Obama-Mania: The Magic

by Anita S. Lane

It’s been called Obama-mania. Some refer to it as being "Obamafied." Whatever you call it—and as ridiculous as you think it may be— it’s real, and I experienced it first-hand at the Obama Campaign’s “Keeping America’s Promise Rally,” in Toledo, Ohio last Sunday.

You see, I’m a historian of sorts. I love chronicling events and taking photos as a record of events past. I’m also a political scientist and public policy analyst. Thus, I know that no matter the outcome, the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama is ground-breaking on many levels. Years from now I knew that I would regret not experiencing this small piece of history. I was not alone.

In fact, I was joined by another 10,000 individuals in the packed arena. We were all part of an historic event taking place at the University of Toledo’s Savage Hall—a very typical campaign rally for Senator Barack Obama—but a very atypical rally for any other politician.

Every Race, Age, Gender and Creed
One of the best aspects of the experience for me was the people I met. Seated in front of me was Dave of Ohio—a Mexican American and Vietnam War Veteran in his early sixties. He’d come by himself, but he had plenty company.When I asked Dave when and why he decided to support Barack Obama, his answer surprised me. “I’ve been looking for leadership like this since I was eight years old,” Dave said.

Dave says he first found such leadership in President John F. Kennedy and in his inaugural words, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” At the age of 15, Dave recalls walking 50 miles in response to JFK’s “Shaping Up America” challenge. Dave was inspired.

Forty-seven years later, Dave is once again feeling that same kind of inspiration. He says he first heard Obama speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and he immediately thought, “That’s leadership…True leadership inspires us to action.”

Inspiration is also what motivated the young gentleman seated behind me—eight year-old Andrew—to action. An avid Obama supporter, he woke his mother up at 6:00 a.m.Sunday morning demanding they get Savage Hall to see Senator Barack Obama.

Andrew, a close follower of the campaign didn’t want this opportunity to pass him by. It’s likely that Andrew, a very bright and hope-filled bi-racial boy, probably sees himself in Barack Obama. When I asked him what he wants to be when he grows up he said, “I want to be a lawyer and a judge.” Obama is his inspiration.

To my left was Rhonda—a middle aged Caucasian woman from Michigan— who is working diligently to help Obama win the nomination and become president. “I want this man to become president more than anything,” Rhonda shared.

Rhonda, who took time away from planning her wedding in three weeks to come to Ohio— found herself wiping away tears as she listened to Obama speak. “I just know he will be so good for America…” Rhonda concluded.

To my left was Cliff—a sixty something independent film maker whose Grandfather was from Panama and whose mother was from Belize. Cliff, a long-time Democratic activist, worked on the presidential campaign of Robert Kennedy in 1968. “We’ve not had this in 40 years,” Cliff says of the engagement, excitement and enthusiasm engendered by the Obama campaign.

Rekindling the Kennedy Era
While I wasn’t born at the time, history reveals that now is not the first time that America has experienced the “inspiration factor” in American politics. As Cliff mentioned, there was a lot of excitement surrounding the candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.

In his book, Robert F. Kennedy and His Times, Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., referred to Robert Kennedy’s campaign as "uproarious” and “filled with enthusiasm and fun.” He also stated it was a campaign “moving in its sweep and passion." Sound familiar?If we go all the way back to June of 1840, presidential candidate William Henry Harrison of the Whig Party actually drew a crowd of 60,000 to his campaign rally at the site of the Tippecanoe battle. It’s stated that by the end of his campaign, there were “parades three miles long of voters singing, chanting and drinking.” (Miller Center for Public Affairs Online Reference Resource, University of Virginia.)

Lastly, let us not forget the first Kennedy with broad popular appeal—President John F. Kennedy. JFK was young, inspirational and wildly popular (in addition to being intelligent and experienced, of course). And in spite of the challenges that faced his administration—including his acknowledged missteps—he managed to come through it as one of America’s favorite presidents, and an icon of American hopes and aspirations.

In 2008, there appears to be a new icon of American hopes and aspirations. His name is Barack Obama. And many are comparing him to President John F. Kennedy—everyone from the average American who lived during that period—to even JFK’s younger brother Ted Kennedy, and JFK’s own daughter, Caroline Kennedy.

My new friend Cliff drew the comparison in a very interesting manner: He asked me, “Didn’t Moses and the children of Israel wander in the wilderness for forty years?”
“Yes,” I affirmed.
“Yeah…well, it’s been forty years…”

The “Inspiration Factor”
It’s this type of rhetoric and association with the Kennedy era that has mystified much of the media—and perhaps the Clinton campaign as well. Why? Well, the “Obama factor” (as it’s often called) can be difficult to quantify or put your arms around.

However, I don’t call it the “Obama factor,” I call it the “inspiration factor”—the ability to inspire individuals to action—whether the action is voting, giving to a campaign, volunteering on behalf of the campaign or getting involved in politics in other ways. However he does it, Obama is able to inspire.

