Election 2008

It’s clear that Senator Obama has won the Democratic primary in North Carolina, but Indiana remains (as of this writing) “too close to call.” As expected, Obama has done well in the metropolitan areas (i.e., Indianapolis, Fort Wayne), and Senator Clinton is polling high among more rural Democrats.

Tonight’s results had the potential to tip the nomination battle in favor of either of the candidates. It has not done so. Instead, and without regard to the reality of the delegate count, the race will go on. Senator Clinton hopes to sway superdelegates to her column; Obama will hope to garner support for a general election candidacy. Clinton will aim to continue the battle until the convention in August–make it a game of staying power and gumption, both of which she seems to have in abundance. It’s clear Obama supporters would rather unite around their candidate and prepare him to take on John Mccain. But what do Democratic and moderate voters want?

Each candidate delivered an impressive speech tonight, both attempting to best position themselves for the weeks ahead.  The result: the candidates will continue to do their job–campaigning–unless a back-room discussion and/or public pronouncement by a party elder can encourage Obama or (more likely) Clinton to back down.

Update: Huff Post is calling Obama the “presumptive nominee.”  Perhaps the main attraction will begin sooner than first thought…

Everyone of my generation remembers this quote; few recall that what bellicose Nikita Khrushchev actually said was more like, “We will outlast you.” The quote had its impact at the height of the Cold War and in the 1960 U.S. elections. Kennedy and Nixon argued over who among them was best at standing up to the USSR. Kennedy argued that the Republicans had allowed a “missile gap” to develop that favored the USSR. Kennedy won — but the so-called “missile gap” actually didn’t exist.

Now it’s the frightening face of Ahmedinejad that fires the electoral imagination in the United States. Hillary Clinton promises to “totally obliterate” Iran if Iran should launch a nuclear attack on Israel. Here’s the exact quote:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran (if Iran were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons),” Clinton told ABC TV on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Yesterday, practically on the eve of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, ABC TV offered Hillary a chance to revise her word choice. Her response: “Why would I have any regrets (about my choice of words)? I’m asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for, for all kinds of reasons. And, yes, we would have massive retaliation against Iran.”

The recent National Intelligence Estimate found that Iran had stopped efforts to process or enrich uranium. CNN reports today that voters in Indiana and North Carolina don’t rate Iran among their top concerns. So why Hillary’s bellicose language?

The political logic, as during the days of the “missile gap,” is to exaggerate a threat and response in order to make your opponent look weak. There’s also the added attraction of identifying your candidacy as being more “pro Israel” in advance of Bush’s travel to Israel to commemorate her 60th anniversary.

So much for truth and politics. Or, as Khrushchev once said, “politicians are all alike. They promise to build a bridge, even where there is no river.”

Come on down to this blog’s sister on climate change where I’ve written about Tom Friedman and the Candidates, specifically about a suspension of the federal gas tax this coming summer.

Already the presider over one of the longest primary races in recent history, the Democratic party chairman has put a deadline on the fun.

This morning Howard Dean, comparing himself to a basketball referee, announced on the Sunday morning talk show “Meet the Press” that he believes the Democratic party needs to choose a nominee before the end of June. Leaving speculation as to whether Dean’s statement will aid either candidate in the upcoming North Carolina and Indiana primaries aside, it’s clear the many reasons Dean would want to end the party infighting.

Unifying the party in time to beat John McCain is Dean’s first priority. A turbulent party convention in August would leave less than ten weeks for general election campaigning. Both Clinton and Obama, by this point, have been properly “vetted” through the national media, but Dean needs to ensure that both his party and the public view the Democratic candidate as presidential. McCain’s tours—of the Middle East and the American South—plus the lack of any fierce competition for him over many months result in a definite advantage for the Republican.

Dean, Clinton, and Obama have each done the analysis and come to similar conclusions as to where McCain’s weaknesses lie. As of now, neither of the candidates has been able to focus consistent resources to expose and capitalize on the areas in which McCain is most vulnerable: on the issues.

