Are We Just Crabs in the Barrel?

After the Iowa caucuses in January I had brunch in New York with a good friend who is the one and only born and bred Iowan I know. (I actually know her sister and brother as well, but "Beth" is a good friend of mine from business school back in the late 90s.) Rather condescendingly (in retrospect), I told her that I was quite impressed that Iowa--a state that is 97% white--had so strongly supported Barack Obama and basically turned him into the first viable African American presidential candidate. She dressed me down for my presumptuousness about Iowans, but props to her for showing this Northeasterner that Iowans take their politics seriously.

At the time I was neutral in the democratic race but starting to pay attention as I'd heard so much about this Barack Obama. I'd heard essays on NPR refuting the charge within the African-American community that Obama "wasn't black enough." My friend Beth strongly supports Clinton because she believes she's the most qualified and she wants to see a woman in the White House. With the charge of "not being black enough," I felt kinship with Obama because I too have felt the sting of that charge from other African-Americans my whole life and I too wanted a president who reflected my life experience as a black man making it in a white world.

In considering Obama as a candidate, I was also dismayed that some (Andrew Young et al) in the previous generation of civil rights leaders were throwing their support to Clinton or hesitating to support Obama, stating that they were being loyal to their friend Clinton and that it wasn't Obama's turn. Never mind that Obama's candidacy is the embodiment of Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of America's future! That's politics though. Loyalty to one's friends is important and everyone who wanted a seat at the table surely expected Clinton to emerge decisively as the democratic nominee. Pity poor John Lewis if Clinton pulls it out!

Personally, I explained to my friend that day that some of the old guard were acting like "crabs in a barrel," a phrase that is used in the black community when we pull down a brother or a sister because we don't want them to get above or ahead of us, like crabs in a barrel clawing at each other to try and come out on top. Now I see this same dynamic writ large with the re-emergence of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In his speech in Philadelphia, Obama went to great lengths not to disown Rev. Wright, much to the dismay of some critics who thought that he'd ducked the most important question: How can you explain and condone your relationship with a man who said such hateful and patently false things? Obama no doubt felt that he had provided a full contextual explanation, but now that Wright has spoken up for himself in such an angry and self-aggrandizing way, Obama will have to address the role his "spiritual mentor" has played in his life.

The real questions are twofold:

1. How are we to believe that Obama has good judgment in aligning himself with Rev. Wright? His pastor has so actively denigrated the chances for one of his flock to rise to the greatest political office in the world. Yet Obama proudly declared that he could no sooner disown Wright than he could his white grandmother, a woman who raised him for a time when he was young. He must provide some explanation to all Americans, especially those in Indiana who will vote next week. Frankly, I don't think he has the time to fully explain and turn the tide before next Tuesday.


2. Can Obama rise to the challenge of defusing this situation and move on politically? This is something he must demonstrate to the superdelegates lest they start to buy into Clinton's argument that he is not ready for the fall and he cannot win. It is completely within Barack Obama's power to win on this if he's willing to dissociate himself from the reverend and answer the questions before him. My sense is that he wants to put this behind him by acting as though the reverend doesn't have great influence on him politically or that this is political noise not worthy of his attention. This may be true, but if he thinks his opponents are going to let slide a chance to weaken him, he's crazy! And if the voters in Indiana don't buy his explanations, Hillary Clinton will have even greater evidence that "he can't win" demonstrated emprically because he will have failed to win over voters.

The bottom line for me is starting to become that if Obama is not willing to fight for this, then maybe he truly doesn't deserve to win. There. I said it and I hope I don't regret it. Hillary, reincarnated as a political version of The Terminator, has shown she keeps on fighting when knocked down. What kind of fight is Obama going to show the American people?

