Barack Obama kicked off his long-shot presidential campaign with a memorable announcement at the Old State Capital on a frigid March day.  A few short months later Dave Kamper, was present at the birth of a remarkable grass roots campaign that defied conventional wisdom.

I almost never post a whole entry from another blog.  But this, from Daily Kos, was so riveting and informative that I had to share it with you.  All day Sunday the Daily Kos was posting deep analytical entries from their top contributors examining every possible angle of How Hillary Lost.

Then came a first time ever diary from an Obama volunteer who had been active almost from the beginning.  Dave Kamper was a county coordinator in Sangamon County, home of the Illinois state capital at Springfield.  He identifies himself as a union organizer who was recently elected to the County Board.

His entry turned all of the others on their heads.  He explained how Obama won.

Read on!

The Obama campaign a year ago: a not-remotely-insider's perspective

by Dave Kamper

I was a County Coordinator for the Obama campaign in the summer of 2007, down here in Springfield, Illinois.  I never sat in on any strategy meetings.  I never played a role in any key decisions.  I was just a foot soldier, but reading all the front-page assessments by the Daily Kos team made me think back to what things were like a year ago, and what they may say about how Obama won.

Here, then, a few thoughts:

1. Targeting.  We were told this right from the beginning.  I remember my contacts with the campaign saying, as early as May, 2007, that the only way Obama could win was by "competing in all 50 states".  That wasn't idle chit-chat.  The campaign personnel I met (no one high-up, but people who'd been in the room with the higher-ups) all conveyed very clearly the impression that the only way Obama could beat Clinton for the nomination was to be prepared to fight in every state, all the way.  That is, we were clearly given the impression that this was all going to be about delegates, not "momentum".  

In retrospect, it had to be that way for Obama.  During the English Civil War, the one of the leaders of the Parliamentarians declared, "we can beat the King 99 times and he is still King, but if he beat us but once we will be hanged".  From my perspective as a foot soldier in the Obama campaign, they instinctively understood the parallel - Hillary Clinton is a giant in the Democratic Party, and there was not enough "momentum" in the world to force her out of the race.  Obama had to win it the hard way - state by state, delegate by delegate.

2. The field operation.  Our first organized trips to Iowa in the summer of 2007 were comical.  Training of volunteers was minimal at best.  Promises to pair Illinois people up with Iowans for door-knocking went unfulfilled.  Long-planned sojurns to one Iowa county were switched suddenly to another location with little advance warning.

At the time, I thought this boded ill for Obama, but as I think back on it, I realize what was missing from all of it was any kind of rigidity.  They were making mistakes, to be sure, but no one was defending their structure, their ground plan, or their techniques as perfect or even very good.  There was a willingness to hear feedback, even from relative outsiders like me.  A lot of the sudden changes in plan can be seen perhaps more clearly as experimentation.  And, frankly, June 2007 was a good time for experimenting; they had plenty of time to get the kinks out before Caucus Day.

3. The democracy of the movement.  I don't want to make too much of this.  There was a lot of concern about message control and keeping people on task, even then.  But there was also a lot of openness to innovation.  People were using my.barackobama.com to create new Obama support groups - many of them fizzled and did nothing, but some got people involved.  

Even here in Illinois, the Obama campaign did not feel constrained by the existing party structure.  They created events to reach out to new people.  The vast majority of people from Springfield who went to Iowa for Obama had never been involved in the local party at all, yet somehow the campaign found these people AND put them to work.  The campaign was fanatical from the start about lists - once they had a name, they held onto that name and never let go.  Never once did the campaign ever instruct its County Coordinators to run things by the local powers-that-be, or to rely upon existing (weak) party machines to something.  This is what building a movement looked like at the ground level.  Chaotic, to be sure, but empowering.  If Obama had waited until December, 2007, to do this, he would have been destroyed.  They started early, though, so by December they had a machine.  

Perhaps most interesting, especially compared to what I seem to be hearing about other campaigns, was the fundraising was NOT overly stressed.  People were giving money, but when the campaign communicated to us County Coordinators, it was always about volunteers, not about money.  I think they understood quite clearly the principle of "sweat equity" - that if people put their time into something, the money will follow.  Many of the people who first volunteered in June or July didn't donate until 2008, but they did donate.

All of this speaks to something which we don't ever see, but which we recognize the symptoms of: planning.  Sometime, VERY early in the Obama campaign, some group of campaign leaders made a plan.  Perhaps it was written down (how I'd love to see the document), perhaps it was just a meeting of the minds.  But it was a plan, a plan they began to implement in earnest in April and May 2007, just 2 months into the campaign, and which they nourished and strengthened all the way down the line.  From my vantage point as a County Coordinator, I saw some of those aspects of the plan first-hand:

- prepare for a 50-state primary season

- let the field operation evolve organically based on experience

- give the activist base fertile soil with which to create their own flowering contributions to the campaign

Those seem to me to be essential components of Obama's victory.  I always wanted him to win, but I have to admit, one year ago, I didn't feel very confident.  Only in retrospect is it clear that he and his team knew what they were doing, and had a fully-fledged plan to win the nomination.

The Democratic Party of McHenry County assembled by Harvard High School before the Milk Days Parade. (Photo by Tom Cynor)

Hillary Clinton was giving her long awaited concession and endorsement of Barack Obama as McHenry County Democrats gathered for the Harvard Milk Days Parade Saturday morning.  It was hot and muggy.  The sun burned through thin clouds as we assembled and waited behind the high school. We were near the end of the parade so we had plenty of time to soak up the sun—burn.  We finally started moving after 2 pm, a full hour after the head of the parade started off.

About thirty adults plus assorted children turned out.  Our unit included a float, a Tom Cynor for State’s Attorney trailer and several candidates. Most of us were elegantly turned out in our bright blue “Proud to be a McHenry County Democrat” tee shirts.

For those who are unfamiliar with the place, Harvard lies in the northwest of McHenry County just a bit south of the Wisconsin border.  It once was the center of the dairy industry and the town was known as the “Milk Capital of the World.”  That status is celebrated by Milk Days, Illinois oldest continuous municipal festival dating to 1941, and by the beloved fiberglass statue of Harmilda the cow located at the intersection of U.S. Route 14, Illinois Route 173, and the city’s main drag, Ayers Street (AKA “The Milky Way.”

Although the Dean Foods dairy plant is still a major local employer, most of the dairy farms are gone now and the city long ago lost its dairy crown.

But Harvard is the most resolutely working class of all McHenry County municipalities.  Far from encroaching suburbia that has swallowed most of the southeast portion of the county and is now marching north from Huntley in the southwest housing prices are relatively modest.  Local industry has provided jobs.  A brief brush with prosperity evaporated when Motorola  shut down a mammoth new cell phone production factory a few years ago.  5000 jobs disappeared with the stroke of a pen.  And the building sits empty on the edge of town on the edge of town defying all attempts to attract new tenants and new jobs.

Nearly 40% of the population is now Hispanic.  There is a lot of tension between the new immigrants and the older Anglo community.  But Ayer Street and the rest of downtown would now be a virtual ghost town if it were not for the many Latino business that have opened there in recent years.  In fact the parade crowd along the Milky Way was largely Hispanic, while Anglos tended to gather on the tree shaded lawns along the residential streets between the High School and downtown.

