Trailhead

Racist Blacks? Part II

tubbs — Mon, 12 May 2008 13:35:00 GMT

The Root.com (thanks to Slate for making me aware of this site btw) had an article showing the percentage of Black votes in recent Presidential elections:

http://www.theroot.com/id/46473/page/1

ELECTION, 1976

Jimmy Carter, Democrat, 85 percent of the black vote (election winner)

Gerald Ford, Republican, 15 percent of the black vote.

ELECTION, 1980

Democrat Jimmy Carter—86 percent of the black vote

Republican Ronald Reagan—12 percent (election winner)

ELECTION 1984

Democrat Walter Mondale—89 percent of the black vote

Republican Ronald Reagan—9 percent of the black vote(election winner)

ELECTION 1988

Democrat Michael Dukakis—88 percent of the black vote

Republican George H.W. Bush—10 percent of the black vote (election winner)

ELECTION 1992

Democrat Bill Clinton—82 percent of the black vote

Republican George H.W. Bush—11 percent of the black vote

ELECTION 1996

Democrat Bill Clinton—84 percent of the black vote

Republican Bob Dole—12 percent of the black vote

ELECTION 2000

Democrat Al Gore: 90 percent of the black vote

Republican George W. Bush: 9 percent of the black vote

ELECTION 2004

Democrat John Kerry—88 percent of the black vote

Republican George W. Bush—11 percent of the black vote (election winner)

I think the election results for the past twenty or so years show that African-Americans tend to vote as a bloc in Presidential elections and almost always vote for the Democratic candidate.

It seems more than a stretch to argue that African-Americans are racist by voting for Obama, when African-Americans have voted in similar fashion for white candidates for the past twenty years. One could even argue that a part of Hillary's problem with the African-American vote is the Clinton brand name, as Bill Clinton earned some of the lowest Black vote totals for Democrats in recent history. Still, African-Americans were, at first, in favor of Hillary. As I posted previously:

African-American support for Obama was not as high as it currently is during the early part of the campaign:

"In an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken in mid-January, Clinton received 53 percent of African-Americans' support; Obama received 27 percent. The poll also found 85 percent of blacks view Clinton favorably, while 12 percent view her unfavorably. Only 59 percent of African-Americans said they had a favorable opinion of Obama, to 19 percent with an unfavorable opinion."

Jan 22, 2007 Politico

<link>

I think a much more plausible reading of the election is that African-Americans were going to vote Democrat as usual and during the course of the primary, African-Americans collectively soured on Clinton and embraced Obama as the Democratic candidate. The race element may account for the extra 1 or 2 percentage points of African-American support for Obama, but that might just as easily be attributed to disapproval of the Bush Administration.

Hopefully, this will end the extraordinarily stupid argument that Blacks are voting for Obama in such high numbers because they are racist.

Gender Issue Lives On as Clinton Hopes Dim

LaurieAnnM — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:45:16 GMT

An excellent editorial from the New York Times, of all places, because the Times has been among the most blistering on her candidancy as far as how they have, in the main ,focused most of their coverage this election cycle on appearing to be a rank shill for Barack Obama. Even as The NYT's had early on endorsed Senator Hillary for President, most of their recent coverage has been pretty rough on her.

So, today it was heartening to see them address this very cogent issue regarding the largely ignored 'gender issue' and instead how much of the media has placed such an undue amount of very caustic emphasis on 'pantsuits' and hip size or whether her hair is messy ,her make-up or lipstick color too bright or too drab or using clear gender bias buzz words when endlessly evaluating whether her voice is 'shrill' or soft and gentle.

Despite all the many ways the media and all anti Hillary types have attempted to use her gender against her in these endless subtle and not so subtle ways,she has continued to thrive and continue to do well both in the polls and among the voters. The precise numbers do show Obama ahead..okay, he is..we all know it..but they have remained virtually neck and neck closerthanthis in those precise numbers count.

That says a good deal about the strength of the woman and is a testament to her that despite the media onslaught against her. Millions of democrats actually do seem to trust in her campaign and in her and have come in droves to vote for her despite the almost mind numbing din scraming at her via the pounding relentless media telling her she has no hope.

Kind of an irony that it is the very 'hope' crowd that screams so loudly that she should 'just go away' because she has no hope.

But be that as it may....she is someone to be admired for her tenacity alone.But of course there is so much more to admire her for.

I was also moved by the photogragh accomapanying this editorial of the adorable little girl with the sign.

