Obama Defeats Clinton in 3-State Sweep—Senator Barack Obama won the primary in Louisiana (53 % to 39 %) and the caucuses in Nebraska (68% to 32%) and Washington (68% to 31%) on Saturday, defeating his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as the two scrambled for delegates in their fiercely contested battle for the Democratic nomination.— "We won in Louisiana, we won in Nebraska, we won in Washington State," he said. "We won north, we won south, we won in between, and I believe we can win Virginia on Tuesday if you're ready to stand for change." Before today, Clinton held a slight edge over Obama in the delegate count—1,055 to 998—with 2,025 delegates needed to claim the Democratic nomination. . . . Obama stood to pick up as many as 170 delegates tonight. Washington Post

*   *   *   *   *

Three More Primaries in the Bag—Senator Barack Obama rolled to victory by big margins in Virginia (64 to 35%), Maryland (60 to36%) and the District of Columbia (75 to 24%) on Tuesday, extending his winning streak over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to eight Democratic nominating contests since Saturday. Mr. Obama’s victories gave him a lead over Mrs. Clinton among pledged delegates . . .Obama aides calculate that he also leads in delegate counts that include so-called superdelegates, the party officers and elected officials who control 20 percent of the total delegates to the Democratic convention. . . . An exultant Mr. Obama told a rally in Madison, Wis.: “This movement wont stop until there’s change in Washington. Tonight, we’re on our way.” . . . . Mrs. Clinton . . . signaled that she would not vigorously contest two Democratic races next week, a primary in Wisconsin and a caucus in Hawaii . . . If she loses in those two states, she will be 0 for 10 in nominating contests from Feb. 5 to March 4, when Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont hold primaries.—NYTimes

*   *   *   *   *

Facing Zero Degrees Wisconsin Gives Obama Win Over Clinton— Senator Barack Obama (56%) won the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday by a comfortable margin, extending his victory streak to nine contests and forcing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (43%) into a must-win scenario on March 4 as the nominating fight heads to the crucial states of Ohio and Texas. The victory reinforces Mr. Obama’s position as the front-runner in the Democratic race, even as the Clinton campaign hopes [for] a comeback next month when a large haul of delegates are up for grabs in Ohio and Texas. . . . “The change we seek is still months and miles away and we need the good people of Texas to help us get there,” Mr. Obama said in a speech in Houston. “We’re here because we believe that change is possible and that we have never needed it more than we do right now!” Almost two-thirds said Mr. Obama would be more likely to unite the country and about 55 percent considered him more likely to improve foreign relations. Democratic voters were evenly divided on whether Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief . . . NYTimes

*   *   *   *   *

*   *   *   *   *

Clinton’s Hispanic edge—The ethnic gap jumped out at pollsters who surveyed Nevada caucus-goers. Clinton won the backing of white voters by 18 points and Hispanics by a more than 2-1 ratio over Obama, while Obama won 83 percent of the African-American voters. Clinton also was preferred by 55 percent of Hispanic Democratic voters, compared with 6 percent for Obama and less than 5 percent for Edwards and Richardson in a recent survey of Latino voters in the top five Hispanic states — California, Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois. . . . The notion of an undercurrent of political tension between African-Americans and Hispanics flows from the fact that blacks led the civil rights struggles that also benefit the faster-growing Latino population. Opponents of expanded immigration rights also have openly played to the rift by arguing that Latino immigrants are driving down wages or taking jobs that blacks could hold. While black voters express those concerns in polls, the immigration issue is not a deciding factor in their votes. Nor do those issues have anything to do with whether Latinos will vote for African-American candidates, according to political analysts. Politico

