Back in the day, I was a huge Clinton supporter (by the way, back in the day was like last year), today that has changed. Clearly, Obama has demonstrated that he can do well in the general election. If you examine the coalition of folks that he has brought together, i.e., blacks, whites, young, not so young, Independents, and Republicans (Operation Chaos not withstanding), there is no way that you can reasonably conclude that he is less, not more likely to do well as a candidate in November.

Also, contrary to political spin, the base is uber-important. Given Hillary's early support of the Iraq war, this is an achilles heel for her. White rural Republicans will not vote for a D in November. Period. We will need overwhelming support from our base. Obama has proven that he can not only rally the base, but he can reach beyond it, which is not too shabby for a general.

As the Democratic contest continues on, the media has finally picked up on a simple fact: that apart from an absolute avalanche of super delegates supporting her (which will not happen), Hillary Clinton cannot win this nomination. So, while she sends around NRA-like mailings against Obama (oh, the irony), we wait for the inevitable to become clear.

One of the remaining undeclared super delegates- Bob Brady- has to my knowledge not officially announced he is voting for Obama. He did announce, however, he would support who the voters of his district supported. That was Obama, by a wide margin.

So, Rep. Brady, get going. You know all about healing political parties, right? It is time to come out for Senator Obama officially, and start that process before it is too late.

According to MSNBC, the Democratic party is becoming fractured due to the intense intraparty wrangling, fueled by a hotly contested primary battle. So, now is the time for folks to choose sides. I don't care if it's Hillary or Obama (actually I prefer Obama), but what I do not want to happen is a loss in November. We've lost two in a row-- I'm sick of losing! I'm especially sick of losing when we should be winning...

msnbc.com article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24396887/

So I curious about people's read on the latest salvo's between Rev. Wright at the Press Club vs. Obama's reaction. I'm still sorting it out. Its not that any of Wright's comments in the Q & A section were so terribly off (though they were clownish to the point of resembling a stand-up routine at points) but jeesh! "With friends like this who needs enemies" as they say.

First Wright's Q&A session:

As an Obama delegate candidate in Bob Brady's First Congressional District (Button 23, Second Column), I have been closely assessing the Obama campaign's role in the context of Philadelphia politics and Philadelphia history as I have been participating in it.

No campaign has ever had the potential for voter mobilization that this one has.

Ed Rendell set the recent record for driving up voter turunout when he got over 220,000 votes for Governor in 2002, beating Bob Casey by over 3 to 1.

Look for Obama to far exceed Rendell's total, and Clinton to far exceed Casey's total.

This race is going to change assumptions about Philadelphia voter apathy for years to come. It is going to show that if you give people a chance to vote for something meaningful, they will take it.

Please review the page B 11 of the Inquirer for an advertisement placed by my father, former Mayor Bill Green. In it, he makes the case for Barack Obama. I believe it is a great perspective on the Democratic presidential primary. Check out this link k or attached pdf.

The LA Times has a story about the Obama campaign's refusal to hand out street money to Philadelphia ward leaders to work the upcoming primary:

"We've heard directly from the Obama organizer who organizes our ward, and he told us it's an entirely volunteer organization and that I should not expect to see anything from the Obama campaign other than ads on TV and the support that volunteers are giving us," said Greg Paulmier, a ward leader in the northwest part of the city.

Neither the Clinton nor the Obama campaign would say publicly whether it would comply with Philadelphia's street money customs. But an Obama aide said Thursday that it had never been the campaign's practice to make such payments. Rather, the campaign's focus is to recruit new people drawn to Obama's message, the aide said.

The article also includes quotes from Carol Campbell, Dwight Evans, and ward leaders Peter Wilson and Garry Williams. It also includes this great anecdote about Bob Brady:

Brady was sitting in his campaign office with two of his political lieutenants. He reached into a desk drawer at one point and pulled out a $50 bill -- street money. Brady tore it in two and gave each man a half. Then the men made a bet: Whoever pulled in the most Democratic votes that day from his precincts would get both halves.