Democrats, however, go a warm welcome from both communities.  Not a block was passed without out breaks of actual cheering, whooping and fist pumping.  A lot of folks called out for Obama.  While we have always had support in Harvard, not too many years ago scattered individuals sheepishly acknowledged us hoping that their Republican neighbors would not notice.  Boos would sometimes outnumber cheers.  This year there was one boo.

Coroner Candidate David Bachmann watched the parade from the sidelines with his family.  He wrote in an e-mail to other party members, “I am soooooooooo proud of our people that were in Harvard today…The Republicans should be embarrassed.  All they had was an old beat up car, not resorted at all, with a few campaign signs made of old cardboard stuck to the car with “duck tape”…Not a single candidate or party representation…”

Any way here are some photos from the day.

State’s Attorney Candidate Tom Cynor with his main man, Quinn. (This and all further photos by Murfin)

Auditor Candidate Kerry Julian and family.

                                       

The candidate contingent—Robert Ludwig, County Board Dist. 6; James McTague, County Board Dist. 1; Cynor; Robert Abboud, 16th Congressional District; Julian; and Jeff Thirtyacer, County Board Dist. 4.

                                       

 Thirtyacer and Bill Nowaskey prepare to step off at the head of the contingent.

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.

Hillary Clinton as Tonya Harding?  Obama as Nancy Kerrigan? Bill Clinton as Jeff Gillooly?

 

That I am an ardent supporter of Barack Obama is patently obvious.  But I have tried, sometimes with limited success, to stay out of the tit-for-tat jabs and counter punches between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, their surrogates, and their most rabid followers.  Virtual trench war fare has been spiraling out of control for some time, but has sharply escalated since the Tsunami Tuesday primaries in which Clinton scratched back into contention with wins in Ohio and Texas (primary vote only, not total delegates).  During the long and agonizing interim until the Pennsylvania primary (of which Clinton is the presumptive winner) the air has been filled with brick bats, hand grenades and vitriol.  Let me count the ways:

·         Mutual sniping over possible re-dos in Florida and Michigan and/or the seating of the delegations despite breaking party rules.

·         The flap about Obama advisor Samantha Power calling Clinton “something of a monster.”

·         Geraldine Ferraro’s demeaning remarks that Obama was “lucky to be black” and her repeated, pugnacious refusal on every TV program she could find to back down one inch.

·         The Obama campaign’s call on the Clinton’s to release their income tax forms.

·         The Clinton campaign’s denunciation of that call as a reminiscent of despised Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr.

·         The huge uproar over snippets of sermons from Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

·         Suggestions by some Obama staffers that the Clinton campaign was exploiting the issue to “play the race card.”

·         Reacting to Obama’s widely praised speech on race, Clinton surrogates suggest that the speech was a failure because Obama did not personally repudiate Wright.

·         Clinton surrogates using the Wright connection to argue to wavering Super Delegates that Obama was fatally injured and “un-electable.”

·         Obama supporters circulation photo of Bill Clinton with Wright in the White House.

·         Bill Clinton’s remark that a Clinton-McCain match-up in November would be refreshing because it would be between two candidates who “love their country.”

·         The Obama Campaign’s sharp retort that the former President coment, “sounds like McCarthy.”

·         Attacks on Clinton’s credibility when she was caught telling a colorful but untrue story about landing in Bosnia “under sniper fire.”

·         Clinton personally resurrecting the Wright controversy the same day she came under intense questioning about the Bosnia Story by saying, "He would not have been my pastor."

Have I forgotten something?  I’m sure I missed a dozen minor skirmishes.  Both sides are now full and eager participants.  But I have to give the Clinton camp the edge for starting down this road and setting the increasingly bitter tone.

Here’s the thing.  As entertaining as all of this might be for political junkies, it is disasterous for the the Democratic Party, whose once bright prospects in November are in peril.  Not only could the party loose the Presidential election, the effects could be felt all the way down the ticket erroding what should have been huge gains in the Senate and House.  What’s worse, the American people could be saddled with a McCain (Bush III) presidency and a feeble Democratic majority in Congress unable to challenge him.

Every one knows it.  Every one talks about it. But neither side can help themselves.  Each blames the other guy or gal (I’ll take my licking from the word police now) and turns right back to the bashing.  It’s a classic case of looking “at the speck that is in your brother's eye,”  not noticing  “the log that is in your own eye?” (Matthew 7.3 New American Standard Bible.)

I have joined others in pledging support of the Democratic Party candidate in November who ever he or she is.  The alternative is unthinkable.  If that means its Hillary, I will swallow my bitter disappointment and throw my shoulder to the wheel with real purpose.  I call on others on both sides who claim they can never, ever, under any circumstances support the other in November to get over themselves and their allegiances and help save America..

Now comes and inevitable “but.”  I couldn’t help but smiling at the introduction of a new phrase to describe the Clinton campaign’s narrow chance to win the nomination.  On Tuesday ABC reporter Jack Tapper blogged quoting a source in the Democratic National Committee (DNC):

The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.

It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold.

Well, the Tonya Harding Option is such a well turned phrase that it has spread like the measles all over the internet and is already appearing in respectable print.  By tomorrow it will already be a cliché. 

Instead of trying to refute the story, however, Clinton seems to be confirming it as her strategy.  Faced with stories from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others that “things are being done,” to bring a quick end to the divisive campaign and trial balloons from the DNC that a “mini convention” of super delegates may bee convened, Clinton defiantly said that race will go on at least “three more months” and charged that the Obama campaign was trying to “to shut this race down."

Given Obama’s virtually insurmountable delegate advantage, that declaration may be a broad hint that Clinton is willing to oil up the crow bar.

And that’s not good.

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

After two weeks of sliding into a racial cesspool highlighted by repeated airings of flippant and ignorant assertions by Hillary Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro on one hand and incendiary snippets from sermons Barack Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright on the other, Senator Obama instantly redefined the Presidential campaign on Tuesday.  He spoke in Philadelphia forthrightly about race in America without hiding behind any illusions or mincing any words.  He spoke in terms not merely to “bridge the racial gap”—how many politicians have uttered empty platitudes on that topic—but to engage it. He urged American—Black, White and Brown—to share their anguishes and their hopes so that they may find common ground to address the problems that they all share.  We must embrace the notion that “Your dreams do not have to come and the expense of my dreams.”  Powerful stuff.  And perhaps the most important American political speech of a generation.

Here it is in its entirety.  Please Listen.

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

Things are moving at lightning speed now in Presidential politics.  Today, on short notice, John Edwards went to New Oreleans to announce his withdrawal from the Democratic race only days after vowing to stay in to the Convention.  Two days ago his campaign announced a major 10 state media buy ahead of the Tsuenami Tuesday primaries on February 5.

What happened?  We’ll leave it to the memoirs of inside dopesters and the author of the next Making of a President tome to lay out the exact sequence of events.  But it probably went something like this.  First, despite a glimmer of hope that he might beat out Hilary Clinton for second place in his native South Carolina, he finished third trailing badly.  Money, always a challenge, began to dry up.  The media became obsessed with the Clinton/Obama soap opera dividing the leading candidates into icons of race and gender.  Then, a flurry of major endorsements for Obama, including Edwards old running mate John Kerry and culminating with the Kennedy Coronation. 

