patrickmurfin

I have long been a passionate supporter of a single payer national health plan as advocated by Healthcare Now!.  I continue to be one.  And I will do everything in my power to make sure the single payer option is fully discussed by Congress.  Recent events have shown that public opinion is moving in this direction despite the timidity of many Democrats in Congress.  Maybe a tsunami of pubic support can move the mountain.

But despite the Healthcare Now! slogan, “Because Nothing Less Will Do,” I am not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face if we can’t swallow the whole pie now.  The health care crisis in this nation is too critical. We need to make sure that any health care reform includes a critical public option. Which is why I am also throwing my full support to Organizing for America’s Health Care Action Center. 

President Obama has called for health care reform in 2009 that upholds three core principles. It must:

• Reduce costs — Rising health care costs are crushing the budgets of governments, businesses, individuals, and families, and they must be brought under control.
• Guarantee choice — Every American must have the freedom to choose their plan and doctor – including the choice of a public insurance option.
• Ensure quality care for all — All Americans must have quality and affordable health care.

Folks, the manure is about to hit the rotating ventilation device.  The powerful forces of those who reap huge rewards from the current inequitable system, the ideologues and the fear mongers are united in doing everything in their power to block true reform and to sow confusion and division among Democrats, progressives, and the rightfully concerned public.

Stand with the President and Sign the Declaration of Support.  Call your Congressman and Senators.  Sign up to host or attend an event in your community.  Write a letter to the editor.  Don’t just stand there!  Do something!  Now!

 

Yesterday the Northwest Herald ran what is likely to be their one and only article on the 16th Congressional District race where Don Manzullo reigned supreme since defeating Democrat John Cox in 1992.  This time out, Democrats have fielded their strongest contender ever, Barrington Hills Mayor Robert Abboud.  Green Party candidate Scott Summers is also on the ballot.

It occurred to me that I haven’t commented on this race since Abboud’s entry.  It remains an up-hill battle and the district has not been targeted by the national party as competitive.  But in the current environment even an incumbent who seems glued to his seat may be vulnerable.  But Congresswoman Melissa Bean (D-8)  reminded listeners at a small gathering I attended Sunday that she turned out the most entrenched Republican in Congress, Phil Crane against all expectations.  So it can be done.

Anyway, I took the opportunity to post the following comment on the Herald’s web page.  Consider it my strong, personal endorsement of Bob Abboud.

Manzullo, the entrenched incumbent, has long been a leading cheerleader for deregulation across the board and swashbuckling winner-take-all capitalism.  That’s just the recipe for disaster that got us in the current mess.  He claims to be in favor of re-industrialization, but his sole strategy seems to be driving down industrial wages to third world levels to be competitive. He opposes any sort of health care reform that doesn’t stuff the pockets of the insurance industry.  And he has been a reliable cheerleader for Bush’s war.

Bob Abboud, a scientist and hands-on businessman, knows better.    He understands the critical need for regulation and oversight to prevent the excess of the “boom will go on forever” mentality.  He has a clear eyed understanding of what it will take re-industrialize the country.  As an engineer he understands that diversifying our energy sources will decrease dependence on imported oil, save the environment, and be the engine that drives re-industrialization.  He will work with the new president to achieve heath care reform that also liberates the economy.  And he will not commit precious lives and resources ill conceived wars.  

It was a glorious, warm autumn day in McHenry County.  And with just three weeks and two days to the election, it was time to get serious.

Even at morning services at the Congregational Unitarian Church, after Woodstock PFLAG leader Toni Weaver led a commemoration of the tenth anniversary of Mathew Shepherd’s murder, the morning was given over to the election.  Two members of the congregation running for office, Kerry Julian, Democratic candidate for county auditor, and Frank Wedig, a Green Party candidate for County Board in District 6, spoke of what it was like to run for office.  Then the Rev. Dan Larsen gave a modern version of the traditional election sermons that were delivered in our ancestor New England congregations more than two hundred years ago.  The service was not about endorsing candidates or parties, but about fulfilling the commitment to democracy that have common in the founding documents of the United States and in the traditions self governing congregations. 

After church, Kerry Julian and his family gave me a ride to the Marengo Settler’s Day Parade, the last big parade of the season.  Marengo, in the rural western portion of the county has not been traditionally friendly turf for Democrats.  There has been vandalism to Obama signs in and around the town, including at least one incident where a home was broken into and vandalized as well.  But those of us marching with the Democratic Party of McHenry County float got a uniformly warm reception today with cheers and thumbs up all along the route.

Getting ready to march.

Kerry (right) with wife Cindy and Julian offspring.

Bob Gibson, by far the senior Precinct Representative in the county party, walked the route.  An octogenarian, World War II vet, and former Teamsters business agent, Bob knows everyone in Woodstock and works his precinct better than anyone.  I kind of hurt my back passing out candy and by the end of the parade couldn’t lift my leg high enough to climb on to the float for the ride back to the parking area.  Bob did not. (photo by Kathy Bergan Schmidt).

After the parade Kathy and I had to dash back across the county to link up with County Board District 3 Chair Dan Giallombardo then dash down to tony Barrington and the even tonier Makay Country Club for the Eighth District Democrats and Independents (EDDI) annual fundraising dinner.  The Eighth Congressional District encompasses all of Lake County, and parts of northern Cook County and eastern McHenry County.  It’s the district Melissa Bean wrenched away from Phil Crane four years ago and which she is now defending for the second time.  EDDI is naturally a bit Lake County centric, but it has been a force in turning this once reliable Republican turf blue. 

The dinner was tasty and so was the program, which was emceed by Round Lake Mayor Bill Gentes, who is making a strong run for an open seat  in the 26 State Senate District, which includes portions of McHenry County. 

Several folks were honored with awards including Tammy Duckworth, the disabled Iraq War veteran who scared the bejesus out of the Republican party by nearly winning Henry Hyde’s old 6th Congressional District.  Duckworth, who accepted the award despite having competed earlier in the day in the Chicago Marathon in a hand cranked wheel chair, is often mentioned as a possible candidate to fill Backak Obama’s Senate seat.

Also accepting an award was the popular Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is a likely challenger to Governor Rod Blagojevich in the 2010 Democratic primary in the unlikely event the governor is not indicted on corruption charges first.

After the dinner Madigan took time to chat with and pose with McHenry County Democrats.

 

 

 County Board District 4 Chair Mary Margaret Maule, Patrick Murfin, Lisa Madigan, Dan Giallombardo, Thomas Cynor, and Kathy Bergan Schmidt.

