I don't get it.

I was away from the internet and the news for the last few days, so I missed all of the hub-bub about Obama's remarks on the bitterness of the disenfranchised. I agree with the candidate- not the best choice of words, but fairly accurate for how the poor masses feel- he seems to have his finger on our collective pulse, so to speak.

So I was shocked and confused by Hillary's response- that Obama was "out of touch" with small-town America. Granted, it doesn't appear that most of the public is believing her on this one. But how could she even imagine that we would believe her? Obama grew up in poverty and overseas. He is the most committed Christian candidate we've had for this office since Carter. Or does Hillary think small-town America is the same as wealthy America, and therefore Obama is out of touch with the wealthy?

Let us compare this with a candidate who has little open display of her Christian beliefs- so much so that she said that if she'd heard what the Rev. Wright said from the pulpit, she would have long ago left that church, telling all of us who do attend churches that she's very unfamiliar with actually being part of a church, rather than just attending. For all of us have heard items from the pulpit that we strongly disagree with from time to time- its part of being part of a church, as opposed to a cult, where everyone agrees.

Let us compare this with a candidate who with her husband made 109 Million since leaving the White House. This is not to say Obama's hurting economically- he's made a couple million in book sales. But they aren't even in the same league. If we're asking who's more out of touch with the poor, the small-town resident, the average voter- is this even a contest? How could she not see she's shooting herself in the foot?

Perhaps this is why Obama appeared to be more angry than I've ever seen him before, in his response to Hillary's attacks. Oh, he wasn't frothing at the mouth, like some sort of John McCain. His anger is certainly understated, but also fully present. You can say a lot of things about Obama. But to accuse him of being "out of touch" with the poor and downtrodden is simply too ludicrous a proposition.

Feeling Useless for Obama

Today was the Legislative District Caucuses, the caucuses after the Precinct Caucuses, before the Congressional District Caucuses, before the State Caucus, before the National Caucus. I was an Alternate Delegate, which means basically if any true Delegate gets sick or dies (or doesn't show up), I'm on. It's like being the backup in a duel.

Our district was one of the top two in delegate count in the city, and the 2,500 delegates and alternates filled up Ballard High School Gymnasium. We were asked to show up as early as possible, since there were so many to credential, and the line wrapped around the block like an opportunity for Dead tickets. Then we finally entered the school, and the line ran into the cafeteria, and wrapped around the cafeteria. Then we finally left the cafeteria, and the line ran up the stairs, down the hall, a right turn, and down another hall.

Credentialing was a quick process, and after we went to sit on the hard benches designed for kids who's backs still work. We were given red stickers or green stickers. Green meant that we were an Alternate- lower caste. Red meant we were an actual Delegate, one of the cool kids that everyone liked.

At the beginning was a standing for the pledge of allegiance, and I stood out of respect, without pledging, as has been the practice throughout my life. Disbursed throughout the long proceedings were a number of speeches- including an introduction by Mayor Nichols, who I previously saw endorse Obama at the Rally of 20,000. We were also treated to a speech by Congressman McDermott, the Very Liberal congressman who is one of twenty who supports equal rights in the Middle East and justice for Arabs, and who I had the pleasure of thanking in person at the Precinct Caucuses.

Honestly, this wasn't nearly as fun as the Precinct Caucuses. I think in large part because it was less intimate, less relaxed, less democratic. The chair of the session had a hard task in front of her, dealing with 2,500 people, but she seemed focused on playing everything by the book and getting through the events one after the other with a minimum of fuss. Yes, it was hard to hear anything in that auditorium if people had other conversations, but she was a bit militant in insisting on her way.

There were a number of times of seating of delegates. As an alternate, we were told we could vote on issues, but that turned out to be untrue. As an alternate, we could do nothing- but sit and wait and hope that delegates from our precinct didn't show up. If there weren't enough delegates or alternates from a precinct, then that candidate, Obama or Clinton, would lose delegates. That's why we were important. And so we would wait.