Finally, it became apparent that Hillary would use her muscle to harvest the delegates of Michigan and Florida which had been banned by the Democractic National Committee for moving their primaries up.  Edwards and Obama had observed party rules and not campaigned in either state.  Clinton allowed her name to remain on the Michigan ballot and ran stealth campaigns in both states without breaking the letter of the rule against personally campaigning in them.  After a predictable blow-out win, she swept into Florida and announced her intention to appeal to the DNC to seat the delegates, in direct contradiction of the agreement all candidates signed.  Although Clinton would have done well in Florida anyway—the older skewing voter base and heavy edge in women registered—the numbers would have been much closer if her rivals had competed.  And in Michigan, with its large Black population, big labor vote, and in an economic crisis Obama, or conceivably Edwards himself with his message of economic populism, might have won outright.  I am sure this last Clinonesque betrayal offended Edwards sense of simple justice.

The unknowable, at least for now, variable is the precarious state of Elizabeth Edwards’ health.  The doughty Mrs. Edwards has been campaigning under what amounts to a death sentence for months after her breast cancer returned with a bleak prognosis.  Together the couple vowed to fight on and the progressive populism of the campaign seemed fueled by their mutual sense of a mission to literally transform America.  Did her prognosis suddenly worsen?  We don’t know, but in informal interviews with the press after John’s withdrawal announcement, she replied to queries about who her husband might now support with the off hand remark that for a while, “he will be supporting me.”

Of course the question of who will get Edwards’s support is a matter of considerable interest.  So far he is holding his cards close to the vest.  Both other candidates—and Bill Clinton—have spoken with him over the past two days.  Obama acknowledges that he directly asked Edwards.  The Clinton are more publicly coy, but you can be sure that they are engaged in a full court press wielding both the carrot and the stick.  Edwards told reporters that he would confer with both camps before making an announcement.

Many an innocent goat has gone to its death today as pundits sift their entrails for signs.  Some note that many Edwards staffers and high level volunteers feel closer to Obama as an agent of change.  Obama is less tied to the web of Washington lobbyists and interest groups that Edwards has come to despise.  His refusal to take PAC money and interest in lobby reform speaks to them.  Similarly, they mistrust Clinton on trade, particularly the family dedication to “Free Trade” pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA.  No amount of backtracking on the campaign trail has convinced them that Hillary has changed her spots on this issue.

On the other hand those that prefer to read detailed demographic reports on voters in the early primaries have concluded that for all of his populist rhetoric, Edwards has scored best among self-described conservative Democrats.  He has also, at least in the South, been the refuge for white men.  His voters have split on second choices with an edge going to Hilary—perhaps due to her strong union ties and lingering affection for her husband.  Some feel that Edwards might be inclined to follow the lead of his rank and file supporters rather than his professional staff and idealist volunteers.

There is also the question of promises.  Hillary remains the favorite to win the nomination with her superb machine, deep pockets, Bill Clinton nostalgia—although Bill may be in the process of wearing that thin—an edge in women voters, and the possibility that, in the end, a lot of white voters will not be able to bring themselves to vote for a Black man.  It that’s the case, then Hillary is in a much better position to make a wink-and-nod offer of a high position in her administration than is Obama.

What ever the outcome, the American people and the Democratic Party owe a deep debt of gratitude to John Edwards for courageously brining the nation’s class divide front and center once again.  Neither Obama or Clinton will be able to ignore those issue now.  To some degree or another both have to integrate Edward’s progressive vision into their own.

I just think Obama will mean it.

In previous years I have blogged, at great length, I might add, on the predictable outrages of GeorgeW. Bush’s various State of the Union Addresses.  It seems to be required duty if one dare to enter fray of competitive political blogging.  And I meant to do it.  I really did.  I sat in front of my TV—and promptly dozed of minutes into the stultifying performance.  Some how I don’t think I was the only one.

Even the talking heads on network and cable coverage (for which I did wake up in time to monitor) seemed bored by and dismissive of the product delivered by the lamest duck of all Presidents in recent memory—public approval ratings of about 30%, the House and Senate in opposition hands, his own party in disarray and its coalition dissolving, the next president widely assumed to be a Democrat.  The delivery was lack luster and most of the content re-cycled from earlier SOA, including a saber-rattling claim that an evil rogue state—this time Iran—may be developing weapons of mass destruction.

As far as I can tell the only tidbits of “news” came out of the speech.  First was an almost missed aside that after troop levels in Iraq are brought down on account of “victory,” American armed forces will remain on the ground in a new  “protective overwatch mission”—Orwellian code for the long cherished NeoCon dream of maintaining vast military bases in Iraq from which to dominate the entire region.

Second was a somewhat garbled threat to veto funding bills that do not include a 50% reduction in “Congressional ear-marks” and to order cabinet departments not to act on earmarks “not voted on by Congress”—those noted only in memoranda of agreements in the committee stage.  But like many other Bush initatives, he comes to the table week and soft on the issue.  He used complicity with earmarks to buy support of many of his unpopular positions through the years, or allowed his congressional allies to do it for him.  These pay offs contributed to the soaring deficit, albeit not more than Bush’s own out of controle spending on the war.   And the new executive order is of questionable Constitutional legality because final language in most bill includes blanket adoption of off committee agreements on earmarks inseperable from the rest of the legeislation.

But I am slipping into an analysis of the speech, something I swore I would not do.

Instead, like just about everyone else, I was stunned by another development yesterday that seemed to darf the SOU and the shrinking midget who delivered it.  Of course I am refering to the “pass the torch” endorsement of Barack Obama by Senator Edward Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, and Representative Patrick Kennedy.

As usual, the media, always aware of the drawing power of the Kennedy name and legacy, were in hyperbolic overdrive.  Over on MSNBC Chris Mathews was so over the top he needed to be hosed down.  Yet it is almost possible to forgive the over reaction.  This was not just another political endorsement.  It was both a vicious slap at Bill Clinton (pointedly not at Hillary) and an anointment, for the first time, of an heir to Camalot outside the Kennedy family.  Now, by any strech of the immagination, that’s news.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told aids that she was “tranfixed”and “stunned” by the development.  Other heavy weight endorsements have followed and will increase in the days aheard stripping Clinton of her mantle as choice of both “real Democrats” and the party establishment.  The affects of the endorsement are already being seen in Massechusets and California, where Clinton was confident of big leads.  She may still win those states, but Obama will carve deeply into the alotment of Convention delegates from them.

The Clinton camp is said to be in dismay and a bit of disarray over the endorsements.  They are also seething with anger.  Look for Clinton surroates to begin to attack Ted Kennedy—a dangerous game given the Senator’s popularity in the party.  In an early sign of of this New York National Organization for Women (NOW) leader Marcia Pappas unleashed a scathing atack on Kennedy for “betraying women.”  Look for semi-anonymous and/or untraceble reminders of Chapaquidick and the Senator’s marital and love life woes to begin perculating on the web and in this season’s favorite tactic, forwarded e-mails.  No Kennedy foible will be left unturned.  My guess is that the Clintons will accept the risk of blow back—particulary in veiw of Bill’s own past—if they can personaly distance themselves from it.  Even Caroline, the beloved Princes, might find herself under an unflattering microscope.

There is a well oiled “hate the Kennedys” machine out there.  Fueled by generations of conspiracy theorists and a fervant right-wing base, it is always ready to gin up.  The only problem is that most of these same people hate the Clintons even more than the Kennedys.  What is a wing-nut to do?