• Update: I purposely wrote my post above without reading my usual media sources to gather perspective. I wanted to get my own ideas down before turning to the web to see what else is being written. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, no friend to Obama's candidacy certainly, summed it up the best: "Rev. Wright is exacerbating [racial politics] in a way not seen in recent years. Barack Obama cannot remain on both sides of this. He has to make a decision. He is not running for national Mediator. He is running for President. In time, that job brings tough decisions. He's there now." Conservatives might oppose Obama philosophically, but I'm sure many, George Will and Sean Hannity excepted, do not wish the nation's first viable Black presidential candidate to be brought low like this.

A Must See Interview--make it viral!

This man has to be president!!!!

The Democratic Party and It's Split Personality

The Democratic Party has an illness of split personality. We have those that believe tradition will see us through and feels safe and a those that believe the past has held us back from getting what we want. These "folks" have been split by education, race, age and gender. It is amazing what a choice between a black man and a white woman could do to an ideology. But the funny thing is I don't think it's about race and gender as much as it is about principles. If you believe that a good hard fight with a some good wounds is okay as long as you win (more work), you vote Clinton. If you believe a good hard fight is getting to the fundamental truth of what's wrong and believe that the more engaged the country is the more things will change (smart work), you are an Obama supporter. This is fundamentally huge differences between A types and B types in personality.

Let's look at this further. These are two extremely different points of view! The opposite if you will. Obama has not brought his message to a simple digestible state for Hillary's experienced fighters to grasp and Hillary hasn't touched the intellect of the educated with her brawling. It's split and only a few will cross over because it is simple personality. I think we will see more of this in the Fall. If Obama wins, the brawlers may find comfort in a military man. If Clinton wins, the intellects will have no where to go and stay home. This doesn't bode well for Democrats.

But if for a moment the brawlers and the intellects could just get together and find the common ground of economic woes, they will see that McCain does not suit their interests. Who can deliver that message best?

Now for reality meets myth.

Myth: Why can't Obama knock her out?

Fact: Why can't Clinton knock him out? The previous question is always asked as if there is something wrong with Obama. As if there is this expectation of perfection. When did coming from NO WHERE become so trivial! Clinton is losing!!! Losing! There is no pleasant way for her to win. Trust me if Obama was broke, behind in every concievable aspect of how to win the nomination with out the Superdelegates, he would not still be in the race! Clinton has failed. She represents the party establishment and couldn't hold off a rooky with a funny name from taking 11 states in a row that pushed his lead to a sizable gap that she can not overcome. HER FAULT! In fighting, no money, negativity is all created by her campaign. The only way for her to win is to convince superdelegates that he is unelectable. The only way she can do that is by trying to make him unelectable. The only way she can do that is by wrecking his creditbility as a new kind of politics. She should not conceed the race, and nor should Obama. But she is not doing anything bigger or better than he is either...except dragging the party into a not so good place to start the fight for the Fall.

Here is some juicy info on why Obama is ahead so far. He has won 15 contests above 60 points! Clinton has won 1. Obama's overall points average to 54 and Clintons is 41. He is on average beating her by 13 points! This is why he is ahead.

Let me repeat. Out of the 30 states of 45 Obama has won, he has won 15 of them with more than 20 points! This is amazing considering he is a rooky with a funny name and "association" baggage. He is winning. More people want Obama! She should have blown out PA since that is like his HI (He won 76 to 24). The same for NY. she won 57 to 40. Where in IL he won 65 to 33. These are things to compare. How do the people that know you vote? I won't even mention Kansas and Arkansas. Okay I will. His spread was 48 to her 44. The largest spread of this run for office has been 80 to 17 in Idaho for Obama. WOW!!!

Have faith my fellow Obama supports. This will be over soon. Change is wanted and Obama is that change.

Here's the Rub on the Final Debate

Obama didn't do well in the last debate. In fact, this debate may indeed be the last as he has indicated little interest in another proposed debate ahead of the North Carolina primary. I don't think skipping a debate is a good idea because he should end on a high note. Why allow your last debate performance to be one that was nearly universally panned?

Much rancor has been aimed at the moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, for doing a shoddy job in the first 45 minutes and waiting until the debate was half over to get into the "real issues that voters care about." Are these same complainers at all chastened that for such a supposedly shoddy job done by the moderators, this was the highest rated debate so far this election cycle? Perhaps people care more than the media elite can measure.

