anyone out, if so I sincerely apologize.) That all said, this is what religious people do, they challenge the world around them and often believe that they have the right and permission to confront our human world that is full of hypocrisy, hubris and flawed headed thoughts. And further, being a member of a church or congregation is much more than merely a minister or a minister's few statements, even though they may be politically or socially divisive utterances it is a place for community, social involvement, interpersonal interactions, religious education for children, family rites, spiritual growth and reflection. Let me say with all confidence I can disagree with a minister's statement but have remained in a congregation because of everything else, but if everything else is not there even the best minister will not have me motivated to join or attend. O.K. that is the complete disclaimer for I am not running for President for all of America.

Thus if Obama is going to become President of the entire United States he must be the uniter that he is running as his basic premise. In short, he must prove this ability and personality to fulfill this mantra and mandate. I HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT OBAMA WILL DO IT and he is beginning to make the case with his appearance on MSNBC's Olbermann and now FoxNews' Major. I suspect he will be this focus of the Sunday morning shows where Obama will have the opportunity to separate himself from Clinton and McCain by how he handles this.

I don't think this has been a surprise and I think they are prepared. In the end Obama must pivot and show he is not part of one "radical" constituency---meaning African Americans and develop a new constituency, that defines the 21st Century and not the tired post JFK Democratic constituencies. If he doesn't do it I don't think he will get the nomination. Way back to April 2007 where Rev. Wright acknowledged that he knew that if Obama prevailed in the primary season that Obama would have to separate from him and his ministry.

Today, Obama took the cue and finished his Plainfield IN speech by saying he is not just an African-American but he has a part of all America in him. That if we have to move forward off race and the divides of the past to solve the real problems of today. I think the timing is perfect for Obama to pivot off of March's season into April where he closes hard seeking to unite the party and the nation.

One last comment: I had a conversation with my parents this morning that immediately turned to Obama. They are old time Republicans, but I dare say they are disgruntled GOP'ers for they are not enamored by the party and have not been for years. My mother was really concerned about the "radical" ideas expressed by Rev. Wright and I responded as here where I said Obama will have to show he is the President of all the people and cast off this ministry. This will prove his mettle and she said she hopes so. That is a confirmation of Obama's crossover appeal.

More superdelegate news: Obama gains another...Bloomberg: Obama Cuts Into Clinton's Delegate Lead Among Elected Officials

Today the Obama campaign announced another superdelegate commitment, Melissa Schroeder (DNC-WI) , Wisconsin’s 7th District Democratic Party Secretary citing his [Obama's] unique ability to stand up to the special interests and unite all Americans to bring about real, meaningful change.

Melissa Schroeder said: “After much consideration, I have decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama. My decision came down to electability and who I felt would do a better job of unifying this country for a common purpose. Obama’s message of hope and change has touched millions of voters in a way that I haven’t seen since the late 1960’s. People from every walk of life, young and the not so young, Democrats, Independents and some Republicans, are all rallying around a belief that change can happen if we want it bad enough. With Obama as our nominee, I am confident that this November we will increase our majority in the House and Senate and elect a Democrat to the White House.”

Bloomberg.com reports that Obama is almost even to Clinton in endorsements from top-elected party officials and has cut into her lead among the other superdelegates, which she's counting on to win the nomination.

Among the 313 of 796 superdelegates who are members of Congress or governors, Clinton has commitments from 103 and Obama is backed by 96, according to lists supplied by the campaigns. Fifty-three of Obama's endorsements have come since he won the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, compared with 12 who have aligned with Clinton since then.

"That's not glacial, that is a remarkable momentum,'' Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, a superdelegate and Obama supporter, said in an interview. "I don't think there is anything that will slow that down.''

Democratic elected officials have the most at stake in the nomination because the candidate at the top of the ticket in November will have an impact on state and local races.

In the overall race for superdelegates -- elected and party officials who automatically receive votes at the Democratic National Convention that will choose the nominee -- Clinton leads Obama in commitments by 249 to 212, according to an Associated Press tally.

