The Stranger: "Our Endorsement for President"

The Stranger (WA):

For all the heated disagreements between the Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the policy differences between the two senators are pretty minimal. This can easily be missed while watching (and, for a lot of excited Democrats, participating in) the most interesting nomination fight in a generation. But the fact is both candidates support the urgent, fully defined, and popular Democratic agenda that has emerged after eight years of George W. Bush's catastrophic presidency.

Under Bush, the number of Americans without health insurance has soared from 39 million to 47 million; the gap between rich and poor has reached an unprecedented and precarious divide thanks in part to Bush's top-down tax cuts, with the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans now earning nearly 25 percent of all income; and the $275-million-a-day fiasco in Iraq continues with nearly 4,000 American troops and 700,000 Iraqis dead.

This would seem to be a political environment in which it would be impossible for Democrats to lose. But we have felt this confident, and been burned, before. Thus, the crucial question facing the Stranger Election Control Board was this: Which candidate is best suited to take on the formidable and conniving GOP—and Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and America's cowed "liberal" media—in November? The SECB believes the answer to this question is Barack Obama.

* * *

It is hard to believe today, but as recently as three years ago the Democratic party seemed in the midst of a crippling identity crisis. Its leaders could not figure out how to connect with a country that had become unrecognizable to most liberals. Now this same party—having won control of Congress in 2006—is speaking to a voting population that has, by and large, caught on. Democrats are advancing a focused agenda to achieve universal health care, end the occupation of Iraq, combat global warming, reestablish the United States as a respected international leader, reverse the erosion of civil liberties at home, and make the economy work for the middle class again.

Obama, a once-in-a-generation political orator with a bold message of unity, is the best bet for moving that agenda into the Oval Office. For starters, he would be better against the GOP on the campaign trail than Clinton. The SECB admires Hillary Clinton, and not in a damning-with-faint-praise sort of way: She's a wonk, and she can be a tough, even ruthless campaigner. But we have reservations about nominating a candidate who's so polarizing. If we were Republicans—which we're not, because Republicans are always fucking over people who live on SECB wages—we'd be terrified about having to take on a superstar like Barack Obama.

An Obama candidacy would be buoyed by his inspirational life story—a mixed-race kid abandoned by his father who made it to Harvard Law and the U.S. Senate, with a stint as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago in between. His candidacy will also be buoyed by his charisma. A single, profound speech about unity at the 2004 Democratic National Convention made him a sensation. And the eloquence has continued with goose-bump moments during his "In the face of impossible odds" speech in Iowa, and his "It is not about black versus white... it's about the past versus the future" speech in South Carolina.

What encourages the SECB most about Obama's oratory is that he uses his gift to open people's minds, unify them around progressive values, and challenge them to do better. At his Martin Luther King holiday speech in front of a black congregation in Atlanta, for example, he condemned the scourge of homophobia and anti-Semitism in the African-American community. By contrast, Clinton sticks to the standard politics of shameless pandering, telling interest groups only what they most want to hear.

On the less impressionistic side of things, there are the numbers. Where Clinton rallies support from staunch, partisan liberals—people whose votes are already firmly Democratic—Obama appeals to an all-important category, given the closeness of the last presidential election: the nearly 30 percent of America's electorate who identify themselves as independents. Nationally, Obama has an 11-point lead over Clinton among independents. These independents are infusing energy into the Democratic primaries—and were it not for Obama drawing them there, they might otherwise drift to John McCain.

* * *

At first, Obama's appeal for unity put us off. In his efforts to reach across old divides, he sometimes mimics GOP rhetoric about Social Security. He put out a mailer in South Carolina proclaiming himself a "committed Christian." He refused to cancel appearances with an antigay gospel singer. The SECB is not interested in "reaching out" to people whose political goals are inimical to liberal values.

But all we had to do was look at Obama's record and policy proposals to realize that he's committed to a liberal agenda. (Shhh—don't tell the Republicans.)

He has a 96 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters and cosponsored a righteous and aggressive proposal by Senator Bernie Sanders (VT-Socialist?) for an alternative cap-and-trade proposal to curb global-warming emissions. He has eloquently defended abortion rights on the campaign trail, and his votes in the U.S. Senate have earned him a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. He wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and he denounced the pandering flag-burning amendment.

Most significantly, Obama was openly opposed to the war when that position was unpopular, warning in 2002 that "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He's voted for withdrawal timelines and he voted to restore habeas corpus.

As for Social Security, he's not raising alarm bells because he wants to privatize it. He's raising alarm bells because he wants to extend the payroll tax to tap fatter incomes. And while his health-care proposals look slightly more cautious than Clinton's, he's thinking ahead. Where punitive mandates may very well derail Clinton's proposed program before it gets off the ground, Obama's more palatable, incentive-based program could muscle through Congress and immediately expand access to quality health care.

Obama's liberal voting record, his position on the war, and his campaign priorities are firmly progressive. His promise lies in his ability to appeal to a wide cross section of Americans, and hopefully persuade them that these and other long-standing Democratic goals are mainstream no-brainers. It just might work.

* * *

Polls have found that when Hillary Clinton supporters are asked the main reason for their choice, almost as many point to the fact that she's married to Bill Clinton as cite her own experience. (An embarrassing 58 percent of Hillary Clinton voters in New Hampshire said that if third terms were allowed, they'd prefer Bill to his wife.) These stats point to a deeply troubling aspect of Clinton's campaign. She has a legitimate claim to an historic candidacy, but she has undercut it by playing up nostalgia for the 1990s. By rewarding old loyalties, Clinton is inflaming old ideological battles—battles that some of us on the SECB find dull. If she's able to squeak past the Republican nominee and secure the White House—and that's a big if—she could find herself paralyzed by the same partisan warfare she used to secure the nomination in the first place.

And about John Edwards: His shrink-wrapped anticorporate rhetoric sounds more like a campaign tactic than a firmly held belief. We like that he helped to focus his rivals on poverty and the environment, but a quick glance at his voting record in the U.S. Senate is all you need to understand that he's either a dilettante or a schizophrenic. We don't think Edwards—with his dismal showing in Nevada (which was supposed to be his populist union turf) and South Carolina (where he was born)—is much of a campaigner.

The election of Obama to the presidency would be a jump cut in American history, something the up-and-coming generation is clamoring for. President Bush's ugly politics have felt like a culmination of divisive culture wars dating back to the 1960s. Obama, who was born in 1961, represents a chance to move on, finally.

That's the energy of this election, and Obama, not baby-boomer Clinton, is the one who best represents our interests. Certainly, the SECB recognizes the history-making value in the possibility of a woman president, but Obama offers the chance for a truly seismic shift. And no, it's not about race (although we don't underestimate the symbolism—to the rest of the world—of electing a black man after eight years of cowboy diplomacy).

It's about transcendence. Barack Obama, with his rhetorical appeal to the center, is poised to make the Democratic Party the mainstream political voice in America.

Howie P.S.: This was written before Edwards exited the campaign, stage left. Even so, and in spite of the fact that Seattle people like to mock The Stranger on occasion, this is one of best written endorsements I have seen.

Barack Obama

"Obama: Clinton too similar to GOP candidates on Iraq"

Newsday:

Rallying in the west with an all-star cast including Caroline Kennedy, Barack Obama sharpened his criticism of rival Hillary Clinton as a divisive, old-school politician as they formally entered a two-day race six days before Super Tuesday's primary blitz.

