“Hey There Obama”

Cute kid but is he cuter than the Obama Baby?

Super Tuesday produced a draw…or did it?

The Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses produced no obvious winner. Senator Clinton led in national and most state polls prior to the election and yet failed to knock out the challenge posed by Senator Obama. Senator Obama, whose polling numbers were quickly closing the gap on the Clinton lead, failed to topple Senator Clinton from her lead.

All things being equal it was a draw for Super Tuesday but of course all things are never equal. During all of 2007 the Clinton campaign promoted the Senator from New York as the inevitable nominee and Super Tuesday was to put the final touches on the Democratic race. The strategy was to wrap up the nomination within a month of the Iowa caucuses. That didn’t happen. With half of the country now having voted, she has been forced to loan her own campaign five million dollars just to stay competitive and staff are going without pay. Despite the importance of winning big states on Tuesday such as California, New Jersey and Massachusetts, her campaign is struggling.

The Politico’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen list five reasons Senator Clinton should be worried following Super Tuesday:

1. She lost the delegate derby. Pure and simple, this is a war to win delegates, one that might not be decided until this summer’s Democratic convention.

And when the smoke cleared this morning, it appeared that Barack Obama had ended up with slightly more delegates in the 22 states.

Obama’s campaign says the senator finished ahead by 14 delegates.

With results still coming in, Clinton’s campaign says the candidates finished within five or six delegates of each other. Either way, Super Tuesday was essentially a draw.

Clinton may still hold the edge overall, but Obama is closing in rapidly.

2. She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote. Each won just over 7.3 million votes, a level of parity that was unthinkable as recently as a few weeks ago.

At the time, national polls showed Clinton with a commanding lead — in some cases, by 10 points or more. That dominance is now gone.

One reason is that polls and primary results reveal that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they seem to like him.

This is especially troubling for Clinton since the schedule slows dramatically now and a full month will pass before the next big-state showdown.

All of this allows candidates ample time to introduce themselves to voters in each state — which plays to Obama’s core strengths.

3. She lost more states. Obama carried 14 states, six more than Clinton, and showed appeal in every geographical region.

His win in bellwether Missouri was impressive by nearly every measure, marked by victories among men and women, secular and churchgoing voters, and urban and suburban voters.

4. She lost the January cash war. Money chases momentum, so Obama crushing’s 2-to-1 fundraising victory last month is revealing.

He raised more than $31 million; Clinton raised less than $14 million. The implication is hard to ignore: Democratic activists and donors are flocking to Obama at a pace that could have a profound effect on the race going forward.

5. The calendar is her enemy. Now that more than half the states have weighed in, there is a fairly predictable formula for determining who is most likely to win the upcoming contests.

In caucus states, Obama’s organizational strength shines: He has won seven of eight. Up next are three more caucus states, Washington, Nebraska and Maine.

Obama also runs tremendously well in states with large African-American populations, another promising sign since next Tuesday’s three primaries are in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia — all of which have significant percentages of black voters.

Then comes another caucus state, Hawaii, where Obama is viewed as a native son.

The bottom line is that it figures to be another month before Clinton hits a stretch of states — places like Ohio and Pennsylvania — where she will be strongly favored to win.

So it couldn’t be any clearer as to why the supposedly inevitable candidacy is anything but — even when she’s supposedly winning.

Sisters to be stoned to death in Iran for adultery

According to news reports, Azar and Zohreh Kabiri, sisters aged 27 and 28 respectively are to be stoned to death for the crime of having extra-marital affairs. Both have children.

The women were previously convicted and sentenced to 99 lashes each. However, after the sentence was carried out, they were tried again and sentenced to death by stoning.

Just last month, Amnesty International issued a report calling for the abolition of stoning as a form of execution. The method of execution has been used throughout history but is considered so barbaric that it is rarely practiced outside a handful of countries.

The method involves burying men up to their waist and women up to their breasts. They are then pelted with stones – specified to be large enough to inflict pain but not big enough to kill outright – until they die. Stoning to death is a "horrific practice, designed to increase the suffering" of those condemned, the UK-based rights group says in the report.

Stoning is the favored form of execution in Iran for cases involving adultery. A disproportionate number of these cases impact on women and a majority of those stoned are women.

According to The Australian:

TWO Iranian sisters convicted of adultery face being stoned to death after the supreme court upheld the death sentences against them, the Etemad newspaper reported.

The two sisters were found guilty of adultery – a capital crime in Islamic Iran – after the husband of one of the pair presented video evidence showing them in the company of other men while he was away.

"Branch 23 of the supreme court has confirmed the stoning sentence," said their lawyer, Jabbar Solati.

The penal court of Tehran province had already sentenced the two sisters identified only as Zohreh, 27, and Azar (no age given) to stoning, the daily said.

Mr Solati explained that the two sisters had initially been tried for "illegal relations" and received 99 lashes. However in a second trial they were convicted of "adultery".

The pair admitted they were in the video presented by the husband but argued there was no adultery as no scene on the video showed them engaged in a sexual act with the other men.

"There is no legal evidence whereby the judge could reach the knowledge for issuing a stoning sentence," Mr Solati said, adding that he had appealed to the state prosecutor.

"The two sisters have been tried twice for one crime," Mr Solati protested.

Under Iran's Islamic law, adultery is theoretically punishable by stoning although in late 2002 judiciary head Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi issued a writ suspending such executions.

However in July 2007, Jafar Kiani was stoned to death for adultery in a village in the northwestern province of Qazvin in a rare execution by stoning that provoked a wave of international outrage.

Capital offences in Iran include murder, rape, armed robbery, serious drug trafficking and adultery. Iran currently makes more use of the death penalty – almost always by hanging – than any other country apart from China.

I'm An Obama Baby

Humanism: Deriving wisdom and enlightenment from our makeup as humans

Theists do not have a monopoly on morality or the meaning of life. Contrary to the conclusions one may be led to by the constant vilification of atheists in this country, there is a very long and noble legacy of reason and ethics not bound to the orthodoxies of supernaturalism.

Here is Jesse Rabinowitz in today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch explaining the non-theistic search for truth:

For as long as we can remember, humans have felt awe, wonder, and a yearning for meaningful connection to one another and to the world. For some, this takes the form of worship of a creator deity, a god who is the source of the universe, who teaches us how to live fairly and lovingly, and who promises a healing and improving of the world.

