Clintons instigating a fight where all Dems will lose

by Lou Ransom

Obviously, the Clintons, Bill and Hillary (not George), are harder to get rid of than gum on the bottom of the shoe.

Sen. Barack Obama, on his way to his christening as the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, still has a considerable wad of Clinton under his shoe, and it looks like he’ll have to carry it all the way through the Democratic National Convention and into the general election.

It wasn’t supposed to be that way. Obama tallied the most delegates, won the most states and raised the most money. For two months now, he has been the “presumptive” nominee. But Clinton supporters, and at least one of the Clintons, believes we presumed too much.

The Clintons bargained hard and threw their considerable Democratic weight around, and finagled not only prime speaking spots during the convention but also got Obama to agree to allow a roll call vote on Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Her supporters, who have lost none of their ardor despite their candidate’s defeat, will get a chance to cast a vote for Clinton at the convention.

The Clintons argue that such a vote will allow her supporters to have their voices heard. Hillary also said that it will be some sort of “catharsis” (releasing strong or repressed emotions) for her supporters.

Frankly, what has been heard loud and clear since the end of the primary season are the voices of Hillary supporters, vowing never to vote for Obama or worse, to switch their Democratic votes to Republican John McCain.

They have burned up the blogs and overpowered the op-eds on their way to expressing:

1. Hillary was done in by a sexist media.

2. Hillary was done in by the sexist Democratic leadership.

3. Hillary was done in by the media’s infatuation with and kid gloves treatment of Obama.

4. All of the above.

But some Clinton supporters, and perhaps the Clintons themselves, are hoping for a do-over. They are poised to make noise at the Democratic Convention, but it is not clear what they want. Do they want the roll call to declare Clinton the winner? That’s not likely, but if it did, it would rip the Democratic Party asunder because it would seem that the nomination was stolen from the “presumptive” nominee, Obama. His supporters would then have a hard time supporting another nominee. Do they want Clinton on the Obama ticket? That isn’t likely either because it would amount to a co-presidency and would set up four years of controversy and competition within the White House. In effect, the Clintons would accomplish what Rev. Jesse Jackson only whispered about.

It is clear that some Clinton supporters will never vote for Obama. They would rather stay home.

And what does Bill Clinton want? He wants his “legacy” rehabilitated. He wants better relations with Black voters, who sharply rebuked him for his behavior during the primaries. He wants to reclaim the moniker of “first Black president” despite his absence of melanin. It may not happen. He may have gone too far. He still hedges when asked if Obama is qualified to be president. This from a man who spent the last two years of his presidency answering charges of a tryst with a female White House intern.

So now we are on the verge of a convention during which a floor fight is promised, and some of the delegates plan to be quite vocal in their support of someone other than the presumptive nominee.

That is hardly the kind of unity Hillary and Barack talked about in Unity, New Hampshire. It is not the kind of unified party that would strike fear into the Republicans. It is not the type of unity that points to a viable future for the Democratic Party. It is far short of the kind of unity that will be necessary to put a Democrat in the White House after eight horrendous years of George Bush.

This is a telling point for Obama. He is being watched to see if he is presidential timbre. His actions at this convention are the first real test of his leadership. He should not falter here.

Obama needs to man-up and reclaim this convention. It is supposed to be “Obama time” not Clinton redux. He should make sure that his voice is the voice of the Democratic Party, and all those disgruntled Clinton supporters should fall in behind him or they can bet the party will simply just fall behind.

Lou Ransom is executive editor of the Chicago Defender. He can be reached via email at lransom@chicagodefender.com.

www.ruffcommunications.com

Black Dreams, White Liberals

January 18, 2008

Black Dreams, White Liberals
By Charles Krauthammer

Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it done. -- Hillary Clinton, Jan. 7
WASHINGTON -- So she said. And then a fight broke out. That remarkable eruption of racial sensitivities and racial charges lacked coherence, however, because the public argument was about history rather than what was truly offensive -- the implied analogy to today.

The principal objection was that Clinton appeared to be disrespecting Martin Luther King Jr., relegating him to mere enabler for Lyndon Johnson. But it is certainly true that Johnson was the great emancipator, second only to Abraham Lincoln in that respect. This was a function of the times. King was fighting for black enfranchisement. Until that could be achieved, civil rights legislation could only be enacted by a white president (and a white Congress).

That does not denigrate King. It makes his achievement all the more miraculous -- winning a permanent stake in the system for a previously disenfranchised people, having begun with no political cards to play.

In my view, the real problem with Clinton's statement was the implied historical analogy -- that the subordinate position King held in relation to Johnson, a function of the discrimination and disenfranchisement of the time, somehow needs recapitulation today when none of those conditions apply.

The analogy Clinton was implying was obvious: I'm Lyndon Johnson, unlovely doer; he's Martin Luther King, charismatic dreamer. Vote for me if you want results.
Forty years ago, that arrangement -- white president enacting African-American dreams -- was necessary because discrimination denied blacks their own autonomous political options. Today, that arrangement -- white liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty -- is a demeaning anachronism. That's what the fury at Hillary was all about, although no one was willing to say so explicitly.

The King-Johnson analogy is dead because the times are radically different. Today an African-American can be in a position to wield the emancipation pen -- and everything else that goes along with the presidency: from making foreign policy to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom (if one is so inclined). Why should African-
American dreams still have to go through white liberals?

Clinton is no doubt shocked that a simple argument about experience versus inspiration becomes the basis for a charge of racial insensitivity. She is surprised that the very use of "fairy tale" in reference to Obama's position on Iraq is taken as a sign of insensitivity, or that any reference to his self-confessed teenage drug use is immediately given racial overtones.

But where, I ask you, do such studied and/or sincere expressions of racial offense come from? From a decades-long campaign of enforced political correctness by an alliance of white liberals and the black civil rights establishment intended to delegitimize and marginalize as racist any criticism of their post-civil rights-era agenda.

Anyone who has ever made a principled argument against affirmative action only to be accused of racism knows exactly how these tactics work. Or anyone who has merely opposed a more recent agenda item -- hate crimes legislation -- on the grounds that murder is murder and that the laws against it are both venerable and severe. Remember that scurrilous pre-election ad run by the NAACP in 2000 implying that George Bush was indifferent to a dragging death of a black man at the hands of white racists in Texas because he did not support hate crime legislation?

The nation has become inured to the playing of the race card, but "our first black president" (Toni Morrison on Bill Clinton) and his consort are not used to having it played against them.