Local color aside, this is a hard issue. On the one hand, it's problematic that political loyalties seem to be for sale to whichever campaign can pony up the cash (several people say that if ward leaders don't get money from Obama, they'll take it from Clinton). On the other hand, if Obama's going to cut into Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania, he's going to need a strong showing in Philadelphia. Obama's campaign is rich as Croesus, and coming from Chicago, he knows how this process works.

It's also unclear exactly what Obama gets by standing on principle. Maybe the Clinton campaign could try to play Philadelphia off against the rest of the state if they could claim that Obama had "bought" city support. But in a big campaign like this, obscure issues like street money only have so much traction. Another alternative is that the combination of volunteers, an alternative GOTV operation, and the support of political leaders who have already endorsed Obama will be able to get the deed done.

It's possible that intentionally or not, the Obama campaign is testing a theory: is it possible to win in Philadelphia with a combination of big ad buys and all-volunteer support?

One thing is clear: the fact that the Obama campaign has chosen to forego the traditional methods of getting out the vote in the city creates both a need and an opportunity. The need is for supporters of the Obama campaign to get out and volunteer. The opportunity is for alternative organizations who support Obama, including progressive ones, to show what they can do on the national stage.

Some random things to note:

1)The WIP Primary. If Angelo and the morning crew are any indication, Obama is going to do pretty well in the white guy from Philly demographic. For those who don't know, following the Rev. Wright controversey, Obama went on 610 WIP (Sports talk) morning show, and became buddies with the morning crew. This morning, he was back on again. Smart move for Obama.

There is probably very little that could brand you as acceptable to a middle-class to working-class white guy in Philly than to have Angelo constantly singing your praises.

2) My favorite guy, and likely next State Senator, John Dougherty is emailing around a poll showing him ahead of Anne Dicker and Larry Farnese. I will have more on Doc later today, because the ethics board responded to his stupid campaign finance challenge with a brief that basically destroys him.

But, anyway, for now Doc says it goes like this (last month in parenthesis):

Dougherty: 31 (14)
Dicker: 18 (13)
Farnese: 14 (4)
Undecided: 37

The earlier numbers are with Fumo in the race, so, Larry seems to have benefited the most from the exit of Fumo. If people want to beat Doc, given his lead, the only way it seems possible is to somehow pick between Larry and Anne. I have some, uh, personal experience with that type of scenario, and I can tell you how unlikely that is. And, progressive groups are already split (like Philly for Change vs. Liberty City).

Meanwhile, for Doc, rumors about grand juries swirl, and Farnese is about to hit him directly with corruption stuff.

3) We're number 1, we're number 1! Oh, crap, number one for this:

Philadelphia has the highest rate of incarceration in jails in the country, according to a new study from the Justice Policy Institute.

In Philadelphia county, 602 people were in jail for every 100,000 in 2006, according to "Jailing Communities: The Impact of Jail Expansion and Effective Public Safety," a study by the institute, a Washington, D.C., criminal-justice think tank. That's up from 369 per 100,000 in 1996, the study says.

Two Tennessee counties followed Philadelphia: Davidson (includes Nashville), with 596 per 100,000, and Shelby (includes Memphis), with 594.

Obviously, that is a shockingly high number. However, we might not really be number one, because the article ignores that it is misleading to compare Philly to other counties in the US. The article- certainly the headline at least- really wants it to look like Philly is special. But frankly, we do not know that to be the case.

If I am not mistaken, we are either the only, or one of the only Counties, to have its borders exactly match the City borders. So, Pittsburgh might be just as bad, but the suburbs of Allegheny County will help their numbers. Same goes for Detroit, et. al.

If we really want to see how Philly stacks up, we would need to see a City, not County, comparison. The article itself- talking about the overall rise- is important. But, c'mon Daily News, if that is your headline, you should at least acknowledge the obvious: as a City (who thinks of us as a County, anyway), we might not actually be number one.

I have issues with both Ed Rendell and Mike Nutter, but, generally, they are pretty likeable guys. And so, when they- and our City- get national attention, during the presidential race, I feel stirrings of pride.

