Former Cleveland mayor Michael R. White switches from Clinton to Obama

Michael R. White was the 55th mayor of Cleveland, serving three terms from 1990 to 2002. He wrote this essay for The Plain Dealer.

I grew up in an era of hope-not only for Black Americans but for all Americans. It occurred to me at a young age that Dr. King was speaking not just to the plight of Black Americans but to the plight of all socially dispossessed Americans regardless of race or gender. He connected the poor in Harlem to the poor in Appalachia in speech after speech and in city after city which I believe made him a great threat to those who prosper by creating division in America.

Then without warning, I watched helplessly from my parents' living room as bullets killed John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, felling the very leaders who called us to be agents and voices of change. With their deaths, my hope for a better America was dashed upon the rocks of despair.

Carl Stokes rekindled my hope and made me want to use the system to make a better way for those without a voice. My hope, rekindled by Mayor Stokes, lead me on my journey to City Hall-a journey that took me to Ohio State, to Cleveland City Council, to the Ohio Senate and finally to the Mayor's office. In my almost twenty-eight years of active politics, I sadly watched the political process slowly become a process, not of creating hope, but of sowing as much division as possible in order to garner status, power and control. This division robs us all of the change and progress we need as a country.

Six months ago, I supported Senator Hillary Clinton. My wife JoAnn and I are friends of the Clintons. President Clinton was only the second elected official, after the assassinations of the 1960s, to give me hope again. Not withstanding his personal transgressions, President Clinton loves America and tried to do as much for the same Americans that the Kennedys and Dr. King were concerned about. But, after watching the primary election process by the day and sometimes by the hour, I decided that I cannot cast my vote for Senator Clinton.

On March 4th, I'm voting for Barack Obama because I want real change in our America, and he's made me hopeful that he has the intestinal fortitude to make the change which our country so sorely needs.

As an African-American, I am proud to see Barack Obama make such an extraordinary effort to become the President of the United States. But being Black is not enough for me to vote against my friend. I am voting for Barack because he has rekindled my hope again through his experience, vision and leadership for change in a political system that has gone so awry.

Our America is in great peril and great change is needed. Whether it's the economy, our current stance in the world, a lack of health care for our citizens, the education of our children, the creation of hopelessness in our inner cities, or re-knitting the fabric of the American family, we face unparalleled challenges. If we are to be a better America that once again offers its children hope, we cannot continue down the same path of public discourse and execution. We must have a President who has the courage to challenge the status-quo and stir our inner imagination of what could be. It's that inner imagination of what can be that has made us a great nation.

Yes, Senator Obama gives me great hope, but hope is not enough when you're voting for a presidential candidate. I believe Barack Obama has the experience, ability, courage and vision to translate his call for change into a new direction for America just as other great Presidents have in the past. He is no less qualified or able than any other candidate, and the fact that he's poised to become the Democratic nominee for President is testimony to the good judgment and need for change desired by so many Americans.

On March 4th I'm casting my ballot for Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. I believe in my heart and soul that Senator Obama can and will bring us together as a nation, rekindling our hope and calling upon us all to be a part of the change we wish to see.

I'm sure that next Tuesday John, Bobby and Martin will be looking down upon us in Ohio and wondering if hope is still alive. Make them proud...Yes we can!

Obama Viewed Most Favorably In New CBS News/N.Y. Times Poll

February 25, 2008, 3:00 PM

Posted by Vaughn Ververs

The latest CBS News/New York Times poll on the presidential election will be released at 6:30 this evening but here's a sneak peak at how the major candidates are faring in public opinion – a comparison Barack Obama appears to be winning.

Among all registered voters surveyed, Hillary Clinton has by far the highest "unfavorable" rating. Forty three percent said their opinion of Clinton is unfavorable, compared to 35 percent who viewed her favorably. Clinton fared better among likely Democratic primary voters – 61 percent of that group said they had a favorable opinion of the New York senator. But 27 percent of Democrats had an unfavorable opinion.