Dean is hoping that an earlier decision will permit Obama or Clinton more time to differentiate issue positions among themselves—we’ve certainly learned of those nuances in the twenty-one debates—but from McCain’s. Particularly on Iraq, McCain is not in line with the American mainstream. His staunch support for the surge, even given his original hesitation of Bush’s plans for war, leaves McCain among conservatives rather than moderates, as his “maverick” moniker would posit. Whether we realize it or not, McCain’s approaches to Iraq and other “textbook” issues are decidedly conservative.

On the other hand, McCain’s candidacy upsets the blue-red norm. As the Pew numbers suggest, McCain is not seen as a true-blood conservative among many of the most conservative voters; nor is he beloved by all moderates given his recent championship of the most conservative of causes such as tax cuts. The lack of definition of McCain’s candidacy is both a blessing and a curse for the Democrats: Democrats have the opportunity to shape McCain’s image, but the later they join, the more time McCain has to define it himself. Dean, in doing his job, would like to stop McCain from controlling any element of the general campaign.

On the eve of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, passions are running high — higher than for any election residents of this Commonwealth can remember. This is not because the popular vote is expected to be close — all the polls favor Hillary Clinton — but because the outcome will greatly influence how and when the more than 300 uncommitted “superdelegates” will declare their loyalties. At this point, who wins the remaining superdelegates wins the Democratic nomination. And the superdelegates, along with some ten per cent of Pennsylvania Democrats voting tomorrow, have yet to make up their minds.

Let’s pause for a moment to consider the whys and wherefores of Pennsylvania procrastination.

First, the superdelegates. They come from all over the United States and most are elected officials or local party activists. Many entered politics when Bill Clinton was President and remained loyal to him throughout his tumultuous Presidency. Barack Obama has been slowly winning them over in recent weeks and Hillary needs to stop this trend. The only way she can do this is with a large victory tomorrow, since Pennsylvania’s 158 regular delegates will be split between her and Obama on a roughly proportional basis. (The Pennsylvania result could even resemble the Texas primary, where Clinton won a majority of the popular vote, but netted fewer than half of the elected convention delegates. This is because convention delegates are allocated according to Congressional districts, whose boundaries are often drawn to favor urban areas.)

This is a terrible situation for your average superdelegate, who wants nothing so much as to be on the winning side. Imagine being an elected Democrat at a local or national level and the candidate you support fails to win the Presidential nomination. Worse, most of the voters in your district/state vote for the other guy/gal, who goes on to become President. Not a good career move.

For this reason, of the 795 total superdelegates, 303 are waiting to declare allegiance until they think they know who will win. If they wait until the bandwagon is briskly moving toward Denver, they may have to run to catch up; if they hop aboard too soon, there’s a chance they may find themselves on the wrong wagon. In fact, some of the declared superdelegates (in this category, Hillary leads Obama, 258 to 234) have hinted that they could change their minds, based on Pennsylvania and the few subsequent remaining primaries.

But how about the Pennsylvanians? Pennsylvania Democrats, whether bitter or just frustrated, have other reasons for putting off the choice of a candidate. “The Keystone State” in some ways is the U.S. in microcosm. There’s a populated area in the East and a populated area in the West; traffic and transport moves East-West and West-East across the state, but often doesn’t stop in between. The North-Central region is remarkably rural. And there are many places that seem like they’ve been passed over.

Those who remain in the Pennsylvania heartland don’t necessarily regret not being in New York (or Philadelphia), but many recall better times and don’t feel that Washington has done much for them lately. They feel this more acutely than neighboring states like New Jersey or Maryland (dominated by the Boston-Washington corridor) or West Virginia (leader in pork barrel projects that their aged senator has won for them over the last half-century).

No, Pennsylvanians are a cross-section of the America that often seems neglected. They don’t mind having the spotlight for once turned on their entire state — not just a cross-state rivalry, or a sports team. This hasn’t happened for a while, and it’s unlikely to happen again soon. This despite the fact that Pennsylvania, though the sixth largest state in population, has suffered among states the third greatest number of Iraq War deaths.

So Pennsylvanians — at least some of them — will procrastinate a few hours more. They will vote their pocketbooks — and for the candidate they think best understands how different they are, and how much they resemble so much of the country.