Bill is annoyed with Obama. As Bill inadvertently let on to Charlie Rose, it has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with entitlement. He had contemplated running in 1988, he confided to Charlie, but decided to wait. Too young, not ready. (A tall tale, highly Clintonian; but that's another matter.) Now it is Hillary's turn. The presidency is her due -- the ultimate in alimony -- and this young upstart refuses to give way.

But telling Obama to wait his turn is a tricky proposition. It sounds patronizing and condescending, awakening the kinds of racial grievances white liberals have spent half a century fanning -- only to find themselves now singed in the blowback, much to their public chagrin. Who says there's no justice in this world?
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

www.ruffcommunications.com

Voter-Fraud Rethink

Voter-Fraud Rethink

By JOHN FUND
January 17, 2008; Page A16

Both Democrats and Republicans are good at practicing hypocrisy when they need to. But it's still breathtaking to see how some Democrats ignore that it was only last week they argued before the Supreme Court that an Indiana law requiring voters show ID at the polls would reduce voter turnout and disenfranchise minorities. Nevada allies of Hillary Clinton have just sued to shut down several caucus sites inside casinos along the Las Vegas Strip, potentially disenfranchising thousands of Hispanic or black shift workers who couldn't otherwise attend the 11:30 a.m. caucus this coming Saturday.

D. Taylor, the president of the Culinary Workers Union that represents many casino workers, notes that legal complaint was filed just two days after his union endorsed Barack Obama. He says the state teachers union, most of whose leadership backs Mrs. Clinton, realized that the Culinary union would be able to use the casino caucuses to better exercise its clout on behalf of Mr. Obama, and used a law firm with Clinton ties to file the suit.

Mr. Taylor exploded after Bill Clinton came out in favor of the lawsuit on Monday, and Hillary Clinton refused to take a stand. "This is the Clinton campaign," he said.

"They tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa. Now they're trying to disenfranchise people here in Nevada." He later told the Journal's June Kronholz, "You'd think the Democratic Party elite would disavow this, but the silence has been deafening." (Late Tuesday the Democratic National Committee quietly filed a motion supporting the Nevada party's rules.)

However, the lawsuit has created an uproar among voters. It was the No. 1 issue among 30 Nevada Democrats participating in a Fox News focus group on Tuesday night; the anger among rank-and-file voters was palpable. The left-wing Nation magazine has denounced the suit as an attempt to "suppress the vote."

The case goes before a federal judge in Las Vegas this morning. Plaintiffs argue that the caucus sites on the Strip unfairly discriminate against other workers on-duty that day. Lynn Warne, president of the teachers union, insists "our only interest is fairness." But instead of seeking additional at-large locations, they want to close down the casino sites.

Backers of the suit claim they didn't learn of the caucus rules until recently, although they were approved at a party convention nine months ago. Nevada Democrats are free to set their own rules for a caucus, which isn't a government-run election. And as in Iowa, the Nevada caucus is designed to be unfair to many people, including those who are out of town, sick or value a secret ballot (since all voting must be public).

But the time to argue about the rules has passed. As Rob Richie, executive director of the liberal group FairVote, says, "You simply don't want to reduce the number of places to vote or do a last-minute change if you want people to participate."

Meanwhile, Democrats will also be asking for identification at caucus sites. The nine at-large casino sites are meant only for workers who can prove they are employed within 2.5 miles of the Strip, an area that Barack Obama notes includes thousands "working at McDonald's" as well as gas stations and bodegas.

Democratic leaders insist workers need only show an employee badge. If they don't have one, a party spokeswoman lamely says "we'll somehow accommodate them." The Las Vegas Review Journal notes "some Strip workers will have no alternative but to provide photo identification." For a party that compares photo ID requirements to Jim Crow poll taxes, even when state governments distribute the IDs for free, the irony is rich.

And it doesn't stop there. Opponents of the Indiana photo ID law used Faye Buis-Ewing, a 72-year-old retiree who had trouble getting a state-issued ID, as a poster child for how the law would block voters. Then it was learned Ms. Buis-Ewing lives most of the year in Florida, has claimed residency there, and was illegally registered to vote in both states. Confronted with these facts, Ms. Buis-Ewing was unrepentant. "I feel like I'm a victim here," she told the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette. "I never intended to do anything wrong. I know a lot of people in Florida in this same situation."

She's right. But "snowbird" registrations in multiple states can swing skintight elections, and are a good reason to tighten both identification and absentee ballot laws. In Florida, where the Bush-Gore presidential election was decided by 537 votes, the New York Daily News found in 2004 that between 400 and 1,000 voters registered in Florida and New York City had voted twice in at least one recent election.
Selective outrage, anyone?

In 1995, Barack Obama sued Illinois over its voter registration rolls on behalf of the radical group ACORN, and he now rails against Clintonista attempts to shut down Nevada caucus sites and photo ID laws. But just last September, Oprah Winfrey held a lavish fundraiser for Mr. Obama at her California estate. None of the 1,500 guests could enter until they presented a government-issued photo ID that could be compared to a guest list. When asked about this, the Obama campaign had no comment.

Republicans can also be hypocrites, pushing photo ID laws while downplaying the larger issue of fraud linked to absentee ballots, which are popular with their suburban voters.

Meanwhile, voters are increasingly concerned about all kinds of ways to undermine ballot-box integrity. A new Rasmussen poll finds that 17% of Americans think large numbers of legitimate voters are prevented from voting -- and 23% believe many illegal votes are cast.

After the 2000 Florida recount debacle, Congress compromised when it passed the Help America Vote Act. Sen. Chris Dodd, its Democratic co-sponsor, hailed it as both "making it easier to vote and harder to cheat." But the law's limited reach needs to be extended at both the federal and state level. Here's hoping both parties are so tired of this year's partisan wrangling that next year Congress can reach for Sen. Dodd's twin goals.

Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com. A revised edition of his book, "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy" is forthcoming from Encounter Books.

www.ruffcommunications.com

In Contrast to Obama, Hillary Plays the Race Card

January 16, 2008

In Contrast to Obama, Hillary Plays the Race Card
By Dick Morris

On the evening of Jan. 3, it became clear that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was going to be a serious candidate for president with a viable chance of winning. The Clintons decided that he was going, inevitably, to win a virtually unanimous vote from the black community. Their own reputation for support for civil rights would make no difference.

With a black candidate within striking distance of the White House, a coalescing of black voters behind his candidacy became inevitable.

