The Problem with Jeremiah Wright…

…is that he isn't wrong.

I absolutely grant and acknowledge that his words are simultaneously inflammatory, incendiary, insensitive, and make us all feel uncomfortable. We should stop and reflect on why it is that we feel that way when we hear those words. We love our country; it is a special place where we have all had the opportunity to pursue our dreams, we value the words that our forefathers wrote in that magic document:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.________ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But there is a painful truth in the American experience: the playing field is not level. There are segments of our population which have been and are to this day marginalized. These segments include racial minorities, the poor, immigrants, women, the old, and homosexuals.

Look at the Presidential nomination process that the Democrats are engaged in and that is all the evidence that you need to prove that our nation is still struggling to fulfill the promise so eloquently laid out in the Declaration of Independence written in that hot summer of 1776 in Philadelphia. Those white men were a product of their day; there were bigots and ideologues among them. But their pens were inspired and without fully knowing it they laid out the blueprint for every fight for “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” that has come after.

I think what we are going through represents both the best and worst of us. We want so badly to be better, to see ourselves as better, to make progress, to be inclusive, but we don’t actually want to go through the uncomfortable self-examination that is required in order to achieve that progress.

Americans have come to feel entitled to everything that we have. That is true for all Americans. We feel entitled to drive big cars, live in big houses, consume vast amounts of resources, crucify public personalities for their failings, pass judgment on anyone and everyone who does subscribe to our world view or agree with our view of America’s place in that world. The wealthy feel entitled to their elite power and status. White Americans feel entitled to the status quo with all the good and bad that comes with it because it is comfortable to us and doesn’t challenge us or make us uncomfortable. African Americans feel entitled to their jealousy and anger for being marginalized and oppressed now and in the past. White Americans feel entitled to their resentment over seeing “less qualified minorities” given jobs and college admissions slots. African Americans feel they deserve entitlement and affirmative action programs which are owed for past wrongs.

And so the status quo perpetuates itself; on and on and on it goes. We have made progress. All is not bleak. We are not where we were 40 years ago. The struggles of Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. du Bois, Marcus Garvey, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X) and many, many others were not in vain. Racism isn’t remotely gone. It is still in the hearts of all people whether we are outwardly or inwardly prejudice. It is in black, white, Hispanic, Asian or Native Americans. It is now incredibly taboo to be outwardly racist. And so the prejudice has become far more subtle and difficult to quantify.

Feminists are right in that it is much more acceptable to be sexist than it is to be racist. Though they are wrong in another respect: racism, subtle or not, is generally far uglier and a much deeper rooted prejudice. It is far more difficult to be pervasively sexist. Everyone has a mother, sister, wife, grandmother, but not everyone interacts with people of other races.

To make this a battle of who is more oppressed is to divide and conquer. The thing that should unite the Democratic Party is exactly the thing that is their greatest asset. No matter who gets the nomination they would shatter one glass ceiling or another. It is something that I cannot imagine the Republican Party being capable of. They say that the Republican Party is a three legged stool. This is a vast over simplification. They do include fiscal conservatives (a dying breed), social conservative (religious value voters), and the neo-conservatives.

Republicans, to build their popularity, played on something more sinister to get power: fear. Fear of those gay people who want to corrupt your children in the Scouts, fear of those scary Mexicans coming across the border with diseases and looking to take your job and impregnate your daughter, fear of the black guy walking behind you on the street, fear of the “Arab looking” guy on the airplane with you. But beyond that Republicans prey on far more subtle fears: fear of the homeless guy asking for spare change at the traffic intersection, fear of the world around us and all the thousands and thousands of things that could go wrong or harm us everyday.

Running campaigns based on fear is a great way to win, but not a great way to lead. This makes sense, the modern GOP have never been concerned with leading. They don’t want to be leaders, they want to have power. This is why Hillary Clinton’s latest campaign strategy is so disheartening. Clinton isn’t a Republican and she should not be mistaken for one. Her policy positions are solid and are actually quite hopeful and filled with optimism. It is frustrating that her politics would play to fear and would push to crush the hopeful youth and optimism that the Obama campaign (and her own platform) embodies. In truth, Clinton’s campaign could be about hope too. Her campaign is about change and providing a feminine perspective in the Presidency.
This tack isn’t surprising, though. This is her only chance, it is the only angle she has left, and it tells us all that we need to know about Clinton. It isn’t that she is willing to throw the kitchen sink at her opponent that makes her totally unacceptable as a Presidential candidate. It is her willingness to throw away optimistic, hopeful, and progressive nature in the pursuit of power.
Clinton isn’t seeking to lead, she is seeking power.

We have a choice in this country and contrary to what Ralph Nader would have you believe, it isn’t a subtle contrast. The Democrats, whoever gets the nomination, offer the progressive policies of hope. They offer, Obama or Clinton, the symbolic evidence that we do indeed “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal.” Jeremiah Wright and the equivalent feminist (Geraldine Ferraro?) espouse a frustration of past oppression. We all want to react in a knee-jerk fashion and say: “hey, why are you so angry?” It is jarring and difficult to reconcile with the overall message of inclusiveness that is the foundation of the Democratic Party. But to simply typecast these dissenting voices as extremists is to ignore the past and perpetuate the marginalization.

Let’s look at some of the comments that Reverend Wright made:

"The government gives them [African Americans] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

This quote reflects wrongly or rightly (I have never seen any evidence of government sanctioned drug dealing anywhere) a popular sentiment in the African American community. With the exception of the drugs, nothing here is false. The government did create a three-strikes law and the government does build bigger prisons instead of building bigger schools to head-off the development of the next generation of criminals. These criminal justice policies have a larger impact on lower income communities and because of a disparity in educational resources in African American communities they are more likely to live in the lower income communities.

After September 11, 2001, he said: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Obviously the American people have not supported state terrorism of South Africans or Palestinians, but our government made the decision to deal with the racist government of white South Africa. Our government has aligned its foreign policy interests in a biased fashion towards Israel. You can argue about whether that is a good thing or not, I am not touching it here, but we can’t then be shocked when Israel’s enemies become our enemies. We pay a lot of lip service to the plight of the Palestinian people, but we are not prepared to do very much to improve it. It is a classic chicken and egg scenario. Do we have to stop the extremists before economic support can be given or is the economic development of the Palestinian territories an important tool in defusing the extremist ideologies?

