It's Valentine's Day, and I'm sitting in NY while my Valentine and our kids are all the way across the country in CA.  I'm missing them, and I'll only be away 48 hours.  But I'm doing work that I care about, and that might even matter a bit in the larger scheme of things.  It's a painful tradeoff.

So this news item about Barack and Michelle Obama especially caught my eye:

He's taking Valentine's Day off:

A sign of confidence? A little thank-you to his wife for tolerating his presidential ambitions?

In the thick of his primary battle with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama is taking Valentine's Day off. Obama and his wife of more than 15 years, Michelle, are spending the afternoon with their two daughters, Sasha and Malia, before going out to dinner in Chicago, according to his campaign. No events, no interviews, no nothing -- just a little family time and a little romance. No word yet on gifts, or whether he's still got that BlackBerry on his hip.

He misses his family.  He needs to take one night to put them first, in the middle of the political fight of his life.  I'm liking his priorities.  

It's early, yet.  Still dark out.  The polls open out here in California in a couple of hours.  I'm waiting for my ride down to the campaign office.  Somehow Election Day doesn't feel right unless it starts before dawn.

It is almost a year to the day.  In early February, 2007, I watched Barack Obama's formal announcement that he would seek the Democratic Presidential nomination.  I had already decided then that I wanted to support his run.

Back then, I had no idea that I would be sitting here on the edge of my seat.  I could never have forseen this year.  I had no idea I was about to embark on this wild ride that has been the California campaign.  Right now, I am beyond fired up.  This is the most important thing I have ever done in my life.  I am right in the middle of the most exciting and significant Presidential contest in California in more than a generation.  And my experience gives me hope.

I really don't have time for this, you know.  I have all kinds of responsibilities I've been shirking.  I've barely seen my kids this week.  I'm living on coffee, chocolate, bad pizza and adrenaline.  I wouldn't trade this experience for anything.  

Being part of the Obama campaign feels like the most important thing I've ever done in my life.  The stakes couldn't be higher.  And we've gone from nowhere to serious contenders after months of tough, almost invisible work.  Finally, we are seeing the results, we are gaining.  Will it be enough?

In less than 72 hours, the polls close in California.  I've got hope.

Last Wednesday, I gave my perspective on Obama's California field operation as a volunteer member of one of the Congressional District organizing teams - The 100,000 Things You Need to Know About Barack Obama in CA.  One of the things I talked about was our commitment to retail politics in California at a level that hasn't been seen in more than a generation.

On Saturday, we set a statewide goal of making 100,000 phone calls in a single day.  As far as I know, that would set the record for single-day political phonebanking in California.

Late yesterday, I got the final number:  more than 220,000 calls.  I'm not surprised, because the Oakland phone bank where I worked was flooded.  More than 300 volunteers came in to make phone calls just at that one location.

This weekend we set a phone bank record, and picked up critical new California endorsements, including Rep. Xavier Becerra and the San Francisco Chronicle.  We have our work cut out for us here, but now we have added momentum, too.  California is in play.  

Or the 5,080 things.  Or the 53 things.  I'm talking about the "insane" Obama campaign strategy:  running a grassroots field program in California.  Can't be done, right?  Too big, too expensive, not worth it.  He's doing it anyway.  And I love being part of it.

Here's just a few of the elements:  100,000 phone calls statewide in a single day.  5,080 precinct captains.  Volunteer-based organizing teams across California's 53 congressional districts.  Canvasses and phone calls up and down the state.

I can tell you (and I have) about the many reasons I am volunteering basically all of my free time to try to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.  But the way he genuinely believes in running a grassroots, 50-state primary campaign is a huge one.

And it is perhaps (with apologies to  Just Angry for borrowing your title) the only thing you need to know about Barack Obama.

The race is on.  Nobody is getting pre-emptively coronated by the media.  Not Clinton.  Not Obama.  Thank god.    

This is as good as it gets.  Two serious candidates.  The stakes couldn't be higher.  The Presidency of the United States.  And someone is going to have to win this nomination the old-fashioned way.  With the big win in Iowa, there is no question Obama can compete on every front.  He has the money.  The tide is turning on endorsements.  But he is depending on us to bring it home.  

Si se puede.  Yes we can.    

