Obama's campaign : getting massive press coverage.

Sen. Obama strikes again : he gave a well-thought out, brilliantly written and historically referenced speech. As he had previously done in his victory speech after the South Carolina primary, and after the Iowa caucus even earlier on. 

Obama gave an uplifting message that is clearly meant to go straight into history books alongside other great speeches such as that of John Fitzgerald Kennedy on religion or civil rights activists calling for unity and peace within the American people.  

He started by referring to the American Constitution both as the touchstone of the American government (the aim of which was "to form a more perfect union") and as a document resulting from political compromises and  tainted by "America's original sin". 

I hope my second year students from Cergy remember the several articles in which slavery is referred to, albeit not in a straightforward manner : 

-  art. 1, section 2, paragraph 3 referred to the 3/5th compromise ;

-  art 1, section 9, paragraph 1 granted a moratorium on importation of slaves until 1808.

-  art. 4, section 2, paragraph 3 offered provisions for the future Fugitive Slave Act. 

I believe this opening remark places Obama in the great tradition of William Lloyd Garisson who exposed the Constitution ("our present national compact") as  deeply unamerican and evil per se ("a pact with hell"). Obama does not go quite that far but presents the Constitution as a text that makes a promise of liberty and justice for all that it was at first unable to uphold.  

The Union has been in a state of being perfected ever since, be it through a civil war, pamphlets, protests and a massive civil rights movement. He places his candidacy in that tradition of fighting for a more perfect union, for an America that lives up to its ideals: he pledges himself to continue "the long march of those who came before us". This type of rhetoric clearly makes him a great American ; his speeches are meant to be historic, possibly opening a new era of race relations in the US. The rhetoric of "perfecting the Union" is instrumental in making Obama appear as the heir to the great American reformers who, far from being un-American have tried to make the country live up to its ideals, as they are written out in the Declaration of Independence and which are universally accepted. Obama does not want to change America, he is no revolutionnary, he is appealing to his fellow-citizen's sense of idealism and quest for perfection. His aim is to help America keep its promise to itself. 

He then goes on to interpret his personal life story as a typically American narrative, and moreover as a story that could only happen in the US. Thus, I believe he is truly American not because of how he came to be but because of the way he tells his story. 

In his next section he explains why Jeremiah Wright's sermons are both unacceptable (they contribute to digging the racial divide) and understandable ( the pastor and people of his generation have been genuinely oppressed and carry with them the rancour created by discrimination). Barack Obama then treads a delicate path, trying to balance rejection of the hostile rhetoric of the pastor with the recognition of how Jeremiah Wright has changed his life and made him a Christian. He compares him to an uncle that you love but who also embarasses you because of his prejudice. 

The last part of the speech is a commentary on the need to "perfect the union" in regard to racial relations. There are unsolved issues that need to be dealt with now in order to reunite the American people. He highlights the fact that the consequences of centuries of oppression can still be felt today. 

And he then acknowledges the plight of poor whites which must also be addressed to guarantee appeased race relations in America. Many of them resent the Black community for living on welfare and benefiting from affirmative action policies. The lack of understanding and hatred is thus on both sides and to end his speech Barack Obama tells the story of a poor white girl whose mother lost her job to cancer and who helped her mom by living of the cheapest kind of food for one year.  Now a grown woman, she is an organizer in the Black community of South Carolina for the Obama campaign for she never saw the Black community as the cause of her problems and wants to make life easier for all American children living in poverty. This epitomizes Barack Obama's understanding of social problems in America : he is trying to solve the problems of poverty beyond the racial paradigm : this is how the Americans will make their union perfect. 

However the question that is now up in the air is : will this speech be enough to overcome the Jeremiah Wright contreversy? The remarks of Obama's pastor have been in the news and all over youtube, will the problem go away or come back to haunt him later in the campaign (it will not play well in the national campaign if he gets the nomination due to the "anti-patriotic" content of his sermons)?

Bill Richardson, the Hispanic candidate to the Democratic nomination who dropped out after losing several primary contests has now endorsed Barack Obama.  What does this endorsement mean ?John Harwood gives a short answer to that question. 