Frustratingly for the Clintons, Obama had achieved this likely solidarity among black voters without, himself, summoning racial emotions. He had gone out of his way to avoid mentioning race -- quite a contrast with Hillary, whose every speech talks about her becoming the first female president. But precisely to distinguish himself from the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of American politics, Obama resisted any racial appeal or even reference. His rhetoric, argumentation, and presentation was indistinguishable from a skilled white candidate's.

So the Clintons faced a problem: With Obama winning the black vote, how were they to win a sufficient proportion of the white electorate to offset his advantage?

Not racists themselves, they decided, nonetheless, to play the race card in order to achieve the polarization of the white vote that they needed to offset that among blacks.

They embarked on a strategy of talking about race -- mentioning Martin Luther King Jr., for example -- and asking their surrogates to do so as well. They have succeeded in making an election that was about gender and age into one that is increasingly about race.

According to the Rasmussen poll of Monday, Jan. 14, Obama leads among blacks by 66-16 while Hillary is ahead among whites by 41-27. The overall head to head is 37-30 in favor of Hillary.

It does not matter which specific reference to race can be traced to whom. Obama's campaign has resisted any temptation to campaign on race and, for an entire year, kept the issue off the front pages. Now, at the very moment that the crucial voting looms, the election is suddenly about race. Obviously, it is the Clintons' doing. Remember the adage: Who benefits?

As Super Tuesday nears, the Clintons will likely take their campaign to a new level, charging that Obama can't win.

They will never cite his skin color in this formulation, but it will be obvious to all voters what they mean: that a black cannot get elected.

The Clintons are far from above using race to win an election. Running for president in the aftermath of the 1992 Los Angeles race riots, Clinton seized on a comment made by rapper Sister Souljah in an interview with her published on May 13, 1992 in The Washington Post. She said, "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?"

Clinton pounced, eager to show moderates that he was not a radical and was willing to defy the political correctness imposed on the Democratic Party by the civil rights leadership. In a speech to the Rainbow Coalition he said, "If you took the words 'white' and 'black' and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech," an allusion to the former Klansman then running for public office in Louisiana.

The Clintons will be very careful about how they go about injecting race into the campaign. Part of their strategy will be to provoke discussion of whether race is becoming a factor in the election. Anything that portrays Obama as black and asks about the role of race in the contest will serve their political interest. And you can bet that there is nothing they won't do ... if they can get away with it.

Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Outrage.” To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.

www.ruffcommunications.com

President Clinton Does More Damage Control on Black Radio

Posted by Josh Gerstein
Mon, 14 Jan 2008 at 9:03 AM Permalink

In an interview Monday, President Clinton mounted a less-than-vigorous defense of comments a prominent supporter of Senator Clinton's presidential bid, Robert Johnson, made which many interpreted as a reference to Senator Obama's admission of drug use during his younger years.The interviewer, Roland Martin of WVON-AM in Chicago, played Mr. Johnson's statement Sunday in which he praised the Clintons for having "been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood - and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book…" Mr. Martin sounded incredulous about Mr. Johnson's subsequent denial, in a statement issued by the Clinton campaign, that he was referring to drug use by Mr. Obama. "When you listen to that tone and the inflection, he was not talking about community organizing. It seems to me very clear what he was implying," Mr. Martin said.

"Ironically, this is the first time I've heard it, what you just said," Mr. Clinton said. "I listened to it on the tape and I think we have to take him at his word."

Mr. Clinton then launched into a defense of his "fairy tale" comments from New Hampshire which had not been raised at that point. The former president also sharply criticized Mr. Obama and his top adviser, David Axelrod, for statements suggesting that Mrs. Clinton's stance on Iraq made the death of assassinated Pakistani leader benzir Bhutto more likely. "That's a lot worse than anything Bob Johnson implied or said," Mr. Clinton said. "I don't believe anybody even asked Senator Obama about it. 'Oh you say she's responsible for something like that, that's fine.'

"Mr. Clinton then lit into the Obama campaign for its "overtly racist" opposition research piece labeling Mrs. Clinton as a senator from India "(D-Punjab)." Pressed further on Mr. Johnson's comments, Mr. Clinton retreated a bit, disclaiming any advance knowledge of his remarks on the part of the campaign. "Bob Johnson said what he said yesterday. Nobody knew what he was going to say. It wasn't part of any planned strategy."

Mr. Clinton also said campaign officials did not plan for the Attorney General of New York, Andrew Cuomo, to use the term "shuck and jive" in what appeared to some to be a reference to Mr. Obama's campaign, but which Mr. Cuomo said was a general comment about campaigning techniques in New Hampshire and Iowa. "Certainly, nobody had any advance notice of anything Attorney General Cuomo said," Mr. Clinton said.

Mr. Martin insisted that Mr. Johnson's denial was implausible. "Anybody listening can know what he was talking about—he wasn't talking about community organizing," the host said. "That's something between Bob Johnson and Barack Obama," Mr. Clinton eventually said, seeming to give up on defending the remark. "I think the psychological tensions on everybody are considerable. There are a lot of people who are supporting Hillary who always wanted to vote for an African-American for president. There are a lot of people who are supporting Barack who always wanted to vote for a woman for president," he added later. "It's not surprising that these sort of things will happen….They just happen. I think it's important not to overreact to them."

A series of callers to Mr. Martin's program following Mr. Clinton's call were deeply skeptical of his explanation and harshly critical of Mr. Johnson. One even doubted the former president's statement that he hadn't heard Mr. Johnson's comments, since the words were read to him on another program earlier in the day. Mr. Martin said Mr. Clinton seemed to be saying he had not previously heard the tape of the comments. It took more than an hour to hear a caller defend Mr. Clinton, even tangentially.

Mr. Clinton complained he had been the subject of sharp opposition research attacks by the Obama campaign over his business dealings with the Teamsters and reinvestment in minority communities. "It was a hard hit, man. I didn't say a word about it. And nothing happened to anybody who called Hillary the senator from Punjab," the former president said. "What they're trying to do both of them is figure out how they air their disagreements in a totally new and uncharted field loaded with minefields where people are nervous about is somebody playing the race card or the gender card or whatever," Mr. Clinton said. "I think we should just take what they say on the merits….I'm really proud to be in a party where you've got a woman and an African-American fighting out their differences of opinion."

Mr. Clinton refused to say whether he would vote for Mr. Obama or John Edwards if the race came down to them. "I don't think that that's fair to get me into that," the former president said. He did say he considered Mr. Obama more qualified than any of the Republicans seeking the White House.

