The Way I See Things

Despite Senator Obama's statements to the contrary, many supporters and surrogates are calling for Senator Clinton to leave the campaign. I cannot align myself with that position. Furthermore, in my estimation...
There will never be an appropriate time for Senator Clinton to abandon her campaign.

There's a road ahead that she has to travel and SHE--Most Urgently--needs Senator Obama's help to complete that journey.

Polling and statements from party leaders indicate many of her recent actions have served to tear the Democratic Party asunder. In attempting to eviscerate Senator Obama--not just his campaign, but the man himself, she lent legitimacy and credence to Senator McCain's campaign (The Republican Party) at Senator Obama's expense. She cannot return to the Senate--WE cannot allow her to return to the Senate--with that bleak pall cast around either her or the Democratic Party.

It has always been my belief and it is now my contention, that each losing candidate needs to return from whence they came, Whole and Complete, if not better than when they set forth in their campaigns. The Clinton campaign has set Senator Clinton at a disadvantage in that regard.

However...
Senator Obama can restore to Senator Clinton what she has lost.

Senator Obama is in a position to aid both Senator Clinton and the Democratic Party and heal this division in very substantive ways. That was a measure of humanity and compassion that was lacking in some of the Clinton attacks. Senator Obama can provide her with opportunities to retract and repair some of her statements. He can provide her with forums to unify party members--people with a vested interest in ending that which is now less a presidential administration and more regime. However...
There needs to be time for this process to develop, evolve and bring people back together.

Senator Clinton needs to start--and I think she has indeed started!--cultivating a vision and a path toward Senator Obama. One her supporters find not merely palatable; or one to which, as Democrats, they are simply resigned; but a path they can feel passionate about. One that inspires them.

On the issues, she needs the ability to lead and create alliance for/between all of us. In implementing policy and initiatives, a President Obama needs to feel he can rely on Senator Clinton to work with him, not to contend against him, and/or spawn adversarial/counter proposals. Examine her convictions toward her healthcare proposal. Would she only support her plan, be open to compromise, or willing to side with Republicans in opposition to President Obama's plan? These are questions that I have no interest in posing beyond the hypothetical. January 20th, 2009 should be a date to affirm solidarity not doubt. So now, right now, is the time for coalition building, a time of healing.

Senator Clinton's departure at this point could represent a breeding ground of distrust, opposition and diminished influence for our party.

"Yes, we can!" is a statement of inclusion.
Not exclusion.
We're past these particular drills and exercises...
So we cannot simply 'practice' what we preach...
We must embody it.

I would love for the first commercial of the general election campaign to be President and Senator Clinton, sincerely and earnestly endorsing...
Barack Obama for President.

The current administration, by its actions--its blatant manipulation of the rule of law (executive orders, signing statements, etc); its unflagging pursuit of establishing governments beyond our borders (regime change in Iraq); gross inattention to crises within our borders (Katrina aftermath)--has alienated a significant number of citizens, and also fostered a lingering distrust of how and where domestic issues rank as a priority.

I think we're entering a time--in establishing change in the presidency, change in America--wherein the next presidential administration will reaffirm the Voice of the People and the Will of the People. As the administration addresses domestic policy initiatives, I will consider it a great pleasure and honor to once again have allies in bettering our future.

Because the next administration will need to both heal and create on many fronts, across the globe, I expect its public face and voice will be conveyed in a variety of forms beyond Commander-in-Chief--press secretary, cabinet members and the vice president. I also expect these Ambassadors to the American Public will represent a clear and consistent vision for elevating our nation. I'm looking forward to Constitutional stewardship that, again, respects and values its citizens. I assume I will be seeing a vice president that substantively interacts with Americans (beyond the word "So?"^[1]; isn't driven by personal gain and/or agenda (for himself or his former business partners); and actually seems to enjoy working for the people. I look forward to a process of repair and restoration--demonstrative actions--as an end to dismissal and disapproval of the electorate, and a commitment to renewed respect, appreciation and care of the American People.

I am going to enjoy more than a reinvigorated pride as an American, but a return to global citizenship that inspires others to be...
Proud Of America.
^[1]Link to the full text/context of VP Cheney's comments to the American People (ABC News interview - 3/19/2008.

...but the weekly Presidential YouTube and/or Facebook and/or MySpace and/or iTunes addresses.