 

Barack Obama was able to manage the suspense almost until the last moment.  The campaign’s famous self-discipline and tight control of message unraveled only a little as a relentless mainstream media, sniffing the wind for any clue, began to besiege the home of Joe Biden the senior senator from Delaware.  Helicopters circled the scene as if it were an L.A. freeway chase.  When the Secret Service showed up it was game over.  The word was out just hours before the candidate was prepared to make an official announcement.

All evening  Kathy Brady-Murfin kept checking her cell phone.  “I’m expecting a text from Barack!” The message did not come through before she had to turn in.  I’m sure the first thing she did this morning before heading off to work was checking that phone.

Kathy usually does not share my passionate involvement in politics.  In her jaundiced eye all politicians are suspect.  And she usually maintains that there’s not much difference between Democrats and Republicans.  When push comes to shove, she usually does vote Democratic, however.  Rumor has it she may have even voted for me upon occasion.  But Kathy is genuinely excited about Obama.  How excited?  She even signed up for a modest monthly automatic contribution to the campaign through the election, overcoming her usual anxiety over our precarious finances.

My wife is symbolic of all of the folks breathlessly awaiting word from Obama.  It is the passionate devotion of people like her the will give the Democratic ticket an edge that no horse race poll can take into account. 

Are those folks happy with the choice? Judging from the comments flooding into pro-Democratic sites like Huffington Post and the Daily Kos, a handful of curmudgeons and inevitable trolls aside, the pick is a grand slam home run.

The new team got its debut today in Springfield.  Returning to the picturesque and symbolic steps of the Old State Capital on a warm, sunny afternoon, Obama immediately invoked the memory of an equally sunny but much colder March afternoon 19 months ago where he launched his campaign of hope and change to an ecstatic, if frozen audience.  In rolled up shirtsleeves this time, Obama introduced his choice for running mate with genuine enthusiasm and affection.  He emphasized not only Biden’s extensive and widely admired foreign policy chops, but his working class Irish Catholic background, his struggles over tragedy, and his legendary devotion to the family to which he returned each night from Washington on an Amtrack train.  He made much of Biden sharing in an “improbable story,” but one which is intensely American.

Obama also contrasted Biden’s handling to the recent Russian invasion of Georgia to McCain’s bellicose attempt at policy making by press conference by pointing out that Biden “quietly” went to Georgia to meet that nation’s embattled president.  He pointedly said that Biden was “what many others pretend to be -- a statesman with sound judgment who doesn't have to hide behind bluster to keep America strong.’

Biden for his part sprinted confidently to the stage looking—silver hair plugs not withstanding--almost as youthful as Obama.  His speech made it clear why he will be not only an outstanding addition to the ticket, but a great vice president as well.  It is expected that a veep pick will laud the man who picked him.  But Biden was able to articulate how he had personally come to admire Obama as a leader, an agent of change, and as a statesman.  He immediately diffused the pitiful attempts of John McCain’s campaign to use his own presidential debate remarks to undercut Obama.

More importantly, in his characteristic blunt, plain spoken language, Biden immediately went to work on destroying the McCain campaign without personal rancor against a man he called his long time friend.  He invoked the kitchen table discussions “after the kids have gone to bed” repeated in millions of American families beset by soaring prices, stagnating or falling wages, and plummeting home values about how to make ends meet.  He included himself and his family—he is the least wealthy member of the U.S. Senate and reportedly had to take second mortgages on his home to finance his children’s college education—in those kitchen tables discussions.  He contrasted this to McCain who will "have to figure out which of the seven tables to sit at.” 

Then it was off to the races.  Biden lashed McCain to George W. Bush’s sinking and disastrous presidency with a ruthless precision that Obama has been loath to pursue.  He was not even shy about taking on McCain’s status as a war hero who increasingly invokes his P.O.W. experience every time he faces criticism-- "these times require more than a good soldier, they require a wise leader."  He could point out that his own son, the sitting Delaware Attorney General, will soon be deployed to Iraq as a member of the National Guard linking himself to the sacrifice of military families everywhere.  What a contrast to the neo-con war hawks, McCain aside, who avoided war service for themselves and their privileged children.

All in all it was a stellar performance all around.  The photo op with two tall, handsome men flanked by attractive wives, although noticeably shorter in duration than the turn taken by Barack and Michelle last February—probably at the insistence of a nervous Secret Service—made for a compelling pictures.

I didn’t check in with Fox News, where I expect that the usual sniping echoed the pitiful talking points from the McCain campaign, but commentators on both CNN and MSNBC effusive in their praise of Obama’s choice and the performance of both members of the ticket in Springfield.  The only misgivings I heard were that Biden, the fifth senior U.S. Senator, would not reinforce Obama’s message of change and that he does not bring strong economic policy credentials on the table in a year when the sagging economy is emerging as the big issue.

I have to disagree with both assessments.  Biden, although a senior senator, was always something of an outsider just by virtue of his daily commutes back to Delaware and his intense devotion to his family.  Secondly, Obama can argue that the personal esteem in which Biden is held by both sides of the aisle will make him the perfect choice to help steer a program of change through congress.

On the economy, Biden is a great choice because, as Barack repeated in his introduction, “he gets it.”  He understands what working and middle class Americans are going through.  He has been there himself.  And he has a legislative history of not only fighting for, but often spearheading economic initiatives critical to those kitchen table voters.  And he is the antidote to the class cluelessness of the likely ticket of McCain-Romney.

Now it’s on to Denver and sharpening the message of the Obama-Biden campaign even more.

As usual I am a couple of days behind with the newspaper, so forgive me for the delayed rant. Today over lunch at work, I finally read Tuesday’s NORTHWEST HERALD and the Cal Thomas’s column therein.

The conservative columnist is one of the principle journalistic voices of the Religious Right and a frequent Fox blowhard.  He has found a new way to attack Barack Obama for his religion.  No, not for being a secret Muslim—he’ll leave that to e-mail viral rumor mongers.  It’s not even a revisit of the Jeremiah Wright dust up.  It’s for having the audacity to poach on the right wing’s private preserve—Evangelical and conservative Catholic voters--while  “calling himself” a Christian.

He will not take Obama’s word for his Christianity.  Instead he cites a four year old interview given to respected Chicago Sun-Times religion editor Cathleen Falsani for her popular book The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People.  By the way Falsani should in no way be blamed or how Thomas mangles and misuses her work.

“I’m rooted in the Christian tradition,” said Obama. He then adds something most Christians will see as universalism: “I believe there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”

Thomas manages to put out an audible sneer in the written word “universalism.”  Obviously, anyone who espouses universalist views cannot be a Christian, according to Thomas who denies the “central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called ‘false prophets.’”