Obama was viewed favorably by 45 percent of all voters while just 23 percent had an unfavorable opinion of him. And among those Democrats, his favorability was 69 percent while just eight percent had an unfavorable view.

Thirty two percent of all voters said they were undecided or have not heard enough to form an opinion of Obama, indicating room for himself – or his political opponents – to shape those opinions.

John McCain was viewed more favorably than unfavorably among all voters (36 percent to 32 percent) but just 57 percent of Republicans said they have a favorable opinion of their presumptive nominee. Thirty percent of his own party said they had no opinion of McCain, indicating that he may have some work ahead of him in consolidating GOP support for the fall campaign.

Check back with CBSNews.com at 6:30pm ET or tune into the CBS Evening News for complete poll results.

Jonathan Alter at Newsweek: Hillary Should Get Out Now

Clinton has only one shot—for Obama to trip up so badly that he disqualifies himself.

By Jonathan Alter

NEWSWEEK

Updated: 1:39 PM ET Feb 23, 2008

If Hillary Clinton wanted a graceful exit, she'd drop out now—before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries—and endorse Barack Obama. This would be terrible for people like me who have been dreaming of a brokered convention for decades. For selfish reasons, I want the story to stay compelling for as long as possible, which means I'm hoping for a battle into June for every last delegate and a bloody floor fight in late August in Denver. But to withdraw this week would be the best thing imaginable for Hillary's political career. She won't, of course, and for reasons that help explain why she's in so much trouble in the first place.

Withdrawing would be stupid if Hillary had a reasonable chance to win the nomination, but she doesn't. To win, she would have to do more than reverse the tide in Texas and Ohio, where polls show Obama already even or closing fast. She would have to hold off his surge, then establish her own powerful momentum within three or four days. Without a victory of 20 points or more in both states, the delegate math is forbidding. In Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22, the Clinton campaign did not even file full delegate slates. That's how sure they were of putting Obama away on Super Tuesday.

The much-ballyhooed race for superdelegates is now nearly irrelevant. Some will be needed in Denver to put Obama over the top, just as Walter Mondale had to round up a couple dozen in 1984. But these party leaders won't determine the result. At the Austin, Texas, debate last week, Hillary agreed that the process would "sort itself out" so that the will of the people would not be reversed by superdelegates. Obama has a commanding 159 lead in pledged delegates and a lead of 925,000 in the popular vote (excluding Michigan and Florida, where neither campaigned). Closing that gap would require Hillary to win all the remaining contests by crushing margins. Any takers on her chances of doing so in, say, Mississippi and North Carolina, where African-Americans play a big role?

The pundit class hasn't been quicker to point all this out because of what happened in New Hampshire. A lot of us looked foolish by all but writing Hillary off when she lost the Iowa caucuses. As we should have known, stuff happens in politics. But that was early. The stuff that would have to happen now would be on a different order of magnitude. It's time to stop overlearning the lesson of New Hampshire.

Hillary has only one shot—for Obama to trip up so badly that he disqualifies himself. Nothing in the last 14 months suggests he will. He has made plenty of small mistakes, but we're past the point where a "likable enough" comment will turn the tide. When Obama bragged in the Austin debate about how "good" his speeches were, the boast barely registered. He has brought up his game so sharply that even a head cold and losing the health-care portion of the debate on points did nothing to derail him. Hillary's Hail Mary pass—that Obama is a plagiarist—was incomplete.

So if the Clintonites were assessing with a cold eye, they would know that the odds of Hillary's looking bad on March 4 are high. Even Bill Clinton said last week that Texas and Ohio are must-win states. If she wants to stay in anyway, one way to go is to play through to June so as to give as many people as possible a chance to express their support. While this would be contrary to the long-stated wish of many Democrats (including the Clintons) to avoid a long, divisive primary season, it's perfectly defensible.

But imagine if, instead of waiting to be marginalized or forced out, Hillary decided to defy the stereotype we have of her family? Imagine if she drew a distinction between "never quit" as it applies to fighting Kenneth Starr and the Republicans on the one hand, and fellow Democrats on the other? Imagine if she had, well, the imagination for a breathtaking act of political theater that would make her seem the epitome of grace and class and party unity, setting herself up perfectly for 2012 if Obama loses?