It is such a poignant and important story that has been largely ignored outright by the media.

The story about how Hillarys' candidancy actually does matter to little girls all across the country and what it means to them and their sense of themselves as equally empowered individuals in our still very male dominated world.

Just as her run for president deeply matters to some elderly women who were born in a time when women could not even vote lest they be thrown in jail for trying,so it's a shame these stories haven't been the focus of the media's attention.

Yes, we know Obama is going to be the Democratic Nominee now. It has been shouted and screamed at us from every nook and cranny imaginable.

I think some of what the media has done to HRC will scare and frighten little girls back down in their seats and make them continue to think they have to 'good girls' look pretty don't make waves, play silly, flirty games to get ahead...etc. and that is the shame of it for the media.I suspect there are some women who will not easily forget ....but, for others we know and admire the courage of what she did and continues to do and are very grateful to her for how well she has done it.

'Hope' for more fair and equal treatment for women will continue to thrive.Hillary Clinton's run for the highest position in the land has done much to keep and promote that hope, indeed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/us/politics/19women.html?ex=1211860800&en=d681ab86406ac15f&ei=5070&emc=eta1

GOD WE LOVE HER

tagamont — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:07:11 GMT

SARAH PALIN IS FRIED FOR ANY FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRATIONS. FRONT AND CENTER ON AOL TODAY SHE SHOWS HER ARROGANCE AND INABILITY TO GET ALONG WELL WITH EVEN MC'CAINS STAFFERS. THANK GOD!

Obama's Presidency: Hindered by His Supporters?

mercadia — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:02:28 GMT

Now that it looks like Obama has a very strong shot for the candidacy, one has to ask this question: will he be able to get Clinton supporters on board with him?

As unfortunate as it may seem to Obama supporters, Clinton supporters make up about 50% of the Democratic party. She has won huge states, including two enormous states whose delegates probably won't be seated. Sure she might be losing momentum, but the margins are not by enough where Obama can feel as if the Clinton camp is fully on board with him.

And as unfortunate as it may seem to Obama supporters, he needs the voters that she has. These voters aren't swayed by his rhetoric, and aren't that impressed with his record.

But, more importantly, his constituents cannot seem to support their candidate without shitting on the other candidate. It is one thing for a politician to fling some mud, it is expected, it's another for his supporters to spew vitriol all over someone else's candidate. I know I've been personally turned off by it.

So this begs the question: can Obama find a way to get these reluctant Dems on board with him, despite the fact that this ungracious supporters have spent the last few months vilifying Clinton in every possible way? Will there be enough time between the primary and the general to make amends and reunify the party? What tools will he use, since there seems to be a large percentage that just aren't buying what he's selling?

Obama represents the antithesis of America!

Island Muffin — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:06:11 GMT

So we can all acknowledge that Obama chooses to associate himself with Marxists, but not with capitalists.

Q: What happens to economies based on the ideas of Adam Smith versus economies based on the ideas of Karl Marx?

A: The opposing results of ‘capitalism versus socialism’ are nearly an absolute, undeniable truth.

As the US has become the wealthiest, militarily most powerful, culturally most influential nation in world history based on capitalism, Obama wishes to destroy the US with his progressive revolution (to correct oppressor/victimization) by pushing class warfare. Obama represents the antithesis of America.

Have no doubt that increasing business taxes will increase unemployment and inflation, while contracting economic growth. Have no doubt that economic envy, hating corporate profits, is the antithesis of American capitalism. Have no doubt that ‘Government Trickle Down’ economics (or take from the rich; give to the poor) will restrict economic growth (GDP PPI) and will not raise anyone out of poverty. Obama’s progressive economic ideas have always failed (every time they have been tried) and will fail again and again and again, every time without exception.

Obma is no different than Mugabe, Chavez, Morales and other modern leftwing ideologues actively destroying liberty, economies and peoples lives today. Obama is the most divisive, leftwing presidential ideologue in US history. All Obama supporters are either racists, fellow Marxists or too stupid to understand the consequences of thier economic policies!

We free thinking, rational moral Americans will oppose you all like we oppose evil. Obama must be defeated before he destroys the last best chance for humanity.

Baby Furniture

BabyFurniture — Thu, 14 May 2009 09:27:06 GMT

A great step taken by the senator by allowing her 17-year-old daughter for having her baby.

