The Real Race Begins (and a cartoon)

In its handling of the Rev. Wright and Priest Pfleger situations, the false rumors of Obama's anti-Israel sentiments, and the lies about Michelle Obama, the Obama campaign has demonstrated an uncanny ability to handle all the curveballs (or knuckleballs, to use a more appropriate baseball analogy) thrown its way. But now the general election begins, and as easy as it was to compare the Clinton Campaign's tactics to Karl Rove and the Republicans, we probably have no idea what we're in for over the summer and into the fall. From his race to his name to his patriotism, the Republicans will not leave any card unturned and not hesitate to rewrite Obama's background, history, and years as a public servant. They will do this both subtly (by McCain and his closest people) and overtly (by his supporters more on the fringe). All signs suggest that the Obama Campaign knows this and that it is ready to handle it, but, still, we have no idea what might happen. Let's hope Obama can catch those knuckleballs.

Oh, and this recent cartoon by Mike Peters in the Dayton Daily News was just too good to pass up:

Hoosiers: From Gene Hackman's Lips to Obama's (Goofy Big) Ears

So with Barack a little bit behind in Indiana, I thought it would be only appropriate to post one of the best sports movie speeches from one of the best sports movies ever. Hoosiers is, as any sports or movie fan should know, the Oscar-nominated classic about a small-town high school basketball team in Indiana that beats the odds to win the state championship. It's based on a true story, with the 1954 Milan HS team upsetting the bigger, heavily favored teams to win the 'chip.

Why can't tomorrow be any different? As Coach Norman Dale (Hackman) says, "Remember what got you here." Simple but important advice, and if Barack heeds similar advice tomorrow and throughout what could be one more month of primaries, I'm confident the Milan HS of the 2008 Democratic Primaries will prevail.

Who's Ready for a Third (and Fourth) Bush Term?

As expected last night, Hillary won PA--a state as perfectly suited to her as any--dragging the primary season into May and possibly June. Mathematically, Hillary has no shot at winning the nomination: even with her ten-point win, Barack has many more delegates, states, and votes. Numerically, the victory didn't change a thing. If anything, the fact that Obama went from being down 25 points to inching within single digits should be just as big a deal, but the media won't tell you that.

The media won't tell you that, because the media loves the race. It's new, different, and exciting. And, given the fact that the Republicans have sealed their nomination, there's very little else to talk about. A woman and an African American, fighting until the death in the most historic primary, probably ever. Two brilliant candidates, going at it, attacking each other, with the proportion of time devoted to the critical issues--Iraq, healthcare, the economy, education, climate change, etc--even smaller than it was before! Chris Matthews, who is often full of meaningless rants, was right on point last night, when he critiqued the same business that employs him: "We've created the delusion that this race is still open...If you work hard and play by the rules---the Clinton maxim--then this election process is moving forward and Barack Obama is moving toward the nomination"

Supposedly, the Clintons love the Democratic Party. Theoretically, they care about its goals, and they care about its success in November. They say they don't want John McCain to be elected and continue another eight years of the same failed Bush policies. Every day that the race drags on, when it is realistically over, brings us another day closer to McCain's inauguration.

Has Obama put Hillary away? Absolutely not. But he's been in the lead for months now, and the burden is not on him. (Here might be an appropriate place to note that, if Obama was losing by the same margins as Hillary is, he would have been forced out by Howard Dean and the party leaders long ago.) By not throwing in the towel out of respect for her party and the country she claims to love, Hillary has reinforced all the negative stereotypes that have been directed her way. Her recent attack ads, in which, according to the NY Times--a Clinton endorser-- she used tactics "torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook" are not helping. Still, given all that, a sliver of hope remains that she may decide to try to recognize reality and (somewhat) restore her image so that she can continue what had been a largely remarkable political career.

Somewhere, John McCain is smiling. Let's hope that we don't look back on April 22nd, 2008, as the day that he clinched the election.

Why I Support Barack Obama

Back in December, at a Chanukah party, I was explaining to a friend's parent that I would be spending the first week of the new year (including my birthday) in New Hampshire, canvassing for Barack Obama ahead of the January 8th primary. My parents--who, for better or for worse, normally will fund whatever I want to do--told me I'd have to pay my way to get there. So up to NH I went with 50 New Yorkers, in vans of ten people each, headed toward a Red Roof Inn to share a room with three strangers. At the time, I didn't really know the specific reason why I was going, but I knew that I needed to go; I couldn't exactly formulate my reasons to this friend's dad, and I clearly couldn't convince my mom, who told me to find my own $250 to canvass for Obama in two feet snow during my vacation.