A few times in the session they would call out names, and I sat there on tenterhooks, hoping and hoping to hear my name, like I was back at a high school debate tournament hoping to hear I'd won the tournament. I had the same trepidation and pounding heart. If picked, we would go into the adjoining room, and change out stickers and move up the ranks.

My precinct delegates sucked. They all showed up, and I wasn't needed. It was like not being chosen for dodgeball. A friend from church got to move up, but I did not. I just sat there while all the cool kids made fun of us. (Not really, but the thought came to mind.)

There were three speeches each for the two primary candidates, the first by Samwise Gamgee. I'm not lying. Sean Astin was there to share about how much he supported Clinton, though he spent the beginning of his speech talking about how much he'd support Obama if Obama's the nominee.

Here's a bit of his speech. This part was interesting.
The cynic might say that Astin's use of Obama's middle name, done by other Clinton supporters, was a way of reminding people that Obama has Arabic and Muslim names like the presumed enemy of America. The way he said it, he might however have been celebrating the international nature of Obama's name. It would be easier for me to believe this if other Clinton supporters hadn't played the game of using Obama's middle name. But you be the judge.

After all those speeches and credentialing, or somewhere in between, we had the voting of the issues. Alternates could participate in the voice vote, but if a voice vote was unclear, they switched to vote by blue cards, given only to Delegates. I voted against the overall charter of beliefs, for it supported the troops, abortion, and a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine. Indeed, as they read the charter, there was this odd little bit of stopping in the middle to stand up and applaud uproariously all veterans and families of soldiers present.

Mostly, I felt useless. But there was one bit where I got to participate. Anyone could give one of the three pro or anti speeches for the six different resolutions. I found the resolution against suspending the writ of habeas corpus enticing, but wasn't able to get in the line quick enough. After that I learned to stand in the line early, and so was first in line for the similar resolution against the usurpation of congressional authority by President.

I had a minute to speak, so I shared about how since his time under Nixon Cheney had been working with others on the Unitary Presidential Theory, a strange idea that the President can basically do whatever he wants. I spoke of how signing statements (in which a President does not veto but rather signs a bill, but with a statement stating how it should be interpreted, often to the point of completely denying the point of the bill) were signed by previous Presidents, but George Bush has signed more than all previous Presidents combined. I mentioned that I'd lived in Morocco, and often told people there I appreciated the king, Hassan Tainy, more than the king from my own country. For George Bush operates as a king, and I am ashamed of this country, where I now see little difference between us and the worst dictatorships, where one man makes any decision he wants. I suggested that, to return this country to what the constitution intended, we should support this resolution.

I am not comfortable with unscripted speeches, and it was stressful to speak with 2,500 people staring down at you from the bleachers. By the end of my minute I quickly completed as my heart was thumping and my leg shaking. But I did get some roars of approval.

The final resolution was the most boring one. Do we support publicly funded elections in Seattle or not? We voted, and the chairman felt it was a tie, and therefore the resolution was declined. But some objected, so we voted with the blue cards. The chairman felt it was declined again. But some objected, requesting a line vote. This meant a thirty minute process in which every blue card was individually counted. It was about this time that the final delegates were seated, and I decided to leave. We ended up with 52 delegates to 15 Clinton delegates. With movement from the one Edwards delegate and the one Kucinich delegate and the 15 undecided delegates at the precinct level, we went from 1016 to 1038 Precinct Delegates, or from 51 to 52 Legislative Delegates. Due to some no-shows in certain precincts, Clinton lost some delegates in the 36th Legislative District (going from 319 to 286 Precinct Delegates). At the Congressional District Caucuses they'll determine how the nine delegates of the 9th Congressional District will be allotted to the State and National Conventions.

Praise God for Obama's Pastor

Obama's pastor has gotten in the news recently. If you haven't heard, some sermons the Reverend Jeremiah Wright gave in 2001 and 2003 are causing some problems for Obama. Relevant passages include:

We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the
thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have
supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and
now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now bought right
back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

That was the Sunday after 9/11, the day I was searching for a non-patriotic church to attend and came upon Friends Memorial Quaker Church. A couple years later The Reverend Wright said:

The government gave [the blacks] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a
three-strikes law, and then wants us to sing "God Bless America". No, no, no.
God damn America. That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn
America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as
long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.