Side-by-side with these theistic traditions, there are traditions that see truth, meaning, connection, and ethics as coming from the natural world, and from our own human faculties of intuition, reflection, reason, imagination, and determination. These traditions are loosely called atheism, agnosticism, and humanism. Although the difficulty in defining these traditions makes counting their numbers challenging, most studies indicate that atheists, agnostics, and humanists make up about 10 percent of the American population.

Who are these non-theists, what do they believe, and how do their beliefs teach them how to live fairly, lovingly, and with a sense of purpose, awe, and wonder? Atheists and agnostics differ from theists in their approach to the question of the existence of God. Atheists don't believe in the existence of God or gods, whereas agnostics claim not to know whether God or gods exist. "Humanism" refers to the belief that our actions, beliefs, values, and worldview come from our human ability to reason, to question, to care for one another and for the world of which we are but a part, and to create from our imaginative, intuitive, artistic, and poetic powers.

ATHEISM, agnosticism, and humanism have long legacies, dating as far back as the 6th century BCE. These traditions appear in some forms of Hinduism and Buddhism, and in classical Greek, Enlightenment, Modernist, and Post-Modernist philosophies. Each appearance of these traditions is marked by a preference for reason, critical thinking, scientific and naturalistic observation and study, and the questioning of established beliefs.

Atheists, agnostics, and humanists, like traditional believers, seek to live fair, loving, and meaningful lives. They are guided toward the good life by the world's philosophies, cultural beliefs, scientific and naturalistic facts, religious and ethical teachings, and the fables, parables, and allegories provided by myth, art, and literature.

Non-theists sometimes draw from the value and meaning systems of traditional religion, but they don't believe the ultimate source was a supernatural deity, but rather human invention and inspiration. They assume that values and meaning evolve throughout each person's lifetime and throughout the whole span of human history, and that humans actively engage in this evolution through reason, debate, observation, science, and contemplation.

Beyond belief, ethics, and values, non-theists, like their theistic siblings, seek comfort, hope, and strength from their belief systems. Non-theists draw comfort and hope from the idea that human progress emerges from an innate human need to love, to make the world a more harmonious place, and to find purpose and meaning in the face of a vast, daunting universe.

Wisdom and enlightenment are seen as deriving from deep in our makeup as humans, and the drive to attain and develop these qualities are felt by non-theists as a compelling force. Strength in the face of adversity and pain is found by non-theists in the knowledge that humans have made great strides through reason, creative thinking, artistic expression, and hard work, and that each of us possesses these abilities and potentials.

LIKE THEISTS, non-theists find comfort, hope, and strength in their experience of giving and receiving simple human kindness, and in the common human support that we all experience.

Non-theists contribute to the good of the world through all of the same avenues as theists. They do charity, try to work at their jobs honestly and in good community, and care for family and neighbors. While theists believe they are called to these good works by God, non-theists believe that they are called to good works by something deep inside our makeups. They point to the genetic, neurologic, and psychological structures and functions that underlie love, empathy, social cooperation, and fairness as evidence that we are "built" to care for one another, even if they don't believe in a master builder.

Finally, non-theists seek to feel a compelling sense of awe, wonder, and connection to the universe, to feel a part of something large, vast, mysterious, and beautiful. Non-theists find delight, inspiration, humility, and peace in the contemplation of the starry night and infinity of space, in the complex beauty of the genetic code, in the powerful tenderness of love, in the amazing order and power of our sciences, and in the fascinating history of the evolution of our universe and our world.

Dexter Gordon: “Loose Walk” (1964)

This was recorded in a small Cafe in Amersfoort in the Netherlands. He was backed up by a Swiss trio with George Gruntz piano, Guy Pederson bass and drummer Daniel Humair.

Dexter Gordon (1923-1990) was a jazz tenor saxophonist considered one of the first bebop tenor players.

He was born and grew up in Los Angeles, where he played clarinet from the age of 13, before switching to saxophone (initially alto, then tenor) at 15. While still at school, he was playing in bands with such contemporaries as Chico Hamilton and Buddy Collette.

During 1943-44 he featured in the Louis Armstrong and Fletcher Henderson bands, before joining Billy Eckstine.

By 1945, Gordon had left the Eckstine band and was resident in New York, where he was performing and recording with Charlie Parker, as well as recording under his own name. One of his major influences was Lester Young. Gordon, in turn, was an early influence on John Coltrane during the 1940s and 1950s. Coltrane's playing, however, during his early period from the mid to late '50s or early '60s influenced Gordon's playing from then onward. Similarities in their styles include their clear, strong, metallic tones, their tendencies to bend up to high notes, and their abilities to single-tongue and still swing. One of Gordon's idiosyncrasies was to recite the lyrics of each ballad before playing it.

In 1986 he was nominated for an Academy Award for best actor for his role in the movie, Round Midnight.

You can find the official Dexter Gordon website here.

Obama and Clinton on Cuba: A microcosm for difference in attitudes

American policy towards Cuba is not only a relic from a previous world order (the Cold War) but has been a failed policy that this blog has complained about here, here and here. The policy essentially cuts off and interactions between Cubans and Americans in the hope that this will somehow pressure Cubans to topple the Castro regime. Yet, the American government under both Democrats and Republicans hold onto this failed policy as if it were sacred. The reality is the only reason the policy still exists is to pander to an older generation of Cuban refugees who may cast a deciding vote in the swing state of Florida – it no longer has anything to do with Cuba.

The right thing to do would be to stop the pandering and change the policy to reflect the realities of the 21^st Century. Barack Obama is proposing doing just that. Hillary Clinton is not.

But this reflects more than differences on a particular policy. Fareed Zakaria explains how this issue is a microcosm for this difference in attitudes in the two generations Obama and Clinton represent than any real difference in ideology. It is attitude that will determine what direction the next President will lead this nation.

Here is Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek:

… Almost anyone who is being honest will acknowledge that America's approach toward Cuba is brain dead. No one even remembers why we've imposed a total embargo on the country. A policy that was put into place at the height of the cold war, when fears of Soviet missiles and communist penetration were at their peak, has been maintained even though the threat that prompted it has collapsed. What exactly are we afraid this moth-eaten island will do to America today?