Some want to disparage Obama’s inspirational message of hope and inclusiveness and dismiss his pop star appeal. However, we must realize that when America is in a time of turmoil— today, as it was 40 years ago—Americans turn to a leader who can lift their collective spirit, and unify and inspire them to believe in a better, brighter tomorrow. I believe that it’s the magical “inspiration factor” to which Americans find themselves drawn. And with over one million contributors to the Obama campaign, the inspiration factor appears to be spreading like wildfire.

“This is just the beginning,” Cliff remarked about the Obama campaign.
“You see this…” He said as he looked around the arena,
“This is a movement. The Obama campaign has mobilized millions of people who are now ready to make change happen. We can solve the problems facing America if we come together.”

Cliff’s words mirror what Obama has been saying throughout much of his campaign—and perhaps this is what the Obama campaign’s grassroots organizers already know, and what most Americans desperately want to believe right now—that “We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”

John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were leaders who inspired a similar kind of excitement, hope and enthusiasm—and history was kind to them. Maybe history will be kind to Obama as well.

BORING! Democratic Debate Is Nothing New

by Anita S. Lane

I was wrong. Senator Hillary Clinton didn’t try to scratch and claw her way to a debate victory Thursday night. Someone in her camp must have advised her that such a strategy would certainly backfire.

In fact, I thought the debate between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama was rather civil—once again. It wasn’t quite the love fest the first one-on-one debate was, but it was civil.

Unlike my husband, I’m really not into the sort of fights that take place in the boxing ring. I was a political science major, so I get much more excited about political contests. And while I don’t believe there were any fatal punches, there was some sparring, one hit below the belt, one would-be knockout and no clear winner.

Sparring
I’d have to say the most sparring occurred when the two candidate went back and forth…and back and forth…trying to distinguish their health care plans. They really had to dance around the ring on this one because their plans are essentially the same. Whether you call the differences philosophical (like Obama) or substantive (like Clinton), the difference is this— Clinton’s health care plan aims to make health care affordable and mandates that everyone purchase health care (similar to how everyone who works pays into social security).

Obama’s plan aims to make health care affordable and mandates that every child is covered but does not require every adult to purchase health care. We get it, Senators. It’s the same thing you’ve been saying on the campaign trail for the last two months. Now I honestly believe there are some very serious practical and logistical challenges to either plan—but that’s a topic for discussion all its own.

One Hit Below the Belt
The very civil fight between the two contenders was going somewhat smoothly until the question about whether or not the campaign was going negative. Obama responded to the charge by Clinton that he had plagiarized a speech and referred to it as the beginning of “silly season” in politics.

The irony is that in responding to the question—instead of taking the high road—Hillary totally hits below the belt and offers what is an amazingly cheap, fifth-grade like attack. Obama stated that his friend and national campaign co-chair, Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick recommended that he use the phrase in his speeches to help make the argument that words are important.

In response, Hillary said, “I think that if your candidacy is going be about words, then they should be your own words. Lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox.” Ooh! Gotcha back! Now, top that Barry! Yes folks, this round goes to Barack. This is definitely the “silly season” in politics.The Would-Be

Knock Out
The best punch of the evening came in the final round. In fact it was the last question and Clinton got the final word. And what a powerful “final word” it was.
“Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. We have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that’s what this election should be about,” Clinton said with conviction and empathy.

Clinton went on to say, “The hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country, [and] I resolved, at a very young age, that I'd been blessed, and that I was called by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessing that I took for granted. That’s what gets me up in the morning. That’s what motivates me in this campaign.” Clinton's remarks garnered a standing ovation.

It truly seemed as though Hillary had recaptured her “New Hampshire Voice.” But guess what, folks, that wasn’t her voice—at least not a key component of the statement—it was John Edward’s voice. Edwards used the line “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine…I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same about the American people…” on many occasions at the close of his speeches. Didn’t Hillary just pounce on Obama for borrowing phrases without crediting the source? Is this hypocrisy? The You Tube display certainly makes that case. Check it out for yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAYItnI-lPo&feature=related)

So, while it’s true that I was overcome by Clinton’s endearing words and show of emotion, it turns out they weren’t fully hers. There goes the knockout. As one individual commented on You Tube, “That’s not a closing you can count on, that’s a closing you can Xerox.”

No Clear Winner
I believe Clinton’s closing comments could have been a knockout—if they hadn’t been borrowed. Thus, I don’t believe there was a clear winner of the night’s debate. If you listen to the political commentators on radio and TV, many seem to think that Obama won. I disagree. Yes, he was much more comfortable than in past debates. His rebuttals to Clinton were clear and decisive, and he made his policy positions clear—albeit not very detailed.

