Skeptical Brotha: “Hillary’s Handkerchief Heads: Call Them Out …”

Funny, provocative stuff on the Skeptical Brotha blog that we just couldn’t pass over. Take what you want from it. Still, we kind of understand where the NY CBC Members are coming from because it’s all politics. They’re a part of the same Congressional delegation as Sen. Clinton, so that’s a tough call. Sometimes, we shouldn’t expect “Black” politicians to be “Black” – ultimately, they’re politicians looking to get re-elected just like their peers. But, big ups to Skeptical Brotha for stepping out there with this – somebody had to point it out. We’re certain that after the South Carolina win and growing African American support for Obama, some of the peeps on the list below will begin re-considering or altogether reversing their endorsements … if not, they’ll risk the ire of their majority Black districts.

 

Our biggest beef, at this stage, falls with Rep. John Lewis (D-GA). We don’t understand how this cat gets the beatdown of a lifetime at the Selma March, gets a speech impediment as a result, all for the cause of getting us to the point where we could potentially see a Black man as President – or, so we thought. But, Lewis’ cajoling, clapping and spectacled seat-jumping for Clinton at the recent South Carolina debate (clearly dissing his ONLY CBC colleague in the Senate) vexed us to no end. For some reason, Lewis doesn’t much care for young brothers running for office – he obviously had a problem with young, energetic Keith Leaphart in Philly running against White incumbent and Hill colleague Rep. Bill Brady (D-PA).  

 

On to Skeptical Brotha’s blog ….

“Hillary’s Handkerchief Heads: Call Them Out …”

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.)
Del. Donna Christensen (D-V.I.)
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas)
Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.)
Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.)
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-Ohio)
Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)

If any of the listed Negro members of Congress supporting Hillary belongs to you, they need to hear a word from the people. I propose the following letter.

Dear Handkerchief Head:

You have been unconscionably silent in the face of Bill Clinton’s racially divisive tactics on behalf of Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign. I can only surmise from your silence that you either approve of Bill Clinton’s tactics or are too gutless to publicly register your opposition. Whatever the case may be, I have taken the liberty of writing to formally register my unbridled indignation and to withdraw whatever support I may have given to your re-election campaign. Pretending that the President’s comments were somehow taken out of context or don’t mean what they plainly imply simply will not do. Burying your head in the sand or defending the indefensible won’t do either. It’s time to do-you know what-or get off the pot. You can delay addressing these comments if you want to, but you do so at your peril. The Sunday morning talk shows were universally caustic against the Clintons.

On “Meet the Press,” Byron York of the right-wing National Review said, “You know, I don’t think you can overstate the amount of, of anger in–created in Democrats by Bill Clinton’s tactics. I mean, they were very, very unhappy with him. I was talking to a Democratic strategist the other day who said, “My wife just got in the car. She’s driving to South Carolina to volunteer for Obama.” They were that angry at what Clinton had done. And he also said, you know, Clinton is trying to turn him into Jesse Jackson. And sure enough, after Obama wins big, what does Bill Clinton say about it? “Well, you know, Jesse Jackson won here, too.”

Neo-Con Fox News Contributor and NY Times Columnist Bill Kristol wrote, “What do Jesse Jackson’s victories two decades ago have to do with this year’s Obama-Clinton race? The Obama campaign is nothing like Jackson’s. Obama isn’t running on Jackson-like themes. Obama rarely refers to Jackson.” “Clinton’s comment alludes to one thing, and to one thing only: Jackson and Obama are both black candidates. The silent premise of Clinton’s comment is that Obama’s victory in South Carolina doesn’t really count. Or, at least, Clinton is suggesting, it doesn’t mean any more than Jackson’s did.” “But of course — as Clinton knows very well — Jesse Jackson didn’t win (almost all-white) Iowa. He didn’t come within a couple of points of prevailing in (almost all-white) New Hampshire. Nor did he, as Obama did, carry white voters in rural Nevada. And Saturday, in South Carolina, even after Bill Clinton tried to turn Obama into Jackson, Hillary defeated Obama by just three to two among white voters. So Bill Clinton has been playing the race card, and doing so clumsily. But why is he playing any cards?”

