The highly publicized 2008 presidential race has been closer than the Kentucky Derby. Obama took a strong lead for a while and then Clinton gained some ground in Texas and Ohio. However, after yesterday’s primary in Mississippi, Obama seems to have taken over again, and has set himself up to be the next Seabiscuit. Even Barack himself seems to think he is going to win this race. After his win in Mississippi he said that he expects to be the Democratic nominee. Obama said:

“The party is going to be unified. “We now have basically recovered any delegates that we may have lost in Texas and Ohio, and we have a substantial lead.”

Each day the realization that our country might have its first African American president becomes even more realistic. While having an African American for president would be a huge turning point for our country, there are also smaller steps our country is taking each day towards what were in the past.

Take Obama’s win in Mississippi yesterday as an example. Having an African American man win in a state that a little less than a century ago wouldn’t even allow whites and blacks to use the same restroom is a big deal. University of Washington American Slavery professor, Stephanie Camp said that in the 1880’s and 1890’s Mississippi had the most segregation laws. These laws, also known as “Jim Crowe Laws” were not so much a legal means of segregating the races, but a way of simply enforcing a custom. Camp noted that what kept African American people from following these customs was violence.

While our country has fortunately come a long way since the late 18th century, there is still a lot to be said that an African American man could have such strong support in the South. The Seattle Times reported that Obama won about 90 percent of the black vote in Mississippi and only about a quarter of the white vote. This was a similar breakdown for how he won in South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana. So not only is an African American man winning in the South, he is winning by large numbers.

I’m sure if we had asked former president Andrew Johnson whether or not he thought this country would have an African American man as a presidential candidate and he would have thought we were crazy. Johnson didn’t even want blacks to vote let alone run for president. However as Camp noted, the 15th amendment was passed in 1870 which gave black people the right to vote. So while Johnson may not have envisioned an African American presidential candidate, the truth is that times have changed. People of every race are voting these days, and in high numbers. Our country has taken huge steps since Andrew Johnson’s days, and the question now is, are they ready to take another one? The people in Mississippi think we are.

Super Tuesday is a monumental day in politics because it has a big influence on who will be the democratic nominees and the republican nominees for the 2008 presidential election. “Super” seems to be preceding a lot of things this past week. Last Sunday there was the Super Bowl…okay, I guess that was the only other “Super” thing this last week, but there has to be some coincidence between two “Super’s” being less than 3 days apart right? I think this is the case, because the political “gods” and sport “gods” up above wanted to relate the two some how. Being actually more of a sport junkie than a political junkie, I am going to try and explain this whole Super Tuesday stuff by relating it to the Super Bowl. Here’s my take on “Battle of the “Supers”: Politics vs. Sports, Are they really so different?”
Okay, so the New England Patriots went into the Super Bowl with a perfect 16-0 record. They were the heavy favorite against the New York Giants. However, in the fourth quarter, with the Patriots up 14-10, Giants quarterback Eli Manning found Plaxico Burress in the end zone to bring them up 17-14. While the Patriots tried to fight back, they just didn’t have enough time, and the Giants ended up pulling off a major upset and winning the Super Bowl.
Okay, so that was the Super Bowl, now let’s look at Super Tuesday. Being a democrat, I’m just going to focus on the democratic race. The two major candidates on the democratic side are Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both are pretty high profile, but since Hilary is the former presidents wife, and has more political experience than Obama were going to say she’s Tom Brady, the high profile, highly hyped quarterback of the Patriots. Even Obama admits that she was the favorite going into Super Tuesday.
“Senator Clinton, I think, has to be the prohibitive favorite going in given her name recognition, but we’ve been steadily chipping away,” says Obama. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004164636_apcampaignrdp05.html