The reality is that Clinton is still a much better debater. Maybe it’s because she has more experience. Maybe it’s because of her working command of the intricacies of the various national policy issues. Honestly, I think she came across as having a better command of the issues—or at least how to communicate the details. She is extremely comfortable in the debate setting. Many made issue of the fact that when Clinton spoke Barack looked directly at her but when he talked, Clinton seemed to look past him. Maybe it means something. Maybe it doesn’t.
Nonetheless, those of us who have been following the campaigns know that Thursday’s debate offered nothing new. It did however, offer a little sparring, one hit below the belt, and one would-be knockout, but no clear winner.

Hillary Clinton--There’s Simply No Shame in Her Game

by Anita S. Lane

Hillary Clinton wants to be elected President of the United States— of course she must have her limits, but it certainly appears as though winning “by any means necessary” is her secret motto.

Since the Super Tuesday contest on February 5th, Clinton has unveiled the politically calculating, unscrupulous, and self-serving side of her personality. And it’s not pretty.

I Loan, You Give
How do I justify my claim? Let’s start with Clinton’s five million dollar loan to her campaign. She made a loan to her campaign because she “believes very strongly” in her campaign. Well if she truly “believed,” why didn’t she just give the money. She loans to her campaign while she expects others to give to her campaign. Where’s the self-sacrifice and fairness in that?

No, You Can’t See How I Make My Money
Secondly, Clinton has made it clear that she has no intentions on releasing her tax returns (which might reveal where she got the money to make the loan) until after the primary election. Why not just say she won’t release them at all. It’s clear that Clinton knows that her tax returns won’t stand up to Obama’s (whose filings are public record) and it may very well be the demise of her candidacy—or at least a major distraction.

Well, They’re Black…
Or how about Hillary (and Bill’s) attempts to frame Senator Obama’s wins in South Carolina, Washington D.C., Georgia and other states as simply a result of the significant African American population and their “immense pride” in the first black candidate to have a real shot at the white house. This attempt to marginalize Obama and an Obama win may have worked once, maybe twice, but how do you explain Obama’s victories in Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho and Maine?

Superdelegates are Automatic
Hillary’s latest strategy is to attempt to strong arm her superdelegates into staying with her. She even launched a website dedicated to this very cause. As the news that one-by-one, more and more super delegates who formerly supported Clinton are now defecting to the Obama camp, Hillary Clinton wants to make it clear to them that their votes don’t have to represent their constituencies.

Clinton's new website states, "The fact is: no automatic delegate is required to cast a vote on the basis of anything other than his or her best judgment about who is the most qualified to be president.” Unfortunately a lot of what Clinton calls “fact” on her new website is simply opinion. Her clear willingness to massage words and numbers once again prove her willingness to do or say anything to win.

Delegates Don’t Really Represent (It just depends on what the meaning of “is” is…)
Not only is Hillary fighting for every last superdelegate, word surfaced this week that the Clinton camp was considering a strategy to woo Obama’s pledged delegates—delegates that Obama won fair and square via elections and caucuses—citing (and correctly so) that pledged delegates aren't required to cast their vote at the convention for the candidate who won them. But wouldn’t such a strategy reflect poorly among the Democratic voters who truly thought their vote meant something? And would it not lead to an all-out civil war within the Democratic party?

Let the Voters Speak…for Me
Finally, and probably the most blatantly, self-serving tactic is Hillary Clinton’s push to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates. Heaven forbid we have a repeat of the 2000 election. Democrats can’t disenfranchise voters…

No, neither party should disenfranchise voters. However the Democratic National Committee made the rules, Michigan and Flordia party leaders broke the rules, all the Democratic candidates, including Hillary agreed to play by the rules, but then—somehow—Hillary wound up the only major democratic candidate with her name on the ballot. So of course, she won the primary. She also won in Florida where all of the candidates agreed to not campaign. And now she wants to fight to seat the delegates? Is it even possible that there could be anything more unscrupulous and blatantly self-serving? Doesn’t pushing the “Michigan and Florida Delegate” hot button feel even the slightest bit unethical to Hillary Clinton? It doesn’t appear so.

Where is the outrage?

There’s Simply No Shame
Hillary Clinton claims to have the experience that can produce change in America. But right now she’s showing us just how experienced she is at playing politics as usual—and there’s simply no shame in her game.

Clinton Needs to Grab Votes, Not Grasp for Straws

by Anita S. Lane

What an interesting week it’s been. In the past seven days, Senator Hillary Clinton—the self-proclaimed solutions candidate—has managed to drum up more hoopla over the issues of plagiarism, patriotism, and political debates, than the issues that matter most to voters.

If Senator Clinton really wants us to believe that she is the individual most capable of affecting change, does she really think that she can convince us by perpetuating politics as usual?

The upcoming presidential election is absolutely critical in the minds of most Democrats. As such, I think Democratic voters have little appetite for petty political squabbling. Voters want to focus on achieving a common vision and identifying practical solutions.