As speculation swirled that Obama might get the endorsement -- and delegates -- of John Edwards, who hours earlier had dropped from the presidential race, Obama turned up the heat on Clinton by casting her as scarcely different from GOP White House hopefuls including new frontrunner John McCain.

He particularly slammed her muscular foreign policy platforms, including her initial vote for the Iraq war, which he has consistently condemned.

"It's time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by having the Democrats nominate someone who agreed with them on the war in Iraq," Obama told a cheering crowd estimated at 9,500, with thousands more in overflow areas, at a University of Denver arena.

Like Republicans, Clinton gave President George W. Bush "the benefit of the doubt" on contemplating military action in Iran and other hardline policies, Obama said. Yet she "actually differed with John McCain by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," he continued sternly.

"Talking tough, and tallying up years in Washington, that's no substitute for judgement or courage," Obama said.

"It is not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One," he continued, borrowing the same line from Clinton's campaign that his new mentor, Sen. Ted Kennedy, had done earlier this week. "You have to be right from day one."

He also slammed Clinton for having appeared in Florida after primary polls closed Tuesday night to thank voters, after all Democratic candidates had pledged not to campaign there.

"We can be a Party that tries to beat the other side by practicing the same do-anything, say-anything, divisive politics that has stood in the way of progress," Obama said amid rowdy cries of "Boo!"

"Or," he added, "we can be a party that puts an end to it."

Obama received as much applause as Caroline Kennedy, who turned out to salute him with Denver Broncos star Rod Smith and former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, a two-time presidential hopeful.

The willingness of the usually politically reclusive Camelot princess to stump with Obama in Denver and later Wednesday in Phoenix underscored the weight that American's most powerful political dynasty is throwing behind the Illinois senator, who is gaining on Clinton in nationwide polls. Ted Kennedy is to stump for Obama Thursday and Friday in New Mexico and California in an effort to boost his support among Latinos, where Clinton is seen as having an edge.

"Over the years, I've been deeply moved by the people who've told me almost all my life that they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president," John F. Kennedy's daughter said in soft, gracious tones. "I felt that sense of longing is more profound today than it has ever been."

"Fortunately, there is one candidate who offers that same sense of hope and inspiration," she continued with a smile. "That candidate is Barack Obama."

Paying her homage, Obama said: "I am almost speechless."

Wide receiver Rod Smith, a native of Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas, said he felt compelled to stump for Obama after he was lying in bed one night and heard him speak from South Carolina. "I thought to myself, Wow," Smith said. "I've got to be part of this."

Barack Obama

"Why campaign coverage sucks"

Jay Rosen (Salon):

Horse-race journalism works for journalists and fails the public. Just so you know, "the media" has no mind. It cannot make decisions. Which means it does not "get behind" candidates. It does not decide to oppose your guy... or gal. Nor does it "buy" this line or "swallow" that one. It is a beast without a brain. Most of the time, it doesn't know what it's doing.

1. The Herd of Independent Minds

This does not mean you cannot blame the media for things. Go right ahead! Brainless beasts at large in public life can do plenty of damage; and later on -- when people ask, "What happened here?" -- it sometimes does make sense to say... the beast did this. It's known as "the pack" in political journalism, but I prefer "the herd of independent minds" (from Harold Rosenberg, 1959) because I think it's more descriptive of the dynamic. Mark Halperin of Time's The Page (more about him later) calls the beast The Gang of 500. But gangs have leaders, which means a mind.

That's more than you can say about the media.

Now, the pack, lacking a brain, almost had a heart attack when Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, since they had told us Obama would run away with it because the pollsters told them the same thing. The near-heart attack wasn't triggered by a bad prediction, which can happen to anyone, but rather by some spectacular wreckage in the reality-making machinery of political journalism. The top players had begun to report on the Obama wave of victories before there was any Obama wave of victories. The campaign narrative had gotten needlessly -- one could say mindlessly -- ahead of itself, as when stories about anticipated outcomes in the New Hampshire vote reverberated into campaigns said to be preparing for those outcomes even before New Hampshire voted.

"PORTSMOUTH, N.H. -- Key campaign officials may be replaced. She may start calling herself the underdog. Donors would receive pleas that it is do-or-die time. And her political strategy could begin mirroring that of Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican rival..."

That's Patrick Healy in the New York Times the day of the New Hampshire primary, reporting on what would happen, according to nameless campaign insiders, if events about to unfold that day validated previous reports about what was likely to unfold that day. Healy's best defense would be: Wait a minute, people with the Clinton campaign actually told me those things. They turned out to be premature and wrong. I didn't make it up!

Which is true. But when actual facts are used in the construction of news fictions -- and reports about the moves to be made in Hillaryland after Obama won Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were precisely that, a news fiction -- your story can be accurate, well-edited, within genre conventions, and, at the same time, deeply un-informational, not to mention wrong. In fact, accurate news about the race that subtracts from our understanding of it is one of the quirky features of chronic mindlessness in campaign media.

By mindless I generally mean: No one's in charge, or "the process" is. Conventional forms thrive, even if few believe they work. Routines master people. The way it's been done "chooses" the way it shall be done.

Independent bloggers, who should have more distance from the pack mind (and often do) were not necessarily better on this score. Greg Sargent of TPM Media -- the blog empire run by political journalist Josh Marshall -- reported as follows on January 7th: "Camp Hillary insiders who have been with her a very long time, such as Patti Solis Doyle, are worried about the long term damage that could be done to Hillary if she decides to fight on after a New Hampshire loss, though there's no indication they are yet urging an exit." Doyle was said to be alarmed about damage to Clinton's Senate career from staying in the race amid a humiliating string of defeats.

Campaign news in the subjunctive isn't really news. And primary losses don't especially need to come at us pre-reacted-to, especially when there is plenty of time to air those reactions once any "string of defeats" actually happens. But while an individual mind in the press corps is quite capable of realizing this, the herd is not.

A good example would be an MSNBC program I saw just before the New Hampshire voting, where Dan Abrams asked his panel -- including Rachel Maddow, Pat Buchanan, and himself -- what each thought the final vote would be. The guests should have said, "How do we know? We're not New Hampshire voters, or professional pollsters." That would be intelligent -- and accurate. But they did something mindless instead. Each took a few points off the polls everyone else in the pack was reading and gave a "personal" prediction -- Obama by 4, Obama by 7.

Okay, so it's not a big offense -- but I didn't say it was. I said it was an illustration of routine mindlessness. That's when on-air journalism is dumber than the journalists who are on air.

Greg Sargent -- a smart reporter, quite aware of the absurdities the pack produces -- can, without great difficulty, dial back the use of nameless advisers pre-reacting to things that may not occur. (This post from his boss, Josh Marshall, suggests it may happen.) But the fact remains that his account, defining reactions-before-the-fact as news, was within the existing rules of journalism, relied upon by hundreds of other reporters adding their stories to the larger narrative. There's nothing to prevent those rules from being changed, of course. Nothing, except for the fact that the media has no mind and so can't easily change it.