This means that Barack will be Eli Manning since this is Obama’s first serious political race, much like Manning who competed in his first Super Bowl this past Sunday.
In the first quarter Clinton and the Patriots come out strong, scoring a touchdown in New York. New York is Clinton’s home state and an important one in the election. Proving that she the favorite in this bowl game, Clinton and her “Pats” follow New York up with a touchdown in New Jersey as well. This is a huge blow to Obama and his Giants, as New York and New Jersey were critical states in the election. If Obama had come close in those states, questions of Clinton and the Patriots “perfect record” (aka, Clinton’s electability) would have come into question.
In the second quarter, Clinton and the Patriots taking an early lead and look like they are coming closer to their achieving their perfect season. However the Giants weren’t ready to give up yet. Obama won Georgia and Alabama, which gave him three straight southern triumphs. However Clinton scored a big touchdown in California, resulting in a loud eruption of cheers form the Hispanic fans in the stadium.
At halftime, Clinton and the Patriots are still ahead after winning New York and New Jersey, but Obama and the Giants are not far behind.
In the third quarter, it’s the Patriots again, with Clinton winning in Connecticut, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. With five minutes left to go in the quarter, Clinton throws a long bomb to Arkansas that is caught right on the end zone line. Obama and the Giants try to rule that Arkansas was out of bounds, but the refs, ruling in favor of the state where Clinton was a first lady for more than a decade, rule the pass complete and a touchdown for the Patriots. The ruling results from a loud cheer from the fans, particularly the older female ones.
Upset about the call, Obama and the Giants are determined to not let the Patriots run away with the game. The Giants first score a touchdown in Delaware, and then instead of going for the field goal, they pull off a two point conversion in Illinois, Obama’s home state.
“Our time has come. Our movement is real. And change is coming to America,” said Obama.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004164636_apcampaignrdp05.html

As the fourth quarter is on deck, the score is 14-10, with Clinton and her Patriots slightly ahead of Obama and the Giants, but the race pretty much even. Much of the fourth quarter will be decided on the Washington State caucuses this Saturday. For tons of information on the Washington state caucuses on February 9, check out www.seattlepoliticore.org.
It has tons of great information about the different caucuses and about what Hilary and Obama have been doing to get ready for Washington.
However, unlike the Super Bowl, it will be a little while before we find out who the real winner is for the democratic presidential nomination. Will Obama and his Giants pull it out like the real NY Giants did? Or will Clinton and her Patriots pull off their perfect season?
Maybe politics and sports really aren’t that similar, but whatever helps you understand the other has to be worth something.

One down, two to go.  The democratic presidential primary race has come down to just two people now: Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.   John Edwards recently dropped out, making it a two-candidate contest for the nominations.

            This is now making things interesting.  As Dante Scala, an assiciote professor of political science at the
University of
New Hampshire, Durham said the sole
Clinton vs. Obama battle will end up being advantageous to Obama.

            “It does make it a one-on-one contest, which I think is advantageous to the challenger because the anti-Clinton vote won’t be divided anymore,” said Scala.  “Obama has a clear shot now.  He doesn’t have to worry about Edwards dogging him.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004155449_dropouts310.html

            I think things are looking pretty good for Obama recently.  With the Idaho and Washington state caucuses coming up, Obama seems to be doing a lot better at promoting himself than
Clinton.  In the past two days I’ve heard an radio advertisement for Obama about three times while driving in my car.  Plus, living in
Washington state myself right now, he seems to be doing a better job of advertising himself around the state.

            As far as Idaho goes, Obama seems to be doing a better job there than
Clinton as well.  I recently heard a talk from Jean Buelle, a democratic precint captain in Core d’Alene,
Idaho say that she is pledged to Obama and that most of the people she knows are Obama supporters as well.

            In a debate in Los Angles, the two candiates really began to get at each other, with Obama turning out the stronger voice I think.  One of their best discussions came over the topic of whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to obtain a drivers liscence.  Obama has shown support of it all along, while
Clinton initially favored it, but now has changed her mind.  Obama attacked
Clinton’s wavering on the issue to underscore that it is a “difficult political issue.”  When Clinton tried to defend herself, saying that she sponsored immigration reform before Barack came ot the Senate, Obama shot right back saying,

            “I respect Senator Clinton’s record.  I think it’s a terrific record.  But I also believe that the skills that I have are the ones that are needed right now to move the country forward, otherwise I wouldn’t be running for president.”

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-clinton-face-off-in-debate/20080131170809990001

            Super Tuesday and the Washington state caucus will be strong deciding factors in the Obama vs.
Clinton race.  However, with the recent drop out on Edwards and Clinton’s weak looking stance in
Idaho, I think these next two weeks could be Obama’s time to pull ahead.

            Although I do have to admit that Hilary brought up a good point:  “It did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean after the second one.”

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-clinton-face-off-in-debate/20080131170809990001

            Better get your apron on Obama, if you want to clean up after this Bush instead of Hilary.     