I’ve got a post on Coal and the Candidates over at the FPA’s Climate Change blog if you’re interested and have a moment. 

They’re the two topics you’re never supposed to raise at a dinner party: religion and politics. In the past week the two have been on the verge of collision in Washington and Pennsylvania amid a papal visit, and an approaching and important primary.

Where religion and politics intersect is a murky place in American politics. As candidates for office seek to offend as few voters as possible, they strategically calculate the ways through which they can ensure support from various demographic groups. This cycle, Clinton and Obama have not shied away from discussing religion openly—due to both choice and circumstantial pressure—and have micro-targeted voters based upon demographics. In the Pennsylvania primary this week, once again we will see the fruits of the campaigns’ efforts to excite and inform voters in the state.

At the CNN “Compassion Forum” in the state on Sunday, Obama and Clinton got a minimal chance to engage in religious dialgue. Instead, they traded jabs/defended themselves over “bitter” accusations, “misspeaks” about Bosnia, and drinking on the campaign trail. On Wednesday, as ABC spent the first hour of the debate questioning Clinton and Obama on similar issues, the candidates once again engaged in ad hominem back-and-forth—both because of ABC’s questioning and the state of such nonsensical issues as topical now in the campaign.

The rhetoric may have devolved into such a state due to the longevity of both campaigns in the state of Pennsylvania. It has been about a month since the laststate primary, and both camp Clinton and camp Obama have been working in the state for even longer.

Pennsylvania, typically a battleground in general elections, has not played a substantial role in a primary in recent years. Nevertheless, like many a general election contender before them, Clinton and Obama have taken a scientific approach to swaying Pennsylvania’s religious groups. In the state nearly 30 percent of voters are Roman Catholics, many of whom of Irish or Polish heritage. Mainline and evangelical Protestants constitute another 43 percent of voters in the state; a mere seven percent identify with the historically black protestant religious tradition (according to a 2007 Pew Research study.)

In attempts to engage voters, Hillary Clinton has drank with Irish Catholics, and Obama has gone bowling—cultural activities, not religious. In this campaign, however, Obama’s religious views in particular have been a point of discussion. Obama has tied his faith story to that of the black community in the United States as a result of the controversy about his Pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama has not raised such rhetoric in Pennsylvania; he hasn’t had the chance, as he fights the notion that he is “elitist.”

Its relatively high percentage of white Catholics not withstanding, the state of Pennsylvania roughly matches the U.S. norm in its religious demographics. Tuesday’s primary results could provide a glimpse into the psyche of the nation and the extent to which religion will be relevant in the fall.

Image of the National Cathedral courtesy of Flickr under a Creative Commons License.

We’re now into day four of the latest media-driven debate: Was Barack Obama “elitist” last Friday in talking about small town Pennsylvanians in front of Chardonnay sipping, brie-snacking San Franciscans? Wolf Blitzer, backed by his “best political team in television”(!) is still pacing about “The Situation Room” in search of an answer. The polls in Pa. are ambiguous, he tells us. Some put Obama only a few points behind.

But wait, what is the national impact? Hillary and John McCain are on the attack. Hillary has a new TV ad, with a few select Pennsylvanians saying how offended they are that Barack would say they “cling” to guns and religion because they’re “bitter” over the state’s economic woes. McCain says Obama must be “out of touch.” Legions of out-of-state spin doctors and media meisters are in their respective war rooms, doubtless sipping wine themselves, trying to figure out how they can keep this “issue” alive in the days leading up to next Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary. Stay tuned for more serious discussion of the issues!
Such is the state of Election 2008 that after countless debates, speeches, position papers, town hall meetings, and press conferences that the three remaining candidates have said all they can possibly say, and the media have reported about all they can possibly think of. All that’s left is to wait for events — be they slips of the tongue, polls or (finally!) the elections themselves. So much for reporting.
In San Francisco, where I write from now, the gotcha quote may have come at a fundraiser at this house, Gordon and Ann Getty’s, far from the rolling hills of Pennsylvania. Between sips of Chardonnay, or so one is led to imagine, one of the wealthy assembled asked Obama why it was so hard for him to reach blue-collar voters. To which he replied:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, a lot of them — like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they’ve gone through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

The SF Chronicle tells us that blogger Mayhill Fowler got in, carrying a concealed MP3. The rest, as they say, is history — because it certainly isn’t journalism, nor is it policy analysis.