2. Convergence of Judgment

Because we have evolved a way of talking about the news media that fails to recognize this very basic fact -- no mind! can't decide a thing! -- everyone is free to grant more intentionality to the organism than reasonably exists. Here are just a few samples from recent weeks:

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post: "The media have decided, fairly or unfairly, that Iowa was Edwards's best shot at winning the nomination."

John Amato, Crooks and Liars: "The media will treat Democrats much harsher than Republicans from here on in."

Ken Silverstein, Harpers: "Another factor in Obama's favor is (just as the Clinton campaign claims) that the media seems to be strongly in his corner."

Blogger Tom Watson: "At the start of the campaign, I didn't think the national media could possibly be successful in an anti-woman campaign against a Democrat."

Chris Bowers at Open Left: "OK, The Media Hates Clinton-But Why?"

I think we know why people speak this way. We use collective nouns, even when they mash way too much together, because, despite all the flattening and collapsing, there is some rough justice in saying, "The media loves Obama right now." We know we're speaking imperfectly, or metaphorically, but we also know we're observing something that's really happening.

And that's fine, normal, human even. Nonetheless, it's important to remember: The media has no mind. It might appear to decide things, but if no one takes responsibility for "Edwards must win Iowa," then it's not really a decision the media made, but a convergence of judgment among people who may instantly converge around a different judgment if it turns out that Edwards isn't done after failing to win Iowa.

That's pretty mindless. Strangely, though, the argument that the media has no mind serves almost no one's agenda, with one exception, ably represented by Jon Stewart, but including all who satirize the news and the news criers, exposing their collective mindlessness and making it almost... enjoyable.

3. "We have special insight"

John Harris and Jim VandeHei, formerly of the Washington Post, are the top editors of The Politico, a new newspaper-and-web operation that only does politics. After the New Hampshire screw-up, which they called a "debacle" and a "humiliation," Harris and VandeHei asked themselves why their profession, political reporting, "supposedly devoted to depicting reality, obsesses about so many story lines that turn out to be fiction."

This is an excellent question and it's admirable that they don't mince words in framing it. "The loser -- not just of Tuesday's primary but of the 2008 campaign cycle so far -- was us," they write. That would be the pack, "...the community of reporters, pundits and prognosticators who so confidently -- and so rashly -- stake our reputations on the illusion that we understand politics and have special insight that allows us to predict the behavior of voters."

A key point: "we have special insight." The current generation of political reporters has based its bid for election-year authority on its horse race and handicapping skills. But reporters actually have no such skills. Think: what does a Howard Fineman (Newsweek, MSNBC) know about politics in America? I mean, what would you logically turn to him for? It's got to be: Who's ahead, what's the strategy, and how are the insiders sizing up the contest? That's supposedly his expertise, if he has any expertise; and if he doesn't have any expertise, then what is he doing on my television screen, night after night, talking about politics?

Even if Fineman and company had it, the ability to handicap the race is a pretty bogus skill set. Who cares if you are good at anticipating events that will unroll in clear fashion without you? Why do we need people who know how this is going to play out in South Carolina when we can just wait for the voters to play it out themselves?

Among the "bogus narratives" the campaign press has developed so far, the Politico editors chose three to illustrate their humiliation. John McCain's "collapse" in the summer of 2007, which meant we could write him off; Mike Huckabee's win in Iowa, where the candidate without an organization took a state where electoral success, we were assured, was all about organization; and Obama's "change the tone in politics" campaign which, according to the Gang, was not going to be in tune with the voters' rawer, more partisan feelings in '08. All three were a bust, suggesting political journalists have no special insight into: How is this going to play out? What they have are cheap, portable routines in which you ask that kind of question, and try to get ahead of the race. This, too, is what I mean by mindlessness.

"If journalists were candidates, there would be insurmountable pressure for us to leave the race," say Harris and VandeHei about their sorry-ass performance in '08. But they're at sea in trying to explain why such things happen. They blame addiction to the game of politics, journalists and their sources hanging out too much together, and personal bias among reporters unconsciously rooting for the candidate who is more fun to cover. Those are certainly three factors. Another 23 could be listed without running out of plausible reasons, because what they're really grappling with is routine mindlessness in their institution. Explaining that is a bit harder.

4. "Removed from the experience"

A much better attempt was this short and consistently to the point entry by Christopher Hayes of the Nation magazine: "WHY CAMPAIGN COVERAGE SO OFTEN SUCKS." He starts with something that is known to everyone in the pack: Campaign reporting is an essay in fear.

"Reporting at events like this is exciting and invigorating, but it's also terrifying. I've done it now a number of times at conventions and such, and in the past I was pretty much alone the entire time. I didn't know any other reporters, so I kept to myself and tried to navigate the tangle of schedules and parking lots and hotels and event venues. It's daunting and the whole time you think: 'Am I missing something? What's going? Oh man, I should go interview that guy in the parka with the fifteen buttons on his hat.' You fear getting lost, or missing some important piece of news, or making an ass out of yourself when you have to muster up that little burst of confidence it takes to walk up to a stranger and start asking them questions."

Whereas he had once thought of it as a rookie's experience, this year he learned that the fear never goes away. "Veteran reporters are just as panicked about getting lost or missing something, just as confused about who to talk to. This why reporters move in packs. It's like the first week of freshman orientation, when you hopped around to parties in groups of three dozen, because no one wanted to miss something or knew where anything was."

It is rare to find a campaign correspondent who is inner-directed, with a vision of how to report on the election season that sends her off on her own. Campaign reporters tend to be massively other-directed. The reality-check is what the rest of the press is doing -- and the Web makes it far easier to check. Mindless.

"When you go to one of these events as a reporter, there's part of you that's aware that you don't really belong there," writes Hayes.

"You're an outsider, standing on the edges observing the people who are there doing the actual stuff of politics: listening to a candidate, cheering, participating. So reporters run with that distance: they crack wise, they kibbitz in the back, they play up their detachment. That leads to coverage that is often weirdly condescending and removed from the experience of politics."

Removed from the experience. Well, yeah. That is the number one virtue of horse-race reporting and the inside baseball mentality: speed of removal from the immediate experience. Hayes thinks the "worst features of campaign reporting" can be traced back to the "psychological defenses that reporters erect to deal with their insecurities." First line of defense: pack behavior. A second is what the Politico guys said: "the illusion that we understand politics" and with our special insight can predict the behavior of voters, anticipate a turn in the narrative, divine a winning strategy.

Maybe this illusion is reproduced for us because it is fear-reducing for them to mount the horse-race production.

5. Under the influence.

In November, Mark Halperin of Time, who is both a student of pack behavior and a creature of the pack, wrote a revealing op-ed piece about this "illusion that we understand." He said he had been under the influence of Richard Ben Cramer's massive and fascinating book, "What It Takes," about the 1988 battle for the White House. Halperin wrote:

"I'm not alone. The book's thesis -- that prospective presidents are best evaluated by their ability to survive the grueling quadrennial coast-to-coast test of endurance required to win the office -- has shaped the universe of political coverage.

"Voters are bombarded with information about which contender has 'what it takes' to be the best candidate. Who can deliver the most stirring rhetoric? Who can build the most attractive facade? Who can mount the wiliest counterattack? Whose life makes for the neatest story? Our political and media culture reflects and drives an obsession with who is going to win, rather than who should win."

Right there, Halperin identifies the roots of mindlessness in campaign coverage: All right, press team, when that door opens, I want you go out there and find out for us... WHO IS GOING TO WIN?

