Obama supporters on the Indiana University campus were able to lure students away from a Bill Clinton speech with tickets to a Dave Matthews concert. I’m not sure I can be associated with this campaign any more. Are we positive that this wasn’t a double-cross by the Young Republicans to discredit Obama in the black community? OR, they were moles from Kentucky trying to discredit the Hoosiers. I’ll reserve judgment. But let me say right now — Jack Johnson would be a deal-breaker.

Thanks to the intrepid sleuthing of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, today the AP reported that Barack Obama is distantly related to the Bushes, the Cheneys, and Robert E Lee, mostly via people that died shortly after England begat the colonies. [See family tree, right.]

Hilary Clinton, whose family functions are apparently more fun, counts Madonna, Camilla Parker-Bowles, and Jack Kerouac among her kin.

Just wanted to pass on to the good bikers of Providence that a friend of mine from Boston is organizing a two day cycling event and fundraiser in support of Barack Obama. The two day tour begins in Cambridge on Friday, April 4, at 10:00am and ends in Provincetown on Sunday, April 6, at 1:00pm. (more…)

Huffington Post: “Obama’s February total was his second fundraising record. He raised $36 million in January, more than any other presidential candidate who has ever been in a contested primary.” ( More)

Young people. And jack else. (Except for Providence, I mean. And Fox Point in particular. Woot, woot!)

When I went to the SEIU convention back in September, I was impressed by the fact that, for the first time as far as I’d seen, Obama seemed angry. He was finessing a really fine line between impassioned and entitled, assured and cocky. Right on that divide.

In particular, he went off on a catty riff: “Oh — SEIU. You guys wear purple or something? I heard about you…” to highlight the fact that he’d actually walked the picket lines, for years and years, while Edwards was new to them even though he’d become the “labor candidate.”

For the first time, I thought he actually had a shot. Tonight I’m a little bit hopeful, in that he hit that note again. (more…)

On my way to work this morning I noticed many campaign banners hanging on highway overpasses, but none was more striking than the one proudly displayed over 95S in the the North End of Providence. “Vote Black Power–It’s Time,” read the message on what, ironically, appeared to be a white sheet. At first I thought, well, there’s a strong statement. On momentary reflection, however, I began to think that in this primary season’s atmosphere of skewed racial politics, it was probably some shady Hillary operative, or at least some Hillary supporter gone way off the reservation, who put this up in order to scare white voters. I grew up in North Providence–not known as a bastion of racial enlightenment–and in my head I could hear many an NP voter seeing that and saying, “See, now why does he have to make it a black thing? That’s why I’m nervous about voting for him.” Brash display of black solidarity, or more passive-aggressive Clintonian chicanery? Sadly, we may never know for sure.

I’m feeling pretty pooped out on politics right now, but if you’re not, there’s some big stuff going on:

• Ted Kennedy, in support of Barack Obama, at URI at 12:30 today. (Remember to ask him why he’s trying to kill Cape Wind.)
• The Guild Follies, tonight at 7pm
• Barack Obama, on Saturday at noon, at RIC. (Yes, on the very same stage Hillary spoke from last week…)

Here’s my semi-annual posting about the Green Party and instant run-off voting and such.

First off, there’s a pretty solid chance that the Green Party nomination will go to somebody other than Ralph Nader, who just announced his fourth consecutive run for the presidency. In particular, it could go to (twice-) former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. She might be a much more energetic and enticing candidate for many than a tired Ralph.

In 2004, back when I was a Green, a number of us (particularly Greens who actually held elective office) pushed back against Nader, and succeeded in denying him the party’s endorsement. (With which would’ve come dozens of ballot lines, including many in swing states.) (more…)

Sir, you offend me!  Barking buffoon Buffenbarger tries to describe Daily Dose staffers and misses by a mile.

This is big, and will move a lot of votes in RI:

Two labor sources tell Politico that the giant Service Employees International Union, which has been neutral through the primary, is on the verge of throwing its support to Sen. Barack Obama.

“It’s done,” said one person close to the union.

SEIU spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller confirmed that union leaders are set to discuss a potential endorsement today.

“Our board is going to be talking this evening,” she said. “This will be a topic of their conversation.”

Following up on the big news that Linc is supporting Obama, Matt’s posted a list of 50+ other prominent endorsers.

Is anyone else offended that Hillary thinks this can win over the young people demographic? Here’s my advice, H-bomb: if famous people aren’t making videos in your honor that bring people to tears and spur them to vote for you, you should probably keep relying on your experience instead of trying to fake being cool.

TPM has the scoop:

A prominent civil rights leader has told the Democratic National Committee that refusing to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan would disenfranchise both states’ minority communities. In a Feb. 8 letter to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, NAACP chairman Julian Bond expressed “great concern at the prospect that million of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted.” Refusing to seat the states’ delegations could remind voters of the “sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries,” he said.

Bradley Portnoy, a junior at Brown and Michigan native, says, “As a nominal resident of Michigan who actually voted in the election and supports Obama, I would at this point feel *more* disenfranchised if the delegates were seated.”

David Sirota has a dead-on deconstruction of the awkward class dynamic that’s evolved on the Democratic side of the presidential race:

And so, as Marable says, Obama’s pitch includes “no mention of the class struggle or class conflict.” It is “hope” instead of an economic case, bromide instead of critique. The result is an oxymoronic dynamic.

Obama, the person who fought blue-collar joblessness in the shadows of shuttered factories, is winning wealthy enclaves. But Clinton, the person whose globalization policies helped shutter those factories, is winning blue-collar strongholds.

Obama, who was schooled by the same organizing networks as Cesar Chavez, is being endorsed by hedge fund managers. But Clinton, business’s favorite, is being endorsed by the United Farm Workers-the union that Chavez created.

Obama, the candidate from Chicago’s impoverished South Side, is finding support on Connecticut’s gilded south coast. But Hillary Clinton, the candidate representing Big Money, is finding support from those with relatively little money.

As the campaign heads to the struggling Rust Belt under banners promising “change,” this bizarre class war may end up guaranteeing no real transformation at all.

My deep ‘hope’ is that Obama’s cautious rhetoric is well calculated, and not representative of how he’d govern. And I do think that his record in Illinois hints at this…

Guess this means my childhood friend will have to wait another four years for his dream ticket of Hogan-Powell to run for president:

In a move that’s sure to provide a boost to Obama’s fortunes among time-travelling high school kids from the early 1980s, Hulk Hogan - professional wrestler and reality teevee divorcee - has backed the Illinois Senator on the the Jimmy Kimmel show. Hogan, in picking Obama, cited something about “cards” and how Obama doesn’t judge people based upon “the way people dress,” which makes sense, considering Hogan offered his support whilst clad in a shimmery piece of yellow Saran Wrap that looked like it was stolen off the set of Miami Vice.

I posted last week about the possibility of candidates teaming up to beat Clinton in Iowa.

So this statement by Edwards (now a few weeks old) caught my eye today:

“The differences between Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) and myself are much more dramatic than the differences between Sen. Obama and myself,” Edwards told reporters after receiving the endorsement of the progressive group Caucus for Priorities, which seeks a reallocation of defense dollars into social programs.

“Down the line,” Edwards said, on issues such as “What we would do in Iraq? What we should be doing about Iran. What we should be doing about corrupting influences in Washington and a broken system, (there are) really big differences between Sen. Clinton and myself.”

I don’t read too much into it — Perhaps the statement was just a condition of the endorsement, or maybe Edwards is trying to steal some of Obama’s thunder. But it gives me hope that they’re trying to figure out some way to work together.