Finally, someone willing to speak truth about America's actions- and what the rest of the world has long known. As horrific and evil as the 9/11 attacks were, they didn't take place in a vacuum. There were things we did that encouraged them. But I don't want to talk about that.

I find it interesting that people who (rightly) decry the invasion of religion into politics by the Religious Right now want to force the Rev. Wright to not speak from the pulpit certain ideas, for they are politically appropriate. But I don't want to talk about that.

And I want to say that, as much as I admire the Reverend for what he said, in some places he went overboard. He should not have said "God damn America", but rather the past tense, that God has damned America, for we are called to bless, and not curse. And rather then say damn, he should have said "God judged America", for no man can know the soul of another, and certainly not that of a nation. I think Reverend Wright was looking for the rhetorical flourish, but some words should be very carefully used. Had he said, "God has judged America and found us wanting," he would have been on very solid Biblical ground.

That's what I want to talk about. The Reverend Wright was simply fulfilling the role of the prophet- a role we find throughout the Bible. If there is one most repeated theme in the Old Testament, it is God and his prophets calling the people back to justice and kind treatment of the outcast- and retribution if they do not return to righteousness.

Lest we think though that this is only an Old Testament deal, Jesus stated his mission as

to preach good news to the poor...
to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight to the blind
to proclaim an acceptable Year of the Lord.

This is very clearly a reference to the Jubilee Year, a year commanded by God every 70 years (but probably never actually practiced by Israel), a very socialist event where all property is redistributed, loans canceled, and slaves freed. Its so clear that this is an Old Testament reference, that Jesus is actually quoting III Isaiah 61.1,2- that's why its in verse form.

Of course, there's another theme to the prophets. They are all rejected, and many of them killed, which ended up happening to Jesus too. Prophets by their very nature are not acceptable to the establishment. Prophets and kings rarely got along in the Old Testament. Come to think of it, Herod and Jesus didn't get along too well either.

Now, Obama has come out and said that he supports a lot of what the reverend Wright says about justice and hope (and even wrote a book based on one of Wright's sermons), but he utterly rejects and denounces what the Reverend said in these two sermons, for which Obama wasn't present.

I wish Obama hadn't done that. I want a candidate who will stand up and reject the evil that America has done. Who will be so adamant in the pursuit of justice that they will even admit when America has not been just to others, as we have not been so many times in our history. I want a prophet. But Obama is running to be our equivalent of king.

This is why it is impossible to fully follow Christ and be Caesar. The kind of power a political leader has was antithetical to the way of Jesus. Christianity is inherently a minority suffering community, and has no truck with the ways of power and oppression.

But I also know that, had Obama supported his pastor, he wouldn't get elected. You have to rally around the flag to be elected President. Even if the people are called to hard work, as Kennedy did and Obama is doing, they don't want to be told that what they have done is evil, no matter how true. Americans don't want prophets. They want to be told that all is well, or will be well, and profit will return.

I want someone to be President who will call us to justice, no matter what. I want someone elected who is inherently unelectable.

Obama wins Texas!

Yes, they've finally called Texas. Because of the complicated Texas Two-Step, there's both a primary and a caucus, and in Texas, you truly follow the maxim, "Vote early, vote often." So you get to vote twice. (Just like in Washington if you're a Republican, but in Texas its all on the same day.) That means that its possible to win the popular vote (Clinton) but lose the delegates, if your supporters aren't as committed to go to a two-hour caucus right after voting, in some cases waiting in line for hours until after midnight. Obama's supporters are a whole bunch more committed. So Clinton wins the primary, 77:71 delegates. Obama wins the caucus, 38:29. Making a sum total of 106 delegates for Clinton, and 109 delegates for Obama.

