I had the high honor of being invited to moderate a panel for the Women Who Tech telesummit. Here is the description of the panel I am running.

Get Your Local Campaigns On!
This panel will explore what it takes to act local and achieve big results running local campaigns by synchronizing your offline and online tools and strategies.
Panelists: Jo Lee, Citizen Speak, Clarissa Goodlett, Color of Change, Dani Simons, NYC Department of Transportation
Moderator: Julia Rosen, Courage Campaign

If anyone has topics they would like to see covered please let me know. I am open to suggestions. Any woman who is a nerd should sign up. There are a bunch of awesome women participating and I am looking forward to some stimulating discussions.

The short story is that a few lines from a recent Obama speech were previously used by Deval Patrick. I am sure some intrepid opposition researcher at the Clinton campaign unearthed this with some savvy googling. What I don’t get was the boneheaded decision to use this to go after Obama. The Clinton campaign is behind and is using the typical trailer tactics of demanding more debates and going on the attack. This was an ill-advised line of attack.

Consider that 1) Deval Patrick is friends with Barack Obama 2) They share the same consultant 3) Obama has admitted he has used lines from Patrick in the past 4) Clinton has stolen several Obama lines during the course of the campaign 5) Clinton has to at some point stolen other people’s lines besides Obama. On the latter point see this post over at the ABC News Blog Political Punch(h/t to Ben Smith)

I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him.

They would not.

In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn’t be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had “lifted” such language.

“Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric,” Wolfson said.

Translation: Clinton don’t speechify real good and therefore it is ok for her to steal lines. Mmm k.

The more they push this line of attack, the more the media will make them out to be fools and remind everyone that she is behind and throwing everything and the kitchen sink to try and catch up to Obama. Just not a smart tactical move.

There has been a great deal of discussion about super delegates in the media and in the blogs. In the interest in making sure what does not get shared with a small number of people in an email group and rather makes it out into the greater ether, here is my take on the situation that I shared with some peers earlier in the day:

The argument about super delegates is over who determines what is best for the party. In this case it is the super delegates who get to make that decision. The primary voters only get so much say. Since it is so close it is impossible for someone to get enough pledged delegates to get to the magic number without the super delegates.

As Chris Bowers says this is about values not rules. There is an immense amount of distrust by the grassroots/netroots about the values of the party leadership. That distrust is motivating people to make a lot of noise to put people on notice that they are paying attention. IMHO the greater the scrutiny on the super delegates the better chance that their values based decision will motivate them to vote to ratify the popular vote/pledged delegate vote rather than be swayed by the Clinton campaign’s argument that the values surrounding their decision should be about their personal perception of who would make the best candidate and not what the voters have said.

I do believe they will eventually do the right thing. However, I do support the efforts to place grassroots pressure on the super delegates and hold them accountable to those who have elected them.

Earlier today the Barack Obama campaign asked their list to write a letter to super delegates about why they are supporting Obama’s candidacy. Here is what they suggested people write about:

Our work so far has taught us one important lesson: that your personal story about why you support Barack Obama is often the most powerful persuasion tool for someone who’s undecided. That’s true whether that undecided voter is your neighbor or a superdelegate.

The story of where you’re from, what brought you into the political process, the issues that matter to you, and why you became part of this movement has the potential to inspire someone who could cast a deciding vote in this contest.

I took a different track and decided to explain why I am supporting Barack Obama on the basis of his orientation towards organizing and building the Democratic party.

I work in politics. My job is to build up progressive infrastructure so that we can elect more Democrats to office, pass progressive legislation and make this country better reflect our values as Democrats.

To do that we need someone in the White House and in control of the DNC who is dedicated to that. It is not enough just to have a Democrat in the White House, we must build up the Democratic party as a whole.

To me the easiest way to tell their commitment towards these goals are to look at the way they are running their campaigns. Hillary Clinton is running a 50%+1 strategy. She focused on the largest states and winning early races. She has not been concerned with building a grassroots army of donors and volunteers. It is only recently that she has started empowering and relying on her volunteers and discovering the freeing power of a small dollar donor base.

In contrast Barack Obama built a true 50 state strategy. Heck he has had offices in Alaska and North Dakota. Specifically in SC, he built a new model of politics, one that was reliant on volunteers and peer-to-peer organizing. When his campaign packed up and left their office they did not leave the state empty handed. Instead they handed over their volunteer contacts list and voter ID information to the State Party. They left the state better than they found it.

I want a president who is not just happy with 4 years in the White House. I want a president who builds the Democratic party so that we have working majorities in both houses and easily elects another Democrats after they are turned out after 8 years.

That is why I have donated and volunteers for Barack Obama and why you should use your power as a superdelegate to support him.

Decline to state voters. Just ask for a Democratic ballot.

Sen. Edwards finished this race the way he started it, talking about poverty in New Orleans, sleeves rolled up ready to work.

He ran an inspiring and noble campaign. Edwards changed how policy was discussed on this campaign. He pushed Obama and Clinton to take more detailed and progressive positions on many issues. To my friends now without jobs, thank you for your work. You have made a difference. To John and Elizabeth Edwards, this better not be the last out of you. Our country is better having your voices in public and political life.