Our policy has the additional burden of having failed, by any measure. We've been trying to force regime change in Cuba for 45 years. Instead Fidel Castro is now the longest-lived head of government in the world. Every tightening of the Cuban embargo has resulted in further repression and isolation. And yet the only changes George W. Bush has made to our Cuba policy have been to impose more restrictions on travel and trade, a cruel and futile doubling down on a bad bet.

Obama has advocated easing the Bush-imposed ban on Cuban-Americans visiting the island and sending money to their relatives. He makes a broader case for a new Cuba policy, arguing that capitalism, trade and travel will help break the regime's stranglehold on the country and help open things up.

Clinton immediately disagreed, firmly supporting the current policy. This places her in the strange position of arguing, in effect, that her husband's Cuba policy was not hard-line enough. But this is really not the best way to understand Clinton's position. In all probability, she actually agrees with Obama's stand. She is just calculating that it would anger Cuban-Americans in Florida and New Jersey.

This is the problem with Hillary Clinton. She is highly intelligent, has real experience and is an attractive candidate. But she is terrified to act on her beliefs. In fact, she seems so conditioned by what she sees as political constraints that one can barely tell where her beliefs begin and where those constraints end.

Partly, this is a generational difference. Bill and Hillary Clinton grew up in an era of Republican dominance. For much of the last 30 years, the Republican Party has been the party of ideas (a point made repeatedly by Daniel Patrick Moynihan), and Ronald Reagan was seen by much of the country to have rescued America from malaise and retreat. The Clintons' careers have been shaped by the belief that for a Democrat to succeed, he or she had to work within this conservative ideological framework. Otherwise one would be pilloried for being weak on national security, partial to taxes and big government and out of touch with Middle America's social values.

For 30 years this has been the right bet. It's why Bill Clinton was the only successful national Democratic politician in that period. But is it still the right wager? Obama has grown up in a different landscape—with vastly different geopolitics, economics and culture. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have been the defining political figures of the recent past. Conservatism has lost its monopoly role. As a result, the new generation is not defensive about its beliefs, nor does it feel trapped into the old categories like hawks versus doves and markets versus taxes.

This is not naiveté. Obama's position on Cuba is not all hope. Most of the older generation of Cuban-Americans are hard-line Republicans anyway, so it's probably pointless courting them. And the younger ones—under 45 or so—are far less wedded to the punitive approach and symbolic battles of the past. So Obama is taking a calculated risk that the time is right.

Cuba policy is a microcosm for this difference in attitudes. Obama has spoken in favor of a proposal—made by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn—that in order to get the world more serious about nuclear nonproliferation, the United States should begin to fulfill its end of the treaty and reduce its own nuclear arsenal. Again, for all I know, Hillary Clinton agrees with this approach. But she won't say so. Her long years of experience—in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s—warn her against such audacity. But the world has changed so much—the cold war is a distant memory, capitalism has spread across the world, new threats come not from states but small bands of people, unilateralism is discredited—that perhaps it is time for America to change as well.

The New Frontier: JFK and Obama

John F. Kennedy was considered too young and inexperienced by the party establishment when he ran for President in 1960. He was considered unelectable because of his cultural heritage – i.e., Irish Roman Catholicism. However, he attracted the young, first-time voters and independents by preaching a politics of hope.

We don’t need to nominate Kennedy for sainthood – he certainly had his shortcomings – to recognize his campaign and subsequent Presidency represented a break from the past. He was the youngest President since Teddy Roosevelt and the first non-WASP ever elected to the White House. However, it was not his age or identity that mattered but the message for national renewal that set the tone for the future of America.

It is the message of hope and national renewal that Barack Obama presents to us today. In these days of domestic polarization and international isolation, the tone for the future of America needs to change. Barack Obama is the candidate who can do that.

Here is Frank Rich in Sunday’s New York Times:

BEFORE John F. Kennedy was a president, a legend, a myth and a poltergeist stalking America’s 2008 campaign, he was an upstart contender seen as a risky bet for the Democratic nomination in 1960.

Kennedy was judged “an ambitious but superficial playboy” by his liberal peers, according to his biographer Robert Dallek. “He never said a word of importance in the Senate, and he never did a thing,” in the authoritative estimation of the Senate’s master, Lyndon Johnson. Adlai Stevenson didn’t much like Kennedy, and neither did Harry Truman, who instead supported Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri.

J. F. K. had few policy prescriptions beyond Democratic boilerplate (a higher minimum wage, “comprehensive housing legislation”). As his speechwriter Richard Goodwin recalled in his riveting 1988 memoir “Remembering America,” Kennedy’s main task was to prove his political viability. He had to persuade his party that he was not a wealthy dilettante and not “too young, too inexperienced and, above all, too Catholic” to be president.

How did the fairy-tale prince from Camelot vanquish a field of heavyweights led by the longtime liberal warrior Hubert Humphrey? It wasn’t ideas. It certainly wasn’t experience. It wasn’t even the charisma that Kennedy would show off in that fall’s televised duels with Richard Nixon.

Looking back almost 30 years later, Mr. Goodwin summed it up this way: “He had to touch the secret fears and ambivalent longings of the American heart, divine and speak to the desires of a swiftly changing nation — his message grounded on his own intuition of some vague and spreading desire for national renewal.”

In other words, Kennedy needed two things. He needed poetry, and he needed a country with some desire, however vague, for change.

Mr. Goodwin and his fellow speechwriter Ted Sorensen helped with the poetry. Still, the placid America of 1960 was not obviously in the market for change. The outgoing president, Ike, was the most popular incumbent since F. D. R. The suburban boom was as glossy as it is now depicted in the television show “Mad Men.” The Red Panic of the McCarthy years was in temporary remission.

But Kennedy’s intuition was right. America’s boundless self-confidence was being rattled by (as yet) low-grade fevers: the surprise Soviet technological triumph of Sputnik; anti-American riots in even friendly non-Communist countries; the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr. at an all-white restaurant in Atlanta; the inexorable national shift from manufacturing to white-collar jobs. Kennedy bet his campaign on, as he put it, “the single assumption that the American people are uneasy at the present drift in our national course” and “that they have the will and strength to start the United States moving again.”