"It just came to me within the past few weeks, y'all, why so many folks are hating on Barack Obama. He doesn't fit the model. He ain't white, he ain't rich, and he ain't privileged. Hillary fits the mold. Europeans fit the mold, Giuliani fits the mold. Rich white men fit the mold. Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color. Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car as a black man driving in the wrong… I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it. Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home, Barack was. Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had her people defined as non-persons."

I can’t really say anything more then that this is right. White men and women can’t possibly know what it is like to be black living in America.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye...America's chickens are coming home to roost."

This gets back to the point about American foreign policy. We have made a calculation about what our interests are. You can agree with those decisions or not, but they are what makes up America’s face to the world. We have a tendency to assume that the United States can do no wrong, that we have no flaws, that we are infallible. But this is wrong. Our nation is a work in progress. It is this that make the United States special. The fact is that we are a great human endeavor in liberty, in unity, in equality, in egality. Note though, that this is a human endeavor, and as with all human endeavors perfection is not within reach. We are imperfect, we are fallible, we are human.

I think perhaps the most controversial part of Jeremiah Wright’s comments is their lack of hope and optimism. These are a handful of comments taken from 30 years of sermons. Does anyone want their comments over 30 years scrutinized to the same degree? What unflattering comments would be turned up in your past? Do these comments mean that Reverend Wright is a hateful pessimist, or do they mean that he is a man who is as susceptible as anyone to moments of despair and anger? I think the answer to these questions aids us in putting this event in context.

Two quotes to end with:

“Out of many, we are one.”

“United we stand, divided we fall.”

John McCain: He is old!

WOW!

Geraldine Ferraro's constituents!

DOWN GOES FRAZIER, DOWN GOES FRAZIER!!!!!!

This is worth watching in full

Slip-sliding away...

From the Wall Street Journal Blog - "The Numbers Guy"

March 10, 2008, 4:43 pm
Obama’s California Comeback

A little-noticed shift in the tally of California’s Democratic delegates may affect the primary between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton as much as the heavily hyped results last Tuesday in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island.

election

Sen. Clinton won primaries in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, while Sen. Obama won the Vermont primary and appears likely to win the Texas caucus. For the day, Sen. Clinton is likely to trim fewer than 10 delegates from Sen. Obama’s lead in the race for the Democratic nomination, which by most counts stands at about 100 delegates.

But Sen. Obama may make up all that lost ground in the media counts that are the closest this race has to an official scoreboard. A California politics blogger has argued that Sen. Clinton won 36 more pledged delegates in the state than Sen. Obama, rather than the 44-delegate margin that has long been included in the news organizations’ tallies. A spokesman for the state party confirms the blogger’s numbers.

The shift, if validated once the state certifies its election results this week and the party chooses its delegates, is a reminder that the commonly reported delegate totals are mere estimates, subject to change as states finalize election results. It also highlights how a blogger with intense focus on the numbers may be faster than the established delegate counters.

David Dayden Dayen*, who blogs at the site Calitics and serves on its editorial board, wrote last week that Sen. Clinton won 203 of the state’s 370 pledged delegates — and not the commonly reported total of 207. He relied on updated vote totals from the state, based on late counts of absentee and provisional ballots. Later, when he noticed that several major news organizations still were showing Sen. Clinton with 207 delegates, he wrote a follow-up post explaining his calculation and exhorting, “I know math is hard and everything, but get out your calculators, people.”

It’s hard to explain the difference because most news organizations don’t provide a breakdown of projected delegates, district by district. Some of the discrepancies may arise from the peculiar math of congressional districts. For instance, in the 16th district, Sen. Clinton received 50,056 votes; she needed about 58 more votes to get three of the district’s four delegates, but instead she split them evenly with Sen. Obama. In the 53rd district, which has five delegates, Sen. Clinton received a small plurality of the early returns, but has fallen behind, which swings that fifth delegate to Sen. Obama.

The statewide vote matters, too. On primary night, it appeared Sen. Clinton won the state by 10 percentage points. Now she’s up by 8.7 percentage points. That means she gets an 11-margin win among delegates apportioned on the basis of the statewide vote, rather than a 13-margin win.

There won’t be an official delegate total until California certifies its results and the state Democratic party chooses delegates, Bob Mulholland, advisor to the California Democratic Party, told me. But he confirmed that the party’s unofficial count is 203-167. “It’s been this way for a couple of weeks,” he said. The earlier counts, he said, were based on preliminary results, before all of the ballots had been counted. Mr. Mulholland estimates that more than one in four ballots weren’t counted on primary day: “We’re a big state. We have lots of ballots.”

On Monday, some news organizations were updating their totals. Earlier in the day, CNN showed Sen. Clinton up 204-161, with five delegates unallocated. A spokeswoman told me the site was waiting for California to certify its results before updating, but by this afternoon, the site’s California results page was in line with Mr. Dayden’s Dayen’s* 203-167 margin. The New York Times’s page for California results shows the 207-163 result, but a page listing delegate totals for each state showed the 203-167 margin. NBC and CBS still showed the 207-163 margin. An inquiry to New York Times polling editor Janet Elder wasn’t returned. An NBC spokesman told me, “Apparently, there are discrepancies between the state count and the individual county tallies.” Kathy Frankovic, director of surveys for CBS News, told me, “delegate allocation is a work in progress.” (UPDATE: Ms. Frankovic told me later Monday that CBS would update its totals to reflect the 203-167 margin. “Thanks for alerting us to the problem,” she said.)

Mr. Dayen, who identifies himself as a 35-year-old television editor in Santa Monica, Calif., told me, “I think the 207-163 number was flagrantly wrong and nobody bothered to change it.”

*Correction: The California blogger who counted delegates in his state is named David Dayen. This post previously spelled his name incorrectly twice.
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/obamas-california-comeback-295/trackback/
Save & Share: Share on Facebook | Del.icio.us | Digg this | Email This | Print
Read more: campaign08, politics, Global

Eliot Spitzer scandal...

There is only one person you can trust with this story.

From the Huffington Post today

The Clinton camp has released a memo questioning Sen. Obama's capacity to be Commander-in-Chief:

Please note my commentary mixed in between in red.