That's the baseline question. But how good a question is it?

The only decent definition of "information" I know of states that it is a measure of uncertainty reduced. But voters are the ones who reduce uncertainty in elections. They can do it pretty well themselves, without the help of horse-race journalists. Halperin once thought it fine to obsess over "the race," because he considered the race a good proxy for the leadership test we're supposed to be conducting during the now-well-more-than-a-year it takes to elect a new president.

"But now I think I was wrong," he writes. George W. Bush passed his horse-race test and flunked the leadership test once in office. So did Bill Clinton, Halperin says. Both were good campaigners and strategists. Their weaknesses only became glaring to the pack when they were in office, he argues.

Let me say it again: Reporters have no special insight into how elections will turn out. According to Halperin, a thesis that has "shaped the universe of political coverage" is false; the rigors of the race do not produce good outcomes. So what does the pack do now? "Well, we pause, take a deep breath and resist. At least sometimes... we can try to keep from getting sucked in by it all."

This is the same limp remedy Harris and VandeHei offered. They know they're stuck with horse-race journalism. They know what a mindless beast it can be -- and what a mindless beast they can be. And, above all else, they know they're not going to change it. After all, they are it. Glenn Greenwald of Salon was right to point to this exchange between NBC's Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews as the results from New Hampshire came in...

"BROKAW: You know what I think we're going to have to do?

"MATTHEWS: Yes sir?

"BROKAW: Wait for the voters to make their judgment.

"MATTHEWS: Well what do we do then in the days before the ballot? We must stay home, I guess."

Matthews was being the realist: Without who's-going-to-win, "we" might as well stay home. Brokaw (now long retired as the face of the NBC brand) gave him an apt warning in response: "The people out there are going to begin to make judgments about us if we don't begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding." But he was speaking as if the media had a mind and could shift course.

6. Less innocence, more politics.

Let's see if we can bring these strands together. I've been picking at the weaknesses of horse-race coverage, but to really understand it we need to appreciate its practical strengths.

Who's-gonna-win is portable, reusable from cycle to cycle, and easily learned by newcomers to the press pack. Journalists believe it brings readers to the page and eyeballs to the screen. It "works" regardless of who the candidates are, or where the nation is in historical time. No expertise is actually needed to operate it. In that sense, it is economical. (And when everyone gets the winner wrong the "surprise" becomes a good story for a few days.) Who's going to win -- and what's their strategy -- plays well on television, because it generates an endless series of puzzles toward which journalists can gesture as they display their savviness, which is the unofficial religion of the mainstream press.

But the biggest advantage of horse-race journalism is that it permits reporters and pundits to "play up their detachment." Focusing on the race advertises the political innocence of the press because "who's gonna win?" is not an ideological question. By asking it you reaffirm that yours is not an ideological profession. This is experienced as pleasure by a lot of mainstream journalists. Ever noticed how spirits lift when the pundit roundtable turns from the Middle East or the looming recession to the horse race, and there's an opportunity for sizing up the candidates? To be manifestly agenda-less is journalistic bliss. Of course, since trying to get ahead of the voters can affect how voters view the candidates, the innocence, too, is an illusion. But a potent one.

Imagine if we had them all -- the whole Gang of 500 -- in a room and we asked them (off the record): How many of you feel roughly qualified to be Secretary of State? Ted Koppel having retired, no hands would go up. Secretary of the Treasury? No hands. White House Chief of Staff? Maybe one or two would raise a hand. Qualified to be President? No one would dare say that. Strategist for a presidential campaign? I'd say at least 200 hands would shoot up. Reporters identify with those guys -- the behind-the-scenes message senders -- and they cultivate the same knowledge.

What a waste! Journalists ought to be bringing new knowledge into the system, as Charlie Savage and the Boston Globe did in December. They gave the presidential candidates a detailed questionnaire on the limits of executive branch power and nine candidates responded. This is a major issue that any candidate for president should have to address, given the massive build-up of presidential power engineered by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. We desperately need to know what the contenders for the presidency intend to do -- continue the build-up or roll it back? -- but we won't know unless the issue is injected into the campaign.

Now, that's both a political and a journalistic act. And where does the authority for doing such things come from? There is actually no good answer to that within the press system as it stands, and so the beast would never go there.

The Globe's questionnaire grew out of Savage's earlier reporting on the "unitary executive" and the drive to create an "unfettered presidency." (See this PBS interview with Savage; also, contrast the Globe's treatment with more of a throwaway effort from the New York Times.)

Here, the job of the campaign press is not to preempt the voters' decision by asking endlessly, and predicting constantly, who's going to win. The job is to make certain that what needs to be discussed will be discussed in time to make a difference -- and then report on that.

John Edwards: "Thank you." (video)

johnedwards, video (11:03):

John Edwards' remarks today in New Orleans:
"I began my presidential campaign here to remind the country that we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters. We must do better, if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much.

It is appropriate that I come here today. It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path. We do not know who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what we do know is that our Democratic Party will make history. We will be strong, we will be unified, and with our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November and we'll create hope and opportunity for this country."

"Obama, Clinton and the War"

Robert Scheer (Truthdig):

It should mean a great deal to progressives that in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination Sen. Ted Kennedy favors Sen. Barack Obama over two other colleagues he has worked with in the Senate. No one in the history of that institution has been a more consistent and effective fighter than Kennedy for an enlightened agenda, be it civil rights and liberty, gender equality, labor and immigrant justice, environmental protection, educational opportunity or opposing military adventures.

Kennedy was a rare sane voice among the Democrats in strongly opposing the Iraq war, and it is no small tribute when he states: “We know the record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth.”

But that is precisely the truth that Sen. Hillary Clinton has shamelessly sought to obscure. Her supporters have accepted Clinton’s refusal to repudiate her vote to authorize the war, an ignominious moment she shares with other Democrats, including presidential candidate John Edwards, who at least has made a point of regretting it. It was a vote that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, 3,940 U.S. service members—five more on Monday—and a debt in the trillions of dollars that will prevent the funding of needed domestic programs that Clinton claims to support. And it doesn’t end with Iraq. Clinton has been equally hawkish toward Iran and, in a Margaret Thatcher-like moment, even attacked Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden.

Clinton’s apologists include Gloria Steinem and too many other feminists, who should know better than to betray the women’s movement’s commitment to peace in favor of simplistic gender politics. It is disturbing, not because they conclude that Clinton is the best candidate, but because they refuse to challenge their candidate to be better. Does it not matter that Clinton’s key foreign policy advisers are drawn heavily from the ranks of the neoliberals, who cheered as loudly for President Bush’s war as did the neoconservatives? Are they not concerned that Richard Holbrooke, who exploited his experience and access to secret information during the Clinton presidency to back Bush’s Iraq invasion, is a likely contender for secretary of state should she win?

Sandy Berger, a key Clinton adviser, played a major role in convincing Kennedy’s congressman son, Patrick, to vote for the war authorization against what the younger Kennedy said was the advice of his father and his own better instincts. According to a Knight Ridder report at the time, “Patrick Kennedy said the most persuasive arguments for attacking Iraq came from members of the Clinton White House,” including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who is often described as the foreign policy expert closest to Hillary. Patrick J. Kennedy refuses to be burned twice and now supports Obama.

