NBC News provides a very helpful update on where the Superdelegate count lies:
We listed the Senate superdelegates endorsements earlier today. We've broken out the House backers as well, and Clinton leads 72-68. That means there are 92 House members who are undecided. Also of note among these House endorsers, 23 of Clinton's 72 are reps from New York (32%). By contrast, nine of Obama's House backers are from Illinois (13%).
Here's how Clinton's and Obama's superdelegate support breaks down: Among senators: Obama 14-12 Among representatives: Clinton 72-68 Then, among party activists/former party leaders: Clinton leads 171-140 TOTAL: Clinton 255, Obama 222
Last night, President Bush threw out the first pitch at new Nationals Park in Washington DC. He went up on the mound and threw a hard ball, a bit high. As ESPN's John Miller put it, "There have been many other presidents that have thrown out first pitches, but I don't know any who have done it better."
And it's true, Bush throws a mean opening pitch. As someone who has done it on a much smaller scale, I can attest that's no small feat. It's probably the thing he's best at, and brings back memories of the 2001 World Series, where his pitch at Yankee Stadium (with bullet proof vest on, from the mound, weeks after 9/11, and a 90% approval rating) was probably the highlight of his presidency.
Below is that 2001 video... you have to give it to him-- it was a strike. This video is pretty cool, even though it combines two of my most disliked things.
On Opening Day, here's a cool piece ESPN showed last night before the Nationals/ Braves game. It features Washington Post columnist George Will, a man known for his intellect, conservatism and love for baseball. He draws parallels between America's two national pastimes: baseball and politics.
It's only a couple of minutes long and worth checking out.
As Mr. Will once said, "Baseball trivia is the ultimate oxymoron, because there's nothing trivial about baseball."
"David Wright. He does everything I like and he's very young."
- The Godfather of baseball statisticians, Bill James, after being asked on 60 Minutes who he would build his dream team around. He picked the Mets 3B without hesitation.
That most American of holidays, Opening Day, is almost upon us. In three days the games count for real, and my beloved Mets open the season against the Marlins in Miami, here's a brief preview of the NL East, courtesy of ESPN's Baseball Tonight and Metsblog.com.
The law school at Boston College, my old university, plans to have the attorney general speak at commencement ceremonies in May. What might have been a prestigious event has turned controversial. Students, faculty and alumni have banded together to draft a letter asking AG Michael Mukasey to reconsider his attendance.
At his confirmation hearings last year, Mukasey's position was that he did not believe water-boarding constituted torture, and would not prosecute those that authorized or implemented the practice against terror suspects.
The group believes that his position leaves him at odds with the University's Jesuit commitment to human rights.
Mukasey will not receive the law school's highest honor, the Founder's Medal, although Dean John Garvey said that decision predated the controversy. The Founder's Medal is given to those who "embody the traditions of professionalism, scholarship, and service which the Law School seeks to instill in its students."
This is similar to the uproar that surrounded Condoleezza Rice's commencement address to the undergraduate class of 2006 (of which SAM blogger CPC is a member). Many students turned their backs, and one professor even resigned.
As a donor to the university (I gave $15 just before graduating), my take is that, based on the criteria, Mukasey probably doesn't deserve the Founder's Medal, but the protest itself goes against the Jesuit principles of reflection and open discussion as much as Mukasey's position.
Debate on serious legal issues is what higher education is all about. As Garvey put it:
"It is a mark of prestige among elite schools to attract a speaker who operates at the epicenter of American legal issues, regardless of whether the speaker's political views are liberal, moderate, or conservative... Far from wishing the controversy would go away, I think we should rejoice in it."
On their website, Rolling Stone has posted a slide show of political covers over their magazine's 40 years. Below is one of three covers that featured President Bill Clinton.
In his latest column for Time Magazine, old SAM Online favorite, Joe Klien, touches on what he admits is a very unlikely scenario.