But, by the time our van dropped us off at 34th street and 8th avenue, one day after Barack's primary loss and a day after entering my third decade, I realized I knew why I went, but, until now, I never put my thought process into words:

We are at a critical juncture at a critical time. Any election is important, but the winner of the 2008 election will have a unique opportunity to either continue the policies of the current administration--which have failed us and the world--or to reshape and reform the United States' role in the world for the better. We have a chance to begin to make amends for the past eight years and to begin to move the country forward in a more positive direction.

The direction in which the Democrats want to take the country is quite clear. From Iraq to healthcare to climate change, the Democrats vying for the '08 nomination have long agreed about what we must do in 2009. But this time, it's not just about the issues. If it were, then we could well be getting ready to see who Joe Biden or Bill Richardson will pick as their vice presidential candidate.

This year, it's about the issues plus some. And that "some" is what is critically important. That "some" is what makes Barack Obama different. He has the ability to mobilize young Americans who've never cared about politics before, to make people proud of what their country stands for, to bring together Americans who thought they shared little in common other than a flag, and to show the world that, when we speak of progress, we actually mean it.

Sometimes it's easy to forget the democratic ideals that define America. To honor those ideals, we must include those people young and old; black, white, Asian, and Latino; rich and poor; Christian, Muslim and, Jewish; and, of course, Republican and Democrat. In a splintering country stumbling to lead a splintering world, now is the time for unification, and Barack Obama is the only man (or woman) who can truly unite us all.

More than 4,000 American families' final sights of their children were in caskets coming off a plane from Baghdad. Nearly 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. 47 million Americans' don't have health insurance. Our economy is in shambles. Politicians have cited these numbers repeatedly, but how many of them can actually mobilize our society to care to do something about them and maybe, just maybe, get something done without leaving out or ignoring large parts of the population?

Barack's message of hope has been bashed by the left and right as idealistic, empty rhetoric. But without hope, without the ability to envision a better country and a better world, we can never expect to improve; we'd simply be running in place, accomplishing very little and digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole without a bottom in sight. With such hope and with such dreams, we have a unique opportunity to escape that hole; if we fail to act now, who knows what may happen in the next eight years. But with a man of integrity and good judgment, honesty and intelligence like Barack Obama running for president, I feel a lot safer putting my trust in Barack Obama.

It's 3 AM and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing.

I know who I want answering that call.

Letter to Candidate Nader: Please Don't Run!

Here is the text of an email I recently sent to Ralph Nader about his decision to run again and possibly botch the Democrats' chance of winning just like he did in 2000. If you feel the same way I do, shoot an email to info@nader.org

Dear Mr. Nader:

I am a 20-year old college student writing to you to ask that you please reconsider your decision to run for for president. In the fall of 2006, I attended a symposium here at Johns Hopkins University in which you spoke for an hour or so about your honorable work and the current status of the nation; I was impressed with your talk, and I had a lot of respect for what you had done to support everyday Americans during your career. However, 2008 is not the time for you to test the political waters for the fourth consecutive time. We are at a critical juncture and possess what may be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reverse (or, at the very least, mend) the past eight years of political history to put the United States back on track. This opportunity cannot be wasted and, by throwing your hat into the ring once again, you are risking us doing just that.

Please, Mr. Nader, for the good of the citizens that you claim to support, rethink your decision about running in '08.

Thank you,
Michael Glenwick
Johns Hopkins University
Class of 2010
International Studies and Spanish Double Major

Barack From the Dead

So it's been 2+ months since my last post, so I've got a lot of catching up to do. So...what's happened since my mid-December '07?

1) I went to DJ school in NYC, and didn't really learn to DJ.

2) I went to New Hampshire for seven days before the primary there to canvas for my main man, Barack Obama. It was an awesome, truly incredible experience (even if he lost). More on that later.

3) I went to Israel for ten days on a Birthright trip with a group from Hopkins and Goucher. It was great, as well, some of the best ten days of my life.

Since my deejaying skills (or lack of it) probably aren't too interesting to most people, and my vacation isn't too relevant a month later, the best place to start is with Obama, to whom I gave seven days of my life in early January--including my birthday.

In five vans designed to hold 12 people each, a group of committed NYers did the five-hour drive to Concord, NH where we spent a week in a Red Roof Inn, four to a room. When we weren't sleeping (which was most of the time), we were knocking on doors, waving signs at major intersections, and basically doing anything the campaign needed from us.

Some lessons learned:

1) NH voters are a whole lot more intelligent than the average American. They know how much attention their small primary gets and how much their vote matters. They know about the issues, and they know about all the candidates, Republicans and Democrats. If half of the U.S. knew half as much as New Hampshirites do, we'd be a better country.

2) Barack has a wider, more diverse coalition than anyone in the media will ever give him credit for. Among our volunteers were college students and some folks who had to be in their 60s if not 70s. There were whites, blacks, Latinos, and Asians; men and women; Christians and Jews; rich and poor.