Apart from the superficiality of this “issue,” the circumstances of the fundraiser in a wealthy West Coast community may tell us more about our failure as Americans to connect with each other, than an errant quote that is alleged to divide us.

I for one, as a former small-town Pennsylvanian and current San Franciscan, don’t see a contradiction between Iron City Beer and Mondavi Cabernet. Both go well with cheese. And the price of both is going up. And that gets my attention whether I’m in Pittsburg, California or Pittsburgh, Pa. It’s time for those promoting this story to crawl out of the newsroom bunkers and campaign war rooms and talk about some real issues.

If you look carefully, you can see that Barack Obama’s vulnerability in foreign affairs is not his inexperience. His questioning of General David Petraeus on Wednesday at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing was thoughtful and probing, focusing on whether the conditions set by U.S. commanders for withdrawal could actually be achieved. Obama also correctly points out that Congressional tenure alone is no guarantee of foreign affairs expertise (watching the hearings made this painfully evident). It is even plausible that Obama’s private travel abroad in Indonesia and Pakistan actually may have given him some insights that most Congressmen never gain. Maybe that’s why he spoke out against the invasion of Iraq in 2002 when Hillary voted for it.

No, Obama’s problem in foreign affairs is not his inexperience — it’s whether he will be opposed by supporters of Israel for his stance favoring talks with Iran. As Petraeus pointed out, Iran continues to assist terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and represents a major threat to Iraq’s security. Time/CNN correspondent Michael Ware, who interviewed Petraeus on Wednesday, was particularly adamant in stressing the now obvious point that the struggle for influence in Iraq is essentially between the United States and Iran. Given Iran’s Islamic fundamentalism (at least in its leadership), its virulently anti-Israeli rhetoric, and given Obama’s support for official US contacts with Iran — Obama seems to have staked out a politically vulnerable position. It is only a matter of time before Hillary tries to turn this into a “kitchen sink” to be thrown at him. If she fails, and Obama is nominated, McCain will pick up where Hillary left off.

Washington is still digesting Petraeus’ hours of testimony and interviews, but his assessment of Iran’s activities was impossible to ignore and in other times would be a clear casus belli.

Last October, here’s what General Petraeus said:

“[The Iranians] are responsible for providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed U.S. soldiers…There is no question about the connection between Iran and these components, (the) attacks that have killed our soldiers.”

This week, the general added that Iran is “funding, training, arming and directing” Shiite Muslim militias known as “special groups… Unchecked, the[se] special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq,” Petraeus said.

Finally, Joe Lieberman asked: “Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?”

Petraeus’ response: “It certainly is. I do believe that is correct. Again some of that also is militia elements who have then subsequently been trained by these individuals.”
All this spells more trouble in Southwest Asia and the Middle East at a time when the American public is looking for relief from our foreign engagements there. As Senator Lugar (one of the rare foreign policy experts in the Senate and now about to retire) put it: “Simply appealing for more time to make progress is insufficient. Iraq will be an unstable country for the foreseeable future.”

Lugar’s candid comment had the intellectual honesty of someone not running for office. America is in a funk over the economy and over Iraq. It doesn’t want another four-letter word — Iran — added to its vocabulary of words best left unspoken. Congress’ fixation on withdrawal from Iraq and silent treatment re Petraeus’ warnings on Iran told Tehran all it needs to know. America will probably not attack Iran — not for killing our soldiers nor for resuming uranium enrichment — but Hillary will attack Obama verbally for being willing to talk to opponents of Israel. That’s good politics in Pennsylvania, but ignores the fact that by next January our willingness to talk may be totally undermined by our unwillingness to do anything else.