He also lambasts Obama because, in Falsani’s words, he “doesn’t believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he’s not sure he’ll be going to heaven, either.”  Indeed she quotes Obama thus:

“I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.”

Well, I guess Thomas has got Obama dead to rights.  That does sound suspiciously universalist.  Of course the bigotry comes in the assertion that any one espousing universalist theology cannot claim to be Christian.

It will come as a BIG surprise to millions of people who have never heard the word universalism that they are not Christians after all.  This kind of “virtual” universalism is common among members of many the churches once called “mainstream protestant.”  It is also widely held by many Catholics, including many leading theologians.  One does not have to be a member of the of that strange sect Unitiarian Universalsits to thus believe.

This is not the first time Thomas has gone after a Democratic presidential candidate on these grounds.  In 2004 he went after another erstwhile member of a United Church of Christ congregation, Governor Howard Dean.  Then Thomas attacked Dean’s Congregationalism because “It does not believe in ministerial authority of church hierarchy.  Each Congregationalist believes he is indirect contact with God and entitled to sort out truth for themselves.” 

Worse yet Thomas argued that such beliefs should disqualify those who hold them from public office.

In a letter to the Editor of the NORTHWEST HERALD at the time I wrote:

“Many American denominations share the same tradition of congregational polity including the Unitarian Universalists and the Baptists.  Many other believe in the direct experience of God without hierarchical or priestly intervention. These include the Quakers and groups in the Anabaptist tradition including the Brethren and Mennonites.  According to Thomas this should debar adherents from public office…

“…Thomas insists that candidates pass religious litmus tests.  Those who fail to do so are not only wrong or mistaken, but are also evil and defiant of God.  He thus joins Pat Robertson who maintains that Democracy is only legitimate when all officeholders swear by his brand of Christianity,  Otherwise he is perfectly content with a dictatorship of the righteous…

“Neither Thomas nor Robertson understands the central tenant of liberal democracy—freedom of expression and practice of religion and a separation of government from any sect.  Indeed they would transform the “culture wars” for which they have long been cheerleaders, into actual civil war.  In their own way they are indistinguishable  from the bearded Taliban clerics they have pretend to despise. In reality, it seems, they are just jealous of their power.”                                                             

The front page of  Rocky Mountain News proclaimed the nomination of William Jennings Bryan at the 1908 Democratic Convention in Denver.
 

The following post began as a query from Larry Bohning of the First Universalist Church of Denver.  The Democrats will meet in Denver this summer for the first time since the convention of 1908, which nominated William Jennings Bryan (again.)  Larry wondered if there might be any record of Unitarian or Universalist delegates to that convention.  This was my reply.

Good luck finding Unitarian delegates to the 1908 Democratic Convention in Denver.  You might have somewhat better luck among the Universalists who had strength in the Democratic Upper South, Border States, and along the Ohio Valley in the Midwest.  Some Universalists in the Northern cities also tended to vote Democratic—remember P.T. Barnum’s earlier Connecticut political career was as a Democrat.

But Unitarians for many reasons—regional, cultural, ethnic, and philosophic—were at this period overwhelmingly Republican.  The most obvious reason was that Unitarianism was still largely a religion of New Englanders and the New England diaspora who had been remarkably consistent in their allegiance to the Federalist/Whig/Republican line of American politics.  The Civil War and its lingering aftermath—the sanctification of the martyred Lincoln (who had not in life been popular with abolitionist minded Unitarians), the Bloody Shirt rallying of the North against Copperhead Democrats, the massive political influence of the Grand Army of the Republic—cemented  loyalty to the Republicans. 

In addition, the tendency of Catholic and Jewish urban masses loyal to “corrupt political machines” to vote Democratic rallied many Unitarians out of ethnic and religious loyalty to the Republicans. 

It also must be said that one wing of the Republican Party was also legitimately the home of American liberalism of the period.  This faction was always at war with other factions that endorsed unrestrained Capitalism and protected the Robber Baron culture of the Gilded Age on one hand and with a kind of benign, if stogy, main street Midwestern conservatism.

In 1908 that liberalism was ascendant within the GOP in the wake of Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressivism embraced by William Howard Taft and many other leading Unitarian lights.

By contrast Democrats represented the white South and its successful counter revolution to Reconstruction reforms.  They were the party of triumphant Jim Crow.  They also had that foothold among the urban poor of the big cities.  Until William Jennings Bryan came roaring out to Nebraska and fused the small farmer and local labor Populists of the Midwest and Great Plains into the party, Democrats were universally considered the “conservative” party in the mold of Grover Cleveland.

Democrats had only begun to create ties to labor—remember it was Cleveland who had called in Federal troops to squash the Pullman  Strike of 1892, but it was also Democratic Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld who had resisted him, representing an early dawning strain of Democrats with labor leanings.  The conservative craft unions of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) led by Samuel Gompers were largely in the Republican fold after being brought into the grand coalition of Mark Hanna’s National Civic Federation.  Partly in reaction to the “sell out” of the “aristocracy of labor” Mary Harris “Mother” Jones in 1908 campaigned for the Democrats among her beloved United Mine Workers instead of encouraging them to join the surging Socialist Party of Eugene V. Debs, home to most of the labor left.

In this environment, about the only place where you might be able to turn up a Unitarian or two among the Democrats might be in the Midwest stronghold of the Western Unitarian Conference and its associated Unity Clubs.  Some folks who associated with the Unity clubs and with Jenkin Lloyd Jones’s Unity Magazine, like the great agnostic Clarence Darrow and Felix Adler, founder of Ethical Culture, were Democrats.  But they were not, themselves, Unitarians.  Indeed the more radical members of Western Conference churches and their Eastern allies in what would become the Community Church movement, were more likely to be delegates to the Socialist Party Convention that nominated Debs that year than to the Democratic assembly.

Only when Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal recast the Democrats as America’s liberal party did the movement of Unitarians away from GOP begin in earnest.  It picked up speed when post war Democrats embraced the United Nations, vigorously denounced by most Republicans.  And it accelerated when Democrats stopped being the party of Jim Crow and became (at least on the national level) the champion of every social movement dear to many UUs since then-from ban-the-bomb and anti-Vietnam War to Women’s Liberation to Gay Rights to environmentalism has been identified with the Democrats.  Meanwhile once vigorous Republican liberalism, the kind UU’s identified with, has been virtually driven from the GOP by social conservatives and the “religious right.” 

In 2008 it will probably be as hard to find a UU delegate in Minneapolis as it was to find a Unitarian delegate in Denver in 1908.  But the world spins on,  Who knows what future realignments may occur or what the affiliations may be of delegates in 2108 if either party, UUism and Democracy in America itself survive that long?