Part of our NY crew talking to a NH voter (in Red Sox cap)

3) A lot of people (at least in NH) despise Hillary. As a proud Democrat, I will support whomever the Party chooses in November, but it's clear that a lot of independent, free-thinking voters (of whom there are many in NH) throughout the country will support McCain come November if Hillary is the nominee. As qualified as she may be (and she is, I think), she's more polarizing than a magnet (sorry, I couldn't resist), and we will have a tough time winning the many independents and significant number of Republicans--or Obamacans, as they are now called--who could be the answer in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

4) The more people get to know Barack, the more they like him, and the more they are ready to support him. When I checked in to the Red Roof Inn, we were 14 points down and came within four points of Hillary. Sure, it was a disappointment but only b/c our hopes were so high. The fact that he made a ten-point jump in seven days was remarkable and a testament to both the strong volunteer support on the ground all over the state and the incredible job of fund-raising the campaign has done.

So, more than a month after the NH primary and two exciting weeks (ten straight!) since Super Tuesday, why bother mentioning the four points above? Because they're all still relevant--maybe even more so than on January 8th--and possible on a larger scale.

1) As much as certain segments of the country care more than usual about the election, most voters across the country haven't educated themselves about the issues that matter and actually gone to the polls in one of the most exciting and critical primaries in decades. Go out and vote. Go to the candidates' websites and watch the debates. It's really not that hard. Billions of people don't get to participate in free elections. Be grateful, and take advantage of your right.

2) Every day, Barack's movement--it's not just a campaign--has brought in more and more people who don't fit the mold that the media has assigned to him. No longer is it (or was it) just about young people and African Americans. Just look at Wisconsin's results last night: women left Hillary to support him, as did working class white men, previously thought to be out of his reach. And in Texas, where Hillary's lead had been in double digits, he's evened things up in the polls, thanks to greater support among Latinos.

3) Hillary's campaign has gotten more and more negative by the day. It's not going to work, and it's going to turn even more people off to her. As great as it is that people are voting for Barack all across the country, it's clear that a legit number of people (especially the moderate Republicans and independents who have been allowed to vote in some Democratic primaries) are voting as much against Hillary as for Barack. She's aiming to win that 51% majority, but, as we say at Hopkins lacrosse games, we want more! This isn't about 1/2 of the country; it's about the whole country, especially those moderates who are turned off by the Clintons.

4) In so many states where Barack wasn't given a chance, he has won or made up significant ground. He has done this a tremendously fast speed and the fact that he has gotten more and more time to make his case known to the American people. And now that he has the momentum of ten straight wins, 25 out of 36 races, and the lead in delegates (pledged and total), the doubters have no choice but to take him seriously. He is the frontrunner now, which brings with it a whole host of new challenges, but also brings legitimacy and added coverage. People who didn't know him before know him now, as we can see in Texas, where a double-digit Clinton lead has already vanished.

So, in a nutshell, that's where I believe the campaign stands as of now, and, in many ways, NH was a microcosm of that. We have two more weeks until the primaries of March 4th, and if Hillary doesn't win both OH and TX in blow-out style, we'll be in good shape for Denver in August and hopefully Washington in November!

P.S. More on the other two exciting events of my winter--deejaying and Israel--to come. Bet you can't wait.

Contrast This

"Compare and contrast." As a student, it seems that nearly every assignment I've ever had to complete deals with comparing and contrasting one person/issue/text to another. The question seemed to come up again on Thursday, this time when Mitt Romney made his speech, "Faith in America" at George Bush Sr.'s Presidential Library in Texas about being a Mormon running for president. A lot of people immediately rushed to make comparisons to JFK's speech (also in Texas) regarding his running for the presidency while being a Catholic.

Even Romney, in his speech, couldn't get away from the supposed comparison:

"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President."

However, beyond that, there are few similarities between the two men or their speeches. Kennedy, although a proud Catholic, did not want to bring faith into his campaign, since he believed that there were more pressing practical issues that faced the nation:

"I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space."

A bit dated, yes, but the message still rings rings very loudly and clearly. JFK, who went on in his speech to talk about how much he revered the concept of separation of church and state upon which this country was founded did not want faith to play a pivotal role in the election.

Romney, however, in his speech, demonstrated that he thinks otherwise:

"I'm moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'"

Faith, he made clear, is an inherent part of America. I couldn't care less that Romney happens to be a Mormon and is running for president. What I do care about is whether or not his idea of America is one that includes all Americans. He says on Thursday, "We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders...I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'" He went out of his way to isolate certain segments of the American population (namely atheists) in order to make the bond between religion and the state even stronger, something to which the Founders were very opposed.

This is not what JFK did. Kennedy was a religious man, but he was a tolerant man. He understood that religion was private and that it need not be imposed on others. Most importantly, he used his Texas speech about religion to emphasize that religion should not be made into an election concern; communism, poverty, and the elderly were simply too important. Romney, on the other hand, must think otherwise. Even spoke 18 more minutes longer than Kennedy, he didn't mention domestic or international issues after the first minute. To him, religion and its attachment to the state is just as important as any other issue in the election.

