Quick Update on the Obama Veepstakes

Hello readers. Just taking a quick moment to comment on the ongoing watch for who Barack Obama selects as his vice-presidential nominee. I've commented previously on my thoughts as to who would make a great candidate, and who I thought Obama should pick. Nonetheless, the senator seems unlikely to select any of my prior top three candidates. The latest credible reports center around another person who I believe would be an excellent pick for "resume" reasons but who I did not seriously consider before because I thought it was unlikely that he would be selected. What I failed to focus upon were two other key qualities this man would bring to the ticket--superb debating & speaking skills, and the ability to pointedly criticize McCain's record in a "sunny" way.

This man is Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.

He is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (on which Barack Obama serves), and has been in the Senate since the Carter Administration (1976). There are few, if any, political figures who are as learned and perceptive about foreign policy as is Biden. Combine that with his demonstrated history of being very sharp witted (if somewhat long-winded) in public settings, and you have a very good choice as VP. Biden could serve well an "attack dog" who can raise the more negative parts of McCain's terrible record on so many issues (because he's served with McCain for the latter's entire Senate career (McCain elected in 1986), thus leaving Obama dedicated to advancing the positive message of his camapaign, which he does so well.

One final subtle piece of evidence suggests that Biden is the likely selection--we've not heard a single word out of him or his office about ANYTHING for weeks, politics or policy. If he's in the final stages of vetting by the Obama team, it would make a great deal of sense for him to be off the political radar screen.

I could be wrong; I certainly have been before. But watch for developments over the next week or so, as the VP is likely to be named next week, prior to the Democratic National Convention in Denver, which begins on August 25. The more I think about it, the more I'm excited about the possibility.

The Campaign Marches On

A short note to start the work week, concerning how I think things might play out in the Democratic nomination fight in the coming month or so.

First, my latest read on how things have developed in the last week or so suggests to me that, aside from Hillary Clinton's determined refusal to concede anything, seemingly in the near or distant future, I expect that since only 10 contests remain on the primary calendar, there will be no effort by influential Democratic Party figures to negotiate a resolution prior to the final contests on June 3 (SD and MT).

Setting aside the particularly gratuitous negative attacks of recent weeks, this election season has been a largely positive affair that has increased Democratic turnout and enthusiasm exponentially. Most states' voters don't really get to weigh in on presidential nominating contests, so now that we're at the point where most voters have had a real voice, it would be very dispiriting and disappointing from a democratic (small "d") standpoint to somehow not permit the remaining states a chance to express their preferences in a consequential election.

As such, barring an unexpected withdrawal from Hillary Clinton at some point before June 3, we'll have a competitive contest until that date. I believe that the last remaining, albeit remote, chance that she'll withdraw is if she somehow loses Pennsylvania on April 22. I believe that she will win there, but it will be a far narrower victory than current polls suggest. Nonetheless, I believe the chances of Obama winning PA are far greater than the infinitesimal chances Clinton has of actually ending up with the party's nomination.

Second, there have already been increasing signs that Obama may be maneuvering to finish the nominating season in a manner similar to that of John McCain--in practice if not in style or deliberate design. Influential endorsements by superdelegates, featuring but not limited to those last week's by NM Gov. Bill Richardson and U.S. Senator Bob Casey (PA), and today's by U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN), suggest a movement towards a specific goal.

This may take a while, so bear with me. Obama would very much like to catch up to Hillary in the category of overall superdelegate support--he now trails by just over 30. However, the McCain analogy applies in the following context: It has been widely noted that superdelegates will be required for either candidate to clear the 2,024 overall delegate hurdle and claim the presumptive nomination. Political observers may recall that, in the GOP race, Gov. Mike Huckabee stayed in the race because, to paraphrase, the party does not have a nominee "until someone gets to 1,191" (the magic number for the GOP nomination).

Obama is likely working on obtaining the public commitments of enough superdelegates over the next month or so, such that he might be able to clear the 2,024 hurdle in projected delegates on one of the closing primaries' election nights--perhaps May 20 when OR and KY vote, or perhaps on June 3 when SD and MT vote. In any event, if he were to be declared a "presumptive nominee" during election night coverage, that public perception would be like a bell that one can't un-ring. Just ask Al Gore about when the networks projected FL for Bush in 2000 and declared him the next president, before taking it back a few hours later.

Will it play out this way for the Obama-Clinton race? Difficult to say for sure, but I believe that Obama is certainly trying to make it happen, and it would be quite an exclamation point on his nomination fight if he can pull it off.

Democratic Nomination Endgame in the Works?

I was very intrigued by a recent story concerning the remarks of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) about how the Democratic nomination battle will ultimately be resolved (The story can be found at <http://www.lvrj.com/news/16948521.html>).

The essence of the conversation he had with the Las Vegas Review Journal was as follows:

"Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

That's all the Nevada Democrat would say about it."

