OBAMARAMA

There are plenty of insubstantial intra-party political kerfuffles to talk about right now — the likely negligible impact of last night’s debate, for example, or the fake plagiarism non-story, or the Delegate War That Never Will Be. Looking ahead, though, there’s something on the horizon that strikes me as more pressing.

Just over a year ago, we reported gleefully on Sen. Obama’s challenge to the Republicans to accept public financing in the general election (“Sen. Obama Throws Down the Public Financing Gauntlet”). Should Sen. McCain be the nominee, we reasoned, it was an especially potent challenge, given his history setting up the public financing system and apparent willingness to forgo it in order to remain competitive.

Then, in March, Sen. McCain accepted the challenge. We noted that development in a post called “A Victory for Principle,” observing that “the 2008 presidential campaign could be the first in U.S. history to be completely special interest-free. Let’s hope we have a chance to see that.”

Fast-forward 11 months. Sen. Obama is now outraising Sen. McCain 3-to-1. Of course, Sen. McCain is very publicly challenging Sen. Obama to remain true to his word, and so far Sen. Obama appears hesitant to do so.

Okay, here’s the thing. This blog was created to help generate interest in Sen. Obama’s candidacy before there was a candidacy. Given that, we’ve refrained from being critical of the campaign to the extent possible, staying out of scuffles like the Obama MySpace melee, which struck me as especially poorly handled by the campaign, though not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

On this issue, though, the time has come for some tough love.

This has been a principled campaign of which Obama supporters and staffers can and should be proud. But part of being a principled campaign is that you have to stay true to your principles.

I know that accepting public financing would mean walking away from a boatload of money. And I know that the boat we are talking about here is the size of Rhode Island. But that can’t matter now. John McCain wants the reformer mantle, he wants the “change candidate” title. Sen. McCain has been in Washington forever and is as much a change agent as he is a real estate agent, and he doesn’t deserve it. But if Sen. Obama walks away from this pledge, McCain will get it.

Come on, Senator Obama! I know you’ve got plenty of seasoned advisors telling you that with your fundraising power and donor base you will be able to bury Sen. McCain in ads and placards. They are wrong. America does not let its presidential candidates buy elections. And even if we did, you are not interested in winning that way. It runs contrary to the whole message of your campaign.

Stay on the path you’ve trailblazed, the path of principle and integrity and substance that so many Americans have so eagerly followed you down. Show the country that it’s not all talk. Raise the bar for all of us, and we’ll reward you by clearing it every time.

I hope the Obama camp comes through on this, I really do. I think it’s crucial to a November victory. Not only would it completely change the landscape of American politics for the better by cutting out special interests, but it would prove that the principles that gird the Obama campaign are not for sale, even for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Best of all, we’d still win.

A pivotal weekend for Sen. Obama, who swept the four primaries and caucuses that took place — Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, and, of course, Vacationland itself, the Pine Tree state, the state on which the sun chooses to shine first every morning: the great state of Maine.

From TPM Election Central:

Obama Wins Maine By Large Margin, Signaling Dark Stretch Ahead For Hillary Camp

With 70% reporting, Obama had 58% to Hillary’s 41%. The surprisingly big victory for Obama came on the same day as the Hillary campaign signaled a recognition of its travails by announcing a shuffling of their inner circle, replacing campaign manager and longtime loyalist Patti Solis Doyle with longtime Hillary confidant Maggie Williams.

Obama’s victory effectively left Hillary advisers grappling with the possibility that the worst case scenario that they’d been anticipating for some time could come true: The prospect of no victories for the rest of February. This coming Tuesday, Obama could very well sweep the Potomac Primary — Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

The train has left the station. Time to get on board.

Should Hillary Clinton win in South Carolina and subsequently steamroll her way to the nomination, the historians and pundits will point to the racial conflagration of the last few days as the Machiavellian key to her success.

Essentially, a series of remarks from the Clinton campaign has been construed by some black leaders as being anywhere from politically tone deaf to out-and-out racist. These remarks include:

• Bill Clinton suggesting that the idea that Sen. Obama has consistently opposed the Iraq war is a “fairy tale“
• An unnamed Clinton advisor saying that Obama voters are just looking for a “hip, black friend“
• Sen. Clinton’s suggestion that despite Martin Luther King Jr.’s contributions, ultimate credit for the Civil Rights movement lies with President Johnson
• Clinton surrogate Andrew Cuomo’s comment that Obama can’t “shuck and jive” his way to the White House

In my view, while a couple of these remarks use loaded language and certainly raise questions about the message the speakers were trying to send, none rises to the level of actual racism. What bothers me is less the content of the remarks than how the Clinton campaign is deflecting the subsequent criticism it has received from the black community.