We have a president that respects the power of media and technology. The internet will allow us to see our president. He won't be a faceless entity (nor sound anywhere near as grating/mocking/dismissive/contemptuous as our current 'Disdainer-in chief'). Our next president will also be able to provide us with concurrent site video; models/visual representations; graphics/graphs and url links to important associated information.

Our first, truly 21st Century...
President.

Seriously!

While I'm fairly certain Senator Obama has already energized--and can claim--young voters, his most touted demographic weakness is working class voters (incomes less than $50,000, no college degree).

What gets those voters excited? Invested? Willing to fully explore their options and seriously consider Senator Obama in lieu of Senator Clinton?

Where can he meet and persuade those voters?
Gas pumps (and I love the gas station commercial!)?
Wal-Mart?
Target?
Grocery stores?

I'd like to hear a Wal-Mart announcement that Senator Obama was spending 1/2 an hour in the store...
As a greeter.

I'd like that a lot!

With the announcement of the newest incarnation of the 'Hardball' College Tour, I thought it might be instructive to explore something Congressman Paul did so well with his campaign:
Mobilizing younger voters.

I was struck by how coordinated his supporters were, and how quickly they responded to things like text messaging polls. (And I feel safe guaranteeing, it's something marketers are studying, and will be exploring for other contexts, for years to come!) I'm still not certain what the mechanism was but I imagine it was some sort of technology 'bucket brigade' (perhaps leveraging a computing cocktail of Twitter, instant messenging and text messenging), but it was undeniably effective. And I urge the Obama Campaign to do some research and replicate it!

And since college students also love 'free' stuff...
My thought was this:
As Senator Obama traverses the commonwealth, he's going to encounter quite a few campuses.
He might consider coordinating some quick, not-publicly-announced campus visits.

Back when I was in college, there was still a uniform schedule of class times. The campaign would obtain that schedule, position themselves at some central point on campus for the change of classes, then send out text messages to supporters that have registered for those updates. Then for those that show up, they get to meet Senator Obama, and get some free stuff for their effort! Ideally this should be something unique to the date and campus. They show up, display their voter registration card, and receive ome sort of announcement card or button. If time exists to create some stuff, maybe the campaign could provide, say, a 'play only' mp3 player with an intro specific to that campus and its students; and featuring the anti-iraq war speech; the democratic convention speech and the race speech.

If I was a college student...
I'd line up for it.

...for busting Senator Obama's bracket.

Whilst the senator's choice of Pitt demonstrated woefully poor judgment,
Clearly...
It is an error in judgment easily forgiven.

Though I doubt it would've helped him in Michigan IF...
The Spartans had not been victorious.

GO GREEN, GO WHITE!!!

The Electoral College???

So...
The Clinton campaign is now, more vociferously, raising the spectre of the Electoral College as a measure of consideration...
That superdelegates should consider electoral votes as justification for nominating her as Democratic candidate.

She sows seeds in hopes of reaping odious fruit...
She's trying to capitalize on this abundance of time and sway people to her camp.

Because of its novelty--despite its lack of relevance to the primaries--some people will listen to this.

I think it is time for Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Gore to, immediately, demonstrate a measure of leadership, and commitment, to both the democratic process...
And...
The Democratic Party.

I would add the...
Superior 64,
And the...
Thundering 32,

To round out the Sweet 16, Elite 8 and Final 4 of...
March Madness.

Just sayin'...

EDIT: I would agree with the Sensational 64 too...

However...

I will say that I've had paying jobs, working with computers for over 20 years. I've worked with everything from mainframes to microcomputers. And of this I am certain...
IF YOU CAN SEE IT...
It Can Be Copied.
It Can Be Saved (and with flash drives and iPods that's a trivial operation).
It Can Be Removed.
AND...
IT CAN BE DISTRIBUTED.
(Also a trivial undertaking due to this little thing known as 'The Internet'.)

I'm sure the employees that breached Senator Obama's passport file were--as the State Department's declared (based on their less than extensive investigation)--merely curious; and if their intent was indeed malicious, it was related to his Democratic Party affliation and associated frontrunner status.

I'm sure that Speaker Pelosi will agree...
After she demands an immediate and thorough investigation with a requirement of Congressional oversight...
And receives independent, verifiable, reliable confirmation.

I am positive the incident had absolutely nothing to do with...
Well...