*   *   *   *   *

Hillary: The Wrong Experience—Obama has advocated easing the Bush-imposed ban on Cuban-Americans visiting the island and sending money to their relatives. He makes a broader case for a new Cuba policy, arguing that capitalism, trade and travel will help break the regime's stranglehold on the country and help open things up. Clinton immediately disagreed, firmly supporting the current policy. This places her in the strange position of arguing, in effect, that her husband's Cuba policy was not hard-line enough. But this is really not the best way to understand Clinton's position. In all probability, she actually agrees with Obama's stand. She is just calculating that it would anger Cuban-Americans in Florida and New Jersey. This is the problem with Hillary Clinton. . . . The Clintons' careers have been shaped by the belief that for a Democrat to succeed, he or she had to work within this conservative ideological framework. Otherwise one would be pilloried for being weak on national security, partial to taxes and big government and out of touch with Middle America's social values. CubaWatch

*   *   *   *   *

Hillary Wins Michigan and Florida—Hillary celebrated a "victory" (No delegates won) in Florida that is not a victory. She campaigned after a promise not to campaign. . Many see it as a sign of desperation after the 2 to 1 defeat in South Carolina. . . . We are less than a week away from the 20-state-primary of February 5. . . . Since Iowa we have put considerable emotional energy into the primary process. Super Tuesday will probably be the decider of who will be the DNC nominee. Many progressives feel it is all for nought as far as the state of America affairs. But I for one won't ignore or denigrate Obama's charisma and oratory. Nor will I deny his growing national influence, and its symbolical representation of the need of Americans to feel better about their lives in a world filled with so much murder and mayhem? The innocence, the enthusiasm, and idealism  of the young are a balm for the soul. One cannot but admire the growing ranks of Obama girls and boys. Such full commitments always lead to a lost of innocence. Politics indeed makes us all a bit sordid and makes all a bit mad like hearing the songs of Sirens. —Rudy

*   *   *   *   *

Unstoppable Obama—Clinton can put forth all the policy proposals she likes – and many of them are admirable ones – but anyone can see that she’s of the same generation and even one of the same families that got us into this checkmate situation in the first place. True, some people miss Bill, although the nostalgia was severely undercut by his anti-Obama rhetoric in South Carolina, or maybe they just miss the internet bubble he happened to preside over. But even more people find dynastic successions distasteful, especially when it’s a dynasty that produced so little by way of concrete improvements in our lives. Whatever she does, the semiotics of her campaign boils down to two words – “same old.”

Obama is different, really different, and that in itself represents “change.” A Kenyan-Kansan with roots in Indonesia and multiracial Hawaii, he seems to be the perfect answer to the bumper sticker that says, “I love you America, but isn’t it time to start seeing other people?” As conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan has written, Obama’s election could mean the re-branding of America. An anti-war black president with an Arab-sounding name: See, we’re not so bad after all, world!

So yes, there’s a powerful emotional component to Obama-mania, and not just because he’s a far more inspiring speaker than his rival. We, perhaps white people especially, look to him for atonement and redemption. All of us, of whatever race, want a fresh start. That’s what “change” means right now: Get us out of here!—Ehrenreich Blog

*   *   *   *   *

Jill Nelson's NYTimes "Identity Politics" review of Randall Kennedy. Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal. 228 pp. and Shelby Steele. A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win  is worthy of a read. She seems to nail them to their underlying self exposure. A few excerpts:

Perhaps most troubling about both Steele and Kennedy is the virtual absence of any acknowledgment of the ways in which white racism, and the more subtle and prevalent white privilege, influence black identity and necessitate, for some, a strong collective identity as a defense against white power. “Obviously, black responsibility is the greatest — if not the only — transformative power available to blacks,” Steele says. But this is simply not true. Ditto for Kennedy’s assertion that “open expression of racial prejudice is politically and socially suicidal.” Tell that to Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Don Imus, to name but a few. Lott and Imus were finally taken to task for their racist comments, but after what has become an American ritual of denial, apology and a brief stay in the woodshed, they were back.

Steele and Kennedy say they have been attacked as a result of ideas that go against a black orthodoxy. It’s difficult to be sympathetic. Both men have been mightily rewarded. The irony is that the criticism these authors evoke increases their visibility. Kennedy knows this. “Supporters have praised me for being ‘brave.’ The fact is, however, that I have not felt threatened by any ideological enemies. At no point have I felt that I was putting myself into serious jeopardy.”