Richardson worked in the Clinton adminstration, so his shift to Obama, is a powerful disowning of Hillary Clinton, her role in her husband's administration and her candidacy for 2008. Bill Richardson is also the governor of a swing state : New Mexico. One may wonder how his support to Obama will play out in the general election (reminder N.M. voted on February 5 and went very narrowly to Clinton). 

Listen to the entire Bill Richarson speech,  see how he describes the Hispanics' current plight and interprets Obama's message on race as one that applies to that minority as well as the Black community. 

Will this endorsement have any influence on other super-delegates and more importantly on the Hispanic vote in the general election? 

Do you remember Bill Richardson's television ad during the primary campaign?

What is "McCainism"?

NPR has an excellent coverage of John McCain's maverick profile within the GOP and what it might mean for the Republican Party as a whole and for a possible McCain presidency. What will the Republican base make of his foreign policy commitments to the war in Irak with his wish to reform the American immigration policy and his stance on campaign funding ( on the latter issues he parts way with the Republican orthodoxy)? If they are disappointed with these proposals they are likely to stay at home.
Maybe his new message will attract new voters to the GOP : that is probabaly what he is aiming at.

Obama on race

The racial issue has been a strong undercurrent in the Democratic campaign since Barack Obama announced his candidacy. And it has emerged from the deep waters regularly.
The Black community at first raised doubts about his commitment to the community because of his post-racial rhetoric and his Kenyan origins set him apart from the people whose forbearers toiled under slavery. Now he might appear as somewhat "too Black", for belonging to a church led by a fiery proponent of Black pride, Rev Jeremiah Wright.

This is the beginning of his speech on race. You can access the rest of it via youtube or watch the entire speech on the NYTimes website or else read the transcript.
He has clearly once again positionned himself as an American leader making a historic speech.

The GOP coalition: what's new?

To what extent is John McCain able to keep the Republican coalition together?

Remember that since the 1980s the force of the GOP has rested in the union of the two branches of American conservatism : 

1. traditional conservatives : proponents of fiscal restraint, small government, States' rights, emphasis on individual liberty and responsability (freedom of speech and gun rights). 
2. the evangelical branch of the GOP, emphasizing moral issues (abortion, gay rights) and extending their interest to fighting against poverty, and other global issues such as defence of the environment, social justice...

Sen. McCain is a true traditional conservative ( meaning 1) and has in the past antagonized the evangelical voters by calling their leaders such as Jerry Falwell bigots (=people that have such a strong feeling about something that they are unwilling to listen to others) and extremists. Before Mike Huckabee the former baptist pastor cum governor of Arkansas ended his bid for the White House, the GOP primary clearly reflected this divide within the party.

Today the questions are : 

1. Are the evangelicals losing ground in the GOP? 
2. Where will the evangelical vote turn to in November? 

I believe that the 2008 GOP primary has proved that the relative force of the evangelical voting block might be waning. But more importantly the primary has shown that the evangelicals do not rule the party even though they represent a huge force when they decide to back someone that already has the confidence of the first type of Republican voters. Indeed Bush's candidacy was made extremely powerful by the militancy of the "value voters" added to the numbers of traditional conservatives. 

For John McCain to win the election in November he needs either the support of the evangelicals (this could be acheived by the choice of Mike Huckabee as running mate : the latter has made clear that he would accept such an offer in an interview with NPR) or the vote of the independant voters. I believe it would be difficult to court both voting blocks simultaneously, except if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. On the other hand, if Barack Obama is his opponent, John McCain will have to fight very hard for the independants that are quite attracted to the Senator from Illinois. In that case it might be in his interest to turn more decisively to the right wing of his party?

Where will the evangelical vote go in November? For some people the value voters will inevitably turn to the Republican candidate, but for Clyde Wilcox, professor of government at Georgetown University, McCain may not be able to rein in the evangelicals. In that case, these voters might stay at home or even vote for Obama or maybe even for Clinton. 

  Listen to the excellent NPR coverage and interviews on the subject. 