(Related post, Riffing on William Howard Taft )

Carolyn Quinn

Right now our Congress is once again discussing a bill that would provide President Bush

with additional funds to continue the War in Iraq.

 
I wring my hands knowing that the discussion most likely focuses how to supply the military

operations and operatives rather than how to bring our operations and operatives home- and

how we will fund their care for decades to come.  But the climate in the world this time is a

little bit different while our congress deliberates. 

Last year, Tony Blair, who had been the most popular Prime Minister in Great Britain’s

istory, also became the least popular - because of his close alliance with George W. Bush

and the Iraq War Fiasco. Tony Blair resigned and was succeeded by Gordon Brown.

Last November, John Howard in Australia was unseated by their new Prime Minister,

Kevin Rudd.  Rudd’s campaign promise was to end Australia’s participation in the Iraq

War and bring their 550 combat troops home by the middle of 2008.

Last Sunday, Australia ended combat operations in Iraq, and the first troops actually arrived

at their mainland.  In the course of the next few weeks the rest of the Australian combat troops

will go home.  No grand chaos erupted, just grand homecomings for those 550 military families. 

Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon declared the mission a success, saying it had allowed Iraq’s

own security forces to successfully take control.

Last Monday, Prime Minister  Rudd publicly told his Parliament that his predecessor, John

Howard, had abused intelligence to lead his country into a war that has only served to

increase global terrorism. Rudd has said the Iraq deployment made Australia more of a

target for terrorism.

Last Tuesday, the Canadian House of Commons passed a non-binding resolution in

response to widespread opposition to the war in Iraq throughout their country.  It calls on

their government to stop the deportation of Iraq war resisters who came to Canada seeking

refuge from participating in a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and recognized that

those resisters view the war as illegal and immoral.

Also last Tuesday, Barack Obama clinched the delegate count for a Democratic nomination

and became our presumptive nominee.  His campaign promise has been to end the war in Iraq

altogether and bring our troops home in an orderly manner.

This has been a big week.

Thursday, our own Senate Intelligence Committee declared that the Bush administration “led

the nation to war on false premises.”  The committee chairman is John Rockefeller of West

Virginia.  Rockefeller has now personally declared his support for Barack Obama.  Some

Republicans on the committee voted to support its conclusions, some Republicans immediately

published a dissent document calling it partisan gamesmanship.  Hello?  That, my friends, is

why we elected a Democratic majority.

The media tells us that the results of this fall’s election is likely to be the result of economic woes

and issues.  I don’t think so. 

I continue to wring my hands, but within their clasp is a glimmer of hope.  Here is my prediction

of what CHANGE is going to look like. THIS is the change I believe in:

Next November we elect Barack president and celebrate a historic record in terms of citizen

participation across the country.  Before New Years’ Day, President Obama announces an end

to U.S. combat operations in Iraq and our flag is calmly and respectably taken down from

combat camps there.  “The focus of our military operations is now finding bin Laden in

Afghanistan.”

The Democratic Secretary of Defense can officially claim that Iraqi Freedom was a success. 

Fine. Whatever. The March issue of Time Magazine has a cover picture of grand homecomings. 

Pride of service and valor is all the wave.  Patriotism surges beyond the levels of September 12,

2001.

Next June, President Obama publicly tells Congress that his predecessor had abused intelligence

to lead our country into a war that has resulted in less Iraqi freedom, not more.  Less security in

America, not more.  If anybody can deliver a speech that validates the servicemen and women,

and validates theirservice while at the same time denouncing the decisions to both begin and

maintain war in Iraq… (well, Kevin Rudd did it in Australia this week.) If anybody can deliver

that speech here in the U.S. and pull it off with style and grace, that would be Barack Obama. 

I am looking forward to the day. 

Back to current events in Australia:

Rudd's predecessor, former Prime Minister John Howard, said he was "baffled" by the decision

to withdraw the troops. The Sydney Morning Herald quoted Howard in an interview published

Monday,"If I had been returned at the last election we would not have been bringing (troops)

home, we would

have been looking at transitioning them from their soon-to-be terminated role to a training role."

Can’t you just picture McCain being interviewed in the wings next year saying he was “baffled”

by the decision to withdraw troops?

“The Arizona Daily Star will quote Senator McCain’s response to President Obama’s latest

speech,  ‘If I had been elected president last November, we would not be bringing troops home

or sending them to Afghanistan, we would have been looking at transitioning them from their

soon-to-be terminated roles in Iraq to training roles.  And what about Iran?’ – AP.”

Carolyn Quinn

June 6, 2008

Right

Wow!  It is semi-officially over. Sort of. Of course I mean the epic battle for the Democratic Presidential Nomination.  Barack Obama is, all of the talking heads on TV assure us, the “presumptive nominee.”

All day yesterday super delegates were falling all over themselves to declare for Obama.  Declarations were coming so fast and furious that neither the Obama campaign web site nor the delegate counters on the news blogs were able to keep up.  But by early evening it was apparent that regardless of the outcome of the South Dakota and Montana primaries the Illinois Senator would have secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination.  Mainstream media began “calling” the hard fought primary season for Obama.

And all day long signals from the Hillary Clinton camp were that she was ready to accept the inevitable and was likely to acknowledge Obama’s victory and at least suspend her campaign.  No ongoing campaign schedules were issued.  Top aids summoned back to New York were reported preparing to leave the campaign.  Some were reported already to be in discussions with Obama’s people about moving over to his campaign.  People at the very highest levels of the campaign were telling reporters off the record that it was over and Clinton recognized it.  Some were saying so publicly.  And Clinton herself acknowledged what Bill had been hinting about for sometime, that she would “consider” an offer of the Vice Presidential nomination.

Yet in the end, she couldn’t do it.  Her speech was not a concession.  She did not suspend her campaign.  She only perfunctorily praised Obama and his campaign before launching into the familiar laundry list of her issues and proclaiming to her supporters that “I heard you.”  She promised at the end to support a united Democratic Party ticket, but gave no hint as to when that end might be.  Then she told supporters “This is your campaign,” and asked supporters to log on to her web site with their advice on what to do.

She must know that her hard core, adoring supporters will flood the web site with messages to “take the fight to the convention” and “never give up.”  She can, if she wants to, point to that inevitable outpouring, as justification to keep on.

The question is, does she want to?  I am not sure even Hillary knows for sure.  I believe she is genuinely torn at least three ways.  The cool political professional recognizes that the race is over and that any attempt to press on will damage the party—and her future career prospects.  The opportunist now sees that forcing Obama to put her on the ticket may provide the surest path that can take her—eventually—to the White House.  But the Amazon warrior with the Nixonian resentments says “to hell with all that” and wants to stick her thumb in the eye of the Party and aim a well placed kick to Obama’s knee cap that could make it impossible for him to win the general election.  Which inner voice she finally heeds is anyone’s guess.