As most know, in this campaign, Rendell and Nutter both endorsed Clinton. Rendell is close to the Clintons, making his endorsement pretty unsurprising. Nutter's endorsement has set off all sort of questions and theories. Personally, I really don't care why he, or Rendell are endorsing Clinton. She is a qualified candidate for President.

But, boy, I wish when they were being interviewed they wouldn't enforce stupid frames when talking about the race:

First, there is Nutter. His new line is subtly stirring the Jeremiah Wright controversey.

Obviously, the above interview is heavily edited, and at some point the reporter mentions that Nutter thought the Obama speech great. But, come on. When this controversey started, Clinton basically ignored it. After all, this was a fox news, right-wing controversey being fed in the conservative echo chamber. But, when the reality of her 'sniper fire' visit to Bosnia started to hurt her poll numbers, all of a sudden, Clinton became chatty about Wright:

"We don't have a choice when it comes to our relatives," she said. "We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend. Everyone will have to decide these matters for themselves. They are obviously very personal matters."

It clearly became the campaign spin, and Nutter basically repeated it. Stupid move. This is the same crap that we will be hearing from the GOP and Fox, over and over, come the fall. Obama's speech was a watershed moment in our national discourse. Muddying it like this is just plain stupid.

Then, there is Rendell...

One nice thing in recent years is that Democrats have started to debunk any notion that Fox is a legitimate news source. But, there is Fast Eddie, praising Fox News, with a straight face as 'fair and balanced.'

Yeah, real fair, real balanced:

Why would a Democrat legitimize an organization that puts out right-wing propaganda? How about when they told us all that Obama attended a Madrassa? Was that cool? Or how about when they go after African-Americans? Down with that?

It doesn't bother me that these guys are endorsing Clinton, and I don't care why they chose her. I loved when Nutter said that Clinton and Obama needed to focus on urban issues. But, I really wish they would just leave it at that- pushing their candidate, and pushing issues that matter to Philly and PA.

Obama is going to be our Presidential nominee. It makes me cringe to see our biggest political leaders use right-wing frames in an attempt to help Clinton.

As everyone here knows, I am a vocal supporter of Barack Obama's Presidential campaign, and have been for a while. My wife, meanwhile, is a supporter, albeit a somewhat less vocal one, of Hilary Clinton's Presidential campaign. That's right- Zorro is in a mixed marriage.

This weekend, Ilana + I had a rather, shall we say, enthusiastic discussion of the campaign. This wasn't a campaign of whether Obama or Clinton is the better candidate- each of us respects the other candidate + agrees that the other would make a fine President- the conversation centered on my fears that what we do this spring is, in the end, irrelevant, since the GOP will steal their third consecutive Presidential election. Ilana challenged me that, if I really feel that way, why do I even bother working to register people to vote, or even to bother to vote myself.

I supported John Edwards earlier in this campaign. When he dropped out, I became a probable Obama supporter. I liked him enough, I was excited about the… excitement, and I think Hillary Clinton, who would make a decent President, is sort of a war monger.

So, I had this whole post written in my head, where I was going to go through the thought process whereby I was picking Obama. There were his positives, his negatives; Clinton’s positives, Clinton’s negatives. It felt a lot like how I came to weigh all my choices and vote for Mike Nutter last year. Obama would have my vote and I would root hard for him in the primary, but there was not a whole lot of investment from my perspective.

I just watched Obama’s speech about race, and the comments that his pastor, Jeremiah Wright made that have brought Obama under fire from the right-wing media (which then leaked into the mainstream media). For those who missed it, his pastor said things like this:

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Well, let me first say on those words:

God Damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.

I am a patriotic American. In my ultra-privileged life, I have had the opportunity to wear the American flag on my chest, representing our Country at International races, hearing announcers call “United States of America” and realizing they were referring to me. (It is a crazy moment every time you hear it.) I dream every day of- and put my life on hold- to try to have the honor of representing our Country at the Olympics. And, one of the most emotional times of my life was when I was abroad during the September 11th attacks and stood in a blocks long line at our Embassy, just so I could touch our flag. I love this Country, and have been privileged by so many people and institutions within it...