TPM: Michigan "Do-Over" about to happen

I am absolutely in favor of this "Revote" both tactically and strategically. Michigan's 136 pledged delegates would conceivably be split between 63 and 68 delegates adding to Obama's projected 1700 bring him to less than 200 to 2025. Michigan also forces Florida to do something. I actually think Obama could win Michigan start closing out the nomination prior to July. Here is the TalkingPointsMemo.com story.

The Obama campaign's Michigan co-chair says that all the momentum right now in private negotiations between Michigan Dems is behind the option of having a redo primary in the state, suggesting that an agreement on a redo is likely.

"There's a lot of momentum behind the redo option," the Obama official, State Senator Tupac Hunter, told me by phone a few minutes ago, adding that he'd been in discussions with Michigan Democratic Party officials as late as last night. The redo option is "taking up the lion's share of the discussions," Hunter says.

Hunter also said that the mail-in vote option, which the Obama camp had expressed concerns about, is "pretty much dead."

Separately, the Associated Press, citing anonymous officials, reports that Michigan Democrats are close to an agreement on the redo option. Hunter's comments represent on-the-record confirmation of this.

The word in political circles today is that an announcement of a deal on a redo could come today, but I haven't yet been able to confirm that this is the case.

Hunter explained that the redo is looking like the most likely option because the Obama camp is raising concerns about the mail-in option and the Hillary camp is unlikely to accept a 50-50 split of the delegates. Hunter also added that another idea that's been discussed is waiting to the end of the voting on the understanding that the state would throw all its pledged dels behind the eventual winner, but he noted that the Hillary camp wouldn't likely accept that, either.

"What this whole thing boils down to is either you do nothing, you have a redo primary, or you wait [until the end]," Hunter said. "The redo is the direction that everyone is moving in. The question now is how and when. These things are being discussed."

Hunter added that if the redo is agreed on, one hurdle is that the legislature might have to ratify it as early as next week.

More soon.

Today's "toilet bowl" campaign rhetoric and the revealing apparently new political partnership---"Clintonista's" and the Right-Wing[Nuts]

Oh how far we have fallen from the 20 or so policy debates the Democratic candidates until now. Yesterday cable news pundits after pundits extolled all forms of moral indignation over Clinton's and Obama's supporters and their apparent racial or unpatriotic exclamations. Yes, I posted Ferraro's story and Oberrman's Countdown Special Comment and I am going to post Rev. Jeremiah Wright's inflammatory statements as well. There are two questions one has to ask through this new period: Why has this come about? And Who is this benefiting?

Yesterday on MSNBC as I was attempting to channel surf I came across Dan Abrams asking whether the press had fallen into a trap of discussing the minutia of controversial statements by those who support the candidates. Naturally the panel of other NBC/national press pundits agreed it had fallen into a bad state, but that they all thought it was fair game because , afterall the President is about "character" issues also. Their tack was how does a candidate respond to inflammatory statements. Now the hot potato was in Obama's lap over Rev. Wright's stuff and since Wright was on a ceremonial African-American spiritual guidance committee he had to be fired also. Furthermore Obama needed to be even more virulent in distancing himself from Wright, more than the CNN statement of:

“Sen. Obama has said before that he profoundly disagrees with some of the statements and positions of Rev. Wright… Sen. Obama deplores divisive statements, whether they come from his supporters, the supporters of his opponent, talk radio or anywhere else.’’

The controversial statements by Rev. Wright are:

"Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home, Barack was. Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary! Hillary can never know that. Hillary has never been called a n-----! Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person."

The article continues with a sermon by Wright at Howard University were he blamed America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs and creating a racist society that would never elect a black candidate president. The it quotes Wright on Jan. 15, 2006.

"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he began. "Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."

"America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

"We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . ."

"We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."

As a 50 year-old white guy, raised in a racial mixed but mostly segregated working class community north of Chicago and educated as a political scientist I cannot disagree with with the factual representations of what the Reverend made. To some whites I know they don't like to face the reality that their heritage is one of adjunct privilege compared to African-Americans, Latino's, or Asian-Americans, but institutional discrimination existed and even though it is waning, it still has its profound effect. Let me break this down point-by-point.