Best of all, Clinton can't cry foul. (Okay, she does, but she shouldn't.) Not only did she agree to the Texas Two-Step long ago, but in the beginning of this race when she was ahead in delegates but behind in the popular vote, she repeatedly stated that what mattered was the delegates. Now that she's behind in delegates (and the popular vote, btw) she really doesn't have a logical leg to stand on in claiming delegates don't matter. Course, that's never stopped her before...

Why Obama Shouldn't be Vice-President

It's made some headlines recently that Billary have been floating the idea of Obama as VP. Many others have pointed out the problems with this idea, most notably the candidate himself, asking why, if Hillary doesn't think he's got the experience to be President, she would think he would make a good Vice-President. Others have said this is indeed a momentous point in history, when the second place candidate offers the number two position to the first place candidate. I want to point out one more reason why this is a bad idea.

Both candidates have repeatedly and rightfully stressed that this is a momentous election in American history. We will have either the first female or the first minority President. Indeed, this is cool. This is one part, not the most significant, but one part of the reason why many of us are voting for these candidates- we want to make history. We want to show that we have moved beyond the sexism and racism of the past, and enjoy the fruits of a different perspective in the leadership of this nation.

The candidates are right- this would be the first time, and therefore something to strive for. Not the only reason, but part of the reason. But not if Obama's the VP. Why? Because we already had a person of colour in the VP position.

What, you say? When? Well, I was surprised to discover this too. But it turns out, the Vice-President of our only truly Quaker President (I'm sorry, Nixon doesn't count) was half Native American! Vice-President Charles Curtis was technically 3/8ths Native American, of three separate tribes, and made a good deal of that in the 1930s. And though not an exceptional Vice-President, he was well known as an personable and outstanding politican and Senate Majority Leader, instrumental in getting women the right to vote and a strong advocate of the ERA.

So, it would be a special thing if Hillary was the first female President, or Obama was the first President of colour, or if Hillary was the first female Vice-President. But it wouldn't be anything new if Obama were the first Vice-President of Colour. Sure, it would be neat to see that we've moved beyond the sin of our past and can elect a Black Vice-President. But, as far as milestones go, considering Mr. Curtis, it just wouldn't carry the same panache. It wouldn't be a complete first.

If we want Obama for the milestone, elect him to President. Vice-Presidency means nothing, for so many reasons.

The Dark Night of the Political Soul

And so it begins: the long dark night. Six bloody weeks until the next primary. How fitting that the first half of the season should end with such an ironic twist: Mississippi.

Ironic, you say? Didn't Mississippi vote for Obama, just like most Southern states? Didn't he just win another Southern primary? Yes. But consider the far more interesting polls from Mississippi:

1. More Obama supporters said they would be happy with Clinton than Clinton supporters happy with Obama.
2. Independents and Republicans lean more towards Clinton than towards Obama.
3. Obama's lead among women is greater than his lead among men.

I kept on thinking someone had accidently transposed the candidates. In nearly every case in Mississippi, polling and exit-polling bucked the national and state-by-state trends in preference polls on these two candidates. What's going on in Mississippi?

That's what I'll be contemplating during this dry spell, as I go to nurse my sorrow over the lack of significant sporting events for the next six weeks...

Post your Pics here

If you're like me, you try to get a recording of every time you vote. Now we have the opportunity to let everyone know about our recordings- at least the pictoral form. The New York Times has made some great strides in moving to the web format, with updated pages like the list of Democratic Primaries. Now they have a new feature where you can leave your photos from your experience caucusing or voting in a primary. See the ones from my caucus, or leave your own. Let everyone else participate in your electoral experience.

Obama, the First Female President

I've been considering this after conversation with a friend at his blog. There was a great deal made 15 years ago about how Bill Clinton was the First Black President. He just seemed to fit in so well with African-Americans, they were by and large happy to claim him as one of their own. Bill Clinton did a great deal for the African-American community, and he is still remembered by them fondly. Indeed, until Bill introduced race into the Presidential race in S. Carolina, it was widely considered a dangerous situation for Obama, for it was feared that he wouldn't be able for him to get a significant portion of the African-American vote.