But of course the bigest drawback to this annointment, remains largely unspoken, but hangs as a dread in the hearts of many.  Just a few days ago Obama spoke at Martin Luther King’s Atlanta church and was pictured as the fruit of Dr. King’s Dream.  Now he lays in the line of John F. and Robert Kennedy.  Can he survive and ascend to the presidency without becoming a new verse to “Abraham, Martin and John”?  Is America—or unseen forces in its elite—ready for either change or hope?

I am trying not to get overwhelmed by all of this.  To keep my persepective.   To recognize that endorsements or no, a long struggle lies ahead for Obama in a grining state-by-state ground game that will play out largely base on local concerns and on the relative strength of two organizations.  Yet I am a baby boomer.  I recall the thrill of John Kennedy’s works on a cold January in 1961.  They inspired me, as they inspired a generation.  I also know the pit of the stomach dispair of shots ringing out in Dallas, Los Angeles, and Memphis.  These are the foundation events of my life.

I, too, am moved.  And once again dare to hope.

Voters are putting their money down on the wrestling match in South Carolina as I write this.  The fact the event was billed as a three way cage match, but Bill Clinton somehow got into the ring and blind-sided Barack Obama with a folding chair.  Obama seemed stunned but sprang off the ropes with remarkable agility.  Meanwhile John Edwards circles the main contestants, occasionally kneeling behind one or another of thrm inviting the other to push him or her backwards over him.  He hopes to escape enough attention to prevent himself from being thrown out of the cage and onto the press table and maybe be the last one standing.

Hey, forgive the extended metaphor, but I was on a roll.

Florida is up next, another state, like Michigan which has been stripped of its convention delegates.  And like Michigan, Hilary Clinton stands to walk away with a hollow victory—unless she goes on to emerge as the presumptive nominee, in which case she will use her super powers (the Scowl of Death) to convince the Democratic National Committee to kiss the queens ass and reverse itself.  Obama and Edwards have run only shadow campaigns in announced loyalty to the DNC decision.  And in a state heavy with: 1) older voters, 2) an unusually large number of women voters (those old men tend to die off faster than the women,) and 3) a significant Latino vote which  showed in Nevada a reluctance to  support a Black candidate, Clinton is leading by big numbers.

Then it’s on to Tsunami Tuesday, a coast-to-coast Iron Man/Woman Marathon.  Obama and Clinton both have strong states.  It a toss-up in others.  Edward can only place a consistent, distant third and hope to limp into a deadlocked Convention.  Super delegate rich California, where a few weeks ago Obama seemed to be making inroads into a wide Clinton lead, now seems to be swinging back toward her, largely on the strength of the Latino vote.  But Obama seems likely to sweep the Bay Area, Silicon Valley, and the northern part of the state. 

Clinton and Obama should each sew up their home states, New York and Illinois.  Obama may have an edge in Massachusetts and Minnesota.  Clinton will take Arkansas but other Deep South states with big blocks of Black voters and in which most whites have abandoned the Democrats for the GOP are in play.  A big Obama win in South Carolina could galvanize Blacks behind him leaving Clinton to try to salvage a victory by using her husband to simultaneously chip away a portion of the older black vote while being the anti-Obama (wink, nod) for whites.  A similar contest emerges in the border states of Missouri and Tennessee except with their bigger proportion of white voters, the emphasis will be on the wink and the nod.  Chalk up Arizona for Clinton (see analysis of Florida.)   

Since Party rules decree that delegates be allotted proportionately, it’s hard to predict a final delegate count coming out of February 5.  My guess is Clinton will lead but not by enough to drive a steak through the heart of the Obama candidacy.

If a clear winner emerges from the Republicans that day (my guess:  John McCain despite being loathed by huge swaths of the party, but the only one who stands a snow-balls-chance-in-hell of being elected in Novermber,) Democratic voters in subsequent contests will be increasingly focusing of “electability.”  And that’s not good for Clinton.  Edwards may not be able to ride it out to the Convention and be forced to abandon his campaign.  Both sides are courting him for the nod if he bails.  He is clearly closer to Obama on policy and on “change,” but some observers think he may have been flirting with Clinton lately.

In other developments, Dennis Kucinich, has finally dropped out.  He, like Edwards had hoped to make it to the convention, not in hopes of winning but to keep plugging away with his more radical anti-war position and left progressive domestic agenda.  But Dennis has been locked out of the televised debates by the media and ignored by the press so that he could effectively no longer get that message out.  Even more critically, he found himself suddenly in a hot primary contest to save his Congressional seat and had to get back to Ohio to shore up support.

Where will all of those activists who made Kucinich a favorite of progressive web site polls go?  Many of them swore they would never support any other Democrats.  Well, there is no Left third party or independent candidacy to turn to (The Greens ignore the class issues dear to these folks and hardly seem aware of the war at all.)  Some will sulk, pout, and throw temper tantrums across the web.  A good many will opt for Edwards, in whose rousing brand of class-conscious populism they will find comfortable, if temporary refuge.  But if it comes down to a two-way race, most will throw in with Obama wailing and complaining bitterly every step of the way.

It’s been an awfully long time since I touched on Democratic Presidential race.  Now in the afterglow of a stunning victory for my guy, Barack Obama in the Iowa Caucus, I guess it’s time to add my two cents to what will surely be an avalanche of coverage.

The depth of Obama’s victory literally awed the commentators I checked out on the tube.  With 97% of the caucuses reporting when last I heard Obama led with 39% with John Edwards edging out Hillary Clinton for second place 30% to 29%.

Obama’s win was impressive not only for its size, but for its depth.  He won women, Clinton’s supposed ace in the hole, 35% to 30% and out polled Edwards among union members.  He was the overwhelming favorite of voters 17 to 29 and more impressively got this notoriously disaffected voter pool to actually trudge to precinct caucuses and participate in record numbers.

Obama reaped most of the new caucusers who flocked to polls.  This group included many “sunshine Democrats”, independents, and even disillusioned Republicans.  The Clinton camp tried to paint this as a weakness among party loyalists.  But it also showed promise for real strength in the General Election for Democrats frustrated by stinging losses.  Every one knows that Clinton is the boogey woman of Republicans who would positively never vote for her.  She’s not much more popular with the Democratic anti-war left, many of who have sworn to stay home rather than vote for her.  But even among previous Democratic Caucus voters Obama edged out a one point victory over Clinton.  Obama made winning or strong showings in category after category  and in every corner of the state, rural and urban in entrance polls.

The acceptance speech was classic Obama, a reminder of the unparallel skills as a political orator that vaulted him onto the national stage at the Democratic Convention just three and a half years ago.  An MSNBC panel I was watching were unanimously in awe of the performance—even crotchety, crypto-fascist Pat Buchanan.  Chris Mathews was nearly in tears.  Rachel Maddow proclaimed Obama’s win a victory for “…the America I want to live in.”  Of course the press is subject to both herd mentality and stampedes.  And Chris Mathews has been choked up over others. 

But the real story of the night was the enormous victory for the Democratic Party.  212,000 Iowans caucused as Democrats, up 77% from 2004.  Meanwhile participation in a hotly contested Republican straw poll was down dramatically, indicative of both despair among Republicans and an appalling list of Candidates.  This in a state that was reliably red for George W. Bush.   This was not just a contest for a Democratic favorite, it was a repudiation of Bush and Republicanism in general.  This same repudiation is playing out in state after state and promises to remake the nation’s political map.

Clinton, in her remarkably gracious speech made the same point. 