For all the Barack Obama-J. F. K. comparisons, whether legitimate or over-the-top, what has often been forgotten is that Mr. Obama’s weaknesses resemble Kennedy’s at least as much as his strengths. But to compensate for those shortcomings, he gets an extra benefit that J. F. K. lacked in 1960. There’s nothing vague about the public’s desire for national renewal in 2008, with a reviled incumbent in the White House and only 19 percent of the population finding the country on the right track, according to the last Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll. America is screaming for change.

Either of the two Democratic contenders will swing the pendulum. Their marginal policy differences notwithstanding, they are both orthodox liberals. As the party’s voters in 22 states step forward on Tuesday, the overriding question they face, as defined by both contenders, is this: Which brand of change is more likely, in Kennedy’s phrase, to get America moving again?

***

The rap on Mr. Obama remains that he preaches the audacity of Kumbaya. He is all lofty poetry and no action, so obsessed with transcending partisanship that he can be easily rolled. Implicit in this criticism is a false choice — that voters have to choose between his pretty words on one hand and Mrs. Clinton’s combative, wonky incrementalism on the other.

There’s a third possibility, of course: A poetically gifted president might be able to bring about change without relying on fistfighting as his primary modus operandi. Mr. Obama argues that if he can bring some Republicans along, he can achieve changes larger than the microinitiatives that have been a hallmark of Clintonism. He also suggests, in his most explicit policy invocation of J. F. K., that he can enlist the young en masse in a push for change by ramping up national service programs like AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps.

****

The question about Mr. Obama, of course, is whether he is tough enough to stand up to those in Washington who oppose real reform, whether Republicans or special-interest advocates like, say, Mr. Penn. The jury is certainly out, though Mr. Obama has now started to toughen his critique of the Clintons without sounding whiny. By framing that debate as a choice between the future and the past, he is revisiting the J. F. K. playbook against Ike.

What we also know is that, unlike Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama is not hesitant to take on John McCain. He has twice triggered the McCain temper, in spats over ethics reform in 2006 and Mr. McCain’s Baghdad market photo-op last year. In Thursday’s debate, Mr. Obama led an attack on Mr. McCain twice before Mrs. Clinton followed with a wan echo. When Bill Clinton promised that his wife and Mr. McCain’s friendship would ensure a “civilized” campaign, he may have been revealing more than he intended about the perils for Democrats in that matchup.

As Tuesday’s vote looms, all that’s certain is that today’s pollsters and pundits have so far gotten almost everything wrong. Mr. McCain’s campaign had been declared dead. Mrs. Clinton has gone from invincible to near-death to near-invincible again. Mr. Obama was at first not black enough to sweep black votes and then too black to get a sizable white vote in South Carolina.

Richard Goodwin knew in 1960 that all it took was “a single significant failure” by Kennedy or “an act of political daring” by his opponents for his man to lose — especially in the general election, where he faced the vastly more experienced Nixon, the designated heir of a popular president. That’s as good a snapshot as any of where we are right now, while we wait for the voters to decide if they will take what Mrs. Clinton correctly describes as a “leap of faith” and follow another upstart on to a new frontier.

You can read Rich’s entire piece here.

Super Tuesday preview

Here is a snapshot at the Super Tuesday states from TPM Election Central:

Alabama — Hillary Ahead, But Unclear: Recent polls have shown Hillary ahead by over ten points in a state that hasn't gotten much attention, but we'll find out soon enough whether Obama's big win in South Carolina gives him any boost with the state's African-American voters. There hasn't been very much data to go on, and previous polls put Obama ahead. Total Delegates: 52

Alaska — Unknown: There hasn't been any polling here, but on paper it looks like a decent state for Obama. It's a largely Republican state where Bill Clinton was rarely all that popular even with Democrats — the state's last Democratic governor, Tony Knowles would boast in ads for his 2004 Senate campaign that he sued the Clinton Administration over land-use issues. For his part, Knowles supports Obama. Total Delegates: 13

Arizona — Hillary Has Medium Lead: Recent polling has shown Hillary Clinton ahead here by about ten points, but she's under the 40% mark and with fairly high undecideds. Obama is supported by the state's popular governor Janet Napolitano, and Congressman Raul Grijalva just recently switched his support from Edwards to Obama. Total Delegates: 56

Arkansas — Hillary Has Wide Lead: There is no recent polling here, but it would seem to be a given that Hillary Clinton will handily win her former home state. Obama might be able to get a decent share in Little Rock, though, through African-American support. Total Delegates: 35

California — Hillary Ahead, But Tightening: Expect the country's largest state to also be the most heated contest on Super Tuesday. Hillary Clinton has the support of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, while Obama's newfound support from the Kennedy family could give him a leg up with Latinos and older voters. After having been ahead before by around 25 points, Hillary Clinton currently leads by only about ten points in most polls, and by only three in the most recent one. Hillary will probably take a good majority among Hispanic voters, while Obama is hoping to forge a coalition of black and white voters to take the day. Make no mistake: This will be the race to watch on Tuesday night. Total Delegates: 370

Colorado — Obama Has Small Lead: A recent poll put Barack Obama ahead by only two points in this caucus. Obama also just benefitted from the endorsement of former Denver Mayor Federico Peña, a supporter who might be able to help him break through among Hispanic voters. Total Delegates: 55

Connecticut — Race Has Narrowed To A Tie In One Poll: The big test here is whether the clout of the Kennedy family extends beyond Massachusetts and into other New England states. The campaigns stayed out of her throughout 2007, out of respect to native son Chris Dodd, meaning there was not any sort of intense campaign either for or against Hillary Clinton. Thus Hillary previously had a large lead here, but the new Rasmussen poll shows it to be a tied race. Total Delegates: 48

Delaware — Unknown: Term-limited Gov. Ruth Ann Minner supports Hillary, while both of the Democratic candidates in the primary to succeed her are for Obama. There hasn't been any recent polling, given the lack of interest in the state's very few delegates, so your guess is as good as ours. Total Delegates: 15

Georgia — Obama Has Small Lead: Recent polls have put Barack Obama ahead by about five points, up from deficits of around ten ponts over the Fall, due to heavy African-American support. He will likely dominate in Atlanta and college towns like Athens, while Hillary should run stronger in rural and suburban areas. Total Delegates: 87

