By Christopher Parker, UW assistant professor of political science

Obama’s speech in March about race relations demonstrates genuine patriotism.

The senator used Rev. Wright’s comments to highlight African Americans' continuing struggle for the American dream. He discussed slavery, how through segregation and discrimination it ultimately foreclosed on the chances of African Americans. In fact, all blacks have ever wanted is for America to honor its values. Even during World War II, when Jim Crow was vigorously enforced in the South, black southerners were fiercely allegiant to American values (if not practices).

Obama said that even among members of the black middle class, who managed to escape the hopelessness of the inner city, race continues to shape world views, likely through everyday slights in the workplace and other places such as restaurants. Blacks, understandably, remain angry at the persistence of racism.

Obama then turned to class and the resentment harbored by working-class whites who remain angry at blacks’ perceived advantages. For whites, it’s a zero-sum game in which black progress comes at their expense.

In short, Obama suggested, blacks resent whites for continuing racism, and working-class whites resent blacks because they perceive themselves unfairly disadvantaged by programs designed to close the racial economic divide.

True patriots rail against oppression and corruption. They are committed to the common good, not the welfare of a few. In this light, Obama’s speech must be considered patriotic. He addressed anger and resentment of both blacks and working-class whites by emphasizing the promise of America.

Ultimately, Obama’s speech was about working to perfect a union by drawing upon the ideals on which the union was founded. What’s not patriotic about that?

"Obama's Patriotism: Towards a More Perfect Union," by Christopher Parker, UW assistant professor of political science, posted Thursday, April 10, 2008, to blogs.uwnews.org. UW news blogs is a service of uwnews.org, the University of Washington Office of News and Information.

By Kathy Gill, UW senior lecturer in the Master of Communication in Digital Media Program

Most political action committees represent special interests: business, labor or issue/ideology. But a growing number are run by U.S. senators and representatives.

In the 2006 election cycle, 291 leadership PACs contributed $42 million to incumbents and challengers running for Congress. In the 1998 cycle, there were only 120 leadership PACs contributing $11 million. A four-fold increase in eight years -- yet the number of traditional PACs peaked in 1988.

In the 2006 election cycle, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) raised, and spent, almost $8 million but contributed a mere $356,000 (5% of expenses) to other candidates. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) raised $4.4 million, spent $3.7 million and contributed $595,000 (16% of expenses) to other candidates. Finally, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) raised $2.9 million, spent $3 million and contributed $297,000 (10% of expenses) to other candidates. Her PAC ended the cycle with only $31,000 on hand (like McCain, at $33,000, but not like Obama, who ended with $678,000).

That's about $15 million raised (ostensibly) to help get your party elected or re-elected to Congress. It's almost enough to have given $5,000 (the limit per campaign cycle) to every congressional (Senate and House) race. But that's not how the money seems to be spent.

According to a 2006 report in the Washington Post, one of the reasons leadership PACs are controversial is that they are so unregulated: for example, the "personal use" prohibition that applies to campaign committees is absent. Does that explain all the travel expenses in McCain's and Obama's PAC statements?

Under Federal Election Commission rules, a leadership PAC is known as a "nonconnected PAC" -- after all, it's not connected with an organization; it's associated with an elected official. The only restriction on spending is that the senator or representative cannot use the funds to directly support his or her personal campaign. Indirect support through polling or consulting? Sure.

But as we can see from looking at the campaign contribution to expenditure ratios for the three presidential candidates, not a lot of money is going to other campaign funds. It's going into travel (charters and limos), polling, direct mail, other political consultants.

PACs have been around since 1944. The FEC limits how much they can contribute per candidate per election cycle ($5,000) and how much an individual can contribute to the PAC per election cycle ($5,000).

And although PACs symbolize the problem with money and politics to many people, a 2007 report by the Congressional Quarterly noted that the PAC issue has become secondary to concerns over special interest monies through other channels (pdf). The number of PACs peaked in 1988 at 4,268. However, in 2004, incumbent members of the House received 41% of their campaign contributions from PACs, suggesting that they still have influence. In presidential elections, however, they are inconsequential.