In truth, black orthodoxy, as embodied both by the traditional entrenched black (male) political leadership and by the more recently emerged black (male) academics and public intellectuals, is passing into oblivion. These books have a Rip Van Winkle feel to them, as if the writers fell asleep at a crucial moment and missed a seismic shift. Both books, especially Steele’s, tell us more about what has been than what lies ahead.—NYTimes

[Jill Nelson is the author of Volunteer Slavery: My Authentic Negro Experience and, most recently, Finding Martha'sVineyard ]

 *   *   *   *   *

Obama Notes

Glen Ford and Rudy Lewis

Dear Rudy,

It aggravates me to no end that folks do not understand that Obama is playing the same game as Randall Kennedy - addressing the racial anxieties of white men by as thoroughly de-racializing the discourse (itself a blatant race game) as Kennedy did in giving the OK for whites to use the word "nigger." Obama is a hustler of Kennedy's own kind, only on a much larger scale: world power. Everything he says is at Black people's expense, but Blacks are euphoric that "one of us" has a podium to say it.

Why can't we take Obama's statements on war, Katrina, Jena, etc. at face value? White folks do. That's why they are voting for him: because of his implicit and often explicit promises to take race off the table. That means "us" off the table!

I'm tired of all this phony academic and fake literary exploration of our collective navels that serves as diversion from what is right in front of our faces. Obama wins because he has courted white folks, especially males - the most backward demographic in the nation. He makes promises to them, to betray us. And we love it.

I don't anticipate, at this point, changing you or anybody else's minds about joining the Obama-bration, and calling it a "movement." In fact, it is a capitulation, and history will prove it so, much sooner than you might think.

I say this with all love and respect. Sincerely, Glen

*   *   *   *   *

Glen, I have no problem whatsoever with your criticism of Obama. Yours is fairly gentle and fully rational compared to that of Pinkney's at Black Commentator. We need persons to keep the heat under Obama's feet and wherever one might apply it.

I am not into an "Obama-bration." Nor am I part of an Obama movement. Someone has to be the Democratic nominee. I prefer it to be Obama than Clinton, for reasons other than Obama's world power politics. That is the long and short of it. And I think that is where most black people are at this point.

My only concern with some of the black radical Obama critics is that they as it often occurs are too far out in front of the people that they end up castigating the majority of black voters, that is to say, they have no respect for what these voters see and where they are. I think there is a political danger in those kinds of "I know better than you" attitudes.

Of course, few if any of the masses read either Kennedy or Steele. Their audience is primarily liberal and conservative whites and some educated blacks. I do not align myself with them. I am interested in a rhetoric that counters or shoots holes in their oiled up arguments. Thus I admire what Jill Nelson has accomplished in her reviews of their books. Hers is in great contrast to that of many black reviewers who soft pedal in order to get their reviews published.—Rudy

*   *   *   *   *

*   *   *   *   *

More News Excerpts

Transforming our politics + the “Asian vote” in CA—Name recognition played a huge role in what had happened. But there is a clear difference between Obama and Clinton. The New York Magazine recently described Obama’s campaign as a “white boy campaign“. Despite the usual spin on race and ethnicity from mainstream media, I find that this article’s analysis is incredibly off. Obama’s campaign is a break from the old way of politics. His campaign is about movement building, not name recognition. What electrifies me about Obama is that he is talking about transforming our politics and ourselves, not giving out quick, token favors to our leaders and figureheads. . . . Remember, it was the media that asked if Obama can “transcend race” — Obama never spoke these words himself because his message is not about colorblindness at all.