On Meet the Press this morning, Sen. Clinton claimed that her words have been distorted and pointed a finger directly at the Obama campaign, saying that “I think it clearly came from Senator Obama’s campaign.” She provided no evidence to back this up, however — and in fact, the most public criticism of her remarks came from African American SC Rep. Jim Clyburn, who told the New York Times he was disappointed by them. Yet Clyburn is no Obama surrogate (though he has suggested that the Clinton’s remarks may push him in that direction).

What could be damaging to the Obama campaign is the implication that he is playing what pundits everywhere joyously call “the race card.” This is a charge to which Sen. Obama, being black, is uniquely susceptible, and one that could hurt him by creating the impression that he is trying to use race and inflame racial sensitivities to his political advantage.

He’s done no such thing; in fact, it’s my opinion that Sen. Obama’s unwillingness to take this low road — despite ample opportunities to do so — is directly responsible for making him such a viable candidate in the minds of Americans of every race. Yet Sen. Clinton’s attempt to drag him into the racial imbroglio her campaign created could potentially convince people otherwise.

In the real world, Sen. Obama’s only true comment on the controversy came today, after being personally accused by Sen. Clinton of distorting her words. And what outlandish thing did he say to stoke the flames of racial discontent? He called Sen. Clinton’s MLK comment “unfortunate” and her accusation of Obama’s culpability “ludicrous.”

Indeed, it is. But the irony is that, should the mud she’s throwing stick, the Obama juggernaut could be sunk by a controversy in which it literally played no role. Ah, Rovian politics, how I’ve missed you.

As some of you have noticed, it’s been nearly two weeks since the last Obamarama post. For a blog that’s been updated at least once and sometimes as much as five times a day over the past six months, that’s certainly an anomaly. So what gives?

A few things. I’ve generally tried to keep the personal out of the political here, so let’s just say they involve a new dog, a career change, and not nearly the kind of free time I need to keep the information on the site as timely and engaging as it needs to be.

A lot has changed in in Sen. Obama’s political career since this blog launched in December 2006, too. The most significant is that he is now a presidential candidate — the primary hope of this blog and indeed it’s raison d’ etre. Once that happened, finding information and analysis about the junior senator from Illinois became a lot easier for blog readers, and keeping the posts cutting edge became much more of a challenge.

Still, Obamarama has tried to bring you something unique among political blogs: good-natured, insightful, sometimes humorous takes on the news and happenings of Sen. Obama’s historic campaign. While still providing regular updates on polls, breaking news and the occasional liveblog, the site tried to distinguish itself by providing reports with some flavor and zest — posts like FOX News Takes Comedic Swing at Obama, Misses and Hell Hath No Fury Like Mike Allen Scorned, not to mention the entire Expose the Hate series. Hopefully that’s been successful, and enjoyable.

For the time being I’ll be suspending posts on the site, with the hope of returning when I have the time and ability to give readers more of what you’ve come to expect here — information that will entertain and engage you as you keep tabs on the most groundbreaking and inspirational political ascendancy of our time.

Thanks for your forbearance — and thank you most of all for checking the site, for your many comments and emails, and for your enduring interest in a campaign that is changing the country for the better every day. Stay involved!

-JHC

P.S. In the spirit of Absurd Obama Video Sunday, which I think pretty much embodies the essence of this blog, I leave you with this soon-to-be classic video about a girl with a very special crush on a very special statesman:

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:

The big campaign news late last week was that Sen. Obama was placed under Secret Service protection, the first presidential candidate ever to be guarded so early in a campaign. The reason has not been made public by the Secret Service or the Obama campaign, but Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff signed off on it “after consultations with House and Senate leaders in both parties,” according to the Post.

There should be no doubt that credible threats to Sen. Obama’s safety prompted this decision.

Should we really be surprised? We’ve documented here the sort of fanatical rage that many on the right feel toward Sen. Obama in our “Expose the Hate” feature. In many cases, his skin color is a major factor in their disparagement — as it was for Rush Limbaugh, whose racist “Barack the Magic Negro” song (posted here last week) is now making headlines.

One journalist tracked the fixation some white supremacist groups have on Sen. Obama, and made an important point about how deeply un-American these attacks on Sen. Obama actually are, especially in the context of the struggle against terrorism:

[T]here is no telling how many potential black candidates–for the presidency, or for lower office–have been dissuaded by white supremacist groups. If we are serious about fighting terrorists who threaten U.S. interests, we should be equally serious about making sure that homegrown terrorists do not get to decide who runs for president.

Over the past five months, we’ve documented the wide array of attacks that have been launched against Sen. Obama by his opponents in politics and the media. For the most part, these baseless caricatures have been debunked and have largely fallen by the wayside (”He’s a junkie,” “he’s a Marxist leftist,” “he’s too black,” “he’s not black enough,” “he’s a hypocrite,” “he’s a Muslim“…just to name a few).