Idaho — Unknown: There has been no major polling here, but Obama should probably run well in Boise, the closest thing this deep-red state has to a Democratic stronghold. Total Delegates: 18

Illinois — Obama Has Wide lead: Obama will probably rack up a huge majority in his home state — polls have shown him winning by more than two to one, carrying all three major racial demogrpahics — Whites, blacks and Hispanics — by strong margins. The Illinois legislature moved this primary up to Super Tuesday specifically to help the favorite son candidate, and it looks as if that will pay off. Total Delegates: 153

Kansas — Obama Is The Favorite: Although there has been no polling, Obama is considered the frontrunner here, as he has the backing of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, the undisputed leader of this state's relatively small Democratic Party. Obama also recently made a high-profile stop here, to the former hometown of his maternal grandparents. Total Delegates: 32

Massachusetts — Hillary's Lead Is Slipping: Hillary Clinton had enormous leads in this state for quite a while, but the Kennedy family's political adoption of Barack Obama may well have changed things. The newest poll only put Hillary ahead by by six points, with clear momentum for Obama as Ted Kennedy campaigns more and more for him, and Edwards supporters go looking for a new candidate. Before the endorsement, other polls had shown Hillary ahead by as much as 37 points. If Obama wins this or even cuts it close, it will be a testament to the power of Ted Kennedy. Total Delegates: 93

Minnesota — Hillary Has Medium Lead: Obama is expected to run well in the Twin Cities, while Hillary should play nicely in the suburbs. The question then becomes where liberal voters from the Iron Range and the rural areas, who might have supported Edwards, end up going. Total Delegates: 72

Missouri — Hillary Has Medium Lead: Recent polling has put Hillary ahead but under 50%. Hillary is supported by Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, a former mayor of Kansas City, while Obama has the backing of Sen. Claire McCaskill — giving us the interesting situation of Obama being supported by the state's most prominent female politician, and Hillary being endorsed by one of the state's major black officials. Total Delegates: 72

New Jersey — Hillary Has Wide Lead: Hillary Clinton led by over 15 points in the most recent poll — but that was down from earlier leads of 30 points or more. The Democratic establishment in this state has lined up almost entirely behind Hillary Clinton, led by Gov. Jon Corzine and Sen. Bob Menendez. Barack Obama has the support of Newark Mayor Cory Booker, plus popular former Governor (and former Edwards supporter) Dick Codey. New Jersey is split between the New York and Philadelphia media markets, so advertising here is very expensive and fraught with risks for a Midwest candidate taking a crack at Hillary Clinton — thus she has consistently led in the polls by healthy margins. The cities should probably go to Obama and the suburbs to Hillary, giving her an overall win. Total Delegates: 107

New Mexico — Unknown: There has been no recent polling here. Both sides are heavily courting Bill Richardson for his endorsement. If Richardson does choose to endorse, the lucky recipient will have a strong leg up here. Total Delegates: 26

New York — Hillary Has Wide Lead: Hillary Clinton is hoping to mine her home state for a large majority of delegates, and polling has shown her well ahead. However, polling has turned out to be very erratic — Hillary is either ahead by as much as 30 points or as little as 12. Furthermore, the internals of some polls (notably Marist and Zogby) have shown Hillary with only a narrow lead in New York City. If Obama were to carry the city, he would get a lot of delegates for an out-of-state candidate. Hillary win overall, with landslide majorities in the suburbs and Upstate — the question is how many delegates her challenger will be able to poach. Total Delegates: 232

North Dakota — Obama Is The Frontrunner: There has been no recent polling here. However, North Dakota is a heavily Republican state with a handful of high-ranking Democratic officeholders, led by Sen. Kent Conrad — and he backs Obama. The Clintons were never especially popular here, either, so Obama is probably the favorite. Total Delegates: 13

Oklahoma — Hillary Has Wide Lead: Before John Edwards dropped out, he was running second here behind Hillary and ahead of Obama, who was at a distant third. The state will probably go to Hillary in a two-way race, given the state's overall demographics and tendency towards more conservative Democrats. Total Delegates: 38

Tennessee — Hillary Has Moderate Lead: A recent poll have put Hillary ahead here by 11 points, consistent with past polls. There's not much data to go on, but if this race becomes like other Southern primaries, with Obama doing poorly among whites and Hillary doing badly with blacks, then Hillary should probably win it in the end, given this particular state's overall demographics. Total Delegates: 68

Utah — Hillary Holds Large Lead: A poll from early January put Hillary Clinton well ahead of Obama. Unfortunately, there just isn't much information to work off of in this very heavily Republican state, but it will all come down to the vote in Salt Lake City, the state's Democratic stronghold. Obama has a trip scheduled there for this weekend. Total Delegates: 23

The Jazz Messengers: “A Night in Tunisia” (1959)

This is the Jazz Messengers (Wayne Shorter, Lee Morgan, Art Blakey , Jymie Merritt, and Walter Davis Jr.) performing “A Night in Tunisia” in Paris in 1959.

“A Night in Tunisia” was composed by Dizzy Gillespie in 1942 and has become a jazz standard performed by many musicians. Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers’ recording of this song was released in 1960.

(See the previous post here of Art Blakey And The Jazz Messengers performing “Dat Dere”.)

Voting alone does not make a country a democracy

The promotion of democracy as a foreign policy goal is nothing new for the United States and neither is the convenient fiction that a particular authoritarian government is democratic when it is not but the existence of that government serves other interests. This was especially true during the Cold War and is a legacy that remains with us today.

It is also a policy that can be short-sighted as was evident in the U.S. support of the Shah of Iran or the present day support of Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. And the corruption of democratic practices such as elections has very serious repercussions such as the outbreak of violence in Kenya proves.

Human Rights Watch has issued their annual report and calls the United States and the European Union to task for “allowing autocrats to pose as democrats” without guarantees of civil liberties and political rights. This is from their press release:

The established democracies are accepting flawed and unfair elections for political expediency, Human Rights Watch said today in releasing its World Report 2008. By allowing autocrats to pose as democrats, without demanding they uphold the civil and political rights that make democracy meaningful, the United States, the European Union and other influential democracies risk undermining human rights worldwide.