Senator Obama has thus far failed to answer key questions about his qualifications to meet the Commander-in-Chief test. The following are questions that Senator Obama should address:

Will you stand by your definitive commitment to removing all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months, or will you, as your former advisor said, not rely on "some plan" you "crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator?"

No, Obama should not paint himself into a corner like this. If Clinton thinks that it is a good idea to say in March 2008 that all troops should, without a doubt, be removed on a set timeline without consideration of changing events, let her look foolish.

Do you regret that you have never held any substantive hearings on Afghanistan or any other subject, since you became chairman of the subcommittee on European Affairs in January 2007?

No, because the Bush administration wouldn’t have listened to the recommendations anyway. With the filibuster, the Senate would never be able to force changes in policy. Stop treating the Senate as a training ground for being Commander in Chief.

Do you agree with General McPeak that you are more qualified to be commander in chief because you don't "go on television and have crying fits?"

Blah, Blah, Blah… Did you hear something?

Are you prepared to remove General McPeak from your campaign for what is viewed by many as a sexist comment?

Yawn! Two word: Gerrie Ferraro!

Are you still willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of an Obama administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea? Are there any circumstances in which you would not conduct such meetings?

Yes. Just because you talk with someone, doesn’t mean they will be able to extract concessions from you. Is Clinton really that gullible and cowardly? Maybe we should meet with them all at once! Party on with Raul Castro and Kim Jong Il!

As voters evaluate you as a potential Commander-in-Chief, do you think it's legitimate for people to be concerned that you have traveled to only one NATO country, on a brief stopover trip in 2005, and have never traveled to Latin America?

No! Next question. Having had tea in 80 countries doesn’t impress.

Earlier in the campaign you were asked how you would respond to a terrorist attack on two cities in the United States. You talked about the need for an effective emergency response but were initially unclear about the need for a military response. What do you think that says about your readiness to be Commander-in-Chief?

It means that dealing with hypothetical scenarios is pointless. It means that the President should never view the world in two dimensions. Obama can leave that approach to George W. Bush (and Clinton apparently).

You publicly broadcast your willingness to attack Pakistan unilaterally, a statement which caused unrest in that country. Recognizing that we need to combat terrorism wherever it exists, do you wish you would have made your comments in a way that didn't cause unrest?

No, the Commander in Chief needs to reserve the right to act to protect the national security of this country. That is their first and foremost responsibility. Stability in other countries is important and the decision to act should consider this, but if there is a imminent threat, and it is the advice of the National Security Council to act immediately, action in Pakistan is not out of line.

It seems to me that Barack Obama does not need to beat Hillary Clinton. She is basically screwing herself in the general election to beat Obama in the primary. It is a dangerous tactic. Obama should turn to focus on the domestic agenda. Let Clinton ask all the questions that she wants. Obama isn’t trying to court her vote. New York already had their primary. Keep talking about your agenda Barry. Talk about what your vision is and don’t get sucked into every little tit-for-tat that Clinton lobs your way. It makes her look very small and unpresidential.

Will she do anything to win?

From Arriana Huffington's piece entitled: Democratic Scorecard: The Lizard Brain Wins Again!

"When Clinton was still pitching the inevitability of her candidacy and fending off attacks from her opponents, she roundly disavowed these kinds of tactics. 'I'm not interested in attacking my opponents,' she claimed in Iowa in November. 'I'm interested in attacking the problems of America and I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans.'

"Terry McAuliffe reiterated the do-no-harm-approach: 'We're going to focus on the Republicans. We're going to focus on winning the White House. We're not going to attack our fellow Democrats. That's not what we want to do.'"

Here is Terry McAuliffe on HBO with Bill Maher:

Barack Hussein Obama... Is he a Muslim?

A lot of questions about whether Barack Obama is a Muslim. I confess to being incredibly underwhelmed with his campaign's inability to get back on message this week. But allow me to help dispel one myth right here and now. Barack Obama was raised primarily by his maternal grandparents. Do they look like Islamo-fascists to you?

Is Experience The Only Thing?

Geeking out with exit polls!

I have been reviewing the CNN Exit Polls from the Texas Primary and have found some very interesting information.

Voting by age:
18-64 (87%)
BO – 50%
HC – 49%

65+ (13%)
HC – 65%
BO – 32%

The coots carried Clinton last night.

Gender split:
Men (43%)
BO – 51%
HC – 47%

Women (57%)
HC – 54%
BO – 45%

The gender split was not as pronounced as it has been. It seems like Clinton’s appeal to women is muted south of Mason-Dixon. The thing that got Obama here was huge turnout by women. Judging from my caucus, particularly older women (50+)

Race/Ethnicity Split:
White (46%)
HC – 55%
BO – 44%

African-American (19%)
HC – 16%
BO – 84%

Latino (32%)
HC – 66%
BO – 32%

More likely to win in November:
Hillary Clinton (40%)
Voted for HC – 93%
Voted for BO – 6%

Barack Obama (52%)
Voted for HC – 17%
Voted for BO – 81%

Can I just ask? 40 percent of Democratic Primary voters thought Clinton was most likely to win in November, 52% Obama was more likely…

…do the other 8% have an IQ high enough to breath, let alone vote?

By Educational Attainment:
Less than a college degree (57%)
HC – 57%
BO – 42%

At least a college degree (43%)
BO – 55%
HC – 42%

Why do we always get screwed by our plumber? He over bills us and then votes the wrong way.

People who thought gender was important:
Most Important (8%)
HC – 64%
BO – 36%

One of Several Factors (15%)
HC – 58%
BO – 42%

Not Important (75%)
BO – 50%
HC – 48%

By feelings on how to handle illegal immigration:
Path to citizenship (52%)
BO – 51%
HC – 47%

Temporary Worker Program (26%)
HC – 52%
BO – 47%

Deport them (18%) [18% of Democratic Voters!!!]
HC – 57%
BO – 41%

So Hillary won both the Hispanic and the Minuteman vote. Which side got it wrong?

