Democratic Representative Dan Boren of Oklahoma has announced that he will not endorse Barack Obama for President, while he will vote for Barack Obama in his role as delegate to the Democratic National Convention. The reason? Obama is "the most liberal Senator in Congress." Boren did endorse Hillary Clinton during the primary process, but somehow Obama doesn't pass his own personal litmus test. What Boren does not talk about are issues — or in fact any issue — that makes Hillary Clinton a candidate he can endorse, but that makes it impossible for him to do the same for Obama. Instead he just uses the tired, old, Republican talking point, that Obama is "too liberal" without actually backing that up with any substance.

So which differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama caused Boren to endorse her in the primary, but refuse to endorse him in the general election?

Is it the fact that Hillary Clinton voted to give the authorization for the President to invade Iraq, but Obama had come out against that move? I wonder if Boren still believes that the US should have gone to war against Iraq — but in any case, both Clinton and Obama had campaign positions that the troops should be brought home, so that can't be it.

Maybe the issue is guns — Oklahoma is a big Second Amendment state. But the only time Obama and Clinton differed on a gun issue was when there was a vote for an amendment to stop the confiscation of legally-owned guns during natural disasters — but Obama took the pro-Second Amendment position of preventing confiscations while Clinton voted to keep those confiscations legal. So that can't be Boren's problem with "liberal" Obama.

Another difference in the way they voted was when Obama actually voted to allow a Republican Senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn, to still practice not-for-profit medicine while being a Senator. So Obama took the free-enterprise position and Clinton took the more restrictive position — but I doubt that Boren would have voted against allowing Coburn to be a pro-bono physician so that doesn't seem to be an issue.

Maybe it is their health care plans. But Clinton's health care plan is considered larger with greater government involvement than Obama's plan, so if you had to label them, Clinton's plan would be described as the more liberal proposal.

So I would like someone to ask Congressman Boren what are these liberal votes that Obama made in which Hillary Clinton took the opposite position? What is so egregious exactly about an Obama candidacy?

An essential component of effective leadership is the ability to step outside of your own viewpoint, if only momentarily, to better understand the position of another. This is what is referred to as being "open-minded." Of course, being open-minded doesn't mean that you have to adopt the view of the other, but you need to be able to understand the roots of that other party's actions and views.

An anti-example of this open-mindedness is found in the reaction of many U.S. citizens' to suicide bombers. Rather than try to understand the life circumstances of these desperate individuals — exploring the role poverty, political repression and foreign intervention played in their decisions– closed-minded individuals attribute it to a religion and culture which they do not understand, and do not attempt to understand. Dismissive terms like "satanic," "barbaric" and "bloodthirsty" are attached to Islam and that, for many people, is explanation enough; suicide bombers = evil believers in an evil ideology.

That sort of thinking, most often displayed by the right in U.S. politics, extends beyond the "War on Terror," and pervades issues both domestic and international. In its zeal to defend America against its "enemies," both internal and external, it latches onto the quickest, easiest interpretation. A recent comment made by Harvard Law alumnus and model U.S. citizen Michelle Obama, and the subsequent reaction to it, offers a domestic example of this closed-minded approach, substituting political opportunism and jingoism for rational thinking.

The comment from Michelle: "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."

As a teenager, my experiences with the war on drugs taught me that politics wasn't just about voting. Politics is a struggle to control and define your life and the life of your community. That experience, moreover - the experience of daily politics - is different for everyone depending on how their race and class affects their access to power and privilege.

I suppose I could have told you that from a fairly early age. But at the age of nineteen, Dead Prez's album Let's Get Free brought the lesson home to me with a renewed urgency.

Never before had I experienced a musical world so full of political anger and passion. Nor had I ever felt so keenly that for some people, I as an individual was part of the white power structure: a cracker, in Dead Prez's eyes. For these neo-Marxist activists, America split along both racial and class lines, and it seemed I was not on their side.

Who shot Biggie Smalls? If we don't get them, they gon get us all/

I'm down for runnin up on them crackers in they city hall…

The word cracker, which they use frequently throughout the album and which seems sometimes to include all white people in its scope, was somewhat of a shock to my ears. For once, I was on the other end of a stereotype, trying to make out how I felt about it.

Now, for me cracker does not parallel the n-word in intensity or offensiveness. It's not the first thing I'd choose to be called, but it doesn't automatically drive me away from the conversation either. And I came to see why someone whose experiences in dealing with the white power structure had been entirely negative would choose a word like that to convey their emotions. So I listened to Dead Prez, obsessively, despite my discomfort with some of their language. And working through that discomfort turned out to be an invaluable stage in my political development.