While I can agree that Obama took fire from both Clinton and the moderators, he certainly did not show that he can perform under pressure. The White House press corps is not known for playing patty cake with the President. Yes, the questions were inane and not about the issues, but they were certainly about topics that have been in the headlines, the editorial pages and on the blogs. Our man seemed not only agitated but also ill prepared. Does he have feet of clay? Can he not take a difficult situation and use his political skills to turn the situation to his advantage? We saw him do that the day after, brushing himself off (talk about seeming pompous!) and decrying Washington tactics, but the job he is applying for is in Washington. It will take leadership to change the culture of Washington, more leadership and political skill than he showed on Wednesday.

He was so off his game from the beginning of the debate that when the discussion did turn to policies he was wrongheaded or decidedly impolitic in some of his answers:

1. Does he really think that the nuclear umbrella must extend beyond Israel to our other Middle Eastern allies like Saudi Arabia (with whom most Americans do not identify culturally)? This is new foreign policy seeminly concocted on the spot by both candidates.
2. If keeping the capital gains tax low brings in more revenues, what is the point of raising the capital gains? To punish people who invest in American companies (who are not all super wealthy by the way)? Many of us who have 401(k)s have been told that we need to invest in stocks to receive the best returns. Why punish ordinary folks trying to build their retirement income? And besides, he might have to lower the capital gains tax to zero if he wishes to entice Republicans to pass health care reform.
3. Why would he commit to removing troops from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground and advice from his generals? No one believes that he has enough information at this moment to make such a promise. How about a little wiggle room please?
4. And a no new taxes pledge? Ridiculous! Bill Clinton went back on his proposed middle class tax cut as soon as he took office and got a better understanding of the state of the economy in light of his economic goals (see #3 regarding committing before knowing all the facts). Clinton's flip flop came after bludgeoning Bush the father in the campaign for going back on his reversal of his "read my lips" pledge. Again, answer in a way that still provides cover.

I take solace only in the fact that the real campaign has not yet been joined. Once the presumptive democratic nominee has a chance to define himself to the general electorate in contrast to John McCain, we'll see a much better measure of Obama's political skills under duress. But what a shame that Obama's final debate performance was also his worst.

It's Painful but Necessary to Keep Going

Maureen Dowd, who has no love lost for the Clintons, has been like a journalistic mentor to Barack Obama. I can imagine her following him around on his campaign stops, sitting in back of his plane listening to him talking with the media and then going back to her laptop and writing her columns explaining the political universe to him. She writes in a rather literary style, sometimes referring to classical opera or even Harry Potter for her good vs. evil view of Obama vs. Clinton.

She has been gently prodding him over the last several months to administer the knockout blow to his rival not just to make sure that she stays down, but to prove to everyone that he could actually do it. We Americans like our presidents to be tough and resolute and the campaign is the forum to show one's mettle. Ms. Clinton gambled from the beginning that being on the Armed Services Committee, voting in favor of the Iraq War Resolution and refusing to repudiate her vote would make her look tough. Instead, she reminds me of another decider who's just as intractable. Much as I favor Obama, he just hasn't shown me such toughness. He's a smart, scrappy fighter, but after seeing him bowl a 37 in Altoona (while wearing a tie no less!), he just doesn't look so tough to me. And at the South Carolina debate where she brought up Rezko, Clinton was--at that point anyway--looking like someone who was ready to do what it takes to win, in stark contrast to her opponent.