But wait! Obama plagiarized his speech by quoting Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick without crediting him. In addition, Obama refused to agree to a debate in Wisconsin. Finally and worst of all, Obama’s wife Michelle said she is proud of her country for the “first time” in her adult life. Shame! Don’t these “flaps” weaken Obama’s character and speak to his credibility as a potential president of the United States?

Well, these “flaps” just might mean something…if they really meant something. The truth is, while Obama did borrow phrases from Patrick’s speech (which borrowed lines from otherfamous speeches), Obama and Patrick are friends, and Patrick had granted Obama permission.
On the issue of patriotism, when Michelle Obama made her remarks about being proud of her country “for the first time” in her adult life, she was clearly referring to how Americans are engaging in the current political process in record numbers—but you’d have to hear the context of the speech to know that.

Lastly, Hillary Clinton challenged Obama to four more debates on top of the 18 they’ve already had. Obama agreed to two out of the four. Is it really fair to say Obama is avoiding debates?
America needs a President (but first a candidate) who focuses on what matters and does not get distracted—nor try to distract voters—with sidebars that really don’t matter. American voters are not that petty. Not now, the stakes are too high.

Senator Clinton should take a common sense approach to matters like these instead of trying to make mountains out of mole hills. Senator Hillary Clinton has lost ten presidential primary contests in a row—and by embarrassingly wide margins. At this point in the game, Clinton needs to be engaged in the serious task of getting votes, not grasping for straws.

Democratic Presidential Primary 2008: It May All Come Down to Communication

by Anita S. Lane

After losing ten straight presidential primary contests to Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton moved on to Ohio, seeking to appeal to voters in this now “must-win” State for her. “What we’re trying to do here is not easy and it will not happen overnight. It is going to take more than big rallies. It is going to require more than rousing speeches. It will also require more than policy papers and positions and websites. It is going to require something more…” These are the words of Hillary Clinton, right? No. These are the words Senator Barack Obama after his decisive win in Wisconsin, speaking to a crowd of 19,000 in Houston, Texas.

Demonstrating his ability to take on the Clinton campaign’s criticisms head-on, Obama didn’t defend but actually embraced Clinton’s most recent talking point. Clinton stresses that this election is about more than speeches, but solutions. Obama doesn’t disagree.

Strategically, Hillary would like to back Barack into a corner that defines him as the naïve, all-talk and no solutions candidate. However, the power to do that is taken away when Barack himself makes the same argument. At that point, are the two really on opposite sides of the issue? What are we really arguing about? Do we really even disagree?

So there you have it. Obama is once again subtly stealing Clinton’s thunder. He’s already begun encroaching on her base—increasing his votes among the middle class, women, white men, Latinos and lower income voters. Now what? Will he also take away her main talking point? While it may not constitute plagiarism (as Clinton may wish) it does constitute good strategy.On

Tuesday night, Obama had every reason to stroll onto the stage “fired up and ready to go” (which by the way is a phrase Clinton stole from Obama), but instead, he took a decisively direct tone that spoke to the mechanics of what comes next in this primary election and what he will need from the voters if he wins the nomination and the general election.

“I need your help,” was Obama’s resounding theme. “We will need you to fight for every delegate it takes to win this nomination. If we are blessed and honored to win the nomination, we’re going to need your help to win the election in November. And if we win that election in November, then we are going to need your help and your time, your energy, your enthusiasm, your mobilization, your organization and your voices to help us change America over the next four years,” Obama told the Houston crowd. But this is the speech Hillary Clinton should have given. She should have been the one talking about the work it would take, and more than anything else, she should have been directly saying “I need your help…”

Instead, Clinton says, “If we pull together, I know we can do this,” and “I hope you will support this campaign because it is your campaign.” Clinton, don’t you remember English 101? You’re speaking in passive voice. Passive language is never as persuasive or motivating as active language.

Instead of dancing around the issue, if you lose, admit it. If you need help, ask for it outright. Yes, people want solutions, but they also want a straight-talker who’s not afraid to say the difficult thing and ask for help when he or she needs it.

Clinton’s loss was public. Her congratulations to Obama should have been public as well. Instead, she made a private phone call to Obama congratulating him. Perhaps she didn’t want a concession to dampen her rally in Ohio. But let’s be honest, the primary contest is slipping away from Clinton, and if she doesn’t do something to recapture her momentum and votes, she will miss this opportunity all together.

But let Hillary tell it, she knows exactly what America needs. “I know what’s happening in America. People are struggling...” That’s true. And it explains why at this point in time, Americans are drawn toward inspiration. Americans need and desire solutions, but we are also starving for inspiration. And to many Americans, Obama offers hope plus solutions—a definite winning combination, as well as a crucial skill set for any potential presidential candidate.

The reality is that much of the contest for the presidency lies in one’s ability to put forth the right message, relate to people, communicate effectively, collaborate, influence and persuade others. Clinton might suggest that the campaign should only contain solutions. But then again, are "solutions" outlined on paper really enough?