The conventional view is that the Clintons approach power the way hard-core gun owners approach a weapon—they'll give it up only when it's wrenched from their cold, dead fingers. When I floated this idea of her quitting, Hillary aides scoffed that it would never happen. Their Pollyanna-ish assessment of the race offered a glimpse inside the bunker. These are the same loyalists who told Hillary that she was inevitable, that experience was a winning theme, that going negative in a nice state like Iowa would work, that all Super Tuesday caucus states could be written off. The Hillary who swallowed all that will never withdraw.

But in her beautiful closing answer in the Austin debate, I glimpsed a different, more genuine, almost valedictory Hillary Clinton. She talked about the real suffering of Americans and, echoing John Edwards, said, "Whatever happens, we'll be fine." She described what "an honor" it was to be in a campaign with Barack Obama, and seemed to mean it. The choice before her is to go down ugly with a serious risk of humiliation at the polls, or to go down classy, with a real chance of redemption. Why not the latter? Besides, it would wreck the spring of all her critics in the press. If she thinks of it that way, maybe it's not such an outlandish idea after all.

Yet a New Low for Clintonland!

February 25, 2008

Obama camp slams Clinton team on controversial photo

Posted: 12:38 PM ET

Barack Obama’s campaign accused Hillary Clinton’s team Monday of circulating a photo of the Illinois senator donning traditional Somali attire – clothing worn by area Muslims – as a goodwill gesture during an overseas trip.

In a statement, the Clinton campaign called the charge “an obvious and transparent attempt to distract” voters from serious issues – but did not issue a denial.

The picture, which appeared on the Drudge Report this morning, was attributed to sources within the Clinton campaign – although the Web site did not reveal how many, or who, might have received the photo.

In a statement, Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, said Clinton’s campaign was engaged in “shameful, offensive fear-mongering,” though he did not point to any proof beyond the original item that appeared on Matt Drudge’s blog.

“This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire,” said Plouffe. “and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world."

Earlier this year, some Clinton volunteers left her campaign in those states after circulating e-mails that falsely claimed Barack Obama was a Muslim – an inaccurate rumor his campaign has worked hard to dispel — and suggesting that his drug use as a young man might make him vulnerable to Republican attacks were he to become the nominee.

Clinton’s campaign manager Maggie Williams responded to the photo controversy with a Monday morning statement that insisted the New York senator’s team “will not be distracted,” but did not directly address the substance of the allegation.

“Enough. If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely,” said Williams.

“This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry. We will not be distracted.”

On a campaign conference call with reporters, Ret. Major Gen. Scott Gration, who traveled to Africa with Obama, said the photo showed that “he did what any great leader should do — he accepted the gift, accepted the hospitality, accepted that token of friendship."

–CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

Why we need President Obama - not Clinton or McCain -

Enough is Enough! Time For Hillary To Go -

Once again, the increasingly nefarious Hillary and Bill 'presidential' campaign is playing the race card, served up this time by long-time Democratic National Committee member Harold Ickes, who served as deputy chief of staff for President Clinton and is a top aide to Sen. Hillary Clinton - a disgrace topped only by Hillary's arrogant and demeaning tirade in Rhode Island this weekend - a tirade against you, the millions of thoughtful and passionate voters crying out for change, and an end to these tired old politics (please see article and video clip below) - ZJM

Hillary's Celestial Choir Hits a Sour Note
by Justin Frank M.D

Senator Clinton is not preaching to the choir, celestial or not. Her attempt Sunday to mock Senator Obama was not only ineffective; it was profoundly unpresidential. I doubt that her pseudo prayer meeting hurt Obama, certainly not the way President Bush's mocking antics hurt those who voted for, and those in the media who cheered, his invasion of Iraq. The video in which he laughingly pretended to look for WMDs under his desk degraded our own American soldiers who are sacrificing their lives and souls overseas. In pretending to laugh at himself he was really dismissing the devastation caused by his lies.