Offering herself up for the vice-presidency yesterday was her boldest move.  Many observers—count me one of them—say it as outright blackmail.  “Take me,” she seemed to say “or my core supporters among mature women, traditional feminists, and ‘hard working white voters’ will sit on their hands in November.” 

And as much as he might resent it, there is a logic there that Obama might find it difficult to resist.  He might feel compelled to at least make a public offer.  Privately, I am sure, he would hope that he could negotiate a polite refusal of the offer in exchange for other promises like a high profile convention roll, help retiring her debt, input on key cabinet appointments and perhaps a promise not to offer the second spot to any other woman.  But then again she could say yes and Obama could find himself with a hostile political operation being run of the Vice President’s office. 

But, typical of the schizophrenia of the last few days, her non-withdrawal and threat to continue her campaign worked against persuading Obama to share the ticket.

In contrast Obama’s speech in St. Paul, while firm in claiming victory, was gracious to a fault to Clinton and her supporters.  He went on at length extolling Clinton’s patriotism, virtues, campaign and supporters.  He was as explicit as he could be in reaching out to them, including giving Hillary the credit—and probably a future central role—in making universal health care a reality. 

The speech itself was another masterful example of Obama’s exceptional skills as an orator.  It was almost universally praised by commentators of all political persuasions, except some of the usual suspects over at Fox News.  The lingering images of the candidate plunging into the sea of ecstatic supporters for almost twenty minutes awed several of them who recognized that this moment represented something new and transforming in American politics.

By contrast, almost everyone—including the Fox News yahoos—agreed that John McCain’s performance earlier in Louisiana bordered on the pathetic.  The selection of a lime green background literally revolted many observers most of whom thought that the speech sucked too.  Ataturk commenting on Eschaton   pretty much summed up the consensus opinion “ ‘It'll make you look like the cottage cheese in a lime jello salad’ Always a good look for an older gentlemen. The aesthetics of McCain's speech, just mercifully completed before a slightly energized crowd of literally dozens, was awesome in how dreadful it was.”

Given the stark contrasts between the two candidates and their campaigns, most senior Democrats are determined to cut away from the distractions of Clinton’s refusal to take no for an answer.  They want to spend the summer with Obama taking his charismatic campaign to the people while pummeling the inept McCain and his inability to disassociate himself with George W’s most disastrous policies.

Since Clinton would not take the hint, party big wigs publicly called on remaining uncommitted super delegates to fall in line behind Obama.  Sam Stein, in the Huffington Post reported that:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, and an official with the Democratic Governors Association released a public statement on Wednesday morning requesting that the party close its ranks and prepare for the race against Sen. John McCain.

The move, which had been anticipated but seemed unnecessary following Obama's clinching of the nomination on Tuesday night, is an indication that few figures beyond Clinton's utmost loyalists are willing to stomach a prolonged vacation period for the New York Democrat to make up her mind.

Will the pressure work?  Or will it only encourage Clinton to defiantly dig in her heels and her supporters to feel “disrespected?”  Only time will tell.

But for now, I’m taking a moment to pump my fist gleefully in the air and celebrate.  Then I’m getting right to work helping to unite the Democratic Party for victory in November and a respite from—to quote a certain late Republican president—“our long national nightmare.”

Regular readers of this blog (if any) may have wondered at the absence of regular commentary on the Democratic Presidential Race of late.  As a matter of fact I have not posted a detailed article on the contest since “The Tonya Harding Option—Will Clinton Take it?” way back on March 26th and touched on it tangentially in only three or four other posts.

This is not because the campaign has not been heated—it has raged at blast furnace intensity—or because it is uninteresting—it has had all of the high drama, intricate plot twists, a cast of vivid characters of the most sizzling blockbuster.  Nor has it been because my candidate, Barack Obama has taken some lumps and ridden out some rough patches as the Hillary Clinton, channeling the Bozo Bop Bag has kept on popping back up.  I stand by Obama and I have a grudging admiration for Clinton’s amazing resilience.

While I have not posted here, I have added comments here and there across the blog-o-sphere.  What those comments have consistently said is basically this:  “Look, like it or not Barack Obama is the likely nominee of the party.  Great form me.  Painful for Clinton’s staunch and adoring supporters.  But no matter what happens—even if deus ex machina Hillary is magically delivered the nomination—the stakes are far too high for the people of this nation and the peace and security of the world for Democrats to fail to rally enthusiasitycally around our candidate.  I personally pledge to do so if Hillary becomes the nominee.  Nothing is more worisome to me than polling data that indicates that very significant numbers of each candidates supporters will vote for John McCain or sit on their hands in Novemeber if their favorite looses the nomination.  We must recognize that beyond personal bitterness, far more unites us a Democrats and Americans than divides us.  Pick your favorite hobby horse issues—the war, the ecconomy, the envirornment, women’s rights, civil liberties, health care, education—and either Democrat outshines the tarnished and disgraced re-tread of the Bush maladministration offered by the Republicans.”

One of the big reasons I have not posted here is to keep from falling into the temptation of joining the tit-for-tat bashing, name calling, and whining that has for the last several weeks been the hallmark of the struggle, at least as it is played out with passion in pundit columns, cable trash talk, and endless blogs.  I choose not to help bitterness fester.  As for me, I may take issue with Clinton and her campaign about how and what they have done since realizing that the pre-ordained nomination was slipping from their her hands.  But I love and admire those who love her.  I would hope in the reverse circumstances they would love and admire me.  We need each other.  Honestly.  We have to go beyond mouthing vague platitudes to each other all the while muttering under our breaths.  We must not now make empty gestures of reconciliation based on convenience, but must reconcile out of principle and respect.

I was dutifully playing secretary at the McHenry County Democratic Patry’s monthly meeting last night when ABC hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos played their game of pin-the-slur-on-the-donkey at the Presidential Debate.  I hopped on the Internet when I got home and gave it a spin and found sputtering outrage and slack-jawed disbelief in about equal measure.  It seems like the boys couldn’t get to a substantive policy question for more than 50 minutes, instead pasting both candidates—but Barack Obama in particular—with  a parade of tempest in a tea pot questions.  Flag lapel pins?  Can your opponent win?  In a particularly pathetic moment Stephanopoulos floated a question about the association of Obama and former Weather Underground fugitive Billy Ayers—the two sat on a charity board for a couple of years together over a decade or so ago.  The question was more outrageous in that it was literally spoon fed to the former Clinton political operative by Sean Hannity, one of the most over the top Fox “News” ranters.   