That's the first line of Barack Obama's victory speech in Iowa last night:  "They Said This Day Would Never Come."  And it gave me chills.  

I didn't know, way back in January when I decided he was the right candidate for me, if he could really pull it off.  The odds were against him.  He was doing everything "wrong."  His model was radical, visionary, and widely misunderstood.  The risks were enormous.  But the payoff, if it worked, would be huge.

Last night we saw the payoff.  It was huge.

Obama For America.  That's the official name of Barack Obama's presidential campaign.  Just three words, but they sum up an entire political philosophy.  John Edwards For President.  Hillary For President.   Obama For America.  

Today is the final of three essays on what Obama For America signifies.  In Part I, posted Wednesday, I showed how Obama For America lives and breathes a 50 State Strategy, unheard of in a primary campaign.  Yesterday's Part II analyzed Barack Obama's model of governance -- FDR meets social entrepreneurship.  

Today I complete the series by analyzing Obama For America as a framing strategy - defining progressive values as fundamentally American, challenging us to live up to them, and convincing us we have the power to make change.  Obama's unique ability to sell the Democratic party to Americans makes him a potentially realigning political figure.

Obama For America.  That's the official name of Barack Obama's presidential campaign.  Just three words, but they sum up an entire political philosophy.  John Edwards For President.  Hillary For President.   Obama For America.  

Today is the second of three essays on what Obama For America signifies.  In Part I, posted yesterday, I showed how Obama For America lives and breathes a 50 State Strategy, unheard of in a primary campaign.

Today I will analyze Obama For America as a governing philosophy - how it permeates Barack Obama's approach to policy and leadership.  Obama For America as governance has two key components:  maximizing stakeholder participation while maximizing citizen engagement.  These principles align Obama with an emerging social entrepreneur model that may be the future of progressive politics.

Part III, tomorrow, will complete the series by analyzing Obama For America as political framing, and why it can both win elections and grow the Democratic Party.

Why Barack Obama for President?  Because he is running For America.  Because his campaign holds the potential for a national, long term, progressive realignment.

Obama For America.  That's the official name of Barack Obama's presidential campaign.  Just three words, but they sum up an entire political philosophy.  John Edwards For President.  Hillary For President.   Obama For America.

Today is the first of three essays on what Obama For America signifies.  Here I reflect on how Obama For America lives and breathes a 50 State Strategy, unheard of in a primary campaign.  When Barack Obama famously challenged the red state/blue state dichotomy, it was appealing rhetoric.  Now we know it is more than some pretty words.  Obama for America is running a bold national electoral strategy that is good for Obama, good for the Democratic Party and good for progressive politics.

Why Barack Obama for President?  Because he is running For America.  Because his campaign holds the potential for a national, long term, progressive realignment.

I have been waiting to see the spillover in California from Obama's rising Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina poll numbers.  Not to mention the fact that we have been working our @#&^ off calling and knocking doors over the last few weeks.  Not to mention the impact of the Barbara Lee endorsement.

And today we learn that Obama has made major gains in the newest Survey USA poll:

Clinton 49, Obama 30, Edwards 14

The mood yesterday at Obama's Northern California field office was, in a word, giddy.  A dedicated group of volunteers had spent months organizing the Bay Area, and suddenly, it felt like it was paying off.  Congresswoman Barbara Lee had just been by, following the release of her statement endorsing Barack.  She shook our hands and told us how excited she was by Obama's grassroots politics.  

The race is changing fast, and as the San Francisco Chronicle described the dynamic yesterday morning, trends in the early states may generate "a ripple effect that could put California in play."   Lee's endorsement followed a few hours later.

Many conventional expectations about California will be tested by the oddities of the California primary.  Some voting in California will begin just days after the Iowa caucuses.  The delegate allocation favors deep organizing over an air war.  So although we are still behind in the polls here, Obama's campaign strategy is putting California's delegate motherlode unquestionably in play.

Last night, I sat perhaps fifteen feet away from the man who may be the next President of the United States.  I heard him deliver an outstanding speech.  It's the new speech, the one he rolled out at the JJ Dinner in Iowa on Saturday night to wide acclaim.  He gave that speech yesterday at a San Francisco fundraiser in front of over 6,000 people screaming, stomping and cheering our hearts out.