• There are more African-Americans in prison---10.4% of the entire U.S. population of Black-Americans; approximately 800,000 while 600,000 enrolled in college in 2000, (source--Infoplease) . Comparably speaking in 1980, 143,000 were in prison and 464,000 were enrolled in college. SO I ASK YOU WHAT IS MORE INFLAMMATORY...the speech or the statistics?
• Now you might not like Rev. Wright's interpretation or connection to this statistic and his world view of U.S.'s history but again it is factually correct, America was founded as a racially-based slave nation. As far as whether a bi-racial African-American person (Barack Obama) can be elected is to be determined this year.
  
• Literally speaking I am unsure as to whether the U.S. is the number one killer compared to Darfur, Rwanda, Nigeria, Congo, or what is going on in China, but it is now becoming accepted that the U.S. is responsible for up to 500,000 pre-mature deaths in Iraq as a consequence of an invasion of choice. It is also becoming known that the CIA induced greater illegal drug trade for nefarious purposes, and our recent history in my generation we did induce the carnage in Cambodia that killed over a million people and hundreds of thousands of politically motivated killings in Nicaragua, Argentina and Chile.
  
• As a young political scientist I did study under Professor Gwendolen Carter
  at Indiana University where she was one of the world's scholars on South Africa's apartheid. The U.S. was complicit in that foreign policy and until it became a global disgrace did it change its policies.
• Zionism is well-documented and albeit a seemingly global solution for one group of disadvantaged and ravaged ethnics the U.S. never addressed the fundamental unfairness and issues related to the Palestinians thereby allowing Israel to oppress and slaughter them without accountability.
  
• Regarding the "Third World" once only has to read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" to understand the economic empire the U.S. has engineered and reaps a daily harvest.
  
• As for Hillary not growing up in anything but a privileged home that is true and one's unique experiences does shape one's world views and thus outside his oratory style of confrontation what is so wrong with these statements?

Because they offend the reality of many in White America, who believe if they are not part of the KKK or other outright discriminating practices they are not accountable to the system. Ministers don't allow you off the hook like that, they shame you take action, especially social active ministers. So in my mind the hugg-abooo is about simply many in White America don't get it. But should Barack Obama distance himself from this. I say no, he should explain it in terms that his other half understands. We in America have done bad things, in the name of good, bad or greed we have done bad things and we must atone for that.

So now back to the questions of why and who? The why is simple: The Clinton camp is dead set on tearing down the mantle of Obama, regardless of the cost they are going to do it because if they can't win this year, they look at 2012 as the rebound. If Obama is elected in 2008, she will not have the opportunity, she will 70-years old in 2016 and there will be a new political riser in the Democratic Party. In fact it will probably be a woman, Senator McCaskill or Governor Kathleen Sebelius or Michigan's, Arizona's, or Washington State's.

As I see it these are not spontaneous acts anymore; attacking Obama on race has been going on at each step, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Ohio/Texas, now Ferraro and finally this bushwhack from NewsMax ( Farrakhan January 14th and FOX News's Hannity ) this weekend the 2+2+? is obvious. We know Clinton has been connected to Drudge one of the early rightwing[nuts] of the blogosphere where he dropped the Obama muslim garb picture. We know Limbaugh has been motivating crossovers to vote for Hillary and that Bill was on his radio program when Rush was curiously absent and now we have FOX News doing this hatchet job. NewMax is another rightwing online group. So Clinton continues to carry out this, scorched earth politics, what are you going to do about it?

Is SNL playing favorites? Hardball and Chicago Tribune

Here is a concept, if they are asking the question it is legitimate issue. The Chicago Tribune approached the subject this morning in Saturday Night Live' takes pro-Hillary Clinton allegations seriously. So is it the 'intent' or the 'effect', and because the stakes are so high SNL is responsible regardless for as Loren Michaels puts it:

..."has long maintained that the show risks its comedy credentials if it appears partisan. So he is troubled by the recent chatter that the venerable late-night program has exhibited a pro-Hillary Clinton bent."