Dowd has written that Obama needs to slay the dragon, that the Clintons lie like nobody's business, and that they'll do anything to win the presidency despite Obama's upstart campaign. One might suspect that as a woman, Dowd would have some empathy for Ms. Clinton, the smart girl getting upstaged by the star athlete (bowling excluded) once again! But only another woman could get away with writing some of the most patroninizing (matronizing?) things about Ms. Clinton, some of which I've read with dropped jaw: "Just as in the White House, when her cascading images and hairstyles became dizzying and unsettling, suggesting that the first lady woke up every day struggling to create a persona, now she seems to think there is a political solution to her problem." Dowd really exemplifies what Peggy Noonan wrote recently of how many in the press are so dismayed by the Clintons' lack of scruples that they can't bear the idea of covering for four more years someone for whom they have such little respect. (Was Peggy reading my mind or what?)

This morning's column took a different tack as Dowd advised her political charge that this long drawn out primary has been good for him. After reminding us that the point of a presidential campaign is to WIN and not just fight the good fight, she tells Obama that he has been toughened up by battling Team Clinton and made into a better candidate for it. This idea has been much repeated, but Dowd of course revels in taking potshots at Ms. Clinton's "helpfulness" before concluding that "Hillary’s work is done only when she is done, because the best way for Obama to prove he’s ready to stare down Ahmadinejad is by putting away someone even tougher."

The Best Discussions I've Heard on Reverend Wright

NPR has two current events programs whose hosts are Harvard-educated African American women: Tell Me More and News & Notes. And since I was away last week, I took the time over the weekend to catch up on some of the segments covered in my absence. (I am an admitted NPR junkie actually as they have so many programs that I try to listen to or download regularly. In fact, for people like me they have a mapquest-like feature for roadtrips that shows all of the NPR stations along the way between points A and B.) Listening from NPR's website is the best way to hear all the news, choosing only those segments that you want to hear, which is better than a podcast really, but I digress. Needless to say, both shows have offered some much needed perspective on the whole Reverend Wright blowup.

On Tell Me More, host Michele Martin had the best rejoinder I've heard yet about the sanctimony of the commentariat who claim that they would have surely taken a stand had they heard such language in church. Puh-lease! How many of us have sat mute in the presence of another--be they friend, family, co-worker, or stranger--who has uttered something offensive and we have chosen to say nothing. Martin makes the most cogent argument I've seen so far to tell folks they need to get off their high horses.

On another episode of her show, Martin had two scholars explain Black Liberation Theology and the possible context of Wright's sermons. They explained that the snippet we heard is most likely just part of a sermon in which the reverend is heard condemning the American government (which does not equate to white people) but in the end Wright would likely have offered hope of deliverance or uplift for his congregation. That is, if Wright had been preaching in the oratorical style of the Black church, the sermon was most likely not one long anti-American polemic. This type of fiery sermonizing in the Black church according to the scholars usually ends with a message of hope, but of course context and nuance are not what the U.S. media care to offer us.

Testify, my sister!

Peggy Noonan Gets It! Do You?

Peggy Noonan is one of my favorite political pundits. She is a conservative speechwriter and committed Republican from the Reagan years. But she is not some blowhard partisan who is unwilling to look at the faults and flaws in her own side (like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc.). It comes as no surprise that she is not a Hillary fan. But the beauty and clarity of her writing is such that even if I don't agree with her conclusion I can appreciate her line of reasoning and her perspective. Her column this morning illuminates Hillary Clinton's candidacy in a way that makes me wish I'd written it myself:

"But either you get it now or you never will. That's the importance of the Bosnia tape. Many in the press get it, to their dismay, and it makes them uncomfortable, for it sours life to have a person whose character you feel you cannot admire play such a large daily role in your work. But I think it's fair to say of the establishment media at this point that it is well populated by people who feel such a lack of faith in Mrs. Clinton's words and ways that it amounts to an aversion. They are offended by how she and her staff operate. They try hard to be fair. They constantly have to police themselves."

Her description of how the press may feel in covering Clinton is how many of us now feel about President Bush. We are so over him and his presidency and the mendacity of those he has surrounded himself with that we are eager to move ahead with someone new, just NOT someone named Clinton. I am so fearful of another four years of cynicism that I just cannot bring myself to support her. The press and the country are obviously ready to move past oligarchy if she would just get the hell out of the way, er, I mean, step aside.