That would be Barack Obama being unable to gain the support of working- class whites, and the emergence of a ticket led by Al Gore, with Obama (and his 1900 delegates) on the back end.
This would only happen if the Democrats were deadlocked, and neither Obama or Hillary Clinton were able to get the necessary 2025 delegates for the nomination.
As Klien notes- "Chances are, no one will hand [the nomination] to [Gore]. The Democratic Party would have to be monumentally desperate come June."
But also- "A prominent fund raiser told me, 'Gore-Obama is the ticket a lot of people wanted in the first place.'"
A past Notre Dame poli sci professor, current Rutgers professor, my old boss, and a generally awesome guy, Alvin Tillery, Jr., debates fellow academic, Dorian Warren, on the Daily Voice. This discussion begins with Warren saying, "As a native and proud Chicagoan who is supportive yet also very critical of the senator, I have to ask you, why are you such a hater?"
Tillery responds: "Ithink that Obama has run, up until the controversy with the Reverend Wright forced him to talk about race relations last week, using a neo-southern strategy. In other words, the vast majority of the signals that Obama sends through his campaign rhetoric seem crafted to soothe the psychic angst of white voters while offering black voters very little."
They raise a lot of interesting issues and add a great deal to the race discussion in America.
An update on the ongoing story of Oliver Stone's Bush bio-pic "W."-- as we noted in January, Stone cast Josh Brolin in the title role.
Now, he appears to have zeroed in on his Laura-- 40 Year Old Virgin hott Elizabeth Banks.
Come on, who's playing Karl Rove, Matthew McConaughey?
I'd have gone with someone like Laura Linney (who is currently playing another first lady), but I do really like Brolin as W. If this movie is even in the same ballpark as Nixon I'll be happy (and I'm confident it will be).
Recently, Florida Congressman and uncommitted superdelegate Tim Mahoney told a local paper that if he headed to August's Denver Democratic National Convention without a nominee, things could get interesting: "If [that happens], don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket."
Someone, like Al Gore.
Mahoney suggested that Democrats could get behind either a Gore/ Clinton or Gore/ Obama ticket. From Gore's point of view, a Gore/ Obama scenario is far more likely as he doesn't get along with the Clintons well anymore, and seems to have more in common with Obama.
Okay, so this probably (definitely) isn't going to happen. But, it raises a good opportunity to talk about the person most qualified to be the next president-- the man that combines Hillary's experience (only not fabricated) and Obama's judgment (only more specific). Gore is always the smartest person in the room, and he knows it-- and that's always been his biggest problem. Back in 2000, when he rolled his eyes every time George Bush attempted to answer a question, it was the genuine reaction of a guy a foot smarter than his opponent.
A couple of days ago, I posted the speech Barack Obama gave a week before the authorization to invade Iraq. Now, it's time to rehash Gore's. Their conclusions are identical, but the speeches, like the men themselves, are very different.
Where Obama's is short and to the point, Gore's is long and methodical. Obama's is soaring and inspiring, and almost poetic in its delivery. Gore is scientific as he breaks down, point by point, why the war is the wrong decision. It's like a law review article in his precision, perhaps one drafted by Holmes.
Quick reminder: the speech was given on Sept. 23, 2002. At the time President Bush's approval ratings were in the upper 60s, and Al Gore had yet to publicly criticize any move by the president since their divisive 2000 election.
It's long, so here's the link to the transcript, and below are some key excepts.
Contrasting the first Gulf War (which he vigorously supported) with the present proposed action:
... Fifth, President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election. Rather than making efforts to dispel concern at home an abroad about the role of politics in the timing of his policy, the President is publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a "no" vote - even as the Republican National Committee runs pre-packaged advertising based on the same theme -- in keeping with the political strategy clearly described in a White House aide's misplaced computer disk, which advised Republican operatives that their principal game plan for success in the election a few weeks away was to "focus on the war." Vice President Cheney, meanwhile indignantly described suggestions of political motivation "reprehensible." The following week he took his discussion of war strategy to the Rush Limbaugh show. On preemptive war:
By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network - much as we manage to squander in one year's time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits. He has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine - of preemption.