By Income:
Less than $100K (75%)
HC – 52%
BO – 47%

Greater than $100K (25%)
BO – 56%
HC – 48%

Less than $50K (39%)
HC – 52%
BO – 47%

Greater than $50K (61%)
HC – 51%
BO – 47%

By Party Affiliation:
Democrats (66%)
HC – 53%
BO – 46%

Republicans (9%)
HC – 46%
BO – 53%

Independents (25%)
HC – 48%
BO – 49%

Would be satisfied if…
Hillary Clinton is the nominee:
Yes (70%)
Voted for HC – 67%
Voted for BO – 32%

No (30%)
Voted for HC – 10%
Voted for BO – 87%

Barack Obama is the nominee:
Yes (66%)
Voted for HC – 31%
Voted for BO – 68%

No (32%)
Voted for HC – 91%
Voted for BO – 7%

Barack Obama won among urban voters: 51% to 48%
Hillary Clinton won among suburban voters: 51% to 47%
Hillary Clinton won among rural voters: 61% to 37%

Super Delegates should vote based on:
Who can win in November (33%):
Voted for HC – 61%
Voted for BO – 38%

The results of the primaries (62%):
Voted for HC – 45%
Voted for BO – 54%

Candidates Attacked Unfairly:
Only Clinton (25%):
Voted for HC – 15%
Voted for BO – 85%

Only Obama (7%):
Voted for HC – 80%
Voted for BO – 20%

Both (28%):
Voted for HC – 62%
Voted for BO – 35%

Neither (36%):
Voted for HC – 61%
Voted for BO – 38%

This is even more interesting when asked differently:

Did Hillary Clinton attack unfairly?
Yes (52%):
Voted for HC – 40%
Voted for BO – 32%

No (43%):
Voted for HC – 64%
Voted for BO – 35%

Did Barack Obama attack unfairly?
Yes (35):
Voted for HC – 66%
Voted for BO – 32%

No (60%):
Voted for HC – 42%
Voted for BO – 57%

Overall, a majority of Democratic voters thought that Hillary’s attacks were unfair. In addition, a larger majority of Dems felt that Obama did not attack Clinton unfairly.

Voting by region:
East Texas (20%)
HC - 53%
BO - 45%

Dallas/Ft. Worth (16%)
HC - 41%
BO - 56%

Houston (13%)
HC - 45%
BO - 55%

South-Central Texas (19%)
HC - 42%
BO - 58%

West Texas (8%)
HC - 57%
BO - 41%

Rio Grande Valley (23%)
HC - 65%
BO - 33%

So, Barack Obama won the three delegate rich regions of the state. We’ll wait for the apportionment of delegates to be officially tallied.

Sometimes Entourage Nails It...

Well, the March 4th firewall has come and past. Hillary Clinton has succeeded in placing doubt in the hearts of people in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas (Vermont, as per usual, comes out as the bedrock of New England! Big ups Catamounts!)

So the news is treating this like a wide open horse race to the finish line. It reminds me of a scene from Entourage where Johnny Drama gives up and begins reading his reviews in the Hollywood press. The result is ugly...

E: “What's up Drama?”
Drama: “I got every paper in the country.”
Vince: “How's it looking?”
Drama: “It's a bloodbath, bro.”

My advice to the Obama Campaign, and contrary to popular belief I am not on the payroll, is to ignore the press today. Get in a room, slap each other around a bit and fire yourselves up for the second (or third, or fourth) half. They need to write yet another kick ass speech. That speech needs to address readiness to lead, judgment, concrete examples of leading on issues, and true tests overcome. Obama has never run against a credible opponent before. He has to show that he can take one on the chin and fight back. He cannot under any circumstances play the game the way they want him too. He needs to talk about a united Democratic Party. He needs to talk about how great it is to be a Democrat, how all the candidates this year have added to the great Democratic dialogue. Obama needs to be very complimentary toward Clinton, talking about her honorable service, but pointing out how she can NEVER be an agent of change. She and her husband are not responsible for the rancorous tone of politics, but they played a starring role in the escalation of the war of words.

For people who want this to be over, this is a definite buzzkill.

- Did going negative help the Clinton campaign? Yes.
- Did they raise doubts? Yes.
- Is this going to go on way past the point of being fun? Yes.
- Will Clinton try to get Florida and Michigan in on terms that will give her the lead? Yes.
- Is this going to get ugly before it gets better? Yes.

You have to respect the way Republicans approach nominations. Nothing quite like the bloodsport of all or nothing delegate apportionment. It is like having your head taken in one clean swing of the axe, Braveheart style vs. being killed by a million paper cuts. You don't know you are in trouble until it is over. The Democrats can see the plane crashing into the mountain but can't, or won't, do anything about it.

If this was about ideas and a difference of leadership styles, it would be a great way to keep them on the front page and limit the damage done. But Democrats never miss a chance to miss a chance. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory like they are the political equivalent of the Chicago Cubs! (Sorry George Will, ya' bastard!)

So, what comes next?

Here is the calendar:

March 8
Wyoming caucus
Pledged Delegates – 12, Superdelegates – 6

March 11
Mississippi primary
Pledged Delegates – 33, Superdelegates – 7

April 22
Pennsylvania primary
Pledged Delegates – 158, Superdelegates – 30

May 3
Guam caucus
Pledged Delegates – 4, Superdelegates – 5

May 6
Indiana primary
Pledged Delegates – 72, Superdelegates – 12

North Carolina primary
Pledged Delegates – 115, Superdelegates – 19

May 13
West Virginia primary
Pledged Delegates – 28, Superdelegates – 39

May 20
Kentucky primary
Pledged Delegates – 51, Superdelegates – 9

Oregon primary
Pledged Delegates – 52, Superdelegates – 13

June 3
Montana primary
Pledged Delegates – 16, Superdelegates – 8

South Dakota primary
Pledged Delegates – 15, Superdelegates – 23

June 7
Puerto Rico caucus
Pledged Delegates – 55, Superdelegates – 8

Who does the calendar favor? The best analogy I have heard thus far is this is like the story of the tortoise and the hare only the tortoise is a few steps behind and then the hare tears off, only to stop for a little while and let the tortoise get close again.

My feeling is that this result only delays the inevitable. I can only hope that my suspicions are wrong about HillBill. I suspect that salvaging the Clinton myth is more important to them than the Party. If Hillary Clinton loses, it tarnishes their legacy. I fear that they are willing to throw the Party under the bus to protect it.

Clinton can't pass Obama without the Michigan and Florida delegates. That is where the fighting goes. In a poll on this blog, readers (a biased sample) were not in favor of rewarding the rule breakers in these two arguably crucial states.