Perhaps it was predictable to find ABC excoriated on the Huffington Post and the Daily Koz.  Certainly it was no surprise to watch Keith Obermann’s reaction at MSNBS in the immediate aftermath of the train wreck.  But it was a mild surprise this morning to hear equally scornful commentary from just about every one in sight, except of the New York Times’ David Brooks, who fawned over the ABC performance.  Just about everyone else was scathing.  In perhaps the most widely circulated critique the Washington Post’s Tom Shales wrote that Gibson and Stephonopulous “turned in shoddy, despicable performances.”  Editor & Publisher it "perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years."

ABC’s own web site was deluged by protests, and not just by Obama partisans, lefties, and Democrats.  When I last checked 17,829 comments were posted.  Of course I could read even a fraction of them, but I read dozens.  I was hard pressed to find even one supportive comment.

The network was force to acknowledge the uproar on its evening news broadcast anchored by Gibson.  They ran a piece called “The Debate about the Debate” and even ran scrolls of some of the outraged comments.  At the end Gibson blandly said that ABC appreciates the comments.  He neither defended nor apologized for the conduct of the debate.  Stephanopoulos, a staple of the broadcast’s political coverage was conspicuously absent, although he defended his performance elsewhere.

MoveOn.Org is circulating a petition to ABC and other networks demanding a higher standard of ethics and journalism.  I was proud to sign it.  I hope you do too.

The Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) created quite a stir this morning when they posted an appeal for progressives to unite around Barack Obama.  The call to action was co-authored by a team of widely known and respected voices of the American left, Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Danny Glover.

Although some progressives were early supporters of the Illinois Senator—the proprietor of this blog counts among their numbers—others were slower to warm up.  Many were passionate supporters of Dennis Kucinich.  Others admired John Edwards for his economic populism and frank acknowledgement of class issues.  Many feminists, including a Who’s Who of “founding mothers” of the modern movement, clung instinctively to Hillary Clinton. Not a few, despairing over repeated Democratic cave-ins to the Administration over the war in Congress, gave up on the Party and all of its presidential candidates as agents of change.  And there have always been those who yearn for a third party—populist, progressive, labor, or socialist—and those who disparage electoral politics and prefer to wait for “the revolution.”

When Kucinich withdrew, he urged his followers to support Obama, a move that shocked some.  But many indeed did so.  Edwards remains neutral to this day and his supporters have gone both ways, but the largest majority of them, particularly among the activists, have come to Obama.  The Kennedy endorsements were an important signal for some.  The increasing tendency of the Clinton camp to a subtle—or not so subtle—“playing of the race card” drove remaining Clinton loyalists in the Black community and many white liberals to Obama.

As the months have passed many progressives have, as they have grown to know him, warmed to Obama  with increasing enthusiasm.  But debate remains.

Locally in McHenry County, Rob Smith, the proprietor of the leading local Democratic discussion forum, Dem-IL-Mchenry@yahoogroups.com, has become increasingly disenchanted with the Democratic Party and has vowed never again “to vote for anyone that does not reflect my values.”  Rob recently announced his resignation as moderator of the group and has initiated a new group for local progressives.  But he continues to post to the Dem group and debate rages there.

Likewise the comments following the post on the PDA web site reflect lingering doubts by some of Obama’s progressive credentials on one hand, and a bitter denunciation of him by others—Clinton supporters—as a leftist fraud who will doom the Democrats in November if nominated.

Still, the trend to Obama among progressives—and lets use the “L” word here—liberals is strong and growing stronger.  I endorse the sentiments of Hayden, Fletcher, Ehrenreich, and Glover and ask any wavering progressives out there to consider them carefully

PROGRESSIVES FOR OBAMA

March 24th, 2008

by Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Danny Glover

All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama. We descend from the proud tradition of independent social movements that have made America a more just and democratic country. We believe that the movement today supporting Barack Obama continues this great tradition of grass-roots participation drawing millions of people out of apathy and into participation in the decisions that affect all our lives. We believe that Barack Obama’s very biography reflects the positive potential of the globalization process that also contains such grave threats to our democracy when shaped only by the narrow interests of private corporations in an unregulated global marketplace. We should instead be globalizing the values of equality, a living wage and environmental sustainability in the new world order, not hoping our deepest concerns will be protected by trickle down economics or charitable billionaires. By its very existence, the Obama campaign will stimulate a vision of globalization from below.

As progressives we believe this sudden and unexpected new movement is just what America needs. The future has arrived. The alternative would mean a return to the dismal status quo party politics that have failed so far to deliver peace, health care, full employment and effective answers to crises like global warming.

During past progressive peaks in our political history—the late Thirties, the early Sixties—social movements have provided the relentless pressure and innovative ideas that allowed centrist leaders to embrace visionary solutions. We find ourselves in just such a situation today.

We intend to join and engage with our brothers and sisters in the vast rainbow of social movements to come together in support of Obama’s unprecedented campaign and candidacy. Even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself ever imagined.

To read the entire appeal and posted comments click here

Wednesday the five year anniversary of the War in Iraq slipped by before I had an opportunity to comment.  Believe me, it was not because it does not weigh heavy on my mind and soul.  But I had work to do and I had a lot on my plate getting ready for the McHenry County Democratic Party meeting and preparing press materials (see the post below.)

About mid-afternoon I got a call from Tom Musick, a reporter for the Northwest Herald.   He was working on one of those “round-up” stories in which local folks with strong opinions share their views.  We had a nice conversation for about ten minutes or so.   This is how my portion of the story came out in the paper.  (click here for the full article.)

Patrick Murfin

McHenry County Peace Group members gather every Thursday evening near Route 14 and Main Street in Crystal Lake for a vigil.

The group’s size varies, but its mission stays the same: To call for an end to the U.S. war in Iraq and to prevent a future war with Iran from happening.

“Early on, we’d get mixed reviews,” said Patrick Murfin, a member of the group. “The longer this war has passed, the number of supportive honks and waves and peace signs has mounted. It’s really remarkable.”

Yet Murfin worries whether the Bush administration notices such changes.

“I’ve been giving this some considerable thought,” said Murfin, who watched the president’s speech Wednesday, a speech that urged patience and determination in Iraq. “It’s both astounding to me and totally wearisome that we find ourselves in this position after five years.

“To hear the Bush administration talk about no end in sight within a decade or longer ... the American public has long since made it clear that they regard the war as a mistake to begin with and want us to get out now.”

