OBAMARAMA

Outstanding, if true…

(CNN) – Former 2004 presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry will endorse Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, two sources told CNN Thursday.

The announcement will come at 2 p.m. in Charleston, S.C., the sources said.

“(Kerry) remains one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party and (has) an e-mail list with millions of addresses,” an Obama source said.

Kerry ran in 2004 on the Democratic ticket with former Sen. John Edwards, who is running this year for party’s presidential nomination.

A tough break, given the heightened expectations and polls. Coming out of NH, where he missed first place by only a few thousand votes, Sen. Obama has put the best possible face on this development and heads into NV and SC poised to regain the frontrunner mantle.

In NV, he has the endorsement of the Culinary Workers’ Union, which has a membership of over 60,000 and is very active in the state. In SC, the talking heads wonder if Obama’s success in whiter states will convince African American voters of Obama’s viability, since black voters constitute half of the state’s democratic voters. We’ve talked here about the foolishness of discussing black voters as a monolithic block, but for those for whom this logic is persuasive, hopefully the momentum will be enough to carry him through.

I have to admit, I started counting chickens yesterday — actually told a friend I could see Sen. Obama winning every state but NY. Ah, well. At least now it’s a race.

The AP reports today that “Sen. Barack Obama vowed Thursday to restore environmental protections the Bush administration has rolled back through executive orders, especially at the Environmental Protection Agency.”

He called the EPA under Bush “demoralized,” primarily through executive orders that didn’t require congressional approval.

From the article:

“I think the slow chipping away against clean air and clean water has been deeply disturbing. Much of it hasn’t gone through Congress. It was done by fiat,” he said. “That is something that can be changed by an administration, in part by reinvigorating the EPA, which has been demoralized.”

Obama added: “When you’ve got folks at the top who are not serious about enforcing environmental laws, then all through the civil service people get discouraged.”

Michelle Obama had a great appearance on Good Morning America yesterday.  Have a look:

Following up on a New York Times article that exposed telemarketing firms that prey on older Americans, Sen. Obama sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission “to express my concern that the Federal Trade Commission is not doing more to deter such schemes and to protect elderly consumers from abusive and fraudulent telemarketing practices.”

This Direct Marketing News article has more:

In his May 21 letter, Mr. Obama said, “yesterday, the New York Times published an investigation into telemarketing fraud schemes that exploit vulnerable American seniors, often robbing them of their dignity, their good credit, and even the life savings and financial resources they rely on to pay for food or medication. I am writing to express my concern that the Federal Trade Commission is not doing more to deter such schemes and to protect elderly consumers from abusive and fraudulent telemarketing practices.”

…Mr. Obama asked the FTC to answer six questions, including “what, if anything, is the FTC doing to assess and address the particular consumer protection challenges faced by seniors or other groups of American consumers who may be especially vulnerable to abuse?” and “In particular, what is the FTC doing to regulate the sale of telemarketing databases to companies that are under investigation or have been prosecuted for fraud?”

He asked for a response by June 8, 2007.

“We have a very long, 25 year-plus record fighting against telemarketing fraud, and we are looking forward to providing all of that information to the Senator,” said Eileen Harrington, deputy director of the bureau of consumer protection at the FTC.

The piece also quotes “a privacy and information policy consultant” who observes that “This issue involves telemarketing fraud along with cheating the elderly — two things that together make it a perfect issue for politicians.”

Dream On:

Sen. Clinton insists her position on war same as Obama’s

Saying Democrats are “united” in calling for a change in course in Iraq, Clinton brushed off comments by Obama that his opposition to the war in 2002 sets him apart from the former First Lady, who voted to authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq.

An AP article out today compares the diversity among the top staffers of the leading presidential candidates. Not surprisingly, the Republicans don’t fare so well:

According to the article, “The Obama campaign counts six minority staffers among its top 14 staff members, and six women within the same group.” It goes on to quote spokesman Bill Burton, who says that a diverse staff “helps to get a fuller sense of opinions and perspectives and ideas from a broad spectrum of individuals.”

And a new FOX News poll bears the headline “More Voters Believe Giuliani, McCain and Obama Say What They Believe,” noting that “46 percent think Obama says what he truly believes,” the largest percentage of any Democrat.

One of the most diverse campaigns AND the most honest? Not bad for a guy no one had heard of six months ago.