I’m confident the numbers will change and that more Asian Americans will change support for Obama’s campaign. In some weays, our “loss” in California is very positive because it is continuing the contest between Obama and Clinton, giving us an important moment to talk to our community, peers, friends and family members. We can really highlight what sets Obama apart from Clinton. I don’t think we are last minute at all — Transformation is very different from identity and coalition politics, which is what Clinton is solely relying upon. We’ve seen the upsurge in the last two weeks, where folks went to the poll en masse to change their vote for Obama. Let’s keep building and reaching our communities.—Softheart WordPress

*   *   *   *   *

On the California Primary: The Future is Now—The Obama campaign is about transcending the “minority politics” mentality that carves us all up into “interest groups” and pushes the hot buttons that reinforce our sense of victimization and vilify the other side. Mainstream observers focus on Obama’s invocation of “hope” as a rhetorical device, which appeals to the common decency in all of us to both transcend partisanship and support an agenda driven by the discourse of change. No doubt this is part of the appeal he is making, especially as he seeks to fashion himself as someone who can unite voters in both “blue” and “red” states and also “change the way Washington does business.”

But I sense there is something much deeper to both Obama as an individual and his campaign, which has the potential to develop into a movement. Obama has a deep respect for what historian Charles Payne (in I’ve Got the Light of Freedom) has called the “organizing tradition” that sustained the Black freedom struggle in the South. He recognizes the debt we owe the likes of Martin Luther King, Ella Baker, and Rosa Parks, but more importantly the lessons we must learn from their struggles. If you are just a “minority leader,” then you’re not really a leader at all. If you are only fighting for your “fair share” of the riches controlled by those in power, you’ll never address the root causes of oppression. Above all is the sense that none of us can be free in America until we change the whole country. Obama speaks in poetry and he is writing a song of redemption.—Scott Kurashige WordPress

*   *   *   *   *

SEIU MEMBERS ENDORSE SEN. BARACK OBAMA (February 15, 2008)—Washington, DC—Nurses, childcare workers, janitors and other service workers endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president today, calling him the candidate with the best vision, best plan and best strategy to lead the country to a new American Dream. . . . Members of the Service Employees International Union endorsed Obama to achieve economic justice, quality, affordable healthcare for every American, the freedom for workers to unite in unions, and an end to the Iraq war. . . . “This is about more than one election. It’s about building for the next generation of America," said SEIU President Andy Stern. “Barack Obama is creating the broadest and deepest coalition of voters we’ve ever seen.”  . . . . With 1.9 million members, SEIU is the fastest-growing union in North America. Focused on uniting workers in three sectors to improve their lives and the services they provide, SEIU is the largest health care union, including hospitals, nursing homes, and home care; the largest property services union, including building cleaning and security; and the second largest public employee union.—SEIU

*   *   *   *   *

BARACK & BARAKA—In a Harlem Church, locals debate the Obama message with famed poet Amiri Baraka.—The quiet thickened. Whatever Obama meant; whatever energy he represented, seemed far away. Amiri Baraka got in. He eased behind the microphone and spoke with beat poet rhythms, sending ripples of laughter through the audience. “We got to move beyond this is-he-black-enough question. He’s blacker than Hillary. Hell, he’s at least hooked up to the Motherland. Most African-Americans are African indirectly.” His foot bounced on beat as he gripped the microphone. “We can’t stay on the sidelines calling names; we got to use the energy of this campaign to mobilize the black community. We are not going to have a revolution. The most we can do is create a people’s democracy.” Baraka pulled the audience out of its sullenness, but Dr. Tony Monteiro from Temple University in Philadelphia stepped into the echo of Baraka, and flashed history. “I’d like to use a historical analogy,” Monteiro began. “W.E.B. Du Bois said of Booker T. Washington that he filled a particular psychological need that whites had. They wanted to take race off the table. They wanted to build empire and move past the guilt of slavery. Booker fit that role. Does Obama fit that role today?”—NYPress

*   *   *   *   *

The Grand Old White Party Confronts Obama—Whatever the potency of his political skills and message, Mr. Obama is also riding a demographic wave. The authors of the new book “Millennial Makeover,” Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, point out that the so-called millennial generation (dating from 1982) is the largest in American history, boomers included, and that roughly 40 percent of it is African-American, Latino, Asian or racially mixed. One in five millennials has an immigrant parent. It’s this generation that is fueling the excitement and some of the record turnout of the Democratic primary campaign, and not just for Mr. Obama.