And all of that is fine, as far as it goes.  But understandably this snippet left a lot out.  Also—and I don’t mean to bite the hand the fed me—I was the only person of  those interviewed who was an outright opponent of the war.  The others were a recently returned solder; Rep. Don Manzullo whose own account shows that he gladly drank the Bush Kool-Aid about the war; the father of a soldier who was killed who now regards the war as a “mistake” but doesn’t take a position on getting out; and an Army recruiter.  That left the burden of speaking for the majority of Americans who oppose the war and want a way out sooner than later on my own inadequate shoulders.

This is what I wish I had the time and space to say.

It’s hard, very hard to match the unrelenting drum beat of war and more war propounded by a maladministration that will not allow itself to be fettered by Congress, Courts, or the People and which feels it has a divine right to do what ever it damn well pleases.  In five long years ever mounting casualties are compounded by daily atrocities (committed freely by all sides);  the very soul of the nation is stricken by a cynical embrace of torture;  our civil liberties are silently stripped from us;  our national reputation is sullied beyond repair;  unimaginable debt is saddled on our children, grandchildren, and their progeny;  we are plunged into a “war of civilization” without end;  our very democracy is threatened by an uncrowned king who brooks no limits on his power.  And we in the anti-war movement get tired, bone tired.

We have marched, vigiled, petitioned, organized, written and ranted.  Our ranks have swelled.  But year after year nothing we have done has saved one 19 year old Marine or one Iraqi child.  Small wonder that the spirit sometimes flags, that we get tired, that we are tempted to slip into simple resignation.

Worse, evidence mounts daily the Resident and the Dark Sith Lord Cheney will not rest until the launch another war, this time against Iran.  The recent resignation and retirement of Admiral William Fallon, top commander of American forces in the Mid East and the only high level commander to dare publicly warn about the danger of launching another war, may have been the clearest signal yet that the Neo-Con junta is determined to have another war.  Add the domestic political calculation that launching a war before the election will rally the public “be hind the troops” and put John McCain in the White House.

Peace activists a worn out trying to get us out of one war and now have to keep us out of another.

Regular readers of this blog may have noticed that there has been a fall-off of coverage and commentary about the War and the movement to stop it in recent months.  Instead, it has been increasingly concerned with electoral politics, support for Barack Obama for President, and for Democrats in general.  Some might take this as evidence that I have given in to war weariness and like a bored two year old turned my attention to some other toy.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In point of fact my immersion in politics and my support of the Obama campaign in general now represents the most effective way I can work to end one bloodbath and prevent another.

I know there are folks in the Peace Movement who believe that this abandons the demand for immediate withdrawal, and trims sail in against the gale of adversity.  The taunts of “sell out” to others like MoveOn.org, who have advocated the same approach have been loud and raucous on the part of many in the purer-than-thou left.

But like it or not we cannot “Bring Them Home Now!” or throw our bodies in front of Naval launched cruise missiles or snatch possibly nuclear armed B-1 Bombers from the sky to stop an attack on Iran.  There are no prospects, despite our most ardent fantasies, that we can mobilize a Peoples Revolution to surround the White House with pots and pans clanking and bring down this regime as others fell in Moscow, Manila, Kiev, or Beirut.  There will be no General Strike to stop the war cold like the hands of a clock.  Richly deserved impeachment will not happen.

Our only real chance to bring the war to an end is—like it or not—to elect a Democrat President of the United State and large enough Democratic margins in the House and the Senate to prevent disciplined Republicans from ruling in the minority.  And I obviously believe that Senator Obama, a consistent opponent of the war, is our best chance to achieve such a victory.  But make no mistake about it, I will, even if it pains me, support Hillary Clinton if that is the hand we are dealt and then hold her to her promises to end the war.

The inevitable result, even with victory, will be for a phased withdrawal that insures the safety of American troops.  It’s not fast enough for many, but the war will finally end.

Even more critically, there will not be, if one has not already been launched, a war with Iran and the inevitable region-wide conflict that would ensue.

Is there any guarantee that this strategy will work?  Of course not.  Right now we see how cynically race is being used to divide the American people from their own best interests.  McCain, for the first time, is now polling better nationally than either Clinton or Obama—a direct result of the political strategy of the Clinton campaign, in my opinion.  But there is plenty of time to reverse those numbers and Obama has the persuasive skills to come back strong.

A plausible causa bellum can always be dug up like Hitler’s Polish raid on a border radio instillation post or LBJ’s phantom attack in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify an attack on Iran just before the election.

And there are the twin dangers that if faced with loss the election the Oligarchy will simply and boldly be steal it again or—more drastically—that a “national emergency” might occur that would “force the government to suspend the election.”  Feel free to conjure in you mind your most paranoid fantasies of what that emergency might be and it has probably already been gamed in some dark recess of the Pentagon or the Vice-President’s old secret bunker.

So, no, the electoral strategy is not perfect.  It’s just the last, bet hope we have.

Bill Foster wins big in Denny Hastert’s old district, the 14th Congretional District.  Could this be an omen for Robert Abboud running against a mediocre incumbant Republican, Don Manzullo, in the demographically similar 16th District, which stretches across northern Illinois from McHenry County to the Mississippi River?

This report from TPM Election Central sums it up.

Democrats Win Dennis Hastert's House Seat!

By Eric Kleefeld - March 8, 2008, 9:59PM

In an amazing upset, the Democrats have won the special election for the House seat of former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), a district that has long been in Republican hands and voted 55%-44% for President Bush in 2004.

With 99% reporting, Democrat Bill Foster, a physicist and businessman, leads Republican businessman and perennial candidate Jim Oberweis by 52%-48%, and has been projected the winner by the Associated Press.

Prediction: The Obama campaign will shop this around to uncommitted super-delegates, as evidence that they can expand the electoral playing field. One thing that helped Foster greatly was a well-organized get out the vote machine that the state party had organized to beef up Obama's totals in the Super Tuesday primary, and Obama himself took the time to cut an ad for Foster's campaign.

And at the very least, Obama can probably count on the support of one particular super-delegate: Congressman-Elect Bill Foster (D-IL).

A typical Wyoming neighborhood.

Wyoming!  No shit, my home state, where for the last three decades bounties have been paid on Democrats’ ears, is today ground zero of the Obama/Clinton grudge match.  Both have been spotted in the state scrapping for the state’s twelve, count them, twelve delegates.  Hillary was up in Casper, Barack stumped in Laramie and so did Bill.

It’s a big state with a tiny population.  There are places in the state where you can stand and there will not be an occupied building in a radius of 100 miles.  Yes, I said places, plural.  The words “wide open spaces” were invented for the place.  Dispersed across that vast landscape (but concentrated in Cheyenne, Casper, Laramie and a half a dozen other “cities” each with under 25,000 residents) were an estimated   515,004 folks in 2006.  By contrast Vermont, with the next lowest population among the fifty states was estimated to have 623,908.