"Should Senators Operate PACs," by UW Senior Lecturer Kathy Gill, posted Thusrsday, April 3, to blogs.uwnews.org. UW news blogs is a service of uwnews.org, the University of Washington Office of News and Information.

 by David Domke, professor of communication and head of journalism

Editor's note: David Domke,a UW communication professor and head of journalism, is teaching "Online Journalism and Politics" to a group of undergraduates. Read below about their experiences, and check out their work at http://seattlepoliticore.org

Journalists love to write about the rise and fall of politicians in America. The scribes watch candidates get built up, then chronicle them getting torn down. And, as often as not, journalists don’t just write these storylines — they contribute to them and cement them as well.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations today are in descent mode — or at least they seem to be so — and news media post-mortems for her campaign are getting churned out faster than newspaper copies. It was Bill’s fault. It was the lack of planning for a post-Super Tuesday campaign. It was poor allocation of campaign funds. Hillary was too wonky, not enough Bubba. The campaign couldn’t match the grass-roots prowess of Obama’s organization.

My students saw some of these elements up close and personal.

SeattlePoliticore.org
Since early January, a team of 16 journalism students at the University of Washington have been covering the 2008 presidential campaign. We’ve gone new media, adopting a mode of blogging that combines traditional reporting, insights from other news outlets, and first-person commentary. It’s somewhere between the voice of the Seattle Times’ David Postman and the rancor of the blogosphere: part journalism, part pundit, part political-newbies. Altogether, we have presented the campaign through youthful eyes. I’m the students’ prof and head of journalism at the UW.

Our forum has been http://www.seattlepoliticore.org, and our material has gotten play at huffingtonpost, the Seattle Times, the Idaho Statesman, and a number of blogs for which my students write. We’ve covered Democratic Party caucuses in Idaho — the state’s Republicans don’t use this method to select delegates — and the caucuses and primaries of both parties around King County, including Seattle proper and the Eastside. Later this week we head to Texas for our grand finale: coverage of the March 4 primary and caucuses (yes, Texas has both too, challenging Washington’s delegate process for most-screwed-up status). It just might be the last big contest for all of the campaigns.

It’s been a powerful experience, both as students and citizens.

We spent two hours stuck at Snoqualmie Pass working via cell phones and wireless network cards, and then sped to Couer d’ Alene to see Northern Idahoans brave ice and freezing weather to give Barack Obama 80 percent of their caucus votes. We were barred from entering the Republican caucus in the 37^th Legislative District in Rainier Beach — until the Seattle City Library and a sheriff’s deputy intervened — and scored an on-camera interview with governor Christine Gregoire at a Democratic caucus in Magnolia. We saw Mercer Island and Sammamish Dems and Repubs conduct themselves with calm and citizen pride.

And along the way we learned some important things about the Obama and Clinton campaigns. We didn’t set out to learn these pieces — but the campaigns taught us loud and clear.

The Worth of Youth
In our coverage of the Idaho and Washington state caucuses, there emerged a lean toward Obama in my students’ writing about the Democratic contest. This pro-Obama frame occurred for three reasons:

• because some of the students have serious political crushes on him, even though they’ve tried to keep all this in check. He inspires them — and I haven’t sought to squelch this, being a prof interested in helping students become citizens.
• because the class is set up as a blogging class, in which politics meets alternative journalism. So their opinion shines through in places, and this was fine as long as they didn’t cross over into fan mail.
• because the Obama campaign treated us like pros — they called us back within minutes, set up interviews, got us press passes, went out of their way to make the campaign accessible. The Clinton campaign, in contrast, didn’t return a single phone call, didn’t provide press access, and did virtually nothing to encourage our coverage. It was either arrogance or disorganization on the Clinton campaign’s part.

Here’s one example: Jeff Giertz, the Obama team’s on-the-ground point person for the press, answered my phone call when I called to ask about press access to the Obama event on February 8 at Key Arena. He said he’d check on getting passes for my students. I figured I’d wait and see if he actually did.  Within 5 minutes he emailed me back saying it was a go, and he could provide four press passes for my students.  I was impressed.  Clearly he had a vested interest in getting college students into the press area — and he did what a campaign person should do: he treated us well and welcomed us to his candidate. He told me to call him anytime.

So I did.

Lots of my students wanted to cover this event, so I called Giertz back 6 hours later and asked for four more passes.  He said yes. The next day when some of my students arrived at Key Arena after the local police had locked the doors and weren’t allowing anyone in — including reporters from local TV and radio outlets — the students dialed up Giertz and he personally came and vouched for them. He followed up the day after the event with an email checking in on how I thought things went. I don’t for a moment think he did all this just to be a nice guy; he had motives.  Of course. 