(I will not use the 'R' Word, I will not use the 'R' Word, I will not use the 'R' Word...)

Even with more than a month available before the primary votes, the predictors and prognosticators forecast a loss in Pennsylvania for Senator Obama.

They're clear: The issue isn't IF he'll lose, the issue is...
By how much.

Even the oft-mentioned, mistakenly leaked, Obama campaign documents projected a loss in the Keystone state. The omnipresent assumption seems to be a loss is inevitable.
However...
I don't think it is.

Many characterize the states major cities as more favorable to Senator Obama; while they shade the less populated areas as more skeptical, more sympathetic to Senator Clinton and more resistant to a platform based on Change. There also seems to be an estimation that these voters are less sophisticated, less informed.

I do NOT accept this.

In dealing with people, while love motivates many, I've also observed that fear and ego are the foundation of action for a substantial number of others.

While sharing many of the priorities we all share--the economy, the safety and security of our nation, the future--those priorities may indeed take different forms. But make no mistakes here, their fears are ours, and their convictions about what should be done to eliminate those fears are valid.

People would like their fears removed. People like to feel smart and informed. People seek to make the best choices and feel that, ultimately, they've elevated our union, not diminished it.

ACTION PLAN
^ Foundation: Like every other state, Pennsylvania is not a monolith in how it selects its political leaders. I think it would be fair to treat it as multiple, small states. And that strategy would've afforded Senator Obama the opportunity to learn about the different regions and speak to each of their needs.

^ I would've recommended Senator Obama start in Harrisburg--FIRST, to establish he was there to campaign in the Complete Commonwealth; then I would've directed him to places like Altoona, Greensburg, State College, Breezewood, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Williamsport, etc; and THEN, finally, appear in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

^ I would've urged him to appeal to the intelligence of rural voters. Steve Kroft's '60 Minutes' was staggering as he exposed the lack of reliable, accurate information about Senator Obama. So, begin at the beginning. Let people know why he is campaigning to be president; what his credentials are; what his beliefs are so, when they do vote, they can do it with full knowledge not mistruths/half-truths/untruths.

^ For interacting with the residents, I would've suggested he organize Town hall-style meetings. A lot of them. Meetings where Senator Obama asks the people what they expect/require/desire of a president, where he satisfies them and where he falls short; and where they explain they can be integral, active contributors in a government of change, how a President Obama can help them become more involved in that process, and how they can help a president better serve the people. This makes his visit less an interaction with a poll/pollster and more one of interacting with real people, in a real conversation, with real questions, concerns and genuine answers.

^ I would've recommended that Senator Obama make a visit to all the Pennsylvania newspapers that endorsed him, including the local weeklies, and the 'City Paper'-type publications. Many people read the newspaper during the day, some still rely on it for their news. While visiting, he could speak to their editorial boards, get himself on their front pages--big picture, big headlines--and reinforce and reiterate his message.

^ Next, I would've directed him to the local radio stations--whether conservative or liberal--to get some air time. Be interviewed, be questioned, be there. Let people know that he was willing to answer--directly and candidly--the questions that anyone might have for him. And with those conservative stations, and their commentators, I would've suggested that Senator Obama issue them a challenge: He would appear on their show to discuss real issues, not fodder; engage in a dialogue; then allow all the statements to be reviewed/verified by a mutually selected research organization; when the processing of that information was completed, he would return, share the results with the listeners, and finally both parties would attest to--endorse!--the accuracy of the results. He'd 'win' whether the challenge was accepted or rejected.

^ All of this activity would've cascaded to the major media markets, so he wouldn't have lost any relevancy there. Senator Obama could also have visited a number of colleges to ensure the energy, vibrancy and vigorous support of young voters was maintained.

^ I would've encourage him to get some video cameras; get behind, not in front of, the lens; and make the shot about the people--their views, their ideas, their dreams--and let them talk about how he cam help them address all of those concerns.

^ Continuing with the camera theme, I'd would've arranged to link Obama supporters from other states--via video phones/iPhones/satellite links/etc--so they could demonstrate and dicuss why they support Senator Obama's campaign; explain their yearning for change; and explain why they support the main theme--'Yes, we can!' I think in showing other yet similar families, other yet similar communities would help to lower any resistance to his legitimacy as a candidate for president.