In the end Republicans chose  maverick Mike Huckabee, over a rich Easterner of no firm convictions, anointing as a front runner a candidate who probably can’t win five states in a General Election.

The instant conventional wisdom was the Clinton, once the “inevitable candidate” with deep, deep pockets and a wide lead in most national polls, was dealt a stinging defeat.  With the New Hampshire Primary only five days away she could be vulnerable in another state that appreciates the personal style of politics at which Obama excels  and whose Democratic voters are strongly anti-war.  Down the road in North Carolina Clinton was doing very well among Black voters devoted to her husband and fearful that no Black could actually win the presidency.  But many could swing to Obama after he proves that he can win broad support among white voters.  That could compel Clinton to run, not as the consensus party favorite, but as the “Anti-Obama” in southern and boarder states, a risky, racially charged strategy that could backfire in the North and West.

But it is too early to count anyone as shrewd and organized as Hillary Clinton out.  She remembers—and Bill will remind everyone—that Bill lost both Iowa and New Hampshire before going on to becoming “The Come Back Kid.”  In her speech tonight, she emphasized—and meant—that her campaign was in it for the long haul.  Look for Clintonistas in the media to start the hype about “The Come Back Gal” at the first sign of a turn around

Clinton’s ever nimble staff proved their resiliency when they decked the room with signs and posters with a new twist on her theme that she is “ready to be President.”  Exit polls revealed that the largest block of caucus voters—51% identified “change” as the most important characteristic for a candidate versus only 30 some odd per cent who identified “experience.”  And those change voters went overwhelmingly to Obama.  So the new signage proclaimed “Ready for Change” over Clinton’s name and the old “Ready to Lead” relegated to spot below.

Conventional wisdom is a little more confused by John Edwards.  Edwards has always been the itching powder in the briefs $600 suite punditry—his relentless economic populism makes them nervous.  His inability to compete with the Obama and Clinton fundraising jugernaughts, make it easy to dismiss him as unable to sustain a campaign for the long haul.  Before the votes were in most commentators were predicting a tight race with Edwards finishing third and therefore fatally crippled.  But he actually edged out Clinton.  The experts seemed divided as to whether that was enough to continue.

But a pugnacious Edwards stood his ground in his post caucus speech.  He refused to congratulate the winner or concede defeat.  Elizabeth Edwards, the ailing iron lady of the campaign, introduced her husband by proclaiming in the second place winner in Iowa.  Edwards himself called the whole caucus a “victory for change”—simultaneously a swipe a Clinton and an attempt assume some of Obama’s mantle as an agent of change.  In doing so he was speaking directly to voters around the country, implying that Clinton is irrelevant and the real contest is between him and Obama as the most effective agents of change.  If relations between the Obama and Edwards camps were tense and testy in Iowa, look for them to get downright nasty in the near future if Edwards pursues this track.

The bulk of Edward’s speech was an impassioned plea for justice for the common people.  It was derided as “his standard stump speech,” but no Democrat worth his/her salt could fail to be moved by the call for universal health care and a laundry list social causes at the heart of the progressive populist wing of the party.  What is more, it is refreshing to hear issues of class frankly discussed by a leading Democrat when much of the party leadership seems to have forgotten its New Deal roots.

My guess is that Edwards can’t sustain a campaign much beyond Feburary 5th.  He might do well in Nevada if he can translate his labor union backing to support from the state’s powerful hospitality industry unions.  But those unions might just as well decide to back Obama, who also has labor support, or Clinton if she has managed to restore a bit of shine to her halo.  At any rate, a win in Nevada, while a psychological boost, is not exactly delegate rich.  He had hoped to do well in South Carolina as a near neighbor, but that state is shaping up as a head-to-head for Clinton and Obama.  And Edwards will be hard pressed to seriously contend for some—maybe most—of the Feburary 5th races.  In the end I suspect Edwards will have to swallow hard, withdraw, and release his support.  Most of that support will go, however reluctantly, to Obama as a candidate more apt to pursue a populist agenda than Clinton, who is perceived to be mobbed up with corporate bigwigs.

Lesser candidates who once may have fantasized that some of that support might fall to them and that one of them might emerge from the back of the pack when the front runners pile up ahead of them.  But this isn’t a NASCAR race.  None of the others were able to crack 5% in Iowa.  Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd read the handwriting on the wall and announced their departure from the race almost as soon as the results were announced.  But both have hopes.  Even many Biden loyalists acknowledged that he sometimes seemed to be running for Secretary of State.  Since he never seriously insulted any of the front runners and succeed in elevating his national stature, he might very well get his wish no matter what Democrat wins the next election. And Chris Dodd, who only narrowly lost the post of Majority Leader in the Senate to Harry Ried, stands a good chance to win the job next year with a bolstered majority.

            Dennis Kucinich, always the darling of the kamikaze left, shocked many of his admirers when he released his supporters to Barack Obama as a second choice in Iowa.  Kucinich will probably remain officially in the race to use the forum to promote has agenda, but he has clearly indicated that he feels comfortable with Obama as the viable candidate of progressive Democrats.

That leaves Bill Richardson as the last plausible alternative to the front runners.  Indeed his web site is already hyping him as one of “The Final Four.”  Despite a varied and impressive resume that has won him a loyal cadre of devoted fans, his chances seem dim at best.  But like Biden, Richardson has often seemed to be running for a job in the next administration.  He also covets the Secretary of State job.  But I believe many mornings he wakes up and sees the next Vice President in the mirror.  He seems a better ticket balance for Clinton—strong anti-war credentials, minority (Latino), Western, and a governor—than for Obama, but I am sure there would be a prestigious portfolio for him in any administration.

Any way, it’s on to New Hampshire.  And I am sure the dust won’t have settled on Feburary 5th when Illinois joins other states in Tsunami Tuesday, the closest thing to a national primary.  Obama’s still my man.  I think he’ll take Illinois with numbers reminiscent of his Senate victory, Hillary fans not withstanding.

            None of us who were alive and conscious at the time will ever be able to let a September 11 pass un-noticed.  The odd fact is that September 11 no longer exists.  It has been replaced by 9/11, an event both terrible and awesome—in the Biblical sense of those words—that it changed us all utterly.  It also united an often fractured nation in grief, fear, and outrage.  Everyone felt it, commented on it.  For a while there were no conservatives and liberals, no atheists and religious, no gays straights, not even any New Yorkers and heartlanders.

            It didn’t last long.  The toxic cloud still hung over the site of the Twin towers as that unity was being brazenly exploited to set the stage for an endless round of wars designed to create a new American Imperium.  TV preachers and reactionary fundraisers with enormous mailing lists were soon busy blaming the tragedy on moral weakness  laid at the feet of liberals, atheists, Gays, pro-choice women, and advocates of tolerance.  Then came the radio ranters and the rent-me-cheep cable talking heads—all busy taking that brief unity and smashing it to advance their own agendas.

            And it hasn’t ended.  The Resident, the Dark Sith Lord Cheney and their minions continue to use 9/11 as a bludgeon to demonize their opponents and rally their faithful.

            But I remember how it was.  I remember who we could be.

*************

            On the one year anniversary, I wrote and read the following poem at a commemoration vigil on the Square in WOODSTOCK, sponsored by the McHENRY COUNTY PEACE GROUP.  We were trying to honor the dead, the injured and the wounded nation.  We were also trying to find ways to avert the war that we already knew was being plotted in our name.