Still, it’s telling that I made the exact same pitch about “access to college students” to the Clinton campaign, and they didn’t do anything to facilitate our coverage.  Here’s the voice of one of my students, Jennifer Ware:

I noticed a difference between Obama and Clinton when I first started calling their campaigns in the week before the caucuses. At that point Washington state seemed like an afterthought for the Clinton campaign. Hillary wasn’t anywhere to be found in Seattle, but Obama had a campaign office in the heart of Pioneer Square. He had for months, and everyone there seemed more than happy to help.

When I called the Clinton campaign to ask for a contact at their Washington state campaign office, one staffer tried to tell me that Washington was where their campaign headquarters is. “Yes” she said, “Washington, it’s right next to Virginia.”

Obama had the foresight to know he might need Washington state, whereas Clinton apparently never thought she’d have to reach this far. And a tiny part of me felt excluded.

Every single person I’ve dealt with from the Obama campaign was upbeat, positive and helpful. Even when the press couldn’t initially get into the venue on Friday for Obama’s speech, and a reporter from the Seattle Times was yelling at one of the volunteers, she handled it with poise and kindness. It was almost so good it looked staged, but she was real. She said, “I’m just a volunteer from Shoreline, I’ve never done this before, please bear with me.” Even as Obama volunteers managed mobs of people at Key Arena, they did it with purpose, not burden.

And I think it’s because they feel part of a movement.

John McCain spoke in Seattle [the same day] to about 500 people at the Westin Hotel’s conference room. Clinton spoke to a gathering of 5000 at a waterfront pier [on February 7]. Obama spoke at Key Arena, home to the Seattle Supersonics, it seats 18,000 and it wasn’t nearly big enough. People were sitting on the stairs, in the aisles. Seasoned reporters were smiling and nodding softly as he spoke. Some people had tears in their eyes when he came on stage. There’s all kinds of spin out there, but you simply can’t spin those numbers. Or the stark contrast to the others in the race.

When my students had trouble reaching the Clinton campaign in the run-up to the caucuses, I made a call to her national office. I figured that maybe they’d respond to a UW professor better than a student — which would be an error on their part, but still one that we might use to help our coverage.  I told them we were having trouble reaching people — anyone — on the ground in WA state with the Clinton campaign, and I implored them to make sure my request on behalf of my students for press access to Clinton’s event in Seattle received a response.  They assured me I’d hear from them. I emphasized my point a second time.  They kindly repeated that I would certainly hear from people on the ground here.

I’m still waiting for that call.

The Obama and Clinton campaigns weren’t the only ones to come to town. On the Republican Party side, Ron Paul held a rally on the UW campus. Janet Huckabee held a rally at Northwest College and her campaign team reached out to my students covering her husband’s candidacy — returning calls and making sure they had press access. McCain’s campaign aides went out of their way to let my students know about his press event at the Westin, and to get them in. For those scoring at home, five presidential campaigns came to town — and four reached out to my students, treating them like what they are: journalists and citizens.

It seems that the take-home point here is this: the Clinton campaign has made the case that Obama is nothing but rhetoric; he’s supposedly all words, while she’s all action. Our experiences showed us that their campaigns — at least in Seattle — were exactly the opposite. In their treatment of my students, Clinton’s campaign was all talk, while Obama’s was all walk.

It suggests to me that the Obama campaign’s appeal to younger people is not just because of Obama himself. It’s a campaign that treats young people like full adults. As a college prof, I’ve got to give them props. They got my attention — and my students, and the many young people who have been reading our website. And across Washington state, Obama crushed Clinton, defeating her in every county in the state. It’s been a pattern repeated in every contest since.

By David Domke, UW professor of communication and head of Journalism

In winning contests in 13 states on Super Tuesday, Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama displayed his ability to draw voters from all corners of America. Most notably, perhaps, he beat primary competitor Hillary Clinton in a large number of states that have tilted Republican in recent decades.

Such successes are intriguing for any Democratic candidate running for president. For an African-American man virtually unknown just a few years ago, there can be only one explanation: God must be involved.

In the politics, that is.