^ For TV commercials, I would've suggested he primarily use regular people to strengthen the delivery of his message. People that are, and will continue to be, ardent supporters of the Obama campaign. People who are union workers; working in, or residents of, nursing homes; people going to work/coming home from work; in the stores looking in their wallets; at the gas pump; at the computer emailing family in Iraq or Afghanistan; people on the bus/subway; farmers; truckers; etc. who are like the people in these areas where Senator Obama is projected to lose. People they can relate to; people like them.

^ To solidify his understanding of these people, and the importance of their concerns, I would've ensured that Senator Obama commit to returning and promise to do that. To return during the campaign for the general election, and to return after he was eleected president. I don't have the research but, intuitively, I think people are more inclined to trust people they know they can rely on. Senator Obama will have to address many more issues in the course of this campaign, one he should NOT have to address is his devotion to the People of the United States of America. In that, he should be beyond reproach. Letting people know they will be neither ignored nor forgotten would more than solidify that truth.

^ On the issue of faith, Senator Obama has (it seems to me) been continually/perpetually/eternally addressing his faith for over a week; however, that may not be enough effort to satisfy and reassure some people. I'd suggest he explore having other religious leaders--leaders that people know better, might see more regularly, and thus imbue with more respect--endorse and speak about him and the strength of his faith.

Above all, I would position him to concentrate on--to focus on--people that are eager for change but have reservations that he is their best conduit. I would advocate a focus on the people that aren't his core constituency...
But have the potential to be.

While I try to avoid sports analogies and metaphors, I noted one commentator comparing Senator Obama to Jackie Robinson. How Jackie Robinson was chosen not merely for his talent but because he was an exemplary representative as an agent of change for Major League Baseball--as the first, he had to be--in all ways--the best. I pondered this for a moment or two. And ultimately concluded that characterization was incorrect. Senator Obama strikes me as someone closer to, say, the 'Tiger Woods' of politics...
It's not merely a situation where he's 'The First'.
It's that his abilities are so superior to everyone else that preceded him he's redefined how the game should be played...
Except as I maintain, and reiterate...
Politics is not and should not--Ever--be conceptualized as a game. It is not an enterprise of teams or scores, victories or defeats. It is the institution that best represents the will of people working together for our common good.

It is NOT a competition...
But a coalition.

I think Senator Obama understands that.

I'd been in a sweet l'il blogging groove about Senator Obama's campaign, and it's been a relatively easy process. I could easily articulate my thoughts, feelings and perspectives because, as a previously somewhat jaded member of the electorate, the senator's campaign reflected my hopes, my dreams, my yearning for change in the way we govern.

Then came the tsunami of Pastor Jeremiah Wright coverage.

Like everyone else interested in any aspect of this election, I watched--unavoidably, unless I sequestered myself from every available news source--at the video clips; knowing they'd been extracted out of their full context; not assigning any particular meaning to them because, really, I didn't think they had any association to Senator Obama's campaign. These weren't Senator Obama's statements--they were another person's--and I didn't think anyone could reasonably hold the senator accountable for them. And even hearing that Pastor Wright was associated with Senator Obama as a 'spiritual advisor', I was unwavering in my conviction that the pastor had not been--and would not be--in consideration for any official position in an Obama administration. My rationale was simple: As a former constitutional law professor, and current senator in the Congress of the United States, I was certain he held the principle of 'separation of church and state' sacrosanct.

I thought the issue would soon end, and yet...
It took on an unimagined, almost surreal, life of its own.

The media, Senator Obama's critics, anyone with anything close to resembling what they thought was a reasonable, valid opinion seized on this opportunity to unload every particle of suspicion, mistrust, denigration and vitriol they could obtain...
Theirs and anyone else's they thought they represented.

Considering it's relative importance (which in my opinion was infinitesimal) against other history defining events, the inflation of this issue in the media--and its duration--was beyond anything I'd seen in my lifetime--Martin Luther King's assassination; Robert Kennedy's assassination; the Apollo moon landing; Nixon's resignation; the felling of the Berlin Wall; Space Shuttle tragedies; President Clinton's misdeeds; the 9/11 tragedy; either Iraq war; Hurricanes Andrew, Katrina; etc. I was stunned, if not shaken, by how predatory the response was.

I reserved judgment, as well as statement, hoping to avoid contributing in any possible way to legitimizing this issue.

