Subject: AA Media Clips, 2.26.08
From: "Darrell Jackson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Clips Distro" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:51:25 -0500

IN THE NEWS:

Clinton and Obama Prepare to Spar in Final Debate Before Major, Big-State Primary Races

Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2008
By: Jackie Jones, BlackAmericaWeb.com 

Views are mixed on whether a strong showing in Tuesday's debate -- or even a colossal mistake by her opponent -- will shore up Sen. Hillary Clinton's flagging campaign for the Democratic nomination for president.

Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama will meet in Cleveland for a final debate before the March 4 primaries in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island. After leading by double digits weeks ago, Clinton is now ahead of Obama by seven points in Ohio and finds herself in a statistical dead heat in Texas -- two states that political observers say are critical for Clinton if she is to remain in the race.

Clinton has not won a campaign or a caucus since Super Tuesday on Feb. 5. Obama has won 11 races in a row including, last Wednesday, the Democrats Abroad vote.

"Tuesday's debate means everything for both candidates," Democratic political strategist Craig Kirby told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "After more than 14 months of debates across the country, it all comes down to 90 minutes where each candidate will have the opportunity to lay the foundation for the next week of conversation and into the voting booths on March 4."

Others suggest the impact of candidate debates is questionable, at best.

"I think the election is a do-or-die thing, but I'm not convinced these debates are that important," countered David A. Hollinger, a professor of American History at the University of California-Berkeley.

Hollinger said Obama has become a better debater over time, and his message has resonated more strongly with voters, who seem to be paying closer attention than ever to candidates and their positions.

In a recent article for The Chronicle of Higher Education, Hollinger wrote that Obama's candidacy challenges the nation's ideas about race and identity politics, maintaining that he has demonstrated "a formidable appeal to white voters."

That makes it more difficult for Clinton to shake off Obama as merely a niche candidate.

"His strong showing in Virginia on Feb. 12 advanced a trend already visible in caucus states. His greatest margin of victory so far was not in predominantly black Washington, D.C., but in Idaho, a social and cultural 'red' state with almost no black voters," Hollinger wrote in The Chronicle. "Obama's percentages have also increased among black voters, who polls had indicated were pragmatically ready to stick with Clinton until Obama showed that he, like she, could draw enough white voters to make victory a possibility. His victories ... reflect a capacity to reach across the color line that no American of his color has ever before remotely approached."

"I'm more interested in the overall contours of the campaign" than in the debates, Hollinger told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"Ohio will once again decide who wins the White House," Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern told reporters over the weekend. "The Ohio Democratic debate is important because it will allow the next president of the United States to address the issues most important to Ohioans."

Part of the debate's emphasis will be on the economy and the loss of 250,000 manufacturing jobs in the state of Ohio in the past four years.

Clinton and Obama have clashed over NAFTA, the 1993 trade policy act that instead of improving trade between the U.S. and its neighbors, has resulted in American companies outsourcing jobs overseas and depressing the Mexican economy by driving down wages.

Obama has charged that NAFTA was bad for the U.S. economy and that Clinton supported it. Clinton has recently sought to put distance between herself and the trade agreement, and "argued that while NAFTA 'passed' during husband Bill Clinton's administration in 1993, President George H.W. Bush actually 'negotiated' the deal," according to The Washington Post.

On Monday, the Clinton campaign responded to a mailing sent out by the Obama campaign last week that attack Clinton's position on NAFTA. Calling Obama's literature "lies" and "distortions," the Clinton campaign sent out automated calls in Ohio telling voters:

"NAFTA has hurt Ohio families, and I have a plan to fix it. My opponent does not. I'll appoint a trade prosecutor to enforce our trade agreements and crack down on China's unfair trade practices. I'll eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and invest in creating good jobs right here in Ohio." 

After the more conciliatory tone in their debate in Austin, Texas last week, Clinton now has gone on the offensive and challenged Obama to a showdown over their positions on trade, universal health care, foreign policy and what she said is the Illinois senator's lack of experience in public life.
 
"We're going to emphasize more and more the experience gap," Clinton recently told several hundred supporters who paid at least $500 to attend a Boston fundraiser. "You'll hear a lot about it the next eight days."
 
The New York senator said the posters voters are bringing to her events indicate the issue of experience is coming to the forefront.
 