Before making any brash decisions, I think McCain is waiting to have a clear idea on who his opponent will be in November, in order to devise the most efficient strategy to win the election. 

racial lines?

Mississippi went to Obama yesterday, with 90% of Blacks supporting him and 70% of Whites voting for Hillary Clinton. I would tend to see this racial divide as a bit of a problem for the Democratic candidate, regardless of who wins the nomination.

That is exactly what NYTimes commentator John Harwood is now saying in a 2minute video analysis of the Mississippi's primary. 

A racial comment by Geraldine Ferrerro (who ran as VP for Walter Mondale in 1984) created contreversy these last couple days and led to her resignation from the Clinton fund-raising operation yesterday. She had declared that Barack Obama would not have come this far had he not been African-American. 

Obama's response to the VP offer

Barack Obama "did not blink" and made clear that he is not interested in running for VP. 

You might have noticed that Sen. Obama is using arguments that seem vaguely familiar!

Let's watch how all this plays out in Mississippi today.

A Clinton-Obama ticket?

What surprised me the most is that Clinton should suggest that she might be on the top of the ticket although she is running slightly behind him in the primaries. Such a gesture is usually made by the front-runner to a weaker candidate in the hope of unifying the party, at last. The consequence of this smart political tactic is that it places the Obama campaign in a bit of a dilemna : 

• accept the offer and give up its aim of changing politics
  
• refuse the offer and appear as over-ambitious and be seen as the divider of the party that is need of unity. 
  

 The question is, at this point, hasn't there been too much bad blood between the candidates? 

The other incongruity of this proposal is that Clinton considers Obama not to be ready to assume the responsabilities of commander in chief but would accept him to be "one heart beat away" from being President : remember that the VP is meant to replace the President should anything go wrong.  

I wonder : is it politically wise for her to make such offer (positing herself as the real front-runner and making a move in favor of reconciliation), or does it simply look incredibly brash, disconnected from reality and condescending ? 

Mississippi voting

On Saturday, Sen. Obama won the Wyoming caucus with a significant margin, as he has almost always won caucuses : an electoral procedure in which the activist Democrats have the most influence. 

Tomorrow, Mississippi is holding its primary. The most important issue for the State's Democr

ats is healthcare ahead of the war in Irak and NAFTA-related issues (globalisation and free trade). Although this might give an edge to Senator Clinton, the demographics of Mississippi would suggest a strong support for Obama, at least due to the weight of the African American population there. 

The questions I will be answering next are : 

- How can Hillary Clinton win the nomination? 

- How can the dispute over the Michigan and Florida delegates be solved? 

I'd be happy to have your point of view on these problems. 

the dilemna for the Obama campaign

After being defeated in Ohio and Texas (Rhode Island was clearly going to vote for Clinton), the Obama campaign is grappling to find a way to respond to Clinton's attack tactics that seem to have paid off. The question is : do you have to go negative to win? Would that undermine Barack Obama's offer of a new way of doing politics?
Samantha Power, an Obama senior adviser on foreign policy issues, has just resigned after an off the record comment to a Scottish newspaper describing Sen. Clinton as "a monster". Moreover the Obama campaign has been recently caught twice being rather inconsistent :
- over NAFTA : Obama was launching a staunch criticism of the trade agreement to seduce voters in Ohio while one of his advisers was said to have been reassuring Canadian officials that this was nothing more than an electoral tactic (this is being referred to as the "Nafta-gate"
- over the plan to leave Iraq : the selfsame Mrs Power has said that Obama would probably not implement the plan to return the troops as he has advocated it.

A quick point on the Texas primary contest : you may have heard that Texas has both a primary and a caucus. The latter was won by B. Obama, which explains why Clinton's narrow victory should not be over-emphasized. Moreover the number of delegates per district is apportioned according to the way the state senate disctricts voted in the last elections : the disctricts which ovted most heavily Democratic in the last State Senate elections get more delegates than a district that voted strongly Republican. This system was considered unfair by the Clinton campaign since this gave a clear advantage to the African-American districts over the Latino districts which were perhaps more evenly split between the Democrats and the GOP and less electorally active.