Don’t we need a president with the type of insight to rightly pinpoint what’s on the heart of the American people, as well as identify the right solution on critical issues? Don’t we need a president who can truly connect with the people whom he represents? Don’t we need a president who can communicate effectively with and lead his executive team, his cabinet, the legislature and other world leaders? Don’t we need a president who has the ability to not only communicate but also inspire and influence others around the world to aid America in taking on tough challenges like climate change? Don’t we need a president who is persuasive enough to press past gridlock in Congress? If there was a detailed job description for the presidency, certainly these characteristics would be listed.

Hillary Clinton may want to focus only on solutions, but without the right combination of insight, communication, collaboration and influence, how can we really expect to solve anything?

Yes He Can!

Why Obama Will Likely Win the Democratic Party Nomination and the Presidency of the United States
by Anita S. Lane

To put it mildly, Senator Barack Obama is a genuine phenomenon on the current political scene. You may not like his politics, but you’ll likely find it hard not to like him. After 37 contests for the democratic presidential nomination and the accumulation of 1,253 pledged delegates (42 more than Clinton), Barack Obama stands ready to face whatever challenges may lay ahead in order to win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency of the United States.

Can he do it? I suspect he can.

Ride the Wave
After Obama’s decisive victories in Virginia, Maryland, Washington. D.C., Maine, Washington State, Nebraska, and the Virgin Islands during the month of February, Obama is riding a wave of momentum that will be hard to halt. I propose it cannot be stopped, but it may also be difficult to slow down. Like a tidal wave on the islands of Obama’s native Hawaii, the wave his campaign is currently riding is only growing stronger and more formidable as it approaches the shore. If the Obama team is wise, they’ll pick up their surf boards and ride the current wave right through Wisconsin, on to Hawaii, right into the delegate-rich states of Texas and Ohio in the March 4th primaries, and come ashore victoriously in Pennsylvania on April 22nd.

It Began One Cold February Night
A year ago, Senator Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency for the United States before 16,000 people on a cold February day in Springfield, Illinois—the home of President Abraham Lincoln. Many thought his candidacy was premature, and looking back, it’s likely the Clinton campaign did not view the Obama campaign as a serious threat either.

A year later, those assumptions—and all assumptions—have changed.

Conventional Wisdom Dispelled
Today, Barack Obama has out lasted every other Democratic contender to become the last man standing in the ring with Senator Hillary Clinton. In addition, it is now clear that Barack has out-raised, out-campaigned and out-managed the Clinton campaign. What is his secret?

Vision, hope, charisma, a consistent message and a popular, unifying message of change—combined with a highly-skilled, well-organized leadership team and effective ground troops at the grassroots level. The Obama campaign is also infused with loads of energy, enthusiastic supporters, and last but not least—a hefty war chest.

The question is, did anyone, including Barack Obama, believe he could really get the type of response and support he is now getting?Whether anyone saw it or not is now irrelevant. As of February 13, 2008, Senator Barack Obama now has more votes, more pledged delegates and was won more contests than his rival Hillary Clinton. Can he win? Yes he can.

Yes He Can

• Senator Barack Obama has had the right message from the very beginning of his candidacy—Change. He’s set the tone in this race—on both sides of the contest—that everyone else has followed. Yet Obama has never changed his message. Obama’s never changed his message because he knows that his message is on point. He understands that Americans are weary—weary from working harder with little to show for it. Weary from worrying if they’ll have a job, be able to keep their home, send their children to college or retire.


• Obama can win the democratic nomination because he offers Americans what we need most at this particular point in time—hope. Obama resonates with what each of us as Americans wants desperately to believe—that things will get better.


• Obama has detailed strategies for moving America forward that address the core issues like the economy, healthcare, immigration and the war in Iraq, and he’s surrounded by highly-skilled and experienced individuals on whom he can depend to help him deliver if elected in November.


• Personally, Obama is inspirational, charismatic, believable and knows how to connect with all types of people. He believes the best of people and brings out the best in people.


• When it comes time to choose between Obama and McCain in the general election— as qualified as McCain may be— it will be difficult to top the energy, vigor and inspiration that Obama and his supporters bring to the race. Not to mention, it will be very difficult for McCain to run against “Hope.”
  

Change is a Balm
Today, more individuals are united behind the concept of change than in any other decade in recent history. Neither do we want to wait for it—and Obama knows it may be now or never. Obama often states in his campaign speeches, “I am running because of what MLK calls the fierce urgency of now…Because I believe there’s such a thing as being too late. And that hour is almost upon us. We are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. Our planet is at peril. The dream that so many generations fought for feels like it’s slowly slipping away.”

Slowly…Slipping…Away… That is the fear to which Obama brings the antidote of hope—and the change—that Americans want so desperately in which to believe.

So can he win the nomination? (Barring a political upset by the Democratic super delegates), yes he can. Can he win the presidency of the United States? Yes he can. Can he really bring Americans together? Yes he can.

