The Wrong Speech

Obama's race speech was brilliant. Unfortunately it was the wrong speech.

Many things were explained by it, but the gist that I got out of it was: the history of race in this country explains the source of the hateful remarks of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Various sound bites were distilled and reported in the media, none of which are likely to influence casual voters.

The problem is, the pastors remarks were not racist, they were anti-American. An anti-war candidate's biggest weakness is the impression of a lack of patriotism. The picture of Obama smiling with pastor Wright puts him smack in the middle of the 'blame america first' crowd. This is political suicide. Look what it did to Ward Churchill, who described WTC victims as 'little Eichmanns'. Surely it is academically worthwhile to try to understand the motives of the enemy. Yet he lost his tenure at a liberal university, even though that is impossible for controversial speech.

Americans don't want to know that an anti-American tirade is an understandable consequence of historical injustice, they want to know deep in their gut that the candidate disagrees with it. The speech Obama should have given would have said: "America is blamed by many people for all sorts of things. Here's why they are wrong."

An Open Letter to Geraldine Ferraro

Dear Geraldine,

A political orator of Obama's caliber comes along once in a generation. When they are white males, they usually become president. Even Obama's political enemies admire his skills in this area. Yet you do not believe he could have even contended for the democratic nomination if he were white.

When you resigned from Clinton's campaign, we could have given you the benefit of the doubt. You're not a latent racist, you just honestly don't see the skills that we do - the genius that more than adequately explains his popularity. But now you have described his race speech as "brilliant" (which it was), and yet somehow still feel his support is race based.

If this is not convincing, consider this: every successful african american since the civil rights era has been accused of exploiting affirmative action to get where they did, without exception and regardless of their skills. It was only a matter of time before someone made that accusation about Obama. That someone was you.

I feel sorry that you were referenced negatively in a speech that may well be taught in future history classes, but you have noone to blame but yourself.

Clinton's Race Card

Why do the South Carolina primaries bring out the worst in some people?

Obama has admirably avoided discussing race in his campaign. I suppose it is just self interest. If he is labeled as 'the black candidate', he cannot possibly win.

For that very reason, the Clintons would like nothing better than to interject race into the campaign. But they have to be pretty subtle. And so they have. Speaking at Benedict College, a historically black college in South Carolina, Hillary praised African American Congressman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., for his political achievements: "He didn't get there you know by leapfrogging - he got there by lots of hard work day in and day out". The term 'leapfrogging' is intended to provoke jealousy of someone who gets ahead without waiting their turn.

This is not the first time they have insinuated this. The 'fairy tale' comment is relevant here. I don't see how people could interpret it as a racial slur, and I also don't believe Bill's claim that it only referred to Obama's inconsistent opposition to the war (which isn't true anyway). Rather it indicates to me that Bill has been obsessing over Obama's 'out of nowhere' rise to political success. Apparently Obama just doesn't know his place.

Superdelegates

From Wikipedia: Superdelegates are delegates to a presidential nominating convention in the United States who are not bound by the decisions of party primaries or caucuses. Superdelegates are elected officeholders and party officials.

In other words in a close contest, after the party rank and file have voted in the primaries, the party establishment gets to decide who really gets nominated. Thus the image of the smoke filled back room. Presumably the superdelegates demand political favors from the winning candidate.

Normally this would not be all that bad, but there is a potential issue this time. One of the Democratic candidates has much better connections with the Washington establishment, and the other is an African American. If Obama gets a majority of the popular delegates, and a back room deal is made to nominate Hillary, it will be very hard to avoid the notion of a racially motivated conspiracy. I don't know how strong the backlash would be, but I would bet many of those superdelegates would lose enough support that they would be vulnerable in their next election. It would certainly be very damaging to the Democratic party.

Between now and the convention, look for both sides to claim to be ahead in the delegate count. Obama will not count the superdelegates. The Clintons will count the ones who have specified a preference. But take it with a grain of salt. A preference is not a commitment.