Transcending the chasm of race is difficult in the United States. For politicians in America, an effective way to do so is by accentuating religious faith. More than 90% of U.S. adults consistently say they believe in God or a universal spirit — prompting George Gallup Jr. to remark that it’s not even worth polling the matter. As a result, emphasizing that one is a “person of faith” has the ability to connect more Americans than any other campaign talking point.

This has become particularly so in recent decades. Analysis of more than 15,000 public communications by U.S. political leaders from Franklin Roosevelt’s election in 1932 — the origin of what scholars call the “modern presidency” — through the first six years of George W. Bush’s administration shows an astonishing increase in religious rhetoric beginning in 1980. That year Ronald Reagan ran a campaign shot through with religious themes and calculated outreach to newly mobilized evangelicals. The approach was so successful that subsequent presidents and presidential hopefuls have followed suit. My colleague Kevin Coe and I call this the God strategy.

This approach reaps rewards for any candidate, but for an African American politician it is essential. Faith provides a deeply felt connection that allows — perhaps even compels — many white voters to see a minority candidate as fully human. Yes, history shows that faith prompts some to be more prejudiced; but in the 21st century, far more draw from their sacred texts and traditions the message that God is colorblind.

As Americans struggle to overcome racial biases, invocations of faith by a black candidate go a long way towards appealing to the better angels of all Americans’ nature.

Obama  understands the political value of trumpeting a mainstream Christian faith — and the danger of having those beliefs questioned. His campaign reacted strongly to two e-mail whisper campaigns, one that accused him of being a Muslim and another that accused his church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, of being anti-white.

Obama turned both into opportunities, taking to the airwaves to discuss his faith and putting out a statement describing himself as a “committed Christian.” On Saturday in red-state Boise, before an audience of 14,000 — equivalent to one-tenth of all registered voters in the state — Obama directly addressed the anti-Muslim campaign and declared, “I've been going to the same church for 20 years, praising Jesus.”

All of this has helped Obama reach across demographic and ideological lines to attract voters. Consider that he was the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Idaho since Harry Truman — an approach that paid off when he won 80% of the state’s caucus delegates, the largest single victory for any presidential candidate in the 2008 campaign.

To understand just how valuable Obama’s emphasis on faith is, consider an event Obama attended in December 2006 — an AIDS summit meeting of key religious leaders held at Saddleback Church in Southern California, home of prominent evangelical Rick Warren.

There, in front of an audience consisting primarily of white conservatives, Obama was gently chided by Republican Senator Sam Brownback — a favorite among Christian conservatives — for moving in on his territory. “Welcome to my house,” Brownback said.

When it was his turn, Obama took the podium and played his trump card. “This is my house too,” he said. “This is God’s house.” The audience gave Obama a standing ovation, accompanied by enthusiastic shouts of “Amen.” Two months later, the junior senator from Illinois announced he was running for president, opening his kickoff speech with these words: “Giving all praise and honor to God for bringing us together here today.”

As we move beyond Super Tuesday and into the rest of the primary season, Obama’s willingness to emphasize his Christian faith might well be his saving grace.

By Bryan Jones , UW professor of political science

Many (including me) have marveled at the support Obama draws from professed liberals, given his more conservative domestic policies in comparison to any of the other Democratic contenders, even those who have withdrawn.

One hypothesis is that they are generally better off and don’t feel the rising inequality that stalks America today. Another is that they applaud his staunch anti-Iraq record, but his stated position is more conservative than either Edwards or Richardson. Or perhaps they are not supporting on the issues.

In any case, Obama’s message of "one America" contrasts strongly with Edward’s "two Americas." It is of course possible that Obama is professing this notion for electoral reasons, but then that would make him a politician, wouldn’t it?

Katherine Sebelius, the governor of Kansas who just endorsed Obama, gave the Democrats' response to the State of the Union speech on Monday. Low key for sure, but far more confrontational in content than Obama, yet not in tone. While Obama touts the "one America'" Sebelius talked of a "new American majority"—clearly a progressive one, but one not based in the more confrontational rhetoric of Edwards.

Obama might study that speech in detail for a somewhat new direction in what I find a tired old reformist pitch in American politics.

Obama links his rhetoric to JFK, but I think that is the wrong link. The most successful insurgent campaign in the Democratic party in modern times was not John in 1960 (he was pure establishment) but Bobby in 1968. He excited the young, spoke eloquently of racial injustice, yet was enormously popular with working-class Americans. “Clean Gene” McCarthy was the classic reformer, but Bobby had working class appeal. Are there lessons for Barak here?

