An End and a Beginning

I was not near any news source or computer for most of today, when one of my heroes ended his bid for the White House. After getting back to the office in the late afternoon, I got an IM from my friend asking if I was still for Edwards. "Of course," I wrote. I thought to myself, what's changed? And it occurred to me. It was possible, but I still held out some hope that maybe, no John Edwards had not decided to drop out of the presidential race.

But, there it was on the front page of The New York Times. His poverty talk in New Orleans, where he had started his bid for the 2008 Presidency was where he decided to end it.

I'll leave it to the media to spin this and to speculate how Edwards' supporters will go. For me, I have no idea who I'll be supporting now. Whichever choice it will be, it will certainly be historic.

But, his message about poverty will continue on I hope with the Final Two. The debates ahead will certainly not be the same. I feel sad and was a little angry too. Why couldn't he just hold out until at least the Super Tuesday races? Was he pressured by the DNC? Is there something else going on? Whatever the reason, I respect it, and I am thankful for the effect he has had at least on the discourse of the conversation surrounding the campaigns.

God Bless you John Edwards. Let's hope that this is the beginning of something more and better for the Democratic Party.

35 Years: Roe v. Wade

One of the things that I really appreciate about living and working in the DC-area is the fact that there's so much stuff, of national relevance happening every day around me. All I have to do is step outside during lunch to go to an exciting talk at the Brookings Institution, or hop on the metro to catch the Hopper art exhibit or as it was today, go out during lunch to check out the Roe v. Wade demonstrations at the Supreme Court.

I arrived a little bit later after the initial rally and the march, but there were still plenty of people around. A band played some born-again rock, with the refrain of "God save the babies," repeatedly over and over again.

What struck me was the youth at the event. There were plenty of people in their high school age or young college age, and there were remarkably a large number of women. Now, this is the first anti-abortion rally I've ever attended, so I admit I don't know what to expect. But, the stereotype I had in my head was it would be a even split between men and women and older evangelical-type looking people. (Okay, I'm not sure what that means either, but you get the broad point I'm trying to make.)

It was a little bit eerie to see the usually open steps leading up to the doors of the Court to be interspersed with Supreme Court police officers standing and watching the scene below. It wasn't really a demonstration -- it was more of a rally. High school girls gathered behind their "Right to life" picket signs for pictures and people laughed and talked.

Democracy and First Amendment in action. Another Washington day.

MLK III "endorses" Edwards

I got this in an email this morning, and I'm surprised that not more of the media is covering this. Edwards mentioned it last night during the final question. It's basically an endorsement from MLK III, whom Edwards met with prior to the debate.

You can read the letter at

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20080121-mlk3/

Some Cool Nomination Tracking Toys

I am enjoying some of the Web toys that allow political junkies such as myself track and predict what's going on with the primary season this year. Here are a few that I've liked so far:

• Los Angeles Times -- Primary Tracker. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/primaries/ These folks have a very pretty sliding scale that allows you to see how "super-duper" Feb. 5 will be. It also allows the user to see the projected importance of states after the Feb. 5 date if there is still no clear winner at that point. (That's the Tsai prediction at this point. We'll be going out past the Feb. 5 date
  

• NPR -- Election 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1102 Similar to the LA Times idea, but just in "flat" form and color coded. (See Tufte for what "flat" means.)
• Washington Post -- Candidate Events. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/This is for the hardcore folks who really want to know where the candidates are and what they're doing at any given moment. Not for the weak-politicos.
• New York Times -- Election Guide 2008. http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/schedules/pastevents/index.html#candidate99. This site has just too many toys to mention. From an event scheduler to archives of the NH and Iowa results, its replete with data and pretty visualization.

If you have a favorite Web toy, feel free to send it my way.

Identity politics ... under the surface

Charlie Gibson, the moderator of the New Hampshire debates on Saturday commented how historic the Democratic party debates were with the individuals on stage. What he may have been hinting at was the fact that there was a woman, a hispanic, a black man and lastly, a white man on stage. Just a few short decades ago, the entire stage would have been filled with that last demographic. But, there has been little overt mentioning of the diversity that has taken the campaign trail this year; people just barely acknowledge it, like the way people simply stopped talking about the number of black coaches in the NBA after a while. (Admittedly, some people still talk about the appointment of a new black coach, but it certainly doesn't raise as many eyebrows or chatter as it may have once.)

Yet, under the surface, there is excitement about the Democratic debate not only because of the star power of the individuals, but because they just look different. And that of course creates discussion and some political weighing that goes on to take advantage of this.

As an interesting note, Obama's background isn't necessarily even "African-American." His heritage is a mixed one, like so many people's truly are. His mother is from Kansas and his father is Kenyan. So, is he African American, or African-American, mixed, or black, or something else? What has been interesting and appealing is that Obama has not directly addressed this except for maybe a few times in interviews, making himself not the black candidate, but the candidate that happens to be black. Oprah's presence as well as his claims of "historic moments" are below-the-surface tugs at his identity though. Some discomfit has arisen over this tension.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand has had the identity of becoming the first woman president. She effectively pointed that out, as a point of her being an agent of change, by simply being elected. She has only recently started to utilize this in her efforts, crying today at a small roundtable to show her human, and maybe her feminine side?

And where does this leave John Edwards, the white male from the South that does not have any special identity politics to tap in his campaign. It unfortunately creates a subconscious casting of Edwards as not as exciting as the rest of the diverse crowd. Why should this be a liability?

EDIT: My friend Dan sent me this link to Chris Hitchen's article on this topic on Slate.

Why I am supporting John Edwards

I had the opportunity to shake John Edwards’ hand only shortly after I had decided that I wanted to support the man. It was last summer and he had announced his candidacy as Hilary and Obama also had already. I met him after he drove up to a short Q&A at a conference of evangelical Progressives in Washington. He had his wife by his side and he gave a wide grin.

I don’t get star-struck usually, having grown up in Washington and been exposed from my early years on to Congress-people and other political celebrities that happen to walk by or around the nation’s capital. But, there was certainly something pleasant and warm in the few seconds that I got to shake the man’s hand. Compared to the Hilary and Obama groups that had well-orchestrated shouting and placard placement on the narrow street by the Lisner Auditorium in Foggy Bottom, the Edwards supporters were fewer in number. After the arrival of the other candidates, there were nice watching-parties of the Q&A on CNN with food and refreshments purchased by the campaigns. That is all of them except for the Edwards supporters. There was a bit of a badge of pride for the few of us that were there. We were the only ones that got to shake Edwards’ hand and talk to his wife and we didn’t have a fancy reserved room somewhere to rush off to.

This quality of simple respect and to put in the political term of “populist” is among the key reasons that I support Edwards. The other reasons are:

Ø He is the only candidate to have a clearly-defined and outlined agenda. The points of support are: (1) Global Warming (2) Iraq (3) Health Care and (4) Jobs and Poverty.

Ø For each of these agenda items, he has defined clear plans for achieving the goals. His 80-page PDF document is available on his website.

Ø He is the only candidate taking public federal matching funds, therefore subjecting himself to a substantially lower ceiling for raising funds and also subjecting himself to more transparency and accountability for his campaigning funds. He does not take funds from lobbyists or PACs.

Ø His message is one that represents change in not only Washington, but for this country. His agenda once again stresses what this country needs to focus on to move forward.

Edwards has a fight ahead, and the media has been covering him minimally compared to his competitors. If people were able to hear his message, they would certainly be drawn in if not at least influenced in their decisions.

We are choosing the next president here and now; not merely the next Democratic party nominee.