Americans want to start fresh. They want a president who is honest and intelligent--not to mention well-spoken; a president who listens and is willing to learn; a president who is teachable and willing to admit a mistake. America wants a president who can unify the country rather than separate it. Americans have felt disengaged from the decisions made by the current president and congress. Americans now want to be a part of the solution—no matter what side of the political isle they are on.

The February 12th contest in Virginia reiterates this point. CNN exit polls revealed that Obama overwhelmingly carried the 7% of Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary. Such individuals affectionately call themselves, Obamicans.

The Obamican Factor
In a close general election, capturing seven percent of the Republican electorate could turn the tide for the Democrats. And if one wonders how a Republican could vote for Obama, one explanation might be his demeanor. Aside from being almost as fed up as the Democrats with the current administration, Barack Obama discusses the issues in a way that doesn’t alienate conservatives and evangelicals.

Obama is a Democrat who accurately, and with compassion, describes abortion as a “moral issue” (not just a “choice”), and refers to marriage as a “religious ceremony” rather than just a “civil ceremony,” when describing why he is opposed to “gay” marriage.

As a result, Barack Obama will continue to win over independents and some Republicans because he speaks respectfully about conservatives and the views they hold. Whereas many liberal Democrats portray conservatives and evangelicals as mindless morons who are intolerant extremists, Barack Obama chooses not to demonize these individuals. He seems to understand that individuals who hold different views from him are just that—different. Others’ views may be different, but valid nonetheless.

President Obama
I predict that Barack Obama will win the Democratic party nomination and the general election in November because from the very beginning, he was wise enough to identify and build a campaign around the deep desire in the heart of most Americans—CHANGE.

Barack Obama will win because his campaign is supremely energized, well-funded and and effectively organized. Barack Obama will win because he represents the type of intelligent, honest, open-minded and respectful leadership America wants. Obama will win because he inspires voters to believe in him, as well as themselves, and join him in the fight for change in America.

Lastly, and for the most important reason of all—Barack Obama will win the Democratic party nomination because the voters have spoken—and will continue to speak—until he ascends to the White House.

Copyright © 2008 by Anita S. Lane
Visit my online family magazine http://keepingfamilyfirst.org/
Check out my new book, http://lessonsmytoddlertaughtme.com/

Barack Obama: One Man for All the People?

by Anita S. Lane

He is African. He is American. He is black. He is white. He was raised in Hawaii. He was raised in Indonesia. He is Barack Obama, and he wants to become America’s president.

As a bi-racial boy raised by his white mother and grand parents, Barack Obama found himself engaged in a fierce, heart-wrenching battle to unearth who he was, and find his place in America. He had to come to grips with the fact that although he saw himself as Barack, society saw him as black. Worst of all, Barack had no idea what it meant to be black—thus launching his long, inner battle in search of self.

Fortunately, the man who emerged from that battle is the man we see today. A man who is confident and compassionate. A man who can relate to individuals from all races and cultures. And a man—although he does not have to say it—who is both black, and white.

This truth, I believe, is what makes this man and his message so powerful. Obama connects with people because he understands people. He can reach across the isle because he grew up on an Island in Hawaii, and he spent four years of his life living in Djakarta and speaking Indonesian. If anyone in this current presidential race has the ability to understand and relate to more individuals from all walks of life, it is indeed Barack Obama.

No, he doesn’t have 20 years of experience in Washington, but even former Democratic Senator Tom Daschle said recently that while experience is important, one cannot discount life experience. He also implied that electing Obama would be good for foreign relations when stated, "I don't know what would be more transformational than the inauguration of a president who looks like 80 percent of the rest of the world."

America’s sordid relationship between slave and free—black and white—America does not allow individuals in America the luxury of defining themselves as they see themselves, but only as those in power—and I dare say even the powerful media—see them. And for those, who for sinister purposes, wish to define Barack Obama—they define him as simply a “black man,” hoping to conjure up any and every negative preconceived notion and stereotype that one could have about a black man—thus hoping to disqualify him for the highest office in the land.

However, being raised by a white mother and white grand-parents, Barack Obama was not raised to be a “black man in America—” as he might have if he had been born to two black parents. Obama was raised simply to be a man in America. And that mindset bodes well for Obama.

You see, Obama appeals to white America. Why? Because he truly understands how white Americans think—particularly liberal ones. After all, he was raised by white Americans. Thus, it is no surprise that Obama does exceedingly well in overwhelmingly white states. When liberal white Americans listen to Barack Obama, they don’t hear “a black man” they hear a man who sounds like them. Apart from the permanent tan and slightly coarser-than-average-white-person hair, Barack is in many ways—white.

So when we hear that Barack out performs Hillary in areas like Iowa, Utah, North Dakota, Nebraska and Washington State, let’s remember that it is the media that portrays Barack as a “black man.” But to those who hear him speak, watch him campaign, and those who are fortunate enough to experience Obama face-to-face, it’s clear that they do not see a black man. They see a man who’s passionate about making America better—for all Americans. They see a man—although he is black and white—who doesn’t see America as black and white. He simply sees America.

One thing is clear. Obama never intended to run a race based on race. He never intended to keep separate tallies of his white vote or his black vote—his Latino vote or his Asian vote. And amazingly, it didn’t appear to bother him that even before the first primary was held, black voters were hesitant to throw their support behind him until they knew that white voters would actually vote for him. I found it endearing that he didn’t seem to hold that against the black community.

You see, Barack Obama understands the complex nature of race in America—and the role that it plays in our society and our politics. He understands it. He just never intended to play by its rules.

Copyright ©2008 by Anita S. Lane
Visit my online family magazine http://keepingfamilyfirst.org
Check out my new book, http://lessonsmytoddlertaughtme.com

Romney Gives His Best Speech on His Way Out

by Anita S. Lane

I’ll admit that I didn’t watch every speech by Mitt Romney while he was on the campaign trail. I watched the debates and I listened to bits and pieces of speeches, and I paid particular attention when Romney was campaigning in Michigan, my home state. Whenever he spoke, he made sound points on the economy and he came across as someone with experience and an understanding of the issues.

Now fast forward to Mitt Romney’s speech before the Conservative Political Action Committee on Thursday, February 7, 2008. I just happened to catch his speech live and in its entirety—and what I saw was pretty remarkable.

Here, on his way out—giving what would be his last speech as a Republican Presidential Candidate—was the most compelling speech I’d ever heard from Romney. He came across as very comfortable and relaxed—perhaps he was just relieved that he would no longer have to dwindle away his entire life fortune on the campaign. He was also very forthright—authoritative—speaking with conviction and heart. He also came across as genuine, humble and likeable. Most notably, he was passionate. And it’s the combination of humility, likeability and passion that I think was missing from Mitt Romney’s campaign.

I recall hearing Mitt Romney in the fall of 2007. I remember liking some of the things he had to say. However, he didn’t move me. Today however, Romney did move me. I think he had it right on a lot of the issues. And he seemed convinced that he did.

Romney talked about the need to genuinely reform welfare in a way that doesn’t promote dependency. He talked about our culture’s attack on faith and religion, our tolerance and celebration of pornography and promiscuity, our society’s weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Romney talked about our economic crisis and our need to become energy secure.

Romney urged us to consider the connection between our ability to compete and our national wealth, and the wealth of our families—as well as the harmful effects of “high taxes, over-regulation, tort windfalls, mandates, and overfed, over-spending government.”

Finally, Romney addressed what he termed, “the greatest challenge facing America-and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad,” stating that “They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.”

And in his quest to bring unity to the Republican party, Romney stated that he agrees with Senator John McCain on what he feels is the critical issue. He put it this way: “I agree with [McCain] on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror,” and Romney feels as though staying in the race would impede on the Republican’s ability to forge a national campaign to beat the Democrats.

Romney concluded his farewell speech by saying, “If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.”

Well said. Very well said, Romney. But you should have said it sooner.

Copyright ©2008 by Anita S. Lane
Visit my online family magazine http://keepingfamilyfirst.org/
Check out my new book, http://lessonsmytoddlertaughtme.com

Insult! Clinton Loans to Campaign While Her Supporters Give

by Anita S. Lane

New Clinton Strategy: Cry broke. The day after the Super Tuesday contests yielded no clear Democratic front-runner, Hillary is crying “broke” as a plea for donations and votes. Honestly, I find it deplorable. No, she didn’t come on TV crying, begging or promising to heal America—like the TV evangelist who gives real evangelists a bad rap—In fact, she was very matter-of-fact and expressed little emotion. She simply stated that preceding Super Tuesday, she loaned her campaign $5 Million dollars.

In her words she states, "I loaned the campaign $5 million from my money. I loaned it because I believe very strongly in this campaign…” STOP. Did she say, “BELIEVE” in her campaign? A presidential campaign is not a for-profit business. When you make an investment in a business venture, you expect a return. Basically, you give to get. It’s a loan and you expect your money back.

But when you give to a cause—something you whole-heartedly believe in—you don’t give expecting something in return. You give because it’s worth it to you to give of your wealth (your treasure) to this cause. You believe so strongly in your cause that you’re willing to make the sacrifice—in church we call this sacrificial giving—and that’s what real giving is all about. Giving with no strings attached.

To those of us who understand this concept, Hillary’s “contribution” is laughable—if not insulting to those who have given, and who will give to her campaign. Okay, so it’s $5 million dollars. Giving is relative to one’s assets and five million to Hillary might be five hundred to you or me. So, can you guess where I’m going with this?

What if everyone who contributed money to Hillary’s campaign wanted their money back at the end of the campaign? Why should Hillary give and get her money back, yet supporters give and receive nothing (monetarily) in return? Why should her contributors sacrifice more than her?