Now, here's a thought. Part of the attraction of having a woman in the highest office in the land, for me and others, is that a woman bring something to the office that a man doesn't. This isn't to say that all women think one way, and all men another. But we can say salvo reverentia, without outraging reverence, that there are some general trends. This is perhaps principally so in the approach towards conflict, and resolving conflict. It would seem that men tend to like conflict more, to want the adrenaline of the big fight, and women tend to value the relationship more, trying to find a way to work together. And after so many years of having men ruling the roost and doing conflict their way, some of us think that maybe it would be helpful to have a woman's approach this next time around.

Then along comes Hillary, the exception that proofs the rule. For time and time again in this campaign, she has gone for the jugular against Obama. She has insisted on being contentious, using the politics of fear in the Red Phone Ad, and now repeatedly comparing herself positively to McCain, so as to show Obama negatively. Sadly, this is nothing new. Eight years in the Whitehouse showed us the experience of both Clintons to be one of the most contentious periods in American politics. Certainly this isn't all do to Hillary. The Republicans have the lion's share of the blame during that time, and Bill has a healthy does of it too. But Hillary's experience in the Senate seems to have continued this trend, where she seems either unwilling or unable to resolve the divide between her and the Republicans. To be fair to her, she may perhaps not know how. So let us be honest. Obviously there's no denying that she's biologically feminine, but what is there about her approach to politics that makes me feel that I am electing a female President by voting for her? Other then breaking the ultimate glass ceiling, I see little in her that makes me feel the value in having a woman as President.

And yet, Obama seems to be the one who actually can fulfill George II's old promises, never kept. Obama's record in Illinois and the US Senate have been very clear that he is a uniter, and not a divider. He is so eager to negotiate and work with others, that some like Hillary accuse him of being unable to lead and deal with foreign governments because he's not antagonistic enough. Obama has repeatedly passed on possible openings for attack on Clinton, and instead rebuked members of his team who degrade Clinton. For Obama, its always about the high road and relationship.

And then it dawned on me- why we like Obama. His approach to conflict is decidedly classically feminine. He cares about the relationships, and he wants to resolve conflicts through mutual dialogue.

First Black President's already taken. Vote for Obama: Our First Female President.

How to be Racist and Run for President

Hillary and Obama had another debate tonight. There was a moment that was shocking. One of the moderators brought up Farrakhan's recent support of Obama, and asked for Obama's response. Obama didn't give the best response in the world, but he said that he doesn't deny anyone the right to support him, while clearly repudiating Farrakhan's anti-Semitic anti-Jewish beliefs. Then he unfortunately went on to mention how much he continues to support Israel.

I've said before, I was okay on Hillary, until she went Islamophobic and anti-Semitic in her first New York Senatorial campaign. I liked Obama a lot more, until he also went biased towards Israel- though not as much as others. Which still makes him more attractive than Hillary to me.

But I was shocked at Hillary's response. It was not only a repetition of her basic Islamophobic bias, but she acted like she was proud of it! She used it as a reason to actually vote for her! God preserve us if she ever gained some real power.

She reminded us how she had rejected a pro-Arab groups' support in New York, as if that were a good thing. I remember this moment in the NY campaign well. It was the moment when I decided I'd never support her for President. It wasn't an anti-Jewish group; it was an Arab group saying America should not support Israel; it was anti-Israeli. Hillary responded by apologizing for previously greeting the former Palestinian first lady in the traditional Arab manner. It was blatant anti-Semitic Islamophobia. But now she pretends that she was standing up against anti-Jewishness, and criticized Obama for not doing so. Yet she didn't even have the chutzpa to admit she was criticizing Obama.

Yes, Obama should reject Farrakhan's anti-Semitic anti-Jewish beliefs. But Obama needs to walk the tight-rope of also affirming Muslims, and continue to affirm that he will no longer practice the historic isolationist American bias for Israel only, but be an honest broker, treating Arabs and Israelis equally, and pursuing justice to end the Palestinian apartheid. His support in America comes in part because of his strong international support, particularly in the Arab world- and that will continue only as long as he is perceived to be an honest and just broker.