If you happen to be wrapped up in the news cycle, you would be aware of the diminishing chance Hillary Clinton has to win the Democratic nomination. Keep in mind, though, that it’s only early April. (seriously!)

One of Clinton’s chief strategists, Mark Penn, left the campaign over the weekend. Reportedly, he departed voluntarily. Also reportedly, Clinton was furious over his meeting with a delegate from Colombia regarding the Colombian free trade agreement, a proposal the candidate does not support. No matter which is more true; at this point Mrs. Clinton might be expected to insist upon a tight reign.

For the past two months, Clinton has lost momentum to Obama. Either candidate–Clinton or Obama–will have to gain support among both “real” delegates and superdelegates to win at the convention. While many Democratic voters have chosen their candidate, superdelegates’ votes are still fluid. Until the final voting at the convention, many will voice support for one of the candidates, some will change their minds, and others will remain undecided. By nature, these Democratic party insiders are tied to the influence of the media and the news cycle. Momentum in the press and in primaries lead to superdelegate perspectives.

For Clinton, it is “tough math” to say the least. According to NYT, however, a full 364 superdelegates are undecided or chose not to answer in a recent poll. This week (or two) the pendulum swings in Obama’s favor, but the Pennsylvania primary is approaching and Clinton is expected to do well in the state. Emphasis then turns to North Carolina, and the Democrates are likely to continue the competition.

And thus the horse race continues, as does its coverage.

It looks like we should settle in for the long haul:

BBC 

Washington Post

New York Times and NYT

Barack Obama’s speech on race this week brought the issue to cable news, blogs, and dinner tables nationwide. Shadi Hamid, a blogger and American of Middle Eastern descent, watched the speech from Jordan and thought “he might as well have been talking about the burgeoning anger toward America felt by millions of frustrated Muslims around the world.” Hamid writes in this Saturday’s Washington Post.

Thus far, the national discourse on the question of Muslim anti-Americanism, and particularly the violence and terror perpetrated in the name of Islam, has been dominated by condemnation and denunciation. As it must be. Targeting innocents — whether they are Israeli children on their way to school or the nearly 3,000 Americans who showed up to work one day and found it would be their last — can never be excused. And we must unapologetically wage war on those who seek to destroy us.

At the same time, we can’t simply wish future violence and terrorism away by relegating it to the domain of irrational, crazed fanaticism. We cannot say that “they hate us for who we are” and leave it at that.

Obama’s comments about race in the United States apply to a number of racial and cultural conflicts around the world. Would a President Obama apply the same logic to international misunderstandings as domestic?

Last week, when the U.S. archives released 11,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s documents from her eight years as First Lady, it was not the trove of information that many expected. Why? One reason: some of what transpired was never written down. Another: the government censored much of the most potentially enlightening information. The official, misleading word for this practice is “redaction.” But this wasn’t mere editing. Of the 11,000 pages, many had extensive content blacked out before they were released to the press.

Did Mrs. Clinton play a role in the Northern Ireland peace process? Did she negotiate the transit of refugees from Kosovo? Did she contribute to the formulation and conduct of foreign policy during her husband’s tenure as President? She and her campaign say that she did, but the “redacted” documents from her tenure as First Lady don’t tell us the answer. On the days when Bill Clinton made critical foreign and security policy decisions – the disastrous Somalia intervention, the response to the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, the terrorist attack on the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, the U.S. air attack on Yugoslavia – there is no contemporaneous record of Mrs. Clinton having taken part in them. There is obviously no official role for a First Lady in the “3 a.m. phone call” scenario that has become so much a part of Hillary Clinton’s campaign advertising. We are asked to believe that she is “ready on day one” based on her proximity to decision makers, not her having been one.

Mark Penn and other Clinton supporters point to now-Senator Clinton’s decades-long life in the public eye as evidence of “vetting” – another misused word. True, many journalists have written about Bill and Hillary Clinton in the course of their political lives – enough to fill a library. But “vetting” is usually an organized, directed process, not the independent activity of journalists. Also, it usually implies a positive outcome, as in “Mrs. Clinton has been vetted for the position of X, and has been cleared for duty.” Political candidates – even for high office – really don’t get vetted in any systematic way. (Witness last week’s chance revelations that led to the downfall of New York Governor Elliot Spitzer.) Even when personal peccadilloes are exposed, voters may not be aware of them, or may disregard their importance. Victory in a political campaign should not be confused with ethical vindication.