On “Meet the Press,” Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director, provides a blunt answer to Kristol’s rhetorical question, “But, you know, it does feel like, though, that what Bill Clinton is doing is he read a poll, and he said, “OK, when am–how am I going to get her to 51 percent. OK. We’ve got to figure out how to drive white men away from Barack Obama. We’ve got to figure out how to drive Latinos away from Barack Obama.” That’s what works on February 5th. And, you know, he may not ever say that, but it feels like it’s a very tactical thing that they’ve done, and I think that’s what, you know, is going to offend the Beltway corridor, the Amtrak corridor, and, and you’re seeing a lot of, sort of, the New York and Washington Democrats who are probably going to keep coming out against Clinton on this….”

Some of us were raised to believe that members of the Congressional Black Caucus were among the best Black public servants in the country. Your actions belie that notion and constitute a slap in the face to those that came before you in the Reconstruction era. They fought valiantly for a seat at the table for African Americans before they were disenfranchised through the white supremacist tactics of mob violence, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, and poll taxes. Continuing to languish on the Clinton plantation in light of these racially divisive tactics is a betrayal of the progressive ideals of the Democratic Party and to the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement who fought to make America a functioning and pluralistic democracy. As for me, I am through with the Clintons and I am too through with you.

Brooks: The Power Behind Obama’s Purple Revolution …

Aware of the richness of political and public policy thought out there in the Black blogosphere, we’ll now be throwing a guest/republished blog (with credit) at you everyday we’re not doing one ourselves – blogging is a tough, time-consuming business, so we’re not going to front like it’s a walk in the park.  We like it, but we just can’t seem to maintain the sedentary lifestyle required to do one everyday.  So, why not highlight all the other brethren and sistren out there mulling politics on the daily.  In the meantime, if you’ve got something to say or write, feel free to become a Blackpolicy.org Guest Blogger – who knows, if you keep at it, find some juice and do it on the regular, we’ll throw in a free email account for you. 

Anyway, we dig our friend Webster Brooks observation that Obama has sparked a “Purple Revolution” (much like the Orange Revolution in Ukraine we saw a couple years back):

GUEST BLOG: Webster Brooks, Chief Editor of the U.S.-Iran Peace Project & former Independent Vice-Presidential Candidate writes:

As we predicted last week, Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama not only needed to win the South Carolina primary, but win it big with 80% of the Black vote. Obama did just that; stunning the nation by winning 55% of the total vote compared to Hillary Clinton’s anemic 27%. Obama’s victory has sent shock waves through the Democratic Party establishment controlled by the Clintons, as evidenced by Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama on Sunday; a defection that may open the floodgates in the weeks to come of establishment Democrats jettisoning the Clinton’s divisive and retrograde “Co-Presidency” campaign.

In carrying 80% of the Black vote Obama accomplished a key strategic goal; solidifying Blacks as a reliable voting constituency in his growing Purple Revolution comprised of moderate Democrats, Independents and disaffected Republicans.  Obama goes into the February 5 Super Tuesday primaries in 20 states with the winds of momentum in his sails. 

The South Carolina primary demonstrated in brilliant fashion that Barak Obama is the only Democratic candidate capable of building a coalition of voters across demographic lines to defeat the Republicans in the November general election. South Carolina was the first contest in which African-American voters played a major role and despite the Clinton’s success in racially polarizing the contest, Obama’s victory far exceeded the boundaries of racial and gender politics. South Carolina’s white voters are the most ideologically and politically conservative voters in America, and made up half of the state’s electorate. Nevertheless, Obama won 25% of the white vote, even with native South Carolinian John Edwards in the contest. Moreover, 61% of South Carolina’s voters were women. Obama won 54% of the women’s vote. The fact that Southern white men did not and will not vote for Hillary does not augur well for the Clinton’s on Super Tuesday.  . 

