As a young Democrat, when I learned that the Chelsea would be coming to my school to promote her mom, I cringed. It wasn’t because I dislike Chelsea, nor because I believed my college campus was untouchable to the Clinton campaign.I didn’t want her to come because of the utter fakeness her presence brings: my college, like all institutions of higher education in America today, is an Obama stronghold. And as expected, with Chelsea’s visit came an arry of Clinton banners, signs and staff members.

I was walking through our student center when I first saw Chelsea. Following her was an entourage of men in black suits and campaign staffers. I was walking in one direction, she was walking in the opposite. As she approached I stopped to greet her. She reached out her hand and I reached out mine and said, “Chelsea, thanks so much for coming, we really do appreciate your visit. Your father was a great president.” She smiled, and responded, “why thank you, I hope you’re voting Tuesday.”

My jacket was partially covering my Obama ‘08 button. I looked down, uncovered it, and pointed to it. She still smiled, and I said politely, “but we really do appreciate your visit.” She walked away.

Honestly, I feel like a dick. But in my defense, I was as cordial and honest as I could be.

Admittedly, I wasn’t happy with the Clinton campaign at that point. I had just got back from spending two weeks in South Carolina for the campaign, and I had grown angry with the Clinton campaign for the race baiting remarks of President Clinton. I suppose that played a role in my interaction with the former first daughter.

Chelsea continued on and went to a podium to deliver a speech to a crowd of about 150. I had just came from that direction, and I can say with certainty that most of the people there were not students. They were locals–townies as we call them–local residents who had heard about the Clinton visit through the local papers and decided to come out to listen to her talk to college kids. Problem was, the audience had ’salt and pepper’ color tones from far away–if you know what I mean.

Her visit was actually pretty pathetic. Like most college campuses, we have a local chapter of Students for Barack Obama, of which I’m a part of. The campaign gave our group roughly 36 hours to get ready for a visit by actor Kal Penn, and in the end, we managed to get about 240 students during a time when less than one fourth of the campus was actually at school (it was winter break/session). We actually had students–no adults.

Perfect grassroots youth outreach. Only student media, no old people, a young actor, prominently known in my age group, talking about issues involving us. It was low key, yet with maximum impact.

That is how Obama is winning college campuses: college youth organizers putting on events that are far more low key that “OMG, CHELSEA CLINTON IS COMING!!!” No one in my age group remembers Chelsea Clinton–how stupid to think she is actually reaching out to youth.
And what about that Chelsea Clinton event? Well she talked about her mom to a media-covered event with that ’salt and pepper’ audience. I know because one of my friends was there with a tape recorder.

Displayed behind her–a ‘Hillblazers: Young Leaders for Hillary in 2008‘ sign. In reality, there is no such youth group on campus. The Clinton campaign wanted to make it seem like there was, a distortion.

Amazin.g. Two new polls out today:

In a PPIC poll, in the general election, Obama beats McCain handily in California, while Clinton narrowly edges him out.

Obama   49
McCain  40

Clinton 46
McCain  43

Could Clinton lose California?

Meanwhile, his numbers in Conneticut have jumped as well

Obama   52
McCain  35

Clinton 45
McCain  42

Says the Q-poll:

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton initially was the favorite among Democrats before the Feb. 5 primary, but lost to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 50-47 percent. In a hypothetical matchup, Obama is now in a stronger position than Clinton against Arizona Sen. John McCain in the state’s general election. Independent voters support Obama, 45-38 percent and voters younger than 45 back him, 63-30 percent.

There is also an NBC poll out today that show Obama weathering the Wright storm. Watch Tim Russert break down the poll numbers.

A reader rightly made a correction to an earlier post.

In regards to the Hillary Clinton pastor problem post on AdvanceAmerica, reports WKTV-Utica, NY:

Procanick was pastor at Resurrection Assembly of God Church in Clinton before stepping down in Spring of 2007.

As it turns out, the ‘Clinton’ lead in the story had nothing to do with “the Clintons” but was a reference to the town of ‘Clinton’, NY.

To be fair, I would like to mention two points:

1. The initial WKTV article was not specific enough in its elaboration that this was in fact, a city.
2. My point in bringing up the issue has been one I’ve consistently ranted against and addressed: media sensationalization of the ‘horse-race’ aspect of this presidential contest. The post also included an excerpt from the Nation that discussed the shady “Clinton family.” While I am not a Hillary supporter, I’m still willing to defend her against ridiculous claims.

Hillary Clinton’s account of her trip to Bosnia is coming under fire.

Drudge today posted CBS’ account of the Clinton trip to Bosnia, and compared their records to her account last week.

Watch:

Can’t escape anything in politics today. Especially, if you’re traveling with a press corps who are taking constant footage.

The question raised here: can Hillary count experiences as these as “experience?”

