Clinton releases 11th hour new ad, Obama withdraws from NC debate, Obama's tech advisor demeans Christians
Obama also hit back at Clinton stating, "Her basic argument is that the slash-and burn, say-anything, do-anything, special-interest-driven politics is how it works, and so she has taken more money than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican combined. She also believes that the nature of politics is that you say what the people want to hear. So maybe you say something about trade when you are campaigning with your husband eight, ten, 12 years ago and you say something different now that you are out campaigning in Ohio, Pennsylvania. Maybe you say one thing about the war when it looks like the war is popular and maybe you say something else about the war when it gets to be unpopular.”
Its too late in the process to say how this will affect the race, if at all. If Obama wins Pennsylvania though, he will very likely cement the Democratic nomination in his favor. If Clinton wins by a point or two or three, she can keep going, but has an upward hill to climb. If she wins by 4 or more, she can claim a bit of momentum, and anything into double digits could really revitalize her campaign. At this point, even a 10 point win will only swing 15-20 delegates net advantage to her, but it would help tremendously if she could make the point to the superdelegates that she slaughtered Obama by double digits in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and that she polls better in these three swing state, high electoral vote state contests against McCain than Obama does.
Also noteworthy is that on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, Obama has withdrawn from a scheduled debate between him and Clinton that would have taken place in North Carolina, the scene of the next big primary, where Obama has a large lead. This may be a signal that Obama will only debate when and where he is running behind, but more likely, it is a reflection on the fact that Obama's performance in the last debate was so bad, he is still reeling from it and even complaining about the challenging questions posed to him by ABC.
The next story coming out today revolves around Obama's tech advisor, Larry Lessig, who Obama has prominently cited as key support for his tech policies, including several times on his own web site http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/14/experts_praise_barack_obamas_t.php and also at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/www.raphaelholomanfranklinsupportObama08.com/C59c and on his list of tech supporters at http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/15/tech_leaders_announce_support.php. Obama's campaign has also deployed Lessig to plug Obama's tech policies to journalists covering his campaign. Lessig recently engaged in rather tactless behavior, showing a video clip with an adult Jesus dressed in a diaper getting run over by a bus with singing music "Jesus will survive" prompting several people to leave the auditorium in which he gave his talk in disgust. Obama has not removed Lessig from his campaign team.
The Lessig incident adds another Obama advisor/surrogate to a quickly growing list of those who either have explicitly stated Obama does not mean what he is telling people on the campaign trail but is merely posturing to win the election, have attacked America (with 25-30 bombing incidents like Ayers, or with words like Jeremiah Wright and his wife), or otherwise have engaged in disgraceful behavior (Lessig, anti-Christian flap or Rezko, alleged business partner of Obama under federal indictment for shady business dealings).
Further undermining that connection is the fact that Obama is arguably the most vocal supporter of Christianity of the candidates still standing. Obama has been especially outspoken about what his faith has meant in his life, and has made greater efforts to reach out to Christians than any Democrat in recent memory.
As to posturing on the campaign trail, every politician is guilty of political white lies. Slips by surrogates revealing that Obama is posturing do speak to the inexperience Obama and his team at the game, but are unlikely to do him lasting harm, especially now that he's through primary states like Ohio and Pennsylvania where anti-trade views took on outsized importance. (Comment this)
I would grant certainly that Lessig is not as instrumental or close a figure as say Michele Obama, Reverend Wright, or even Bill Ayers. Lessig is, however, part of Obama's "campaign team" according to Obama's web site, which lists Lessig as one of its technical advisors and cites to Lessig's support of various initiatives to bolster credibility on several spots on Obama's web site. Obama's choice to not disassociate this individual from his campaign is telling.
Nor has Obama been shy about disassociating from arguably even tangentially related individuals to his campaign under other circumstances. A few weeks back, a delegate of his from California was stripped of her status as an Obama delegate because she had run out of the house and called on the neighbor children to stop acting like monkeys and get out of the tree. The woman stated she was concerned they would fall and get hurt, and were apparently not supervised. The parents, rightly or wrongly, claimed the woman used "monkeys" because the children were black. She was not an adviser and not even listed as any type of expert on his campaign web site, but she was removed in short fashion. By contrast, Lessig did not stir the same action, or any action, from the Obama camp. Perhaps that is accidental, perhaps by choice, but now that many bloggers have brought this to light, it will be interesting to see what Obama's team makes of it.