"That's a major concern," Michaels said. "I can assure you that there's no agenda, that there's only a reaction to what's going in the world."

When media toughened its coverage of Sen. Barack Obamaafter a "SNL" sketch portrayed the press as fawning over him, analysts credited the show in part for the shift. (Obama even joked that he was going to call Michaels to complain.)

A series of other bits in recent weeks have contributed to the perception that the program is trying to sway public opinion toward Clinton. Guest host Tina Fey gave a shout-out to the New York senator, saying women like her "get stuff done." The candidate herself made a lighthearted appearance the following week, appearing in a matching brown tweed suit with cast member Amy Poehler, who plays Clinton on the show.

Two days later, Clinton performed strongly in the Ohio and Texas primaries. Seth Meyers, one of show's three head writers, said he was amused by suggestions that "Saturday Night Live" changed the momentum of the race.

"We don't quite feel we've affected it as much as people want to give us credit for," he said.

"The show happens too quickly for any of us to have an agenda," added Meyers, who donated $1 ,000 to Obama in January. "And our egos as comedy writers are too big to ever let our own political loyalties get in the way of a joke. So we aim for whatever is the richest to be satirized on any given week."But the scrutiny has also forced the late-night institution to contemplate whether it has a responsibility to provide equal doses of satire in a tightly fought race.

Michaels believes one of the factors fueling the perception that "SNL" has a bias toward Clinton may be Poehler herself, who plays the New York senator as a woman laboring valiantly to ignore the jibes sent her way.

"People can confuse the charm of the character with the person," he said.

For her part, Poehler noted that "people forget that we did two full years of kind of slamming her in a lot of stuff."

"I've certainly done her in other situations before on the show in not so flattering ways," she said. "I think there's been a history of different takes on her."

Still, the show's writers were divided when Clinton's campaign called and said that the candidate was interested in making an appearance on the show March 2, right before the Ohio and Texas primaries.


"Some people thought it wasn't a good idea," Michaels said. "Would it appear partisan?"

In the end, he felt it was only fair, since Obama had been on the program in November. But he added that "we were very clear that she was doing something that would be written for her and that it was not a campaign appearance in any sense."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the candidate is not concerned that his rival is getting a lift from "SNL."

"Frankly, Barack Obama knows he's good enough, smart enough and, gosh darn it, he's won more states, more votes and more delegates, and that's what probably matters more anyway," he quipped, à la Stuart Smalley.

For the most part, the writers said they believe the show's balance is apparent over time, although the program did consciously try to spoof Clinton last week. Playing off her ominous "3 a.m." ad that suggested Obama lacked the experience to handle a crisis, the piece showed stark black-and-white photos of a panicked President Obama calling Clinton at home for help.

"If anything, it was sympathetic toward Obama," Michaels said, though he admitted not everyone saw it that way."

On today Hardball Chris Matthews dissected precisely when he told a SNL writer that unintended consequences like Orson Wells "War of the Worlds" Show in the 1930's had an effect. So the question is not whether SNL is partisan, the effect has been partisan---BUSTED

My letter to editor in the Colorado Springs Gazette:

Gazette link
March 11, 2008 - 11:21PM

VOTER REGISTRATIONS

Clerk's office dropped ball on central responsibility

This is a response to Sandra Parcher's letter regarding El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Bob Balink's offices ("Clerk's mistake highlights holes in system," March 4). Parcher was not alone in being disenfranchised by the mistakes of the County Clerk's office. Following the Democratic caucuses there was an estimated excess of 100 or so individuals who were elected as delegates/alternates, but whose credentials were later challenged because of registration issues. They were challenged as either Unaffiliated, Republican, not in correct precinct or not registered at all.

At the caucus, each of these individuals insisted they were registered properly, then signed a legal affidavit insisting on being a qualified voter. When the Democratic Party subsequently contacted them about their credentials being challenged, many were surprised or profusely disagreed. Some actually did go down as suggested to the county office, seeking to produce the original paperwork and receive a certificate for proper status. Some were able to prove their registration and were given credentials. Many others did not. Yes, some voters were mistaken about their registration status, but that was the exception, not the rule.