It’s not a myth. Hollywood is clearly in bed with Barack Obama. Check out this list of celeb endorsements:

Jessica Alba^, Ben Affleck, Halle Berry, Zach Braff, Kristin Chenoweth, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Larry David, Robert De Niro, Megalyn Echikunwoke, Tracee Ellis Ross, Kate Flannery, Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, Jasmine Guy, Luis Guzmán, Tom Hanks, Hill Harper, Dule Hill, Kelly Hu, Scarlett Johansson, Daniel Dae Kim, Regina King, Ken Leung, Benjamin McKenzie, Nia Long, George Lopez, Eddie Murphy, Leonard Nimoy, Edward Norton, Kal Penn, Ryan Phillippe, Brad Pitt, Jeremy Piven, Sidney Poitier, Zachary Quinto, Chris Rock, Adam Rodriguez, Brandon Routh, Paul Rudd, Susan Sarandon, Jada Pinkett Smith, Will Smith, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, Chris Tucker, Kathleen Turner, Blair Underwood, Amber Valletta, Kate Walsh, Denzel Washington, Kerry Washington, Wil Wheaton, James Whitmore, Forest Whitaker, Olivia Wilde, Alfre Woodard

And to be fair, here are the Hillary supporters, a large minority, in Hollywood:

Eva Longoria Parker, Melanie Griffith, Sean Astin, Chevy Chase, Ellen DeGeneres, Michael Douglas, Jack Nicholson, Candice Bergen, Lynda Carter, America Ferrera, Tina Fey, Sally Field, Whoopi Goldberg, Christine Lahti, Caroline Rhea, Victoria Rowell, Amber Tamblyn, Elizabeth Taylor, Reese Witherspoon, Jerry Springer

Editorial note: This week is going to be busy for me. I don’t know how much or how often I’ll be posting  but check in.

Note about the picture: It’s me and actor Kal Penn. Penn played Kumar in Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, and is now starring on the popular medical drama House, M.D. I organized an Obama for America event for Kal. We ended up filling a room full of about 200 students.

And yes, I know, I look sooo dorky in that pic.

Breaking: Clinton pastor sentenced to 3 years prison for child molestation.

When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But as the former Clinton pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified.

Are you kidding me? Is this true or is this an overanxious media rushing to report something? You decide.

And then this out of the Nation yesterday:

Sean Hannity has called Obama’s church a “cult,” but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton’s “Family,” which is organized into “cells”–their term–and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, Sharlet joined The Family’s home for young men, forswearing sex, drugs and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn’t undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn’t completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners–alone.

Should we really be examining every presidential candidate’s pastor? Or is there an insanity to this process? And what the hell is with that Nation story, you have to read it to believe it.

The media is insane.

No one wants to say it, but it’s true.

Two interesting articles came out of the Politico and Time Magazine today.

Time outlines 14 realities Hillary Clinton needs to face up to, here’s a taste:

1. She can’t win the nomination without overturning the will of the elected delegates, which will alienate many Democrats.

2. She can’t win the nomination without a bloody convention battle — after which, even if she won, history and many Democrats would cast her as a villain.

3. Catching up in the popular vote is not out of the question — but without re-votes in Florida and Michigan it will be almost as impossible as catching up in elected delegates.

4. Nancy Pelosi and other leading members of Congress don’t think she can win and want her to give up. Same with superdelegate-to-the-stars Donna Brazile.

5. Obama’s skilled, close-knit staff can do things like silently kill re-votes in Florida and Michigan and not pay a political price.

And Politico sheds light on the spell the Clinton campaign has cast on the national media over her chances to actually win the Democratic nomination.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else. People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

Ultimately, the questions raised by Politico make you think: had Obama been placed in the same circumstances of Hillary Clinton, wouldn’t the national media be saying, All right Barack, it’s over!

The reality is, someone needs to tap Hillary on the shoulder and have an awkward conversation with her. The math just doesn’t add up; her pathway to the nomination is one that disinfranchizes millions of voters and depends on party elite to overturn the popular will of the people. It won’t happen, and the longer we drag this process out, the more we hurt the inevitable Democratic nominee.

Despite Obama’s bad press this week, and he did have a bad week, the news today of Bill Richardson’s endorsement surely is an upset to the Clinton campaign.

And a report out of the Huffington Post: Obama has $30 million in the bank, compared with Hillary’s $3 million.

New Federal Election Commission reports show Obama raised at a clip of nearly $2 million a day in February, an open spigot of money that left him with $30 million in the bank for March.

Clinton had her best fundraising month as well, at $34.5 million. But counting her debts to vendors she ended with a net $3 million. And that’s not factoring the $5 million she lent her campaign and has not paid back.

I think the superdelegates and the popular will are behind Sen. Obama. Hillary needs to come back to Earth, face reality, and drop out. For the good of the party, and for the good of our nominee in the fall.