Mr. Clinton also appeared Monday morning on the syndicated Tom Joyner Morning Show, where the former president suggested Mr. Obama was benefiting from an unfair double standard. "We have been much kinder to him than he has been to her," Mr. Clinton said.

www.ruffcommunications.com

The Republicans Find Their Obama

The Republicans Find Their Obama
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 9, 2007

COULD 2008 actually end up being a showdown between the author of "The Audacity of Hope" and the new Man from Hope, Ark.?

It sounds preposterous, but Washington’s shock over Mike Huckabee’s sudden rise in the polls — he "came from nowhere," Robert Novak huffed last week — makes you wonder. Having failed to anticipate so much else, including the Barack Obama polling surge of days earlier, the press pack has proved an unreliable guide to election 2008. What the Beltway calls unthinkable today keeps turning out to be front-page news tomorrow.

The prevailing Huckabee narrative maintains that he’s benefiting strictly from the loyalty of the religious right. Evangelical Christians are belatedly rallying around one of their own, a Baptist preacher, rather than settling for a Mormon who until recently supported abortion rights or a thrice-married New Yorker who still does. But that doesn’t explain Mr. Huckabee’s abrupt ascent to first place in some polling nationwide, where Christian conservatives account for a far smaller slice of the Republican pie than in Iowa. Indeed, this theory doesn’t entirely explain Mr.
Huckabee’s steep rise in Iowa, where Mitt Romney has outspent him 20 to 1, a financial advantage that Mr. Romney leveraged to crush him in the state’s straw poll just four months ago.

What really may be going on here is a mirror image of the phenomenon that has upended Hillary Clinton’s "inevitability" among Democrats. Like Senator Obama, Mr. Huckabee is the youngest in his party’s field. (At 52, he’s also younger than every Democratic contender except Mr. Obama, who is 46.) Both men have a history of speaking across party and racial lines. Both men possess that rarest of commodities in American public life: wit. Most important, both men aspire (not always successfully) to avoid the hyper-partisanship of the Clinton-Bush era.

Though their views on issues are often antithetical, Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Obama may be united in catching the wave of an emerging zeitgeist that is larger than either party’s ideology.
An exhausted and disillusioned public may be ready for a replay of the New Frontier pitch of 1960. That pitch won’t come from Mr. Romney, a glib salesman who seems a dead ringer for Don Draper, a Madison Avenue ad man of no known core convictions who works on the Nixon campaign in the TV series, "Mad Men." Mr. Romney’s effort to channel J.F.K. last week, in which he mentioned the word Mormon exactly once, was hardly a profile in courage.

The fact to remember about Mr. Huckabee’s polling spike is that it occurred just after the G.O.P. YouTube debate on CNN, where Mr. Romney and Rudy Giuliani vied to spray the most spittle at illegal immigrants. Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, the fringe candidate whose most recent ads accuse the invading hordes of "pushing drugs, raping kids, destroying lives," accurately accused his opponents of trying to "out-Tancredo Tancredo."
Next to this mean-spiritedness, Mr. Huckabee’s tone leapt off the screen. Attacked by Mr. Romney for supporting an Arkansas program aiding the children of illegal immigrants, he replied, "In all due respect, we’re a better country than to punish children for what their parents did." It was a winning moment, politically as well as morally. And a no-brainer at that. Given that Mr. Tancredo polls at 4 percent among Iowan Republicans and zero nationally, it’s hard to see why Rudy-Romney thought it was smart to try to out-Tancredo Tancredo.

Mr. Huckabee’s humane stand wasn’t an election-year flip-flop. As governor, he decried a bill denying health services to illegal immigrants as "race-baiting" even though its legislator sponsor was a fellow Baptist preacher. Mr. Huckabee’s record on race in general (and in attracting African-American votes) is dramatically at odds with much of his party. Only last year Republicans brought us both "macaca" and a television ad portraying the black Democratic Senate candidate in Tennessee, Harold Ford Jr., as a potential despoiler of white women.

Unlike Rudy-Romney, Mr. Huckabee showed up for the PBS presidential debate held at the historically black Morgan State University in September. Afterward, he met Cornel West, an Obama supporter who deeply disagrees with Mr. Huckabee about abortion and much else. I asked Dr. West for his take last week. After effusively praising Mr. Huckabee as unique among the G.O.P. contenders, Dr. West said: "I told him, ‘You are for real.’ Black voters in Arkansas aren’t stupid. They know he’s sincere about fighting racism and poverty."

Though Mr. Romney’s hastily scheduled speech last week has been greeted by Washington as an essential antidote to the religious bigotry that’s supposedly doing him in, this entire issue may be a red herring. Mr. Romney’s Mormonism has hardly been a secret until now, and Mr.
Huckabee’s eagerness to milk his status as a certified "Christian leader" has been equally transparent from the campaign’s start. Was there really a rising tide of anti-Mormon sentiment in Iowa over the past month, or is Mr. Romney just playing victim?

The real reason for Mr. Huckabee’s ascendance may be that his message is simply more uplifting — and, in the ethical rather than theological sense, more Christian — than that of rivals whose main calling cards of fear, torture and nativism have become more strident with every debate. The fresh-faced politics of joy may be trumping the five-o’clock-shadow of Nixonian gloom and paranoia favored by the entire G.O.P. field with the sometime exception of John McCain.

On the same day of Mr. Romney’s speech, two new polls found Mr. Huckabee with a substantial lead over him and Mr. Giuliani in South Carolina, a stunning reversal from a month ago. Don’t be surprised if a desperate Mitt, who has "accidentally" referred to Mr. Obama as "Osama," does desperate things. South Carolina’s 2000 Republican primary was a jamboree of race-baiting that included a whispering campaign branding Senator McCain as the father of an illegitimate black child. The local political operative who worked for George W. Bush in that race and engineered the infamous Bush visit to Bob Jones University is now in Mr. Romney’s employ.

Mr. Huckabee may well be doomed in the long term. He has little money or organization. He’s so ignorant of foreign affairs that he hadn’t heard of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran a day after its release. His sometimes wacky economic populism riles his party’s most important constituency, Wall Street. And who knows how many other Arkansas scandals will be disinterred along with the paroled serial rapist who popped out last week? That Mr. Huckabee has gotten as far as he has shows just how in sync his benign style is with the cultural moment.

To understand why he can’t be completely dismissed, consider last month’s Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll. Peter Hart, the Democratic half of the bipartisan team that conducts the survey, told me in an interview last week that an overwhelming majority of voters of both parties not only want change but also regard "reducing the partisan fighting in government" as high on their agenda. To his surprise, Mr. Hart found that there’s even a majority (59 percent) seeking a president who would help America in "regaining respect around the world."