The slash and burn campaign against Obama, so typical of the Clinton’s has ignited a fire storm that Democratic Party leaders find deeply troublesome. If Hillary Clinton manages to win the Democratic Party nomination, Black voters will not enthusiastically embrace her campaign. Even the chief firefighters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will have a difficult time hawking Clinton’s wares. In an election year that Republicans are in serious disfavor with the American public, Democrats feel the White House belongs to them; they do not want another presidential candidate meltdown.

Increasingly, Hillary and Bill Clinton are being exposed for the politically toxic mix that they truly are. Should John McCain win the January 29 Florida Republican primary and emerge as the clear GOP front runner, the Democratic Party establishment will be forced to confront the reality that it must have a candidate with broad appeal to combat McCain’s popularity among Independents, moderates and centrist voters. That candidate is Barak Obama, and the politics of addition and victory in November is Obama’s Purple Revolution!  

Barack’s Win in SC

Yeah – we know: gotta get up on the blog more.

Barack manages  beat down in South Carolina.  This is not only a resounding victory, it’s a complete victory in terms of him winning all over the state.  Clinton only won 1 county; Edwards got only 2 counties.  Everything else went to Obama who is running a campaign that wins in areas where Democrats haven’t run strongly before – the expectation, for a moment, was that John Edwards would’ve done that as both White male and rural born, thereby resonating strongly with White rural and blue collar voters.  Instead, Obama trounces both competitors across the board.  And when you’re trying to compete for 270 electoral votes in November, you’ve got to find a way to win states that John Kerry and Al Gore didn’t win or weren’t competitive in 2004 and 2000. 

The South Carolina win is Obama’s pitch to the party that, when the general election arrives, he’ll be able to draw “Obama Republicans” in competitive states, especially those in the South.  He’ll use this and other wins like it to paint Hillary Clinton as an ultimately non-competitive candidate who won’t be able to beat the GOP nominee.  

This win, as we peruse the numbers, will also answer a lot of questions about whether Southern Whites can vote for a Black man. This is critical for Obama; certainly, he’s proven that he can lock the Black electorate, but he’s got to draw White voters who account for the majority. What we’re seeing in South Carolina is the  illustration of a slow, evolving social maturation in the South with respect to race that is defined by generational lines. 50% White voters ages 18-30 voted for Obama; 25% of White voters 30-59 voted Obama – that’s not bad at all.  And 15% of White voters age 60 pluse voted Obama, which is interesting considering this is the generation that grew up during Jim Crow – one wouldn’t expect an African American male presidential candidate to get much of anything from that voting bloc.

Right now, we’re trying to figure out exactly what the Clinton campaign’s game plan is by going into Florida – why?  Florida’s delegates don’t count.  But, the reason behind that is because she may be anticipating a brokered convention in August.  First: she wants a symbolic win from a big state going into Super Tuesday.  Second: she’s looking ahead to a brokered convention whereby she can curry favor with Florida and Michigan delegates.   This is a very interesting and peculiar buck-the-party-rules move. 

Nevada/SC Analysis – Who’s Really Winning?

This race is still wide open on both sides of the partisan aisle – these primaries only emphasized that point more.  The win in Nevada was actually not much of that for Clinton considering Obama still snags a large enough amount of delegates to keep him at the top.  Plus, he won the most counties in that state: 11 out of 17 counties.  He should be touting that, including the fact that he experienced a 20 point surge in the polls within 30 days; remember he was 25 points down in December. What’s ironic here is that the Clinton campaign for so long insisted that this race was all about the delegates; now they’re placing greater emphasis on the states won. 

Nevada showed Clinton running strong in the more populated, urban areas like Las Vegas and Reno, where she may have had an edge in ground organization.  But, statewide, Obama actually ran stronger across the entire state than she did. That feeds his argument that he’s electable by attracting conservatives and independents. He managed to run stronger in rural areas where you see more conservative “Harry Reid” Democrats, thereby adding to his strength in the delegate count. The fact that he did well amongst conservative, rural voters may display an ability to run well in conservative Southern states, as well.   

