On Tuesday Hillary Clinton won three primaries (Texas, Ohio, R.I.), while Barack Obama won one primary (Vermont) and one caucus (Texas). As everybody knows, the democratic party awards delegates proportionally, not on a winner takes all basis. However, for anyone watching CNN on Tuesday evening this victory was painted in the most dramatic of colors. True, Clinton won three important primaries, although only one by landslide. But her overall delegate gain after Tuesday was a trifling 4 delegates. In other words: de minimis. To provide a telling contrast, Obama gained more delegates than Clinton did in the Washington DC primary alone (9), in the Nebraska primary (8), in the Washington State primary (12), and in the Georgia primary (33). Hillary’s complaint leading up to Tuesday was that there existed an unfair bias in the media towards Obama. This complaint was A. desperate and B. patently untrue. Remember that Obama won 12 straight contests before Hillary was able to finally win in Rhode Island. 12 straight. If Clinton had amassed that kind of winning tally, I guarantee the media would not have been so kind to Obama, or have even given him any remote chance of climbing back into the race. The Democratic party and the media would together have been clamoring for Obama to bow down and wait his turn. He would have been altogether written off only to become a nice little political footnote in the Clinton’s power mongering memoirs.

Clinton has stayed alive precisely because the media has tolerated her, has consistently breathed life into her campaign even while Obama has criss-crossed the United States winning primary after primary, and caucus after caucus. The fact of the matter is that the media wants this to get as bloody as possible and as close as possible because that makes for better sport. But the only chance that Clinton has to win the nomination is through power brokering for superdelegates at a brokered convention in Denver. This is simply a fact. She cannot, barring miraculous lopsided victories in the remaining primaries, overtake Obama’s lead in pledged delegates. It is also extremely unlikely that she can amass more of the popular vote in the remaining contests. Even if she gets her way and, like a 5th grade tyrant who can’t bear losing, changes the rules of the game that she and everyone else agreed to and manages to get a revote in Florida and Michigan, she still will not surpass him.

All the Clintons can hope for is to minimize the margin by which he leads so that they can better make their case that the superdelegates should have a right to break what is effectively a “tie”, that superdelegates should not look to represent their respective constituents, but instead selfishly determine for themselves what is “best for the party” (but more likely, what is best for themselves). That is all the Clintons can hope for. That and that the media will line up right and left to support her in the endeavor. That the media will paint her as “the comeback kid” (even though, remember, only 4 delegates were gained on Tuesday). That the media will re-anoint her as the inevitable incumbent nominee, that the media will join with her in tearing down one of the most inspiring and powerful grassroots campaigns in the history of our country. That the media will portray a new narrative of “it’s anybody’s game now”, instead of portraying honestly and openly the reality of the situation to the American people. That the media will aid and assist her in running an increasingly negative campaign by giving credence to negative campaigns in the first place.

The sad fact is that the media will willingly accept this role because the media is owned by large corporations and conglomerates whose main priority is securing millions of dollars in revenues and profits through the distribution of their “news”. The media wants this to be a fight to the end, a duel to the death. Turn on CNN at any moment during their political coverage and you will almost instantly hear phrases like “taking the gloves off”, “throwing punches” and “in the trenches”. The media wants to turn this into a sporting event, instead of honest coverage of political issues and candidates. CNN calls their coverage “Ballot Bowl ’08” for crying out loud. The news media will carry and fuel this increasingly vicious primary season all the way through Pennsylvania, and what now sadly looks like all the way to Denver. It took them nothing more than to know that Clinton won Texas and Ohio primaries to start making ridiculous claims about Clinton’s new momentum (which, if there is any is being fueled only by her negative campaigning/scare tactics and the media’s newfound depiction of her campaign) and about how the campaign is all back to even.

I hope the good people of Wyoming, Mississippi and Pennsylvania can serve up victories for Obama and make the case once and for all that people want something different in the White House, not more of the same. But the cynic in me sees an increasingly desperate and negative campaign from Hillary Clinton, which ascribes by the rules of do anything, regardless of ethics or grace, in order to win. Do anything, even if it means telling the American people that hope is synonymous with delusion. Do anything, even if it means tearing apart the Democratic party and discouraging an entire new generation of energy and involvement. Do anything, even if it means spreading false rumors about your opponents religion in order to scare up votes. Do anything, even if it means tearing down a potentially transformational figure in American politics instead of rallying your own constituents by standing up for what you believe. Do anything, even if it means changing your message constantly throughout a campaign, so as to properly microtarget and divide Americans up by race, gender, religion, demographic, instead of understanding the underlying fiber that connects us all and reaching towards something higher than yourself in order to inspire Americans as a collective entity to believe in and fight for real change.

