Who loves black people the most?

Is Hill-lolzz playing the race card? The Washington Post’s Marjorie Valbrun made a pretty good case last month that it's starting to look that way. There’s the innuendo and backdoor references to Obama drug use. Then the careless reference to MLK that drew on the idea that if you want to get something done, you gotta ask a white person, a version of Franklin’s co-sign. Her pandering references to her marriage to Bill as “interracial.” Bill Clinton’s New Hampshire red-in-the-face diatribe about the media love affair with Obama, recalling his leveraging anti-Sista Souljah sentiment in the wake of L.A. race riots to distance himself from Jesse Jackson and “establish his white bona fides” during the 1992 presidential campaign…

Yes or no, whether the Hill is or isn’t, Valbrun’s short piece underlines how calculating and unappealing and destructive Clinton politics can be and have been and will continue to be, that history being a core part of Hillary’s vaunted “experience” and what Obama is partly campaigning against.

Valbrun’s conclusion:

“My generation of black voters is politically savvy and well educated. We couldn’t care less about outdated notions of party loyalty. We are not our grandmothers, and no amount of candidate appearances at black churches is going to shape how we vote. We will certainly not sit back and allow Democratic candidates, or Republicans for that matter, to engage in Willie Horton-style tactics, even if the tactics are Willie Horton lite.

If Hillary Clinton competes against Obama fairly and without resorting to covert race baiting, large numbers of black voters will surely embrace her should she be the party’s nominee. If she relies instead on racial fears and stereotypes, we should not give her our votes.”

There will be Barack

The Oscars were on Sunday. I didn't watch because I was on my way back from a weekend in Vegas. Naturally, there were plenty of stories that came out of the trip. I saw Mike Tyson outside of Pur in Caesar's Palace with five bodyguards he could have tore up with his thumb. He's got sides of beef for shoulders and he still speaks with the voice of a brownie scout, but he's put on a few pounds. I told him I could get him in touch with Mike Huckabee, maybe slim him out a little. He didn't get it, just looked at me like he wanted to bite my ear off.

Anyway, I'll leave most of my stories—along with my money—in Vegas. But I will share another piece of relevant info with you. If Barack Obama truly is the young person's candidate, then Vegas—filled to its seedy, immaculate brim with 20-somethings—should be Obama central, baby!

Spurned by journalistic curiosity and a general alcoholic disregard, I asked as many people as I could who they would vote for if the presidential election was tomorrow. Of the 10 people interviewed under the age of 30, five said Obama, 2 said Hillary Clinton, 2 said Ralph Nader and 1 person said, "Roger Clemens but not Barry Bonds."

I asked 20 people over the age of 30 the same question. This was more interesting. 10 of them said Clinton, 3 said Obama, 6 said McCain, and the last told me about a very sinister place where I could stick my question. It should be noted that a majority of the McCain voters play slots and a majority of the Obama voters play craps. Nader's supporters play poker.

You might have missed it but Ralph Nader did in fact enter the presidential race this week, following through on his promise that if Ms. Clinton was running so would he. Today, he endorsed former San Francisco Board of Supervisor Matt Gonzalez to be his running mate. Here is Nader's assessment of Obama in an interview with Amy Goodman.



I can't remember the last time I heard the term "male distribution of power." Probably some time during Janet Reno's tenure.

Anyhoo, Nader is obviously unimpressed by Obama's rhetoric of change. The question from this point until the convention is whether or not the American public is. And of course the answer is a resounding "Duuuuh."

But my question is why. Why does this strike such a cord now when it freaked people out so much in 2000 they voted for a cheerleader. (Then again, Gore's rhetoric was more along the lines of "change or the Earth will melt!)

I began this post talking about the Oscars. It occurred to me while I was looking for a bookie that would accept a four-way parlay futures bet on Sunday's Awards that the Best Picture nominees at least metaphorically linked to the leading presidential nominees.

I couldn't find anyone that would take my bet (BP: No Country for Old Men; BD: the Coen brothers; Best Actor: Daniel Day Lewis; Best Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem), which is too bad because I would have won.