"When I first started, it was 'You Go, Girl,' 'Women Making History,' all about the pioneering nature of my candidacy," Clinton said. Recently, she said, the signs had changed.
 
"In Houston last night, it was, 'We Want Experience, Not An Experiment,' and 'The White House Is No Place for Training Wheels,'" she said. 

Clinton blamed her woes in part on unfair press coverage, but said she believed Obama had come under increased media scrutiny in recent days. 

She even urged the group to watch the latest episode of "Saturday Night Live," which featured a skit mocking last Thursday's CNN debate in Texas as little more than a love fest for Obama.

But Clinton can expect to take some heat on the experience issue as well. 

"Both Democratic candidates continue to present challenges going into this debate, as they've failed to show how they are prepared to lead on the issues that matter most to Americans," said Tara Wall, a conservative commentator and former senior advisor for the Republican National Committee.

"While Sen. Clinton resorts to blatant pandering and divisiveness, Sen. Obama continues to come up short on presenting any substantive plan on a host of issues," Wall told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "This runs in stark contrast to a Republican agenda that seeks to grow the economy by letting us keep more of what we earn, make health care more affordable, accessible and portable without the bureaucratic red tape and keep America safer at home and abroad."

She can also expect to take some heat from black voters who not only were unimpressed by her remarks in last week's debate, but also her failure to specifically appeal for the black vote during her appearance Saturday at the end of the State of the Black Union forum in New Orleans. Asked by moderator Tavis Smiley how important the black vote was to her candidacy, Clinton didn't answer directly.

"Obviously, this is a very competitive race. We're both working as hard as we know how," she said of herself and Obama. "We should have to get out and work for every single person's vote. There is no entitlement here, there's no guarantee. I do believe the constituents that historically have supported the Democratic nominee" -- blacks, labor, Latinos and blue-collar workers -- "we must be united once we have a nominee.

"There is going to be a very competitive race with the Republicans," Clinton said. "If we are not united, we will not win."

Some observers question Clinton's decision to fight for the nomination, despite 11 straight losses in primary contests.

"She already knows that she doesn't have a leg to stand on, but rather than step out graciously, she's having a hard time losing to a black man," opined Barbara Harrid of Bowie, Maryland. "If it had been a white man, she would have stepped aside, and that's why she can't answer the question asked of her."

Harrid told BlackAmericaWeb.com that Tuesday was already a moot point and that Clinton's challenge to Obama for "a real debate" is simply that "she's trying to provoke him, but he won't take the bait."

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/movingamerica08/finaldebate226

***

Obama's Ohio Grilling

By Alec MacGillis
CLEVELAND -- The Clinton campaign has sent indication that Barack Obama better be ready for a tough debate here tonight ("Meet me in Ohio," the senator herself warned on Saturday). If he is in for some tough questions, then Obama got a decent tuneup in this city two days ago, when he attended a meeting with about 100 Jewish community leaders.

Those in attendance got right to the point, asking Obama about just about every topic that has so far caused some qualms about him in some quarters of the country's Jewish community, qualms that could pose a real problem for him in the general election in crucial states like Florida: about the outspoken pastor of his church and his link to Louis Farrakhan, about Obama's views on Palestinians, about the e-mails passing the false claim that he is a Muslim, and about his plans for opening greater dialogue with the Muslim world, including with Iran.

Obama's answers were, on several points, more expansive than just about anything he has offered on the subject in the past. He distanced himself somewhat from his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, saying he was "like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with," and he condemned Farrakhan, who received an award from a church publication and last weekend endorsed Obama. He also distanced himself from his informal foreign policy adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former Carter national security adviser, who has upset some Jewish leaders with his endorsement of the authors of a recent book about the "Israel lobby." At the same time, though, Obama lamented some of the limits imposed on the debate over the Israel-Palestine question within the U.S.

"Because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the U.S. pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation," he said. He added at another point: "There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel."

Following are excerpts of some of the most revealing parts of the 45-minute discussion.

On Obama's Chicago church, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan:
I am member of the Unity Church of Christ, Trinity United Church of Christ, been there for 20 years. And although this is an improvement because you don't think I am Muslim, which is the other... [laughter] You know, so, slowly we are progressing here. It is a very conventional African American church. If you go to, if you were there at the church, you would be hearing gospel music and people preaching about Jesus. It is very conventional in that sense.

