Caroline Kennedy was big, but I think the fact that Ted Kennedy endorsed him also is huge. Ted almost never endorses someone in the primary. The theme of Ted Kennedy’s speech at American University, and of Caroline Kennedy’s Times op-ed, is that Obama is John F. Kennedy’s political heir. It is pretty easy to see Ted’s attacks on 42 with lines like: we have to “to turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion.” I was personally more moved by Caroline:

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

Toni Morrison has added her endorsement to Obama’s collection as well. The Nobel Prize-winning author and Princeton professor wrote a letter to Obama explaining her decision, saying that “in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom.”

And, since it matters to me, “Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) will deliver the Democratic response to the State of the Union on Monday. And then Tuesday or Wednesday, she plans to endorse Barack Obama, numerous Democratic sources said.”

But as I will be the first to admit, the big question is whether Obama can have a large enough showing in NY, NJ and CA. If not none of this will matter.

I have decided to blog a little bit in the run up to Feb 5th and then see where we are. Gary is a pretty ardent Hillary Supporter, I am a pretty ardent Obama supporter. So, things might be interested.

I would like to start with a quotation from The Super Tuesday Strategy Guide by Christopher Beam and Chadwick Matlin:

Hillary Clinton: The proportional-delegate system doesn’t help the national front-runner because she can’t rack up a commanding delegate lead. So, for Clinton, Feb. 5 is about maximizing her advantage in states that already favor her. She owns the tristate delegate behemoth of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (468 delegates total). Plus, Arkansas (47) still remembers her as their First Lady before she became the country’s. She polls favorably—and Obama polls poorly—among Latinos, which means that Arizona and New Mexico (105 delegates total) are friendly states thanks to their 25 percent-plus Hispanic population, but Obama won’t cede those votes. The Latino-factor also helps her in California (441) where she already polls well, but she’ll need to spend considerable time there to fight back against Obama’s made-for-Hollywood life story.

States to tackle: Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Massachusetts
States to ignore: Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York

Barack Obama: Nationwide, Obama hopes to combat Hillary’s name-recognition with his own star power. Besides blitzing the national media, he’ll probably start with his home base, Illinois (185 delegates), and focus on states with caucuses like Kansas (41) and Minnesota (88), where he might repeat his Iowa victory, and open primaries in which Independents and Republicans can vote as well. Obama should also tackle purple states in which Democrats normally fare poorly, such as Colorado (71) and Missouri (88), to draw out Hillary-hating indies. Independents can also vote in the day’s biggest prize, California (441), although Hillary has an edge in Golden State polls. The other grand prize, New York (281), is also Clinton country, but Obama will likely try to foment an uprising in the Big Apple—a victory there would make for giddy headlines—and leave the boonies to Hillary.  

States to tackle: Illinois, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, California, New York
States to ignore: Arkansas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Delaware  

John Edwards: Assuming John Edwards stays in the race through Feb. 5, he’ll have to find a way to play kingmaker with his delegates. That means concentrating on states where he can pull in at least 15 percent of the vote, which is the Democrats’ threshold to receive delegates. He should concentrate on the South to capture the white vote that Obama doesn’t grab and Clinton doesn’t compete for. He already has roots in Georgia and could do well in Alabama and Tennessee (248 delegates total). From there, he can look to his strong second-place finishes in 2004 for inspiration. Missouri, Oklahoma, and Utah (164 delegates total) all leaned toward Edwards in 2004, and could do so again. There probably won’t be room for him in California or New York (722 delegates total), but squeezing any delegates out of those two would add a few jewels to the crown.

States to tackle: Alabama, California, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah
States to ignore: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, New York, New Jersey

I understand that many politicians are themselves religious, and that, moreover, it is politically prudent to invoke religious belief and speak in religious terms when 80% of the population identifies as Christian. Nevertheless, as a nonreligious individual, it is sometimes hard for me to stomach the religious rhetoric of politicians. The feeling arises due to a variety of factors, but perhaps the weightiest is the way that religion has been co-opted by social conservatives to justify the perpetuation of cruelty and suffering through, for example, denying gay men and women marriage rights, restricting a woman’s reproductive rights, etc.

When I first heard Barack Obama speak on politics and religion in June of 2006, I had a mixed feelings. However, with the perspective of another year, and another speech by Obama on religion and politics just passed, I’ve come to a different conclusion. Practically speaking, I think a frank discussion of religion and religious beliefs that accord with liberal policies is the only way for democrats to go. What puts me at ease is Obama’s particular approach to religion and politics. He wants to navigate the relation between the two in a way that does service to both religious and secular citizens.

In a Chicago Tribune article from three days ago, Obama is quoted as saying:

“One of the things that I’m always interested in when it comes to politics is making sure I can continually translate values that are grounded in my religious faith into universal values that appeal to all people. If I’m in church I might quote some Scripture. If I’m outside a church I might quote FDR. Hopefully, they both lead to the same place.”

While that makes a lot of sense to me, I’m curious to see how it plays with a more devout audience. Obama apparently anticipates the difficulty, saying in the June ‘06 speech “Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the bible, as many Evangelicals do, but in a pluralistic society we have no choice.” It is encouraging, therefore, to see religious leaders reaching out to Obama, as Pastor Rick Warren did by inviting Obama to speak at Saddleback Church for the Global Summit on AIDS and the Church in December of ‘06 (a contentious invitation within the congregation, to be sure).