We've all gotten pretty used to the new Al Gore by now: reinvigorated intellectual, shrewd businessman, nobel prize winner, altruistic man on a mission, champion of the global warming cause. Gore has shied away from the political limelight in recent years both as part of his successful foray into the private sector and, as part of what seems like a general embarrassment at his former political self. Gore himself states that he has "fallen out of love with politics". He has repeatedly denied even an interest in running for President in '08 and appears awkward and sheepish when pressed about it. The reason for this is that Gore has found the success in business that he lacked in politics precisely because forward-thinking is most often rewarded in the business world, whereas in politics it is often the recipe for failure, and rarely a major precondition for 'getting things done'. Politics in recent years has come to mean calculating just what can be achieved in the current moment instead of what ought to be accomplished as an ideal, where a myopic understanding of power manipulation and positional jockeying is of higher value than moral and ideological integrity.

What exactly do I mean by forward-thinking? No better example than Gore's fierce defense of global warming as a major threat to planet Earth in the 2000 election. Gore's prescient understanding of the gravity of the crisis clearly preceded that moment, but it was the election that brought the political ideation of it and then saw it crushed. In one of the more famous debates, Bush derided him for being an 'o-zone man', and in another he questioned the validity of the science behind it. Gore's forward-thinking and moral judgment applies not only to his stance on global warming, but also his courageous criticism of the Iraq war, both before the invasion and after as well as his shrewd concern over our curtailed freedoms as a result of September 11 (constitutional abuse, domestic spying, sanctioned torture). Going farther back, he was right about confronting Milosevic in Bosnia and Kosovo and he was right about welfare reform and cutting the federal deficit. But prescience clearly does not beget apotheosis in American politics. After the 2000 election Gore was essentially ridiculed and written off into political oblivion.

My point in writing this is that Gore is doing a disservice to the citizens of the United States by actively pursuing a disengaged role in politics. I'm not asking him to run for President or to be the savior of the Democratic party. I respect his decision to tackle the world's problems as a businessman and to try to solve the climate crisis from an entirely different podium than the President of the United States. But Gore has to understand the chips at stake both in this primary and in the general election. I'm sure, in fact, that he does. But he shouldn't allow his newfound political timidity to enfeeble his potential to change and influence the dynamics of the election. I strongly feel that Gore should endorse a democratic candidate. He himself has said he will do so. Skeptics say that Gore will abstain from endorsing any candidate because taking sides in the primary will tarnish his vaulted national/international reputation, that he has transcended the pettiness of American politics. Others say Gore will reserve judgment until the national election, so as to preserve the potential to sway policy in whichever future presidency. Still others point to Gore's endorsement of Dean in the 2004 election as caution enough for him to avoid making the same mistake.

As a true progressive and one who has always spoken his mind openly, I believe Gore should endorse Edwards or Obama. Gore's dislike for Clinton is well documented, and besides, one has to believe that Gore favors the two more liberal candidates and particularly Obama for his message of unity and bipartisanship as well as his consistent criticism of Iraq. Gore may have been ostracized from the political scene in 2000, but he should not allow his own embarrassment to keep him from doing the right thing. As iconic a figure as he's become, he has the power to directly influence the contour and direction of this primary. He would give any candidate in the field the imprimatur not only on the environment but on a whole range of progressive issues.

By now, anybody and everybody not living on a remote planet is aware of what just happened in Iowa this past Thursday. In purely literal terms: Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucus. Barack Obama. What does that mean, exactly, aside from the literal meaning of it. Let's parse this for a second.

Barack Obama. He is half black, his father is from Kenya, his mother from Kansas. He is a Junior Senator from Illinois. His father was a muslim and he lived a significant part of his life in Indonesia. No, he did not 'attend a madrassa'.

But, think about it for a second. A country that once based its entire economic model on the enslavement and repression of black, African men and women is one step closer to electing a black man as its president. That is historic. Does that serve as some kind of atonement for America's horrific racial legacy? Not necessarily. In fact, probably not at all. In fact, psychologically, part of Obama's appeal to some white voters is that in their minds it kind of, sort of allows them to quietly repent for their ancestor's wrongdoings. But let's leave that aside for now, because there is something greater at stake.

As cliche as it might seem, think, for a second, about what Obama represents. He is half white and half black. As a human being, he represents a unification, a cross-section of what much of America is. That black/white issue is an issue on which we were divided for so long, for which we fought, struggled, grappled, killed, maimed, shouted, screamed, but ultimately prevailed over. I'm not saying Obama has anything to do with this, simply because he happens to be half white, half black. But being so, and being where he is, he inherently represents a symbol of unity, harmony, consonance. Just by being what he is, where he is.