Today the State of Wyoming is voting : how will this impact the momentum of Hillary Clinton : will it be reinforced or not?

results : the Democratic race goes on

Rhode Island was called for Senator Clinton (58%) early in the night with Vermont going to Senator Obama (60%). 

The results for Ohio were known later on and though the bigger cities had not been counted yet, Clinton appeared to have the lead which was later confirmed. As I write, with 92% of preccincts reporting, Clinton is ahead with 55% of the vote to Obama's 43%. 

She delivered a victory speech in Columbus, Ohio. The crowd was deafenlingly enthusiastic all along and cheered her with the words "yes she will" offering a response to Obama's famous "yes we can". She reminded her audience that the candidate who became president had always won the Ohio primary : "as Ohio goes, so goes the nation". 

She resorted to the familiar talking points against Obama : emphasizing her experience, her ability to lead and to pick up the phone at 3 in the morning and take the right decision !

She insisted on the historic aspect of her victory and of the 2008 campaign and she is saying that voters want their chance to count, suggesting that, regardless of the results in Texas, she would soldier on to the convention. 

Barack Obama's speech last night was much more subdued and the crowd wasn't its usual roaring self. 

Although all the preccincts have yet to report in Texas, the media are calling the Lone Star State for Hillary Clinton. 

So what does this all mean for Clinton, Obama and the Democrats? 

Is this a disaster for Sen. Obama? Actually it is disappointing but it will probably not make a huge difference in terms of delegate count. The Obama campaign projects that it will still be in the lead delegate wise. Remember that the delegates are apportioned proportionally in the Democratic primaries, which means that even if he loses the primary in a State, Sen. Obama may well be allocated a significant number of delegates. 

What do Hillary Clinton's victories of last night tell us about the Democratic campaign? 

First, this clearly shows that her candidacy is not quite as desperate as suggested by some commentators who were calling for her to step down. She is capable of energizing the voters who are sending at least one clear message : they want the race to continue. 

Next, these victories show that Clinton is good at winning the big States. She has taken California, New York (she would probably add Florida and Michigan, although the DNC punished these states for holding the primaries early in the season). Does that mean that she has the best chances against McCain in November? Well, it seems unlikely that California and N.Y. would vote for a Republican anyway but would she be more able of winning Ohio (a bellwether State = one of the States that can be used as a national indicator) and Texas than Obama? One may doubt that, since Sen. Obama seems to appeal to independents and moderates more than Sen. Clinton does.

republican results : McCain clinches the nomination

Last night McCain has won enough delegates to claim for certain that he will be the nominee. As a consequence Mike Huckabee dropped out of the race. 

Goodbye Mike : 

In his victory speech in Texas, John McCain, made a broad call for Republican unity : congratulating all his opponents for the nomination. 

He emphasized his love of America and his tough stance on terrorism and his support of the war in Irak despite the failing tactics used by the present administration. 

He also criticized the Democratic stance on the war, mocked their criticism of NAFTA as a political tactic to seduce voters in clear disregard of the reality of a global economy, he rebutted the idea of more State intervention in health care and in the economy.  Instead he offers to lower taxes to help the American businesses and citizens. He also implied that the Democrats were all about talking and not about listening, all about empty rhetoric and not about honesty. However he did lift the cliché Democratic line of the month : "we make history" !

He is neither firmly attacking Clinton nor Obama, thus acknowledging that the Democratic race is extremely tight. 

Interview with Hillary Clinton

Jon Stewart starts by making fun of the campaign and mocking the idea that this could be the final showdown between Clinton and Obama. The Sentator from New York is then interviewed via satellite :

The Ralph Nader wildcard

For a longer version of this interview : click here. 

Ralph Nader ran in 2000 and in 2004 as third party candidate, fighting for the enviromenment and against corporate interests and Washington politics. He has announced last week that he will run again. What does that mean for 2008? Will he have enough clout to make a difference?  Who will benefit from his bid for the White House?  