Yes, if Hillary Clinton is the candidate, she probably will be better than the Republican alternative and, as Ted Kennedy made clear, deserving of our support. But isn’t it troubling that she can’t hold a candle to Sen. John McCain when it comes to fighting Pentagon waste or pushing for campaign-finance reform to curtail the power of lobbyists? Isn’t it disturbing that Sen. Clinton has received more money than any other candidate of either party from the big defense contractors, according to a report on the Huffington Post? Why have the war profiteers given her twice the campaign contributions that they sent to McCain, if not for the expectation that she is on their side of the taxpayer rip-off that has seen the military budget rise to an all-time high? It’s for the same reason that the bankers, Wall Street traders and other swindlers who produced our economic meltdown fund Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has made “experience” key to her claim to the presidency and tells us she will do the right thing from “day one.” The reality is that her extra four years in the U.S. Senate hardly provides better experience than Obama’s eight years in the Illinois state Senate battling for progress with the nation’s most hard-boiled politicians. And if she lays claim to her husband’s presidency, then she must also take responsibility for caving in to big media with the Telecommunications Act, selling out to the banks with the Financial Services Modernization Act, and killing the federal welfare program—a political gambit that deeply wounded millions of women and children.

Her political career began with the Senate and she hit the ground running, but, as her craven support for Bush after 9/11 shows, it was in the wrong direction.

Howie P.S.: I first met Scheer in 1965 when he spoke at anti -war (Vietnam) Teach-In I helped organize at UCLA. Here we are again. You can now add Sen. Patty Murray to the list of Clinton apologists, according to today's Seattle P-I.

Barack Obama

"OBAMA'S BUSH REBUTTAL BREAKS ANOTHER YOUTUBE RECORD" (with video)

Ari Melber (The Nation), with video (04:40):

As The Nation reported on Monday, Barack Obama was the only presidential candidate to tape a rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union for YouTube. It's paying off.

By Tuesday afternoon, "Barack Obama's response to Bush's final State of the Union" was the most watched clip in the world, drawing a over 300,000 views in under 20 hours. The public has shown overwhelming and sustained interest in hearing from Obama directly. This is the third Obama video to shoot into YouTube's top three in the past 10 days -- past clips of naked celebrities and Scientology rants -- and the first video that was shot specifically for web viewers, rather than broadcasting documentary footage of a speech.

The Obama Campaign drives traffic by blasting video links to committed supporters, who then share clips with their social networks. About 40 percent of the new video's viewers came through the campaign website, for example, while Obama's official YouTube channel has another 20,000 subscribers. Then hundreds of thousands of other viewers still pour in from YouTube and across the Internet. (About one out of every hundred viewers of this video came from a blog entry by Miguel Antonio Guzmán. Another chunk of viewers for the Ted Kennedy endorsement video came from Hillary Clinton's backyard, through a Columbia Alumni magazine website.) Meanwhile, Obama's YouTube channel, which hosts over 500 clips, has drawn a whopping 11.5 million views so far. Clinton's channel has drawn about one tenth the views (1.3 million), while Edwards has not even broken into six digits.

The traditional media has been slow to grasp Obama's YouTube surge. (There has not been a single article in a major newspaper about the new records in the last 10 days.) YouTube politics are largely covered for gaffes (Macaca) and attacks (1984 ad). But the press is starting to notice the flipside of the Obama Campaign's communication strategy. It's the part that affects them. As the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz reports in a new article:

In an age of all-out political warfare, the Obama campaign is a bit of an odd duck: It is not obsessed with winning each news cycle. [Obama] remains a remote figure to those covering him, and his team, while competent and professional, makes only spotty attempts to drive its preferred story lines in the press... Obama often goes days without taking questions from national reporters... Some reporters say Obama seems disdainful toward journalists, having submitted to precisely one off-the-record chat over beer several months ago in Iowa. To them, the absence of a senior official traveling with the press is a sign of benign neglect.... Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe [adds] "The contact is limited. . . . They see the national media more as a logistical problem than a channel for getting stuff out."

So reporters are noticing that Obama is not using them to get stuff out. As a presidential candidate, of course, he is getting tons of stuff out. But whenever possible, he is routing around the filters and gatekeepers so that he can speak directly to voters.

It is a classic disintermediation approach.

The campaign events, speeches and clips are targeted to reach the voting public and bypass media framing. Kurtz describes how a Times reporter finally confronted Obama on a recent trip with a question -- about whether Bill Clinton was getting "inside his head." It's the kind of vapid media framing that annoys candidates and voters alike. And apparently, many people would rather hear Obama speak substantively in response to the State of the Union than hear him take strategy questions. There is a potential downside here, of course. The media does not usually like being disintermediated.

Barack Obama

"Caroline" (video)

Video (00:30).

Howie P.S.: On a unrelated topic that I find hard to take seriously, "Obama denies SOTU snub."

Barack Obama

"YOUR INTERNET CAMPAIGN TIP SHEET"

Ari Melber (The Nation):

I think people get tired of hearing about Internet politics because insignificant fads draw so much hype. But as the primaries heat up, it's clear that several web-driven efforts are making a huge impact. Here's a tip sheet:

Obama just raised over $4 million online since this weekend's South Carolina victory. Add that to the million dollars a day he pulled in for the first week of January, and it's clear that grassroots donors are enabling the long, "delegate hunt" primary we keep hearing about. It's a direct, tangible rebuttal to the media elite primary, which aims to prematurely declare a winner based on momentum. (Check out Timothy Noah's excellent new column on those media "momentucrats.")

Clinton is aggressively trying to make up ground with the MySpace vote. She is the only Democratic presidential candidate committed for this weekend's MySpace-MTV "Super Dialogue," (Obama and Edwards participated in earlier MySpace events). These forums reach young voters with highly integrated platform coverage, from social networks to cable TV to cell phones to the plain old AP Online Video Network. MySpace spokesperson Cecilia Fan says the event is broadcast live on MTV and MTV2, streamed live on MySpace and MTV's website, packaged for the AP network, (which reaches up to 600 media outlets in Super Tuesday states alone), broadcast on radio stations affiliated with MTV, XM and AP, and translated into Spanish for streaming on LaVibra.com. You can also get it on your cell phone through MTV Mobile, or amble down to Times Square to watch it on the big screen.

Activists are using a new, open source web campaign to expose companies that are faking open source web campaigns. You read that right. Some companies have seized on web organizing to create fake "astroturf" groups or pose as citizen journalists to advance corporate PR. Today those dogged Wisconsin organizers at the Center for Media and Democracy launched a new wiki-powered activist site to expose such front operations, called Full Frontal Scrutiny.

Voters still want to hear from the candidates, even if it means turning off the TV. One of the biggest, most under-reported developments in this campaign is the unprecedented audience for Obama's speeches on YouTube. While the national media covers polls, strategy, gaffes and the occasional comment from a candidate's spouse, millions of people are flocking to YouTube to hear directly from a candidate. Obama's newest speech with Ted Kennedy is already doing very well. (I've covered the phenomenon in this space before, and I'll do it as long as viewers keep breaking these records.)