In an interview on Wednesday night, President Clinton once again tried to conflate his wife’s record on the war with that of Sen. Obama. As quoted by the Hotline:

CLINTON: Because in the beginning, there was this impression that he was the only one that was really against the president’s policy in Iraq, which I don’t think is accurate, but it nevertheless had some legs out there.

His voting record and Hillary’s are almost identical, I think, on all the relevant issues.

Asked about the comments yesterday, Sen. Obama didn’t mince words:

“I suppose that’s true if you leave out the fact that she authorized it, and supported it, and I said it was a bad idea,” said Obama. “That’s a fairly major difference.”

It begs the question: Can you smell what Barack is cooking?

Every time I hear the name “Frank Luntz,” I throw up in my mouth a little.

This is the man, after all, who made the Republicans understand that they could win policy debates simply by having the better message, regardless of how flawed their policies were. He coined phrases like “Death Tax,” “energy exploration” and “healthy forests,” to replace the unimaginative (if more precise) terms “Estate Tax,” “drilling” and “logging.” As Samantha Bee once put it, “Luntz has made a brilliant career spraying perfume on dog turds.”

In fairness, I don’t have such a visceral, intestinal reaction to Frank Luntz because he’s an idiot. To the contrary, the guy has been brutally successful, having reportedly once even sold a ketchup popsicle to an Eskimo wearing white gloves.

While we should lament the absence of substance in our debates, Luntz has helped political folks on both sides learn to appreciate the vital role communication plays in the process. Despite his sometimes questionable methodologies, Luntz understands better than anyone that you need to sell your ideas if you want them to be adopted.

So when he goes on Bill Maher and says Sen. Obama is well-positioned to win both the primary and the general election, I take heed. I still get a little nauseous, but it’s a nausea of joy. Have a look:

This interesting segment from ABC News discusses the unwillingness of all of this campaign’s major presidential candidates — from both parties — to release their tax information.

All but one, that is.  Have a look:

One particularly interesting and provocative moment from Sen. Obama’s This Week interview came when he was asked about affirmative action. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson describes his answer:

Obama waded into the central issue of the affirmative action debate: race vs. class.

…George Stephanopoulos asked Obama whether his daughters should be able to benefit from affirmative action when the time comes for them to go to college. The girls “should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged,” Obama said.

Stephanopoulos was driving at the question of whether race-based affirmative action programs are still needed. Another way to frame the issue is whether race or class is the more important factor in our society. Are minorities who are raised in middle-class or wealthy homes still held back by racism? Or should we now focus on socioeconomic status as the principal barrier keeping people from reaching their potential?

Obama’s answer, basically, was yes. To both questions.

Robinson went on to note that “Obama has repeatedly gone on record as a supporter of affirmative action,” but added that “He seemed to side with those who think class predominates when he said, ‘I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed.’”

In other words, an acknowledgment that racial prejudice remains a major obstacle to educational ascendancy in this country, but an affirmation that it is increasingly the economic hurdles of college applicants that make the most sense for admissions officers to consider.

It is not something that is often discussed aloud, it is quite simply not every day that an African American politician suggests shifting affirmative action from a race-based to a class-based system. This is precisely the sort of chutzpah and commitment to ideas — as opposed to ideologies — that has propelled Sen. Obama to the front of this race.

We’ve done bluster and bravado. The 2008 campaign will be about pragmatism, reason and results. Sen. Obama understands this, perhaps better than anyone.

I received an email tonight from a staff member at ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, where Sen. Obama will be appearing this Sunday. She made a very interesting pitch that is unprecedented among the Sunday shows, as far as I know. Have a look — I think you’ll be impressed:

[Y]our readers may be interested in a new feature for This Week - “Be Seen, Be Heard” We’ve set it up so people can submit video questions to our guests (with chosen ones featured on This Week). They can submit videos to Senator Obama at this link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BeSeenBeHeard/story?id=3078388, or they can email questions to thisweek@abc.com.

This strikes me as an excellent opportunity to ask any questions you may have for Sen. Obama in a public forum — and a valuable chance for him to address the concerns of real people, in real time.

What are the best questions we can pose? Questions that give him a chance to talk about his plan to end the war in Iraq? His thoughts on the administration’s lack of accountability? His top priorities for his first term? It would be great to read your thoughts on this and any ideas for questions in the comments section.