Go check out the pictures accompanying this NYT article on the Kennedy endorsement. Look at how Obama is mobbed by a multi-racial group of students treating him like a rock star and then Clinton operating comfortably behind a fence with everyone seated behind it.

The Kennedy endorsements are making bigger waves than I expected. I was surprised to see this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial focusing on Caroline Kennedy’s op-ed. It was gushing in praise for what she wrote. I expect to see the editorial board to endorse Obama later in the year.

Ms. Kennedy doesn’t say it, but it is interesting that criticism of her father in the 1960 campaign turned to no small degree on his alleged lack of experience as a 43-year-old senator to prepare him for the presidency. That didn’t stop him from winning, or — as president — from leading us as a nation toward a bright future.

President Kennedy’s few years as president have been the benchmark for hope for Americans ever since. His daughter is saying that Mr. Obama could be that for us now in this time of grave need for brighter prospects.

The primaries are far from over — and Mr. Obama’s candidacy may yet be found wanting. But Ms. Kennedy has explained his appeal better than anyone else.

That is a phrase being tossed about by the media today, notably by Olberman when interviewing Barack Obama about the endorsement by Caroline and Teddy Kennedy today. It is quite clearly not an analogy Obama is comfortable, but I have to say that I was very moved by his statement proceeding the 21st century line from Olberman. Obama was talking about how special of a moment it was to be receiving the Kennedy’s endorsement while surrounded by 5,000 young people that were feeling as if it was the moment when they could dream big about tackling huge issues facing this country.

Obama spoke directly about bringing those young people into his campaign and the inspiration they have felt. He is asking us to get involved and is not assuming that we don’t give a crap. Young people are responding. We are a generation of volunteers that give back to our communities. We are now responding to a call to give back to our country by supporting Barack Obama.

Asking and doing, the legacy of JFK. It has been drilled into us in history lessons year after year. Now is the year when we get to live it.

How the hell did Gore manage to put this up on Current last week and nobody notice this until now? It is a great progressive argument for marriage equality. This is something I would love to hear coming out of our presidential contenders mouths, but I understand why it isn’t. (h/t to towelroad)

Al Gore = Vice-Presidential version of Jimmy Carter (greatest ex-VP ever)

Open Left noted that another African-American reverend with ties to gay hating was reported to become a spokesperson for Obama. It came on the heels of an extraordinary speech by Obama at MLK’s old church, where he called out African-Americans for intolerance of gays and Latinos. Turns out this time it is not a legitimate story. Aravosis writes:

I’ve talked to the Obama campaign about this, and they assure me of a few things:

1. Caldwell has not, and will not, be asked to do anything for the campaign (and this means, we hope, that Obama won’t be doing appearances with the man any time soon).
2. Caldwell was simply wrong when he told the papers this weekend that the campaign asked him to travel around the country on their behalf. In other words, Caldwell was freelancing when he called the paper for an interview.

The reason the McClurkin controversy really got my goat wasn’t that Obama had scheduled a homophobic superstar to emcee a campaign event. (I doubt Obama knew about McClurkin’s dark side when the event was scheduled.) What bothered me was that even after Obama learned that McClurkin was a real jerk he still kept him on the schedule (and surprise, surprise, McClurkin then spent half an hour at the event railing against gays). From what we know, Caldwell isn’t McClurkin - Caldwell may embrace the “ex-gays,” but he’s not an ex-gay leader like McClurkin (though I’m not going to give the guy any PFLAG awards). But more importantly, Caldwell doesn’t appear to have any role at all in the Obama campaign, nor will he (though he did appear previously at a few Obama events). If that’s true, and coming on the heels of Obama’s rather gutsy pro-gay comments at MLK’s church yesterday morning, I’m a lot less troubled by this controversy than I was the previous.

I would go further than Aravosis. I am not trouble at all by this. The Obama campaign is not culpable at all. It is a testament to Obama’s ability to pull people together that a preacher who is friends with Bush would endorse Obama.

And here is the just wonderful speech from Obama yesterday.

I’ve talked to the Obama campaign about this, and they assure me of a few things:

1. Caldwell has not, and will not, be asked to do anything for the campaign (and this means, we hope, that Obama won’t be doing appearances with the man any time soon).
2. Caldwell was simply wrong when he told the papers this weekend that the campaign asked him to travel around the country on their behalf. In other words, Caldwell was freelancing when he called the paper for an interview.

The reason the McClurkin controversy really got my goat wasn’t that Obama had scheduled a homophobic superstar to emcee a campaign event. (I doubt Obama knew about McClurkin’s dark side when the event was scheduled.) What bothered me was that even after Obama learned that McClurkin was a real jerk he still kept him on the schedule (and surprise, surprise, McClurkin then spent half an hour at the event railing against gays). From what we know, Caldwell isn’t McClurkin - Caldwell may embrace the “ex-gays,” but he’s not an ex-gay leader like McClurkin (though I’m not going to give the guy any PFLAG awards). But more importantly, Caldwell doesn’t appear to have any role at all in the Obama campaign, nor will he (though he did appear previously at a few Obama events). If that’s true, and coming on the heels of Obama’s rather gutsy pro-gay comments at MLK’s church yesterday morning, I’m a lot less troubled by this controversy than I was the previous.