Letter to my uncle, an Obama skeptic...

Just to explain my popular vote argument because I don't like the portrayal from a lot of folks that Obama stole the election from Hillary vis-à-vis Gore/Bush because there is no real comparison due to the caucuses. However, to validate my claim (hehe): Proportional Distribution certainly helped Obama win the delegate count, but as for the tally of popular vote: From Real Clear Politics: Popular Vote Total: Obama 17,535,45848.1%Clinton: 17,493,83648.0% Obama +41,622+0.1% When they add in the estimates from the caucuses he gains and gets the popular vote by +151,844+0.4%. Only when they give Clinton the popular votes from Florida and Michigan, do not include the estimates from the caucuses and do not give Obama any from Michigan does Hillary get the popular vote: Clinton +286,687+0.8%. If they add in the uncommitted vote from MI which was widely thought to be for Obama: 238,168, it narrows quite substantially. Since this excludes the caucuses, it is pretty clear that even if they counted the number of people who actually caucused it would be more than the 50,000 lead she has in that tally. So, as Chuck Todd, Tim Russert, John King, etc. have argued, there is no real estimate that they have found that backs the claim that Hillary won the popular vote.

As for the Hillary team, Terry McCauliffe and Harold Ickes were both members of the DNC when it put together the current caucus system. Ickes was on the original committee when they created the system altogether and was integral in getting the southern states involved in the early caucuses as a proponent for minority representation, argued for the proportional distribution to balance the influence of urban vs. rural votes and was also on the committee that wrote and voted on the rules for this season's Primary process. I thought it was a bit humorous that the Clinton's seemed lost on the Texas system and argued against Caucuses after the primaries ended since Bill certainly benefited and successfully maneuvered through the system when he won his Primaries.

I'm sure you're right that Obama is a savvy politician, but at least he has had a lot less embroilment in Washington and was considered an outsider in the Senate. I like that he refused to move to DC as well and that he moved the DNC folks to Chicago for the General Election. That might be evidence of slick politics, but it's certainly better than centering in DC with all the Lobbyists and insider influence.

Although I'm sure you're just being sarcastic about the messiah bit, I have certainly never thought that Obama is the messiah - I'm not Christian, so I don't believe in that stuff, but if I did, believing that he is the messiah leans towards sacrilege does it not? I think it is actually quite insulting to Christians who handily support Obama over McCain and also to Obama as a Christian. At any rate, what I and many of his supporters are most excited about is the incredible participation he has empowered, not him. "We are the ones we've been waiting for" may sound corny, but it is true. The only way we can influence our government and ensure that it is of, for and by the people is to participate. For years, politicians have hoped for and bet on low turn out so that they can control the elections more. That Obama launched a monumental voter registration effort and offered 1000 fellowships to train folks to be grass-roots community organizers is testament to his belief that we can change Washington when we become active in policy discussions. That he launched this effort long before winning the Primary indicates that he is sincere about it, since he had no way of knowing he'd win. I also really liked that he refused to give out "street money" to the local politicians to help him win in the Primaries and refused to offer money to volunteers to pay for gas, food, etc. either. He ticked a lot of folks off with this refusal and it certainly may have hurt him in ward districts, but it indicates further his dedication to ethics reform, which I applaud.

I don't know if you watched that Faith forum at Saddleback, but a comment he made that leads me to believe that he is a lot more humble than people are portraying was when he said, "one of the things if you are a person of faith like me, I believe that things will work out and we will get the President that we need... If we are both known and people know where we stand on issues I trust in the American People. They are going to make a good decision and we are going to be able to solve the problems that we face."