This climate, of course, favors the Democrats, especially if the Republicans choose a candidate who brands them as the party of rage and fear — and even more especially if their Tancredo-ism drives a large Hispanic turnout for the national Democratic ticket in Florida, Nevada,
Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. But a Democratic victory is not guaranteed. The huge spread in the Journal-NBC poll between an unnamed Democrat and Republican in the presidential race — 50 to 35 percent — shrank to a 1 percent lead when Mrs. Clinton was pitted against Mr. Giuliani.

Mr. Obama’s campaign, though hardly the long shot of Mr. Huckabee’s, could also fall short. But the Clinton camp’s panic over his rise in the Iowa polls shows that he’s on the right tactical track.

The more polarizing and negative a candidate turns in style, the more that candidate risks playing Nixon to Mr. Obama’s Kennedy. That Mrs. Clinton’s minions would attack Mr. Obama for unseemly ambition because he wrote a kindergarten report called "I Want to Become President" — and then snidely belittle the press for falling for "a joke" once this gambit backfired — is Rudy-Romneyesque in its vituperative folly.

Experience, like nastiness, may also prove a dead end in the year ahead. In 1960, the experience card was played by all comers against the young upstart senator from Massachusetts. In Iowa, L.B.J. went so far as to tell voters that they should vote for "a man with a little gray in his hair." But experience, Kennedy would memorably counter, "is like taillights on a boat which illuminate where we have been when we should be focusing on where we should be going."

The most experienced candidate in 2008 is not Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Giuliani or Mr. Romney in any case. It’s Mr. McCain, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson who have the longest résumés. Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Obama, meanwhile, are both betting that this is another crossroads, like 1960, when Americans are hungry for a leader who will refocus the nation on the path ahead.

www.ruffcommunications.com

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Monday, December 03, 2007

If the current round of Huck-a-mania is nothing more than Mike Huckabee’s fifteen minutes of fame, the former Arkansas Governor is certainly making the most of it. Today, in the first full round of national polling completed since last week’s “debate” among Republican Presidential hopefuls, Huckabee has pulled to within three points of the frontrunning Rudy Giuliani. Heading into the debate, Giuliani led Huckabee by twelve.

Not only that, new polling data released today shows that Huckabee has pulled to within a single percentage point of Hillary Clinton in a general election match-up. Huckabee is also a frontrunner in Iowa and essentially tied for second in New Hampshire. Some pundits believe Huckabee’s numbers will surely go down as fast as they’ve gone up while others are beginning to consider the possibility that the bass-guitar playing Governor may become a serious contender for the Republican nomination.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Giuliani with 20% support nationwide while Huckabee attracts 17%. Fred Thompson is at 14%, John McCain at 13% and Mitt Romney at 11%. Ron Paul attracts 7% of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide and no other Republican candidate reaches 2% (see recent daily numbers). During the past week, three events—a debate, an endorsement, and Huck-a-mania—have created new challenges and uncertainties for the GOP frontrunners.

Rudy Giuliani is still seen as the most electable Republican. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee are essentially tied for second in this category.

Results for the Presidential Tracking Poll are obtained through nightly telephone interviews and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Today is the first update for which all of the interviews were conducted following Wednesday’s Republican debate.

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Clinton now attracts 37% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 24%. John Edwards remains in third place among the Democratic hopefuls at 15%, Bill Richardson is the top choice for 6%, and no other Democratic candidate tops 3% (see recent daily numbers).

Seventy-three percent (73%) of Democrats believe that Clinton is at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated. That’s down from 81% a month ago. Sixty-six percent (66%) believe Obama is at least somewhat likely to win it all and 58% say the same about Edwards.
New polling on general election match-ups released over the weekend shows Obama tied with McCain, in a toss-up with Giuliani, and leading both Thompson and Romney.

Other polling released yesterday shows that just 23% believe the United States is heading in the right direction. Women are more pessimistic than men.

Also, during the month of November, 37.3% of Americans identified themselves as Democrats while 32.6% considered themselves Republicans. Those figures are virtually unchanged from October, are a bit better for the GOP than November 2006, but represent a significant decline in the number of Republicans since President Bush’s re-election.

See Rasmussen Reports general election match-ups and other key stats for all Republican and Democratic candidates.

The Rasmussen Reports Election 2008 Presidential Tracking Poll is updated daily. Today is the first day of regular weekend updates.

Daily tracking results are from survey interviews conducted over four days ending last night. Each update includes approximately 750 Likely Democratic Primary Voters and 600 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Reports provides a weekly analysis of both the Republican and Democratic race each Monday.

Each Monday, full week results are released based upon a seven-day rolling average. While the daily tracking result are useful for measuring quick reaction to events in the news, the full week results provide an effective means for evaluating longer-term trends.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

This survey includes approximately 750-800 Likely Democratic Primary Voters and 600-650 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

www.ruffcommunications.com

Huckabee: I Beat the Clinton Machine Twice

Huckabee: I Beat the Clinton Machine Twice

Sunday, December 2, 2007 8:31 PM

By: Dave Eberhart

“We’re the only campaign that has had one trajectory, and that’s been forward and upward," says Mike Huckabee.

WASHINGTON -- Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who once trailed badly with little money and a skeletal campaign staff, has now pulled ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to steal the lead.

Last week, Newsmax caught up with Huckabee during his visit to Washington, D.C.
Huckabee, ecstatic about the rising poll numbers, explained the momentum factor: “We’re the only campaign that has had one trajectory, and that’s been forward and upward… We’re the only campaign that has not had a peak and now has slipped backwards.”

According to a Des Moines Register poll out this past weekend, Huckabee has the solid support of 29 percent of Iowans who say they definitely or probably will attend the Republican Party’s caucuses on Jan. 3. Romney placed second with 24 percent.

Meanwhile, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is not catching fire in Iowa, nor is former Sen. Fred Thompson, pulling 13 percent and 9 percent, respectively.

The phenomenon that is Mike Huckabee has not been lost on others deeply involved in the 2008 contest. Bill Clinton has candidly admitted that Huckabee may just be wife Hillary’s worst nightmare in a general-election matchup.

And Sen. Barack Obama is on record saying that Huckabee is his personal favorite GOP candidate.

Could the Democrats really want Mike Huckabee as their opponent next year?

“I think it just shows how smart these guys really, really are,” Huckabee tells Newsmax. “It’s an honestly good thing to have people who look at you as a formidable candidate. I think sometimes there are more Democrats who worry about me than the Republicans do.”

Newsmax last visited with candidate Huckabee this past summer.