THE DEAD OF 9/11 LEAVE A MESSAGE ON GEORGE W’S ANSWERING MACHINE

The Dead cry out--       

It is not lonely here.

     They come by the scores     

          and by the thousands

          everyday,                       

          as they have always come,          

          each soul here

          a tragedy for someone down there.

     They come as they have always come,

          each death a completion of journey,         

          the closing of a hoop of life.

     And we welcome each of them.

But we are not lonely here.

     We do not wander silent corridors,

          our footsteps echoing,

          yearning for a voice.

     We are not lonely

          for we are the Dead

          and we are everywhere, 

          united in that last breath

          and in eternity.

But you make haste to fill the unfillable, 

     to send us more,

     many more,

     out of their own time

     as we were out of ours,

     yanked here in violence and hatred.

Let them be.
    They will come in their own time.

                       
SPORTING ONLY THREE STARS, GENERAL PETRAEUS STILL HAD PLENTY OF MILITARY GLORY PINNED TO HIS CHEST WHEN HE TESTIFIED TO THE SENATE EARLIER ON HIS PLANS FOR THE GREAT "TROOP SURGE."

           It came as no surprise, really, when GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS trotted up to Capital Hill the day before 9/11. 

Memo to Democratic Congressional Leaders:  Hey, I know we have been promised this report from Petraeus since the abortive attempt to tie war funding to a withdrawal schedule earlier this summer, but how on earth did you allow this report to be made the very week of the annual 9/11 exploitation orgy?  You allowed the General’s predictably Pollyanna report to be showered in the Resident’s patented exploitation festival.  Don’t any of you pay any attention to this stuff?

Anyway, the General showed up in all of his dazzling military glory with so many ribbons stretching from pocket flap to shoulder that I suspected he had to stretched out on the Rack just to accommodate them all.  The General, erect and impressive and even in full possession of a genuine DOUGLAS MacARTHUR memorial hair cut, launched into his long awaited testimony without being encumbered by being placed under oath.

A good thing for him, because he was soon off and running with a bunch of whoppers in fact and fanciful exaggerations of expectations.  House Democrats, predictably, were skeptical and question the General closely.  But they were to some degree hamstrung by their own leadership, which had earlier pronounced Petraeus an “honorable man” who could be relied upon for a truly independent judgement.  The General proclaimed his independence and claimed that his testimony had been in no way vetted, guided or reviewed by the White House.

He did not need such guidance.  He knew exactly what he was supposed to report and he did so, regardless that portions contradicted published statements by some of his own subordinate commanders, the overwhelming opinion of many senior officers, both active duty and retired, the Iraqi government’s own assessments, and god-only-knows how many “independent” inquiries and assessments.  Only the easily hypnotized media (think KATIE COURIC) and nervous Democratic centrists (read HILLARY CLINTON) seem to have been taken in by a summer long public relations campaign touting military “progress” in BAGHDAD.

Never the less, Democratic leaders fear the Resident’s magic spell.  Despite overwhelming polling numbers indicating that Americans want action winding down the war NOW, they fear to be tarred as surrender monkeys and be blamed for a military disaster when a “retreat under fire” is conducted by the same inept leadership that got us into the war in the first place.  So some Democratic leaders are already thrashing about for some kind of “bi-partisan” compromise that will give the administration the green light to continue the war in exchange for un-enforceable promises of future troop reductions.  SENATOR DICK DURBIN and other war critics have vowed not to let that happen.

Meanwhile MOVEON.ORG and other grass roots organizations are planning to hold timid Democratic leadership’s feet to the fire. MoveOn has done a good job of exposing Petreaus’s con job.  For your information, I am copying their critique below.

·                                 Petraeus is using "funny math." According to the Washington Post, Petraeus and the Pentagon are using a bizarre formula for measuring violence in the country. For example, deaths by car bombs don't count.³ And assassinations count only if you're shot in the back of the head—not in the front.⁴

·                                 Iraqis believe the surge has failed. According to a massive new ABC/BBC poll, every single Iraqi polled in Baghdad, the primary target of the "surge," said it had made security worse. Iraqis themselves overwhelmingly think the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, in terms of security, political cooperation, the economy, and other measures. Overall, 70% think the escalation worsened rather than improved security conditions. ⁵

·                                 The independent GAO report found that violence is up. A comprehensive Government Accountability Office report ordered by Congress found that "average number of daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007."⁶  In August, things got worse, with civilian casualties rising according to the Associated Press⁷ and the Los Angeles Times.⁸ 

·                                 For our troops, it's the bloodiest summer yet. More U.S. troops died every month this year compared to the same month last year.⁹

Petraeus claimed that he compiled his report without conferring with the White House. But the Washington Post recently reported that Petraeus or his staff joined daily conference calls with the White House and former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie this summer to "map out ways of selling the surge." The Post reported that Gillespie's White House political unit was "hard-wired" to Petraeus' military unit.¹⁰

We would all like to see life improving in Iraq. But it's not—it's getting worse. And if US forces stay in Iraq both Americans and Iraqis will pay a terrible price.

Today is the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history. The wounds of 9/11 are still fresh for many of us. After 9/11, President Bush used fear, lies and trumped-up intelligence to stampede us into Iraq. Now, America is bogged down in an unwinnable civil war, and Al Qaeda has regained enough strength to once again menace the United States.¹¹

It would be a tragic irony if, six years later, the administration used skewed intelligence to head off the growing momentum for an exit strategy from Iraq.

 SOURCES
1.  Washington Post, "Petraeus Backs Initial Pullout," 9/11/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2958&id=11221-3430421-BAOq9I&t=5 2. Ibid.
3. New York Times, "Time to Take a Stand," 9/7/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2941&id=11221-3430421-BAOq9I&t=6
4. Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2938&id=11221-3430421-BAOq9I&t=7
5. ABC News, "Iraqis' Own Surge Assessment," 9/10/07
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3571504
6. Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2938&id=11221-3430421-BAOq9I&t=8
7. Associated Press, "1,809 Iraqi civilians killed in August," 9/1/07
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20543737/
8. Los Angeles Times, "Iraqi civilian deaths climb again," 9/1/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2956&id=11221-3430421-BAOq9I&t=9
9. http://www.iCasualties.org
10. Washington Post, "Among Top Officials, 'Surge' Has Sparked Dissent, Infighting," 9/9/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2957&id=11221-3430421-BAOq9I&t=10
11. Washington Post, "Scarier than Bin Laden," 9/9/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2959&id=11221-3430421-BAOq9I&t=11

            Now is the time to flood the in boxes of your Congressperson and Senators with demands that they not be mesmerized.  Now is the time we expect action to finally end this dreadful war.

            Let’s honor the Dead of 9/11 by not continuing to “fill the unfillable” with those “yanked here in violence and hatred.”

PATRICK MURFIN listens to a voter in the McHENRY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PENNY POLL.

Despite a strong surge in support for Senator BARACK OBABA in the final day of the McHENRY COUNTY DEMOCRAT’S PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY PENNY POLL during the McHENRY COUNTY FAIR, New Mexico Governor BILL RICHARDSON hung on to eke out a close victory at the end of 5 days of voting.

            Voting was brisk all day Sunday. Lively, sometimes passionate, discussions erupted in front of the display of jars representing all eight Democratic presidential candidates. 

Results were based on the total contributions to each candidate and were tallied daily during the fair, as were cumulative results.  Voters could contribute as much as they liked and vote as often as they wished.  One cent equaled one vote.

