Hope we can believe in

With due respect and apologies to Barack Obama, we always hoped; we just never believed. That was your challenge.

I cast my very first vote in a presidential election for Jesse Jackson. I was a freshman at a historically black college, and Rev. Jackson was the first serious Black candidate for president that I had seen. When Jackson visited our campus for a campaign rally, he held court for almost an hour -- preaching to us in a way that only a Black candidate could. When he closed with his signature, "Keep Hope Alive!" we went nuts. We were proud. We were hopeful. But we never really believed he could be president.

Just an election cycle ago, there were whispers of a young African American senator from Illinois who might be well positioned to be president. We indulged the fantasy, but he is so young. And that name? He's talented but it wasn't likely. Not in America.

From our perch of disbelief, he seduced us with his electrifying 2004 convention speech, and our hearts yearned to believe. We swooned...cautiously. We'd been here before.

We're pretty used to seeing African Americans in the highest rungs of power. Ron Brown, Alexis Herman, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice will no doubt make their way into Black History books. Logically, it should have been a short step from a cabinet member to the president, but we have learned not to believe.

Carter G. Woodson warned us a century ago that if you controlled a man's thinking, you don't have to worry about his actions. If a race or class of people believed they couldn't make a difference, or that people who looked like them could have a place in this democracy, that is the ultimate form of voter supression.

We saw the effects in this election cycle. Early in the primary, Obama polled poorly with Black voters, who never really thought he had a legitimate chance at being elected. We were hopeful but wary. Many opted for Hillary Clinton, the better known candidate. She had the more realistic chance of being elected, went the thinking.

In the midst of our skepticism, something stirred in Iowa, and we got our first permission to believe. Obama's candidacy became our generation's March on Washington. He empowered us to work for change. We emailed small contributions, volunteered in our communities, called voters across the country. As we took ownership of our campaign, the dream became more real every day.

This morning when the polls opened, I joined a line of African American voters that snaked around a soccer field, zigzagged through a parking lot, weaved into and out of a church sanctuary and ended at voting terminals in a church gymnasium. It was the last four hours of this incredible journey. Across the country, we were all coming together, White and Black, young and old, rich and poor, to send a message and claim our future.

There's only one reason we could do that. You asked us to hope. You taught us to believe. That is your legacy, Mr. President.

By the time we get to Arizona

For Barack Obama irony, if not victory, might await in Arizona. Depending on whose polls you believe, the Democrat could be on the verge of an electoral landslide. He has made significant gains in a whole range of battleground states and now turns his money and attention to Arizona, the home of his opponent, Sen. John McCain. 

I can't say that I blame Obama. The only thing better than a wipe out would be one that includes Arizona. That would be the ultimate poke in the eye, and McCain knows it. Now he has to divert funds allocated to other battles to defend his home turf. 

Here's the irony. If Obama is successful, the state that gave the most resistance to recognizing a Black man, Martin Luther King Jr., could be the state that plays a pivital role in electing the nation's first Black president.

I would find an Arizona victory satisfying since John McCain was one of the politicians who fought the passage of the King Holiday. In fairness, he has since apologized for his actions, but who cares?  Some of the things we see in this campaign expose a mindset that looks like the same old McCain. The McCain who only came around to support the holiday after increasing public pressure, the NFL cancelling a super bowl in Arizona, and an overwhelming 338 - 90 vote in the House of Representatives. When it became apparent that he was on the wrong side of history, McCain got on the bus.

Glad he found enlightenment, but it shouldn't have been that hard. Recognizing an American who stirred the moral consciousness of a nation, earned worldwide recognition for his nonviolent movement for equality and peace, and then gave his life as his last great act of sacrifice should have been a no brainer. Not for Arizona, however. They remained the symbol of an unnecessary battle.

Many from my generation will always remember that time period through the sentiment of Public Enemy's hip hop classic, "By the Time I Get to Arizona." It was one of the defiant and revolutionary expressions of the moment. Thanks to Chuck D, even though we bobbed our heads, we never really forgot Arizona. 

That was then, however. This is 2008. The holiday is official. Chuck D is main stream. Obama is playing offense. A man of color is returning to Arizona, not as part of a movement seeking acceptance, but leading a campaign exacting respect. 

Public Enemy's classic has made the journey with me from my walkman cassette to my iPod touch. Now I'm planning to take it into the voting booth. I'm hoping the verdict on an unfortunate time in American history can be reached by the time we get to Arizona.