Activists are effectively using the web to get Katrina back on the agenda. An alliance of netroots activists, black organizers at ColorofChange, ACORN, the Gulf Coast Civic Works Project (and others) are directing people to demand that moderators finally ask the candidates about Katrina at the upcoming debates. They have already made Katrina the top ranked question for the upcoming CNN/Politico/LA Times Democratic Debate. That's a big deal. Jeffrey Buchanan of the RFK Memorial tells The Nation:

Moderators or questioners from the debate hosts like CNN, ABC, Fox News and NBC/MSNBC have not asked the Republican Presidential candidates a single question through 15 debates about what they would do to rebuild Gulf Coast communities and address the region's current infrastructure crisis. Democratic debates have not done much better, devoting a fraction of a percentage of their debates to the topic... Still the networks have pushed the issue to the side during the debates, the time when the media is supposed to ask the Presidential candidates tough questions about how they would act as President on issues that matter to voters.

You can vote for any question here.

"Power Through Delegates May Be Edwards Strategy"

NY Times:

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — With the Democratic nominating contest building to Feb. 5, the candidates have been focusing on the crucial game of accumulating delegates, a task that has become a possible raison d’être for John Edwards.

After finishing third in three of the four primary contests so far — except in Iowa, where he beat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York for second place by less than one percentage point — Mr. Edwards has shown no sign of quitting, and his advisers have insisted that he still hopes to capture the nomination.

But they have also floated other rationales for a continued Edwards candidacy, suggesting that his delegates could be used to promote his platform or to help him act as a power broker at the Democratic convention.

“We’re still hoping that John is the nominee,” said David Bonior, the national campaign manager. “But with a chunk of delegates, you can leverage what you’ve been fighting for and standing for. You can raise these issues to where they should be on the Democratic agenda. We’re running for those two reasons: to get the nomination and to have his voice heard on his issues.”

Mr. Edwards has accumulated some delegates, giving him a seat at the table — or at least in debates — with Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. He has often steered the conversation on policy, and was the first candidate to outline a universal health care plan and an economic stimulus proposal.

Yet his chance to win the nomination appears slim. After months of exposure — and in his second bid for the nomination — national polls still have him around 14 percent.

He did not even win in South Carolina, where he was born. And Mr. Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, has received no endorsements from major newspapers or senators.

In 2004, Mr. Edwards dropped out of the presidential race after losing every state on a multiprimary day to Senator John Kerry — and that year he had won South Carolina.

But this year, the crowded field and the splintered results have given Mr. Edwards the chance to influence the race. As he did in South Carolina, Mr. Edwards may divide the white vote with Mrs. Clinton in states like Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee, boosting Mr. Obama’s chances. Elsewhere, Mr. Edwards could attract some of the so-called change voters, hurting Mr. Obama.

There are signs that Mrs. Clinton, for one, is unnerved by Mr. Edwards’s continued presence in the race. Last week in South Carolina, her campaign unleashed a wave of automated telephone calls attacking Mr. Edwards’s voting record in the Senate and his work as a consultant for a hedge fund in 2005 and 2006.

There could be a significant payoff for his staying in the race. He could pledge his delegates at any point, including at a brokered Democratic convention in August if neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama captured 50 percent, or 2,025, of the delegates, the number needed to take the nomination.

“It’s obvious what he has in mind — if you can’t be the king, then be the king or queen maker,” said Larry J. Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. “He’s thinking perhaps Obama and Clinton will have a close split of delegates once the primaries are over, and his 300 or 400 delegates will make the difference. This is his one chance to have a real influence.”

Mr. Edwards is keeping up a relentless schedule, this week in Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota and Tennessee, all states that will vote on Feb. 5, and he is running television advertisements in 10 states.

Money is still not a problem, his aides insisted. Though Mr. Edwards has raised significantly less than Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama has raised, his campaign has been on a budget of $1.2 million a month and has enough to go through the primaries. He has raised more than $3 million this month, in part because of liberal bloggers, who recently organized a one-day fund-raiser that brought in more than $300,000.

"Obama, Kennedys Resonate with Youth"

The Caucus, NY Times political blog:

Patrick Kennedy, a representative of Rhode Island, today reminded a packed crowd at American University in Washington that the 26th Amendment that lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 came about largely through the work of his father, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

“And I can see that all of you are going to make good use of that this election. Right?” asked Mr. Kennedy as he, his father and his cousin Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of President John F. Kennedy, formally endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Each Kennedy family member incorporated youth or issues important to young people in their speech on the college campus. Caroline Kennedy talked about how her three teenagers are big Obama fans, and Senator Kennedy spoke of President Kennedy’s commitment to youth public service as well as Mr. Obama’s dedication to the fight against global warming.

Mr. Obama himself told the crowd that he’s able to run for president because his father, who grew up in poverty in Kenya, received a grant from the Kennedy Foundation to study abroad.

Kaitie O’Hare, 17, drove down from Baltimore with her mom early this morning to make sure she got her chance to see Mr. Obama speak. She called the whole experience – which included several hours lined up in the cold outside the Bender Arena – “inspiring and moving.”

And of Senator Kennedy’s endorsement, she said, “It’s good because Hillary’s not getting it.”

“Ted Kennedy’s, like, ‘Mr. Democratic Party,’ and everyone’s always talking about the whole experience thing, and here’s the most experienced guy in Washington saying he thinks Barack’s the guy for the job,” said Brian Levy, 18, a friend of Ms. O’Hare’s who attends George Washington University in Washington.

“I think this is one of the biggest events in the election so far,” he added.

Friends Melani Hom, 22, and Danielle Pals, 21, work at nonprofits in Washington and skipped a half-day of work to go to the rally. Pre-rally, they were leaning toward Mr. Obama, and they said they, too, were impressed by the speeches they heard.

“Right before, Danielle was like, ‘I’m looking for some inspiration,’ and I got some chills,” Ms. Hom said. “I think Kennedy and Obama bring a balance of old and new Democrats.”

“I think it brought some revitalization to the campaign,” Ms. Pals added. “I think it brings a different group of people on board – I hope.”

The younger – we mean really young – crowd also soldiered the cold to show their support for Mr. Obama, sometimes by their own choosing and sometimes, well, not. The rally coincided with a teacher institute day for the Arlington, Va., school district, so a lot of kids spent their day off learning about politics.

“I don’t want to be here. It’s really cold,” said Lydia Packard, 9, of Arlington, Va., whose mom Nancy Butt Packard is an Obama supporter.

That said, Ms. Packard admits she’s learned a little bit about Mr. Obama at home from her parents. “I hear them say he’s a good person.”

Zulaika Brown, 7, of Columbia, Md., perhaps approaches politics more seriously.

“He’s a great man and we want him to be president because he’ll be good to us and our country,” said Ms. Brown, who is home-schooled, of Mr. Obama. “He’ll be the first African-American president, and maybe he’ll stop the war.”

And she loves — loves — the idea of Mr. Obama’s daughters Malia, 9, and Sasha, 6, moving into the White House. As she jumped up and down in excitement, the only word Ms. Brown could eke out about the Obama girls was that it would be “cool” if she could someday play with them.

“I told her she’s not old enough to vote,” said her mother, Faridah Brown, “but if she could, she would vote for him.”

Barack Obama

"KENNEDY EAGERLY STUMPS FOR OBAMA..." (with video)

Ari Melber (The Nation), with video (00:55):

Senator Ted Kennedy is not wasting any time in his new advocacy for Barack Obama's campaign. After the official endorsement rally in Washington on Monday, Kennedy took to the airwaves to tout Obama in an interview with PBS' Tavis Smiley before the State of the Union.