States claiming the mantle of democracy, including Kenya and Pakistan, should guarantee the human rights that are central to it, including the rights to free expression, assembly and association, as well as free and fair elections. But in 2007 too many governments, including Bahrain, Jordan, Nigeria, Russia and Thailand, acted as if simply holding a vote is enough to prove a nation “democratic,” and Washington, Brussels and European capitals played along, Human Rights Watch said. The Bush administration has spoken of its commitment to democracy abroad but often kept silent about the need for all governments to respect human rights.

“It’s now too easy for autocrats to get away with mounting a sham democracy,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “That’s because too many Western governments insist on elections and leave it at that. They don’t press governments on the key human rights issues that make democracy function – a free press, peaceful assembly, and a functioning civil society that can really challenge power.”

****

Human Rights Watch has documented a number of elections manipulated through: outright fraud (Chad, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Uzbekistan); control of electoral machinery (Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Malaysia, Thailand, Zimbabwe); blocking or discouraging opposition candidates (Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Libya, Turkmenistan, Uganda); political violence (Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Lebanon); stifling the media and civil society (Russia, Tunisia); and undermining the rule of law (China, Pakistan).

Many of these tactics are illegal under domestic and international law, but rarely do outside powers call governments to account for it. Human Rights Watch said established democracies are often unwilling to do so for fear of losing access to resources or commercial opportunities, or because of the perceived requirements of fighting terrorism.
Human Rights Watch said the United States and the European Union should insist governments do more than hold a vote, and demand they uphold rights guaranteed by international law, including a free media, freedom of assembly, and a secret ballot.

“It seems Washington and European governments will accept even the most dubious election so long as the ‘victor’ is a strategic or commercial ally,” Roth said.

The United States and some allies have made it harder to demand other governments uphold human rights when they are committing abuses in the fight against terrorism. And when autocratic governments deflect criticism for violating human rights by pretending to be democrats, the global defense of rights is jeopardized, Human Rights Watch said.

In Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf has tilted the electoral playing field by rewriting the constitution and firing the independent judiciary, parliamentary elections are due in February. But the United States and Britain, Islamabad’s largest aid donors, have refused to condition assistance to the government on improving pre-electoral conditions.

In Kenya, the United States has at least expressed concern about the apparent rigging of December’s presidential poll and the violence that to date has claimed more than 700 lives. But having accepted the results of oil-rich Nigeria’s February 2007 vote, despite widespread and credible accusations of poll-rigging and electoral violence, Washington left the impression in Nairobi that fraud would be tolerated. It has not even threatened to withhold aid to push the government to negotiate with the opposition.

“Nigeria’s leader came to power in a violent and fraudulent vote, yet he’s been accepted on the international stage,” said Roth. “It’s no wonder Kenya’s president felt able to rig his re-election.”

I like Ike and Obama

President Eisenhower’s granddaughter and life-long Republican, Susan Eisenhower, supports Obama for President. Here is her endorsement in today’s Washington Post:

Forty-seven years ago, my grandfather Dwight D. Eisenhower bid farewell to a nation he had served for more than five decades. In his televised address, Ike famously coined the term "military-industrial complex," and he offered advice that is still relevant today. "As we peer into society's future," he said, we "must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

Today we are engaged in a debate about these very issues. Deep in America's heart, I believe, is the nagging fear that our best years as a nation may be over. We are disliked overseas and feel insecure at home. We watch as our federal budget hemorrhages red ink and our civil liberties are eroded. Crises in energy, health care and education threaten our way of life and our ability to compete internationally. There are also the issues of a costly, unpopular war; a long-neglected infrastructure; and an aging and increasingly needy population.

I am not alone in worrying that my generation will fail to do what my grandfather's did so well: Leave America a better, stronger place than the one it found.

Given the magnitude of these issues and the cost of addressing them, our next president must be able to bring about a sense of national unity and change. As we no longer have the financial resources to address all these problems comprehensively and simultaneously, setting priorities will be essential. With hard work, much can be done.

The biggest barrier to rolling up our sleeves and preparing for a better future is our own apathy, fear or immobility. We have been living in a zero-sum political environment where all heads have been lowered to avert being lopped off by angry, noisy extremists. I am convinced that Barack Obama is the one presidential candidate today who can encourage ordinary Americans to stand straight again; he is a man who can salve our national wounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation. Just as important, Obama can assure the world and Americans that this great nation's impulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded.

No measures to avert the serious, looming consequences can be taken without this sense of renewal. Uncommon political courage will be required. Yet this courage can be summoned only if something profoundly different transpires. Putting America first -- ahead of our own selfish interests -- must be our national priority if we are to retain our capacity to lead.

The last time the United States had an open election was 1952. My grandfather was pursued by both political parties and eventually became the Republican nominee. Despite being a charismatic war hero, he did not have an easy ride to the nomination. He went on to win the presidency -- with the indispensable help of a "Democrats for Eisenhower" movement. These crossover voters were attracted by his pledge to bring change to Washington and by the prospect that he would unify the nation.

It is in this great tradition of crossover voters that I support Barack Obama's candidacy for president. If the Democratic Party chooses Obama as its candidate, this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected and encourage him to seek strategic solutions to meet America's greatest challenges. To be successful, our president will need bipartisan help.

Given Obama's support among young people, I believe that he will be most invested in defending the interests of these rising generations and, therefore, the long-term interests of this nation as a whole. Without his leadership, our children and grandchildren are at risk of growing older in a marginalized country that is left to its anger and divisions. Such an outcome would be an unacceptable legacy for any great nation.

Phil Woods: “And When Were Young” (1968)

Phil Woods (born 1931) is an American jazz saxophonist, clarinetist, bandleader and composter. He studied music at the Manhattan School of Music and The Julliard School. Upon graduation he acquired a reputation as the preeminent bop saxophonist of the day.

His recordings have been nominated for seven Grammy Awards and won four. In 2007 he received the Jazz Master Fellowship Award from the National Endowment for the Arts.

L.A. Times: In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay; Obama is a poem

This is the Los Angeles Times’ endorsement of Barack Obama:

… just because the ballot features two strong candidates does not mean that it is difficult to choose between them. We urge voters to make the most of this historic moment by choosing the Democrat most focused on steering the nation toward constructive change: We strongly endorse Barack Obama.