One current media narrative seems to that Barack Obama has found his voice again - he's giving speeches at the level of the 2004 Convention speech that catapulted him to national fame.  And because he's giving great speeches, he just might win the nomination.

I think this account has it exactly backwards.  And it misses the real story of the JJ dinner, a story prominently on display at last night's Northern California event.  Largely invisible up until now, Obama's field structure is now coming into focus.  That's what is energizing the campaign and the candidate.  If Obama wins in Iowa, California and elsewhere, organizing - not oratory - will be the reason.  You see, Obama isn't going to win because he's giving great speeches.  Obama is giving great speeches because he just might win.

This week my students and I are reading a great book by sociologist and legal scholar Kristen Luker.  First published in 2006, and recently released in paperback, When Sex Goes to School is a fascinating study of activists on both sides of the sex education in schools debate.

Reading this book really pushed me to think about what the "femininst" view of sex, and particularly its relationship to family, culture, the market and government, should be.  Obviously, anyone who has lived through the pornography wars of the 80's and 90's knows that there can't (and probably shouldn't) be a single "femininst" take on sex.  Whether, when, how, why and with whom we choose to have sex is deeply personal.  But, as we know well, the personal is political.  (Perhaps even more so in the blogosphere. . .)

So, what follows is a bit of Luker's take, a bit of my take, and an invitation to hear your take.  Welcome to this week's installment of Feminisms.

Q3 has ended, and Obama campaign is again announcing dramatic numbers.  As has been their MO from the beginning, they are leading not with dollar amounts, but with people amounts.  Obama is reporting over 500,000 contributions from over 350,000 unique individuals.  

This will lead, no doubt, to further conversation about the "Obama Paradox" - why, with these kinds of numbers, aren't his poll numbers higher?  I think the answer is pretty simple, myself.  Obama is getting a huge return on his poll numbers.  More of the people who say they would vote for him take the additional step of committing tangible support -- far more than with any other candidate on either side.

That actually gives us the real Obama Paradox:  the "big money" candidate who also has the largest grassroots donor base.  And it gives is the Obama Unknown: what does this mean for his ability to win the nomination?

For reasons I explain below the fold, I've been thinking a lot the past week about Obama's famous speech to the 2004 Democratic Convention -- particularly his poetic riff exploding the red state/blue state dichotomy:

The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.  We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states.

Friday, in San Francisco, I was privileged to hear Barack Obama give his stump speech.  I've heard it a number of times already this campaign season, but it is the first time I've heard him so deliberately echo his 2004 address.  And I realized that the speech he gave yesterday is the finest speech I have heard him give yet.  At its core, it is still the 2004 Convention speech.  But in the fire of all that has happened since, it has evolved into something far deeper, more complex and more challenging.  That speech has grown up.

The Nation recently published a review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows that characterized the book as politically vapid and AWOL on the great moral questions of the day.  While I think there are plenty of fair criticisms of HP7, and that the reviewer had a kernal of legitimate gripe, I had a very different take on the books.  I reprint below the fold the letter I submitted in response.

Yes, both the review and my response contain significant spoilers, although I tried to limit my direct discussion of the plot.  If you wish to remain completely in the dark, do not click the link or read on.

This is, of course, far from the most pressing issue that concerns us.  But I just don't want to do Presidential Primary Politics Flamewar today.

Well, there it is.  What so many say they have been waiting for.  When will Barack Obama make a gutsy move, stake out a clear policy position and define himself, preferably in a way that clearly differentiates himself from the political status quo on an issue that matters?

Now, I, as a fairly impassioned supporter, think he's done that before.  But just for the sake of argument, and to try to stave off yet another who said what and when Iraq War flamewar, let's assume the critics are right.  After the infamous "would you meet with these leaders" exchange at this week's debate, it is pretty hard to say he hasn't stepped up to the plate, and explicitly committed himself to a clear progressive position on a controversial policy issue.

But somehow, the subsequent back and forth exchanges between Obama and Clinton and their spokespeople, and the horse-race politics implications of those, have gotten far more play than the substance of Obama's position and what it means.  And I think that's unfortunate, because I think his answer reflects the best of what his candidacy has to offer - a concrete representation of the "Politics of Hope."