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

When I think of Pennsylvania, I remember the summer of 1976 and my first visit to Phildelphia: the Liberty Bell; the drive up from Washington, DC, and the confusing route around the airport into the city; tall ships in the harbor; street smells and the unparalleled taste of hot, soft Philly pretzels (with mustard!) and fresh-off-the-street Philly cheese steaks; Bookbinders restaurant, where I would learn to love oysters.

Little did I know that four years later I would be living in Philadelphia, serving as a liaison between urban Philly and rural dairy farmers, reuniting with the farming culture I thought I'd left behind when I escaped rural south Georgia.

It's hard for me to imagine what's going through the minds of voters and politicos as the eyes of the nation -- and the world -- focus on Tuesday's historic primary. This is the first time since Jimmy Carter clinched the nomination here in 1976 that the Pennsylvania primary has been meaningful. This contest is over 158 pledged delegates (55 at-large and 103 by Congressional District), but it's also about perception.

Take a look at the delegate chart: the candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, are separated by approximately 7%. The super-delegates are not bound by anything but their consciences. They can change their minds anytime -- so those numbers are very soft. Plus, almost half haven't publicly committed to either candidate.

Even more important -- and overlooked:  Pledged delegates are bound only on the first vote: If neither candidate achieves a majority of the first vote on the Democratic Convention floor, delegates are released from their original preference and allowed to vote for whomever they please. Just like super-delegates.

Now, I ask you: if you were the person in second place in a contest this close, would you be throwing in the towel? I don't think I would.

by David Bachman, UW professor of international studies

The Dalai Lama, in his simple robes, stooped shoulders, and in his discussion of peace, compassion, and healing, presents a compelling figure. As the leader of the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, and the head of the Tibetan government in exile, he also embodies a number of messages. Many of those messages were on display during his visit to Seattle and the University of Washington.

For those who have seen him in the past, and those who had never seen him in person before (me) and who have open minds, he leaves a powerful impression. He is engaging, funny, self-deprecating, energetic, and to use the overused word, charismatic. The message he repeated in many of his public appearances, sponsored by a group called Seeds of Compassion, was not surprisingly, compassion. His lectures on the subject were powerful, but in many respects, they weren’t all that different than what the “cosmopolitan” versions of many religious faiths argue for today, at least in regards to secular behavior and attitudes. In terms of content, it seemed to me that the Dalai Lama’s message was quite similar to that of the Pope’s when the latter spoke to the UN today. We are all part of one humanity, we are all hurt when others are hurt, and we hurt ourselves when we hurt others. Were we all to live and act by these beliefs, the world would undoubtedly be a better place.

"Perspectives on the Dalai Lama's visit," by David Bachman, UW professor of international studies, posted Monday, April 21, 2008, to blogs.uwnews.org. UW news blogs is a service of uwnews.org, the University of Washington Office of News and Information.

by James K. Wellman Jr., UW associate professor of American religion and chair of the comparative religion program in the Jackson School of International Studies

The visit of the Dalai Lama to Seattle has struck me as both full of innocence and naivete. Many have commented on the power of his message of compassion. They have been drawn to it primarily because it is a spiritual way and not a religion. It is a quintessential Northwestern distinction, one can be spiritual but not religious. The implication is that spirituality is good and kind, and religion is perverse and corrupt. This strikes me as innocent and naive. 

The Dalai Lama from all that I know is a very good man, compassionate and kind, but he is a distinctively religious and political figure. That is, he embodies a metaphysical tradition that is more than 2,500 years old, representing a philosophy of relating to a power that is bigger than the self and group, representing a tradition of belief, practice and ritual. In the Western academic study of religion this is a religion. As for politics, the Dalai Lama represents the interests and concerns of a people; he heads a government; he speaks about the need for autonomy for a people; he asks for China to be kind. What else is this than a political act, seeking to influence interests, protecting a people from incursion by another political power?