It is true that my pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who will be retiring this month, is somebody who on occasion can say controversial things. Most of them, by the way, are controversial directed at the African American community and calling on them [to] start reading books and turn off the TV set and engage in self-help. And he is very active in prison ministries and so forth. It is also true that he comes out of the '60s -- he is an older man. That is where he cut his teeth. That he has historically been interested in the African roots of the African American experience. 

He was very active in the South Africa divestment movement, and you will recall that there was a tension that arose between the African American and the Jewish communities during that period when we were dealing with apartheid in South Africa, because Israel and South Africa had a relationship at that time. And that cause -- that was a source of tension. So there have been a couple of occasions where he made comments with relation, rooted in that. Not necessarily ones that I share. But that is the context within which he has made those comments.

He does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan. Louis Farrakhan is a resident of Chicago, and as a consequence he has been active in a range of community activities, particularly around ex-offenders and dealing with them. I have been a consistent, before I go any further, a consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan, nobody challenges that. And what is true is that, recently this is probably, I guess last year. An award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behalf of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his controversial statements. And I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community, and I said so. But I have never heard an anti-Semitic [remark] made inside of our church. I have never heard anything that would suggest anti-Semitism on part of the pastor. 

He is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don't agree with. Including, on occasion, directed at African Americans that maybe a possibility that's just -- I am not suggesting that's definitive. So the point I make is this, that I understand the concerns and the sensitivities, and one of my goals constantly in my public career has been to try to bridge what was a historically powerful bond between the African American and Jewish communities that has been frayed in recent years. For a whole variety of reasons. I think that I have served as an effective bridge, and that's the reason I have overwhelming support among the Jewish community that knows me best, which is the Jewish community in Chicago . And I think that anybody who has friends among the Jewish community in Chicago should check out those credentials. 

But I do appreciate the opportunity to clarify those concerns. And as I said, that last point I would make is that you know my pastor is going to be retiring over the next month. So my general view, and the reason that I raise this, this is always a sensitive point, what you don't want to do is distance yourself or kick somebody away, because you are now running for president and you are worried about perceptions, particularly when someone is basically winding down their life and their career.

On Brzezinski and e-mails being circulated that question Obama's commitment to Israel:
"There is a spectrum of views in terms of how the U.S. and Israel should be interacting. It has evolved over time. It means that somebody like Brzezinski, who when he was national security adviser would be considered not outside of the mainstream in terms of his perspective on these issues, is now considered by many in the Jewish community anathema. I know Brzezinski, [but] he's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once, I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times. He came to Iowa to introduce me for a speech on Iraq. He and I agree that Iraq was an enormous strategic blunder and that input from him has been useful in assessing Iraq, as well as Pakistan, where actually, traditionally, if you will recall he was considered a hawk. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party was very suspicious of Brzezinski precisely because he was so tough on many of these issues. I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally.

The others that you refer to are former members of the Clinton administration. Somebody like a Tony Lake, the former national security adviser, or Susan Rice -- these are not anti-Israel individuals. These are people who strongly believe in Israel's right to exist. Strongly believe in a two-state solution. Strongly believe that the Palestinians have been irresponsible and have been strongly critical of them. Share my view that Israel has to remain a Jewish state, that the U.S. has a special relationship with the Jewish state. There's no inkling that there has been anything in anything that they've written that would suggest they're not stalwart friends of Israel. 

This is where I get to be honest, and I hope I'm not out of school here. I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have a honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress. And frankly, some of the commentary that I've seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is nonmilitary or non-belligerent or doesn't talk about just crushing the opposition, that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we're going to have problems moving forward. And that, I think, is something we have to have an honest dialogue about. 

None of these e-mails talk about the fact that on the other side, members of my national finance committee, like Lester Crown, are considered about as hawkish and tough when it comes to Israel as anybody in the country. So, there's got to be some balance here. I've got a range of perspectives and a range of advisers who approach this issue. They would all be considered well within the mainstream of that bipartisan consensus that I raised or that we talked about in terms of being pro-Israel. There's never been any of my advisers who questioned the need for us to provide Israel with security, with military aid, with economic aid. That there has to be a two-state solution, that Israel has to remain a Jewish state. None of my advisers would suggest that, so I think it's important to keep some of these things in perspective. I understand people's concern with Brzezinski, given how much offense the Israeli lobby raised, but he's not one of my central advisers. 