But, God Damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.

In any case, Obama has come under all kinds of fire for these words of Jeremiah Wright. And so, today he gave what he billed as a major speech on race. I thought it would basically be Obama throwing his preacher under the bus, and asking for unity. Hey, that is politics, baby. We don't get people talking bluntly about these things, at least not until they are out of office.

Instead, I was continually stunned. Yes, he condemned the specific remarks of his pastor, which I suppose is necessary for a major party candidate for President. But, then said something to the effect of (I am paraphrasing) "I can no more disown him than I can disown my church or the entire black community." He said that while the specific tenor of the remarks were wrong, to condemn them without understanding the context in which they were made was ridiculous. And then he talked poetically and bluntly about race, racism, and the legacies of segregation and slavery. It was without question the best speech about race in our Country that I have ever heard a current national leader give.

He said that we all must understand the world in which African-American churches exist in, with segregated, crappy schools that are still segregated and still crappy. He talked about the lack of health care, and jobs. And, echoing the Constitution and Frederick Douglass, he talked about a union that is never perfect, but can be ever more perfected. And he then brought around inequality, and talked about the challenges we all face, of every race: the white woman hitting a glass ceiling, the white man laid off in a search for corporate profits, and an immigrant struggling to feed his family. He talked bluntly about the stain of slavery, but did so in a way imploring us to follow our better angels.

Obama could have gone another way here, because there is almost a 100 percent chance that he will be the Democratic nominee anyway. But he didn’t. From our own City, he challenged our Country to face the legacies of race and inequality.

Today, Barack Obama became a President in my mind, and I am excited to click his name in four weeks.

I have been pretty busy over the last few weeks, and haven't been able to touch on as much as I wanted, so I thought I would give a quick round-up of some random things worth noting. Most of this is stuff I would like to (and still may) write more on, but have not had the time.

1) As Helen noted earlier, Arlen Specter has come out swinging for Philly, in the Carl Greene vs. HUD pissing match. That is good news. Specter passed a 'Sense of the Senate' (read:non-binding) resolution demanding that 50 million go back to HUD PHA. HUD can simply ignore it, and as the article notes, they are hinting they might do just that. At that point, Specter and Bob Casey Jr. can probably be more assertive. Kudos on this, Senator Specter.

We don't talk about Arlen very much. However, let me just say that I think he is a total joke. Is that wrong to say now? I know that occasionally Arlen burps out a decent vote (like SChip). But I cannot take his faux-moderation, which he uses to certify radical Supreme Court Jurists like Sam Alito, and to toothlessly go along with the war, with torture and with just about anything Dubya wants. He will once in a while roar, but like his conduct with the present and past Attorney Generals, there is not much behind the curtain.

But hey, he does use that same Judiciary platform to inquire into whether the Patriots cheated in the Super Bowl...

My random prediction is that Arlen loses to Pat Toomey in a Senate Primary in 2012, who then promptly loses himself, to someone like... Mike Nutter.

2) There was yet another attack on the ethics boards right to regulate campaign finance reform. This time, the lawsuit is by Cozen O’Connor, basically as an attempt to help Bob Brady pay legal bills out of Tom Knox’s challenge to him.

So, lets see here… We have Bob Brady almost getting kicked off of the ballot, because of a type of technical mistake that the party loves to go after. Does he come out and try and help end the practice, seeing the faults of his ways? (Remember this post? "Will Congressman Brady Now Help Us End Gotcha Ballot Challenges"). No, instead he gets Cozen to represent him, and then afterwards, instead of working to fix it... they go after campaign finance? Awesome.

I will have more soon, but, I suspect the case will be thrown out for lack of standing.

3) On a predatory lending/mortgage foreclosure note- it is bizarre to see big ol Bear Sterns fail, almost exclusively because of their involvement in subprime lending. Way back in 2001, I started doing a little research on foreclosures in Philadelphia. Even back then, you saw a lot of Bear Sterns as the foreclosing entity. And now, they have failed. I have no yay or nay for that fact that they were bailed out, but it sure would be nice if you government put that much care into… people.