The democratic primary race is becoming an intense one.  Gone are the days of friendly meeting between the candidates where they discussed their stance on certain issues, where they said how they were going to make this country better, and when they promised for a better tomorrow.  Today’s candidates seem to have forgotten all about their own issues, and instead seem to care about their rivals issues.  However, it’s not really their “issues” or stances that they care about, but rather their flaws or drawbacks.

            It’s well known news that Bill Clinton has been strongly advocating for his wife Hilary in
South Carolina.  However, recently it seems that he has not been so much as advocating for her as he has been “de-advocating” for Barack Obama.  In a recent article by the Seattle Times, Bill was called the “campaign pit bull”, a name he has seemingly assumed the role of.

            The Times article reported that on Wednesday, Bill defended himself against accusations that him and his wife have injected the issue of race into the primary by accusing Obama of putting a “hit job” on him.  Mr. Clinton then later scolded a reporter saying “the Obama campaign was ‘feeding’ the news media to keep the issue of race alive, obscuring positive coverage of
Clinton’s campaign.” http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004141996_race24.html

            My question is, when did the democratic presidential primary become so negative?  Like I said earlier, it seems like the days of positive party platforms, positive campaign strategies, and positive things to make this country better are gone.  Now its Bill said this, or Obama said that, or you shouldn’t vote for them because of this.

            I think this negative jargon could mean either two things: One, is that it is a sign that the campaign is in trouble, or two, that the contest is very close when they start to attack like this.

            This democratic presidential primary can be easily related to sports.  The great athletes focus on themselves and the positives.  They say I am going to win because I trained the hardest, I’m going to run my own race, and I going to be the best I can be.  The not so great athletes are the ones that make excuses for why they failed or blame it on others.

            The race between the Clinton’s and Obama are very similar to a sporting race, except both of them are acting like the not so great athletes.  Instead of trying to win themselves, they are hoping the other one fails.  Being a high level athlete myself I understand what it is like to focus on the negatives instead of the positives.  This fall my coach took us to the Olympic Training Center in
Colorado Springs.  I remember reading this quote on the wall that really struck me.  It said, “The sign of a great athlete is that he makes no excuses when he loses and wins without boasting.”  I think our democratic presidential nominees should follow this quote and focus on being “great athletes” instead of “losing athletes.”

The 2008 presidential election is sure to be a monumental one. Yes it might be the first time we have a women running for president or a African American running for president, but is that the only thing that will make it so monumental? It seems like everyone in the country is making a big deal out of 2008 and especially the Democratic primary only because Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are running. However is that the only big issue here? What about past presidential elections when our country was in the midst of World Wars or struggling in Vietnam? Aren’t the issues that faced our country then more monumental than simply gender vs. race, and that we might have a president that doesn’t fit the social norm?

The fact is that while this election does have a lot of big issues on board, no one is focusing on those. No one seems to care that this is the first time, in a long time, that an incumbent or vice-president isn’t running. No one seems to care that this election is essential for the fight against global warming and the situation in Iraq, stem cell research, the economy, health care, and others.

While these issues may be important to people it seems that the issue of gender and race are taking center stage. In a January 15th article by the New York Times, called “Primary Colors: The Hispanic-Black Equation” 20 year-old Natasha Carrillo of East LA was quoted saying, ” Many people are not ready for a person of color, I don’t think many Latinos will vote for Obama. There’s always been tension in the Black and Latino communities. There’s still that strong ethnic division. I’ve helped organize citizenship drives, and those that I’ve talked to support Clinton.” http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004125568_camplatin15.html

It’s sad that people like Natasha will vote for Clinton, or rather won’t vote for Obama, simple because of racial tensions between two ethnic groups. Natasha is saying that she thinks Latinos will not vote for Obama not because they don’t agree with the issues he stands for but simply because of his skin color. There are probablya lot of people will the same viewpoint about Hilary too. They won’t vote for her not because of what she stands for, but because she is a women.

It really struck me when Natasha said, “Many people are not ready for a person of color,” What does she mean by that? Does one person’s ideas, hopes, and dreams for this country change or be inadequate just because of their skin color? Yes, the 2008 presidential election, and especially the 2008 democratic primary, will be a monumental one, but sadly it may be because of gender and race. If there are more people out there like Natasha that can’t get over the race factor then our country is kidding themselves in thinking we’ve made “monumental” progress since the civil rights movement. Or at the least we like to think that gender and race are not an issue but maybe it is more monumental than we thought.