The U.S. senator from Illinois distinguishes himself as an inspiring leader who cuts through typical internecine campaign bickering and appeals to Americans long weary of divisive and destructive politics. He electrifies young voters, not because he is young but because he embodies the desire to move to the next chapter of the American story. He brings with him deep knowledge of foreign relations and of this nation's particular struggles with identity and opportunity. His flair for expression, both in print and on the stump, too easily leads observers to forget that Obama is a man not just of style but of substance. He's a thoughtful student of the Constitution and an experienced lawmaker in his home state and, for the last three years, in the Senate.

On policy, Obama and his rival Democratic candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, are a hairsbreadth apart. Both vow to pull troops from Iraq. Both are committed to healthcare reform. Both offer candid critiques of the failed George W. Bush presidency, its blustering adventurism, its alienating stance toward other countries and its cavalier disregard for sacred American values such as individual liberty and due process of law.

With two candidates so closely aligned on the issues, we look to their abilities and potential as leaders, and their record of action in service of their stated ideals. Clinton is an accomplished public servant whose election would provide familiarity and, most important, competence in the White House, when for seven years it has been lacking. But experience has value only if it is accompanied by courage and leads to judgment.

Nowhere was that judgment more needed than in 2003, when Congress was called upon to accept or reject the disastrous Iraq invasion. Clinton faced a test and failed, joining the stampede as Congress voted to authorize war. At last week's debate and in previous such sessions, Clinton blamed Bush for abusing the authority she helped to give him, and she has made much of the fact that Obama was not yet in the Senate and didn't face the same test. But Obama was in public life, saw the danger of the invasion and the consequences of occupation, and he said so. He was right.

Obama demonstrates as well that he is open-eyed about the terrorist threat posed to the nation, and would not shrink from military action where it is warranted. He does not oppose all wars, he has famously stated, but rather "dumb wars." He also has the edge in economic policy, less because of particular planks in his platform than because of his understanding that some liberal orthodoxies developed during the last 40 years have been overtaken by history. He offers leadership on education, technology policy and environmental protection unfettered by the positions of previous administrations.

By contrast, Clinton's return to the White House that she occupied for eight years as first lady would resurrect some of the triumph and argument of that era. Yes, Bill Clinton's presidency was a period of growth and opportunity, and Democrats are justly nostalgic for it. But it also was a time of withering political fire, as the former president's recent comments on the campaign trail reminded the nation. Hillary Clinton's election also would drag into a third decade the post-Reagan political duel between two families, the Bushes and the Clintons. Obama is correct: It is time to turn the page.

An Obama presidency would present, as a distinctly American face, a man of African descent, born in the nation's youngest state, with a childhood spent partly in Asia, among Muslims. No public relations campaign could do more than Obama's mere presence in the White House to defuse anti-American passion around the world, nor could any political experience surpass Obama's life story in preparing a president to understand the American character. His candidacy offers Democrats the best hope of leading America into the future, and gives Californians the opportunity to cast their most exciting and consequential ballot in a generation.

In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long -- a sense of aspiration.

Now, about that Reagan “revolution”…

Republican candidates for almost anything seem to fall all over themselves declaring their faith to the gospel of Saint Ronald. This is especially true of the current field of Presidential candidates for the Republican nomination.

Perception may be reality but were the two terms of this professional actor really a revolution?

Here are Michael Kinsley’s thoughts in today’s L.A. Times:

In the GOP debate at the Reagan Library on Wednesday, Sen. John McCain repeated his story about how he and other prisoners of war used to discuss this exciting new governor of California, using tap codes through the walls of a North Vietnamese prison. Like many of the great man's own treasured anecdotes, it might be true. Unlike Reagan, McCain is a genuine war hero, so if he has over-polished this story a bit (it is almost word for word each time), he is honoring the great man by imitation if nothing else. In the debate, McCain repeatedly called himself a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution." He declared that Republicans have "betrayed Ronald Reagan's principles about tax cuts and restraint of spending."

Mitt Romney, meanwhile, kept repeating, inanely, "We're in the house that Reagan built." Reagan "would say lower taxes"; "Reagan would say lower spending"; Reagan "would say no way" to amnesty for illegal immigrants; Reagan would never "walk out of Iraq." ...

A problem: Reagan actually signed the law that authorized the last amnesty, back in 1986. Romney deals with this small difficulty by declaring: "Reagan saw it. It didn't work." He offers no evidence that Reagan had a change of heart about amnesty, and learning from experience was not something Reagan was known for. The proper cliche is McCain's: "Ronald Reagan came with an unshakable set of principles." ...

Would Reagan "walk out of" Iraq? Far from clear. He scurried out of Lebanon in 1984 after things got hot there. During the Reagan years, the United States was pro-Iraq in its war against Iran, although we also sold weapons to Iran to raise money for a terrorist war we were secretly financing in Nicaragua, while denouncing terrorism. It's hard to find any "unshakable set of principles" in this mess.

McCain declared in Wednesday's debate that he would appoint Supreme Court justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito -- that is, reliable conservatives. Romney characteristically upped the ante: "I would approve justices ... like Roberts and Alito, Scalia and Thomas." Roberts and Alito were appointed by George W. Bush, and Clarence Thomas was appointed by his father. Reagan did appoint Antonin Scalia, but he also appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, an unbending pragmatist who postponed the conservative revolution in constitutional law for a generation.

But the biggest fairy tale about Reagan is the most central one: about taxes and spending….

When Reagan took office in 1981, federal receipts (taxes) were $517 billion and outlays (spending) were $591 billion, for a deficit of $74 billion. When he left office in 1989, taxes were $999 billion and spending was $1.14 trillion, for a deficit of $141 billion. As a share of the economy, Reagan did cut taxes, from 19.6% to 18.4%, and he cut spending from 22.2% to 21.2%, increasing the deficit from 2.6% to 2.8%. The deficit went as high as an incredible 5% of GDP during his term. As a result, the national debt soared by almost two-thirds. You can fiddle with these numbers -- assuming it takes a year or two for a president's policies to take effect, or taking defense costs out -- and the basic result is the same or worse. Whatever, these numbers hardly constitute a "revolution."