There is an article in Newsweek, not to make this overly political, this issue that shows that there has been a fairly systemic effort on the part of some of my opponent's supporters, I won't say it was sanctioned from the top, to constantly feed this suspicion, and I want people to take my words and my track record of years on this issue to heart. I got to admit this one is a plan.

On the political sensitivity of the Palestinian question inside the U.S.:
In terms of advisers and the kind of debate I think is fruitful, one of the things that struck me when I went to Israel was how much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States. It's very ironic. I sat down with the head of Israeli security forces, and his view of the Palestinians was incredibly nuanced because he's dealing with these people every day. There's good and there's bad, and he was willing to say sometimes we make mistakes and we made this miscalculation and if we are just pressing down on these folks constantly without giving them some prospects for hope, that's not good for our security situation. There was a very honest, thoughtful debate taking place inside Israel . All of you, I'm sure, have experienced this when you travel there. 

Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the U.S. pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation. But all I'm saying though is that actually, ultimately should be our goal, to have that same clear-eyed view about how we approach these issues. 

On whether the Democrats have to worry about Jewish voters deserting for the Republican Party over issues like Iran:
Look, the Jewish community is a) diverse, b) has interests beyond Israel . There is a ... the tradition of the Jewish community in America as a progressive force that is concerned with the poor, is concerned with the vulnerable, is concerned with children, is concerned with civil rights, is concerned with civil liberties. Those are values that I believe are much more evident in our Democratic Party, and that can't be forgotten. I think that what I've seen, and you would know better than I would, is that to the extent that there's been bleeding over into the Republican Party, it all has to do with this issue of Israel. And what I would simply suggest is look at the consequences of George Bush's policies. The proof is in the point. I do not understand how anybody who is concerned about Israel 's security and the threat of Iran could be supportive of George Bush's foreign policy. It has completely backfired. It is indisputable that Iran is the biggest strategic beneficiary of the war in Iraq . We have spent what will soon be close to a trillion dollars strengthening Iran, expanding their influence. How is that helpful to Israel? How is that helpful to Israel? You can't make that argument. And so the problem that we've seen in U.S. foreign policy generally has been this notion that being full of bluster and rattling sabers and being quick on the draw somehow makes you more secure. 

And keep in mind that I don't know anybody in the Democratic Party, and I will say this for Hillary Clinton and I will say this for myself, who has indicated in any way that we would tolerate and allow to fester terrorist threats, that we wouldn't hunt down, capture or kill terrorists, that haven't been supportive of Israel capturing or killing terrorists. So it's not like we're a bunch of folks asking to hold hands and sing Kumbaya. When Israel launched its counterattack against Hezbollah in Lebanon during the summer of 2006, I was in South Africa at the time, a place that was not particularly friendly to Israel at the time, and I was asked by the press, what did you think? And I said, if somebody invades my country or is firing rockets into my country or kidnapping my soldiers, I will not tolerate that. And there's no nation in the world that would. So I don't see this softness within the Democratic Party on these issues. The question is, can we use our military power wisely? Can we be strategic in terms of how we move forward? And I think that is profoundly in the interests of Israel and in the interests of U.S. security. 

On whether there should be negotiations with Hamas:
The answer is no. The answer is no and the distinction would be that Hamas is represented in the Palestinian legislature, or it was before the current rift, but they're not the head of state. They are not a recognized government. So I think there is a distinction to be drawn there and a legitimate distinction to be drawn. Now again, going back to my experiences in Israel and the discussions I've had with security officials there, I think that there are communications between the Israeli government and Hamas that may be two or three degrees removed, but people know what Hamas is thinking and what's going on, and the point is that with respect to Hamas, you can't have a conversation with somebody who doesn't think you should be on the other side of the table. At the point where they recognize Israel and its right to exist, at the point where they recognize that they are not going to be able to shove their worldview down the throats of others but are going to have to sit down and negotiate without resort to violence, then I think that will be a different circumstance. That's not the circumstance that we're in right now. 