Now, Senator Reid is a VERY knowledgeable and canny political operator, and any smart observer will take particular note of the meta-message of this media exchange. He is a force to be reckoned with, and he doesn't talk about this stuff just to hear himself talk. There is something going on here. I don't know whether the particulars of the role Senator Reid is playing right now, or what he was talking about, will become publicly known anytime soon, or perhaps until well after the election. But he will be involved in the resolution--I guarantee it.

A bit of background on Senator Reid. His position as Senate Majority Leader is the most powerful in the Senate. He controls the Senate's debate agenda, and has a privileged status under the rules to receive priority recognition to speak and to engage in several parliamentary actions.

He was elected U.S. Senator in 1986, following two terms of service as a member of the U.S. House (elected 1982, re-elected 1984). He was elected Democratic Whip (Deputy Leader--2nd highest ranking position among Senate Democrats) in 1999, and became Democratic Leader in 2005 (minority leader until the Democrats won control of the Senate following the 2006 elections).

Reid was a competitive boxer in his youth, was formerly Lt. Governor of Nevada, and subsequently he was the head of the Nevada Gaming Commission. The commission is the ruling regulator over all things related to the casinos in the state. During his service, he took on the mob corruption that was infiltrating the casinos, and as a result, was the target of an ultimately unsuccessful mob assassination attempt via car bomb.

Needless to say, the guy has seen and experienced quite a bit in his life. As someone who has met the man a couple of times, I will say that his personality and demeanor belies his past. He's like a kind old uncle--a very genial man. But many have learned over the years---some the easy way, some the hard way--that he is not to be underestimated or recklessly opposed.

I Seek Unanimous Consent to Revise and Extend My Remarks

The "revise and extend" phrasing in my subject borrows from a standard parliamentary request in the U.S. Senate whenever a senator speaks on a topic. If approved, and it always is (senatorial courtesy and all), the request allows the Senator to submit in writing any technical corrections to what he or she says on the floor, as well as to add additional text (such as if he or she only delivers part of his or her statement on the floor, and wants to put the whole thing in the Congressional Record).

Now, to the substance of my statement, for which I techinically don't need unanimous consent since it's my blog, but which I have politely asked for nonetheless. In the tradition of the Senate, most all statements are phrased with good manners, even if the substance is hardly polite. Think something with the essence of "I would ask my very good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, if he would be so kind as to shove his amendment up his ass," only without the profanity, since that would be uncouth.

But I digress. In my first post concerning political predictions for the Democratic presidential race, I made brief reference to the likely outcome of Pennsylvania's primary, in the context of a larger discussion of all remaining states in play. A second assessment of the prevailing opinions among certain demographic groups in the state has led me to modestly revise my predictions for Pennsylvania, and to expand my discussion of the particular dynamics at play in this state.

There are certain resentments that exist within broad swaths of the lower to middle income blue collar population about a number of things, which are very likely to be inflamed by the demagoguery being peddled over the offensive statements by Senator Obama's former minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, but which are unlikely to be as powerfully impacted by Senator Obama's recent discourse on race in America, as Obama's eloquent discussion of a very nuanced issue does not lend itself to the same kind of "soundbiting" coverage that our rabid 24-hour media culture has perpetuated for too long.

That being said, I am now not as convinced that Pennsylvania will look very different from Ohio for the above reasons. However, there are two other elements of the equation that may come into play, which could have some positive impact on the Pennsylvania race from Obama's perspective.

The first issue centers on a documented body of evidence that shows Obama's performance in states with purportedly "hostile" demographics (lower income, blue collar, traditional white Democrats) improving when he has the opportunity to spend an extended amount of time in a state speaking with as many voters as possible. His vision, intellect, and reasoned approach to politics and governing has moved many people--of all races--throughout the nation thus far. Is there a ceiling to his performance in Pennsylvania, particularly in light of the issues raised in a very unfavorable media-cycle in the past week? Perhaps. But there are still nearly 5 weeks left until April 22. Speaking of performance among Demographic groups, I find it a bit frustrating that the mainstream media consistently harps on perceived deficiencies when it comes to Obama, but pays scant attention to the fact that Hillary Clinton's performance among other important demographic groups (as far as Democrats are concerned) has been abysmal--chiefly, African American voters and highly educated, progressive voters.

In fairness, the media has covered the race-baiting tactics of the Clinton campaign in a critical way, rightly calling out disgraceful and divisive actions. But the issue is then mostly left alone as somehow unconnected to her purported strength as a general election candidate. Her fundamental weakness among African Americans is not something that will automatically evaporate as a major issue if she were to become the nominee. And what does it say about the Clinton campaign that a group of educated, financially well-off people who are basically in agreement with her ideologically on policy issues nonetheless are decisively backing Obama?