Today, Huckabee exudes confidence.

Months ago, Huckabee stressed his greatest strength: he hadn’t “flip-flopped” on the signature issues.

“I have nothing to explain,” Huckabee said then with confidence. “I’m comfortable in my own skin.”

Iowa voters seems to be reacting to Huckabee’s authenticity.

Gena Norris, who along with her TV action star husband Chuck Norris, has boarded the Huckabee bandwagon big-time, reinforced the idea.

“He is just soooo genuine,” she confides to Newsmax.

She and Chuck were with Huckabee in St. Petersburg, Fla., for the latest debate and had joined him as well in Washington.

Mr. Norris notes that committing to Huckabee was not an easy thing:

“It was a tough thing because Duncan Hunter is a very close friend of mine and Fred Thompson is a good friend of mine. But the thing is that I had to go with my heart who I thought would be the best person to lead us into the next generation -- especially with the young people.”

For his part, Huckabee is thrilled to have Walker, Texas Ranger in his corner
“We had a lot of fun and put together an introductory spot that was the number one watched YouTube spot for a couple of days and really got a lot of attention,” he says.

Huckabee deftly sidesteps a Newsmax comparison of his own successes with that of fellow Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul. The Texas congressman, like Huckabee, is also doing well as an outside-the-pack candidate, getting attention and raising a lot of money online.
The easygoing, guitar-playing candidate simply refrains from rapping the competition. He wants to keep the formula positive and upbeat.

Not that his polite model has rubbed off on everyone else. As his poll numbers have climbed, so have the attacks. But Huckabee sees a silver lining in the vitriol:

“It’s almost as if that the more the negative attacks come from the other campaigns, the better our numbers get,” he said. “Not that I’m wishing upon myself more attacks,” he adds with a smile.

Nice guy Huckabee is a firm believer in Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: “Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican.” And that code of conduct applies even to a comment about his number one nemesis, Rudy Giuliani.

“I believe in Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment. Actually, I like Rudy and, you know, here’s why I like him. I disagree with him on several key issues, particularly the social issues."
Then Huckabee goes for the jugular in his easygoing manner.

“We’re not on the same page when it comes to the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment or same-sex marriage, but let me tell you what I admire him for . . .” Huckabee says, scoring big points with the religious right Republicans.

Huckabee admits his success has even surprised him and his campaign staff, and not just his Iowa success.

Huckabee notes that his campaign has built momentum in places like Texas, Florida, and South Carolina – places “where we shouldn’t even be in play.”

But in play he is, with poll rankings of second, second, and third, respectively, in those key states. And the reason for the good numbers is exactly what?

“Not because we have spent money,” he explains, “not because we got staff on the ground, not because we have run a minute’s worth of advertising, but purely on the strength of what mostly is happening in the blogosphere, people contacting people, the debates -- all of those things have an accumulative effect.”

Best Equipped to Battle the Clinton Machine

The candidate likes to point out that in Arkansas when he was sworn in as governor, only 11 out of 100 members of the state House were Republican. Furthermore, there were only four out of 35 senators who were Republican.

“I went into a legislature that was more lopsided than any other legislature in the country including Massachusetts,” Huckabee explains. “No governor faced a more overwhelming opposite-party legislature than I did and that legislature was heavily populated by people politically related to the Clintons.

“Bill and Hillary campaigned for every opponent that I have ever had,” he says, explaining how he took on the Clinton machine in Arkansas and beat them twice.

Huckabee notes that his unique advantage is that, in his opinion, nobody running for president knows the Clintons better -- and knows how their campaigns will be operated as well as he does.
“Believe me, the political machinery that they set up in Arkansas was the machinery against which I had to run every time I faced an opponent.”

Huckabee believes he can, and has, translated his Arkansas political savvy to the national stage.
“I think it’s really a matter of touching people at all parts of the spectrum. For example, I’m the first Republican in 119 years to get the endorsement of Machinist and Aerospace Worker’s Union. To be a Republican and get that endorsement at all is remarkable.

He even thinks he can tap into the African-American vote, citing CNN exit polls that showed he garnered 48 percent of the black vote in his re-election bid for governor.

Huckabee strongly maintains that he has the credentials to appeal to independent and disgusted and fed-up voters. He doesn’t have a Washington address; he’s not with the inside-the-Beltway crew and most importantly he is not part of what he sees as a highly discredited and unpopular set of lawmakers sitting atop Capitol Hill.

“Quite frankly this city isn’t just real popular out there in America right now, and if you see the polls you would say, well, boy, the president is not very popular. The only thing less popular is Congress right now.”

Huckabee does admit to one perhaps significant chink in his armor. Some might perceive him to be soft on illegal immigration.

He doesn’t think this is the case, however, and hopes that the rank and file voter will see that he simply wants to add a measure of fairness to the firmness.

“Some people want me to be a lot harsher [on immigration policy],” Huckabee explains.
“When I realized that there are kids [children of illegal immigrants] out there who are as good as me and they didn’t have a choice where they were born; they didn’t have a choice to whom they were born; then I have to ask myself do I really want to put my heel in their face no matter how hard they work?

“My soul won’t let me pander that issue any further than that and I’m not going to,” he says with determination.

Chuck Norris says that it’s Huckabee’s compassion for the children of illegals that is one of the factors that moved him to support his candidacy.

The actor teaches martial arts to Hispanic youngsters in Texas and sees any policy of blanket expulsion as counterproductive to the kids who are achieving the American dream through hard work and furthering their educations.

Norris says it’s all part of the complete Huckabee package.

“I really think that he’s a people’s president. I was always a people’s actor. Critics hated me. For 30 years all I got was negative press from the critics, but the people took to me and because of that I did 23 movies and 203 episodes of 'Walker Texas Ranger.'

© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

www.ruffcommunications.com

America's Mayor is on a Roll November 9, 2007

November 09, 2007
America's Mayor Is on a Roll
By Lawrence Kudlow

While Hillary Clinton is slipping in the polls, Rudy Giuliani is on a roll. This is a big swing of momentum. Even the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll puts the two frontrunners in a dead heat.

Sen. Clinton was hurt badly by her flip-flopping performance in last month's Democratic debate. America's mayor, on the other hand, just got a hugely important endorsement from the Rev. Pat Robertson. The message to social conservatives is clear: It's now OK to vote for Rudy.