Iraq after invasion:
... Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.
... When Secretary Rumsfield was asked recently about what our responsibility for restabilizing Iraq would be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, "that's for the Iraqis to come together and decide."
Concluding:
... What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.
I believe that we can effectively defend ourselves abroad and at home without dimming our principles. Indeed, I believe that our success in defending ourselves depends precisely on not giving up what we stand for.
Former president Bill Clinton made an appearance yesterday in South Bend, Indiana, for a traditional Dingus Day celebration (a Polish holiday that's a big time political rally). With the state's primary coming up, the former president made the case that his wife "can still win." Even though she probably can't. He made some good points that her victories in primaries like Ohio, Arkansas, Florida and West Virginia (four swing- states the Dems have lost the past two elections) make her the more viable general election candidate.
A major narrative of the Democratic Primary has been judgment vs. experience. Hillary has touted her eight years as first lady and seven in the Senate as appropriate seasoning for a Commander-in-Chief. Obama, meanwhile, points to his early opposition to the Iraq War as evidence of stronger judgment.
Former President Clinton called Obama's opposition "a fairytale," because in the Senate he didn't act forcefully enough to bring an immediate end to the occupation.
It's common knowledge that Obama spoke out against invading Iraq; however, for many his timing and motivation are unclear. So, below is the text from that speech. It's short and worth reading in full. Below that, is a video of excepts from the speech, including the only 13 seconds that remain from Obama's delivery.
This is from October 2, 2002-- a week before Congress gave President Bush the authority invade Iraq.
It's really quite something.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Here is a list of my 10 favorite movies about American politics. This isn't a list of the best movies (so 1949's All the King's Men is left off), but the ones I enjoy the most:
10. Dave (1993)- One of the great fantasy movies ever. A regular guy winds up president. It makes you wonder what you'd do in the Oval Office, and lament that the country has to be run by those hardened enough to make it to the top.
9. Citizen Kane (1941)- It drags on a bit, but over 65 years after its release, Citizen Kane still holds up as relevant and chilling. Maybe that's why AFI ranks it as the greatest movie ever made.
8. Charlie Wilson's War (2007)- Takes (more than) a few liberties with the true story of America's proxy war in Afghanistan, which was the crossroads of modern- American history. In one dramatic turn we exchanged Red Soviets for Radical Islamic fundamentalists. Great writing (Sorkin) and acting (Hanks, Hoffman).
7. JFK (1991)- Makes Charlie Wilson's War look like a documentary, but Oliver Stone provides a riveting account of what many don't realize is a true story- Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw for the murder of John Kennedy in 1967. The trial may have been bunk, but the movie is excellent, especially the scene with Donald Sutherland around the Reflecting Pool.
6. Wag the Dog (1997)- The meeting of Hollywood and DC, this satire was a poignant comment on the state of American democracy, media, and culture.
5. All the President's Men (1976)- Chilling performances that brought home Watergate. It's scary 'cause it's true.
4. 13 Days (2000)- For a guy who's been in a lot of terrible movies, Kevin Costner has been in a lot of great movies. The film taught a new generation about the earth- rattling days of the Cuban missile crisis. The taut pace earns this un- romanticized portrayal high marks.
3. Nixon (1995)- A stunning portrait of one of the most tragic American figures, whose greatest strengths led to his shocking fall. Stonechronicles the painful trip from a depressed California farm, to the White House, to disgrace, and does justice to a man who had the faculties and opportunity for greatness, but failed to overcome himself.
2. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)- The classic American film of idealism, cynicism and redemption. A lot like Dave, only a lot better.
1. Primary Colors (1998)- The movie has everything: drama, laughs, and surprises. It's the quintessential tale of American politics because it runs the gamut and doesn't oversimplify- it covers the excitement and tedium of campaigns, and its characters appeal to our ideals, but shock us with their flaws. It's also endless fun to figure out on whom each character is based, in this satire of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.