While the poll was far from scientific, it offered an opportunity to examine the Democratic Presidential field.  “Every one had fun,” Party Chair THOMAS CYNOR reported, “As for drawing any conclusion from the results, I leave that up to others.”

Here are the final cumulative vote totals as of 5:30 Sunday night when voting ended:

Richardson                  15323

Obama                         14061

Clinton                          4957

Edwards                        1417

Biden                            1314

Gravel                             739

Kucinich                         700

Dodd                               559

            A total of $409.70 was collected from all candidate jars.  The proceeds will go to support the work of the McHenry County Democratic Party.

New Mexico Governor BILL RICHARDSON stretched his lead over Senator BARACK OBAMA Saturday in the PENNY POLL being conducted by the county DEMOCRATIC PARTY at the McHENRY COUNTY FAIR. in  WOODSTOCK.  Richardson came in first in the daily tally for the first time since he dominated on opening day of the fair.

            Obama continued to run a strong second in the cumulative vote. Senator HILLARY CLINTON retains significant support but still lags behind the frontrunners.

            Former Senator JOHN EDWARDS doubled Senator JOSEPH BIDEN’S vote on Saturday and regained a distant fourth place, followed by GRAVEL, KUCINICH and DODD, each unable to break out three digit totals on the fourth day of the Fair.

            “The story here is the preference for diversity,” as County Chair THOMAS CYNOR analyzed it.  “Just look at the top three vote getters.  And despite the help from a very generous lady with a large piggy bank, Governor Richardson has had an impressive showing of support. “

            At least one Republican County Board member known to be dissatisfied with the options in the Republican race and staffers for a high level GOP office holder were observed participating in the poll.

            Here are the cumulative totals at Fair closing on Saturday:

The PENNY POLL jars the the McHENRY COUNTY DEMOCRATS' booth at the County Fair.

Despite winning the daily tally of cash thrown into jars representing candidates for the DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL nomination on both Thursday and Friday, Senator BARACK OBAMA remains behind New Mexico Governor BILL RICHARDSON in the cumulative vote over the first three days of the PENNY POLL at the McHENRY COUNTY FAIR.

            Richardson surged into an early commanding lead on opening night with the enthusiastic support of a local Democrat, he has managed to continue to hold onto the lead even with strong showing from Obama the next two nights.  Senator HILLARY CLINTON lags behind the leaders but shows substantial support.

            Former Senator JOHN EDWARDS, has shown surprisingly light support and has been overtaken Senator JOE BIDEN for a distant fourth place.  The other three candidates mirror national polls in falling far behind the front runners although former Senator MIKE GRAVEL showed a strong appeal to a 4 year old constituency.

            At the end of Friday evening the cumulative vote totals were:

Richadson                   7556
Obama                         6798
Clinton                        2990
Biden                            870
Edwards                        761
Gravel                           546 + one CHUCKY CHEESE token
Kucinich                        357
Dodd                             196

            The Penny Poll is being conducted by the McHENRY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY at its booth in BUILDING C at the McHenry County Fair in WOODSTOCK.  Fair goers will have the opportunity to back their favorite candidates on Saturday and Sunday as well

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES at the recent CNN/YOU TUBE debate. Now you can pick your favorite int the PENNY POLL at the Party booth at the McHENRY COUNTY FAIR.

The McHENRY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY will conduct a presidential preference PENNY POLL at their booth at the McHENRY COUNTY FAIR in WOODSTOCK this week.  The public is invited to support their favorite Democratic Presidential contenders by adding a penny—or more—to jars representing each of them.  At the end of the fair the candidate with the most donations will be declared the winner of this highly unscientific poll.

            “With two candidates with Illinois connections and other strong contenders, interest has never been higher in the race for the Democratic nomination,” McHenry County Chair THOMAS CYNOR said.  “The public will get a chance to make their choice count next winter when the Illinois Primary will be held earlier than ever.”

            In addition to Illinois Senator BARACK OBAMA and current front runner Senator HILLARY CLINTON, the candidates include Senator JOSEPH BIDEN, Senator CHRISTOPHER DODD, former Senator JOHN EDWARDS, former Senator MIKE GRAVEL, Representative DENNIS KUCINICH, and Governor BILL RICHARDSON.

            The Democratic booth located in BUILDING C will also have information on local activities, volunteer sign-up sheets, and video presentations.

            The money collected will go to the McHenry County Democratic Party. 

            For more information call the Party at 815 788-9540, e-mail info@mchenrydems.com or visit www.mchenrydems.com.

One of scores of MOVEON anti-filibuster rallies around the country.

Well, it’s over now.  A bleary-eyed SENATE has voted not to end the filibuster against the LEVIN-REED AMENDMENT to the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT budget allocation.  The final vote was 52-47.  Four REPUBLICANS—GORDON SMITH (Oregon,) CHUCK HAGEL (Nebraska,) OLYMPIA SNOW (Maine,) and SUSAN COLLINS (ditto) voted to end the debate and proceed to a majority vote on the amendment. JOE LIEBERMAN (Turd, Connecticut) of course voted with the Repugnitans.  But so did HARRY REID himself—a parliamentary maneuver that allows him to resurrect the amendment for yet another vote.  TIM JOHNSON, still recovering from a stroke, was absent for the vote.

            The DEMOCRATS thus picked up one GOP vote.  But Collins, in a tough re-election race, said that she only voted to allow an up or down vote on the amendment but would have voted against the amendment itself. This is desperate, meaningless hair splitting since the amendment was doomed any way.  And if it had come to a vote, it would have passed, even with her opposition.

            Republicans whined that it was all just theater.  That it was.  But it is important theater.  It required the parade of Bush loyalists to stand up and defend the indefensible.  It also showed them up as obstructionists at a time when the overwhelming majority of American voters want Congress to take action to end this unpopular war. 

            Reid knows from bitter experience that the public does not appreciate the nuances of Senate tradition and have little patience for the hallowed tradition of the FILIBUSTER as a means of thwarting the majority of the body.  The GOP was able to use that repugnance to wipe up the floor with Democrats in the hotly contested judicial confirmations of the last Congress.  Even though most voters disapproved of the kind of reactionary judges Shrub had sent to the Senate, they hated the obstruction more.  Now it was Reid’s turn to rub the new minority’s nose in its own shit.

            In recent years the filibuster has not much resembled JEFFERSON SMITH’S lonely crusade—or even the epic rear-guard actions of the segregationist Democrats against the Civil Rights acts of the 1960’s.  Instead it has been a carefully orchestrated dance in which the mere threat of a filibuster, when the votes are sure to sustain it, is enough to kill legislation or an appointment.  That way no one actually has to put any effort into one.

            But Reid has told the Minority that they must actually hold their “extended debate.”  What is more he has threatened to bring the issue of ending the War back again and again with this amendment or with others—perhaps with ROBERT BYRD’S and HILLARY CLINTON’S amendment to withdraw the Resident’s authority to wage the war under the original 2002 measure obtained under false pretences.  There is also a pile-up of progressive legislation already passed by the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES that could be subject to the same strategy.  How bad with the GOP look filibustering, say, children’s health insurance?