However, Obama should be worried about the fact that Latinos broke very strong for Clinton – nearly 70% of Latinos supported Clinton.  What no one wants to talk about is that today possibly reflected a very serious Black/Brown conflict, particularly in the West.  First, we recall Mexican President Vincente Fox making choice remarks about African Americans; then, of course, we soon became enlightened to the entrenched anti-Black racism throughout Mexico and Central America.  Lately, we’ve been hearing reports of Latino “hate crimes” against Blacks in places such as California.  The immigration issue only sours that further as many African Americans perceive “cheap” Latino labor as competition against a disproportionately unemployed Black workforce.  This simmering feud between Blacks and Browns is rather pronounced in the West, and Obama may be challenged by it as he competes in critical states with large Latino electorates such as California. The immigration issue is the key issue for Latino voters.  It could very much hurt Obama, especially if he ends up winning the nomination and ends up battling Sen. John McCain for the White House, who is seen as having a favorable stand on the issue as far as Latinos are concerned.

Obama’s strong performance in Nevada certainly opens up momentum for South Carolina. There may be indications that the strong Black support for Obama in Nevada (80% of African Americans in a primary where 15% of voters are Black) underscored a Black backlash against Sen. Clinton due to recent comments over race.  The big question: Will that backlash hold into next week during the South Carolina Democratic primary?  African Americans have a very long memory.

As far as the Republican primary, the quiet story is the overwhelming win of Romney who gets a few more delegates and that second “gold medal” he’s been looking for.  Romney simply destroyed the competition in Nevada.  But, Ron Paul’s second place finish in that state should also raise a few brows about the type of voter that supports a Presidential candidate with many confirmed reports of a rather recent bigoted past.  McCain’s third place finish in a Western state should be of real concern since he’s a senior Senator in a neighboring Western state: Arizona. 

The irony here is that McCain takes South Carolina, solidifying the very conservative and evangelical vote eight years after losing badly to President Bush in 2000 in that same state.  Still, the South Carolina primary shows that McCain could be getting some sort of validation or nod from the Republican right, particularly in light of Huckabee’s supposedly strong ‘Christian’ credentials. This obviously gives McCain serious momentum into Florida and some credibility with Southern “Bible Belt” states … but he still has a long way to go before conservatives trust him. 

Thompson strong showing in South Carolina might have taken votes from Huckabee. McCain should be concerned; you have two conservative candidates that got 184,000 combined votes to McCain’s 135,000 votes. Still, there are whispers within the GOP that McCain is looking ever more attractive to the party establishment as a nominee. And the Republican Party typically has a history of backing nominees who they perceive as having earned or worked for it.”

How Certain Michigan Voters Got the Short End of the Stick …

Some of our first thoughts about the Michigan primary point to the fact that the state’s voters were ultimately disenfranchised because officials there drank the Kool-Aid of a dysfunctional primary system’s hype.  It’s unfortunate that residents can’t participate in such a historic primary that can very likely lead us into the nation’s most historic general Presidential election.  But, since they wanted to engage in a state pride measuring contest, voters end up losing, especially Black voters who may be excited about the prospect of Obama winning the nomination.

But, do Democratic candidates end up losing, as well, especially if they choose to remove themselves from the ballot? There are several different ways of looking at that.  One can make the argument that candidate participation or non-participation in that state could provide a symbolic result, particularly making an impression on the state’s African American voters.  But, the bottom line is that these delegates aren’t being counted.  Still, even without Michigan delegates in the primary at the moment, the eventual nominee should make every effort to court those delegates for the convention in August.  Michigan is still considered a competitive battleground state. 

There are reports, however, that contingents of Obama and Edwards campaign operatives are instigating an ‘uncommitted’ campaign in that state as a way to offset votes for Clinton (who is still on the Michigan ballot) and ultimately embarass her.  This appears a bit miscalculated.  First: both campaigns have to accept the fact that they chose not to be on the ballot; they took a pledge not to campaign in Michigan. Additionally, as the primary schedule becomes more caustic, the battle for funding more heated and the need to accumulate delegates in very critical states more critical, the last thing either campaign should focus on is the shifting of essential campaign resources in a state that won’t be counted. Still, there may have been a last minute realization of the fact that there is a possibility that Michigan delegates could go the convention if “uncommitted” ballots account for at least 15 percent of the votes in a district.  However, it may not be the most prudent use of resources for either Obama or Edwards to do this; it could be rather distracting.  South Carolina and Nevada are where their heads should be.