"The one overriding issue is which of these candidates can galvanize the Democratic party, can galvanize America," Kennedy said. "My sense is that Barack Obama has the ability to bring together young and old, black and white, the people from all different parts of our country, call on the best within them and get the job done for not just the Democratic party but for our country." He also repeated the idea that Obama offers the kind of historic inspiration and leadership associated with JFK and RFK. "I think Barack Obama brings this same sense of vision, this same sense of uplift, this same sense of hope, the same challenge to the young people that my brothers brought," he added.

Smiley also asked why "so many of the powerful white male members of the U.S. Senate, past and present, are lining up behind Barack Obama," while "the majority of the Congressional Black Caucus ... though not by much, has gotten behind Hillary Clinton"? Kennedy answered that many politicians endorsed people based on personal relationships, but he was moved by Obama because he combines inspiration with the ability to get the job done. "We want elect the person that can get the job done," he said. "And to get the job done you have to bring people together. And to bring people together you have to be Barack Obama."

Barack Obama

Made in Seattle: "Fired Up, Ready to Go" (video)

BergevinBrothers, video (06:26):

Obama Supporters Are Sleepless In Seattle

Joe Bergevin watched Senator Barack Obama tell a story about one person, Edith Childs, who energized others with a fired up, ready to go, chant at one of his campaign stops. Inspired by Obamas "One voice can change the world" speech, he then wrote some words and rough chords for a song then called his brother Jon to help him finish the song, "Fired Up Ready to Go". Jon then made many phone calls and in ten days, with the help of many, a music video was born with the intent of spreading Obamas hopeful message. Contributors include Reverend Pat Wright's renowned Total Experience Gospel Choir, drummer Matt Cameron from Pearl Jam, Jake Bergevin, other top studio musicians, a theater, a recording studio, sound engineers, two video teams, photographers, catering and local news teams. From the first word written to the last note performed, this collective effort demonstrates Senator Obama's unifying message.

Barack Obama

"BARACK TOPS TOPLESS BRITNEY" (with video)

Ari Melber, with video (18:45):

Barack Obama's South Carolina victory speech skyrocketed to the top of YouTube on Monday, shooting past new footage of a topless Britney Spears and netting over 323,000 views so far.

Obama and Britney have actually been battling on YouTube since last week, when he shot past two videos of a (fully clothed) Spears trailed by paparazzi. Obama's speech is also the second most "favorited" video of the day on YouTube, just behind a personal message from Ron Paul. (Paul does not draw as many overall viewers, but he has the most views of any Republican candidate, and his motivated supporters consistently choose his clips as their favorites.) And today the Obama Campaign rushed out another video of his endorsement event with Ted Kennedy -- we'll see if the liberal lion can also rival the pop culture competition.

The Kennedy and Paul videos are below. If you want Britney, go find her yourself.

Howie P.S.: You will have to find the Paul video yourself, as well.

Barack Obama

"Super Tuesday looks close for Democrats"

LA Times:

Obama's charm may not save him as Clinton carries the edge in the most populous states. It's not the kind of campaign that plays to his strengths.--Barack Obama gained a burst of momentum from his landslide victory in the South Carolina primary on Saturday and an expected endorsement today from Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. But now, the Illinois senator faces a monumental contest that does not play to his strengths.

In eight days, on Feb. 5, Obama and his principal rival, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, face off in the contest dubbed Super Tuesday, the biggest day of presidential primary voting in U.S. history. Twenty-two states hold Democratic primaries or caucuses that day, spanning political terrain from California to Massachusetts, from Latino communities in the West to majority-black cities in the East, a mix of states that includes some of the nation's most expensive television advertising markets.

Super Tuesday is a particular challenge for Obama, who trails Clinton in most national polls. Three of the biggest states voting -- New York, New Jersey and Connecticut -- are in Clinton's backyard; a fourth, Arkansas, was her home before her husband was elected president. Those states account for one-quarter of the delegates to be awarded that day.

In California, which holds the biggest cache of delegates, polls show Clinton has a commanding -- although narrowed -- lead over Obama.

Moreover, the multi-state field of Super Tuesday does not play to Obama's signature strength: his ability to win over voters in live town-hall settings, using his soaring oratory and personal charm. That worked for him in Iowa, where many voters met him personally more than once. In a national campaign, by contrast, most voters' only contact with Obama will be through advertising and surrogates.

Still, the Obama campaign has a strategy for countering Clinton's big-state advantage -- one built in part on the Democratic rules for how delegates are awarded.

Rather than a winner-take-all system, in which the candidate who gets the most votes in a state claims all the delegates, Democrats have elaborate rules that award delegates in proportion to each candidate's share of the vote.

That means even a Clinton stronghold like New Jersey may produce some delegates for Obama -- and it explains why Obama visited Jersey City this month, weeks before New Jersey was set to vote, where a crowd of about 4,500 lined up to hear him.

Despite early predictions that the primary contest would be resolved by Feb. 5, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns now assume that neither candidate will lock up the nomination that day. Even a Clinton strategist predicts that the two will emerge with very close delegate counts.

In all, nearly 1,700 delegates will be awarded on Super Tuesday, a big boost toward the 2,025 needed to clinch the Democratic nomination. California will award 370 delegates that day, or about 22% of the delegates at stake. Republicans will hold their own nominating contests Feb. 5, most in the states where Democrats are voting.

The last two days have strengthened Obama's hand.

His 28-point victory margin over Clinton on Saturday in South Carolina was far wider than most predicted, giving Obama energy and new funds. His campaign raised $500,000 through its website in the hour after the South Carolina polls closed, according to a spokesman. Obama carried 55% of the vote in South Carolina, compared to 27% for Clinton and 18% for John Edwards.

On his way to winning South Carolina, Obama drew support from about 80% of African American voters, exit polls showed. That leaves him positioned to do well Feb. 5 in states such as Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee, which have large populations of African American Democrats.

The biggest prize among these states will be Georgia, where blacks could make up more than 40% of the Democratic primary vote, and 87 delegates are at stake. Obama has been endorsed by Atlanta's black mayor, Shirley Franklin, and recent polls show he has an edge over Clinton in the state.

Obama argued Sunday that his South Carolina victory, in which he won about a quarter of white voters, showed that he appeals to all races. While some think that "if you get black votes, you can't get white votes," his success in South Carolina proved that untrue, Obama told a crowd of more than 9,000 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Kennedy, the Massachusetts senator and one of the Democratic Party's most senior figures, will campaign for Obama and help him shore up support among Latino voters, said someone close to the endorsement announcement.

Latino voters are a mainstay of Clinton's base, and they have a large presence in California, Arizona and several other states that vote Feb. 5. The Obama campaign believes that Kennedy will carry influence among Latinos in part because of his prominent role in calling for an overhaul of immigration laws that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented workers.

Kennedy is expected to endorse Obama at a rally at American University in Washington. News of Kennedy's decision came the day that his niece, Caroline, backed Obama in a New York Times opinion article in which she said Obama could inspire Americans as did her father, President Kennedy. Caroline Kennedy is scheduled to appear at today's rally as well.