Top 10 reasons to reject McCain

With apologies to Dave Letterman and the Home Office, here are the People's Pundit's Top Ten Reasons to Reject Sen. John McCain:

No. 10 -- After creating signs, posters, commercials, and gazillions of specialty items proclaiming 'Country First,' McCain subjects us to endless recitations of his "I'm a war hero" story. Yeah, you got smacked around for five years. Get some counseling. Enough already.

No. 9 -- Speaking of counseling, after selectively dribbling out parts of his medical records, we learned he hasn't released ANY mental health records. Ok tough guy. You just reminded us that you were tortured for five years and subjected to inhuman cruelties. Shouldn't we get some assurances that you won't literally go cuckoo for coco puffs?

No. 8 -- Cindy Lou? Ok, I'm not mad at you for this one. Crashed three Navy planes, Millions of dollars. Ex wife payoff fund, Millions of Dollars. Marrying a stupid-rich know-your-place Barbie and getting seven houses, 13 cars and your own plane while she stands behind you gazing adoringly? Priceless.

No. 7 -- Insanity: Employing the Hillary Clinton campaign strategy of highlighting your experience, denigrating Obama's positivity, and randomly smearing your opponent yet expecting a different result. Helloooo! Get a clue. We already saw how this movie ends.

No. 6 -- Suspending his campaign to go campaign. In the worst of all stunts, McCain gambled his reputation to try and lead 535 people who had no inclination or reason to follow him and over whom he had no leverage. Stupid.

No. 5 -- No poker face -- Telegraphed to the entire world when he was angry, exasperated and disgusted in every debate. How are you going to conduct serious, hardnosed negotiations when everyone knows how to push your buttons?

No. 4 -- He dissed Dave. Really? You thought it would be a good idea to blow off Dave Letterman to go do an interview on the SAME NETWORK? Really?

No. 3 -- Joe the Plumber. After lifting up Joe the Plummer as the symbol of the poor would-be business owner who can't pay taxes on a quarter of a million dollars, we find out he's not a plumber, his first name isn't Joe, he had no plans to buy a business, he makes $40,000 a year, he didn't pay his taxes, and he's a Republican. Naturally, these revelations are evidence of an Obama smear.

No. 2 -- Remained unacceptably silent when attendees yelled "kill him" and "off with his head" about Obama, then whined that Rep. Lewis hurt his feelings. How do you sleep at night?!

And the No. 1 reason to reject McCain.... (drum roll please)

No. 1 -- We can't take four years of hearing him say "My Friends" without wanting to scream "Kill Him!" or "Off with his head!"

The audacity of nope

It's no less than amazing that the entire Democratic party has waited five days past the unofficial selection of a nominee to let Hillary Clinton finally accept what most people have known since the end of February -- that voters had the audacity to choose Barack Obama over her.

Much has been written about the strategy that allowed Barack Obama to rack up 11 straight wins in February and in the process, build an insurmountable lead. But the legendary No Surrender campaign told us that the 11 state sweep and 100 delegate lead didn't matter. Ohio and Texas were the states that were important. So we all waited for those two, and after she won the popular vote in both --and lost the delegates in Texas -- the basic math had not changed. Neither had the audacity.

We were told to look to Pennsylvania, to ignore caucus states, to count the censured Florida and Michigan, to focus only on the large states she won, to focus exclusively on the popular vote. And while we focused on the incredible morphing metrics, we conveniently overlooked that the delegate count remained insurmountable.

Superdelegates began eroding in March. A 100 plus superdelagate lead began dwindling to the point that it was completely erased. We settled the Michigan and Florida debacles. Networks began the delegate countdown clocks. And early Tuesday evening, virtually every news organization made it official, Barack Obama was the nominee.

Yet here we are five days later, waiting for Hillary to admit what has been general knowledge around the globe. The election was hers to lose, now, despite losing, she acts like it is hers to confer.

The audacity.

Amazing gracelessness

Imagine if after this year's Superbowl the New England Patriots had stayed on the field. Led by Tom Brady, they decided that they weren't quite ready to acknowledge the loss. They were in no rush to get off the field. They were going to huddle. Call another play or two and see how they felt.

Why shouldn't they? Over the course of the season, they had certainly performed better. They had won more games. They want to make sure that their season was fully appreciated by New York fans. They then invite Patriots fans to let them know what the fans think the team should do next. Until then, they would just wait on the field.