On opening up dialogue with Muslim world: 
This is where I actually do think having lived in a Muslim country when I was a child is helpful in terms of giving a worldview and a world perspective. Now keep in mind, Indonesia is not the Arab world. So its brand of Islam was always very different. Women were riding on Vespas and going to work, and people weren't wearing head scarves until very recently -- that was actually an import from the Middle East. But here's what's interesting about Indonesia, it's a good case study. It had had a very tolerant, mild brand of Islam all the time that I was living there and basically up and through '97. And what happened was that you'll recall the Asian financial crisis hit them extraordinarily hard. Their gross domestic product contracted by 30 percent -- they had the equivalent of a Great Depression, but this was a country that was already extraordinarily poor. So, there was a direct correlation between the collapse of that economy and the rise of fundamentalist Islam inside of Indonesia. Partly it was exported by Saudi Wahhabist schools that were sent in and financing schools there, and suddenly you started seeing head scarves on the streets and Islamic organizations that were parroting some of the fundamentalist and more fanatical brands of Islam that we associate with the Middle East. 

And the reason I raise that point is that although people will often say, well, terrorists are drawn from the middle class and just being poor doesn't mean that you're automatically ascribe to violent jihadist tendencies. What is absolutely true is that in the Arab world and in the Muslim world, I do think there is a correlation between the degree to which those communities function properly, give people hope, give people a sense of direction, give children education, and how vulnerable they are to these violent ideologies.

So what lessons do we learn from that, then? I am not naïve. There is a hard core of jihadist fundamentalists who we can't negotiate with. We have to hunt them down and knock them out. Incapacitate them. That's the military aspects of dealing with this phenomenon. Now, somebody like a Richard Clarke would estimate that the hard-core jihadists would gladly blow up this room -- maybe it's 30,000 people, maybe it's 40,000 people, maybe it's 50,000 people. But it is a finite number. And that is where military action and intelligence has to be directed. So all the things I've talked about in the past -- improving our intelligence capacity, improving our alliances, rolling up financial support, improving our homeland security, making sure that we have strike forces that are effective -- that's all the military, intelligence, police work that's required. 

The question, then, is what do we do with the 1.3 billion Muslims, who are along a spectrum of belief. Some extraordinarily moderate, some very pious but not violent. How do we reach out to them? And it is my strong belief that that is the battlefield that we have to worry about, and that is where we have been losing badly over the last seven years. That is where Iraq has been a disaster. That is where the lack of effective public diplomacy has been a disaster. That is where our failure to challenge seriously human rights violations by countries like Saudi Arabia that are our allies has been a disaster. And so what we have to do is to speak to that broader Muslim world in a way that says we will consistently support human rights, women's rights. We will consistently invest in the kinds of educational opportunities for children in these communities, so that madrasas are not their only source of learning. We will consistently operate in ways that lead by example, so that we have no tolerance for a Guantanamo or renditions or torture. Those all contribute to people at least being open to our values and our ideas and a recognition that we are not the enemy and that the clash of civilizations is not inevitable. 

Now, as I said, we enter into those conversations with the Muslim world being mindful that we also have to defend ourselves against those who will not accept the West, no matter how appropriately we engage. And that is the realism that has to leaven our hopefulness. But, we abandon the possibility of conversation with that broader Muslim world at our own peril. I think all we do then is further isolate it and feed the kinds of jihadist fanaticism that I think can be so...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/26/obamas_ohio_grilling.html

***

Democrats' racial divide becoming ever more evident

By JAY ROOT
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Democrats have long depended on a rainbow-like racial coalition to win races against Republicans, but the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has revealed an increasingly common and sometimes bitter split between blacks and Hispanics. 

As Hispanics have grown in numbers, the tension has increased, and it's produced a racial minefield for the Democratic presidential candidates. Both camps publicly downplay the divide, but it has occasionally spilled out into the open, and it could be a significant factor in the March 4 Texas primaries. 

Raw feelings were evident in a recent complaint from Jesse Diaz, president of the Dallas-area League of United Latin American Citizens. Diaz, identifying himself as a Clinton supporter, said in a letter posted on the CNN Web site that Hispanics in Dallas are not about to "jump on the Obama Express." 