But the thought remained. The BP nominees (outside of Juno) were all incredibly dark, depressing, cerebral pictures. From an artistic standpoint they were all outstanding. But they were hardly feel-good movies; they were more like "feel-Emo" movies. They received great critical acclaim (hence the nominations) but did terribly at the box office. Nobody wanted to see them.

On the other hand, some of the biggest box office successes (Juno, Enchanted) were some of the more cheerful, sunny, HOPEFUL films you'll ever care to see. They simply made people feel good.

Now extend that analogy to the presidential candidates. (Ah, you see where I'm getting at?) Nominees like the tired, dour old Westerns (No Country for Old Men, There will be Blood; John McCain) have the experience, but are a little sparse on the hope.

People would rather see something smiling, fresh and clever (Juno; Obama). That's what gets people excited to go the theaters, enthusiastic to go to the polling booths.

So which movie would you rather see?



Or...



And in case you were wondering: Obama is a 7:4 favorite to be president in 2008.


(May you rest in peace Hunter S. Thompson)

Convention may change the tide of history

It’s been a while. 56 years to be exact.

And while a gaggle of political pundits have called it impossible, we might actually see the first brokered Democratic National Convention since 1952 in Chicago.



A “brokered convention” is the term used to describe the horse-trading for delegates that occurs when candidates come into a convention without a presumptive winner. It makes for the most interesting types of conventions.

In times of a brokered convention, the attention turns to the all-powerful super delegates who can be bought and sold- figuratively of course- to sway a nomination. They are charged with the task of taking one candidate to the next level.
Less than 100 delegates currently separate Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) on their quest to secure the 2,025 necessary for the Democratic nomination. Needless to say, it’s a neck and neck, photo finish. More than ever before, a brokered convention seems conceivable, at the very least, and the democratic super delegates will be necessary to determine the winner.

On the GOP ticket, a brokered convention is less likely, but is possible. The Republican Party hasn’t seen one since 1948. Mike Huckabee, however, is still incorporating a brokered convention into his strategy. He said in a Texas radio interview that his goal is to force a brokered convention, and then show himself as the real Conservative to convention delegates.

But because the real focus is the Democratic race, since neither candidate has emerged as a presumptive nominee, we are forced to ask whether the 56-year brokered convention drought could end this year?

The answer, I think, is it’s still far too early to tell.
While the candidates are so close in delegate counts, about 4 months of primaries and caucuses still loom in the distance and the Convention is not even until the end of August.

Even though Obama had, of late, been on a storied 10-win streak in the primaries, Clinton vows to regain full speed and catch up. In this highly contentious election, honestly, anything, including a brokered convention, could happen. The race could stay close all the way to convention weekend and result in a massive horse-trading session,
or one candidate might just run away with it this month.

But looking ahead, if the DNC is smart, they’ll find a way to avoid a brokered convention. Such conventions are typically viewed as a detriment for the party in which they occur, both because of the apparent existence of instability within the party and because the emerging presidential candidate has less time to campaign by his or herself. In the 1952 brokered convention, Adlai Stevenson was given the democratic nod, but would go on to lose to President Dwight D. Eisenhower months later.

If it’s any indication of how things will play out, Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean says a brokered convention would be a disaster.

At different points in history, conventions have meant different things in the scope of a presidential nomination and eventual general election. Brokered conventions are perhaps the most pivotal kind of convention.
So super delegates are more important than ever.

Every election cycle introduces at least one buzzword that becomes part of our American vocabulary. This time around, and due to the importance they will undoubtedly play, that word is super delegates. From jokes at the academy awards to routine articles in the local newspaper, super delegates are popping up in almost every instance of presidential candidacy discourse.

The backroom, conventional wisdom regarding the inception of super delegates stems back as far as the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
Both in that convention and in conventions to follow, the unspecified, unwritten role of the super delegates has been to make sure Americans choose the “right” candidate in the primaries and caucuses. Or, at least, they have served as a last ditch effort to make sure we don’t choose the “wrong” one.