After Senator Obama's speech, I found that none of my respect or consideration for him had changed. He said many things: some of which are obvious and that we should know in how we act toward each other; think of each other; and forgive each other; others that struck me merely as his personal opinion; and others that attempted to lay the foundation for future discourse and, ultimately, progress toward a better nation.

My only commentary is, on the core issues of not merely racism--I did NOT consider it one of patriotism--but all the other, numerous, manifest discriminations, -isms, -phobias and violences is we should look to, listen to, and connect with substance and legitimacy to those who state they live lives partially influenced, if not defined, by inequity, by inequality.

For those that think these problems have past, that believe these issues no longer exist, I'd offer that you'd consider these questions:
^ How many men of darker hues drive the roads of this country legitimately concerned about the police car behind them, and the dangers it may hold?
^ How many women go to bed at night with the conviction that violence can befall them walking even the safest streets and campuses of this country, as well as in their own office building, or home?
^ How many people who are gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgendered fear ridicule, derision and possibly violence as they go about their daily lives?

Then ask...
How many of those people go to sleep worrying MORE about...
A...
Terrorist Attack?

When people have the conviction that they're being protected from threats within with the same zeal and commitment that's extended to threats without, then...
We will be well on the way to true unity in our great nation.

While detractors will continue to abound, now that Senator Obama has spoken, authoritatively, on the issue of Pastor Wright, I hope it can be put to rest and we--this country--can move on to more substantive, relevant and important issues.

Geraldine Ferraro, rather than distance herself from earlier statements, is actually ESCALATING her rhetoric and defending her comments.

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

She also has the support of Pat Buchanan. Because he's previously worked with Ferraro, he stated that he likes and respects her.

On tonight's 'Live with Dan Abrams', Buchanan also defended Ferraro's comments, though with a caveat that that Senator Obama is running a "magnificent campaign".

"However, I do agree that that because he's an African-American, that's why he getting 91% of the African-American vote. And it's why you've got all this enthusiasm in the media and elsewhere for him, because he's an African-American. Now, I think those are, those are valid statements by her."

Earlier on 'Hardball with Chris Matthews', Buchanan attempted to make similar statements. Chris instantly challenged Buchanan, asking...
Why don't we say George Washington won because he was a white man?

I'll update this with exact quotes when the 'Hardball' transcript is available.

Obviously, this is going to progress to some very 'ugly' places...

UPDATE: Chris Matthews dissects Buchanan's position.

Buchanan: I do agree with this. If Barack Obama were not an African-American, I don‘t think he would be where he is. He‘s clearly a tremendously articulate individual, an able individual, a great orator who has won his way. Really, he‘s run a magnificent campaign. But he got his start off and he‘s winning 90 percent or 85 percent of the African-American vote because he‘s an African-American. I don‘t have a problem with that at all, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you, Pat, why don‘t we start talking in that regard about everybody? Bill Clinton wouldn‘t have been where he was if he weren‘t white, a male white.

Buchanan: Well...

MATTHEWS: George Washington wouldn‘t have been who he was if he were not a white male. I mean, how many—why do we have this new delineation that we never had before about white men?

Buchanan: Chris...

MATTHEWS: We never said, the only reason the guy is governor of New York is, he‘s a white male. We have learned that certainly in the last couple days.

Buchanan: I think, look, the Democrats themselves, Hillary said, it‘s wonderful, the first black male, the first woman for candidate for president. For heaven‘s sakes...

MATTHEWS: But, Pat...

Buchanan: ... the whole country is talking about it. Chris, get out of the political correctness, for heaven‘s sake.

MATTHEWS: No, I want to tell you something. But has anybody ever said, the only reason George Washington was our father of our country because he‘s a white male?

Buchanan: It wasn‘t true. It wasn‘t true.

MATTHEWS: I have never heard anybody say that.

Buchanan: He was a general in the revolution.

MATTHEWS: You mean, if he was a black female, he would have been...

Buchanan: He was a general in the revolution, for heaven‘s sakes. And he was the lead man at the Constitutional Convention. He was the greatest...

MATTHEWS: And he wouldn‘t have been any of those things if he wasn‘t a white male. Would you stop?

I'm sure this has already been addressed in multiple blogs; however...
I'm going on record as NOT being satisfied with...
Disagreement
OR
Regret.