Enter the superdelegate strategy stage right.

Make no doubt about it; this is nothing less than a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party between the Clinton faction and the progressive/populist wing. I wish Paul Wellstone was still around.

And the saga continues...

Does Art Imitate Life, or Does Life Imitate Art???

Get out and vote for CHANGE!!!

Democrats love chaos!

I have a feeling that Clinton will win tomorrow, but not by enough to make much of an impact in Obama's lead.

Here are the demographics of the major polls in Texas...



...and Ohio.




So now the question is; who is going vote? Are you in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, or Vermont? Get out there are do your duty.

A crack in her base...

The new New York Times/CBS News poll shows a sea change in the balance of support that is propping up Hillary Clinton's campaign.



This is a problem for her campaign. Is going negative the solution? I would imagine that those who have trouble envisioning a female Commander-in-Chief will not be swayed with Hillary's new bid to be Mother-in-Law-in-Chief.

Is this man a dangerous Islamic fundamentalist???

Hillary Clinton's campaign would have you believe so.



And then if you ask why this should invoke fear, Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams responds: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."

Isn't this what elected officials do when they go abroad? Isn't it a good thing that they experience other cultures and are curious about the world. Even this is a good thing...



...Goofy, but a good thing. President Bush is a goof ball, but I guarantee that this endeared him to his hosts. Being willing to look goofy in the name of bonding is about the best piece of foreign policy of his Presidency.

The O-mentum is O-verwhelming!

Well, the debate was pretty canned tonight. Senator Obama seemed sick at the beginning and I think there was an opportunity for Senator Clinton to land one on his chin early and leave him reeling a bit. But ol' Tin Ear Clinton never misses a chance to miss a chance. She attempted to be genial, and that gave his DayQuil time to kick in.

Clinton is kind of stuck. She can't really attack Obama on policy, because they agree on 99% of the issues. Her only hope was to make him look bad, unprepared, or lacking in composure. But since he comes across as more Presidential than her, the attacks she launches invariably backfire on her.

Perhaps you saw Chris Matthews kicking Texas state Senator Kirk Watson-D from Austin around on the MSNBC the other night. I won't provide a link, but you can google it. Senator Watson was sent to represent Senator Obama as a surrogate on the air and flopped heroically. It was ugly. I should say that Senator Watson is my Senator and that I have met him in a professional capacity on a number of occasions. It was a shocking lack of composure from a guy who is generally very sharp on public policy. (Time to get off the mat Senator Watson!)

The blogs and media exploded in mocking Watson for his gaffe. He probably knew he had it coming. And to a certain extent he deserved it. How could you go on national TV so un-prepared? How could your policy staff not have prepped you better?

But in a stroke of luck, the campaign with no grace or professionalism (that of Billary) used this as an opportunity to poke fun at the Obama campaign. This undid any damage that Watson could have done to Obama in Texas. It only serves to show that Hillary will do anything to win, including mocking a fellow Democrat. She cracked a joke about it in the debate tonight, in Austin, Texas, in a room full of Senator Watson's friends (some of whom were siding with Obama and some with her). LOW CLASS!!!

In the end, the debate was essentially a draw, which in my book means Obama won. Clinton was unable to appear convincing on any points, until the closing when she seemed for the first time to acknowledge that victory for her is a long shot. She spoke eloquently about her passion and why she was working so hard.

I believe that she loves this country, but she is stuck on ideas and can't seem to grasp process. That is evident in how she runs her campaign. Why should we believe that it would be any different were she elected President. Clinton is right, being President is more than just speeches. But is also more than just ideas. It is about being in tune with the national mood. Is she so isolated by yes-men (and women) that she can't grasp that she is not in tune with our current needs as a country?

Any hack can string together sentences...

A Republican sent me this “policy analysis” and asked; “so, tell me what is wrong with this?”

I wrote a really long reply via e-mail on my “smart phone” and then the e-mail crashed. It was a very dispiriting moment, but I will soldier on and try to recreate the mojo that I had while punching out that e-mail while holding my napping daughter.

Let’s go back to the orginal question, so, tell me what is wrong with this? My reply is, I don’t even know where to begin. OK, yes I do. First off, I think that we need to review what constitutes a public policy analysis. Rule number one when analyzing a particular policy, in this case health coverage policy, the analyst must be free of preconceived notion and allow the data to direct the outcome.

Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh certainly have a preconceived notion and they don’t even try to hide it. Everything they say is absolutely true. So what’s wrong? Well, while they use fact to make their case, Zinser and Hsieh do so by using only half the story. The analysts methodically leave out key details that conflict with their outcome. It could be possible when conducting an analysis, with the incredible amounts of health policy data, that the analysis is innocently incomplete. Not in this particular case. Zinser and Hsieh actually tell half the story and omit key variables. As such, this analysis is half true. It is also half false. Thus it is not particularly interesting.

This analysis attacks “universal health insurance” as a policy program. This is almost idiotically off base. Universal health insurance is not a program, it is a goal. To achieve universal coverage there are many different approaches that could be pursued. Zinser and Hsieh call universal health insurance “socialized medicine.” This is what conservatives do when they can’t attack something on its merits. They try to create fear, in this case they go back into the vault to try to wake up the dormant fear of communism that is hibernating in the hearts of Americans. It rings hollow. What they are actually attacking is a national health system like they have in Canada, the United Kingdom, or Japan, to name a few.

The “analysts” rightly point out that the current system is broken. They also rightly point out that it is not a free market approach. But make no mistake about it, a free market approach will not move towards significantly expanding health coverage. This betrays the fact that the authors are not interested in moving towards universal coverage.

Zinser and Hsieh say that the current system is crippling American businesses. They are right, but the business community (led by the giants, GM and GE) fought hard in the 1950s to block an organized labor proposal to move towards some form of national health insurance. They were afraid of handing too much power and influence to the [communist] unions. Are you sensing a theme here?

Simply shifting the financial burden from employers to employees will not expand coverage. Working men and women have enough stress making ends meet. What would make us believe that they could or should become health care consumers that are well enough informed to be discerning. Health technology, as the authors point out, has become incredibly complex. People ought to be able to rely on their doctors to steer them towards the most cost effective care alternative. This is a system known as managed care. Managed care failed because people chose alternative plans (like PPOs) which offered them the opportunity to bypass the primary care physician and see a specialist, even in cases that could have been handled by PCPs at a lower cost.