I am not sure I would agree with your assessment that Obama is the most vocal supporter of Christianity. To my best knowledge, I have never heard him go into any detail as to his Christianity, rebuke anti-Christian sentiments, etc. He claims on multiple occasions he was not at church when Reverend Wright went on diatribes, and that he did not go to church the weekend after 9/11, which strikes probably most Christians as surprising.
Religion is a personal thing, and should not in and of itself to my mind be a litmus test for any candidate. But it is always relevant to gaining insights into the character and thinking process, and most importantly values of a candidate. Clinton and McCain have both, I believe, spoken somewhat more of their faith.
Last, Obama attended (and still attends) a church preaching "black liberation theology" which focuses on relieving the oppression against black people which in so doing relieves the white people from their status as oppressors. This theology is well documented and can be seen in great detail with a few google searches. I do not think we will see Obama speaking in much detail about his church during this election.
I agree with you that every politician is guilty of political white lies, slips by surrogates, and posturing. The problem for Obama is he has centerpieced running a "clean campaign" that is "post-racial" and "bipartisan." That is a big talking point that is vulnerable more for him than perhaps for McCain or Clinton for the white lies, surrogate slips, and posturing.
Last, the anti-trade views probably did hurt him somewhat, but not as much as they would in a general election because of two reasons: 1) Clinton also tried to disassociate from NAFTA and came across as somewhat anti-trade herself, so the bigger contrast on anti-trade in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and elsewhere is yet to come (assuming he wins the nomination); and 2) Obama's union support was strong in both Ohio and Pennsylvania, whereas non-union and Republican working class voters are much less likely to be influenced by that union support which offset the "outsized importance" of the anti-trade views to a greater extent in the primary. (Comment this)
I’m still not seeing where Obama lists Lessig as an advisor, or a member of his campaign team; I’m just seeing him listed as someone who has endorsed Obama and specifically his technology policies. Indeed, wouldn’t it be stupid to claim credit for endorsement of one’s policies by an expert who is also an advisor of yours? I’ll take your word for it, but again I can’t help but notice that his only connection to the campaign relates to technology; I think that is a relevant point. It’s a stretch, to my mind.
I don’t think that the other candidates associations have been scrutinized to a similar degree as Obama’s, or at least they haven’t been discussed nearly as much. How much talk do you hear of John Hagee (whose support McCain sought and welcomed), or spiritual advisor Rod Parsley? Or the Weathermen pardoned by the first Clinton Administration? Not a whole heck of a lot. Nor should we, in my opinion. I think there are better ways to tell what candidates believe than by every stray opinion of people they have known and had any manner of relationship with. Truly, everyone in politics has associated with people they’ve had to hold their nose around once in a while. Let the candidates speak for themselves.
There are many grounds on which one might be critical of Obama’s religion, but his support of Christianity is not really one of them. Obama has been outspoken in his Christian beliefs and, according to some fairly neutral sources, such as beliefnet (which you’ll see does not shy from criticizing the senator), Obama is in fact the most vocal of the candidates about his faith:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/
Obama has given any number of speeches that tie in his faith. One well-known example:
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060628-call_to_renewal_1/
He has even campaigned pretty straight-up on religious faith:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/14/obamas_christian_appeal.html
Also, Obama has written two books in which he discusses his faith and his conversion to Christianity; where he stands on matters of faith is well-trodden territory. Obama certainly would not like to revisit the whole Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair, but that does not mean he will tone down his rhetoric on religious belief generally.
Hillary Clinton has also tried to speak to religious themes, though not quite to the same extent. John McCain has largely tried to keep his faith private, which is unusual for a Republican. Not that he is not religious himself, but he just has not been as open in courting religious votes as the George W. Bushes of the world.
It is a fair point that Obama’s campaign should be held to an especially high standard on matters of forthrightness and posturing because the central theme of his campaign is a new politics, and post-partisanship. Of course, John McCain and his straight-talk express similarly stress honesty and willingness to cross the aisle.
In truth, I think that Obama is well-intentioned, but politically inexperienced – which has been the source of many of his critiques, but also the source for much of his appeal. As the fight with the kitchen-sink Clintons has drawn on, he has found that he had to play political games more than he would like. He has also found that it is difficult to give a nuanced speech to a sound-bite society, though most agreed he did admirably with his speech on race. Bottom line is that he has found it difficult to mesh a message of hope with hard truths. I would much prefer if the Democrats would admit that they will need something more in the way of an Iraq plan than pulling out immediately, and if they more frequently admitted that much more good than harm that has come from trade agreements such as NAFTA.
(Comment this)