Some are skeptical that the democrats opening up on religious life will have much of an effect. Michael Gerson writes that Obama’s openness about his religion will not be sufficient to win over Christian voters. His suggestion, for all democrats, is to soften their stances on the typically foundational issues for Christians: abortion and gay rights. However, it seems to me that this would be going to far. What excites me the most about Obama’s willingness to talk religion is that it puts him in a position of credibility, from which he can immanently criticize religious conservatives. For example, ‘You think gay men and women shouldn’t be allowed to marry? Well what about the injunction to love in 1 Corinthians 13? Or the injunction to not judge in John 8:7?’ Furthermore, for democrats to change their position on social issues would be to abandon their traditional base and lose their identity.

Obama, and hopefully a younger generation of Evangelicals, wants to move away from the polemics of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the like. Reverend Joel Hunter, for example, realizes that “our focus on arguments and opponents is not working.” What is encouraging about Obama is that while he may speak in religious terms, he does so while calling for fair mindedness. His goal is to foster discussion between individuals of differing religiosity. His candor is refreshing.

Although Hillary Clinton is “a frontrunner in early polling,” but that “won’t be enough to capture an early endorsement from either of the two umbrella organizations representing most labor unions.” Labor officials “say it may benefit them to delay an endorsement to maximize their ability to influence issues the candidates talk about.” Obama and Edwards officials have “indicated they’ll be happy if most labor unions withhold institutional endorsements because that would prevent Clinton from developing a runaway lead.”

The Huffington Post has a post that echoes Gary’s view of the New York Times, specifically comparing this to Republicans. Culminating in “if the New York Times hates John Edwards, why, that’s a good enough reason for any thinking person to support him.” I for one do agree with the HP that Edwards clearly does care about the poor. Edwards’ establishment of the non-profit was clearly within the law, and neither the Times nor anyone else provides proof that Edwards has violated any laws with respect to the running of the organization. The point though is about a higher standard-it is morally suspect that a man running an NGO on poverty, no matter the purpose, get to travel to Germany and hold Foreign Policy seminars on the company bill.

This smacks of an even greater hypocrisy because of Edwards’ Two Americas rhetoric.

I agree with Gary that it is significant that the New York Times broke this story. Given their proximity to Hillary Clinton, one cannot help but wonder about the provenance for this article (and its left column A1 placement). I’m suspicious of this idea because where does loss of support for Edwards go? Somehow, I don’t see that the voters who fell for Edwards’ message of the Two Americas and his apologies for his vote for the Iraq war are going to gravitate towards Hillary. Obama’s own campaign has been flagging, but if Edwards decomposes some more, maybe Obama will be the one to benefit.

Regardless, it’s a good piece of reporting by Leslie Wayne. It is a newspaper’s responsibility to raise these questions, and I think the she did a good job. <a href=”http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010317.php” target=_blank”>Captain’s Quarters spoke well to what my immediate reaction was:

Edwards used the poor as a Trojan horse to rake in an untold amount of money away from the prying eyes of the FEC. Instead of spending it on those he champions from the stump, he spent it on foreign-policy retreats. That has the obvious intention of bolstering his gravitas for another presidential run — and doing so in a sneaky, underhanded manner.

Making good on a promise he made earlier in the week, Senator Obama has made all of his budget requests, a total of $300 million dollars public. President Bush, threatening to use just the fourth veto of his entire administration is citing the amount of pork in the current budget as his reason, apparently he really misses that line item veto he had in Texas.

I personally don’t have the same tax payer penchant to see the death of earmarks and if people would realize those evil earmarks have built plenty of the things in their states they would calm down as well. That being said, I do think the process should require MoCs to disclose their earmarks. This adds transparency to the process and requires candidates to respond to questions from voters about money they are requesting. I see no reason why this, or any act of Congress with the exception of the most sensitive national security issues should not be revealed to the public.

The NYT today has a piece that seems to be a hit job on John Edwards, who after all has some how managed to avoid being pulled into the dirty politics between Obama and Hillary as of late. So the question is then raised, is this just another opp research memo? I think so, but it brings up topics that are worth discussing and addressing.

According to the article, Edwards used his 501(c)(4) organization, The Center for Progress and Opportunity, but tax filings show that the main beneficiary of the organization was not the poor but Edwards himself. The Times continues:

The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states. While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,” its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars” with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations. [...] But it was his use of a tax-exempt organization to finance his travel and employ people connected to his past and current campaigns that went beyond what most other prospective candidates have done before pursuing national office. And according to experts on nonprofit foundations, Mr. Edwards pushed at the boundaries of how far such organizations can venture into the political realm.

The article does however mention that the organization has done its intended purpose, and quotes a representative from the Edwards campaign defending the organization and its activities, including the work in New Orleans. But right after that passage the article jumps back in to say that he had meetings with: Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany; Henry Kravis, founder of KKR; and the chief executives of General Electric, Citigroup, Coca-Cola and DaimlerChrysler.

If this quote doesn’t set off the alarms that this is a hit job I don’t know what else will for you. While the merits of the Edwards’ apparatus and operation should be up to scrutiny and debate by voters, this article appears to be designed to drag Edwards into the same muck that Clinton and Obama are in with shady donations, dirty politics, and corporate ties, three things which Edwards has thus far been able to avoid.