By Matt A. Barreto, UW assistant professor of political science
Gary Segura, UW professor of political science

An increasingly important narrative in the Democratic primary campaign has focused on the heavy preference for Hillary Clinton among Hispanics. This preference, the story goes, reflects a deep-seated and important social and political tension between Latinos and African-Americans. It's evidenced not just in Latino support for the Clinton candidacy but in a generalized aversion to African-American politicians among Latinos across the political landscape.

This narrative has been helped along by Clinton’s Hispanic pollster, echoed by progressive black authors angered by the increasingly racialized tone of the Democratic contest, and embraced whole-heartedly by conservative pundits in gleeful editorials commenting at length about a fractured Democratic coalition and new prospects for the GOP in November.

From a political science perspective, the principal problem with the central elements of this narrative is that there is little or no evidence for any of it. It is incorrect to equate Latino support for Hillary Clinton in 2008 with anti-Obama or anti-black voting patterns. In multiple national surveys in which we have participated, and in our own polling among Latinos in Nevada and California, we find that the Clinton advantage is driven primarily by her eight years as first lady and seven years as Senator from New York.

By contrast, in April of last year, a survey of 1,000 Latino voters nationwide found that 35% said they had no opinion of Senator Barack Obama in contrast to 8 percent of those asked their opinion of Clinton. So while Obama has become well known in a relatively short time among political observers, he did not rise to national prominence among Latinos until this campaign.

This name-recognition advantage for Clinton has been enhanced by a strong and aggressive advertising and outreach effort by her campaign and a string of high-profile endorsements. She has hired an independent Latino pollster and aired significantly more Spanish language radio and television ads.

In contrast, the Obama campaign’s outreach to Hispanics has been anemic and particularly ineffective. Even Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, a prominent Latino supporter of Obama, has criticized him for failing to reach Latinos. In short, there are many reasons why Hillary Clinton enjoys a large advantage among Latino voters, none of which has anything to do with racism.

The claim, then, that her support is somehow evidence of Latino unwillingness to support African-American candidates is wrong on its face, a point one of us made on CNN immediately after the Congressional Black Caucus Debate. Latino voters have demonstrated strong support for African American candidates in the past, across a variety of circumstances. Harold Washington, David Dinkins, Wellington Webb, and Ron Kirk were all elected as mayors of major American cities with Latino vote shares from 70 to 80 percent. In the U.S. Congress, eight African American members of the U.S. House represent districts with more than 25% Latino population, including Charles Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of Los Angeles, whose districts are actually majority-Latino.

Even Obama himself has a strong record of Latino votes. In 2000, when Obama challenged incumbent Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary for First Congressional district in Illinois, he won more Latino votes than African American ones. In 2004, when he ran for the U.S. Senate Democratic nomination in Illinois, Obama received more Latino votes than Latino candidate Gerry Chico. Claims that Latinos will not vote for Barack Obama, or black candidates are clearly false.

This is not to say there aren’t moments of political rivalry between African-Americans and Latinos. They have much in common, including educational disparities and economic disadvantages. Though those commonalities should often result in political coalition, there will inevitably be moments, circumstances, and candidacies that pull the groups in different directions. This is the very definition of democracy and not at all surprising. The question is whether there is anything fundamentally preventing coalition of these two groups behind the eventual Democratic nominee. There is not.

In 1973, when Tom Bradley was elected mayor of Los Angeles, he lost among Latinos, and the punditry then, as now, speculated that Latinos would not vote for a black candidate. But Bradley’s political skills and the inherent shared interests of Latino voters and the Bradley coalition reversed this trend. By 1982, when Bradley ran for governor of California, he won an estimated 70-80% of the Latino vote.

The election of 2008 looks to be a good year for Democrats among Latinos. The failure of immigration reform and the nativist grandstanding of the GOP and its primary candidates, including the once-moderate John McCain, seem certain to drive the Democratic share of the Latino vote back towards 70%. The wealth of empirical research, not speculation, suggests this will be true whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Dr. Matt A. Barreto and Dr. Gary M. Segura are professors of political science at the University of Washington, Seattle. They are leading experts on Latino public opinion and voting patterns and have twice published their research in the American Political Science Review, the leading academic journal in political science.