It is not clear why so much of Hillary Clinton’s record as First Lady has been censored – sorry, redacted. But it is clear that we cannot consider her “vetted” until all evidence – supporting and otherwise – about her foreign policy record is made available. For the same reason, the public has every right to see “unredacted” copies of the Clintons’ tax records.

When we hear about State Department contract employees prying – unauthorized — into Barack Obama’s passport file, or seven-year-old videos of Obama’s church pastor being surfaced in an effort to discredit him, it is clear that we are into a very extreme season of “opposition research” – yet another misnomer. Such so-called “research” amounts to nothing so much as an effort to find more mud beneath a river of slimy political tactics.

The blogosphere, like cable news, is abuzz with analysis and discussion of Barack Obama’s speech today, “A More Perfect Union.” Overall the commentary has been positive, with many applauding Obama’s thrust to the fore the issues of race and religion in American society and raising the level of political rhetoric.

In the speech, however, Obama responds to the recent controversy of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his church pastor in Chicago. By some analyses, Obama is acting on the defensive; but his speech seems to have gained for him all the benefits of “offense.”

The political team at NBC has this round-up of commentary.

Taylor Owen at Oxblog thinks the speech is a testament to Obama’s Christianity and the unique voice he offers to the political dialogue.

the style he exhibited goes to the core of his candidacy. He speaks about issues, controversial issues, with a political voice that hasn’t been heard before. He transcends old ideological, ethnic, religious and historical divides. This voice is not just new to the US, but internationally. This is why so many people in Canada and Europe, for example, are watching him in a way they don’t even look at their own leaders.

Owen agrees with Andrew Sullivan, who vociferously advocates for Obama on his blog, that the candidate is transcendent of the race divide, among others.

I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history.

The Economist sees it as a possible turning point in the primary contest.

Barack Obama’s ambitious and impressive speech on race and religion earlier today has rightly got the political pundits and blogosphere buzzing. It may even set the stage for a new chapter in this primary season. It is unlikely the Reverend Wright controversy is over just yet, but Mr Obama has tried to change the context of this conversation.

And in case you missed it, here is the speech in full:

Obama took a controversy and elevated it to the level of a national dialogue. He stood in front of eight American flags and a blue backdrop; he wore a blue tie and a dark suit. He looked presidential. To the extent that Rev. Wright’s comments wavered beyond the scope of his pulpit, Obama ensured that his response raised the issue of race to the contemporary consciousness.

This blog recently reported on the volatility of the Obama campaign’s foreign policy surrogates (Susan Rice: neither Clinton nor Obama are ready for the 3am phone call; Samantha Power: Clinton is a “monster”). Throughout the campaign, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had to keep a particularly watchful eye on their surrogates’ and supporters’ public appearances. But as the media attention grows and the campaigns need surrogates to convey increasingly negative messages, surrogates are taking on a greater burden.

Geraldine Ferraro, an open supporter of Hillary Clinton, has taken her turn spurning controversy. After the South Carolina incidents for which Mrs. Clinton apologized, Geraldine Ferraro has again brought race into the conversation:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Marc Ambinder says it best: “gas, meet fire.”

UPDATE: The former Vice Presidential candidate is now a former member of Hillary Clinton’s finance committee. Geraldine Ferraro stepped down today saying “that Senator Barack Obama’s campaign was twisting her words to make her appear racist and that this was hurting Mrs. Clinton.”

The two incidents that have caused resignations from the Obama (Samantha Power) and Clinton (Ferraro) campaigns, demonstrate the unprecedented speed with which

A comment each to a Scottish or a minor Los Angeles area newspaper first led to vehement controversy on the Internet, then cable news, then national news. In just two days, and amid the height of another political scandal, it’s yet another sign that campaigns are facing increased scrutiny from all sides this time.

Photo: Getty Images via npr.org