So What Happened in New Hampshire … initial thoughts …

In much more tangible fashion than her husband in 1992, Hillary Clinton will now proclaim herself “The Comeback Girl.” Still, she only managed a final lead by barely 2 percentage points. What was the reason despite all preliminary polls the morning of showing an average 8 point lead by Obama?  Last minute, eleventh-hour support from middle-class White women voters in New Hampshire who sympathized with her moment of “humanity” at a recent dinner. 

Once the numbers are sorted, one will find a significant split in perception on that moment based on class. Simply put: that moment of choked “real-ness” resonated with White, middle-class, “Sex in the City” and “Soccer Mom” women who identify with Hillary’s ascent.  This demographic represented a dominant demographic in a state like New Hampshire. We’re willing to wager that it didn’t and does not work with working class, paycheck-to-paycheck, struggling “Thelma & Louise”/”Women of Brewster Place” females who might have viewed that moment as somewhat insulting - “What do you have to cry about?  You’re married to a former President, you’ve got money and you’ll be allright even if you lose?”  That may have been the type of woman voter that hurt her and went for Obama in Iowa – Midwestern, working class grit. Not so in New Hampshire.  

The tightness of the margin of victory on the Democratic side placed both Obama and Clinton in a position to claim victory.  One obvious result out of the NH primary, due to extremely high voter turnout, is that voters are energized. Democratic voters especially know what they want, it’s simply a matter of who represents that most effectively. Hence, you have a desire for change, but in the context of Obama versus Clinton, it’s a clash between what’s perceived as an ideal and what’s perceived as proven.  This constant tug will result in a very contentious and heated Democratic primary.  Still, this huge voter turnout for Democrats is a healthy sign for their prospects in November. 

What should Obama do?  Exactly what he did in his post-New Hampshire primary speech: sound commanding, defiant, unifying and confident.  He will need to move on to the Nevada and South Carolina as though he made first place in New Hampshire.  Despite the setback, Obama is still very much in it.  On the other hand, Clinton should not be underestimated. 

Not so on the Republican side, which is still very fractured. They’ve had 3 contests with 3 strong and impressive wins. McCain’s win in New Hampshire comes as no particular surprise as he was able to simply tap into a rather loyal base from his 2000 primary win against George W. Bush. The large spreads in polling margins between Republican candidates suggests that there is still no clear front-runner – Republicans are still very much divided over who will be their nominee.  One thing that does stand out is a perceived lack of grassroots passion for Romney, who will absolutely need a Michigan win and at least a second place South Carolina showing to stay through to the end.  Rudy Guiliani, who is yet to seriously contest, will now enter the fray.

The GOP race will become intense in South Carolina where they will battle for religious voters.  But the GOP primary is not so much about the battle for the White House as it is about a war for the heart and soul of the Republican party.

If the NH primary is any indication, this will be a very, very interesting race to watch.

Hillary Clinton stars as “Tracy Flick” …

So, on the real, some of you probably think Hillary’s recent choke on the mic breakdown (cause that’s what it is, no hairs to split on that), showed a bit of compassion in a politician that is now infamous for being cold.  And true: it’s o.k. for men to cry and public, but let a woman do it – that’s it.  We saw that happen with former LA Gov. Kathleen Blanco during the Hurricane Katrina debacle. 

Some will suggest that women voters, the bloc Hillary must win solidly if she is to go all the way, will find some connection with the embattled Senator in that moment of personal vulnerability; a moment where she showed “passion.”  Her handlers may be rolling with this because, well, it’s about time she look a little human and a little less on the growl.  Not to say our girl can’t do that – we respect that.  But, she’s running a campaign; she’s not pushing bills through the Senate floor.  These are voters, for the most part uninformed, that we’re talking about; these aren’t her Senate colleagues or the vast ”right-wing conspiracy.”  Sometimes, she acts like she’s battling everyone rather that persuading them.   

We just don’t think that moment did her any good. 