Being anti-Israeli is not the same as being anti-Jewish; being Muslim is not the same as being anti-Jewish; and we need to remember, that for all of Farrakhan's mistakes and anti-Semitism, he also has positive aspects too. For those reasons, his support shouldn't be rejected anymore than a pro-Zionist group's support should be rejected. The answer and even the question frankly smacked too much of the feeling that anything associated with Islam (particularly those dastardly Black Muslims) is inherently suspicious.

Let us move beyond the historic Islamophobic attitude of American culture and press. Why can't we say, "I want to be your President, and I reject some things this guy Farrakhan says, and I affirm other things he stands for. I reject Zionism, but support those who want a place for Israel to exist safely. And I affirm that not only are Christianity and Judaism reasonable religions, but so is Islam, and there is no reason at all that we should flee from even the image of it, just because of our own racism because of the actions of a minority of terrorists." (Most terrorists in US history were white males, not Arabs. I am a member of a very dangerous minority that should be profiled every time I enter the airport.)

Both candidates screwed up this question. Hillary did it worse, because she repeated her historic racism, and tried to spin that as a positive. At least we can count on Obama's past family history with Muslims to indicate that he will be more equitable and just than other candidates, and past Presidents.

Baracking the Caucus

The day is here! Oh Glorious Day! The Caucus!

Today was my first ever experience in caucusing, and I must say, it felt more like a full immersion in democracy than anything else I've experienced before. And it was really great to be around a bunch of people who enjoyed discussing politics, and didn't get miffed at you for talking about it.

We met at the local school, and the gymnasium quickly flooded to overflowing. They weren't expecting so many people, so we began late, and even as we began people were still in line signing in. I'm told we doubled the record for participation in a Washington caucus. (And incidentally, we more than doubled the numbers in the Republican caucus.)

There were some 12 precincts present in the auditorium, and our precinct was by far the largest, with four tables, and a crowd standing around with no seating. We began by talking about who we supported, Obama or Clinton. (Strangely, no one was a supporter of Gravel. I feel sorry for him. He's still in the race, and no one's talking about him.) Then a woman made some announcements up on the stage that no one could hear since the mike wasn't working, and finally the mike worked, and she instructed us on the steps. The first bit was that we wouldn't have a discussion between all precincts, but each precinct would be an entity unto itself. We were all in one place for organizational benefit, with all the materials in one place, but because of the exceptionally large crowds in extremely small spaces, it all felt rather unorganized. We got conflicting information, and were having to shout over each other. But this, also, felt like real democracy in action, as if we were back in the first Constitutional Congress as they tried to figure out how to get their Blackberries to count the votes.

For most of us, this was our first caucus. One man had experience in leading caucuses, and we elected him the chair. He explained how the event worked.

We were told initially that we should break up into our support groups (Obama, Clinton, and Undecided), and count the number of supporters. We finally figured out a method of counting off like in kindergarten, as we lowered our hands, for any other method in such a large crowd would have resulted in an inaccurate result. We went to report our result, only to find out he had sat down at his table (he was a Clinton supporter), and recorded the support from the sheets we filled in when we signed in to the caucus. This was a good method, except that many of us hadn't written who we support, as we didn't know about that part. So I and others were initially recorded as Undecided, until we clarified the numbers.

All three groups got an opportunity for a one minute speech in support of their candidate. The Obama crowd was obviously significantly larger, but I was in the midst of it, so I didn't record our representative. Here's the Clinton guy:
He was representative of the Clinton crowd. They supported their candidate, but they weren't as die-hard about it. It was more, "Well, she's the best one for the job, and I think we should support her." Whereas the Obama people were saying, "I will bleed blood before I support Clinton." (Okay, I was the one who said that, but still, it was indicative of the general mood.)

Our precinct was assigned seven delegates, based on a complicated formula of the number of registered voters and how Democratic we'd voted in past elections. It couldn't be more than seven. Based on that, we had 15 people for every one delegate (making about 105 people gathered around these four tables). Incidentally, this is why caucus numbers reported by the press look so much lower than primary numbers- they are the number of delegates. These delegates will go to the Legislative District Caucuses, who in turn will elect delegates to the County Convention, and then the Congressional District Caucus, the State Convention, and finally the National Convention in Denver. Because Democrats really have that much time on their hands. Our seven delegates would go on to the District Caucus, and they will send some number like "one" delegate to the next level.