And here’s the video promo for this week’s This Week:

Much is being made in some quarters over Sen. Obama’s comment in Iowa that there’s “at least one senator in Iowa who could be helpful” in overriding President Bush’s veto of Congress’s Iraq funding bill. In response, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley — the subject of Sen. Obama’s remark — called the comment “not senatorial,” adding that “when you’re in another state, you don’t take pokes at a fellow senator.”

Boo freaking hoo. According to the Chicago Tribune, Grassley went on to assert that “he would never go into Illinois and tell Obama’s constituents to ‘get on him about something.’” “You know what really makes it less presidential,” Grassley said, is “I’m not running for president. I’m not one of his opponents.”

Except that, on the issue of the war, you are.

Inexplicably, the Trib titles their report on the exchange “Obama’s Faux Pas,” as if encouraging people to encourage their representatives to override the veto is somehow a “mistake” — as if adhering to the “gentlemanly” senatorial protocol is somehow more important than the moral imperative of ending an immoral war.

Sorry Chuck, but it looks like the U.S. Senate is no longer a safe haven for thin-skinned whiners. To reappropriate a favorite old phrase, You’re ass is Grassley, and Sen. Obama’s the lawnmower.

UPDATE: This evening’s Post headline: “Obama Renews Pressing Grassley on Iraq.”

Most presidential candidates would rather eat their own shoe than confront an interest group with an uncomfortable truth. Not so for Sen. Obama.

From the New York Times:

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois delivered a stern message to Detroit auto companies on Monday, saying they had done little to lessen the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and needed to improve the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.

Sounding at times like a teacher scolding a lazy but promising student, Mr. Obama at the same time proposed incentives to help General Motors, Ford and Chrysler out of a lingering slump that has resulted in dozens of plant closings and the elimination of tens of thousands of jobs this decade.

…Mr. Obama, making his first campaign visit to Michigan, said he wanted to be blunt with Detroit auto companies on their home turf.

…“I’m making this proposal here today because I don’t believe in making proposals in California and giving a different speech in Michigan,” he said. His goal “is not to destroy the industry, but to help bring it into the 21st century,” he said.

The article notes that Sen. Obama’s plan would mandate “a 4 percent a year increase in fuel economy standards beginning in 2009, or the equivalent of about one mile per gallon per year.” The result would be conservation of 2.5 million barrels daily. Sen. Obama also plans to assist automakers in updating their plants and “in dealing with their burden of paying for current and retired workers’ health care expenses.”

He also plans to “Expand the tax breaks for buying hybrids and ultra-efficient vehicles that use biofuels,” according to a Chicago Sun-Times report.

Perhaps most telling in the Times article, though, are the remarks of folks who attended the speech, and who were impressed by Sen. Obama’s substance and the details of his plan:

“I think it took a lot of courage to come to Detroit and lay it on the line,” said Peter Eckstein, a retired labor union economist from Ann Arbor, Mich.

Leonard Mungo, a Detroit lawyer, said he was surprised to hear specific proposals for addressing the industry’s problems. “He’s saying, ‘You got yourselves into this mess, but now this is how we get out,’” Mr. Mungo said.

Here’s the headline of an AP story out today:

“Obama’s Wife Says Supporters to Bring Energy to Presidential Campaign.”

And another, from the Post:

“Wife Touts Obama’s ‘Moral Compass.’“

And how about one more, from the Nashua Telegraph:

“Michelle Obama says husband has experience that counts.”

Media coverage in the run-up to the campaign suggested that it was Michelle Obama, the professional, intelligent and classy wife of Sen. Barack Obama, who harbored the most qualms about her husband’s potential run. But now that he’s in, he couldn’t hope for a more ardent, devoted and compelling advocate.

Michelle Obama has been on the campaign trail since February, and everywhere she goes she draws large, interested crowds, engaging them with funny anecdotes about her husband and ultimately inspiring them with testimony about his commitment to justice and public service. Once the campaign skeptic, Michelle Obama is quickly becoming one of its biggest assets.

I’ve long believed that as the public comes to know Michelle Obama, they will see in her the sort of strong, independent but deeply supportive woman they want standing alongside their president. To help in that process, here is a great video of her speech to the Women for Obama group, where she discusses balancing her different roles during the campaign:

And here is another short video that profiles Michelle Obama’s life: