Let’s Talk About Race, Gender

by Anita S. Lane

The 2008 Democratic presidential primary has brought front and center the issues of race and gender. To be honest, America has a sordid past with both, and it can be very difficult for Americans to confront these issues.

Personally, I don’t agree with Clinton’s finance committee member, Geraldine Ferraro’s comment that “If Obama were a white man, he wouldn’t be where he is today.” Obama is qualified to be president, and he has run an incredibly effective campaign.

At the same time, I believe that Obama’s supporters are delighted in the fact that this great, talented, visionary leader, is also a black man. I think his supporters—white and black—are thrilled by that. It in no way lessens the legitimacy of his candidacy— it just happens to be a plus for some supporters—just as Clinton’s gender just happens to be a plus for her supporters.

To be fair, I think what I’ve described is part of what Ferraro was attempting to convey—albeit rather poorly, and seemingly out of a lot of bitterness over the fact that Clinton is losing—and I give her credit for having the courage to stand behind her statement. Because I agree? No—but don’t we want individuals in our society to be able to say what they really mean?

Isn’t it better to know where a person is coming from, instead of naïvely believing that someone is “with” you because they spew politically correct statements, when inwardly they despise and abhor you?

Just ask any African American who grow up in the segregated south and lived to see the advent of desegregation. One of the biggest challenges for these individuals was coming to terms with the fact that they no longer knew who was “for” them and who was “against” them. As my grandmother—who grew up in segregated Arkansas and later moved North—used to say, “At least we knew where they stood, because they’d just say it.”

My point is two-fold. We should all seek to be honest with one another in as diplomatic, respectful and courteous manner as possible. Secondly, we should allow individuals to be honest with us, and we can respond in one of three ways: 1)accept their comment and suspend judgment; 2) Accept their comment and agree with their comment; or 3) Accept their comment and agree to disagree.

Unfortunately, I think many of us employ a fourth response, and that is to not accept the other person’s comment and to demand that they recant—or to use the current lingo—reject and denounce, their own remarks. But is such a demand fair?

And may I go as far as to say that we as African Americans have been given a great measure of liberty when it comes to saying what we feel because of our history and the deplorable treatment we’ve received in this country. However, I don’t believe we allow Caucasians that same liberty.

Perhaps we need to recreate the college campus—the laboratory for ideas, philosophy and honest exchange among America’s future leaders. I can recall many lively, heated and hotly contested informal debates with my college classmates on the subjects of religion, race and politics. While difficult, such discourses were enlightening and invigorating.
As a result of our discourse, we were wiser, stronger and held a greater respect for one another because we had come to know one another better. Our conversations eroded the ignorance and made way for greater understanding—and genuine friendships.

My grandmother also used to say that there is a grain of truth in every lie. Well if there is truth in a lie, there is bound to be a grain of truth in one individual’s perspective spoken from their personal paradigm.

So, is Geraldine Ferraro a racist? I assume not. Was she being honest? Probably so. Should she have been so honest? Well, that depends on if we want an America where we can be honest with one another, pinpoint our prejudices, and attempt to heal the racial and gender divides in this country—or if we want to remain a country in silent inner turmoil—“politically correct” on the outside, while deeply suspicious on the inside, refusing the treatment of talk therapy for fear of opening up old wounds—but there’s really no other alternative. In the words of Dr. Phil, “How’s that working for you?” Our answer: “Not well.”

This campaign season has opened up a window of opportunity for America. Let’s talk.

My Two-cents for Obama

by Anita S. Lane

Is it just me? Or has Obama begun to morph into his former self on the campaign trail within the last week—you know, the constitutional law professor? Where is Obama the preacher/politician? That Obama is much more interesting and invigorating. Professors bode well in academia, but politicians bode better in the public square.

I was one of the lucky ones. I got to see Obama deliver a rousing speech before an enthusiastic crowd of 10,000 in an Ohio arena. Yet after witnessing much of Obama’s stump speech before voters in Jackson, Mississippi on March 10, 2008—I couldn’t help but think that the Mississippi voters might have felt a little cheated.

After all, it appears they missed out on the grandiose, Obama-mania like fanfare field with the lively, uproarious, pop-concert-like-crowds, and rousing speeches for which Obama has become so famous. The speaker that evening: Professor Obama—discussing his policy agenda—as well as his contempt for Senator Clinton’s audacity to extend VP privileges to him when he’s the one in the lead.

In Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania on March 11th, Obama held a quasi town hall meeting with workers inside a plant. Certainly not everyone in the audience was an Obama supporter. Hence, there were no signs or clamorous applause. But so that no one can allege that Obama can’t answer the tough questions, he answered in fairly lengthy detail, each question asked.

I know the effort to increase the number of smaller venues and “town hall” settings are in direct response to the accusations that Obama is all “talk” and no solutions, but Obama must find the fine line between giving people the inspiration they crave, and the information they need.

How did he do in the town hall setting? Well, I thought he did well—considering the audience wasn’t full of his typical fawning fans. The Pennsylvania crowd was more of a skeptical audience-jury that was waiting for the charismatic lawyer (Obama) to convince them that he is their guy. I believe that if they were going to be swayed, it was going to be by the preponderance of evidence presented.

The workers at this plant definitely weren’t the young, idealistic, touchy-feely, warm and fuzzy types you find at many Obama rallies. The individuals at this plant represented the hard-working, meat and potatoes, bread and butter Americans. The questions they asked weren’t the theoretical, ideological, global agenda-type questions. These folks wanted to know how are you going to help the single working mom who has an autistic child for whom she has to pay out of pocket for services, and who at the same time is also taking care of her mother; or the Mexican American who asks, “What will you do for Mexican people?” Or the woman who needs help sending her two children through college.

Obama needed to show that he could respond to such questions—and he did. However, I think Obama could stand a few pointers if he’s going to continue engaging in the town hall type of event in his six-week camp-out in Pennsylvania. Here’s my two cents:

• Make it uniquely your own. You give great speeches—so give one. Get folks excited about you and your message.



• Smile more. I know you’re tired, but you gotta keep your energy up and continue to put on the charm. Look the voter in the eye and make your first response to every question one of the following: “Great question,” “That’s a good question,” “Great point,” “Thank you for asking that question,” “I appreciate you asking that,” etc. You get the point. It’s important to immediately make that connection with the voter, affirm the individual asking the question, and make him or her feel good—realizing it took real guts for them to ask the question, especially if they revealed something personal. Pause for a second as to ponder the question. Then proceed to answer the question.
  
  
• Be concise.



• Be more conversational. Don’t morph into Obama the professor. Keep your answers upbeat in tone.



• Always remember to maintain the demeanor of Obama the visionary leader. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, voters are looking for a leader they can believe in and a leader who inspires them to believe the best in themselves and others.
  

Obama is demonstrating that he can give voters what they want and need—whether it’s inspiration or information. But I guess it’s to be expected: visionary talk is just a lot more exciting than policy talk. Voters want to hear visionary talk and see practical results. It’s only the stuff in the middle voters aren’t all that interested in.

Clinton-Obama ’08—“No Thank You”

The latest strategy of the Clinton camp is to make voters think that a vote for Hillary Clinton will also be a vote for Barack Obama. How? By pairing the two on one ticket—with her at the top of the ticket, of course.

If the Democratic voters—particularly those who are trying to decide between the two candidates—believe that by voting for Hillary they’ll get Obama too, they just might give her their vote. Surely a joint-ticket will strengthen the party and pretty much assure victory in November.

Bill Clinton called a possible joint ticket “an almost unstoppable force.” The day after the February 5th Super Tuesday contests, Democratic National Chair Howard Dean stated that if neither has enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination, the DNC would have to “get the candidates together to make some kind of an arrangement.” Do you mean like an arranged political marriage between Clinton and Obama?

The Clinton camp may like the idea of a Clinton-Obama ticket, but they would have to get over two very big hurdles:
1) Obama is running for President—not Vice President
2) Obama happens to have won more pledged delegates, more popular votes, more states and more primary contests than Clinton

Fortunately, Obama put this dialogue to rest when he replied by saying, “You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate. I'm running for president."

So here we have typical Hillary, at it again—essentially saying, “Vote for me, and I’ll give you Obama too.” She suggested it. If it doesn’t happen, Obama will look like the bad guy—the poor Democratic sport—for spoiling the “dream ticket.”

But let’s be honest—these two don’t really, genuinely get along do they? For Clinton, Obama is a pawn in her political game of chess—a means to an end. Her aim is the White House. If that means Obama has to tag along, so be it.

The problem is, Obama’s not running to be somebody’s “yes man.” He’s running to be “the man.” I’m sorry, I know many Democrats would love to see them both on one ticket, but four to eight years with Hillary, Bill and Barack (in that order) at the helm, would be a total nightmare—not a dream. I mean, can you imagine Hillary, Bill and Barack racing each other to answer that 3AM phone call? Nightmare!

And let’s be honest, it would be a particularly intense nightmare for Barack Obama—number three on the totem pole. Do Obama’s supporters really want to put him through that kind of torture?

If you want Obama for President, follow his lead. Obama answered a decisive “no” to the idea of a joint-ticket. His supporters should fall in line.

Clinton-Obama ’08? “No thank you.”

Obama’s Strategy Moving Forward

by Anita S. Lane

Now that Barack Obama has been hit hard by Clinton’s kitchen sink, it’s Obama’s turn to fight back. But given Obama’s promise of “clean” politics, what kind of “fight” can he really have?

Obama wants to play “by the rules,” but it’s apparent he has an opponent who has little regard for “the rules.” Can he really play fair and win?

If Obama wants to win, his strategy moving forward needs to be the following:

Lay down the law
Obama needs to set clear boundaries for his team and his advisors, as to what actions are acceptable and what actions are not. He does not need another Canadian/NAFTA debacle.

Forcefully fight back
Clinton is on the attack. Obama must fight back—and he must do so forcefully. He must clear up any misrepresentation presented by the Clinton campaign, clarify the differences between him and Clinton, call into question her experience and her judgment for executive office, and question why she’s failed to release her tax returns—as well as her papers as first lady. I recommend he do so in press conferences and in written statements (taking full advantage of free air time). Voters need to see that he’s a fighter. But he has to fight Obama style.

Stir up the romance
It’s been said that Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. If that’s so, then Obama needs to make Democrats fall in love with him again. Smile. Talk that talk folks love to hear. Tell ‘em, “I love you back!” It’s not that Dems (and others) aren’t still in love with Obama, they’re just likely feeling a bit insecure in their relationship because of the other woman—Hillary.

Do what’s worked for him
Obama must not veer from what’s worked for him in the campaign thus far. He must be himself, continue taking the high road in his rhetoric and stay committed to his core values. Keep having fun at his rallies, stay positive and keep hope alive.

Update his stump speech
Obama needs to update his stump speech to include more details—new details, while still presenting his inspirational message of hope and change.

Run feel-good, message-based ads
Obama’s campaign ads in the various states need to make people feel good while offering detail on his plans. The ads should demonstrate that Obama understands the issues that concern the voters most, and that demonstrate that he has and will do something to help improve their situation.

Obama has to reconnect with voters in the upcoming primaries and shore up their confidence. Obama needs to run feel-good ads with sincere, enthusiastic voters of all ages, races and cultures stating why they’re for him. While Clinton’s ads stir up fear, Obama needs to create powerful ads that stir up the hope and aspiration that Americans have, while giving them reasons to believe it can come to pass.

Get a good night’s sleep
It’s easy to be negative on little-to-no sleep—you know, pointing fingers and yelling, “Shame on you!” However, it takes rest to remain positive and draw out one’s best inspiration. Voter’s want Obama’s best. So get a little rest. It will be to his advantage.


If the last three days before the March 4th primaries are any indicator, I think we can expect to see some hard hitting NAFTA-gate and Rezco-related ads attempting to defame Obama’s character and credibility—as well as more ads that attempt to cast doubt on his foreign policy experience. The Obama camp needs to be ready, and they must fight back.

Lest we forget
Obama needs to remind the voters that he has the populous message, the popular vote, the delegates and the momentum. Everyone knows that securing the Democratic Party nomination doesn’t require that one candidate win each and every state. You'll win some and you'll lose some.

We can’t forget that Obama managed to upstage the presumptive front runner for the Democratic Party nomination—and then he proceeded to out-raise her, out-campaign her, stage an upset in Iowa and then go on to win eleven straight contests in a row. Truth be told, Hillary Clinton had a 20 point lead in Ohio two weeks prior to the primary. Yes, Clinton may have gotten her grove back, but Obama never lost his.

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It—Clinton Strategy is Working

by Anita S. Lane

She did it. Senator Hillary Clinton made a big comeback by winning primaries in Rhode Island as well as the delegate-rich states of Texas and Ohio. Her husband Bill Clinton said she had to win Texas and Ohio to stay in the game—and she did. Kudos to Clinton. She’s a fighter and she’s demonstrated that she knows how to win.

Her game plan moving forward: more of the same. You know the saying, “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Clinton has proven that her tactics aren’t broken. They work.

The question is, do Democrats see her tactics as fair and above board, as desperate, or as potentially harmful to the Democratic Party and the Democrats’ chances in the general election?

I think the answer is “yes” to all of the above. However, I think Clinton is willing to risk it all on winning. One of Clinton’s early campaign themes when she first announced her candidacy was “In it to Win.” She may have changed her campaign theme a dozen times since then, but she hasn’t changed her intent. She’s in it to win it. This is her time. It’s now or never.

So, what does she have to do? As one Clinton strategist put it, “We gotta mess him up.” (Obama that is). How exactly does Clinton “mess Obama up?” If the March 4th primary is any indication, Clinton Must:

• Keep raising the question in voter’s minds as to whether or not Obama is experienced enough to lead on “day one,” as well as handle a national security crisis.
  



• Make voter’s question whether or not Obama is tough enough to fight off the Republicans and win in a general election.
  



• Attack Obama on his judgment by continually bringing up his relationship with Tony Rezco.
  



• Continue accusing Obama of pulling away from his fervent anti-war stance after his speech in 2002.
  



• Attack Obama’s credibility as to whether he is really a candidate for “change” against the “politics as usual” given the Obama economic advisor’s recent meeting with the Canadian Consulate and the questions the “memo” that surfaced raised.

When Clinton won Ohio, and Texas was still too close to call, we knew Clinton wouldn’t give up—in spite of her husband’s clarion call that she must win both states. But once she won the Texas primary, there was no doubt that Clinton had gotten her groove back—particularly with white males and seniors.

Regardless as to whether or not Clinton’s accusations of Obama are factual or valid, the lawyer in Hillary Clinton must press hard to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of voters—including the superdelegates. If she does this, she just might win it.

Is Clinton Endorsing John McCain?

by Anita S. Lane

While campaigning in Ohio on March 3, 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton made the following statement, “I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House and Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

So let me get this right, Senator Clinton’s been alive for 60 years and has a lifetime of experience; Senator McCain’s been alive 72 years and has a lifetime of experience; and Senator Obama has been alive 46 years, and has no experience? Doesn’t Obama's lifetime stand for something—anything?

I’m sure she’s really referring to one’s number of years in Washington D.C.; because that’s the central thing she and John McCain have in common. But again, is experience inside the beltway the only experience that matters? If so, Clinton only has about 16 years of Washington experience—only eight of which has been as an elected position herself, as senator.

That said, Obama spent eight years in the Illinois State legislature and two years in the United States Senate. Two plus eight equals ten.

In Hillary’s lifetime, as a young Republican she helped register voters in Texas. She also worked for the Children’s Defense Fund.

In Obama’s lifetime, he worked as a community organizer on the South side of Chicago—helping to improve living conditions in neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment.

To give Clinton her due, she did have a front row seat to the presidency when her husband, Bill Clinton was in the white house for eight years. However, she never had to answer the phone at three o’clock in the morning.

If experience is truly the determining factor for Clinton, perhaps it follows that she should drop out and concede the race to her dear friend, John McCain—the most experienced of all three candidates. Of course she wouldn’t do it. But she sure came close to offering John McCain an unofficial “endorsement” with her poignant remarks yesterday.

Hillary then took it one step further. On “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” on the eve of the Texas primary, Jon Stewart made the comment, “Whether you are the victor or Obama or even Senator McCain…I would not be surprised to see any of you working in each other’s cabinets.

Clinton’s response was, “Well I’ve said many times that I would like to have a bipartisan cabinet in the White House. We’ve got to start acting like Americans again, and roll up our sleeves and solve our problems—and there are good ideas across the political spectrum.”

Want the best possible combination of experience—real unity and the best ideas across the political spectrum? Maybe the two “lifetimers” should run together.

“Clinton-McCain ‘08!” Weird? Well, someone should tell Clinton to stop cozying up to John McCain. It does nothing to help the Democratic Party.