Obama already had a leg up on the third-largest delegate prize of Super Tuesday: his home state of Illinois. And he has built organizations in the six states that are holding caucuses rather than primaries: Alaska, North Dakota, Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas and Idaho. The caucus format, which requires voters to attend meetings to express support for their candidate, plays to the Obama campaign's strength in grass-roots organizing that it honed in the Iowa caucuses.

A Clinton advisor, who asked not to be named when discussing campaign strategy, conceded Obama's strength in the caucus states but said that far fewer delegates were to be had there, compared to the populous states that form Clinton's base.

Still, with a visit to Florida, Clinton signaled Sunday that she is serious about gathering all possible delegates for the nomination fight.

The Democratic National Committee last year said it would not seat delegates from Florida as punishment for the state's decision to leapfrog other states and set its primary election earlier in the calendar than party rules allowed. Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign there.

Florida's election will proceed Tuesday, and Clinton anticipates winning. On Sunday, she repeated her call for the party to revoke its punishment and seat Florida's delegates at the national nominating convention this summer.

"I'm going to try to seat the Florida delegates," Clinton said at a news conference in Tennessee. "I've said that the people of Florida deserve to be represented in the process of picking a president for the Democratic Party."

Clinton later flew to Florida for three fundraising events and promised to return Tuesday night after the votes are counted. "I want the voters in Florida to know that I hear them, that I deeply care about their problems," she said at the news conference.

While her words and fundraising trip were bound to attract media attention in Florida, Clinton was not scheduled to take part in campaign rallies in the state, sticking to a pledge that she and other Democratic candidates made not to publicly campaign there.

Obama's campaign cast the Florida race as meaningless. "If the Clinton campaign's Southern strength rests on the outcome in a state where they're the only ones competing, that should give Democrats deep pause," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

In California, Clinton has led in the polls from the beginning, but her margin has narrowed. In October, the Field Poll found her ahead by 25 points; in the most recent Field Poll, the margin shrank to 12 points.

Clinton's strongest groups form the bulwark of the state's Democratic party: women, lower-income people and Latinos. African Americans are strong for Obama, but they represent only 7% of the electorate, according to the Field Poll.

Endorsed in California by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Clinton is campaigning as the establishment candidate. But with Kennedy's expected endorsement of Obama, it's clear the political establishment isn't ready to fall in behind one candidate yet.

Barack Obama

"Obamelot?"

David Goldstein (Goldy):

So, the Seattle Times has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Big deal. Next week they’ll also endorse Sen. John McCain on the Republican side. If the Times really embraces the kind of change they believe Obama represents, they wouldn’t endorse anybody for the Republican nomination, least of all a warmonger whose idea of straight talk is promising crowds “there will be other wars.”

Personally, I doubt many Washington state Democrats are looking to the op-ed pages for advice on who to caucus for on February 9, but if they are, I’m guessing the most influential endorsement of the primary season may have come today in the New York Times, and I’m not talking about an unsigned editorial. No, the big news following Obama’s impressive 29-point rout of Hillary Clinton in yesterday’s South Carolina primary was the moving op-ed column written by Caroline Kennedy, “A President Like My Father“:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

[…] I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

I suppose I might have a reputation for being a hard-edged cynic, but my eyes actually teared up a bit when I first read Kennedy’s words. I so desperately want to believe what she believes, that Obama really does have that “special ability” to inspire and to lead and to bring us back together as a nation. I fully understand her father was just a man, as flawed as any, but that doesn’t diminish President Kennedy’s impact as a leader, however symbolic, and I too long for a president who can inspire me the way so many of my parent’s generation were inspired by him.

As both a liberal and an American, I have long felt cheated by history… robbed of a promising future by a handful of assassins’ bullets. Had President Kennedy lived to complete his terms, might we have avoided the mistakes that led to an all out involvement in Vietnam, a war that divided our nation and drained us of precious blood and treasure? Had Bobby Kennedy survived to win the White House, would American liberalism have survived to finally achieve the vision of economic justice and security first enunciated by FDR, and wouldn’t Americans have retained the faith in government that carried us through the Great Depression and World War II, rather than seeing that faith shattered by the betrayal that was Watergate? Had Martin Luther King Jr. lived to guide our nation to the Promised Land, rather than just glimpsing it from some far-off mountain top, would the Republican Party have been free to so ruthlessly exploit Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” to advance their selfish, conservative agenda?

My critics like to characterize me as some wide-eyed, lefty moonbat, but I’m nothing more or less than a 1970’s-era centrist who has been radicalized in style if not in substance by a decades-long, right-wing campaign to defile the proud legacy of American liberalism, and to brand its adherents as idiots, ideologues, traitors and worse. The radicalized middle from which I come did not lightly seize on unbridled partisanship as our political weapon of choice, but that is the weapon that has been used to cudgel us into submission for far too long. That the fierceness of the netroots and the new progressive movement to which it belongs frightens the political and media establishment, is understandable, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that our aggressive rhetoric and tactics have not played a significant role in our recent electoral victories. Only now that a netroots-powered Democratic majority is on the verge of seizing unchallenged control of the federal government, do we hear a renewed call for bipartisanship… and that is why I wince every time I hear Obama echoing their frame.

When Obama talks about reaching his hand across the aisle, the cynic in me envisions the other side leaping at the opportunity to lop it off. When Obama talks about bipartisanship, I fear it means willingly sacrificing the very political advantages we have fought so hard to achieve. It’s not that I don’t trust Obama, it’s just that I don’t trust the Republican leadership to reciprocate in kind… not these Republicans… not the party that so joyously swiftboated a war hero, and took a man who left three limbs on the battlefield and morphed him into Osama bin Laden. Hardened by decades of partisan, political war, I admit to finding a certain degree of solace in the more calculating nature of Hilary Clinton — the very same quality that appears to turn off so many other voters. Better to be calculating than naive.

That said, I want to believe, like Caroline Kennedy, in the promise of Obama. I want a president who I don’t simply admire, but one who I find truly inspirational. I want my eyes to fill with tears, not at the thought of what might have been, but what can be. And not since Mario Cuomo ended his flirtation with a White House bid back in 1991 have I found a presidential candidate who offers me this hope.

Tomorrow, Sen. Ted Kennedy will appear with his niece at a rally in Washington D.C., to announce his endorsement of Barack Obama, and to personally pass the torch of Camelot on to a new generation. No doubt the right will take the opportunity to vilify Sen. Kennedy in the hope that some of their ridicule might rub off on the man he supports, but in doing so they perilously dismiss the power of symbolism, for even Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” was a reference to Camelot, and an attempt to co-opt the aura of the Kennedy era as his own.

Perhaps Camelot was always only a dream, but that doesn’t mean it can’t someday come true. Tomorrow, Barack Obama, surrounded by his beautiful wife and young children, standing beside the daughter and brother of the fallen king, has an unprecedented opportunity to rekindle this dream in the hearts of Americans.

It is an opportunity to restore the faith of even hardened cynics like me.

Howie P.S.: I love Goldy, but I wish he would examine Obama's record of success in achieving progressive improvements by working with members of the opposition to build legislative majorities in Illinois and the U.S. Senate, rather than looking inward to his distrust of "Republican leadership." Obama won't need to work with the more venal leadership; he can forge working relationships with willing individual Republicans, as he has done in the past. My message to Goldy: "Yes, we can!"

Barack Obama