Obama roundup

By Jennifer J. Foster

There’s news from the Barack Obama camp.

First, regarding those dime-a-dozen rumors you’ve been reading on your e-mail for months (you know the ones: he is secretly a Muslim, he doesn’t say the Pledge of Allegiance, he refuses to wear a flag pin, he promises to “stand with the Muslims,“ etc.) (all of which, by the way, ARE FALSE), the presumptive Democratic nominee rolled out a new effort to take them head on: What was the “Truth Squad” portion of his web site is now FightTheSmears.com. The idea is to cut off the oxygen to these things as they are taking off on the Internet. (Try it: Keep an eye on your e-mail over the next week, maybe two, and fact-check the next Obama rumor that comes your way. Just as caveat emptor is the going warning for voters, if you have e-mail, you would be well served to remember what your mother told you: If it sounds too good/strange/hard to believe to be true, it probably is. Check your rumor against the facts and find out.) Obama knows that for each rumor that has already made the rounds, two or three more will pop up in its place during the general election campaign. But all is not well with the new site. Salon.com’s Farhad Manjoo considers “What’s Wrong” with the new site in his column today.

Secondly, Obama used Father’s Day to deliver a Bill Cosby-like speech calling absent black fathers to task. Two of my favorite parts:

Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more after-school programs for our children. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.

But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child — it’s the courage to raise one ...

It’s up to us — as fathers and parents — to instill this ethic of excellence in our children. It’s up to us to say to our daughters, don’t ever let images on TV tell you what you are worth, because I expect you to dream without limit and reach for those goals. It’s up to us to tell our sons, those songs on the radio may glorify violence, but in my house we give glory to achievement, self-respect and hard work. It’s up to us to set these high expectations. And that means meeting those expectations ourselves. That means setting examples of excellence in our own lives.

Read the transcript of the speech here.

Thirdly, the Obama campaign announced today that he has tapped Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, to serve as chief of staff to his eventual vice presidential nominee.

This is strange for any number of reasons. Politicos including David Gergen are calling it a dumb move on Obama’s part, because it alienates Clinton and her supporters who hold Solis Doyle responsible for much of the mismanagement of Clinton’s campaign through the January and February period (Clinton dumped Solis Doyle in February after a streak of caucus wins by Obama). Others believe that it is Obama’s clearest signal yet that he has no intention of choosing Clinton as his VP, since Clinton and Solis Doyle reportedly have not spoken since the two parted company several months ago.

Obama’s folks maintain that the appointment wasn’t meant to send any signals, so to speak, about Obama’s VP prospects. And as the LA Times’ Don Frederick notes, “the adjustment period for (Clinton and Solis Doyle) presumably would be about a nanosecond” because of their long history together. But knowing that Solis Doyle has longtime connections with Obama senior adviser David Axelrod, consider this: Perhaps Obama picked Solis Doyle to test Clinton. This could be his way of signaling to Clinton that, while he’s prepared to make nice to unite the party, he has no intention of backing off what he thinks is the right thing to do just because she might be uncomfortable with it. Perhaps Obama is taking Clinton and her wherewithal for a test drive, to see how she really would do as No. 2.

Finally, Obama picked up Al Gore’s endorsement tonight in Detroit. The former vice president offered his support in a very un-lockbox-y speech that involved a strange mix of attempts at sardonic and self-deprecating humor. Gore delivered an Obama-type speech—heavy on the crowd interaction—in an Obama-type atmosphere—a large venue with a raucous crowd. Gore called Obama “clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.”

This is a weird endorsement, anyway, since it’s coming after the primary season has concluded. Of course Al Gore is going to endorse Barack Obama; he’s a Democrat, and Obama’s the only Democrat left in the running. As any incredibly eloquent second grader with attitude would say, “DUH.“

So why do it now? Pundits say that Gore, as a senior leader of the Democratic Party, was just trying to do his part to keep the peace within the party by keeping his endorsement powder dry. But to my way of thinking, the effect of the endorsement is really diluted when it’s withheld until there’s only one choice remaining. Obama is “clearly” the best candidate, Al? Really? Then if it’s so clear, then why are you just now calling it to our attention ... after the rest of the country has already made its choice? And let’s be honest here: Are there really any votes out there that are going to swing from John McCain to Obama solely on the strength of the Gore endorsement? Liberals and left-leaning Independents are already going with Obama. Right-leaning independents—even those whose No. 1 issue is the environment—have no real reason to desert McCain for Obama, given McCain’s record on global warming (which, by the way, has managed to be left enough to serve as an irritant to conservatives).

So, in the end, what is Gore’s endorsement worth?

Read about Gore’s plug for Obama here and here.