"When Senator Obama's campaign rolls into Dallas, the 'Dallas Phenomenon' will reflect the racist and biased distaste Dallas' black leadership has shown towards Dallas' Hispanic community for decades," Diaz wrote. 

Diaz' chief complaint is that black leaders show favoritism to African-Americans in government jobs and leadership posts. He stood by his comments in an interview, saying that "what Anglos did to African-Americans, African-Americans are now doing to Hispanics." 

Some experts say his views reflect an uncomfortable reality: As Hispanics and blacks compete for jobs and influence, a racial divide often shows up at the ballot box. 

"We saw that in California, where actually Hillary did much better among Latinos than she was projected to do," said Earl Ofari Hutchinson, columnist and author of the book The Latino Challenge to Black America. "We like to think that blacks and Latinos have this great coalition on a lot of issues all the way from health care to jobs and discrimination. But it's not true." 

Obama says blacks and Hispanics have common interests on key issues like health care and education -- notwithstanding occasional racial flare-ups. 

"In any city, some of these tensions may crop up as groups are competing for political power," he told the Star-Telegram. "But I think the broad long-term interests of both African-Americans and Hispanic Americans are much more in common than they are different. And that's what we're trying to build upon in this campaign." 

Obama has racked up increasingly large margins among African-Americans in the 2008 election season, though Clinton has garnered endorsements from prominent black leaders. What's clear is that for Clinton to win Texas -- shaping up as a make-or-break contest for her -- she needs a sizeable Hispanic turnout that breaks her way. 

Latinos could make up a third or more of the Democratic electorate, and Clinton has strong support in Hispanic South Texas, where elected officials say her deep personal ties and name make her the odds-on favorite in the region. How Obama fares with Hispanic Democrats won't be clear until Election Day. But Obama supporters say he has proven crossover appeal. State Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, said Obama is cutting into Clinton's base by making inroads with younger Hispanics who don't feel bound by cultural identity or past loyalties. 

"To see a person of color in such a prominent position helps all people of color," said Gallego, who has endorsed the Illinois senator. "Some are focused on the past. He talks about tomorrow."

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/495351.html

***

Is Obama a Modern Version of the Teflon Man?
Dr. Sherman N. Miller

I wonder if the Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign was attempting to exploit teachings of the great Chinese War Philosopher Sun Tzu documented in the book "The Art of War" against Senator Barack Obama.  

"During the early morning spirits are keen, during the day they flag, and in the evening thoughts turn towards home. 

"And therefore those skilled in war avoid the enemy when his spirit is keen and attack him when it is sluggish and his soldiers homesick. This is control of the moral factor." 

The problem with employing this thinking is Senator Obama is a charismatic speaker who knows how to establish an emotional link between him and the populace. Surely, Senator Obama has read or heard of the teachings of Sun Tzu for his campaign appears to demonstrate that they know Senator Clinton well where on the other hand the Clinton people appear to be wasting time attempting to turn Obama's verbal communication strength to his weakness. 

Sun Tzu offers some other teachings that that Clinton people might ponder.

"Therefore I say: 'Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.

"When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal."

It is difficult to believe that the Clinton people have studied Senator Obama because she appears to be reaching for straws to find something with which to embarrass him in the press. On the other hand, Senator Obama appears to have studied the media strengths of the late President Ronald Reagan, so he is morphing slowly into a modern version of the Teflon Man. 

http://www.iccjournal.biz/Opinion_Commentaries/Is%20Obama%20a%20Modern%20Version%20of%20the%20Teflon%20Man.htm

***

IN BLOGS 

Top Clinton official: Blacks will come around to Hillary if she wins the nomination

Harold Ickes is a no-holds-barred campaign official who will do anything for his candidate to win the Democratic nomination.

And if Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are close in delegates, he says he will push hard for superdelegates to choose the former First Lady, even if Obama is leading her in pledged delegates.

In a story by Roger Simon on Politico.com, Ickes is asked if such a plan of action will lead to a fractured Democratic Party, especially among African Americans, and he basically says, "No big deal."

"There will be some hurt feelings initially," Ickes said. "But in a very tight election, Barack Obama will swing in behind Hillary Clinton and black people will vote for her and she will be able to bring in Hispanic voters also."

