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.



Comments
92
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

Hillary Clinton *must* win this nomination because she is the only hope the Democrats have. Why? Because if Obama is nominiated, Hillary will endorse McCain, and everyone knows that Hillary's endorsement is worth its weight in gold. Otherwise, why would she be endorsing herself so hard?

Duhhh!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 03/11/2008

No coat tails on Obama?
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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 PM on 03/10/2008

No coat tails on Obama? You should have been in Idaho on Feb.
________________________________________________________

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 03/11/2008

When I read articles like these, I wonder if the authors consider any other perspective before they take their position. Clarence Darrow was one of the most successful trial lawyers in America. He frequently entered debates in which he would take either side of a position. He could do this because he knew that nothing is truly black and white, wrong or right. Do you, Mr. Creamer, ever consider that if Hillary Clinton had been given the same free ride as Barack Obama; if she had been the "anointed one," her ideas would have been just as well received and just an influential? The media created the mythical Obama and now assign him attributes that are of their making and, thus, far fetched.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:09 PM on 03/10/2008

You're joking, aren't you Suprshrink? Aren't you? If Hillary had been the 'anointed one'?? Good grief. She's been anointed for the last three or four years. The inevitable one. The one who had the party machinery behind her and a former president as her biggest supporter - who has ties to every Democratic organization in the country. The fact that Obama is even competitive with her, beating her even, is one of the most astounding occurrences of this election cycle. It wasn't supposed to happen since Hillary supposedly had it in the bad a long time ago.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:38 AM on 03/11/2008

Obama's got coat-tails. What are the Clinton's doing to increase democratic wins this fall? Or is this going to be like the 90's when democrats lost more elected office holders at local, county, state and federal levels because all political capital was spent keeping Bill in office.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:43 PM on 03/10/2008

Creamer--Your argument is an extreme stretch, and doesn't give Foster the appropriate credit he is due for being the better choice and a great candidate in his own right. The guy is a multimillionaire scientist who started his own extremely successful company and was endorsed by 7 or 8 Nobel Prize winners. Perhaps the voters decided that after being represented so long by a fat, dumb high school wrestling coach, they wanted someone who actually believes in evolution, the promise of stem cell research, and a sun-centered universe. But no--it must have all been because of the great St. Barack! All good in the universe eminates from Obama! Here's a guy, who unlike Foster, has precious little to show on his resume, so you people come up with the most incredibly wild arguments for why he is "more electable." Dream on. 'Fact is, Foster would make a better presidential candidate than Obama.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:30 PM on 03/10/2008

Way to go, timinhi, as you continue your attacks on anyone who dares support Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton. Yes, we are dreamers. Or, as you would describe us, "dumb as posts" according to one of your other comments and "making incredibly wild arguments" according to this one. Many other charming little nuggets, but why bother since you seem far more interested in belittling and attacking rather than considering for a moment that reasonable and intelligent people can come to different conclusions. I think you provide a perfect example of why Sen. Obama actually attracts and excites voters while Sen. Clinton (and her team of attack dogs) is more interested in polarizing them.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 AM on 03/11/2008

Mr. Creamer may have hit this one right on! This area/district is a poster child for the Republican Party. In fact in most elections, most of the Democrat slots are empty because this heavily, evangelical, "conservative" district votes Republican regardless of the person's qualifications. Ironically, abortion has been on the front page in recent months which would have brought out a greater number of Republican voters. In a neighboring District (Judy Biggert's) there was too an overwhelming response from traditional Republican voters who crossed over to vote for Mr. Obama in the primary.

Mr. Foster is a qualified and impressive candidate; however Senator Obama's endorsement helped... including his television commercial.



favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 PM on 03/10/2008

Great Post. You show in no uncertain terms the beneficial effect for Democrats on all open offices Obama would have this November if he is our candidate. CLINTON = POISON IN A PANTSUIT. Her negative campaign is ruining the Democrat Party. Senator Clinton is trying to obscure the focus of her DO NOTHING LIFE. All she has ever done for blue collar workers and the poor is to take our money (profiteering as a board member for WalMart and campaign shakedowns) and now she is trying to squash what little HOPE her beloved blue collar clas has of seeing any real change in our lifetimes.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:35 PM on 03/10/2008

Illinois is not really a good test state since Obama is from there and has great support.
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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:39 PM on 03/10/2008

Amongst some of the most foaming-at-the-mouth Republicans that I know, there's some acknowledgment that an Obama presidency could be a start to redeeming some of our country's most shameful chapters in its history. Even if it seems mostly symbolic, the phenomenon is real and actually quite powerful. The electoral map certainly ought to have some new patches of blue this November.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:04 PM on 03/10/2008


I grew up in this district, and still have family there. There is a much lower percentage of GOP Kool-Aid drinkers there these days than in the past. I'm sure Obama helped this guy out some but it was probably more a sentiment of moderates finally waking up and realizing how much damage the GOP has caused this country. I expect many moderates in this country will make a similar decision if Obama is the candidate. Dems lose these votes if Hillary is the candidate, in my opinion.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:30 PM on 03/10/2008

I see a lot of comments deriding Obama's impact.