Why Rudy? Robertson named out-of-control federal spending, appointing conservative judges, reducing crime and, perhaps most importantly, "the overriding issue (of) defending against (the) bloodlust of Islamic terrorists," as issues that strongly favor Giuliani. On the other hand, he called abortion -- something of a sticky subject for Giuliani -- "only one issue" of importance.
The endorsement also suggests that evangelicals are divided on 2008. Indeed, there's no monolithic movement in favor of any major candidate. This is critical. It means no third-party candidacy from the Christian right.

Recall that Bill and Hillary Clinton benefited enormously in 1992 when Ross Perot swiped 19 percent of the vote (most of those Republican) in the race against Papa Bush. And when Perot ran again in '96, he undoubtedly drained votes from Sen. Bob Dole. (I note that Bill Clinton didn't garner 50 percent of the vote in either of these elections.) But Robertson has very likely removed this dynamic. No third-party gifts for Hillary in 2008.

Robertson is a big score for Giuliani, right when he's gaining ground on Mitt Romney in New Hampshire. That said, Romney is still up 15 points in New Hampshire, according to Scott Rasmussen's poll, and 9.5 points, as per the RealClearPolitics average. So you know what? Good for Romney.

To be very clear, I am not picking sides here. I do think Romney is running a strong campaign. And he's gaining strength as a candidate. I also think John McCain is finding his sea legs on the campaign trail. Romney, McCain and Giuliani are all strengthening what they say and how they say it. But at this writing, Giuliani appears to be at the top of his game.

When I interviewed him last week on CNBC, it marked the fourth time we had sat down together this year. But something was different. Giuliani was more in command of a wide breadth of issues, while there was a lot less talk about his considerable accomplishments as mayor of New York City.

For example, when I asked him what a President Giuliani would do to prop up the sagging dollar, he immediately reeled off a series of proposals: Cut spending, and stop the earmarks. Deregulate wherever possible. Curb the stranglehold of Sarbanes-Oxley on the securities market. Make sure there's no new Sarbox for home-loan mortgage credits. Keep the trial lawyers from launching class-action lawsuits against mortgage-security investors, which would only cripple housing credit in the future. Restore confidence in the economy by stopping Charlie Rangel's mother-of-all-tax-hikes proposal.

That was some list. He also came out for cutting the corporate income tax -- both as a pro-growth job creator and as a way to boost the sagging fortunes of the dollar. He's right on both counts. In particular, he was emphatic about reducing the corporate tax so we can better compete with Europe (read the euro).

Grow the economy. Create more jobs. Strengthen worker wages. Giuliani was on fire. In fact, at the end of the interview, as we were walking off the set, he confided in me that he would suggest an immediate corporate-tax-cut proposal to President Bush. Giuliani wants results. And he knows he can win.

"I can beat her," Giuliani said. "I can run in key states other Republicans can't run in. That's why Democrats are attacking me."

I still believe that it's a strong Republican field. And I still believe Hillary Clinton's message of heavy spending, middle-class entitlements and higher taxes is a Mondale-era loser. But there's no doubt about it, America's mayor is on a roll.

Lawrence Kudlow is a former Reagan economic advisor, a syndicated columnist, and the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company. Visit his blog, Kudlow's Money Politics.

www.ruffcommunications.com

Clintons, Obama pay homage to civil rights March 4, 2007

Clintons, Obama pay homage to civil rights

March 4, 2007
FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SELMA, Ala. -- Barack Obama reached across a generation to link arms with the civil rights activists whose hard-fought fight of the 1960s made his presidential bid possible today.
Standing in the way of his success were his chief rival for the nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her husband, former President Clinton, who enjoy widespread affection in the black community. All three took part in a symbolic show of unity Sunday in the churches and streets of Selma -- one that belied the fierce political struggle for the support of a critical Democratic constituency.
''I'm here because somebody marched for our freedom,'' Obama, who would become the first black president, said from the Brown Chapel AME Church where the march began on March 7, 1965. ''I'm here because you all sacrificed for me. I stand on the shoulders of giants.''
The church was where the march began on March 7, 1965, a bloody walk for voting rights as police attacked activists with billyclubs. ''Bloody Sunday'' shocked the nation and helped bring attention to the racist voting practices that kept blacks from the polls.
Sen. Clinton said the Voting Rights Act and the Selma march made possible her presidential campaign, as well as those of Obama and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who would be the first Hispanic to occupy the Oval Office.
''After all the hard work getting rid of literacy tests and poll taxes, we've got to stay awake because we've got a march to continue,'' Clinton said in a speech interrupted numerous times by applause and shouts of approval. ''How can we rest while poverty and inequality continue to rise?''
Not to be outdone in the hunt for black votes, Hillary Clinton spoke in Selma at a church three blocks away and brought a secret weapon -- her husband. Three days before the march anniversary, her campaign announced that the former president who is so popular among blacks would accompany her for his induction into Selma's Voting Rights Hall of Fame.
Clinton and Obama both appeared outside Brown Chapel for a pre-march rally, but came from opposite sides of the podium and did not interact. Despite the intense rivalry between their campaigns, the two praised each other.
''It's excellent that we have a candidate like Barack Obama who embodies what all of you fought for here 42 years ago,'' Clinton said. Obama said Clinton is ''doing an excellent job for this country and we're going to be marching arm-in-arm.''
But they did not join arms when the commemorative march attended by thousands got under way. Instead, Clinton held hands with her husband and Obama was several people down the line. Obama, who shed his coat and tie for the march, approached Hillary Clinton at one point and the two chatted for a few seconds before moving back to opposite sides of the street.
The two candidates sounded similar themes in their speeches. Both said the civil rights movement is not over because inequality still exists in education, health care and the economy. Both criticized the Bush administration for failing to return Hurricane Katrina victims to their homes.
But Obama, who was three years old on Bloody Sunday, delivered a call to action that would be politically unfeasible for Clinton or any of his other white rivals. He said the current generation of blacks does not always honor the civil rights movement and needs to take responsibility for improving their lives by rejecting violence; cleaning up ''40-ounce bottles'' and other trash that litters urban neighborhoods; and voting instead of complaining that the government is not helping them.
''How can it be that our voting rates dropped down to 30, 40, 50 percent when people shed their blood to allow us to vote?'' Obama asked at a unity breakfast with community leaders.
At the breakfast, Obama got a key to the city and another to surrounding Dallas County from a probate judge, Kim Ballard. ''Forty-two years ago he might would have needed it because I understand it would open the jail cells,'' Ballard said. ''But not today.''
Obama said the fight for civil rights reverberated across the globe and inspired his father to aspire to something beyond his job herding goats in Kenya. His father moved to Hawaii to get an education under a program for African students and met Obama's mother, a fellow student from Kansas.
Obama said he was not surprised when it was reported this week that his white ancestors on his mother's side owned slaves. ''That's no surprise in America,'' he said and added that the civil rights struggle made it possible for such a diverse couple to fall in love.
''If it hasn't been for Selma, I wouldn't be here,'' Obama said. ''This is the site of my conception. I am the fruits of your labor. I am the offspring of the movement. When people ask me whether I've been to Selma before, I tell them I'm coming home.''
But the former president stole the show from the two candidates. The audience cheered loudest for him when the three took the stage at the end of the march and the crowd mobbed him as he tried to make it to his limousine, delaying his departure.
Speaking at his induction, Clinton said the 2008 campaign features ''a rainbow coalition running for president.''
''If it hadn't been for the Voting Rights Act, the South would have never recovered and two white southerners -- Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- never could have become president,'' Clinton said.
Other Democratic candidates are not leaving the black vote to Obama and Clinton. John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee, was speaking about Selma and civil rights at the University of California, Berkeley.
''The fight for civil rights and equal rights and economic and social justice is more than just going to celebrations, even as wonderful as the one in Selma,'' Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery as he referred to Berkeley janitors' fight for a wage increase. ''The fight is going on right here, right now.''
Associated Press writers Phillip Rawls and Bob Johnson contributed to this report.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