            As for the Levin-Reed Amendment itself, it is far from the “bring-‘em-home-now” demands of much of the anti-war movement.  It is centrist in every respect echoing many of the recommendations of the IRAQ STUDY GROUP.  It calls for a draw down of American troops beginning 120 days after passage, limiting remaining troops to missions against AL-QAEDA—a provision repeatedly mocked by JOHN McCAIN as requiring that they “wear t-shirts” identifying themselves—and training Iraqi forces.  It also call for a diplomatic initiative with Iraq’s neighbors and mediation effort led by the UNITED NATIONS.

            Yet even action this limited represents a strong rebuke to the CHENEY/BUSH/NEO-CON war machine.  It would not stop the war, but it would put the breaks on and undoubtedly be followed by stronger measures.  Reid’s aggressive tactics represent a break with Democratic timidity that can not be underestimated.

            Like it or not, this war will not be ended in one fell swoop.  Some sort of steady, controlled departure is the best that we can expect from Congress.

            MOVEON recognized this, which is why it mobilized anti-filibuster actions around the country. They undoubtedly will be ripped as Democratic Party lackeys again.  Ignore the criticism.  Congretional Democrats are finally getting it right. 

CAROLYN QUINN

Once again we are proud to present another item of intrepid reporting by the always energetic and enthusiastic CAROLYN QUINN, Secretary of the McHENRY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY. This time she share a rare look at Democratic Presidential candidates at a Chicago forum for the AMERICAN ASOCIATION OF JUSTICE, formerly known as the ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL LAWYERS OF AMERICA.

            My dear friend Jacquee called to say she had been the third caller to a WCPT station and won two tickets to a play in the city.  Cat’s Paw at the Profiles Theater on Broadway near Irving Park – it was supposed to rather progressive and would I like to go?  You bet. 

So we were already planning to have an adventure in the city, and I privately chuckled to myself that I would have fun the next day (that’s now) casually telling somebody (that’s you) who might happen to ask me what I had done over the weekend: “Oh, I saw a play on Broadway -- and how was your weekend?” 

Well, knock me over with a feather, the trip to Chicago yesterday was a grander adventure that I would have ever daydreamed. And I do ever want to tell you about my weekend!  Thank you, Patrick for asking!

Jacquee called in the morning to say she heard that 5 Democratic Presidential hopefuls were going to be at the Hyatt in Chicago that same day. 

Okay, I have to back up and explain that my claim to being a rebel, hence being invited to share on Mr. Murfin’s blog, is that I do not have Cable, Satellite Dish or even an antennae to receive channels 2,5,7, & 9.  I believe that TV has become a giant marketing tool bent on getting me to buy stuff I don’t want or need, and further trying to get me to believe stuff I don’t necessarily want either.  So I think they should pay me to be on the receiving end of a television connection instead of the other way around.  But that’s another story.  Anyway, Jacquee periodically informs me of things from TV land that she knows I would have missed and I inform her of other things that don’t ever make it on TV, so it’s a good trade.

So, my friend told me that she wanted to leave a few hours earlier than planned and try to catch sight of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  Which other candidates were coming was still a mystery at that point – which only made her want to go more.

I’m thinking that if 5 Presidential Candidates were coming to Chicago I would have been able to locate the event online – or I would have heard in on the radio.  Chicago Public Talk should have been talking about it, I figured – even National Public Radio.  I believed Jacquee, but was filled with reservations.  This was not at all like planning a week in advance to go to Springfield for the Grand Opening of the Obama ‘O8 Campaign. Plus we had play tickets that shouldn’t get wasted, for goodness sakes.  I don’t remember telling her these doubtful musings, but I hesitated, which is not like me a bit, show she probably knew.  Despite knowing full well we didn’t have a chance of success, I decided, “What the heck, nothing’s wrong with a road trip on a beautiful day except using the gas and we were already planning to go to the city anyway.  A detour downtown could be fun even if we just ended up sitting on a Point at the Lake.”  So I started driving East with no reasonable plan in place.  Great conversation with a fellow progressive from McHenry County, though.

From the car, I called Bridget Gray, Chicago Field Director for the Obama O8 campaign.  Bridget was in Iowa promoting our favorite candidate and couldn’t help but wished us luck.  She said there were no tickets being given out to the public.  Hmm.  I called another friend who has an amazing network and usually gives me the scoop on local political activity.  She said you have to be an attorney to attend this particular event. Oh.  Well, I happen to know an attorney with a downtown office and thought he might be attending the event, but no.  He graciously talked us through the downtown traffic and one way streets, though.  Nothing like having a host when you visit a big city. 

Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were all at the Hyatt Regency downtown yesterday speaking at a forum for the convention of the American Association for Justice.  This I know because I was there.  But it was sheer audacity to be there; we didn't have a press pass or tickets or anything...  Neither did we have the $2000 it turned out other people paid for two seats at the event.

This was an incredible long shot, but Jacquee and I went inside the Hyatt (no secret service stopped us) and wandered around inside for a little while, finding an alcove with a poster on an easel promoting the fundraiser meet ‘n greet with John Edwards after the forum. A hotel worker came along and told us that the candidates were already speaking in room such and such two floors down, but that the overflow was down the hall watching on a large screen.   

Incredibly, we managed to hear all the candidates except Bill Richardson who had gone first before we got there. I already knew I would pretty much like what each of them would say.  And the Democrats did not disappoint me.  They all get it that the Iraq War is a screwed up mess that we never should have made in the first place.  They all get it that our health care system is a system that protects the pharmaceuticals first and people like me way, way later. And they all get it (as did all the attorney guests) that our American Justice System has been not only threatened, but has become truly endangered.  Every single one of our democratic candidates would have more power and more inclination to protect our constitution than the current administration has in any one of their big toes.  So, I was in the best of company.  The biggest surprise to me was Joe Biden.  His stage presence was riveting, and I just didn’t expect to find him so alluring.  But I did.

The most fabulous part of this adventure was personally meeting each member of the Biden family afterward.  We were in hall outside the reception room and glimpsed Senator Biden through the open double doors.  I asked an employee of the AAJ for advice on how to get an autograph, since he was Right There.  We were told to go ask his wife, who was just inside wearing a blue blazer.  Oh, my.  So we went in and met a delightful prospective first lady, who – get this: apologized to us for being disheveled.  She said she had only just, just got in from Iowa. Dina Biden would be the most gorgeous first lady ever. I didn’t get to hear any of her thoughts or ideas before the Senator approached, moving towards his wife, and I just happened to be standing there. He took both of my hands and asked me my name.  I told him I am Carolyn Quinn and absolutely thrilled to meet him.  He responded with a huge grin and introduced himself to me as Sean Flannigan.  Everybody around chuckled, but like I said before, you could have knocked me over with a feather.  I still cannot get over that he was joking around with me and then sat down for a mini conversation with us.

 So, he autographed a piece of paper I had and did one for Jacquee, and when I asked if he could send a representative to our Central Committee Meeting in McHenry County, he said, "Sure, that's a great idea ~ would you like Beau or Hunter?" He called his sons over and introduced us to them.  Oh, my word: these truly handsome young men, both of them friendly, happy and gracious, said they would truly love to come meet all my democrat friends in McHenry County.  And that's not all.  The Senator also signed a plastic convention hat from the table’s centerpiece for us to put up at our silent auction at our fundraiser Golf Outing come October 5^th in Harvard.

 Joe Biden was fantastic today.  I would say he made Barack look staid, which is saying a lot.  I will try to get a hold of the video tape from the event to share with whoever's interested. I'm just amazed and thrilled.  What a day...  (And we enjoyed the play, too)

--Carolyn Quinn