I prefer--DEMAND--'Reject' and 'Denounce'.
Repudiate can be added for good measure, too.



"But if the word 'reject' Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce," he added.



'In the AP interview, Clinton said, "I do not agree with that,"...'

And added...
"It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we've both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal," she told the AP. "We ought to keep this on the issues. There are differences between us. There are differences between our approaches on health care, on energy, on our experience, on our results that we've produced for people. That's what this campaign should be about."

Despite what many pundits, politicians and voters might enjoy...
I don't like to compare politics to sports.

I'm not sure that any sort of 'natural selection' or 'win/lose' mentality benefits all the citizens. I understand and accept campaigns are necessary. I understand that elections are necessary, but...
When winning becomes more important than Representation...
It seems the true purpose and core values of governance are lost.

However...
In this, our 2008 Democratic nominating process, some candidates seem comfortable doing anything necessary...
Including implicit endorsement of the Republican nominee...
At the expense of the ENTIRE Democratic Party...
To defeat their opponent.

They describe their behavior as 'strength' and/or 'experience.'

However they characterize it, it is obviously...
Reckless and Dangerous.

And if we must use a sports analogy, it's time for the intervention of...
Referees.

Senior Democratic Party officials, with a clear, unified voice, need to Stop This Behavior.

My recommendation is simple:
1) The party elders--at least Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Dean, but preferably all elected Democrat officials--need to issue a statement that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are not merely qualified to be President but MORE Qualified than their Republican counterpart, Senator McCain.

This is not merely a statement that negative campaigning might effect other Congressional races--it's not an admonishment about 'bickering'--it needs to be a statement that the Democratic Party is providing superior solutions and leadership to our country.

2) Both Democratic candidates need to issue statements that they are both MORE Qualified than Senator McCain to be President of these United States.

Senator Obama's would most likely begin:
"As I have stated, and maintain, both I and Senator Clinton represent the best choices in moving our country forward out of these dark days. We continue to look forward to a vigorous campaign, and the trust in the will of the voters to make the best decision for the Democratic nominee."

HOWEVER...
Senator Clinton should be REQUIRED to issue a statement that starts something like this:
"While Recent Statements I Have Made, may seem to imply other Democratic candidates are not prepared to be President this is neither my position nor belief. I believe that either I or Senator Obama will better represent America, in supporting its citizens, and reestablishing our preeminent position on the world stage, than the Republican nominee--Senator McCain. While I have previously spoken of my great respect for Senator McCain, I think he can best help our country by continuing as an esteemed Senator for the State of Arizona..."
etc, etc, etc.

This isn't sports...
This is an issue of...
'Biblical Proportions' and...
She needs to atone for her misdeeds.

She's done more than attack Senator Obama, she's damaged the Democratic Party.

The responsibility for repairing that damage should rest squarely with...
Her.

First...
A story:
One company is in business and that business is worth...
$20.

A new company starts in the same industry and it's only worth...
$0.

The first owner takes $1 of their shareholders' money, invests it, and...
Loses...
$5.

The new owner takes $2 from his shareholders, also invests it, and...
RETURNS...
$5.

The difference in value between the companies is now...
$10.
The first company's competitive lead has been cut by...
1/2.

However...
Because the first company still has $15, and the new company only has $5, the first owner declares...
"I am the superior investor!"

They ridicule the new company. They disparage their results and, by extension, their shareholders. They say the new company has made poor investment decisions. They say their returns in value aren't a result of talent, they're a result of luck.

They say the new company and--again, by association--its shareholders aren't doing anything meaningful or worthwhile.

So, someone comes up to the first owner and asks...
"How do you make your money?"

The first owner answers with...
"I walk around and tell people, 'I am a skilled and superior investor.'"

The same person goes to the new owner and asks the same question.
They reply...
"I go out and talk with my shareholders, I ask them what's important to them, they tell me, I listen, and then I act on their recommendations. They've been right. So, what I do is easy....
I just work for them."

One of the things that many folk underreport/fail to recognize is that the Obama campaign is one of ACTION not Reaction.

The campaign values action and actually penalizes reactionary (ill-conceived) thinking and tactics.

Let's contrast this with the Clintons' campaign...