Sound ridiculous? That's the spectacle we are witnessing with Hillary Clinton.

After Barack Obama wrapped up the nomination last night, Hillary Clinton couldn't muster an acknowledgement. As late as today, Clinton's backers are still making the rounds on TV claiming that she shouldn't be rushed into acknowledging her loss.

The clock is out of time. The players have left the field. The stadium is emptying, and Clinton's team is still on the field calling plays.

Last night we expected to see a display of grace. What we got was a petty, self-serving speech. And to make matters worse, it was followed by an attempt to use the leverage of her voters to muscle her into the VP slot.

It would have been so easy to congratulate Obama and acknowledge the accomplishment of earning the nomination. That would not have precluded her from launching her VP campaign. Instead, holding out indefinitely is an amazing lack of grace. She can do better.

John McCain's bearings

One commentator called it "the most wince inducing moment of the campaign." He might have been right.

While retaliating to a John McCain statement that Barack Obama is the candidate of Hamas, Obama bristled that John McCain had "lost his bearings."

Not wanting to be left out of the victimhood game that seems the enthrall all the candidates this year, McCain's campaign shot back that Barack Obama was poking fun at McCain's age.

Later at a press event, while McCain was defending his comments, Joe Lieberman stepped to the microphone and volunteered this: "I just want everyone to know that I checked John McCain's bearings this morning, and they are just fine."

Wince. Yuck!

This is the guy who brought us Jomentum, just for a bit of context.

Awkwardness aside, if I were fighting the perception that I was too old for a job, I wouldn't want to do it by putting out the message that someone has to check my bearings for me. I'll check my own bearings, thank you very much. I'm young enough to do that.

But Joe Lieberman thought it would be cute to say he checked John McCain's bearings. That gives me a visual that I just didn't need. What two consenting adults do in the sauna when nobody is watching is their business. I don't need to hear about it at a press conference.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. :-)

How Obama courts the Clintonites

I know Hillary Clinton supporters say they won't vote for Barack Obama in the Fall, but John McCain yesterday made it easier to bring the Clintonites back home.

In a speech laying out his judicial philosophy, McCain all but promised judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

He didnt say it explicitly, but he used all the code words as he addressed the largely conservative crowd.

So now the question would be to Clinton supporters, who are largely activist women, do you really want to play a role in reversing a woman's right to choose what to do with her body?

You might think Obama is an empty suit, but you can count on him to fight for the issues you support most passionately. Think about it.

-Sent from my mobile device.

Obama's debate debacle; grappling with the gotchas

I think we were beyond the halfway point of last night's debate when Charlie Gibson announced that 'now we will move to the issue Americans care most about, the economy.'

An interesting admission from anchors who seemed to glee in the endless stream of gotcha questions. From bitter, to Rev Wright, to Bosnia sniper fire, the debate seemed to deliberately avoid anything that looked like a substantive issue.

Too bad for Obama because he never fares well in those kinds of formats. Positioning himself as the gentleman of the race, he clings (yes, I said it) to being civil when the situation clearly calls for a street fight. A gentleman will never hit a lady, even if she is backhanding him with the broad side of a shovel.

I've often wondered why, after leading for so long, he can't or won't knock her out already. If Clinton had the advantages that Obama has presided over for the last few months, I'm sure she would have ended him in a grand a brutal fashion by now. Obama's the guy in the coliseum who has his opponent down on her back and rather than deliver the final blow, he turns and walks away. Everyone in the stands knows that were the situation reversed, she wouldn't hesitate to lower the hammer.

Clinton smells blood. The beating Obama got last night will pale compared to the beating to come. That is, unless he learns to shed the nice guy image and fight back. We all want to think optimistically about the new, diplomatic era of politics, but it ain't here yet. And you won't get to the big dance until you master the old fight.

I guess this is what the ABC anchors realize when they tossed both candidates into the ring and let them pummel each other for the first half of the debate. It's not the substance we hoped for but it's probably a fight they were destined to have.

I like the way Gail Collins sums it up in a NY Times op-ed:

I know it’s been a hard couple of weeks, people. You were all excited about this election and now you feel like someone who got all dressed up for a great event and wound up at a B-list party with a cash bar. You never want to hear the words “bitter” or “Bosnia” again. And the only political story that you’ve really enjoyed lately is the one about Cindy McCain’s list of favorite recipes being cribbed from The Food Network.