Yesterday confirmed our lasting perception of Hillary Clinton as the legendary Tracy Flick, the earnest, uber-perfect, nerdish-but-cute and hellishly driven teenager in the 1999 dark comedy “Election.”  Go rent it and you’ll see what we’re talking about; in fact, we won’t be surprised if Showtime starts re-running that joint over the weekend after yesterday’s sudden tear-jerk.   In short, Flick runs for class president at her high school – and she goes all out.  In fact, her entire time in high school is for this moment, and she just knows she’s going to win this.  She takes it to a whole new level … but, her campaign hits a hard bump when the school’s popular football quarterback is encouraged to run by a teacher (Matthew Broderick) who privately detests Flick’s ways. 

During the course of the film, Flick breaks down. 

Hillary had a Flick moment.  She was enjoying, ate up the inevitability factor.  She also got caught up in the “My Husband was the First Black President” trip, and didn’t expect this new bump in the road.  Yeah, of course “it’s personal.”  It’s personal for her, is what she wants to say, because 2008 was supposed to be her year, and now that appears to be eroding before her very eyes.  Don’t get us wrong, she’s still got a big shot – perhaps bigger than Obama.  Keep a watchful eye open as she plays for the big numbers on Super Tuesday.  But, she’s going to have to do a few things to get there:

1) Be cool and composed, because it doesn’t matter if you’re male or female, you can’t let them see you sweat on the campaign trail. And this notion that female voters will warm up to that moment may be unlikely because, at the end of the day, women want stability and security.

2) Don’t attack.  Last thing she needs to do is attack and go negative on Obama.  That’s not working.  Because, all she’s doing now is attacking a movement rather than the man. 

3) Become Hillary; Screw “Billary” – yes: define yourself beyond your husband, sistren.  First: it’s a bit of sexist presumption to assume it’ll be all good in the White House because her husband (who happens to be a former popular President) is in there with her. We don’t know that for sure; it’s not in a contract, and he’s not running – for all we know, he could get in there and just chill.  Still, Hillary should make the case that she’s the competent one who’ll be running the show and that she’s got the brains and fortitude to do it.  Hillary must find her own mission statement; her own philosophy.  She needs a movement to counter the Obama movement.  

  

The Blowout in Iowa …

Iowa was great political theatre of the purest form.  There was something in it that had a “Glory” quality to it – that scene where the 54th Massachussetts all-Black regiment storms Fort Wagner.  You can’t help but get all choked up.    

Not only was this a huge night in terms of Sen. Obama and Gov. Huckabee’s wins – tonight definitely signaled a significant paradigm shift taking place in American politics.  Certain indicators in the Iowa Caucus bucked conventional wisdom and tradition. This created a confluence of electoral tsunamis: turnout was high; the youth vote – perceived as typically unreliable – came out in big numbers and increased by more than 5 percent compared to 2004; precincts experienced large crowds; there were indications that even the small minority demographic in Iowa (2.5% Black) was, literally, fired up and voting with passion.   These events created a very volatile political environment in Iowa that ultimately led to a blowout – there’s no other way to put it.

But, there was also a common theme on both sides of the political aisle: change.  Caucus goers appeared to go with their gut, and that instinct told them to go with who they perceived as the change agents.  This could mean that voters are so disillusioned with the current political climate and leadership, that they’re willing to choose based on who they perceive as Washington outsiders.  There is something in the air that desires the type of change that bucks conventional wisdom, trumps traditional politics and acts outside the political box.  Apparently, Sen. Obama and Gov. Huckabee represent that as two presidential candidates running as “non-politicians” – one who is still too fresh in the Senate to get tainted by the ways of Washington and the other a Baptist preacher with an affable approach.  

Both also showed that they could defy the inevitability of big money machine politics.   Obama beats the entrenched Democratic establishment personified by Sen. Clinton; Huckabee comes surging from way behind in the polls to literally pounce Romney after the former Massachussetts Governor outspent him in Iowa over 10 to 1.  Clinton, into New Hampshire, is in big trouble – she needs to find a message.  A philosophy and mission statement.  A return to the Clintonism that helped her husband in 1992 and 1996. 

