It was awful, just absolutely disgusting. ABC News has managed to host the worst of the Democratic debates (and mind you there were 21 of them in contention). Almost 1 year after the first Democratic debate in South Carolina–a period long enough to designate this presidential season as a reality TV show–we have managed to move away from talking about serious issues and into the hands of a relentless media cycle.

Here’s the chronology of the first hour of questioning:
1. Any chance at a “Dream Ticket?”
2. “Bitter, much?”
3. “Do you think your opponent stands a chance against McCain?”
4. “What about Reverend Wright?”
5. “Wait. I have an even stupider question about Reverend Wright.”
6. “Seriously. Who were you fooling with that Bosnia shizz?”
7. “Hey, Hussein! Why no American flag lapel pin?”
9. “Hey, Sean Hannity wanted me to ask you something, Barack! I got a question on the Weather Underground! Maybe later we’ll talk about the Symbionese Liberation Army!”
–Huffington Post

Notice how 6 of the 8 are directed at Obama. Clinton only had to defend herself against the Bosnia craziness, while Obama had to answer questions on the Bittenerss remark, his realistic chances against McCain, Rev Wright, his patriotism, and the Ayre controversy (which only the right-wing media is bitching about but now will certainly be brought into the 24 hour news stream because it’s been baptized by the mainstream media as a legitimate story).

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama can, and rightfully should, defend himself against this criticism. He’s done an excellent job doing so. My issue is with ABC and how they felt compelled to bring up trivial political stories over issues. The reality is that Pennsylvania has lost a ton of manufacturing jobs because of NAFTA, health care in the state is in crisis and the housing market is in a shambles. Why did they only spend a half hour on these issues? Why did ABC decide to spend the duration of one hour criticizing Obama with trivial political stories over serious issue-oriented questions.

Never in the 21 debates has a network botched a debate this bad (and mind you I thought ABC was a respected news organization.)

————————–

Interesting story in Politico today on how Pennsylvania voters resent James Carville’s ‘Alabama’ comparison:

“People think it meant that basically there are two areas of the state where people can read and write and treat people with a certain amount of respect and the rest of the state is redneck trailer trash,” said Larry Ceisler, a Philadelphia public affairs consultant with ties to the Democratic Party. “It ended up being a slander on people who are living in those places. I would like to see the line retired.”

A quick observation: what are they saying about the state of Alabama?

Carville is a Clinton loyalist, but in his defense, he was referring to the strong socially conservative, churchgoing tradition in the sparsely dense center of the state. It’s not his fault that his analogy is so apt, nor that the people of Pennsylvania can’t control their narrow minded anti-Southern bias.

Seriously–the South isn’t incest-ridden, backwoods, redneck hillbilly trailor trash. If people are seriously taking offense to this comparison, then they should look at themselves and their own biases.

Also noteworthy, a Public Policy Institute poll has Obama taking the lead over Clinton in Pennsylvania, 45-43. I haven’t been able to look at the specifics of the poll, but based on precident, PPI has been better than most polls.

My nerves are a little shocked, I’m getting a root canal in about an hour so wish me luck!

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.

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.

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.”

Barack Obama will deliver a “major speech” on race and society tomorrow in Philadelphia.

After everything that has erupted in the past week regarding comments made by spiritual adviser and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, this is an appropriate step by his campaign.

As of right now the political implications of Rev. Wright’s comments are not known. I can say that 1) the length between now and the Apr. 22 primary gives Obama a lot of time to calm the issue, and 2) the speech, if delivered well with media attention can fizzle down tempers. What Rev. Wright said is explosive, but we need to let it sit with the public for a week or so before we can gauge the extent to which this has damaged his campaign.

My guess is that this whole Rev. Wright thing will appear in those Obama smear emails. By the time the general election rolls around, the only people discussing this issue will be the same people who believe he’s a Muslim.

Today Iowa had it’s state Democratic convention, and according to NBC’s Chuck Todd:

The state’s 99 county Democratic parties held conventions today and the two campaigns were actively fighting to gain even more pledged delegates. At stake: the 14 pledged delegates John Edwards earned during the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses. Tonight, the Obama campaign claimed a gain of 7 pledged delegates, added to the 16 they earned on Jan. 3.

I averaged out the difference between the major media outlets’ estimates of the delegate lead (Washington Post, New York Times, AP, CNN, ABC, CBS & NBC). Right now Obama has a 123 delegate lead over Clinton, including among superdelegates. Since her Ohio win, she has lost 7 super delegates, while Obama netted 6 today alone. She also lost the Texas caucus, allowing Obama to net more delegates out of Texas.

Update: 
Looks like Obama will gain two more delegates after last night. According to Todd:

Last night, when I reported the net gain of 7 delegates for Obama out of yesterday’s 99 county Democratic conventions, it was based on 96% of conventions reporting. But there were two Cong. districts where Edwards was teetering on the edge of viability, the 1st and the 4th. Well, Edwards teetered the wrong way and Obama netted the delegates. So, here are the final results: … the overall delegate take for each candidate: 25 for Obama (that’s up from 16 during the Jan. 3 caucuses). 14 for Clinton (that’s down one from her 15 during Jan. 3). And 6 hung with Edwards, that’s down from 14 on Jan. 3.