You can be honest, but I need you to lie about it.

Now that a week or so has passed and everyone has had a chance to chew on both Rev. Wright's comments and Obama's speech, I figured I would give my two cents.

I find it interesting how race in this country is a big white elephant. For some reason it is always an issue, but few people want to talk about it. The feeling seems to be that if we just pretend it isn't there, it will go away.

We get the occasional news piece about Obama's upbringing and some references during debates to the historical significance of his candidacy. But, generally, everyone is scared to go too far for fear of being accused of racism. So it all stays bottled up inside a pressure-cooker.

That is until a former Congresswoman makes some questionable statements and some videos surface of Obama's maverick pastor. It then explodes to the front-page of the news and for a period of time, the media can freely acknowledge that Barack Obama is black without fear that they are raising something they shouldn't have. After all, the media didn't bring it up. Geraldine Ferraro did. The media didn't expose Reverend Wright. You Tube did. The media just reported the news, as they should, and they got to do the stories that they had been wanting to report but were afraid to.

So here we are. We have a black man running for President and now the country has to officially acknowledge this and consider exactly what that means. For most people, it doesn't mean a whole lot because it really has nothing to do with his policies or how well he can lead this country. For others, it makes all of the difference and seeing the inner-workings of a black church will permanently sway their vote to Hillary.

There are people in this country that would never in their life vote for a black man. There are people in this country that would never vote for a woman. There are people in this country that would never vote for a Catholic. There are people in this country that would never vote for a Jew. There are people in this country that would never vote for a Californian. Or a Baptist. Or a Mid-westerner. Or a Floridian. And on and on and on.

While I think basing one's choices on such petty things is a shame, such is the nature of a free society. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and feelings. Some people will just be ignorant and will never see past the superficial layer to realize that the black man they would never vote for, might just be the one that will keep their job from being shipped overseas. It is their right to think whatever they want to think and do what they want to do.

Now, Obama gave a speech last Tuesday where he talked about race in this country. He was quite candid. Many felt it was a watershed moment in this campaign. Others felt it was just an example of how poor a choice for President Mr. Obama is. I personally think the best thing about the speech was its lack of outright political posturing.

Obama did not simply make a speech designed to put race out there and then neatly shove it back in the closet lest it cause more trouble. He made a speech about race and challenged everyone to deal with it openly. He did not pander to anyone by disowning his pastor of 20 years. He acknowledged the nature of his pastor's sermons and put them in context. He then left the audience to draw their conclusions, even if those conclusions hurt his campaign. To me, this shows great respect for the American people.

He recognized that one speech is not going to change the opinions of anyone, so why try. This was not a topic to be playing around with. This was a serious moment, there were some points that needed to be raised and clarified, and I think he dealt with it exactly how he needed to.

Can we move on now?

Just don't call me a monster

In the last 2 weeks both the Obama and Clinton camps have had to deal with ill-advised comments made by their staff. How each campaign handled the situations says a lot about each--and re-enforces my feeling that Obama is the force for change while Clinton would just be George W. Bush as a Democrat.

Let's just do a quick comparison of the quotes.

Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro made this statement. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

Obama's foreign policy advisor Stephanie Powers made this comment. "She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything,"


First of all, I ask this. Which of these 2 statements is more inflammatory?

In Ferraro's statement you have an accusation that Obama got where he is because of who he is, not what he has done. Could the same not be said about Clinton?

Would she really be Senator from New York and a viable candidate for President had Bill not already been in office? Prior to his election in 1992 she had no exposure on the national level. Prior to her election to the Senate, she had never held political office. Such arguments are tacky, however, and the Obama campaign has been wise enough to stay above such tactics.

In Powers' statement she makes an accusation that Clinton will do anything to win. In looking at the comment, it could be taken a couple ways. She could be using the term 'monster' as a derogatory term about Clinton's character. Or, she could be saying 'monster' in the sense that Clinton is a force to be reckoned with. The former is a bit over the line. The latter is strictly a valid political statement.

All in all, I think both statements were ill-conceived. The idea behind what they were trying to say was lost as a result the words they chose to use.


Now, let's look at the reaction to each statement.

For her part, Stephanie Power's was asked to resign due to the comments she made. She complied and stepped down from her position on the campaign. She passed along that Obama, "... made it absolutely clear that we just couldn't make comments like this in his campaign."