I certainly have never felt any disdain towards you and would still adore you even if you were a supporter of McCain. I apologize if the debater in me came across as disdainful. I've always been a political activist and junkie I suppose. I was in Amnesty International in High School, organized petition signings, etc. I remember closely following all the coverage of the first Persian Gulf War, taping the news every night, and researching the Iran Contra controversy on my own time and bringing in documentation and notes to my Political Science Teacher on a near daily basis. I get frustrated when people talk about our current war in Iraq and fail to connect the dots to the politics that have been involved there nearly my whole life. Heck I even sang a disparaging Reagan song when I was 8 years old, "My bologna has a first name, it's RONALD, my bologna has a second name, it REAGAN. Oh, I love to sing it every day, and if you ask me why, I'll say, 'cause Ronald Reagan has a way of screwing up the USA." I followed Bill Clinton's elections closely and was an avid supporter of his. I am still a supporter of his Global Initiative and continue to admire his activism as well as his emotional intelligence as well as his IQ which makes him one of the most successful politicians in my lifetime. So, I don't have to dig far for stats, I have them all saved in a political file I have on my computer. I've been signing petitions and writing to Representatives for years trying to make my voice heard. It kinda bothers me that you assume I'm fanatical about Obama. I guess I can see why, but that assumption misses the argument I've been making about the thing I see as important and hopeful about his election - as I said before the thing about it is the enormous increase in participation at a grass-roots level during this election cycle that I don't think would have occurred at this level without his team's efforts. Of course Bush had an integral part in it as well, so angering this nation that he instigated a huge national political discussion. I do not disdain people who choose not to participate, but I do try to encourage it because after years of testifying in court, writing reports and letters trying to influence legislation regarding children's rights and health care, I have always found it disheartening that people sit back and cynically complain about politics, but do nothing to change it. I have felt heartbroken many times because if only more people had paid attention and participated hundreds of kids who I have worked with would have had better resources. So, I guess what I am a fanatic about is activism and I admit that I am inspired by Barack's call to arms because for the first time in years I see thousands of names listed on the petitions I sign instead of hundreds and it gives me a lot of hope. If his cult of personality is the reason so many have found reason to hope for change and have chosen to become involved at this point, then that's cool with me - whatever it takes. If enough people get excited and get out the vote and he can win, then no matter who he is personally we will have an opportunity to make some important changes.

I'm sorry that I slurred that sentence together regarding the messiah comment, I didn't mean that you actually thought that, I knew what you were referring to. I began it with that I was sure you were just being sarcastic, but then should have broken the sentence before expressing my thoughts about the Christian issue. I didn't assume that you agreed with the McCain ads and Hannity types who use that term about Obama all the time. I was just trying to address my frustration with the way the right has used that for character assassination and find it incredibly hypocritical and sacrilegious for those self-professed good Christians to use that word against Obama. The most ironic thing about it is that the Right has deified Ronald Raegan all these years, have a fit if anyone dares to say anything negative about their God and now they flip the script and act as if the Left is cultish in its support for Obama. Swift-boating at its best.

You certainly don't need to adore Obama, I don't - I don't know the man, why would I adore him? I do adore you however, so I agree, we can certainly just get along. An interesting thing for me is that as far as personality goes and the things that I like so much more about Obama than Hillary are the same things that make me like you so much - calm reserve, intellectual humor and a thoughtful approach.

Sadly, we got derailed into a political debate when my original post wasn't meant to instigate that at all. I was just feeling glad to be alive in America witnessing history being made with the monumental step our country made this year in legitimizing both women and minorities' ability to earn the support of 38 million voters. Aside from that, what inspired me the most, like I wrote, was all the speeches by "ordinary" folks. Did you see Barney Smith talk? He nearly brought me to tears with his stilted, uncomfortable speech - I was moved by the courage he mustered as he stood in front of 80,000 people and told his story of why he needs change. If you missed it, check him out at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuAVw_v3br8

P.S. Keep in mind that nationally, more than 2 million Democrats have been added to the rolls in the 28 states that register voters according to party affiliation, according to the Associated Press. Republicans have lost nearly 344,000 thousand voters in the same states during the same period.

Back To Top