Clinton and the credibility gap

It's probably not fair to call the latest Hillary Clinton dust up a lie, but it fits so neatly into the narrative, it's not surprising why so many people do.

A New York times article, Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells, details yet another Clinton story debunked by the people who were there. Naturally, when it follows the Bosnia bungle so closely, observers start connecting the dots.

I've never had a problem with a Hillary pile-on, but I don't think she deserves it here. Unlike her Bosnia 'misstatement', we can clearly establish where she got this story:

The sheriff’s deputy, Bryan Holman, had played host to Mrs. Clinton in his home before the Ohio primary. Deputy Holman said in a telephone interview that a conversation about health care led him to relate the story of Ms. Bachtel. He never mentioned the name of the hospital that supposedly turned her away because he did not know it, he said.

Deputy Holman knew Ms. Bachtel’s story only secondhand, having learned it from close relatives of the woman. Ms. Bachtel’s relatives did not return phone calls Friday.

As Deputy Holman understood it, Ms. Bachtel had died of complications from a stillbirth after being turned away by a local hospital for her failure to pay $100 upfront.

“I mentioned this story to Senator Clinton, and she apparently took to it and liked it,” Deputy Holman said, “and one of her aides said she’d be using it at some rallies.”

At worst, she's guilty of not checking the story out before using it, which is a stunning oversight. Negligence but not necessarily dishonesty.

But that's the problem that results when you are caught deliberately saying things that aren't true. Clinton's well deserved credibility gap has made an issue out of what looks like an honest mistatement.

We should give her a break on this one. I'm sure she'll earn our scorn soon enough.

Hillary channels Rocky

Maybe someone forgot to tell her how the movie ends.

Yesterday Hillary compared herself to Rocky Balboa, the fictional gritty boxer from Philadelphia.

Speaking on April 1 at an AFL-CIO event at a downtown Sheraton, Mrs. Clinton suggested that Mr. Obama lacked the stomach for a prolonged primary fight.

“Senator Obama says he’s getting tired of it—his supporters say they want it to end,” said Mrs. Clinton. “Well, could you imagine if Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those Art Museum stairs and said, ‘Well, I guess that’s about far enough?’ That’s not the way it works. Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up.”

Rocky? Really Hillary? Will someone tell her the movie didn't end when he ran up the stairs? The movie ended when he got pummeled to death and lost to Apollo Creed, a Black man. Let's not make too much of analogies to that movie, shall we?

Clinton propses bowl off, Insert groan here

You knew it was coming, folks. After Obama's abysmal attempt at bowling (37 points in seven frames), Hillary Clinton today challenged Obama to a bowl off. It was utterly predictable, not very clever, full of cliche's and plays on words, and a pretty sad April Fool's joke. You even hear the polite applause and laughter.

Just in case you were wondering if Hillary was capable of exercising any kind of restraint, the pandering continues...

The mute Chelsea...

Love this line from Maureen Dowd...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/opinion/23dowd.html?ex=1358830800&en=39ab771d166ef64c&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Bill's transition from elder statesman, leader of his party and bipartisan ambassador to ward heeler and hatchet man has been seamless — and seamy.

After Bill's success trolling the casinos on the Las Vegas Strip, Hillary handed off South Carolina and flew to California and other Super Tuesday states. The Big Dog relished playing the candidate again, wearing a Technicolor orange tie and sweeping across the state with the mute Chelsea

That's too funny. I've been wondering why I see Chelsea everywhere and have never heard her voice once.

Crybaby Clinton

The buzz today was a boohoo from former front runner Hillary Clinton.

In a Boston Globe article Clinton is quoted as saying:

"It's not easy. It's not easy," she said. "This is very personal for me. It is not just political. It is not just public. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game; think like who is up who is down. It's about our country.

"Some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not. Some us know what we will do on day one and some of us haven't thought it through enough," she said.

Even through her tears, she is on message.

So what do we make of it? The staff was quick to put the spin on the sob. 'It’s because she’s so passionate. This is the Hillary we know. She cares so deeply, she’s emotional.'

Right. She’s human behind closed doors. It reminds me of when President GW Bush's staff tries to convince us that he is really intelligent and articulate behind closed doors. It’s the cameras that make him sound like a doofus.

I don’t buy either one of them. They are who we see they are. They have all been too calculating and consistent through too many different situations to convince me otherwise.

For Clinton’s good fortune, she seems to be getting sympathy for her outburst of emotion. It’s a time honored tradition from every playground in the world: If the girl cries, she can usually get the boys to stop picking on her.

