Last Saturday a political "earthquake" struck in the ex-urban Republican leaning 14th Congressional District of Illinois. Democrat Bill Foster won the special election to replace retired former House Speaker Dennis Hastert who had represented the district for two decades. The district voted heavily for George Bush both in 2000 and 2004. Hastert was never reelected by less than 64%. Senator John McCain campaigned aggressively for the Republican candidate Jim Oberweis.
Yet Democrat Foster won a convincing 53% to 47% victory.
How is that relevant to Barack Obama? Because Foster choose to link his candidacy directly to Obama. His literature was full of Obama. And the closing TV ad of the campaign was Barack Obama asking the people of the Republican 14th District to support Democrat Foster and his agenda for change in Washington. That message attracted independents and many Republicans. And the spirit of Obama's own campaign helped energize Democrats to volunteer and turnout to vote for Foster.
My wife, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, and I spent Saturday going door-to-door asking people to get out and vote for Foster. At door after door people talked about the need for change -- their readiness to support Foster -- and their support for Obama.
Obama's effect on the Foster race is emblematic of why Democratic superdelegates are beginning to break for Obama.
Not only is Obama the most electable Democratic candidate for president this fall, he's also the candidate that will help elect more Democrats to the House and Senate. And the effect the presidential candidate has on House and Senate races -- as well as races for State Legislature -- will be a big factor in determining who Super Delegates support.
If you don't believe me, pull aside virtually any member of Congress who represents a tough swing district, and ask privately who he or she wants to head the ticket. The verdict is virtually unanimous: they all believe that Obama's nomination will be far more helpful to their own candidacies than Hillary Clinton's. The same goes for candidates trying to take Republican seats.
You hear four reasons for this assessment:
1). They believe that Obama will turn out large numbers of new Democratic voters that simply won't show up if Hillary is the candidate. This is doubly true when districts have sizeable minority populations. But it is true of young people across the board.
2). They believe that Obama will appeal to independents and some Republicans -- and create an environment more favorable to their own candidacies among those voters.
3). They think Obama will be much more helpful at raising money for their own races than Clinton.
4). Most importantly, many think Clinton's presence on the ticket will galvanize the right-wing base. They simply don't want to run on a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton, and many say they would not campaign with her in their districts.
When it comes to passing a progressive agenda in 2009, it is almost as important for Democrats to increase their majorities in the House and Senate as it is to elect a Democratic president.
And when you look at where seats are in play in the fall, you'll understand why Democratic candidates feel the way they do.
Hillary Clinton has very high negatives, particularly in places like the central and southern Indiana where Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill have to compete for reelection, or Western North Carolina, Heath Schuler's district. The same goes for places like Waco, Texas, home of Democrat Chet Edwards, or Wyoming where Gary Trauner has a good chance of taking the seat being vacated by Republican Barbara Cubin.
Other in-play House seats are in places like southern Minnesota, northern Kentucky, and Greenbay, Wisconsin where Hillary Clinton is not very popular and Obama helps -- either with minorities, young people or independents.
Of course Bill Foster will have to compete for a full term this fall. In addition at least two Republican Illinois Congressional districts will be in play, the Chicago suburban 10th represented by Republican Mark Kirk; and the suburban 11th being vacated by Republican Jerry Weller. Peoria Congressman Ray LaHood is also stepping down from a seat that could easily go Democratic. An Obama Presidential candidacy would massively increase the odds for Democrats in his home state of Illinois.
Obama's candidacy would also be a big shot in the arm to in-play Senate candidates. He would help Congressman Tom Allen attract independents from Republican Susan Collins in Maine and boost turn out among young Democratic voters. The same goes for Democrat Jeff Merkley in his race with Gordon Smith in Oregon, Jeane Shaheen's race to defeat John Sununu in New Hampshire, and the battle to oust Norm Coleman in Minnesota.
Obama would energize young people in Colorado where Marc Udall is running for an open Senate seat; and in New Mexico where his cousin Tom Udall is seeking to succeed retiring Republican Peter Domenici.