After the counts, we had the opportunity to try to convince the Dark Side to come to the Light, or the Undecideds to join our team. I don't think any Clinton or Obama supporters ended up switching. The numbers to begin with were enough for 4 Obama delegates, 2 Clinton delegates, and 1 undecided delegate. (There was one guy who supported Kucinich unwaveringly, but since he was 14 people short of a delegate, his vote went uncounted.) But through some hard work, we won over the majority of the Undecideds, so that we gained a fifth delegate. And, to toot my own horn a bit, I was told that my arguments were rather convincing for the Undecideds. My main points were that:

1. After South Carolina and Florida, many Democrats won't support Clinton. After her campaign falsely claimed that Obama had brought race into the race, when in truth it was Bill Clinton who was doing it, and after Hillary promised not to campaign in Florida but did anyway- after all this, many Democrats like myself feel we can no longer trust her. McCain says most of the stuff we don't want to hear, and Clinton says most of the stuff we want to hear, but we suspect that Clinton won't keep her word, and will do all the stuff we don't want. Therefore, many like myself are probably not going to vote at all in the General if Clinton is elected. Since polls are showing this is a widespread, if minority feeling in the party, better to vote for Obama if you want a Democrat in office. (This clearly demonstrates why Obama is winning the caucuses. Clinton puts the lies out there, like accusing Obama of being in bed with a slum lord, and people believe it. The undecided woman I spoke with was shocked to find out that the guy had also supported the Clintons, and learning this helped sway her to Obama.)
2. I'm voting for Obama because I want the candidate with experience. Obama has far more elected experience than Hillary- he's been doing the job on the ground.
3. More importantly, Obama has the international experience. Because of his skin colour, his cultural upbringing, his father, and living in Indonesian and Hawaii, the rest of the world sees him as someone they can trust. He's someone they can negotiate with. Many in the Arab world in particular are saying this. (And by the way, amazing the hush that fills a crowd when you mentioned that you used to live in the Middle East.) And now, in this time, that is exactly what we need- someone who can be trusted by the rest of the world so that we are no longer the pariah that we've become. Only Obama can do that. He can do that not just because of perception, but because growing up overseas gives him a worldly perspective, and not myopic to America. This last argument in particular was persuasive. Some Clinton supporters poo-pooed it, suggesting that an international experience was irrelevant. A man of colour with a foreign accent in the crowd put paid to that idea, and the feeling of the crowd became that, indeed, this was a serious benefit to Obama.

This convincing and cajoling all took place standing in these crowds, as people rushed in and politely elbowed each other for space and speaking time. We had enough for 5 & 1/3 delegates, giving us six total. For a moment. We were told that, with enough for 1 & 2/3 delegates, the Clinton people would get one delegate, and we'd get our five plus the left over delegate. But then a clarification of the rules went out, that numbers were to be rounded, and so Clinton got two delegates, to our five.

After three hours, almost done. We were there longer than any other precinct, due to our size. The only thing that remained was to select the delegates and alternates to the Legislative District Caucus. We'd have one alternate for every delegate, and I was selected as an alternate! And I can still go to the District Convention as an Alternate, and may be seated if a rep from another district doesn't show up. If not seated, I can participate without voting.

We gave speeches before the selection. This is where I gave my speech that I will bleed before I will vote for Clinton. We had 11 candidates, and 10 spots. It was a very hard fight. We made speeches, and chose from a hat. Democracy in action.

Then, just as the caucus was ending, standing in the corner, was our Congressman, Jim McDermott! When we broke up, I ran over to him and shook his hand, thanking him for all the work he does in Congress supporting Arab rights. I know he is a minority there (about 20 Congressman are not Israel supporters), and I told him that I know it's often difficult, so his work is doubly appreciated.