The second issue concerns a recently renewed effort by Obama to illustrate to all voters, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale, how our terrible economic situation is directly tied to the disasterous management of the Iraq War and the staggering federal spending on it and on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The war is an incredibly unpopular issue among Democrats (and most Americans), and Obama is the better candidate on this issue, since Hillary Clinton enabled Bush's march to war voting to authorize military force, and has yet to take responsibility for it, offering a panoply of excuses and distortions. If Obama can make "economic distress" and "Iraq War" become consciously linked in the minds of enough voters, he can persuade them to follow his lead and his plans for handling both.

I know Obama will make some inroads on the strength of his campaigning skills, but it is not clear whether he will make enough progress to at least make Pennsylvania a narrow Clinton win. Whether he can make a breakthrough on the question of more powerfully linking the economy with the disaster in Iraq is an open question at this point. Thus, it remains to be seen whether Obama can outperform what are now very low expectations for him in the state. A silver lining for Senator Obama--as Hillary has demonstrated more than once during this campaign, if you set yourself up with low expectations that become accepted wisdom, you can "win" even by losing if you can then exceed those expectations.

In closing, I wish to reinforce the essential point of my inaugural post. Senator Obama will end the primary season with a clear lead in both pledged delegates and in overall delegates (incorporating superdelegates who have already declared their support for one of the candidates). The superdelegates will not move en masse to Clinton and deny Obama the nomination, or they will absolutely fracture the Democratic Party and guarantee the election of John McCain. This is the nightmare scenario, and Democratic officials with superdelegate votes are simply not kamikaze pilots.

Barack Obama on Race and Forming a More Perfect Union

Yesterday, March 18, 2008, was a seminal moment in this presidential campaign, and in the history of American politics. Speaking at the National Constitution Center, Senator Barack Obama engaged the nation in a powerful examination of race in the United States, offering an emotional, intellectually sophisticated, and brutally honest perspective on the role of racism in our history, the still influential role it plays in our contemporary society, and, perhaps most importantly, on the role he hopes racial reconciliation will play in our nation's future as we pour our best efforts into making real progress on the social and economic concerns that affect all Americans.

As the son of an African father and white Kansan mother, Obama has lived his life as a bridge between two segments of society that are far too divided, and often very mistrustful of the other. His life experience has uniquely enabled him to speak with authority and conviction about how we might begin to move forward as one America, and it has uniquely enabled him to be a leader that can help guide us down that new path.

The New York Times editorial board justifiably described Obama's effort and performance as nothing less than a "Profile in Courage." I indeed believe that Senator Obama's actions merit inclusion in with those historical American political figures who were described in John F. Kennedy's Pulitzer-Prize winning book of the same name.

When Barack Obama gave his now famous keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I was amazed, inspired, and hopeful about his vision for the future of the United States. I've watched him speak many times since then, and consistently, I have been inspired and proud of where he could take our country. Nonetheless, I believe his address yesterday was the best, most powerful speech he has given since his call to action at the 2004 convention.

I strongly recommend that readers watch this speech for themselves in its entirety, if you have not already done so. It is approximately 37 minutes in length, but I believe it is well worth it. Just follow this link: <http://my.barackobama.com/page/m/f16fa04507a57ff5/faVeqi/VEsE/>.

In closing, I want to note a truly remarkable historical parallel between the March 18 speech and that given by another Presidential candidate during the 1980 campaign.

During that cycle, Ronald Reagan chose to give a major speech, in which he extolled the virtues of "states' rights" in an unmistakable, racially polarizing effort to inflame the bigotry of whites againsts blacks. The rallying cry of "states' rights" was the calling card of Southern states in the U.S. who stood against the federal government "meddling" in the issue of slavery. These states, and the supporters of slavery, held the view that slavery was a matter that, as to its practice, ought to be left to the judgement of each individual state, under the pretense of "sovereignty."

This speech by Reagan was given in a city where there occurred a well-known, gruesome lynching of several black people during the dark days of the Civil Rights movement in the South. Reagan's 1980 campaign was one that perfected the politics of exploiting race and racism for electoral benefit, but to the manifest detriment of our social fabric.

Ronald Reagan's divisive electoral appeal was issued in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

In the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama chose to give a major speech, in which he held forth on the lingering anger, bittnerness, and resentment over race in the United States, and issued a powerful call to action. That Americans of all races embrace the essence of change that has enriched our nation in so many ways, recongnize our shared humanity, and genuninely embrace our shared hopes and dreams, so that we might actually start making some of them a reality.

Obama's challenge for all Americans to take that first unifying step was issued in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

We may yet be a distance away from where we want and need to be as a nation. But in order to get there, we must start the journey here and now.

<http://my.barackobama.com/page/m/f16fa04507a57ff5/faVeqi/VEsE/>