In Kentucky, Louisiana and Virginia Obama's nomination would turbo charge African American turnout. Just as importantly Clinton's negatives would not weight down the Democratic candidate.
Following the March 4th primaries, the Clinton campaign tried to argue that even though she is behind in elected, pledged delegates, that superdelegates should support her because she is more electable in November. Subsequent polls showing just the contrary have caused that line of argument to evaporate.
If they now try to pedal the notion that her nomination would help down ballot more than the selection of Obama, that argument will fall flat as well. After all, many of the superdelegates are the very candidates who know first hand the danger of hitching their wagons to the Clinton star.
By the way, in his victory speech, Bill Foster announced that he will vote for Obama in his new capacity as Congressional Super Delegate at the Democratic Convention.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.
Duhhh!
You should have been in Idaho on Feb. 5th. Idaho- yup, the most Repub state in the nation. The caucus broke all records for turnout all over the state. Democratic caucuses here in my hometown are considered good if 200 people show up, and over 1000 showed, on a sub-zero night, willing to stand outside until they could squeeze in. As many people were turned away when the doors were locked as the usual total number who show up- over 200. I went in uncommitted, saw what was happening, and felt real hope for Idaho Democrats for the first time in almost 20 years. I committed on the spot, Obama won Idaho by 81%. That ain't chump change, folks- Repubs here don't get that kind of margin.
Due to Larry Craig, our international black eye, and Obama's coat supposedly non-existant coat tails, the Democrats actually have a chance for a Senate seat this year, in a state where hatred for the Clintons is as deep as it was 8 years ago when they left.
If Hillary gets the nomination, I'll pony up on election day and vote for her, but with a heavy heart, knowing that another misfire neo-Con will walk right in to the Senate, and knowing the we have a real good candidate here who needs some coat tails badly.
Obama obviously offered hope to a lot of folks here. More importantly, he energized a state party that is in deep trouble. Hillary just wrote us off, but Obama made good on his promise to show up, and he changed the political landscape with one appearance. The Repub old guard here will never vote for him, but their kids will, now that they know how Democracy really works. They're not old beat-up Democrats like me, either... they know how to get other kids out to the polls and have the energy to do it, but not for Hillary. Obama is their guy all the way.
________________________________________________________
Idaho is definitely an interesting case. It's voters have a strong anti-government bent, and usually vote Republican because they believe that Republicans stand for small government. I don't believe the state would ever go to Hillary Clinton.
Barack Obama, however is a real wild card. On the one hand, you'd think that a state like Idaho, with its almost non-existent African American population, and somewhat nativist sentiments, would never under any circumstances support Obama, but there is something about him that seems to appeal to people who see themselves as radically independent. Perhaps it is Obama's call for a new type of politics that goes beyond the standard cliches of left vs. right that many people are so sick of.
Personally, I've always thought that progressives and the libertarian wing of the Republican party may have more in common than progressives and "centrist" Democrats, who probably have more in common with big government neo-cons than with progressives.
Yes, there are some huge differences between progressive Dems and libertarian Republicans, mostly in the area of social issues such as universal health insurance. But when it comes to other key issues, like Iraq and other misadventures in nation-building, pro-choice and personal freedom in general, the two groups actually share some real common ground. If Obama can really bridge the gaps that do exist between progressives and libertarians, and build on their common areas of concern, it may really issue in a new, more productive political consensus in this country.
Whether or not he can actually do this remains unknown, but the fact that both progressive Democrats and libertarian-wing Republicans both seem to respond to Obama is a big part of what draws me to the man. The fact that he has less "insider" experience in Washington than HIllary Clinton or John McCain actually seems to be working in his favor in states like Idaho, where being a "Washington Insider" does not gain you many brownie points.
Despite Hillary's wins in most of the big, traditionally blue states, like NY and California, it seems likely that Obama would still carry these states handily against McCain. The real key to the election, though, would be in his ability to carry at least a handful of the traditionally Republican states, some in the mid and far west because he appeals to the more libertarian branch of Republicans, and perhaps even a couple in the South, where huge African American voter turnouts could produce a couple of narrow victories. Given how close the last couple of elections have been, just a handful of smaller red states going blue could easily turn the tide.