This season's neck-and-neck primaries remind us that tight elections rarely come down to how people vote, but rather, which people vote. Yet sadly, amid the historic popularity of the nation's first serious black presidential candidate, observers are already reporting instances of minority-targeted voter suppression throughout the country.

Last month, the NY Times reported that Indiana's strict voter identification law, requiring state-issued photo ID in order to vote, is being challenged at the Supreme Court:

Opponents of the law, most of them Democrats, view voter identification requirements as a deterrent that disproportionately affects poor, minority and elderly voters, who more often than other people lack the required forms of identification and who also tend to back Democrats.

A 2007 study found that 13% of registered voters in Indiana lacked sufficient ID under the state's law, highlighting what voter advocates have known for years: strict ID requirements deter voters, and voter suppression is an infinitely bigger problem than voter impersonation, the problem the laws claim to solve.

Nevertheless, over half the states in the country have proposed legislation to tighten ID requirements so they look more like Indiana's. These efforts, nearly universally spearheaded by Republicans, are fervently backed by the Bush administration, which has also filed a brief with the Supreme Court encouraging it to uphold Indiana's law.

This week, we want to know how you get your news. But first, last week's results:

Last week, we asked you if you thought Obama's race would play a role in the primary or general election. 50% of you said yes. While 21% weren't sure, almost one third (29%) said Obama's race would not play a role. Personally, it's hard to tell. The media will certainly try to make it an issue, but whether that will really effect voters or not is an open question. Lately I've been of the mind that the media plays less of a role in determining people's voting habits than we may think.

Speaking of the media, this week we want to know what your most trusted source for news and information is. Voting begins in the sidebar on the left.

With the stroke of a pen, Lyndon Johnson secured the African-American vote. When he quipped that by signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the Democrats "lost the South for a generation," he also knew that he won the hearts and minds of black Americans.

Indeed, he was right. Starting in the 1960s, African Americans have been overwhelmingly Democratic. And while the idea of the Republican South shows signs of crumbling as Democrats like Jim Webb get elected, African Americans still support Democrats by a 2-1 margin. While Johnson may have lost the South for a generation, he may have won the black vote for a longer period of time.

Tactically, Johnson's endorsement of the Civil Rights movement was genius. It allowed Democrats to simultaneously win a coveted voter block and reaffirm that the Democratic party was the party of the people, as JFK once proclaimed:

"The Rights of Man"–the civil and economic rights essential to the human dignity of all men–are indeed our goal and our first principles. This is a Platform on which I can run with enthusiasm and conviction.

Johnson strengthened the Democratic brand while winning a ton of votes. And Democrats have a chance to do the same thing now with the Hispanic vote.

Much has been and will continue to be made about the importance of race and sex in this year’s Democratic primary—about the importance of “identity politics.” Given the makeup of the Democratic field, I guess that such talk, on some level, was and still is inevitable. But at which level it is that this discussion takes place, well, to my mind, that doesn’t need to be as predetermined.

Here’s my overarching point: That a large majority of African Americans exhibit an affinity for candidate Barack Obama, or that a majority of White women exhibit an affinity for candidate Hillary Clinton, is not exactly the same thing as and does not justify the assumption that African Americans overwhelmingly voted for Obama because he is African American, or White women by-and-large voted for Clinton because she is a White woman.

In honor of Black History Month and in light of the extraordinary role race may play in this years election, The Seminal will delve into issues of race and politics this month. From voter suppression and crime and punishment to identity politics in the '08 elections, we'll be looking at these well-worn issues from new directions.

I'm sure there will be plenty of material in there to stir up discussion. Enjoy!

With our race and politics issue premiering tomorrow, we want to know if you think race will play a role in this primary. But first, last week's results:

Last week we asked you what you thought the best thing our government could do to stave off recession was. 47% of you felt cutting of foreign spending while at the same time decreasing domestic spending was the way to go. 24% of you thought cutting spending across the board was a better option. Interestingly, nobody thought cutting taxes would do the job.

A lot of ink has been spilled on Barack Obama's race. First he disproved the Bradley effect by winning in white Iowa, then we might have been hurt by it in white New Hampshire. Oprah and Ted Kennedy have endorsed him, while Jesse Jackson has complained that he's too white. It's a muddled picture. With that in mind, do you think Barack Obama's race will play a sizable role in affecting voter's choices, both in the primary and possibly in the general election? Voting begins in the sidebar on the left.

Coming February 1st, in honor of Black History Month, The Seminal takes another look at the role race plays in politics throughout the world. From voter suppression and crime and punishment to identity politics in the '08 elections, we'll be looking at these well-worn issues from new directions. Hopefully we'll uncover something new and interesting.

Stay tuned for more!