To say that the local citizenry is surprised by the attention would be an understatement.  Almost every news article I checked out on the Wyoming Caucuses, lead with a quote from an astonished local Democrat like this one in the New York Times, “ ‘I have never had a period of compressed political intensity like these last 48 hours,’ Kathleen M. Karpan, a longtime Democratic activist and former Wyoming secretary of state, said Thursday.”

Actually the most astonishing thing about the quote above was that Ms. Karpan actually managed to get herself elected to state wide office at some point as a Democrat.  You see, the Democratic Party in Wyoming has been a more endangered species than the gray wolf, another species gun loving locals itch to take pot shots at.  Both are widely considerd verimin in this conservative state.

It wasn’t always this way.  When I was groing up—in a respectable Republican household, mind you—Democrats were at least competative.  With a base among the state’s blue collar workers in the coal, oil, railroad, lumber and construction industies, Democrats got themselves elected Governor, Senator, or as the states lone Representative.  The tide began to turn in the late Sixties when this hawkish, defense oriented state recoiled at growing anti-war sentiment in the national party.  It was excerbated as the state’s coal and railroad industries deeply cut back on employment through the use of new technologies.  Boom and bust cycles in all of the extractive industries meant many blue collar workers had to leave the state while others breezed in and out without setting down roots.  Finally, movement conservatives were able to use cultural attachments to guns—Wyomans are the ones that Charleston Heston had in mind when he said that to take away guns you would have to “pry it from our cold dead hands.”—and ingrained Western mistrust of the “damn gub’ment” to smash the local Democratic Party and dominate the state with virtual one party rule.

Meanwhile the tiny populattion of Wyoming presented an astonishing run of hyper-conservative actors on the national stage beginning with former Reagan Administration Secretary of the Interior James Watt, who believed it was unnessesary to preserve natural resources because the end of time was coming anyway.  Former Senators Malcom Wallop and especially Alan K. Simpson, who was once widely touted as a possible Vice-Presidential candidate, exerted extrodinary influence.  But of course Wyoming greatest gift to the nation is the Dark Sith Lord Dick Cheney himself.

So I am watching the Wyoming caucuses with more than passing interest.  By the way, the Clinton camp is “lowering expections.”  They couldn’t get much lower.  Obama is projected to be a big winner.  In the whitest state in the union.

Early returns from the caususes just posted by the AP show, “Obama led Clinton 57 percent to 40 percent with 6 of 23 counties reporting as they vied for the next prize in their extraordinarily tight Democratic presidential nomination race.”

The times, they are a changin’.

Well, I missed the shindig at Govener’s Pub to watch returns and celebrate due to the sleet/snow storm that made travel a challenge.  Too bad, because it had the earmarks of a damn good party.  McHenry County Democrats have a lot to celebrate.  Of course the storm kept other Dems away and party Chair Tom Cynor was occupied with advanced baby arrival alert.

As of 2:30 a.m. Wednesday with 100% of precincts reporting, according to unofficial results posted by County Clerk Kathy Schultz on the McVote Web site, 33,421 county residents voted in the Democratic Presidential Primary.  31,211 took Republican ballots.  These figures may not yet include early voting and absentee ballots which were to be counted only after all precincts had reported.  If not, the outcome will not change dramatically because early voting showed the same tilt to the Democrats.

It is safe to say that this is absolutely unprecedented in a county that has been a bastion of Republican power since the Civil War.

As in the rest of the state Barack Obama was a landslide winner. *

Local races in entry below.

*All election results from McVote.org

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party is finally uniting around Barack Obama as he narrows the national lead of Hillary Clinton just days before the Tsunami Tuesday vote. 

It hasn’t been easy.  Many activists on the party’s left have been skeptical of Obama despite his clear record of consistent opposition to the Iraq War and solid voting record.   They preferred Dennis Kucinich’s in-your-face radicalism or John Edwards’ frank appeal for economic populism.  Some distrusted Obama’s outreach to independents and Republicans, his willingness to respect and use the language of faith even if that faith was religiously liberal.  Others suspected that he might be an empty suit, too good to be true, an easy balm to white consciences who could then take a pass on the real work of battling racism.

As Kucinich and Edwards dropped out it became apparent that there was no other alternative to Clinton and her style of Democratic Leadership Council trimming, triangulation and a relentless drive to a center that moved every rightward.  But the progressive turn to Obama has been deeper, stronger, than simple resignation that he is “all we got” to stop Clinton.  Progressives have finally been swept up in the realization that Obama offers not just a punch card of liberal issues, but an inspiring vision of leadership that can unite the people behind real, lasting, and systematic change.

The Kennedy endorsement, while of critical importance in influencing many Democrats, probably held less sway over progressives except as an indication that Obama had a real chance to break out.  The most venerable of progressive publications, The Nation weighed the candidates closely, examining the plusses an minuses for both and gave its endorsement on Thursday to Obama on the strength of his uniting appeal.

Over at the Daily Kos, ground zero of the progressive blog phenomena, ther January 30 straw poll showed Obama leaping into a lead over Clinton 76 to 11% out of 17,995 respondents.  Now that’s a gathering of focus.

Meanwhile the Gallop Daily Tracking Poll  shows Obama closing to within four points of Clinton nationally just a head of last night California  head to head debate.  Its now Clinton 43%, Obama 39% with 9% still for Edwards.  Just two weeks ago Clinton enjoyed a twenty point edge.  These national polls are considered more reliable than the state wide polls that have proved so fallible in predicting primary outcomes.  The momentum is clearly on Obama’s side.  Is it enough to overcome Clinton’s earlier wide leads in California, Massachusetts, and New York? We shall see. 

Finaly, MoveOn.Org conducted its own head to head primary yesterday.  Obama won the MoveOn endorsement 70.4% to 24.6% with  280,528 voting.  The prize is far from simply symbolic.  MoveOn represents a dedicated and disciplined cadre of grass roots volunteers who have repeatedly shown their effectiveness.  Welded into Obama’s own grass root oriented campaign, they promise to bring thens of thousands of volunteers to phone banks, canvassing crews, and neighborhood coffees, plus additional fundraising punch.

Of course MoveOn is one of the right wing’s favorite whipping boys.  They will use the endorsement to try to demonize Obama as left wing and to try to drive a wedge between him and the independents and Republicans he courts. 

But if given the choice between MoveOn’s muscle and some flack from Bill O’Reily, I’ll take MoveOn every time.  So, I suspect will Senator Obama.