When Senator Clinton said the "celestial choirs will be singing" she did more than make fun of Obama's optimistic rhetoric; she mocked the millions of Americans who experience Obama as a fresh and compelling leader. She essentially said that Obama supporters are dupes who are stupidly taken in by what she feels is his magical approach to genuine political conflict. She is really mocking herself - the candidate with 'experience' duped by President Bush into rubber-stamping his war.

She mocks Obama's message of hope by labeling it magical thinking. It is not, except in its most primitive form. Hope encourages resolve; it doesn't substitute for it. Hope helps people face difficult obstacles; it doesn't invite evasion of hard work.

It is true that Bush does suffer from magical thinking. His notion that our troops would be welcomed in Baghdad as heroes is what a nine-year-old boy fantasizes when playing chief-of-police in a game of cops and robbers. Obama is not Bush and his hope is not that of someone stuck at the developmental age of nine.

Senator Clinton's behavior was also undignified, making it even more difficult to take her seriously as a candidate, let alone an influential figure in the Democratic Party. It's difficult to imagine how she could play any helpful role in the campaign once Obama wins the nomination, as he is now almost certain to do. If she keeps on like this, it will be hard to take her seriously as she pursues her career in the Senate. She could be one of the most illustrious figures in the history of that august body, but only if she rises above this behavior.

It is as if she is unconsciously identified with Bush, even as she compares his 'compassionate conservatism' to Obama's 'yes we can'. Projection, the attribution of unwanted parts of the self to someone else, is not confined to Republicans.

If anyone was mocked in Sunday's episode it was Obama's supporters. If anyone genuinely suffered from what Senator Clinton did it was Hillary herself. How could she do this when so many of her supporters still hope she will succeed? In what way did her stunt improve her chances or show us what is best about her?

Finally, she is caught between two charismatic men - her husband and her rival. Instead of killing two birds with one stone, she is committing political suicide. It is probably true that Bill Clinton would never have become president without Hillary's brilliant direction. Because of this, it must be hard to accept that her charismatic spouse cannot help his strong, hard-working, down-to-earth partner reach the nation's highest office. But he can't, no matter his intention.

Ultimately, what she did on Sunday just makes me sad.

I think her run for the White House is over. The celestial choir has sung. Mocking what is good and decent is more reminiscent of Rush, Rove, and Rumsfeld than it is of someone asking us to trust her judgment to handle the most important job in the world. She should withdraw now and cut her losses - as well as ours.

Justin Frank M.D. is an expert in the field of psychoanalysis. A clinician with more than thirty year's experience, Dr. Frank has also been a former columnist for Salon magazine and is a frequent writer on topics as diverse as politics, film, and theater. He is the co-director of the Metropolitan Center for Object Relations in New York, a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at George Washington University Medical Center, and a teaching analyst at the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute. Dr. Frank lives in Washington D.C. where he teaches and practices psychoanalysis.

On Change -

Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) Endorses Obama

(Washington, DC) – National President D. Michael Langford of the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) announced the union’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President and plans to immediately begin activating its membership for the critical primary contests ahead. The announcement follows a vote by the union’s executive board.

The UWUA represents 70,000 active and retired members working in the gas, water, electricity and nuclear industries, including nearly 10,000 in Ohio and another 8,000 in Pennsylvania.

"Senator Obama understands our issues, supports our goals and will do what is right for utility workers, our families, our communities and our country," President Langford said. "We join him in his fight for change in America that will put working people first. I urge every one of our members to get involved in his campaign to lead this country forward."

Senator Barack Obama said, "I thank President Langford and the utility workers across the country for supporting our movement for change. They have stood up for the rights of their workers and as president I will stand with them to pass universal health care, cut taxes for the middle class, and create jobs. Every working American should be able to know that in this country we value their work and will reward it with a few basic guarantees - wages that can raise a family, a retirement that's secure and dignified, and working conditions that are safe. And that's the kind of leadership I intend to offer as President."