Even by the low standards of his party, Mr. McCain has underperformed at reaching millennials in the thriving culture where they live. His campaign’s effort to create a MySpace-like Web site flopped. His most-viewed appearances on YouTube are not viral videos extolling him or replaying his best speeches but are instead sendups of his most reckless foreign-policy improvisations — his threat to stay in Iraq for 100 years and his jokey warning (sung to the tune of the Beach Boys’ version of “Barbara Ann”) that he will bomb Iran. In the vast arena of the Internet he has been shrunk to Grumpy Old White Guy, the G.O.P. brand incarnate.

The theory of the McCain candidacy is that his “maverick” image will bring independents (approaching a third of all voters) to the rescue. But a New York Times-CBS News poll last month found that independents have even a lower opinion of Mr. Bush, the war, the surge and the economy than the total electorate and skew slightly younger. Though the independents in this survey went 44 percent to 32 percent for Mr. Bush over John Kerry in 2004, they now prefer a Democratic presidential candidate over a Republican by 44 percent to 27 percent.

Mr. McCain could get lucky, especially if Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination and unites the G.O.P., and definitely if she tosses her party into civil war by grabbing ghost delegates from Michigan and Florida. But those odds are dwindling. More likely, the Republican Party will face Mr. Obama with a candidate who reeks even more of the past and less of change than Mrs. Clinton does.—NYTimes

*   *   *   *   *

Transformation time—Texas voters have two remarkable candidates from which to choose in the March 4 Democratic presidential primary. Regardless of the outcome of this state's vote and those across the nation, history will be made. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama represent change, but in decidedly different ways. . . . On an international stage, his face representing the United States of America would speak volumes to a world community that has turned away from assisting this great nation.

The expectation and pressure on him to deliver change on a worldwide scale will be tremendous. If he continues to deliver the kind of turnout at the polls that he has shown so far, he would move onto that stage with a commanding mandate from the American people. The historic turnouts in the Democratic primaries and caucuses thus far can't all be credited to Obama. Clinton is a worthy and experienced opponent who has drawn her share of new voters. But Obama is smart and experienced in working directly with low- and middle-class Americans to better their lives, and he brings a message of hope that the country needs in this moment. Yes, we know, hope is not a strategy. But it can get people working together to find one.

The Star-Telegram recommends Barack Obama in the Democratic primary for president. Star-Telegram

*   *   *   *   *

For Obama: The Chronicle endorses the senator from Illinois for the Democratic presidential nomination.—The presidency of the United States is a powerful bully pulpit. The occupant of the White House must not only issue orders, but also inspire and advocate for all Americans. Of the two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Chronicle believes Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is best-qualified by life experience, skill and temperament to be the standard bearer for his party. In a conference call, Obama told the Chronicle editorial board that "more than any other candidate, I can bridge some of the partisan as well as racial and religious divides that have developed in this country that prevent us from getting things done." . . . The 46-year-old Obama has expanded his base of support, winning new legions of supporters. The more people see and hear him, the more they like him. As the Hawaiian-born son of a Muslim Kenyan father and an Anglo Midwesterner, the devoutly Christian Obama transcends race and religion. His life has been one of involvement with disadvantaged Chicago residents, excellence at Harvard Law School and eight years as an Illinois state senator. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, only the third African-American to serve there since Reconstruction. Obama is both the epitome of the American Dream and well-positioned to reach out to an international community alienated by recent U.S. go-it-alone policies.

The passion and excitement that Obama has brought to the race can only stimulate more citizens to participate in the electoral process. The Chronicle urges Texas Democrats to cast what could be decisive ballots for his presidential nomination.—Houston Chronicle

*   *   *   *   *

Mr. McCain says . . . “Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change,” . . . “promises no more than a holiday from history.”. . .  Mr. McCain says: “I’m not the youngest candidate, but I am the most experienced.” . . .  Mr. McCain ends with, “I don’t seek the office out of a sense of entitlement. I owe America more than she has ever owed me. I have been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. I have never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I haven’t been proud of the privilege.” Transcript

*   *   *   *   *