When Senator Clinton won Ohio, her campaign chairperson, Terry McAuliffe--a former Democratic National Committee chairperson (meaning: he should be a knowledgeable guy; at least knowledgeable enough to know, and Do, better regarding such statements)--decided to tout her victory using some interesting metrics. One of his central statements was, while Senator Obama outspent Senator Clinton...
'2-to-1'...
He still 'lost'.

This struck me as curious. So I sat a moment and thought about it.

I came up with the following and, perhaps, some other readers can help me determine whether my logic is flawed...
Or if there's a problem with the...
Clinton Logic.
(Or lack of logic?)

The first observation I make is...
Every dollar Senator Obama spent resulted in a reduction of Senator Clinton's lead; ultimately, reducing that margin by half: 20% to 10%.
Every. Dollar. EVERY DOLLAR. Senator Obama. Spent. Resulted. In. An. Increase. Of. Support. AN INCREASE OF SUPPORT. Versus. Senator Clinton.

And for Senator Clinton, it logically follows:
Every dollar Senator Clinton spent...
Contributed to reducing her lead...
By half.
BY. HALF.

In a way, all of the money she spent was...
An investment in Senator Obama!

She wasn't spending money so that she could 'win'...
She was spending money to reduce/minimize her losses.
And if we look at support of the electorate, she has been losing...
This Entire Campaign.

This doesn't strike me as an approach that translates well to...
Sound. Economic. Policy.

For campaign strategy, there are many questions here:
If Senator Obama had spent no money in Ohio, and the Clintons had continued their spending, would the gap in support have changed?
Would it have closed?
Would it have widened?
What level of spending would've altered the margin?
Outspending the Clintons clearly resulted in a halving of their lead; so, if the Obama campaign expenditure had been greater--3 times? 4 times?--than the Clinton outlay, would that have resulted in half the distance each time? More? Less?
What would've constituted an acceptable distribution of campaign funds to secure such a victory?

I doubt there was any way to project/predict how much money would've done 'what'.
And I'm not sure it mattered either.
The money the Obama campaign spent had a decisive impact.

We know, with absolute certainty, the Clintons spending did NOTHING to minimize Senator Obama's progress.

At the end...
For every dollar Senator Obama spent he saw POSITIVE GAIN.
THAT seems to be a good investment.

For every dollar Senator Clinton spent...
She saw...
And continues to see...
LOSS.

There's been a lot of discussion about how to evaluate the performance of these candidates, mainly in reference to Superdelegate voting--Popular vote, Number of states won, 'Big States' won, etc.
Yet something strikes me as very clear.
Senator Clinton started this process as the frontrunner...
And has only shown herself capable of losing.

I don't know any state where she's extended her initial margins of victory.
This seems to mean that...
She's...
LOST...
In every contest...
The support of the electorate as evidenced by results.

Other than her campaign and surrogates...
Is anyone advocating a losing strategy as a path to victory?

Let me know if I missed anything...

There will be more posts about how Senator Obama embraces and embodies the virtues of Critical Thinking.

And how Senator Clinton flaunts them.

But for now...
While the Clinton campaign is rabid about being first in circulating their message, they sometimes have a significant problem with...
The accuracy of said message.

In this election process, Texas is unique because their delegate apportionment system consists of both a primary AND a caucus. Delegates are awarded based on the results of each component. While projections are sometimes useful, it's probably a good idea to wait, until results are essentiaally incontrovertible, before releasing any statements regarding victory and/or defeat.

Given that the caucus counting is currntly estimated at only 41% complete, it's reasonable to infer any projections would be somewhat premature.
And it seems the Clintons continue to be...
Unreasonable.

Ongoing developments indicate the Clintons may have some issues regarding their declaration of 'victory' in Texas...
Because they may--Indeed--LOSE that state's delegate race.

From NPR:


"Here's where the delegate count gets funky. NPR's Wade Goodwyn and Robert Siegel report that Clinton's primary win means she snapped up 65 delegates to Obama's 61. Not a big difference, but a difference nonetheless. But if the numbers in the caucus vote hold up, then Obama will win 37 more pledged delegates to Clinton's 30. So Obama would have 98 delegates and Clinton 95 and he would leave Texas with three more delegates that Clinton."

That strikes me as a monumental if not...
Monstrous...
Defeat.

Obama can be a 'Starr' but Clinton cannot be a 'monster'.

A great thing about 'The High Ground'--The Ethical Campaign?
The view is lovely!