When Rev. Jesse Jackson got just a little too close to a presidential nomination in the 1980s, the super delegates were there to knock him down.
In the case of a brokered convention this year, the super delegates would be the impetus to send a black candidate with an Islamic middle name into the general election campaign.
We’ve certainly come a long way since 1968, and should be darn proud of it.

But in the interest of American politics, a brokered convention might serve to weaken the process in a time when our political parties need to be completely sure of themselves, their candidates and their platforms. Hopefully between now and August, both parties find a way to bring rise to a presumptive candidate, because after all, the real focus is on the general election.

But whether or these conventions change history, they’re undoubtedly bound to be interesting.

Obama, the youth vote, and the war in Iraq

So yeah yeah, we all know Barack Obama is the king of the youth vote. The reasons behind it are obvious - a young new face, a promise for change, a passion that can be heard behind each and every word of his speeches. We get it. But let's break it down into specifics now, shall we?

Each presidential issue can be discussed at length - health care, immigration, the economy, etc. But for this blog post, let's focus on the war in Iraq. Why that topic specifically? It's simple. The youth care about the U.S. involvement in Iraq. The youth care about the men and women fighting abroad. The youth care about the lives of potential soldiers, who may risk their lives in the line of duty.

What youth care about

I'm not saying adults don't care about our armed forces. Of course any patriotic American will support our troops, regardless of their stance on the war itself. But let's make this comparison for a second. The war in Iraq has spawned the first overarching anti-war movement from the young demographic since Vietnam. That means this group would clearly support a leader who is also against the war in Iraq, right? Right.

And just so you know, I'm not saying every single young person agrees or supports this anti-war sentiment. But the vast majority have risen up against the George W. Bush administration and its handling of the war. Don't believe me? According to a Rockthevote poll, out of 668 people people within the ages of 18 and 29, 68% thought the U.S. is on the wrong track. Only a quarter believed it to be on the right track.

According to the same poll, 12% believed the war in Iraq to be the most important issue facing any potential president. It was the second most important issue, closely following jobs and the economy at 17%.


Where Barack Obama fits in

So we said that it would only make sense if this particular anti-war, youth demographic supported a leader who was also against the war. That removes John McCain from the list immediately. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. After all, according to cnn.com, McCain:

"Voted for use of military force in Iraq. Supported Bush veto of war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Was an early proponent of sending additional American troops to Iraq."

That's not the kind of guy that the 69% of youth who want to withdraw at least some troops from Iraq will want as their president.

With McCain pretty much a shoe-in for the Republican candidate, that leaves the Democrats - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If you listen to any debate these two have, you will hear both candidates' opposition to the war in Iraq. But keep one thing in mind. It wasn't always that way.

According to cnn.com, Clinton initially voted for military force in Iraq although she says now that she would have voted differently "if we knew then what we know now."

Barack Obama has been the one face in the crowd that has always opposed military force in Iraq from the beginning. Not only did he vote against it at the start, he also once called for troop withdrawal to begin by the end of 2006.

Here's a video of Obama speaking in 2002 against the war.



Obama vs. McCain

Yesterday Obama and McCain exchanged some words with each other about the situation in Iraq. McCain referenced one of Obama's debate answers and questioned his knowledge of an al Qaeda presence in Iraq.

According to CNN's report, McCain said: "I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It's called al Qaeda in Iraq. It's a remarkable statement to say that you would send troops back to a place where al Qaeda has established a base -- where they have already established a base."

Obama answered back to the comments by saying there was a misinterpretation and that he was answering the question hypothetically. "McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying ,'Well let me give you some news Barack, al Qaeda is in Iraq,' like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on." Obama continued to say: "Well first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets. But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

The speech where Obama makes those statements is below.

In this past week McCain has confessed that his stance on the war may affect his chances for the presidency. I am not sure the answer to that question, but I can tell you this. When it comes to the youth, anyone FOR the war in Iraq is NOT the candidate for them. Case is point - Barack Obama.