In addition to Senator Obama’s longstanding support of issues important to workers such as the Employee Free Choice Act, Senator Obama has shown leadership on the critical issues facing utility workers and consumers. Senator Obama has pledged to rebuild our nation’s crumbling infrastructure and is the candidate most likely to lead our country to true energy independence.

President Langford explained, “We have been fortunate to have an exceptional field of Democratic candidates who have all pledged to help fix the problems facing working people. There is a consensus that we must raise wages, create fair trade, protect pensions and restore workers’ rights. However, we believe that Senator Obama also shows exceptional leadership in the area of energy independence – he’s the only candidate that has not shut the door on a variety of energy sources. An energy policy that seeks to drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help clean our environment must include a number of existing sources combined with new technologies.”

Having voted to endorse a presidential candidate, the UWUA will inform its members of Senator Obama’s policy positions and organize them to participate in get-out-the-vote programs. The UWUA pledged to do everything possible with its membership and the communities where UWUA families live and work to help Barack Obama become President.

Change in Ohio

15,000 turn out in Toledo -

Obama Responds to Hillary's 'Shame on You' Attack

Obama Discusses NAFTA and Hillary During Town Hall Meeting at the National Gypsum Plant in Lorain, Ohio

From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan

LORAINE, OHIO -- At a press conference here today, Obama claimed that Hillary Clinton had to take responsibility for the passage of NAFTA, because "she has essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years."

Asked why Obama was attacking Clinton on NAFTA when neither candidate held an elected office to influence the passage of that legislation, Obama fired back saying that the "premise" of Clinton's candidacy "has been 35 years of experience, including eight years in the White House."

He argued that Clinton takes credit for "every good thing that happened" and said that it allowed her to be attacked on the bad as well.

"The notion that you can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what isn't politically convenient that doesn't make sense. If she suggested she had nothing to do with economic policy in the Clinton White House, then it would not be fair for me to bring it up but as you know, that's not the claim that she is making," Obama said.

NAFTA has turned into a political hot potato as Clinton and Obama stump in Ohio, where the loss of manufacturing jobs has devastated the local economy. Obama has repeatedly attacked Clinton on NAFTA in recent days, as he tries to cut into her lead in the polls here.

At the National Gypsum Plant in Loraine, Obama held a small town hall where workers had a chance to ask questions. Over and over again, the issue of NAFTA was raised with one worker openly criticizing Clinton and President Clinton for the bill which he said "devastated" lives in this part of the country.

At a press conference yesterday, Clinton challenged Obama to "meet me in Ohio" at the MSNBC debate on Tuesday, after harshly criticizing him for sending out a mailer that misquoted her saying that NAFTA was a "boon" to the economy.

Obama claimed that he was "looking forward to the debate," but he said that he doubted that little new would come from the discussion. He reminded reporters and those present that this would be the 20th time the two candidates have debated each other.

"We have a difference on NAFTA. And that's what my mailer said, and I just read her words, her quotes about NAFTA. So the notion that somehow I was misleading on that issue is not factually accurate," Obama said about a possible issue that would be raised at the debate.

Obama, for the first time, clarified his wife's comments from several days ago, when she came under criticism for saying that this was the first time she was "proud" of her country.

"I think she already clarified this, she was very clear about it. She simply misspoke. Because what she was referring to is this was the first time she'd been proud of politics in America. And that's true for a lot of folks who had been cynical and disenchanted. She spoke about how she'd been cynical American politics, for a very long time but she's proud of how people are participating and involved in ways they haven't for a very long time," he said.

He argued that Republicans wouldn't be able to use an argument that he's not patriotic enough against him because people have already tried to do so, and it has not worked. He also dismissed Ralph Nader's entry into the race, and Nader's criticisms that Obama was too conciliatory to corporate interests.

Workers at the plant questioned Obama on whether NAFTA could be repealed, and he said that it could not though he wants to renegotiate parts of it to include better labor and environmental protections. He said that it when to came to trade, he believed in it deeply but that "the rules of the road have to be fair to everybody."

He argued that if trade agreements do not contain better worker and environmental and safety protections, the country would start seeing protectionist rhetoric not just from Democrats but also from Republicans.