Up until now, though, the attack that has arguably stung Sen. Obama’s supporters the most is the suggestion that he is “all style, no substance.” We’ve known that it’s not true, but given the nature of the campaign, its quick and early start, and Sen. Obama’s need as a relative newcomer to build momentum and enthusiasm, we haven’t had as many tools as we’d like to rebut it.

That’s about to change.

Earlier this week, Sen. Obama addressed the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, where he discussed his foreign policy vision. It was a 40-minute speech that was reported in the New York Times under the headline, “Obama Outlines His Foreign Policy Views,” and was very well received by pundits and experts alike.

Lest there be any question about the substantial nature of the speech, here is a video of Sen. Obama’s remarks in their entirety:

As Sen. Obama builds on his momentum and grassroots support by laying out the specifics of his candidacy, I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot more speeches like this one. And as we do, OBAMARAMA will lay them out here in a new segment called “Here’s the Beef.”

Frankly, it’s just nice to know that the biggest knock against Sen. Obama is based on a total underestimation of his ability to back up charisma with meaty policy proposals. Those of us who have been following him know that won’t be any problem — and appreciate having such a low bar to step over.

A recent Salon article profiled Brig. Gen. Michael J. Kussman, who chaired a 2004 task force that produced a report “documenting the complaints of wounded soldiers and their families about conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center,” and who subsequently did nothing to address those complaints. In classic Bush administration form, Kussman’s inaction has earned him a nomination to be undersecretary for health at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In response, Sen. Obama has written an open letter to President Bush questioning the appointment. This follows his proposed legislation to improve conditions for soldiers recovering at active duty military hospitals, something we noted here.

Read the letter, after the jump.

(Read more after the jump…)

In what has become a ridiculous and inexplicable pattern, The Politico’s Mike Allen has penned yet another gratuitous and insubstantial attack piece on Sen. Obama and cloaked it in the guise of “political journalism.”

Titled “Rookie Mistakes Plague Obama,” the article documents exactly zero instances of what could reasonably be classified as rookie mistakes, opting instead to harp on the sort of unimpressive minutiae that could be found in any campaign.

It opens breathlessly by suggesting that Sen. Obama is disingenuous when he condemns the practice of having lobbyists write legislation, since he once voted for and (gasp!) publicized his support of a Senate energy bill. But nowhere does Allen provide evidence that the bill was written by energy lobbyists, something he would need to do to support his implied charge of hypocrisy.

Nor does Allen note that the bipartisan bill included substantial funding for alternative fuel development, did not open the Arctic to drilling (as the House version did), and addressed “the concerns of Democrats and environmentalists that more needs to be done to conserve energy and develop cleaner energy alternatives,” according to an actual newspaper, The Washington Post.

(Read more after the jump…)

Over 10,000 people turned out to see Sen. Obama at his first Bay Area rally, which took place yesterday in an outdoor amphitheater in front of the Oakland City Hall. According to the AP, “Obama’s afternoon appearance brought the downtown to a standstill. His amplified voice echoed off the downtown buildings and people peered through office building windows and waved from rooftop balconies.”

Fortunately for us, OBAMARAMA reader Stacy from California was on hand for yesterday’s rally, and she emailed in this description (as well as the great photos below) to help give us a sense of what it was like to be there:

Obama’s rally in Oakland was a true success! Some say over 12,000 people were there! Although that sounds chaotic, the hope and excitement in the air far outweighed any thoughts of fear about the massive amount of people you were standing with. I saw first hand what kind of positive energy Obama’s presence can bring!

The crowd chanted “Obama” in anticipation. Once he was on stage in the sunken amphitheater, not everyone could actually see the Senator, but that didn’t stop the crowd from wildly cheering for him. You could hear a loud chorus of “boo” when Obama mentioned that some thought he didn’t have enough experience, and cheers of jubilation when he made his statement that he’s been in “Washington long enough to know that Washington needs to change.”

I know that I was truly part of history in the making! I am more sure than ever that Obama has the energy to evoke amazing followers of all ethnic backgrounds and will be the next President of our United States!

See Stacy’s pictures after the jump.

(Read more after the jump…)

Every day for the past few weeks, the National Journal’s Blogometer — “a daily report from The Hotline taking the temperature of the political blogosphere” — has been profiling various blogs that are focused on specific presidential candidates. Last night, OBAMARAMA was pleased to join their ranks.

You can read the “Blogger Spotlight” profile of OBAMARAMA here.

Daily Kos (along with several other liberal institutions) has been all over the candidates to confirm whether or not they will participate in the Nevada Democratic Party’s debate in August, which is being hosted by FOX News. The argument — not that it needs to be made at this point — is that attending the debate provides undeserved credibility to FOX as an impartial news organization, something it has consistently demonstrated itself not to be.