In the future, the Democratic Party leadership will be even more vigilant regarding Balink's office. Isn't it curious that basic issues remain for real citizens to register with Balink's office, where he ironically has been focused on the phantom issue regarding the potential of a non-citizen registering? How many resources did Balink use conducting some biased survey on registration instead of using taxpayer resources making certain his voter registration system was in order?

Bob and Sue Nemanich, Colorado Springs

Here is a response....interesting the same problems were in the GOP also!

kcp123 wrote:

Bob and Sue Nemanich, you make it sound like the screwed up credentials were only in the Democrats' caucuses. I was in a Republican caucus, and our precinct was thoroughly messed up, too.

Clinton loses two...two...superdelegates, gains one....

The superdelegate news brought two more losses to the Clinton campaign, one because of Governor Spitzer's resignation (Patterson is already one as one of NY's at-large) and Texas' David Hardt (DNC) where he moved to the uncommitted. Clinton also got Virgin Island's Kevin Rodriquez who committed last month.

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment: on Clinton's Campaign [and Ferraro]

Last night on Keith Olbermann's Countdown, he gave one of eventful 5-minute Special Comment in the rebirth of Edward R. Morrow's journalistic style. It is an interesting read and in his way sums up the disparaging Clinton campaign tack they have taken.

Finally, as promised, a Special Comment on the presidential campaign of the Junior Senator from New York.

By way of necessary preface, President and Senator Clinton -- and the Senator's mother, and the Senator's brother -- were of immeasurable support to me at the moments when these very commentaries were the focus of the most surprise, the most uncertainty, and the most anger. My gratitude to them is abiding.

Also, I am not here endorsing Senator Obama's nomination, nor suggesting it is inevitable.
Thus I have fought with myself over whether or not to say anything.
Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone-deaf, arrogant, and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro... your own advisors are slowly killing your chances to become President.

Senator, their words, and your own, are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become President.

In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you are dis enthralling an enchanted media, and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Senator Obama.

You may think the matter has closed with Representative Ferraro's bitter, almost threatening resignation.

But in fact, Senator, you are now campaigning, as if Barock Obama were the Democrat, and you… were the Republican.

As Shakespeare wrote, Senator -- that way… madness… lies.

You have missed a critical opportunity to do... what was right.
No matter what Ms. Ferraro now claims, no one took her comments out of context.
She had made them on at least three separate occasions, then twice more on television this morning.

Just hours ago, on NBC Nightly News, she denied she had made the remarks in an interview -- only at a paid political speech. In fact, the first time she spoke them, was ten days before the California newspaper published them... not in a speech, but in a radio interview.

On February 26th, quoting...

"If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this, as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he's in? Absolutely not."

The context was inescapable.

Two minutes earlier, a member of Senator Clinton's Finance Committee, one of her "Hill-Raisers," had bemoaned the change in allegiance by Super-Delegate John Lewis from Clinton to Obama, and the endorsement of Obama by Senator Dodd.

"I look at these guys doing it," she had said, "and I have to tell you, it's the guys sticking together."

A minute after the "color" remarks, she was describing herself as having been chosen for the 1984 Democratic ticket, purely as a woman politician, purely to make history.
She was, in turn, making a blind accusation of sexism -- and dismissing Senator Obama's candidacy as nothing more than an Equal Opportunity stunt.
The next day she repeated her comments to a reporter from the newspaper in Torrance, California.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

And when this despicable statement -- ugly in its overtones, laughable in its weak grip of facts, and moronic in the historical context -- when it floats outward from the Clinton Campaign like a poison cloud, what do the advisors have their candidate do? Do they have Senator Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis talking on Nightline... on Jackie Robinson day... about how blacks lacked the necessities to become baseball executives, while she points out that Barock Obama has not gotten his 1600 delegates as part of some kind of Affirmative Action plan?

Do they have Senator Clinton note that her own brief period in elected office, is as irrelevant to the issue of judgment as is Senator Obama's……while she points out that FDR had served only six years as a governor and state Senator before he became President?

Or that Teddy Roosevelt had four-and-a-half years before the White House?

Or that Woodrow Wilson had two years and six weeks?

Or Richard Nixon… fourteen... and Calvin Coolidge 25?

Do these advisors have Senator Clinton invoke Samantha Power -- gone by sunrise after she used the word "monster" -- and have Senator Clinton say, "this is how I police my campaign and this is what I stand for," while she fires former Congresswoman Ferraro from any role the campaign?

No.

Somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient.
And she should then call, "regrettable", words that should make any Democrat retch.
And that she should then try to twist them, first into some pox-on-both-your-houses plea to 'stick to the issues,' and then to let her campaign manager try to bend them beyond all recognition, into Senator Obama's fault.

And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Senator Clinton's campaign back into the vocabulary... of David Duke.

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up.
"Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white.
"How's that?"

How's that? Apart from sounding exactly like Rush Limbaugh attacking the black football quarterback Donovan McNabb?

Apart from sounding exactly like what Ms. Ferraro said about another campaign, nearly twenty years ago?

Quote:

"President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

So... apart from sounding like insidious racism that is at least two decades old?
Apart from rendering ridiculous, Senator Clinton's shell-game about choosing Obama as Vice President?
Apart from this evening's resignation letter?

"I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.
"The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you."

Apart from all that?

Well. It sounds as if those advisors want their campaign to be associated with those words, and the cheap… ignorant… vile… racism that underlies every syllable...
And that Geraldine Ferraro has just gone free-lance.
Senator Clinton:

This is not a campaign strategy.

This is a suicide pact.

This week alone, your so-called strategists have declared that Senator Obama has not yet crossed the "commander-in-chief threshold"…

But -- he might be your choice to be Vice President, even though a quarter of the previous sixteen Vice Presidents have become commander-in-chief during the greatest kind of crisis this nation can face: a mid-term succession.
But you'd only pick him if he crosses that threshold by the time of the convention.
But if he does cross that threshold by the time of the convention, he will only have done so sufficiently enough to become Vice President, not President.

Senator, if the serpentine logic of your so-called advisors were not bad enough...
Now, thanks to Geraldine Ferraro, and your campaign's initial refusal to break with her, and your new relationship with her -- now more disturbing still with her claim that she can now "speak for herself" about her vision of Senator Obama as some kind of embodiment of a quota...

If you were to seek Obama as a Vice President, it would be, to Ms. Ferraro, some kind of social engineering gesture, some kind of racial make-good.
Do you not see, Senator?

To Senator Clinton's supporters, to her admirers, to her friends for whom she is first choice, and her friends for whom she is second choice, she is still letting herself be perceived as standing next to, and standing by, racial divisiveness and blindness…
And worst yet, after what President Clinton said during the South Carolina primary, comparing the Obama and Jesse Jackson campaigns -- a disturbing, but only borderline remark...

After what some in the black community have perceived as a racial undertone to the "3 A-M" ad... a disturbing -- but only borderline interpretation...

And after that moment's hesitation in her own answer on 60 Minutes about Obama's religion -- a disturbing, but only borderline vagueness...

After those precedents, there are those who see a pattern... false, or true.

After those precedents, there are those who see an intent... false, or true.

After those precedents, there are those who see the Clinton campaign's anything-but-benign neglect of this Ferraro catastrophe -- falsely or truly -- as a desire to hear the kind of casual prejudice which still haunts this society voiced... and to not distance the campaign from it.

To not distance you from it, Senator!

To not distance you... from that which you as a woman, and Senator Obama as an African-American, should both know and feel with the deepest of personal pain!
Which you should both fight with all you have!

Which you should both insure, has no place in this contest!

This, Senator Clinton, is your campaign, and it is your name.

Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice, before it is too late.
Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth.

Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, and to call it regrettable.
Her only reaction has been to brand herself as the victim, resign from your committee, and insist she will continue to speak.

Unless you say something definitive, Senator, the former Congresswoman is speaking with your approval.

You must remedy this.

And you must... reject... and denounce... Geraldine Ferraro.
Good night, and good luck.