"So what I'm trying to do is, you know, not strangling the goose that lays the golden egg. The benefits of trade apply to everybody and the burdens apply to everybody instead of just you know making some people very wealthy and a lot of people hurting," he said.

Obama's Campaign of Promise Spreads Through Ohio!

Perspective on 'Speeches and Solutions'

'Obama aiming for a party awakening'

Posted on Sun, Feb. 24, 2008 By JAY ROOT Star-Telegram staff writer

AUSTIN -- Barack Obama said Saturday that he is helping to spark an awakening among moribund Texas Democrats, who are turning out to vote early in record numbers and could all but hand him his party's presidential nomination March 4.

"I think the patient may be starting to get out of bed, because we've been seeing just enormous excitement as we've traveled across Texas," the apparent Democratic front-runner said in an exclusive interview with the Star-Telegram. "I think people are very energized by the prospect of bringing the Bush era to a close and bringing the country together."

Obama said from Ohio that his campaign could re-energize Democrats in states like Texas, where collapse is almost a charitable description for what's happened to Lyndon B. Johnson's party in recent years.

It was on Bush's watch, first as Texas governor and then president, that the once-dominant Democrats finally cratered, losing every statewide office and the presiding posts in the state House and Senate.

Obama's campaign has suggested that Republicans aren't the only ones at fault for the Democrats' decline. A recent Obama advertisement mailed out to voters in Alaska and perhaps elsewhere carried this headline: "8 years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation." The mail piece said the Democrats lost 12 governors, seven senators and 46 congressmen during the Clinton White House years.

'From the ground up'

In the interview, Obama sidestepped the question of who's to blame but made it clear that he can pump up voters about the Democratic Party -- including in Republican-leaning "red states" -- in a way that rival Hillary Clinton can't. The Obama campaign has consistently portrayed Clinton as a polarizing figure who has turned off voters with overtly partisan rhetoric and gamesmanship.

"Unless you're building from the ground up and broadening the appeal of the party to independents and even some disaffected Republicans ... we're not going to be able to get things done," Obama said. "I think we have been able to get folks in every state that we've campaigned in to take a second look at the Democratic Party."

A Clinton aide said the New York senator is energizing voters in the Lone Star State herself.

Meanwhile, Obama acknowledged that in a state like Texas, which has heavy concentrations of uniformed men and women, he must continue to work to dispel the notion that he falls short in the patriotism department. Some conservative critics have chided him, for example, for not wearing an American flag pin on his lapel.

But the senator also faces an e-mail hoax, carrying false claims that he is a radical Muslim and refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Obama is a Christian and, as shown on C-Span, sometimes leads the U.S. Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag. Still, the e-mail keeps bouncing around the Internet.

"It typically is based on this scurrilous e-mail that's been going around, which is completely false," he said. "I am not a Muslim and never have been. I've been going to the same church for the last 20 years. I was sworn in on my family Bible. And I have been pledging allegiance since I was 3."

Obama said it is "important for us to dispel" the doubts.

"Nobody said politics is fair," he added. "These are just the kinds of, I think, dirty tricks that you see crop up periodically."

Pumping up the party

Whatever conservatives may think of him, it's clear that the Clinton-Obama showdown is pumping up Democrats like never before in modern times.

"This presidential primary is bringing a flow of turnout to our side like we've never seen before," Democratic strategist Ed Martin said, showing off a spreadsheet showing a fivefold increase of early-vote turnout in the state's most populous counties since early voting for the March 4 primary began Tuesday.

In reliably Republican Tarrant County, for example, Democratic turnout topped 18,000 in the first three days of early voting, compared with 2,300 at the same point in 2004.

Clinton's spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod said the former first lady, who has deep Texas ties, is generating her share of the interest. "Texans know that Sen. Clinton will roll up her sleeves and work hard for them every day, which is why she's been attracted huge crowds at early vote rallies throughout the state, and record numbers of Texans are coming out to vote," Elrod said.

But Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, said that while both candidates are generating interest, "it's Obama that's really providing the jet fuel to this thing."

"What Obama is offering is not more of the same," Jillson said. "He is offering a new style of politics."

Staff writer John Moritz contributed to this report.

Shame, Shame, Shame

In January, in angry response to a legitimate question from a reporter, Bill wags his finger and says: "Shame on you!"





Yesterday, a fuming Hillary, in response to legitimate criticisms of her health care plan and long support of NAFTA and Free Trade for China, says:
"Shame on you, Barack Obama."

Listen folks, grown-ups with any sense of maturity and decency do not run around crying "Shame on you" to other adults, or children, or animals - you just don't do that. This kind of behavior is degrading to all Americans.

Are Hillary and Bill really the kind of people we want occupying the White House? Again?

'He’s Rubber She’s Glue'

Notes on politics, mostly February 22, 2008

Hillary Clinton was in an unenviable position in last night’s CNN debate from Austin. Beforehand, our cable TV friends were all talking about how she had to come up with a “game-changer,” how Obama would “win” if it was a tie or even if she outpointed him, how she would have to land a “knockout punch,” how she would have to—what, exactly? No one had any actual suggestions for that. Because there was really nothing she could do, apart from hoping Obama would be gallant enough to commit a gargantuan gaffe.

She tried being mean once, with that prepackaged crack about “change you can Xerox.” The crowd booed, and so, I suspect, did the folks at home. But even before the booing she didn’t look happy about what she was saying. If this was the fun part, she wasn’t having fun. She looked a lot more comfortable, even content in a melancholy sort of way, at the end, when she said, “No matter what happens in this contest—and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored,” and the two clasped hands.

That was a game-changer of sorts, but the game it changed was her own. My hunch is that she has recognized that there are no magic formulas that can win this for her, and she has decided that if go out she must she intends to go out with class. Last night she backed away from her recent talk of Obama being unfit to be commander in chief—a very dangerous theme, because (unlike, say, her argument that his health-care plan doesn’t go far enough) it hands McCain a powerful talking point. Clinton will continue to talk about her differences with Obama on questions like an individual mandate for health insurance, the proper balance between conciliation and confrontation with Republicans, and the conditions under which a President should meet with nasty foreign leaders. She’ll talk about her experience and her diligence. This kind of thing hasn’t “worked” for her, but at least it is her. She’ll give it her best shot, not her worst shot, and let the chips fall where it looks like they’re falling.

“Going negative” has been a bust. It could never be anything but a bust, because there is no audience for it in the Democratic Party. Her supporters (almost all of them) like him; his supporters (most of them) like her. The finger-pointing has already begun: she spent too much money on fancy hotel rooms, her husband made too many blunders, she never settled on a theme, and so on ad infinitum. But all that may be beside the point—the point being that Barack Obama is a phenomenon that comes along once in a lifetime. Unfortunately for Hillary, it’s her lifetime; fortunately for the rest of us, it’s ours.

Obama's America looks a lot like Canada - an important message from our neighbor to the North

This U.S. election represents a major inflection point for that country as well as for Canada and the world.

Obama will crush Hillary and then McCain in the fall, a new comprehensive poll shows.

Why? Because America is not working like it used to and has deteriorated in the past generation into more have-nots than haves. This is not news, but now the have-nots, and other disenchanted voters, are turning out in record numbers to vote.

This week's poll shows Obama with a 14-point edge over Clinton, 52% to 38%, after being in a statistical tie last month. In a head-to-head matchup, Obama beats McCain 47% to 40%.

Obama is uniting those left behind by the Republicans and other social Darwinists who have exclusively looked after -- to quote President George Bush -- the "haves" and "have mores." Enormous tax cuts go to rich people, while the rest are given a stern lecture by the Republicans about the benefits of hard work and the American dream, which, by the way, is mostly unobtainable if you were born a member of a minority or if you cannot stay healthy or are educated.

Republicans have created budget deficits with their tax cuts for plutocrats, CEOs, Wall Street hedge fund pirates, lawyer ambulance chasers, overpaid doctors and insurance companies. (Their combined profits last year were nearly what provinces spend on providing health care to 32 million Canadians).