Like Countrywide and New Century and so many other subprime lending failures before it- a ‘market correction’ that puts these lenders out of business it not a particularly new idea. See page 61 of Lost Values, for example. However, the same point remains there: a market correction and/or a bailout may ‘solve’ problems for Wall Street, but none of that stops an ongoing wave of foreclosures in our, and every other, City in the US.

4) I have seen the Obama campaign in three places around the City so far, registering people to vote. Very cool. As they note over there-->, you must register to vote by next Monday in order to be able to vote. If you know of anyone who needs to do this, git ‘er done.

5) Finally, thanks to Alex and Drupal: for those who have not noticed, there is now a small editing function when you write a blog entry that allows you

• to bullet;

1. make lists;

use bold, use italics, and embed links, all with just a click. (Make sure that you use "http" when you put those links in.

Oh, and it lets you do what all those on blogs love to do:

Easily Quote Yourself.

Hopefully that will be helpful.

Yesterday, I heard my first ad of the Pa presidential campaign. It was an Obama radio spot, aimed at young people, imploring them over and over and over that they have to register Democratic to be able to vote in the primary. I suppose this means that it has begun... (I will write more at some point, but I am about 99% likely to vote for Obama.)

On that note, I am sure most of you have noticed the plethora of "guides to PA" that Newspapers have been publishing. (Ie, "this is what water ice is.")

The City Paper has put out something a little more useful, under the the title "The Pandering Guide." The basic idea is that, like the Iowa Caucuses forcing candidates to announce themselves "Ethanol Queens" and the like, Pennsylvania has just a few needs. As the CP notes, our needs don't generally involve propping up agribusiness, and instead focus on... poverty and infrastructure and all that cheery stuff:

So, Barack and Hillary, forget all that talk about the "right way" to order sandwiches, and behold the true path to Philadelphians' hearts: cold, hard cash, and some serious political promises. And hey, unlike corn ethanol, these panders have the benefit of being worthwhile.

So, they want solutions from the candidate. Maybe we should ask for one, too... What program is our ethanol?

There's so much rhetoric about the demographics and symbolism of the Clinton-Obama split in the Democratic electorate (young/old, black/Latino, male/female, rich/poor, vision/experience, change/restoration, etc.) that it's refreshing to read journalism that breaks down what this means, and why campaigns for candidates who don't differ sharply on much really don't seem to like each other.

This Washington Post piece on union organization in Ohio reads in part like typical on-the-campaign-trail stuff, but also notes that while most of the AFL-CIO unions have backed Clinton, Obama's won most of the the splinter group Change To Win, including the Teamsters, the hotel and service workers, and others. Change To Win broke with the AFL-CIO over political and organizational strategy, and has a greater emphasis on grassroots organization and expanding the base of union workers.

Likewise, The Nation has an excellent piece that reads the Clinton/Obama split in the light of Howard Dean's 2004 Presidential campaign and his management to date of the DNC. Since Dean lost in 2004, it wasn't clear whether his message and his strategy was really the wave of the party's future or just a neat new way to raise some money. Likewise, Dean was criticized for devoting DNC funds to organization in all fifty states rather than focusing on a few battlegrounds to build a larger congressional majority.

Well, now Obama is riding Dean's wave, connecting with younger and affluent voters on the web, organizing precinct-by-precinct from the bottom up, and winning delegates by rallying Democrats and independents in heartland states. He's Dean with vastly more charm, more profile, and more discipline. Meanwhile, the Clinton folks are stinging at the fact that they're not only unable to beat back Obama, but may find it difficult to win the war of ideas and resources against a vindicated Dean at the DNC.

That title sounds a bit like a "What I Did Over My Summer Vacation" essay - because this is essentially going to be a comment with a title stuck on it as opposed to a "post" (in keeping with Dan's request that we write posts).

Actually, the calculus is fairly simple:

I see little of significant difference between them policy-wise. So, as much as I dislike "identity politics," or whatever the right term is, my decision for supporting Obama is based on how I judge the campaigns they've run, and my sense of the comparison between Obama and Clinton as people.