New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, longtime Clinton compatriot, endorsed Hillary Clinton's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, today. This is surprising for at least two reasons: Richardson owes a lot of loyalty to the Clintons for two high level administration appointments (UN ambassador and Secretary of Energy) and he probably would have been at the top of Hillary Clinton's list for vice presidents. Although with Obama's lead, that possibility seems vanished (a Clinton/ Obama ticket is the best she can hope for).
In part two, Richardson gives an interesting story from the campaign trail that he says illustrates why Obama is a genuinely "good guy."
Richardson is the second former Democratic presidential candidate to endorse Sen. Obama, joining Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd.
There are circulating reports about a particular passage in the speech on race Barack Obama gave earlier this week. When speaking about his pastor of 20- years, and the incendiary anti- American, anti- white comments he made, Obama said:
I can no more disown [Rev. Wright] than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
A lot of news organizations and blogs have latched onto that part of the speech, and Obama's follow up comments about it. He pushed aside notions that his grandmother might be racist, and said that she was a "typical white person," who has a gut reaction that "comes out the wrong way." Calling a white person who is scared of African- Americans "typical" has given many pause, and forced further explanations from the Illinois Senator.
The coverage of these comments is disturbing. In his speech, Obama made a valiant effort to move our country forward, to talk about race honestly and openly. As a person with a black father, white mother and Asian sister, he's in a unique position to do that. His speech was remarkable because it was unflinchingly honest and unconcerned with the political fall-out that might come from acknowledging that (gasp!) inner city minorities still seethe over Jim Crow, or (brace yourself) many working class whites resent affirmative action.
Now, familiar forces are trying to draw Obama into the politics of the past. A politics that fains naivete in public, but is no- doubt aware of every prejudice behind closed- doors.
An elderly white lady feels uncomfortable passing a black man on the street? That's preposterous! People who came of age two generations ago use racial epithets? You're out of line, buddy!
If those facts are not acknowledged as true, and we don't recognize that it's not limited to older generations, we cannot move forward. To move past old racial behaviors, it is necessary to look at the causes behind the patterns. In the alternative, you can brand anyone who admits even slight prejudice as racist/ sexist/ anti- Semitic, etc. Reverend Wright is evil, Pat Robertson is a bigot, Obama's grandmother is ignorant. To demonize someone is easy and safe, but it's not right or helpful.
Not if you are tired of the way things have always been, and are ready to start to move in a new direction. That's where Obama is trying to lead us, and hopefully we have the courage to follow.
Below, one of my favorite political reporters, Chuck Todd, gives his thoughts on the events of the past week. He's one of the most fair, thoughtful and insightful reporters in the field today.
CNN reports that the falling dollar is jacking up the price of baked goods, even pizza. Mariella Pizza in Midtown Manhattan has had to continually raise its prices as the price for a 50 lbs. bag of flour has gone from $16 to $37 in just under a month.
"Over here people come to buy pizza, working people. How much [am] I going to raise the pizza now?" asks Joe Vicari. "Somebody come in here for two slices, and I take $5. I feel very, very bad for the person."
Wheat is skyrocketing as well, from the article: "At the Chicago Board of Trade a bushel, 60-pounds of wheat, now trades for more than $1100, more than two-and-1/2 times what it was just a year ago."
In addition to inflation caused by the sinking dollar, investment in ethanol (leading to more corn and less wheat produced) also has caused the up-swing, as have unusual weather conditions in the US, Europe and Australia.
Merchants in the article note that the cost is going to have to be passed along to the consumer. So add that to gasoline as another climbing cost that's pinching consumers.
A well-connected citizenry is made up of men and women who discuss and debate ideas and issues among themselves and who constantly test the validity of the information and impressions they receive from one another—as well as the ones they receive from their government. No citizenry can be well informed without a constant flow of honest information about contemporary events and without a full opportunity to participate in a discussion of the choices that the society must make.