Religion and politics, from my research, can never be separated. They are always tangled together; think of the Christian Right in recent American politics; think of the Religious Left in the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton; think of any number of examples in various forms of political religion in the Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist worlds. Religion creates, establishes and mobilizes individuals and groups to seek influence, and it often does so with enormous power--for good and ill. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Baptist preacher who helped to move a nation to civil rights for African Americans; Bishop Desmond Tutu, an Anglican bishop, helped reconcile the nation of South Africa following apartheid. Religion, whether one likes it or not, plays a huge role in politics.

The Dalai Lama appears to be a spiritual and compassionate man, but he has importance because he has political power. The two go hand in hand. Not to see this seems to me innocent and naive. 

"Make no mistake about the Dalai Lama," by James K. Wellman, UW associate professor of American religion, chair of comparative religion program in the Jackson School of International Studies, posted Monday, April 14, 2008, to blogs.uwnews.org. UW news blogs is a service of uwnews.org, the University of Washington Office of News and Information.

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 Michael K. Honey, UW Haley Professor of Humanities

Sen. Barack Obama, in his books and in a recent speech, explains why Americans have been pitted against one another by race, and how to get beyond it. He asks us to "break out of the racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years."

He also offers ways to get beyond race to a greater degree of social and economic justice. He calls on ethnic minorities and white Americans to recognize that we all need the same things -- better health care, better schools, better jobs -- and can get them only by joining to find solutions to our common problems.

Obama calls on us to build a new movement "to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America."

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be proud. Forty years ago, he called for a multiracial coalition to end poverty, racism and war, and called it the Poor People's Campaign. King said our dire situation called for a "planetary movement" for social and economic justice. Above all, King believed in the power of love to transform the individual, and society. "Someone," he said, "must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate."

In the spring of 1968, many of us hoped that a new president and a movement would create new priorities. On April 4 in Memphis, an assassin took King's life. On June 5, another assassin killed Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. Both men had called for withdrawal from the Vietnam War and for shifting the nation's spending from military pursuits to creating jobs and ending poverty. Their deaths shattered our hopes.

Instead of moving toward reform, Americans elected Richard Nixon as president. His "secret plan" for peace consisted of seven more years of murderous military escalation. That "surge" resulted in the loss of millions of lives. Nixon began the coded racial appeals that expanded the Republican Party in the South but divided voters along racial lines. His "southern strategy" has prevailed in politics ever since.

King's dreams of a labor-civil rights coalition, a peaceful foreign policy, mitigating racism and ending poverty were destroyed. Now we stand eerily at another crossroads. Our current government's priorities are even more skewed than in 1968. We face the devastating economic and moral consequences of a potentially $3 trillion war; a massive bailout of Wall Street companies and CEOs, and a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the rich that have swelled budget deficits. Government resources for our infrastructure, education, health care and basic human needs continue to dwindle.

Will a progressive reform movement fix what ails us, or will we fall back on another conservative leader who relies on military escalation and "free market" nonsolutions to problems of human need? Will we fall prey to racial slogans and sound bites intended to confuse rather than to clarify? Or will we move America and the world in a better direction?

Sometimes, it seems we have learned little from our history or from King. On the first day of class, I ask students what King was doing when he was killed. Almost none of them know that King died in the midst of a strike for union recognition. They don't know King was one of the labor movement's strongest supporters or identify him with demands for economic justice. They know nothing about his Poor People's Campaign.

On April 3, in his last speech, King said, "I may not get there with you, but I want you to know that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land!" Yet we are doing fewer of the things that he said could take us there, and more of those things that he predicted would lead us into a nightmare of violence and economic inequality.

Forty years later, we have a black man running for president, enunciating King's politics of hope for a better world. The challenge he raises is clear: We must create a multiracial coalition for a new kind of country and a new kind of world as if our lives depend upon it. Because they do. Forty years since Memphis, let's hope it is not too late.

"MLK's agenda remains unfinished," by Michael Honey, UW Haley Professor of Humanities, posted Tuesday, April 8, 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.