Harold, you might think you know black people. But as someone who has a radio show targeting black folks in Chicago (WVON-AM); a blog on a black female website (Essence.com); a commentator for a black cable network (TV One); run three black newspapers (Houston Defender, Dallas Weekly, Chicago Defender); a black website (BlackAmericaWeb.com) been a news editor of a black national magazine (Savoy Magazine); and filed reports for a black radio network (American Urban Radio Networks), I know my people far better than you.

And I can guarantee you that if Sen. Obama is leading among pledged delegates, and the superdelegates throw the election to Sen. Clinton, she can bank on a loss in November.

Why? Her negatives are already at high levels, ranging between 42 and 44 percent. That means that she can ill-afford any slippage in any key demographic.

Clinton can't afford to lose even 3 to 5 percent of black voters, who are the base of the Democratic Party. If she loses that amount, she loses the election.

Black turnout is critical. A disenchanted black electorate could stay at home, thus having the same effect. I've even gotten calls from yellow dog Democrats, many who are still angry with Bill Clinton's references to Rev. Jesse Jackson when Obama won the South Carolina primary, who have said they will vote for McCain before they vote for her.

These are folks who are also able to write pretty big checks, so they are no joke.

I got an email Monday night from a prominent and well-paid African American woman who said: "My 16-year-old, the one who 3 months ago had nothing to say or do with politics, now says if Clinton wins she's campaigning for Ralph Nader."

This is not folks who are overemotional about Obama. The view that the Clintons will stoop to any level is strong, and I would not misjudge this if I'm Ickes.

My suggestion to Clinton? You better move ahead of Obama among pledged delegates or you will face a crisis unlike any other you have ever encountered. Yes, even THAT crisis.

Harold, you might think you know black people, but I know them a little better than you. This will be a no-win situation for Hillary Clinton. So you better win it fair and square, and not depend on the superdelegates, or there will be hell to pay, and the Democrats will guarantee a McCain presidency.

Question of the Day: If Obama leads Clinton among pledged delegates, but hasn't received the 2,025, and the superdelegates put Clinton over the top, will you support her in November?

http://essence.typepad.com/news/2008/02/top-clinton-off.html

***

Mistake by the Lake <http://andersonatlarge.typepad.com/andersonlarge/2008/02/mistake-by-the.html> 

Tonight at the Wolstein Center <http://www.csuohio.edu/wolsteincenter/>  at Cleveland State University, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will have at each other <http://www.csuohio.edu/debate08>  one last time before next week's primary elections in the Buckeye <http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN2363419220080223>  and Lone Star <http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2363864720080224>  states.

The latest Quinnipiac poll <http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1146>  found Clinton leads Obama 51 to 40 percent in Ohio, down from 55 to 34 percent a month ago. With her back against the wall, she'll take it. 

Cleveland Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones <http://tubbsjones.house.gov/> , a "top-tier cheerleader" for Clinton, will likely have a good seat from which to ponder whether it is mistake to ignore the wishes of her constituents. Rev. Marvin McMickle <http://www.antiochcleveland.org/about_us> , an Obama supporter, told the Chicago Tribune <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-race_jonesfeb25,1,15227.story> : 

She is enormously beloved here, but she is completely out of step with her district. [Jones is] on the wrong side of this campaign and she's on the wrong side of history.

Jones is not alone. Other Congressional Black Caucus superdelegates are swimming against the tide <http://www.colorofchange.org/superd/> . For the first time in nearly a decade, Rep. John Lewis <http://johnlewis.house.gov/>  has drawn a primary challenger <http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/stories/2008/02/23/hutchins0223.html> .

At the recent "State of the Black Union 2008," <http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/02/black_leaders_ponder_crucial_e.html>  Jones lamented the attacks on CBC members "who have paid their dues and served their time." She noted that "politics is all about relationships" and CBC members have "preexisting relationships" with Clinton. She added:

Some of us have to be over here. Some of us have to be over there so that we don't get locked out of the process.

The presidential debate will air live on MSNBC at 9pm ET and 8pm CT. 

http://andersonatlarge.typepad.com/

***

 

Darrell "DJ" Jackson

803.730.5941 (Cell)

http://www.hillaryclinton.com

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contributions to Hillary Clinton for President
are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

 ----------------------------------
 Paid for by Hillary Clinton for
 President
 ----------------------------------