Another big question that loomed all year was also answered: Whites voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers.   We were skeptics on this point – but, we should’ve known better for two reasons:

1) Duvall Patrick’s win as Governor in 2006 in a state that’s only 6% Black;

2) Think about it: there’s some pop culture conditioning taking place.  Anytime Hollywood writers take a big enough risk to showcase not just one, but TWO Black Presidents on the most popular show on television (“24″), you gotta know something is about to happen.  We may be seeing the first stages of a “David Palmer Moment.”

Suddenly, overnight, Obama isn’t a Black man running for President; he’s a man running for President who just so happens to be Black. This is a very significant milestone in a state that is 95% White.  We saw this in 2006 with the election of Gov. Duvall Patrick (D) in Massachussetts.  Essentially, tonight may have marked the true beginning of the New School in Black political development, discourse and action.  Huckabee’s win may define a large battle for the very soul of the Republican party. 

Obama Wins Iowa …

Unreal. Surreal. Some words to describe Obama’s blowout of the other top tier candidates in the Democratic field of the Iowa caucus. A “Brown Bomber” moment? Too soon to tell. We are in many ways pleased that our previous prediction was bucked. This was indeed a blowout, a convergence of youth voters, independent voters, voters wanting something outside the political box. President David Palmer in this joint? Don’t know – but, you have to admit it’s all a bit fascinating to watch the history unfold. More to come as we pontificate about on XM radio Channel 130 and watch the results roll in.

Iowa Top 3 Predictions …

What do we think is going to happen in Iowa on Thursday?  Who will be the Top 3 on either side of the aisle. Here’s a scenario:

On the Democratic side, we envision John Edwards making first place.  That Edwards “anger” many have talked about through the debates over the past several months has actually translated into something credible enough to tap into raging working-to-middle class proletariat eager to make a stand in midwestern Iowa.  We might be wrong, but  Edwards is tapping into something we all forgot about: White voters.  He’s doing it in a subtle way, but he realizes the vast majority of voters in Iowa are White, they’re fairly humble in means, and they’re a bit angry about the direction of things nationally and internationally … and how that impacts their bottom line.  Suddenly, he went from talking about his “War on Poverty” (which middle class voters really don’t care about or aren’t paying attention to unless they become homeless) to a whole platform that encourages a vote for Edwards is a vote that “sticks it to the Man and corporations” (something middle class voters actually care about). 

Hillary Clinton will make second since Edward’s rise will take thunder away from Barack Obama, who will be in a respectable third.  But, Obama can’t just do third and expect gains for New Hampshire; he’ll go into the Granite State with egg on his face.  Clinton knows this, which is why she wants an Edwards first just as much as she wants to be first (since 2nd place in Iowa is just as good): her main goal is to take out Obama, since she took personal offense to his entrance and momentum in the race anyway.  Edwards she can handle.  Notice how she’s not really coming at Edwards all that strong; she saves the ire for Obama.  Part of it, too, is Edwards is a White man – Obama’s not.  We’ve seen choice moments throughout the campaign where she appears more comfortable with the others on the stage. 

Romney edges out Huckabee and makes for first.  Huckabee had a strong lead, but left everybody scratching their heads the past few days, particularly after he pulls an attack ad … only to show it in a press conference … to say … he’s pulling it.  Huckabee gets second, but can’t maintain anything in New Hampshire (since Granite voters can’t get with the Jesus-talk and mixing religion into everything).  Therefore, he’ll wait till South Carolina, and hope for a string of Southern victories. McCain makes a strong third, right up on Huckabee, because the Romney/Huckabee War is turning off some Iowa voters at the moment.  But, McCain get NH; can’t go much further without money and resources – the GOP ranks would back him, but they think he’s too old (although none of them wants to say it publicly).  Which is why they like Romney’s look. 

What Huckabee doesn’t have in money and organization, he compensates with the religious zeal of midwestern Iowans who only know churches and home schools as viable social networks.  This helps in a caucus like Iowa’s; Romney has the organization and money, plus the national party establishment, to give him what he needs for a first place win.