Managed care only works when it is the only option. That is why care in the United Kingdom is half the cost for the same health outcomes. In Scandinavia, if you are rich, you can still bypass the system and go to private clinics, but most people choose not to. Care is prioritized and managed care is truly managed. Here that is called rationing by critics. But in actuality it is allowing doctors to determine severity of cases and triage based on priorities. A quadruple bypass surgery for an 80 year old is not as important as when the patient is 50. This may seem cruel, but it cannot really be refuted. Is the national health system approach perfect? No, it is not. At times people do have to wait for important tests and procedures.

But let’s be honest; the ship sailed on a national health system in the United States a long time ago. There are too many entrenched interests and too much money in the current system to do away with it all. I won’t even dare to dream. The eventual solution will likely be some sort of public-private partnership.

This could be a great debate topic in this year of politics. The solution could be crafted by uniting the liberal goal of equality and inclusiveness and conservative goal of individual responsibility.

But unfortunately only one side has showed up to the debate and won by debate. John McCain’s health policy platform focuses on controlling costs and increasing competition without getting specific. This is like nibbling around the edge without taking a bite out of the apple. Controlling costs and creating competition are certainly topics that need to be addressed, but they alone will not fix our system.

The authors of this “analysis” want a level playing field and free market solutions. That would be nice, but the playing field is not level. Free market solutions are not the best approach to ensuring that the least of us catch a break. This “analysis” is like watching the first half of the Godfather but then skipping the second half.

Do you have any race cards? Go Fish!

Still think the Clinton campaign isn’t playing the race card? Read this!

Recipe for disaster?

Republicans face an interesting challenge that could spell doom simultaneously for Democrats and the values conservatives clinging to the extreme right fringe. It has not gone unreported that the right wing of the Republican Party are less than thrilled with the idea of Senator John McCain as the GOP nominee. Rush Limbaugh has said that it will destroy the three legged platform that Ronald Reagan created. It should be noted that Limbaugh (should we call him gas bag?) has equal disdain for the former governor of Arkansas. Ann Coulter has said that if McCain gets the nomination, she’ll vote for Hillary Clinton (probably not an endorsement that the good Senator from New York wants). Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, the list goes on and on. Why do these people hate McCain (and Huckabee for that matter?). Liberals, progressives, whatever you want to call us would absolutely never call either of these guys liberal. These two politicians are conservatives. They are not ever moderates. Make no mistake about it. But I will tell you this much; I don’t hate these guys.

Rush, Ann, Sean, Laura and the rest of the angry heads dislike McCain and Huckabee for one simple reason; neither of them are political partisans. They are not rigidly dogmatic. They don’t accept that one has to kill the enemy to win.

In that regard, a President McCain or President Huckabee would be bad for business for these fear mongers. Imagine a conservative president that doesn’t want to destroy anyone or anything that presents an alternative approach. I can respect these guys even if I could never vote for them.

If either of these candidates gets the chance to run against Hillary Clinton in the general election they can and probably will win. Don’t get me wrong, Clinton’s policy positions are better, her policy platform is better thought out from an economic and public policy perspective. She will likely eat both of these guys for lunch on policy in the debates. Ever compare the issues section of a Democratic candidate to those of the GOP candidate pages? Take a look…

http://www.barackobama.com/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

vs.

http://www.johnmccain.com/
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

On public policy: check Mate, Dems win!

So if she is better on policy, why would Clinton likely lose? Clinton could do the job on a day to day basis, if we put aside the fact that she is boring and inspires no one. It isn’t because she isn’t tough enough. Clinton is up to the fight. She is right, she won’t get Swift Boated by the right. But that won’t matter. What matters is that Senator McCain can run to the middle knowing that he doesn’t need to rally the Republican base. The opportunity to vote against her will be enough to turn out the base. Ann Coulter isn’t voting for Hillary, Rush isn’t sitting this out. Don’t be fooled. This is a carefully orchestrated effort to by these angry heads to promote McCain’s independent appeal. The heads realize that Supreme Court Justice appointments are at stake. As good for business as it will be for them, the base can’t wait 4-8 years to be back in the White House.

Clinton has very little appeal among independents. McCain will clean up the middle and even if the conservative right turnout is low, it won’t matter. I just don’t see how Hillary can win.

Does that mean Senator Obama can definitely win? No it doesn’t, but this post isn’t about him!

There is a potential perfect storm on the horizon. Can the Democrats avoid it?

Don’t forget the petition

We need to make it clear that the Superdelegates are secondary to the members of the Democratic Party.

Don’t forget to sign the petition. Please send the link to the petition to as many people as you can. We need this one to spread around.

The Lieberman-Warner "Global Warming" Bill

More proof that Joe Lieberman sucks! (Like we needed anymore)

McCain's answer to will.i.am

Very funny piece of satire!

Superdelegates Run Amok

This is a petition that I created today in anticipation of problems that are being anticipated in the nomination process for the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

Read and sign the Petition and e-mail the link to as many people as you can.

Been a while...

I had to write a ten line poem to enter into a contest to pick the most Beat of the Beatniks. The contest is in conjunction with the exhibition of One the Road With The Beats at the Harry Ransom Center from February 5^th until August 3^rd.

This is what I came up with. Not particularly beat. But I am wearing khakis, jack purcells and a black long sleeve. That is pretty beat, if it isn't Beat.

Am I a Beatnik?

The wind hits my face with an ice cubes smack.
I taste the city on the tip of my tongue.
I smell her sweet stench in my flaring nostrils.
I exhale her in a puff of steam.
The city, she looks good.
The bright sun tears screamingly my unshaded eyes.
Buses rumble past, but I don't hear.
My heart open to the possible.
The city, she looks good
to me.

Ouch and Mega Ouch!

From a reader J.C. on the Atlantic Monthly's Marc Ambinder Blog:

Barack Obama: "change we can believe in"

Hillary Clinton: needs a can to leave change in.

Another one bites the dust...

I guess the news is reporting that Mitt Romney is finally going to stop wasting his children's inheritance and quit the race. You have to love/hate Drudge. He really does get stuff first.

No Money Mo Problems!!!