Ralph Nader is usually credited for handing over the presidency to George Bush by turning away moderates who might have voted for Al Gore in 2000. Democrats still rageously resent Nader for the past 7 years. Nader responds that it is certainly not his fault if Bush was elected : we should blame the Republican and Democratic voters in Florida, and the governor of Florida and the Supreme Court of the US for the "election" of George W. Bush. 

In 2004, however his campaign was all but a complete failure. One may wonder whether he will be able to excite the voters this time around, when there are more exciting alternatives to his candidacy? 

PS : the wildcard = le joker

decyphering the telephone ad

The media have been giving quite a bit of attention to the Clinton ad on the telephone ringing (watch the video on my previous post).

Commentator Maureen Dowd considers that Sen. Clinton is fear-mongering ( to create fear in order to convince people that you will protect them from the danger) and that ultimately the ad is a visceral attack.  NPR's has been commenting on this ad in their overview of last week's events. 

Even more interesting is the analysis by political commentator Tom Regan : he compares Sen. Clinton's contreoversial ad with the infamous "Daisy" ad for Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson which I commented earlier : the ad was only aired once before being pulled off the air because it was considered way too aggresive, painting Barry Goldwater as a trigger happy aggresive candidate. Do you remember that it was being used against the Democrats on youtube at the beginning of the campaign on order to make them appear soft on foreign policy issues. And now people are comparing Sen. Clinton's attempt to discredit Sen. Obama's competence in foreign policy. Interesting how things come a full circle ! 

Listen to comparisons with other presidential ads by Mark Shield on NPR. 

For the Obama campaign this ad will probably backfire on Sen. Clinton : once again they emphasize judgement vs. experience : it's not your experience of the "red phone" ringing that counts, it's your ability to give the right answer.  And he then goes on to remind voters of Sen Clinton's vote allowing President Bush to engage in the war in Irak. 

I enjoyed West Wing 2008's post in French on this ad : Maria Pia Mascaro has 3 videos on display : Clinton's ad, Obama's ad in response and a short video of Bill Clinton telling the voters to respond to the candidate promising hope rather than fear!

is the momentous day coming at last?

Will March 4 bring us any certainty on the outcome of the Democratic race for the nomination? Remember that Texas and Ohio vote, along with two small north-eastern States : Vermont and Rhode Island. Watch a video on the campaign in Ohio. 

There are obviously 3 options (as highlighted by the British newspaper The Guardian). 

If Sen. Clinton looses both States she will probably be definitely out of the race : Bill Clinton has even asserted that she must win in Ohio and Texas for her campaign to be viable. 

If she does manage a double win, which seems less likely today than two weeks ago, she will still be "in the race", albeit with little advantage on the delegate count front (unless she wins with a huge margin to make up for her previous losing streak). 

The last possibility is : Clinton wins one of the big States and the other goes to Obama. The consequences on the race of this scenario are even more difficult to assess. Nobody has a clue where it will go from there. 

Catch up with me on Wednesday morning : I'll be commenting on the results as early as possible. 

A Clinton ad : 

Obama's response ( the classic) : 

On the Republican side the nomination of John McCain is now wrapped. The question is : how will he campaign against Sen. Obama if he happens to be the nominee. And indeed McCain has already launched a series of attacks against him, since he has emerged as the "front-runner", replacing Hillary Clinton, the Democrat that the Republicans love to hate. 

If Clinton is the candidate, it will make it easier for McCain to unify the right against her. But if Obama is the Democratic nominee, McCain will have to fight for the moderate/independent voters to whom they both appeal significantly. 

How far will McCain go to get the evangelical vote, a groupe of voters that he has repeatedly aggravated by insulting some of its leaders? Where will he find the vote if Obama is the candidate?

A commentator from the NYTimes wrote a column on how McCain's strategy against Obama was very similar to the one used by Hillary Clinton (all-talk, no-policy ; weak on foreign affairs; idealist; inefficient, veiled allusions to his race...). This line of attack might prove just as inadequate in the general election as it has prove for the last couple weeks.  

A summary of the Ohio debate mentionned on the previous post :