John Assam

Baby Furniture

Clinton vs. Obama

Marik7 — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 05:15:47 GMT

Clinton is like Leiberman in drag. You can't tell until you're up close that he's not what he pretends to be.

It seems clear to me that Clinton wants McCain to win, or, perhaps more specifically, he wants Obama to lose.

In fact, Clinton signed a bill that allowed banks to expand their range of services, just as the Republicans hoped. We're now living with the effects of Clinton's "foresight."

The Democrats have had a very hard time getting rid of the spectre of Bill Clinton, but I hope that they succeed.

The Big Bailout...Ha!

Mejamz — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:44:54 GMT

There is no need for a bailout of the bank when we can bail them out through tax payer spending...heres how:

America has fought hard to become an independent nation and a leader in innovation, so how can we fix our current economic downtrend efficiently? Some seem to think that throwing money at the corporations who failed us is the answer…we all should know by now that spending money on bad investments will not secure our future, or will pointing fingers. We can point fingers and prosecute those responsible after we fix our predicament.

We, citizens of America, have worked hard to secure our retirement, provide a home for our families, enrich our lives through educational and medical advancements, and have generally improved our comfort levels, while becoming a super power militarily. We have made some great improvements and advancements from where we started just 230+ years ago, so let us not mess things up now.

America embarked on a paper money system in the 70’s and to this day we citizens are paying for poor decisions made by the private sector and corporate moguls we trusted to protect us from deception and predatory investments.

Our nation’s constituents are suffering because they trusted predatory lenders, congress, and Wall Street moguls to protect us from this very situation and because of poor leadership and some personal misjudgments, too many American citizens are in anguish while more continue to fall on a daily basis.

The citizens of America are going homeless, jobs are being lost, banks are not getting their money from borrowers, children are not getting the attention they deserve, insurance companies are shelling out more money than they can afford, and our government is borrowing money to pay bad debt. None of this is a good thing.

American citizens worked hard to secure their retirement funds and save their money for the future just to be let down by misleading lenders and corrupt CEO’s. American citizens are the ones who should decide where and how to spend the money needed to make our countries finances solvent once again.

If the government really intends to save our economy, we need radical change and we need it now. We need to inject money into the bottom of our society to be useful in our situation and not at the corporate level. We need to circulate our money into our debt relief and not into creation of more debt.

Our entire country needs an overhaul and with the American citizens combined effort we can rebuild America in just a few short years, as a more solvent United States. We need to invest in our own countries constituents by providing a means for personal debt relief by the people who borrowed the money initially.

The only way to secure our nation now is to pay off our debt to local real estate markets, banking institutions, and national debt. It is a firm belief that American citizens can rebuild our nation quickly and economically if provided the opportunity.

Here is an idea; Provide to EVERY American Citizen Age 21 and older as income the sum of $800,000.00, instead of spending $700 billion dollars to save the companies that put us in this mess to begin with.

We can save our economy by securing American citizens and their personal debt instead of pouring money into a system that is poorly structured. We can provide a path to redefine the corporate structure and employee base, our credit industry, and stabilize our medical industry. We could reinvest into our infrastructure for tomorrows energy needs too.

We can greatly reduce our student debt, rebuild our educational institutions to better equip our children and their children, redefine our auto industry to a more eco friendly energy system, re-establish our transportation industry with plant oils (as the original diesel engines were designed to use) and not from our food supply. As an added benefit, we can overhaul our economic structure and investment process with little discomfort to local constituents thanks to the income received.

The average American citizen could finally start the business they have always desired and cover most of their own startup costs upfront. Lenders will still be in business; however, the enormous interest rates will reduce to a minimal amount due to our nation’s solvency.

This is not a permanent fix to our situation because people are creatures of habit and habits always come back (and providing some needed job security in the criminal and medical industry); however, this could provide a means for those who desire a real life change and make solid investment decisions.

If the $800,000.00 dollars is taxed as income at a flat rate between 20 & 30 percent (based upon single or married couples with and without children), we could provide our government with an immediate return on their investment in the form of tax dollars. Another benefit from this adventure would be that Americans will feel more pride and control over their lives and it will build confidence within our administration and help to unite the states of America once again.

The financial institutions would recover most of their debt and could restructure during the madness of spending which would follow the sudden flux of income. The free market would level out to a newly defined normal and people who failed to invest wisely would return to work for a local mom and pop shop instead of a corporate conglomerate (thus reducing lobbyist abilities of persuasion).