Then take a look at what he is saying. Obama has centered his campaign around two ideas: 'Hope' and 'Change', and he has done so, with some exceptions, without resorting to cynical partisanship, nasty politicking and negative campaigning. In talking about hope, Obama is essentially offering a prescription badly needed by the majority of Americans. For most of what I can remember of my lifetime, politics has been summarized by polarized soundbites, hardball exchange, dishonest brokering. It's been about right and left, blue states and red states, pro-life and pro-choice, republican and democrat, radical liberal and neo conservative. I cannot remember in my lifetime a moment in which I felt my country was unified. Granted, there are dissidents in every political milieu/era, but it's become much worse than a mere sideshow or a demonstration of courage. It's become the dominant theme. Turn on the news and what do you find? A newscaster jabbering about an issue and then bringing in two new screens: hack from the right, hack from the left. News thus turns into fetishized spectacle, a boxing match in which the viewer is not informed but entertained by witnessing one bludgeon the other incessantly and vice versa. That is how politics has felt to me for a long time. Like bloodsport.

Now, when I turned on my TV on Thursday night to watch the results, I witnessed something that caused something inside me to flicker, just a wink, just a spark, like a long dormant butterfly within. Obama's speech after that victory triggered that switch, rekindled the fire, the political concept of hope. Hope, in this case, of the idea, the mere possibility of unity, of working together, of coming together, despite our differences to make this place better. That is what hope is for Obama - in the face of division, cynicism, bitterness, to believe in the possibility of solidarity and common purpose. That's it.

How do we get there? That's where the 'Change' facet of his campaign comes into play. Obama has characterized the impasse and lack of progress in American politics as a result of the disfunctional system in place, the 'status quo'. Why are we behind on setting standards for the global energy crisis? Why are we behind on Health Care? These are issues we should be tackling as a community, in the case of the former, an issue that we should be setting a high moral standard for the rest of the world to follow! Obama views the current Washington establishment as the reason these things are not getting done. Lobbyists and corporations get into the pockets of politicans and render them weak and ineffectual. Party lines divide politicians and coerce them to reject working together to win kudos from their cronies. Change, he argues, can only be effected from without, not from within.

If you watch the speech, it will be hard for you not to recognize at least an iota of his rhetorical brilliance. I have commented in an earlier post about his speaking troubles during debates, but it's become clear that those 60 second soundbites are not Obama's best format. He is eloquent and dignified in a way that I have not witnessed from a politician in my lifetime, but can only equate to what people must have seen and heard in leaders like JFK and MLK in the 60's. Indeed, I forwarded the video of Obama's speech to my mother, a long time Republican voter, and she had the same reaction. This guy will have serious national appeal, in a way that Hillary Clinton, who is far more divisive, can not.

Critics will mention that Obama remains nebulous on policy issues, and that he mentioned very little about specific political changes he plans to implement in his Iowa speech. That he is all talk and no action. This, of course, is the Clinton response. It's all they've got to go one. His lack of experience. Having watched a number of these debates, however, I'll come to the defense of Obama. After all, I was once a critic of Obama myself for some of the very same reasons. Firstly, let me say that that speech was neither the time nor the place to get into detailed policy but the time for an inspiring victory rally, the moment to summon his constituents and more. Obama needed that moment to say, hey, not only can I beat Hillary Clinton, I can garner more women voters than she can, more Independent voters than she can and more Republican voters than she can. What's more, I can do that in a state that is 95% WHITE. No longer does the 'white people will never vote for a black president' argument hold up. So, this speech was more about Obama saying, I've been talking all along about my desire to unify this country, now look at this small sample size and see what my potential is. Despite what everyone said was impossible, look at what we can do.

As far as policy goes, one of the reasons it is hard to distinguish the candidates on a lot of issues, is that more or less they agree on most of them. There are a few distinctions (Kucinich being the major one), but also some of the candidates' characteristics differ. Obama did not vote for the war, Clinton and Edwards did (Edwards apologized, Clinton did not). All three of 'the big three' support health care. Obama's health care plan enforces health care for all children and seeks to lower costs drastically so that health care becomes affordable to all. Clinton's plan, instead, forces all American's to have healthcare (the Clintonistas have used this distinction to paint Obama's plan as non-universal since it does not REQUIRE all Americans to purchase healthcare, but simply makes it affordable to do so. This is stupid). All three have the exact same energy policy, none of them support a Carbon tax. There are some other minor distinctions, but for the most part there are not GRAVE differences in policy amongst these candidates. That leaves voters to think about who can most effectively bring about these policy changes, who can restore our moral leadership and impression around the world. Right now, they side with Obama because A. he has no baggage (the Clinton era, despite many of its accomplishments, was rife with divisiveness) and B. because he is inspiring and incredibly intelligent and C. because he seems like the candidate who is least in it for his own ego and most in it for the good of the American people.

On that note, take a look at both Hillary's concession speech in Iowa and contrast it to Obama's victory speech:





What is remarkable, Hillary's awkwardness and Obama's rhetorical prowess aside, is how egocentric Clinton's speech is and how self-deflating and other-directed Obama's is. Clinton's is all I/Me and Obama's is all You/We. And, as a nation, I think we're all ready to be invited back into the political process once and for all.