F stands for Hillary

It happened today. Wolf Blitzer used the F word when discussing Hillary Clinton.

For weeks, we have been watching the second half of the media’s favorite Comfort the afflicted then afflict the comforted. Since the race began, Hillary has been comfortable. She was the clear frontrunner -- annointed by the Republican brain trust as the defacto nominee.

Barack Obama was the neophyte who didn’t stand a chance. A funny thing happens when voters get involved, however.

Barack gave an electrifying speech at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner, and he as been on the rise ever since. The latest polls either have him ahead or dead even with Hillary Clinton, not just in Iowa, but New Hampshire. Next stop, South Caroline.

And so Wolf, CNN’s Captain Obvious suggested used the F word to describe her candidacy.

Freefall.

Don’t get to comfortable, Barack. The media will come after you. :-)

What the Huck! Could it really be all in a name?

I mentioned to a friend of mine that Mike Huckabee seemed to be surging in Iowa, and she laughed and replied dryly that America would never elect someone with the last name Huckabee.

It just doesn’t flow well. “Can you imagine having to say Huckabeeonomics?” she continued, referring to how easily President Reagan’s name could be transformed into Reaganomics.

Well for that matter, we’d have to write off Obama, I continued. You can’t have Obamanomics. These are serious issues to grapple with when choosing a president. We can easily say Reaganomics or Clintonian but what do we do with a Huckabee or an Obama?

It’s not enough to aim to write a new chapter in history. You have to sign that chapter with a name we can pronounce. :-)

Huckabee — finally a Republican heating up the Iowa race

Let's face it, the top tier of Republican presidential candidates were boring. No matter how long I watched them, I couldn't seem to get excited. I've blogged about the top tier Democrats and knew I should give their counterparts some attention but just couldn't bear it.

Then from out of nowhere comes a candidate with a big R on his chest (The R stands for Reagan, not Republican, of course.) who swoops down and tackles issues with a single bound. He doesn't sound scripted, focus group tested, or calculated. To me, he seems to have what the others have been trying desperately to manufacture. Authenticity.

Mike Huckabee is now surging in the Iowa polls because, I'm guessing, more than a few Republicans are taking him in like a breath of fresh air. Even with his silly Chuck Norris endorsement commercial, he created so much buzz and free media from pundits playing it, that it seems to be a shrewd strategic move. Each time one of the punditry elite played it to guffaw and then pick it apart, the good Governor Huckabee must have been chuckling to himself.

I had been hearing his name here and there and not really following him until I stumbled on this clip on YouTube.

Crisp and authentic. Even Wolf didn't know what to do with that kind of straightforward answer.

Can you imagine getting that kind of straightforward answer from any of the other top tier candidates? Mitt Romney is so manufactured. Him and his wife look like they have come straight out of a Ken and Barbie box. They smile pretty and on cue, and then cheerfully recite responses that have been carefully constructed so as not to offend or unnerve.

Rudy Guiliani. Well Joe Biden called his number in a recent debate. The only thing that guy has to offer in any sentence is a noun, a verb, and 9-11. And what some like me are scratching our heads and wondering is what did he actually DO on 9-11? Sure he was everywhere on TV filling a void left when the president finally managed the energy to scamper out of the elementary school classroom and promptly buried his head in the ground for the rest of the day (but that's another post).

But what did Rudy do? What lasting policy changes did he offer to make New York safe from another attack. What visionary new era did he usher in with his bold striking response. What is different in New York today than Sept. 10, 2001 because of his leadership? I can't think of a single thing.

If that wasn't bad enough, he is running for the nomination while he disagrees with the majority of his voting base on the issues they care most about. That's a winning strategy? I'm just counting down to the implosion that will end this ridiculous ride.

And finally that brings us to John McCain. I must admit that I liked Sen. McCain's maverick candidacy during the 2000 election. Then he was authentic. And then, for some unexplainable reason, the senator went and sold his soul to George Bush. He might have gotten a better deal from the devil.

McCain aligned himself with the administration on the most unpopular issue at the most inopportune time, and it didn't even resonate as a principled move (as I'm sure his advisers must have convinced him). It came across as a pathetic man selling out too much too late. He sold his soul and got nothing of value in return. He should be glad there is even a Wikipedia entry under his name because the rest of history will forget him.