I believe this says a lot about how Obama wishes to run his campaign. This is not the first staffer that has made damaging remarks to the media about Clinton and it is not the first time he has asked them to resign because of it.


Meanwhile, Ferraro remains on the Clinton staff and Clinton dismissed the issue by saying, "... both of us have had supporters and staff members who've gone over the line and we have to reign them in and try to keep this on the issues. There are big differences between us on the issues — let's stay focused on that."

In response to the 'monster' issue, Clinton said, "I think Sen. Obama did the right thing, but I think it's important to look at what she and his other advisers say behind closed doors. Particularly when they are talking to foreign governments and foreign press."

So Obama reacted correctly by releasing a staffer who was not careful in choosing her words, but when a Clinton staffer does something similar, some would say worse, it is okay and we all just need to move on. This sure sounds like how George W. Bush would handle things.


I personally think that both issues got blown out of proportion. The monster comment was just a slip and there really wasn't much there. The Ferraro comment was out of line, but it was really jumped on because it had a racial tone.

The real impact for me is looking at how each campaign responded. Based on that, I am even more convinced that Obama walks the walk while Clinton is 'Just Words'**.


** This is an excerpt from a speech given by Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts. I wouldn't want anyone accusing me of plagiarism.

But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express...

Everyone knows that Hillary loves to brag about here 35 years of experience helping people and how Obama is all talk and has no detailed plans. And everyone knows that Barack has generally let this slide unchecked--far too long in my opinion. Well, after Texas and Ohio he finally made some comments that I hope get some traction.

He simply raised the question of her experience. He asked that she be vetted on this experience that she claims to have. That she offer some proof of her critical decision-making while she was in the White House. Hillary is so quick to dismiss Obama's time in the Illinois legislature and pounce on his 'present' votes, yet during all of her years of 'experience', she was never accountable to anyone. She was not elected. She did not have to vote on policy. She did not once have to stick her neck out for anyone.

Meredith Vieira brought this up way back on January 2nd, but I cannot understand why Hillary is getting such a pass on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddgom0QWvLs


I am not saying Hillary is a liar, at least not on this post, but I just think that she needs to be held accountable to the claims she is making. Al Gore claimed to invent the Internet and no one has forgotten it. Alexander Haig claimed he was second in the line of succession to the Presidency and people still talk about it. How is it that Hillary can claim her role as First Lady gives her more experience than being a state legislator, but no one wants to bring it up?

Don't call it a comeback!

So Hillary won Texas and Ohio. Much of the media, and Hillary herself, is calling this a comeback and a sign that her campaign is revitalized. But there is something I am confused about.

She was up by 20 points in Texas 3 weeks ago. She was also up by 20 points in Ohio a few weeks ago. So she was a shoo-in for a victory in each state. yet she only won by 3 and 12 points respectively.

I am not sure how you can call it a come back when everyone expected you to win in the first place. In fact, I see it as a loss since her 20 point lead in Texas was only 3 by the time that the election came. And, as it turns out, Obama earned one more delegate than she did because Texas also holds a caucus, which he won handily. Obviously she won big in Ohio, but still not by nearly as much as the polls had shown a few weeks ago.

If anyone had a comeback here, it is Obama. He was polling as behind by 20 points in each and within 2 weeks he knocked 17 points off that in Texas and 8 points off that in Ohio. At the end of the day he maintained his pledged delegate advantage. Considering the hole he was in, I'd say his performance in those primaries is much more impressive.

The beat goes on...

I keep hoping that Obama will lock this thing down, but just when it seems like he will, he comes up a little short. And base don Hillary's personality, I think she plans on taking the Huckabee approach. She will stay in until Barack has passed the pledged delegate milestone.

I am encouraged by the fact that she had a 20 point lead in each state 2 weeks ago, but that was closed to 3 points in Texas and 12 points in Ohio. Ohio is the real disappointment. If he could have kept that split under 9, then I think today's discussions would be quite different.

Wyoming and Mississippi in the next week. Minor states that will decide nothing except momentum. They are really must-wins for Obama since the next primary is not until Pennsylvania on 4/22. That is a long time to wait if you lose. I expect Mississippi to be a land-slide in his favor. Wyoming will probably be more split.

I think this race comes down to Pennsylvania now. If Hillary does not have a victory on the order of her win in Ohio, then the odds of her winning drop substantially and I think there will be pressure for her to drop out.