“New Race Problem”

That was the bold headline on a bright lit television screen behind Anderson Cooper tonight on CNN. It was about Barack Obama’s recent comments to a reporter discussing his white grandmother’s reaction to African Americans in her time:

“The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she’s a typical white person who — if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know — there’s a reaction that’s been bred into our experiences that don’t go away, and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it. And what makes me optimistic is you see each generation feeling a little less like that.”

Here is my problem: does anyone really believe that Barack Obama is a racist? Because if you believe that, you’re simply ridiculous. It astounds me that people are incapable of looking at things in a broader context; how can we ignore that there still are racial biases in our society? And what harm does it do for a presidential candidate to not only be cognizant of those biases but raise the dialogue? Obama’s comments addressed his own grandmother’s attitudes, and though they were untactful, they were just. The fact that so many bloggers and talk show hosts can’t grapple with this reality suggests to me that they are either childish or possess ulterior motives to derail the Obama campaign.

But worse to me is the media coverage on the 24 hour news networks. CNN, MSNBC and Fox (<-to the LARGEST extent) have used the Rev. Wright story, and subsequent remarks by Senator Obama as fodder for either promoting a conservative agenda (in the case of Fox) or continuing controversy for the sake of politics (CNN, MSNBC).

This kind of baiting is wrong in an election where we should be discussing the issues. Networks want to discuss the horse race and we want to discuss the problems we face as a nation.

Had Sen. Obama explicitly said, ‘I am a racist’ then certainly the discussion should be about his personal moral character. But to run continuous loops of Rev. Wright’s sermons, gaffes, and “analysis” from otherwise biased persons does not serve journalistic integrity. The media is a self-fulfilling prophecy in this regard; they ask, ‘how will the media cover this story and what impact will it have on the campaign?’… well you tell me.

Honesty is dead; it’s all about reporting stories first, and obtaining the highest viewership. If you’re enlightened enough to realize this congratulations, you’re among the few who aren’t complacent to the dictates of the 24 hour news media nor their corporate masters.

Know that I’m not anti-media, I’m anti-constant punditry and horse-race coverage.

Update:  Check out Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, talking about FOX’s “Obama bashing” this morning:

You know, it’s something to just be cognizent of… the fact that this US election has spurred tremendous international interest. The fact that we have two candidates-one African American and one women, both with a reasonable shot at the presidency- speaks volumes about the character of this nation. It really does make me proud to be an American. No, seriously.

Here is the clip that was the catalyst for this realization. It’s a panel of British political observers discussing the US election. Two observations:

1) How that one women says, no matter who wins, she’ll hate the US president. What? Oh come on… that’s the biggest bunch of BS I’ve ever heard. She says that even if Obama is the next president, she is going to have to hate him…. I certainly hope this isn’t a reflection of global attitudes.

2) Interesting perspective by the Indian girl on US protectionism. She discusses how in India, the parsing of candidates against NAFTA has a strong negative effect. This honestly shouldn’t surprise anyone… afterall, we are providing them with our jobs via US outsourcing… but it’s definately a viewpoint I hadn’t seen before. We’re so wrapped up in thinking about how voters in Ohio will recieve the presidential candidates’ messages, who thought that the people in India were listening  so attentively with great disdain and hesidency.

The clip is about 10 minutes if you have the time.

Senator Obama delivered yesterday a speech that was among the best of his political career. In a forceful, yet graceful and calm demeanor, he eloquently defined the problems associated with race in the U.S.

He spoke to a wide array of racial groups-white, black and brown- and addressed the need to come together to achieve fundamental change. Most significantly, he elaborated on how we all have a stake in each other, how we all, despite our heritage, have a reason to feel cheated, left out, or underrepresented. He spoke those feelings, while at the same time urged us to think differently about our politics and reconsider the issues that exist below the surface. A truly magnificent speech. Outstanding.

“A More Perfect Union” - Philadelphia, PA, Tuesday, March 18, 2006

Reactions:

Scout Finch from DailyKos: “This speech is amazingly honest and will hopefully spark a long overdue discussion on race in America. We’ll see if it is enough to blunt to criticism of his relationship with Reverend Wright. I think he’s done a spectacular job thus far of denouncing specific remarks by Reverend Wright, while still standing steadfastly by him and his community.”

Andrew Sullivan: “Alas, I cannot give a more considered response right now as I have to get on the road. But I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history… I have never felt more convinced that this man’s candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity.”

Marc Ambinder: “I do think that Obama’s speech was a marvel of contemporary political rhetoric. Politically, analytically and emotively, it hit many high notes. His acknowledgment of white working class resentments (busing) and about the perception that there’s been no racial progress, his willingness to stick by his friends, his grasp of history, his sense that our views of race are cramped and caricatured… all of that is something that even those who disagree with the substance of his speech, can, I think, appreciate.”