www.ruffcommunications.com

Jones' Obama pitch to black Democrats stirs controversy February 6 2007

Jones' Obama pitch to black Democrats stirs controversy

February 6, 2007

BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist

ASHINGTON -- Seeking to solidify African-American backing for Barack Obama's presidential bid, Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr. told black Democrats meeting here last week they don't "owe" anyone, alluding to, but not mentioning by name, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Obama, said Jones, "is our son."

In a Monday telephone interview, Jones, Obama's political godfather, told me, "How long do we have to owe before we have an opportunity to support our son?

"And I know that Barack Obama is our son and he deserves our support."

He made a similar race-based appeal to a group of black Democratic activists Friday at a closed Democratic National Committee winter meeting.

"Nobody in that room had any doubt that he was speaking about the Clintons," said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic consultant who was there.

President Clinton enjoyed tremendous support from black voters; it will not be automatically transferred to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Obama, who would be the first African-American nominee, will have to work for some black endorsements. Jones' pitch for Obama, Simmons added, "exposed internal conflicts" within the African-American political community.

'Could offend people'

Jones said his comments, first reported in Monday's the Politico, were not that different than when he stumped for black votes during Obama's contested 2004 Illinois Senate Democratic primary.

Jones said he was moved to try to recruit Obama backers when he realized senior Clinton adviser Minyon Moore -- who is a Chicago native -- was at the meeting.

The controversy triggered by Jones was picked up by CNN Monday, and the Rev. Al Sharpton told CNN that Jones "could offend people by saying you got to unite just because someone is your race."

Sharpton noted that Obama endorsed Mayor Daley for re-election over two black candidates, so it would not follow to ask blacks "to do something for Obama that he himself is not doing at home."

www.ruffcommunications.com

BILL FLETCHER: Black America: Place demands on Democrats

BILL FLETCHER: Black America: Place demands on Democrats
by Bill Fletcher, NNPANovember 30, 2006

Like most of the folks that I know, the day after Election Day, I was excited. I was excited because the Republicans generally, and President Bush in particular, had their collective noses rubbed in the mud (I was going to use another imagery but I am being polite.) The anger and frustration that millions of people have had with the Iraq war, the attacks on civil liberties, the corruption, the mean-spirited government, the cuts in services and the polarization of wealth just added up. And, oh, by the way, a side benefit of our outrage: Rumsfeld is gone.

Now that we have that out of our systems, we need to turn our attention to the Democrats. Frankly, they were lucky. There is no other way to put it. They won despite the fact that they had no clear message regarding the war or anything else. They tapped into the anger and frustration with the Republicans and were beneficiaries of that, but they were not leading anything.

So, the point is that Black America, and all others that share our desire for social, economic, political and environmental justice cannot sit back and hope that the Democrats do the right thing. They lack a clear alternative plan. If history is any judge, without pressure, the Democrats will cave in to, if not actively support, the general direction of the Republicans.

Consider for a moment the Iraq war. Increasing numbers of people in the U.S.A. recognize that not only is the Iraq war a no-win proposition but that it was wrong in the first place. Thus, there must be an approach that is fundamentally about removing all U.S. troops (including bases) and offering reparations to the Iraqi people for the horrible damage that the U.S.A. illegally inflicted upon them. This must be the stand that our political leaders take, but too many are ready to offer compromises in the name of bi-partisanship, particularly, offering a lack of specifics in terms of how quickly the U.S. will pull out and what it will actually do to assist the Iraqi people.

There is no point in waiting for the Democrats to come up with a plan on Iraq, or any other significant area. Rather, people like you and me need to place demands on the Democrats and insist on a change of course for this country. In that regard, we must learn a valuable and painful lesson from the Bill Clinton era.

When President Clinton was elected there was a sigh of relief that spread across this country, much like the sigh that many of us heard or experienced on November 8th after the Republican defeat. Having suffered under 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administration, it felt great to have, what appeared to be a different direction for the country. At that point, one movement after another de-mobilized. It was amazing to watch it happen.

Clinton was able to get a pass from organized labor as well as the African-American movement and the women's movement. When he supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), there was resistance, but his actions were forgotten. When he abolished welfare, there were murmurings of discontent, but little public outcry from the mainstream leaders of liberal and progressive America. When he advanced his anti-terrorism act, there was little concern about the arbitrariness of the provision. When he attacked Yugoslavia, too many of us accepted that this was an alleged humanitarian action. Movement after movement was prepared to stick an apple in its own mouth because any other action would embarrass our friend in the White House and give ammunition to the Republicans.


The results of this de-mobilization could be seen in the Republican victory in the 1994 midterm Congressional elections and their Contract with America. It could be seen in the declining number of Democrats elected to office during the Clinton era. And it could be seen in the conditions being laid for the assumption of office by George W. Bush. In other words, people of conscience gained absolutely nothing.

If we learn from that experience then we can go forward. If, however, we sit back and wait for the Democrats to do the right thing, we are living in a fool's paradise. Remember the old saying Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me.

No time for shame, but definitely time to struggle. While the door is open, let's keep pushing.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a long-time labor and international activist and writer. He is currently serving as a Visiting Professor at Brooklyn College-City University of New York. He is the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and can be reached at papaq54@hotmail.com.

www.ruffcommunications.com