McCain's stagy self-flagellation, on behalf of all Republicans, for betraying the Reagan revolution when they controlled Congress and the White House is entirely misplaced. George W. Bush and the GOP Congress did precisely what Reagan did: They cut taxes, mainly on the well-to-do, but they barely touched spending.

If the GOP is looking around for an icon to worship, it might consider Bill Clinton. He cut spending from 21.4% of GDP to 18.5% -- three times as much as Reagan. True, he raised taxes from 17.6% to 19.8%, but that's still a smaller chunk than when Reagan left office. And he left us with an annual surplus that threatened to eliminate the national debt. What's more, I think he's available.

You can read the entire piece here.

Will the next President be saddled with the campaign legacy of denigrating Islam and Muslims?

Following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the governments of the United States and Canada, ordered the internment of citizens of Japanese ancestry at relocation centers in remote parts of the two countries. At the time there was panic about the loyalty of these people and concern that they may serve as some sort of fifth column. These were feelings shared by many but not all at the time. However since then, it has become almost universally accepted that the internment was a shameful and unjustified over-reaction.

Following the September 11th attacks nothing as extreme as internment took place but there has been no shortage of anti-Muslim rhetoric by some Americans that serves only legitimizing bigotry. Unfortuately, we have not reached the point when this kind of talk is universally accepted as shameful. Until then, we can expect it to be especially loud during campaign years.

Juan Cole has these observations in Salon:

Back when the GOP presidential field was still flush with tough-talking right-wingers, no one was more outrageous in targeting Muslims than Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who suggested that Muslim terrorists inside America were plotting the imminent detonation of an atomic bomb on U.S. soil. How to prevent this Tom Clancy scenario? "If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," Tancredo declared. "Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do."

That sort of wild-eyed bigotry only fuels the cycle of mistrust and vengeance. One can only imagine how much more difficulty Tancredo generated for U.S. diplomats attempting to explain to America's Muslim allies why a presidential candidate was talking about nuking Islam's holiest cities, the larger with a population nearly that of Houston.

But the failure of Islamophobia as a campaign strategy is no better illustrated than by the spectacular flame-out of Rudy Giuliani. Throughout his campaign (deep-sixed after his dismal showing in Tuesday's Florida primary), the former New York mayor evoked the Sept. 11 attacks at an absurd rate. Giuliani and his advisors appeared to revel in demonizing Muslims. They also reveled in their own ignorance -- never learning the difference between "Islamic" and "Muslim."

"Islamic" has to do with the religion founded by the prophet Mohammed. We speak of Islamic ethics or Islamic art, as things that derive from the religion. "Muslim," on the contrary, describes the believer. It would be perfectly all right to talk about Muslim terrorists, but calling them Islamic terrorists or Islamic fascists implies that the religion of Islam is somehow essentially connected to those extremist movements.

Giuliani complained that during their debates, Democratic rivals "never mentioned the word 'Islamic terrorist,' 'Islamic extremist,' 'Islamic fascist,' 'terrorist,' whatever combination of those words you want to use, [the] words never came up." He added, "I can't imagine who you insult if you say 'Islamic terrorist.' You don't insult anyone who is Islamic who isn't a terrorist."

But people are not "Islamic," they are Muslim. And one most certainly does insult Muslims by tying their religion to movements such as terrorism or fascism. Muslims perceive a double standard in this regard: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols would never be called "Christian terrorists" even though they were in close contact with the Christian Identity Movement. No one would speak of Christofascism or Judeofascism as the Republican candidates speak of Islamofascism. Muslims point out that persons of Christian heritage invented fascism, not Muslims, and deny that Muslim movements have any link to the mass politics of the 1930s in Europe.

Giuliani's pledge to take the United States on an offensive against Islamic fascism, which he also said would be a long-term battle, failed to excite the imagination of voters. It may well have alarmed them in a way different from what Giuliani intended: If, by Giuliani's logic, the United States is only on the "defensive" now, with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, what would being on the offensive look like? Would Giuliani have started four wars? Interestingly, Giuliani did especially poorly in Florida among retired and active-duty military personnel.

*****
Current GOP front-runner John McCain has been prone to hyperbole and has let some bigoted statements escape his lips as well. He has said that the threat from Islamic extremism is greater than the one presented by the Soviet Union. Recently, McCain proclaimed, "I'm not interested in trading with al-Qaida. All they want to trade is burqas... " The senator seemed to be relating the Muslim custom of veiling to terrorism. The Detroit Free Press, whose city has one of the largest Muslim populations, reported on Jan. 12 that McCain's remarks were hurtful to American Muslims. "Local Muslims say that criticizing al-Qaida is legitimate, but wonder why he would make a snide remark about a dress? The remark was especially bothersome, some said, considering that McCain's adopted daughter, Bridget McCain, is from one of the biggest Muslim countries, Bangladesh." One would think that raising a daughter from the Muslim world in the United States today would be difficult enough, even without the adoptive father's denigrating the customs of the women from that culture.

On another occasion, asked whether a Muslim candidate for president would be acceptable, McCain replied, "I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles ... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith. But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president. I don't say that we would rule out under any circumstances someone of a different faith. I just would -- I just feel that that's an important part of our qualifications to lead."

But according to Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Secularists and Jews joined American Muslims in condemning McCain's assertion that the United States was founded on Christian principles, and that Christian faith could be a key determinate for taking the Oval Office.

McCain's misconceptions about Muslims and perceived hostility toward them predates his 2008 presidential campaign. In 2005, he said on "The Charlie Rose Show" that a Muslim had killed the Indian political and spiritual figure Mahatma Gandhi. In fact, the assassin belonged to a radical Hindu organization, the RSS.

***
The candidates who played to fears of "Islamic fascism" the most -- Tancredo, Huckabee and Giuliani -- failed to light any fire under partisans in the party, and they have now faded from the scene. But the campaign has already left behind a bitter legacy of sloganeering against a single religious and ethnic community. The Republicans have repeatedly asserted that Islam has been perverted by radicals; their rhetoric effectively reduced American Muslims to second-class citizens and branded them as suspicious. Perhaps most worrisome of all: If any of the remaining candidates does win the presidency, he is going to have to cultivate close relations with Middle Eastern regimes to even begin resolving the mess in that region. And that president will have to do so saddled from the start with a legacy of denigrating Islam and Muslims.

You can read the entire article here.