Wait, I almost forgot Fred Thompson. That in itself is a commentary. So the Reagan heir apparent is like Reagan without the charm or governing philosophy or leadership acumen. He's like ordering coffee without the caffeine. Why bother.

Boring one and all. So thank God for Rev Gov Huckabee. Give 'em hell, Mike.

No debate about it, Wolf must go

If CNN wants more substantive debates, they ought to get Wolf Blitzer off the stage.

I should admit that I’ve never been a fan of Wolf’s. I find his penchant for the binary style interview — do you or don’t you, yes or no, will you or won’t you — is a bit pedantic. It doesn’t allow for the kind of discussion that serious and complex issues deserve. It doesn’t illicit any real new or revealing information. It doesn’t force interviewees to think or grow beyond their talking points. It doesn’t really do anything — except create sound bites. Which is why I say “IF” CNN wants more substantive debates...

It seems clear that CNN is more than happy with Wolf peddling his true or false, multiple choice quizes. If you recall, Wolf was criticized in the first couple of debates for asking “show of hands” questions. That’s right, during a debate for the leader of the United States of America, candidates are asked to identify their positions by a show of hands. I had a hand salute for him after that one.

To further exacerbate the problem, Wolf and company then rate debate performance against those ridiculous standards. The glaring example is when Wolf insists each candidate answer ‘yes or no’ to supporting drivers licenses for illegal aliens. Now here is a complex issue, worthy of some thought and discussion, limited to yes or no.

The candidates who tried to demonstrate that they had given some thought to the complexity of the issue then were criticized for being verbose. Hillary Clinton, clearly learning that lesson in the last debate, came ready to play the game. She answers with the one word, “no”. She was then praised for concisely answering the question. But who is better off if an issue like immigration is relegated to a yes or no format?

That’s why I say, IF CNN wants more substantive debates...

Hillary Clinton, girl of convenience

She’s sugar and spice and everything nice, especially when she needs to differentiate herself from all the other boys in the race.

She, of course, is Hillary Rodham Clinton, lone female presidential candidate and leading contender for the Democratic nomination.

Much has been written about Sen. Clinton’s convenient playing of the gender card but none struck me as more outrageous than a comment she made during her speech at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner in Iowa last weekend.

Here’s the line:

Now, we are getting closer to the Iowa caucuses. They are going to be earlier than ever before. I know as the campaign goes on, that it's going to get a little hotter out there. But that is fine with me. Because, you know, as Harry Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'll tell you what, I feel really comfortable in the kitchen.

Huh? Did she really say that she felt comfortable in the kitchen? That kind of blatant pandering might have palatable if it weren’t for her famous line in 1992.

When she was defending her husband during his presidential run, the good senator said this:

I suppose I could have stayed at home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.

Doesn’t sound like a kitchen dweller to me. In fact, I’d be willing to argue that, spending most of her adult life as first lady of Arkansas and the US, the only time she was in a kitchen was when the secret service was whisking her in and out of speaking engagements with her husband.

The kitchen is now convenient, as now her website portrays her as Mother & Advocate, First Lady and US Senator — in that order.

Speaking of her site, remember when she was asking for a theme song for her campaign? I know it’s late, but I’d like to formally offer one. Maybe she could come out of the kitchen long enough to hear it.

Obama: Our moment is now

I must admit that I had been becoming a bit disappointed at Barak Obama's performances lately. I remember how he started with so much energy and optimism. But lately his interviews and debate performances are showing the effects of senatorial speak -- lofty rhetorical and cumbersome explanations rather than the pointed and pithy that you need to grab headlines and generate interest. The interview and debate venues aren't his best formats.

But when he delivers a speech, you remember why he became so popular so quickly. I just finished listening to his speech at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson Dinner a few days ago. It's Barak Obama at his best and worth a listen.

Dems, don't count out the white man yet

Hey Dems, here is a prediction you won’t hear every day. While all the other pundits are focused and frothing over the Hillary vs. Barak battle for the nomination, John Edwards will come straight up the middle and overtake them both.

Hillary is too divisive. Barak is too inexperienced. In the end, voters will survey the most diverse group of candidates and, for “legitimate” reasons, go with the white man. Of course, it will spawn a chorus of “Was American not ready?” stories. John Edwards will be forced to pick a minority (Barak Obama) to preserve the narrative.

Breaks my heart, too, but call me a cynic.

Edwards/Obama 08. You heard it here first. Sorry Hill and Bill.