Hillary and Bill Clinton have loaned her campaign $5 million of their own money. They have said that they would go up to $20 million. In addition, key Clinton staffers have decided to forgo salary. This is bad news, made worse by the fact that Obama raised $32 million in January and $5.8 million since Super Tuesday.

This is a horse race and one of the horses is running on three legs.

The Big "MO"

The results from California were surprising to see in light of Obama’s surging momentum. How did it happen that she won so big? It was a combination of winning the Latino vote handily, low African-American turnout and the strangeness of voting rules that combined to quell Obama’s “mo.”

Here is a good summary on the voting rules in California from a Slate blog called Trailhead:

“Most polls from the past few days showed Obama gaining on her, and one or two even projected he would win. But judging from the voting results, he was too late. The state of California allows voters—not just seniors and absentees, but anyone—to cast an absentee ballot by mail. As a result, more than 3 million Californians voted early this year (one elections official put the number at 4.1 million). And judging from polls in previous weeks, they voted largely for Clinton. If Obama was actually gaining in recent days, the vote totals may not reflect it.”

Early voting starting in California a few days after Hillary Clinton’s comeback win in New Hampshire (it is true, they can spin anything, including making the presumptive frontrunner a comeback story).

So here is my question: Who has the momentum coming out of Super Tuesday? I look at the states that they won.

Obama won in Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah and his home state of Illinois.

Clinton won Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee and her home state of New York.

When I look at these things I see something striking. Clinton won states that Democrats always win. You have to figure that Oklahoma is essentially off the table in November. Arkansas was a win because she used to deign to love amongst those people. Tennessee was a bit confusing, so we’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she had some crossover appeal.

Otherwise she won New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Does anyone think that the eventual Democratic nominee won’t carry those states? Clinton won Arizona which is on the long march to solid blue state status. And yes, she won the Golden State, but I think that this victory is muted for reasons outlined above.

Obama, on the other hand won the south. These are states that Democrats have not counted on winning since LBJ put pen to paper and signed the Civil Rights Act over 40 years ago. I posit this. Does anyone think that these states should be off the table if the Republicans nominate John McCain?

In addition, Obama won the mountain west. Why does this matter? Well, the Dems have decided that this portion of the country is so important that they are holding their national convention in Denver this summer. Yes, Latino voters in California went to Hillary big time, but what about Hispanic voters in Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and Montana. It seems entirely plausible that he will win New Mexico too, though the election officials needed a power nap there, so we won’t have a result until later today.

Lastly, Obama won Minnesota, North Dakota, Kansas and Missouri. Is there anyone who thinks that Dems have a chance if they can’t win the weathervane state of Harry Truman? Kansas? When was the last time Kansas voted for a progressive? The answer is 1976 when they voted for the “anybody but the guy who pardoned Nixon” Jimmy Carter. Minnesota used to be a safely Democratic state, but I believe Democrats ignore the state at their own peril. Obama apparently won the Scandinavian dairy farmer vote by winning Minnesota and North Dakota.

So, who has momentum? That is hard to say. It is probably the campaign with the better spinners. If I were Obama’s advisor (and contrary to my ranting, I am not) I would spin looking forward instead of backwards. Coming up this weekend is Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington (and the U.S.V.I.’s so as not to ignore the utterly irrelevant). I think Obama has a clear advantage in Louisiana and Nebraska and the educated and affluent Democratic population in Seattle, Tacoma and Olympia would seem to favor Obama.

We will have to wait and see though. Predictions are not all that useful. The best way forward is to keep on working. Nothing is decided. If you like Obama, if you like Clinton… get out and vote! If you like McCain, Romney or Huckabee… go ahead and take a nap.

On a side note, I love hearing Clinton supporters interviewed. It is not unlike hearing New York Giants fans interviewed. As some supporter spouts the talking points, trying hard to inject the word change into the stale prose as many times as possible, I wonder to myself if this is what Hubert Humphrey’s supporters were saying in 1960?

This gives me chills...

Ladies and gentlemen, the grass roots have spoken!

Is Rush Limbaugh right?

Is it possible that John McCain once considered joining the Democratic Party? According to an article in The Hill Senator McCain's advisor approached Democratic leaders on this subject.

Is this an attempt to torpedo McCain's run to the Republican nomination by Democrats who see Mitt Romney as an easier opponent? Possibly. A very smart move. Now the question is, are there enough Republicans that are skeptical of McCain to make a difference.

Credit where credit is due...

I don’t often say nice things about Hillary Clinton on this blog. As I have said before, I believe that she is an incredibly bright and capable woman who is on the same side of most issues as I am. I have also said that if she is the nominee of my Party, I will vote for her. That said, I do not want her to get the nomination. With the exit of John Edwards, it looks like I will have to vote for Barack Obama. I was likely going to vote for him anyways, but now the decision is easier.

That said, I must give Senator Clinton credit for a truly dynamite answer in last night’s debate. It is an answer that speaks to the public policy analyst in me. This is from the official CNN transcript:

CUMMINGS: Well, we've got a question on this that's come in on politico.com, and it echoes, I think, a message that you all might be fighting up against if Mitt Romney turns out to be your opponent come the fall. We've talked about McCain, now we have Romney's strengths to address.

Now, Howard Meyerson (ph) of Pasadena, California, says he views the country as a very large business, and neither one of you have ever run a business. So, why should either of you be elected to be CEO of the country?

CLINTON: Well, I would, with all due respect, say that the United States government is much more than a business. It is a trust. It is the most complicated organization. But it is not out to make a profit. It is out to help the American people. It is about to stand up for our values and to do what we should at home and around the world to keep faith with who we are as a country.

A man of conviction exits stage right...

John Edwards gave a very moving speech today as he suspended his Presidential campaign. I think the former Senator from North Carolina will find his way into the next Democratic cabinet. He would make a very strong Labor Secretary.

It is a bit long, but I would urge you to read the speech. I have pasted it below:

Thank you all very much. We're very proud to be back here.

During the spring of 2006, I had the extraordinary experience of bringing 700 college kids here to New Orleans to work. These are kids who gave up their spring break to come to New Orleans to work, to rehabilitate houses, because of their commitment as Americans, because they believed in what was possible, and because they cared about their country.

I began my presidential campaign here to remind the country that we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters.

We must do better, if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much.

It is appropriate that I come here today. It's time for me to step aside so that history can -- so that history can blaze its path.