One of the problems with running an ethical campaign?
There's no requirement for the opponent to do the same.

In maintaining 'The High Ground', while there IS always room for many, it seems only a select few--and many times just one--really do the things necessary to scale to that height.

Based on their behavior, the Clintons know they occupy a lesser elevation. It also seems, due to their lack of achievement, they're demonstrating a certain quality of 'envy'. It manifests itself by trying to lure Senator Obama from that perch. They keep trying to reframe his position as 'inferior' to theirs. With a win-lose mentality, if one is losing, some of the options to regain the lead are to:
1) Perform with excellence and live with the outcome, but...
Failing that, perhaps one might;
2) Try to distract one's opponent enough so they can surpass them, or;
3) Place obstacles in their opponent's path sufficient to slow and/or injure them.

Since this is a campaign of hope, of values, of vision, of change it requires that any missteps in those areas can be used in opposition:
Senator Obama's campaign has been/is being/will be used against him.

It means that he cannot use devious tactics and...
His opponent does not have to hold herself to that same standard.

It means that Senator Obama has given himself 'THE GIFT' of fallibility. It means that both he and his opponent will benefit from his mistakes. But, sadly...
It seems only one of them will learn how to improve...
Who they are...
What they do...
And...
How to apply those lessons to helping all of us.

The beneficiary of that knowledge is NOT...
Senator Clinton.

Back in my junior high days, I was on the school's basketball team. Jr. Varsity and Varsity.

As required and expected, I attended the practices and the games. I knew the drills. I knew the positions I was expected to know. I knew the playbook. I knew the offenses and defenses.

By all accounts, I was a valued member of the team. However...
I sat the bench.

I don't mean 'I suited up but rarely played.' I mean I sat the bench because...
I didn't have a uniform.

I wasn't sick. I wasn't injured. I wasn't ineligible. I was a member of the team but...
I was NOT...
A player.

I was a 'manager'. A glorified ball boy. I wasn't an alternate. I was never going to suit up. I did things like collect/distribute balls. Help out in the drills and practices. Maintain equipment. But, again, I reiterate...
I was NOT...
A player.

What does this have to do with politics?

Despite what I did.
Despite what I observed.
Despite what I knew.
Never, ever, would I be qualified...
On any day...
To be...
Athletic Director.

With all her self-laudatory statements to the contrary, prior to 2000, I can't find any legislation, anywhere, that was sponsored, introduced and/or passed by...
Hillary Clinton.

I can't find any evidence that she's:
1) Any more qualified to handle a global crisis;
2) Any more capable of being a steward of an economy--of any size! (Does the First Lady--of a state or the country--even have to concern herself with, y'know, the household budget? Buying food? Doing laundry?);
3) At all able to alter the existing paradigm--in which government tends to be a tool of special interests/corporations/lobbies--and returns us all to working on behalf of the people of the United States of America.

Being a ball boy doesn't qualify you to be the athletic director.

You have to be more than a ball boy; more than a player.
You have to be a student of the game.

You have to take the talent you have and be a visionary.

You cannot use the currency of your associates' accomplishments, you have to create your own.

You have to understand, beyond any one team, what's best for all the teams, the players, the school, the district, the families.

Osmosis is neither the conveyer nor the qualifier of such talent.

That sort of aspiration--the ability to make it real--requires taking risks.
Not the risks of a follower.
Not the risks of an imitator.
But EXTRAORDINARY risks.

It means moving beyond what is ordinary and what is safe. It demands a well-informed, soundly reasoned, knowledgeable risk. Which equals...
A good decision.

Senator Obama knows how to play ball.
Senator Obama knows how to coach/mentor.
Senator Obama knows how to lead, inspire and educate/inform those that work with him.
Senator Obama knows how to orchestrate movement and change.
Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities.

What does Senator Clinton know?
What has she demonstrated?

After watching the Kirk Watson incident (via 'huffington post')--multiple times (the original interview and then MSNBC's seemingly perpetual rerunning of it)--and being someone skeptical of Senator Clinton's 'Day 1' rhetoric, this is the reference I found AND use (thanks to 'Grassroots Mom at Daily Kos') when comparing legislative records/evaluating her experience claim.

It covers a year, 2007, of their respective congressional records...

John F. Kennedy.

Who was elected president the last time...
Ohio got it 'wrong'.

I find that comforting.