The bombshell that dropped this week was John Edwards’s decision not to attend.

It’s a huge development. With a major candidate refusing to participate, the debate immediately loses legitimacy — and being as it’s hosted by FOX, that sounds about right. FOX, of course, sniped back in typical snarky fashion, saying that “It’s unfortunate that Senator Edwards has decided to abandon an opportunity to reach the largest mainstream cable news audience in America.” Kos responds:

Yeah, Edwards is probably weeping at the missed opportunity to have Hannity, Hume, Bennett, Coulter, Gibson, and the rest of that crowd to point out to viewers, post-debate, how much of a traitor and “faggot” he really is.

Ouch.

But also: right on.

(Read more after the jump…)

Greetings from Springfield! After leaving Chicago at 7am and marathoning the 200 mile drive to the state capital (sans diapers), we arrived in town just in time for the main event.

And what an event it was. Standing in front of the same Old State Capitol building where Abraham Lincoln once told the country that “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” the blinding clarity of the winter day surpassed only by the clarity and eloquence of the words that echoed over a sea of bundled and fervent supporters longing for leadership and unity, Sen. Obama announced that he would seek the presidency of the United States of America.

OBAMARAMA was there. Despite the chill, the energy was electric and coursed through the audience. Everywhere you turned, you found flushed and smiling faces, each bearing the same knowing expression, a sort of common understanding, as if to say, “This is the start of something big, of something transformational. And we are a part of it.”

*

For Springfield, it was practically a national holiday:

The historical significance of the location was clear everywhere you looked…

…and certainly wasn’t lost on some of the town’s more colorful characters:

These Springfield High School students, representing a group called Juniors Saving America, were obviously “Ready to Barack”:

All in all, an amazing experience. The entire morning had the feel of being a moment of great historical weight, one that the country will one day look back on as a pivotal event in its noble and winding history.

Let’s hope so.

The web has been buzzing over Sen. Biden’s comments about Sen. Obama today. The general consensus seems to be that Sen. Biden was tone deaf (though some say worse) when he described Sen. Obama as an African American candidate who is “articulate” and “clean” — words that many interpret as suggesting that other African Americans are not.

Interestingly, in a segment of his interview with FOX News highlighted by RunObama, President Bush also chose “articulate” as his primary adjective to describe Sen. Obama:

“He hasn’t gotten elected yet. He hasn’t even gotten the party’s nomination. He’s an attractive guy. He’s articulate,” Bush said in an interview with Fox News.“I’ve been impressed with him when I’ve seen him in person, but he’s got a long way to go to be president,” Bush added.

This may seem minor, but to many people it is not. At the very least, it seems clearly to reveal a distinct racial tone deafness and insensitivity. Is President Bush really so impressed that a black man is so adept at expressing himself?

The President’s defenders will say he was trying to compliment Sen. Obama, as Sen. Biden’s defenders have said today. But as TPM Cafe commenter goethean asks, “What if he had said that Obama can swim? Would that be a compliment, too?”

UPDATE (2/3): MSNBC discusses Sen. Biden’s and President Bush’s use of the “articulate” adjective with WaPo’s Eugene Robinson:

In a press release and an email to supporters tonight, Sen. Obama announced his Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. According to the email and the Associated Press, the bill “would cap troop levels in Iraq at the early January level of around 130,000, when Bush announced he would send 21,500 additional U.S. forces to Iraq” and would “require that troops begin coming home on May 1 with the goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008.”

From the email:

In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability. The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all we have asked them to do and more. But no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else’s civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience, is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried and failed policy opposed by generals and experts, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and even the Iraqis themselves.

Sen. Obama presented his plan in response to President Bush’s call for alternatives from critics of his escalation proposal. In his interview with the AP, Sen. Obama said that “It is important at this point that Congress offer specific constructive approaches to what’s proven to be a foreign policy disaster, because we’ve got too much at stake to simply stand on the sidelines and criticize.”

His proposal differs from that of other Democrats (such as John Edwards and Tom Vilsack) who have called on Congress to refuse to fund the escalation, noting that such a policy “could genuinely [create] a Constitutional crisis or at least a crisis on the ground where the president continues to send troops there but now they’re being shortchanged in terms of armaments and support.”

Interestingly, Sen. Obama’s bill will reportedly include a provision that will allow the redeployment of troops to be temporarily suspended “if the Iraqis meet security, political and economic benchmarks.” Carrots and sticks.

Here’s the senator’s introduction of the bill on the Senate floor this evening:

How will the plan be received? RunObama notes that many bloggers on the left have already leveled high praise for Sen. Obama’s proposal. More analysis to come soon, undoubtedly.