We do not know who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what we do know is that our Democratic Party will make history. We will be strong, we will be unified, and with our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November and we'll create hope and opportunity for this country.

(APPLAUSE)

This journey of ours began right here in New Orleans. It was a December morning in the Lower Ninth Ward when people went to work, not just me, but lots of others went to work with shovels and hammers to help restore a house that had been destroyed by the storm.

We joined together in a city that had been abandoned by our government and had been forgotten, but not by us.

We knew that they still mourned the dead, that they were still stunned by the destruction, and that they wondered when all those cement steps in all those vacant lots would once again lead to a door, to a home, and to a dream.

We came here to the Lower Ninth Ward to rebuild. And we're going to rebuild today and work today, and we will continue to come back. We will never forget the heartache and we'll always be here to bring them hope, so that someday, one day, the trumpets will sound in Musicians' Village, where we are today, play loud across Lake Ponchartrain, so that working people can come marching in and those steps once again can lead to a family living out the dream in America.

We sat with poultry workers in Mississippi, janitors in Florida, nurses in California. We listened as child after child told us about their worry about whether we would preserve the planet.

We listened to worker after worker say that, "The economy is tearing my family apart."

We walked the streets of Cleveland, where house after house was in foreclosure.

And we said, "We're better than this. And economic justice in America is our cause."

And we spent a day, a summer day, in Wise, Virginia, with a man named James Lowe, who told us the story of having been born with a cleft palate. He had no health care coverage. His family couldn't afford to fix it.

And finally some good Samaritan came along and paid for his cleft palate to be fixed, which allowed him to speak for the first time. But they did it when he was 50 years old.

His amazing story, though, gave this campaign voice: universal health care for every man, woman and child in America. That is our cause.

(APPLAUSE)

And we do this -- we do this for each other in America. We don't turn away from a neighbor in their time of need. Because every one of us knows that what -- but for the grace of God, there goes us.

The American people have never stopped doing this, even when their government walked away, and walked away it has from hardworking people, and, yes, from the poor, those who live in poverty in this country.

For decades, we stopped focusing on those struggles. They didn't register in political polls, they didn't get us votes and so we stopped talking about it.

I don't know how it started. I don't know when our party began to turn away from the cause of working people, from the fathers who were working three jobs literally just to pay the rent, mothers sending their kids to bed wrapped up in their clothes and in coats because they couldn't afford to pay for heat. We know that our brothers and sisters have been bullied into believing that they can't organize and can't put a union in the workplace.

Well, in this campaign, we didn't turn our heads. We looked them square in the eye and we said, "We see you, we hear you, and we are with you. And we will never forget you."

And I have a feeling that if the leaders...

(LAUGHTER)

... if the leaders of our great Democratic Party continue to hear the voices of working people, a proud progressive will occupy the White House.

Now, I've spoken to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They have both pledged to me and, more importantly, through me to America that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.

(APPLAUSE)

And more importantly, they have pledged to me that as president of the United States they will make ending poverty and economic inequality central to their presidency.

This is the cause of my life. And I now have their commitment to engage in this cause.

And I want to say to everyone here on the way here today, we passed under a bridge that carried the interstate where 100 to 200 homeless Americans sleep every night. And we stopped, we got out, we went in and spoke to them.

There was a minister there who comes every morning and feeds the homeless out of her own pocket. She said she has no money left in her bank account. She struggles to be able to do it. But she knows it's the moral, just and right thing to do.

And I spoke to some of the people who were there. And as I was leaving, one woman said to me, "You won't forget us, will you? Promise me you won't forget us."

Well, I say to her, and I say to all those who are struggling in this country, we will never forget you. We will fight for you. We will stand up for you.

(APPLAUSE)

But I want to say this. I want to say this, because it's important.

With all of the injustice that we've seen, I can say this, America's hour of transformation is upon us.

It may be hard to believe when we have bullets flying in Baghdad. It may be hard to believe when it costs $58 to fill your car up with gas. It may be hard to believe when your school doesn't have the right books for your kids.

It's hard to speak out for change when you feel like your voice is not being heard.

But I do hear it. We hear it. This Democratic Party hears you. We hear you once again.

And we will lift you up with our dream of what's possible: one America -- one America that works for everybody; one America where struggling towns and factories come back to life, because we finally transformed our economy by ending our dependence on oil; one America where the men who work the late shift and the women who get up at dawn to drive a two-hour commute and the young person who closes the store to save for college, they will be honored for that work; one America where no child will go to bed hungry, because we will finally end the moral shame of 37 million people living in poverty; one America where every single man, woman and child in this country has health care; one America with one public school system that works for all of our children; one America that finally brings this war in Iraq to an end and brings our servicemembers home with the hero's welcome that they have earned and that they deserve.

(APPLAUSE)

Today, I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. But I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a mill worker is going to be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine.

And I want to thank every one who has worked so hard, all those who have volunteered, my dedicated campaign staff who've worked absolutely tirelessly in this campaign.

And I want to say a personal word to those I've seen, literally, in the last few days -- those I saw in Oklahoma yesterday, in Missouri, last night in Minnesota, who came to me and said, "Don't forget us. Speak for us. We need your voice."

I want you to know that you almost changed my mind. (LAUGHTER)

Because I hear your voice, I feel you, and your cause is our cause.

Your country needs you, every single one of you, all of you who have been involved in this campaign and this movement for change and this cause. We need you. It is in our hour of need that your country needs you.

Don't turn away, because we have not just the city of New Orleans to rebuild, we have an American house to rebuild.

This work goes on. It goes on right here in Musicians' Village. There are homes to build here and in neighborhoods all along the Gulf.

The work goes on for the students in crumbling schools just yearning for a chance to get ahead.

It goes on for daycare workers, for steel workers risking their lives in cities all across this country.

And the work goes on for 200,000 men and women who wore the uniform of the United States of America, proud veterans who go to sleep every night under bridges or in shelters or on grates, just as the people we just saw on the way here today.

Their cause is our cause. Their struggle is our struggle. Their dreams are our dreams.

Do not turn away from these great struggles before us. Do not give up on the causes that we have fought for. Do not walk away from what's possible. Because it's time for all of us -- all of us -- together, to make the two Americas one.

Thank you, God bless you, and let's go to work. Thank you all very much.