Compare and contrast Romney to JFK? In order to compare the two, we would first need to find some commonalities, and other than the Massachusetts connection, it's gonna be a while before any more of those pop up. Meanwhile, the contrasting could go on forever.

A New Domain and an Old Game

So, after a lot of time (and help from the Blogger help board), I finally have registered www.michaelglenwick.com and made it the home for my blog. Going to livefromthemountaintop.blogspot.com will still take you to my (hopefully) weekly posts, so it's your call. The new domain won't change much, just the fact that no one else with the same name--yes, you, the one with the sex podcast--has the rights to michaelglenwick.com

I recently finished reading The Thumpin' by Naftali Bendavid about how Congressman and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chair Rahm Emanuel led the Democrats to victory in the '06 congressional races. Aside from highlighting Emanuel's unique nature as a politician, Bendavid explored in (sometimes too much) detail how elections are won and lost. In 2006, they were often out of even savviest Democrats' hands; according to Bendavid, one of the biggest reasons why Emanuel was able to end the "Republican Revolution" was because of Republican mistakes, not Democratic advances. From New Orleans to Baghdad (and don't forget about corruption scandal after corruption scandal), the Republicans' reputation was its worst in more than a decade, and the Democrats were in a unique position to take advantage of that.

At the same time, however, Bendavid notes--in his most important paragraph--that only a select number of politicians would have been able to utilize and stretch the resources the DCCC had and gain 30 new House seats. For two years, Emanuel's life revolved around the '06 election. He didn't get more than four hours of sleep a night, his health suffered measurably, and he barely got to see his wife and kids. But he was committed to the Democratic cause like no one else, which is largely why Baltimore-native Nancy Pelosi (who knew that a Democratic victory would make her the first female Speaker of the House) entrusted him with heading the DCCC.

Like any sport, a good team wins by playing well but also by having a committed player or two being in a position to take advantage of the other team's mistakes (advice my beloved NY Knicks would do well to heed). Whether or not we want to admit it, politics is a sport in many senses like any other, and in '06 Emanuel was that player. Liberals didn't like him for pushing more conservative Democrats in many of the more moderate races, and conservatives despised him for his recentnesses in pursuing the Democratic cause.

But he didn't care.

Emanuel couldn't have done it on his own, but the Dems couldn't have retaken the House without him either. With Congress up for grabs again in '08 (yes, there is more to the '08 election than the presidential race), reading Bendavid's book is the least that we--Democrats and Republicans--can do to prepare us for what is sure to be an exciting political season.

Values Turned Upside-Down

It's finally November, the time where, in previous years, primary season tended to heat up. This time four years ago, stories about Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards and the fight for the 2004 Democratic nomination were beginning to get coverage, and eight years ago, there was talk on the Republican side about who would challenge the relatively obvious choice for the Democratic nomination, Al Gore. This time around, however, we've been talking about '08 since November '06, basically a year ahead of time.

Obama and Hillary. Guliani and Romney. On the one hand, it seems like they've been getting all the airplay and all the media's attention. On the other hand, however, if one only listens to the talk around a college campus and browses some of the internet's most popular news sites, it becomes clear that we have a few other (apparently more important) things on our mind.

Like Hollywood.

In a relatively simple--but still revealing--graph made by Google Trends, I compared the volume of online news hits between Hillary Clinton and Britney Spears over the past twelve months. Like her life, Britney's graph has plenty of highs and lows (with her "high" following her MTV VMAs embarassment), but it's been consistently above the number of news hits for Hillary. Meanwhile, in another graph comparing the number of news hits for Republican front-runner Rudy Guliani to Harry Potter--who isn't even a real person--one gets the same results. I don't know about most people, but the fact that more people seem to care about a wizard's quiditch skills than a potential president's foreign policy is a bit disconcerting, to say the least.

Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert's unofficial primary election Facebook group--1,000,000 Strong for Stephen Colbert--has more than 1.3 million members. The group that inspired the Colbert group was Barack Obama's One Million Strong for Barack, with not even 400,000 members. Even a similar group protesting supposedly polarizing Hillary (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary) just recently celebrated making it halfway to one million. The pro-Obama and the anti-Hillary group don't even come close to combining to surpass the total's for Colbert--a fake candidate running a fake campaign in a single state.

What does the fact that Britney, Potter, and Colbert have generated more excitement and online hits than our country's potential future leaders mean? I'm not quite sure, but it's definitely worth thinking about. Will more people vote in the next American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, or whatever show some TV station comes up with next than the '08 pimaries?

Priorities and values are key insights into what a society is about. And right now, our priorities and values are mixed up, and it's about time we took notice.