What are the terms of the loan? And for anyone who does gives after hearing her plea, will their contribution end up in Hillary’s personal bank account in order to pay off the loan? Is this what contributors really want?

Basically Hillary is saying, “I’m going to front my campaign the money we need until you (my contributors) get your act together and fund this campaign like it needs to be funded…and then I’ll pull my money out.” Then her contribution will be a wash and she’ll not be out of a dime.

We’ve all heard of matching funds—although it’s usually in the context of giving to charitable causes—and that’s exactly what Hillary wants. Hillary wants us to believe that she is a charity case. It’s called “The Fund to Heal the Hurting Hillary Campaign.” And she desperately wants each of us to open our hearts—and wallets—and give. Well, she may not call it that, but it’s in essence what she put before us when she announced that she loaned her campaign five million dollars. To make us even more sympathetic, some of her top staffers have agreed to work a month without pay.

But here’s the bottom line. If Hillary had donated $5 million dollars to her own campaign, I wouldn’t be writing this piece. I’d be saying, “Bravo. Go for it. Do what you have to do.” But she’s not giving it. No, Hillary is loaning her campaign the money.

Hillary should learn from Mitt Romney. He spent well over $30 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Yet at the end of the day, Romney knew he would need the voters and the voters’ dollars to validate his candidacy, fund his campaign and determine his success in the race. In the end, he didn’t have it and he dropped out.

I’m not suggesting Hillary doesn’t have voter support. It’s clear that Democrats across the nation are split between Clinton and Obama. On the other hand, Scripture tells us that where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

A lot of the financial treasure coming into the Democratic race right now is going to Barack Obama. And it just might be a sign that their heart is with him too. If that’s the case, Mrs. Clinton, no amount of money you could loan to your campaign can compensate for the heart of the democratic voter.

So please, Hillary, if you’re going to give, don’t give with strings attached. It’s insulting. Your contributors didn’t do it, and neither should you.

Copyright ©2008 by Anita S. Lane

Visit my online family magazine http://keepingfamilyfirst.org

Check out my new book, http://lessonsmytoddlertaughtme.com

Voters are Speaking: The Republican Party Should Listen

by Anita S. Lane

No one suspected it. Few could believe it. But with little money and a volunteer staff, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee managed to surpass both Mitt Romney and John McCain to garner a win in five southern primaries. It really seemed to come as a surprise to everyone—except Mike Huckabee.

Most expected Huckabee to drop out of the race long before Super Tuesday, but Huckabee would not be deterred. In spite of Romney’s presence in the race, Huckabee maintained that it was a two-man race. He was often quoted as saying, “This is a two-man race…and we’re in it!” There may have been doubt before, but Huckabee’s words now ring loud and clear. Super Tuesday was surely a Super-Duper day for Huckabee—but the question is, what does it really mean?

Southern conservatives in Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia and Missouri sent a clear message to the rest of us that Mike Huckabee is a force to be reckoned with. Now whether we reckon he’ll obtain the Republican presidential nomination is another matter all together.

What we do know is that the more folks see and hear from Mike Huckabee, the more they like Huckabee. Like his Democratic counterpart, Barack Obama, Huckabee is seen as a fresh face that represents change in the Republican party—and not as the “establishment” candidate.

Huckabee also prides himself as being the only candidate who is unwavering on core conservative values as protecting the sanctity of life and the defense of marriage.

I think the appeal of Mike Huckabee lies in the fact that he comes across as a genuine, likeable, caring guy. He seems to really understand what the average American family is going through, and he cares enough to want to do something about it. In the words coined by George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee really is a “compassionate conservative.” And he should be. After all, Huckabee is a former pastor, and every good pastor cares deeply about people. So would it really be so bad to have as President someone who views the office as chief servant or a good shepherd?

To his defense, as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee has carried as much as 48% of the African American vote in the state of Arkansas. For a Republican, this speaks volumes. Perhaps Republicans don’t want it. Or perhaps they’re just not quite ready, but Mike Huckabee just might be the new face of the Republican party. Of course he’s conservative on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, but he’s also compassionate when it comes to the environment and poverty, and holds economic and tax positions that favor more middle-class Americans.

Perhaps the Republican party needs to take another look at its conservative core. It just may be that the core is evolving, and they care about more issues than Republican party leaders and the media gives them credit for. These genuinely compassionate conservatives just have not had a voice—until now.

Unfortunately, their voice may not take them all the way to the white house in the 2008 election, but they have made known their will known loud and clear. And if a Republican is elected as president, this individual had better play close attention to this new groundswell within the Republican party.

The new “Huckabee conservatives” won’t be ignored, and Huckabee is making sure—for their sake and his—that they are heard.

Copyright ©2008 by Anita S. Lane

Visit my online family magazine http://keepingfamilyfirst.org

Check out my new book, http://lessonsmytoddlertaughtme.com