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.)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:04 PM on 03/10/2008

Well, to your post, I add "SSDD". You assert but can not prove. I agree, Clinton sucks as a potential nominee. But so does Obama. They're only acceptable when compared to any rethug, especially John "100 Years of War" McCain. McCain sucks as a person and lies as a nominee. For example: He compares the length of time US troops have been stationed in Germany and Japan. As if the mission of 1945 putting them there is the same mission in 2008 keeping them there. If he can't tell the truth on this point, can he be trusted about Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, etc.?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:53 PM on 03/10/2008

Everytime a cow in the State of Illinois drops a cowpie, it isn't because of Barack Obama. Jim Oberweis is a lousy candidate, he does a great job of running a dairy so Illinois voters have consistently chosen to keep him in that position. Mr. Foster was also an outstanding candidate. He didn't require Obama's help.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 PM on 03/10/2008

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. You really can't have a Congressional career as long as Hastert's without a solid Republican machine behind you. Couple that with the fact that from an Illinois name recognition perspective, Oberweis is synonymous with ice cream while Bill Foster's is "who?" Reason dictates that Foster is definitely the recipient of an Obama bump.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:21 PM on 03/10/2008

The Winner"s Circle is a place where millions, upon millions of citizen"s for "True Humane Development", become the direct benefactors of leadership with integrity. Integrity works best when we all emulate the best qualities of character that are inherent in people who are objective, non-judgmental, down-to-earth, conscientious, listening carefully, generous and non-political in a political system! Non-political because historically this political system has apparent flaws that breed corruption, greed and divisiveness!
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!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 PM on 03/10/2008

Every time I read this post it seems you Obamabots come up with more "magical", powers to be attributed to this guy. I 'm getting the distinctly sinking feeling that you are hyping yourselves and your zealotry to the point that when in November if the election doesn't go your way (provided Obamarama is the nominee) your dismay/ chagrin/anger/ whatever would be overwhelming to a lot of you. This isn't some damn football game people. Maybe you should perhaps view it like that .

Draft Richardson/Edwards-08

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 PM on 03/10/2008

Yeah, you are right. We should all vote for McCain to avoid a big let-down.

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

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 PM on 03/10/2008

Whether or not O (Obama) is the Democratic nominee, it remains unclear that
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).

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:07 PM on 03/10/2008

Stop. No one knows what the climate will be like in November. That's an eternity from now. The polls could go up and down and up and down again between now and then. Some will show McCain winning against Clinton or Obama. Some will show him losing to both. Some will show him winning against one but not the other. Some will vary by state.

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.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 PM on 03/10/2008


The one who earns the nomination will get it?


Hillary 's IRS forms please.......

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:12 PM on 03/10/2008

Let's see.... Hillary's records for the last 20yrs. have been public info. This years tax returns are'nt due until April.....So let's look at Barack's!! Oh, excuse me, they were all destroyed somehow. Perhaps he has this years in already tho'. I mean, look how much more money he's made! I wonder if his returns are in yet? Maybe they should BOTH have to show their returns by the time tax returns are due. BOTH IRS forms please.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:48 PM on 03/10/2008

That election was more about "Fat Hassert" and the regurgitation of republicans than it had to do with Obama. Am sick of this wave of thinking that seems to believe that Obama is the real reason the american people are turning away from the republicans and to the democrats. This movement started in the 2004 presisential election and moved to the 2006 election, where the republicans lost the house and senate. Now the 2008 preidential election is on the horizon and the republicans will pay even more and they know. Hell you had 29 republcians currently in congress whostated they will no seek to get re-elected in Novmeber.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 PM on 03/10/2008

I noticed that at least one of the respondents said he would sit home rather than vote for Hillary. Me, too. I won't vote to continue the current aggression or the next one. As has been amply demonstrated, Hillary is in the "pro-war" camp with John McSame. I have two kids at university. Both are ardent supporters of Obama, as are their friends. They won't vote for Hillary, either. If Hillary is the dem candidate I suspect that Nader will get a significant protest vote, and be blamed again for tossing the election to the repugnants.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 PM on 03/10/2008

And I won't vote for Obama, so it looks like one of us will be responsible for a McCain win.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:32 PM on 03/10/2008

And I will NEVER vote for this woman. I'll vote for Nader, and we will blame it on Nader, not on the woman endorsing, and praising McCain.
I just want her to release her taxes, list of donors to her husband's library, and list of pardons he granted. Just so blue-collar workers can be reassured Hilly really cares for them, and not for special interest.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:03 PM on 03/10/2008

How is good Gods name can anybody call somebody who is one the most liberal if not outright socialist people in the Senate a "centerist?" Sounds like you need a good dictionary buddy

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:30 PM on 03/10/2008

How in dog's name can anyone who is so far rightwing, if not outright Fascist, call anyone a socialist? Sounds like you need a legible copy of the 10 commandments. Yeah, you, tankermouse.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:59 PM on 03/10/2008

Obama is a "centrist", not that different from Hillary except for the Iraq aggression, whatever the repugnant pundits say. He wasn't my first choice, and I'm not that happy with his positions, but he does seem to have the youth vote and the potential to get some progressives in congress. I'll vote for him if I get the chance. But let the repugnants get the credit for the consequences of their wars if it is a choice between commander in chief Hillary and McSame.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:49 PM on 03/10/2008

Why would a centrist help elect progressives? Political expediency aside, that doesn't make much sense.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:41 PM on 03/10/2008

Look at his voting record. Look at his health care proposal, his initial refusal to say he would get out of Iraq by the end of his first term, his saber rattling against Pakistan. Wellstone was a liberal, Obama isn't. But he will bring out a lot of people, and where there are progressive candidates the weight of numbers will make the difference. Obama's presidential candidacy won't put progressive house and senate candidates on the ballot, but where they do get on, with directed financial support to oust Bush-yellow dog dems in the primaries, an enthusiastic dem turnout will carry them into office. If enough get in maybe it won't matter whether Obama is a "centrist" or a liberal. Probably just grasping at straws.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:53 AM on 03/11/2008