Mr. Foster is a qualified and impressive candidate; however Senator Obama's endorsement helped... including his television commercial.
When I call for the Clinton campagn I find many people who say they will not vote for Obama.
if he is the candidate. A major Houston newspaper had a story yesterday about how Clinton
voters went down the ballot and voted for all the primary candidates in Texas but Obama voters only
voted for him. It could be that the Clinton voters being of a older age according to exit polls have
more political interest whereas the younger voters are only Obama fans. This would not bode
well for others on the ticket. The race in Hastert's district was a special election for that race only
and one that Obama could easily spend time on, he will not be able to do that for every candidate
in every state in November.
Try this for an exercise: Pretend Obama had never been in the race.
Now ask yourself what this election would be like if it were just as the talking heads had predicted last year: Some Republican vs. Clinton.
Wouldn't you be asking yourself: "Gee, what version of *SSDD will I vote for?"?
(*SSDD = Same shit, different day.)
For sometime, we all have needed a fresh breath of wholesomeness, a winning spirit and a positive attitude. We should all make a personal commitment in achieving greatness for higher levels of personal growth. After all, our children who will someday become the leaders of tomorrow are watching everything we do and say! Our children hear these do-what-ever-it-takes-tactics. What kind of influence will be part of our children's character as they become adults? Do we want our children to emulate these immoral and unethical tactics? So please be mindful!! We should spruce up tirelessly to perfect our civility to one another, and live up to our ethical and moral creed of doing unto others, as we would have them to unto us!
Genuinely dedicating yourself to achieving higher standards is a worthy goal to strive for! Please support these commendable attributes that are in fact precious symbols for all people to emulate. As you support your candidate of choice… remember to keep a positive attitude, and let your inner strength shine. Thanks Senator Obama for standing up!
Draft Richardson/Edwards-08
he can win in November 08.
Should he do so (and I would vote for him), I remain unpersuaded that O is
as "progressive" as progressive dreamers would wish.
Would the independents and Republicans support the Medicare for All
health care reform which this nation so desperately needs? Or would
they invite private corporations such as drug companies, health
insurance corporations and the like run the show as in MA? The
Massachusetts plan is a disaster.
There will be no peace in the Middle East until the US and Israel
recognize Palestine as a sovereign, fully self-determining
State. Palestine should control all land distribution
within its borders, all construction, water allocation. It
should have the rights of its own "self-defense" of all its
territories and citizens from all occupation and aggression.
(The Israelis may, of course, construct whatever they choose
as long as it is in the State of Israel, not in an adjoining
sovereign State.) The Israelis should renounce violence
and its nuclear sites be eliminated under IAEA supervision.
(The only nations to oppose this proposal were the US and
Israel last summer in Geneva.). Israel should retreat to
the pre-1967 borders with "minor modifications" . Both
sides (Israel and HAMAS should follow international law
such as the World Court, the UN etc. So far the only signatory
to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in the Middle East is: Iran.
Barack Obama (according to Samantha Powers (interview
on BBC) opposes talking to HAMAS. That hardly augurs
for any "peaceful" solution.
The Democratic victory ousting former Republican Speaker
is a major accomplishment. Charge one up to Speaker
Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee (DCCC).
I think you would have to be a zealot to support Hillary. I wonder who is pimping whom:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/spitzer-prostitution-scan_n_90766.html
No one knows the future. A good case can be made for either of the Democrats. A good case can be made against either of the Democrats.
The point is, we'd better be completely united and ready to kick John McCain's ass in the fall. He can only win if his opponents are divided.
It's going to be close and tough. And every vote will count. But McCain's back is against the wall right now. He's carrying around the albatross of Iraq---despite the BS/PR about the "surge success"---and he's going to have to defend the abysmal state of the economy and Bush's role in creating it.
Focus on the future, fellow Democrats. 2008 is still ours to win. Let's not blow it with demonizing the other candidate. The one who earns the nomination will get it.
Hillary 's IRS forms please.......