Tax cuts to rich people are regressive and don't help people who don't make much money or pay little, if any, taxes. They are an instrument of class division.

The point is, if Bush policies worked for the majority, McCain would be ahead. Instead, there is a large, and growing, "third-world country" inside the United States that consists of unhealthy, damaged and disenfranchised people victimized by lousy education in poor neighbourhoods, little or no medical care or war injuries that are not compensated for properly. African-Americans have been damaged for centuries and there is no help for America's "downstairs" -- the millions of illegals, exploited as nannies, delivery "boys" or orange and avocado pickers -- who cater to America's wealthy "upstairs" elite.

Is it any wonder that African-Americans and Mexican-hispanics vote solidly Democrat and will opt for Obama in dizzying numbers? They represent two out of every 10 voters. Many of these have never bothered to vote, but Obama is getting virtually all of the 15% voting in primaries who are "first-time" voters.

Obama also connects with prosperous voters concerned about what I call the "Brazilling" of America -- the reduction of the middle class and the increase in poverty.

Here are Obama's initiatives, which are common policy in Canada and other developed nations:

-Americans will have the same health-care benefits as its politicians;

-Poor American children should enjoy the same quality of public education as well-off children; and

-The United States will pull out of Iraq and work on multi-lateral efforts to restore peace around the world. President Obama will expect Canada, Europe and others to pony up much more to help create global police forces.

dfrancis@nationalpost.com

Over 30,000 Texans Hear Obama - From The Rio Grande Valley to Corpus Christi to Austin!

The Democratic Superdelegates are Starting to Follow the Voters — Straight to Barack Obama

In just the past two weeks, more than two dozen of them have climbed aboard his presidential campaign, according to a survey by The Associated Press. At the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton's are beginning to jump ship, abandoning her for Obama or deciding they now are undecided.

The result: He's narrowing her once-commanding lead among these "superdelegates," the Democratic office holders and party officials who automatically attend the national convention and can vote for whomever they choose.

As Obama has reeled off 11 straight primary victories, some of the superdelegates are having second — or third — thoughts about their public commitments.

Take John Perez, a Californian who first endorsed John Edwards and then backed Clinton. Now, he says, he is undecided.

"Given where the race is at right now, I think it's very important for us to play a role around bringing the party together around the candidate that people have chosen, as opposed to advocating for our own choice," he said in an interview.

Clinton still leads among superdelegates — 241 to 181, according to the AP survey. But her total is down two in the past two weeks, while his is up 25. Since the primaries started, at least three Clinton superdelegates have switched to Obama, including Rep. David Scott of Georgia, who changed his endorsement after Obama won 80 percent of the primary vote in Scott's district. At least two other Clinton backers have switched to undecided.

None of Obama's have publicly strayed, according to the AP tally.

Texas Debate - The Point Is: 'How Change Comes About'

Debate Reviews

MSNBC (Jonathan Alter): Obama won.

Hotline – On Call: …Barack Obama wins the night -- and the momentum in his direction continues.

Atlantic (Marc Ambinder): … The Debate Belongs To Obama

TIME (Mark Halperin): Mark Halperin’s Grades: Obama B+, Clinton B

NBC (Chuck Todd) : …Obama set the tone

CNN (Donna Brazile): …And look, Barack Obama tonight was exceptional- he was presidential, he was poised, he was calm. He had the poetry, but he also had the prose. He put the substance ahead of, you know, perhaps some of the rhetorical flourishes that he's capable of giving. He was good; so, you can’t deny him that.

CNN (Gloria Borger): …Tonight, you saw Barack Obama as a very credible commander in chief.

Politico (Ben Smith): Obama has come prepared to talk about substance, and offers detailed personal anecdotes, not more abstract oration, for most of his opening statement, before pivoting to the question of who can unify the country to get it done.

CNN (David Gergen): … Barack Obama is dramatically better as a debater than he was a few months ago. I thought he was excellent.