The losses to the American homeowner would become a minimal discomfort instead of an entire loss, and they would be able to purchase (100% - mortgage paid in full) a replacement home almost immediately, which in turn would correct the housing market issue. People whom invested into the stock market (401 k’s and the like) would be assured a decent retirement due to reinvestment in the redefined stock market and renewable energy source companies and their personal bank accounts.

Government regulations would keep inflation in check for at least three to five years, which in turn would lend enough time to level out the economy; this should prevent a rapid rise in available product cost due to the temporary onetime newfound incomes of the nation.

America can set the industry standard in GDP with economic invention, energy creativity, industrialized or intellectual innovation, and renewed interest in stock market investment. Another benefit is most of America will be owned by Americans too.

One stipulation to this idea should be that EVERY American citizen who receives this income must donate (tax deductable) 3 – 5% of their share to the national debt to reduce our debt to other countries and remove their advantage from the picture.

Another stipulation should be that EVERY American citizen whom received the funds MUST pay off their entire debt in full or as close to in full as reasonably possible before utilizing the remaining funds (if any) dispersement at their own personal discretion! I think this should reduce the bankruptcy rate for the next three to five years…don’t you? I believe the court system could use the time for other matters too.

A benefit to the criminal justice system is that every incarcerated American Citizen (lifer) that is eligible for this income will benefit only indirectly from this dispersement. The funds received will go directly into rehabilitation programs (for others that can be rehabilitated), in-house medical expenses, court expenses, defense and prosecuting expenses, clothing, jail house improvements or construction, and food service if enough is left over to help offset the costs of incarceration. All short stay inmates WILL pay off (or as much as possible) their fines, fees, and retributions before release.

Another benefit to the criminal justice systems would be a downward shift in the crime rate overall because money would not be an issue to the majority of citizens and drug addicts proven to be incompetent can now pay for rehabilitation or other needs with supervision. We do not need to give the money to incompetent people, but it should help provide for their care temporarily.

A benefit to the medical society would include moneys from mentally incompetent citizens will be proportioned out for their medical expenses, medications, housing, clothing, and other needed programs as deemed by their current medical providers and overseer’s.

An idea for our nation’s transportation industry is to convert ALL Diesel engines back to their original design (burning used vegetable or plant oils instead of fuel and bio fuels), as this would not only reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and oils, it would also improve our air quality too. We have the technology to keep the oil above 160 degrees Fahrenheit and the infrastructure to support the conversion already in place.

Plant oils are easily produced from weeds in our yards (pressing the oils from their seeds) and/or incentives to farmers to grow products that do not affect our nation’s food supply, but will produce enough products to power our needs (NOT ETHENOL) would help direct our nation to be a more self sufficient country.

Citizens could build windmills to offset the electrical needs of individual housing and or solar panels while supplying any unused energy back into the grid for consumption somewhere else. Citizens could purchase back up power supplies for their internal home electrical needs therefore reducing the amount of energy drawn at any one time by consumers.

These ideas are a few in an endless myriad of applications and the ramifications are minimal as it is a firm belief Americans can spend their tax dollars far better than the current administration will. Just imagine how it would feel if every citizen were to be able to pay off most or all of their debt and have change left over while OWNING their home!

Just imagine what this could do for our country reducing the national debt, returning the decision making abilities of Americans back to Americans, and thus allowing our nation to be the first to re-invest into the community in such a way that can make a difference...for most folks.

This is merely an idea and economists and analogists should check the numbers for accuracy; however, this idea is radical and not tested so it might just work if lawmakers define the unmentioned aspects before inception of this concept.

EVERY American could prospectively have their funds in their bank accounts within 90 days…THINK About it…a debt free America, a solvent nation, a prideful nation that can win wars, redefine the American dream, and defend the American dream from terrorists!

Who could hate an administration that gave its constituents a financial improvement, as we would be the first nation in history to promote such a concept?

All of the bugs have not been worked out yet; however, it is my belief that if we citizens write this concept correctly and quickly, we could actually submit it as a viable method of resolve...that is once everyone quits laughing at the idea and really thinks about the benefits to EVERY CITIZEN of the USA!

Blacks, Gayes, Peters and Adolphs

kroert16 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:25:12 GMT

If it's a completely different matter to utter Barack Obama's middle name, should we now stop using last names like Black, Gaye and Peters? Should European parents stop naming their son's Adolph? The man's middle name is the man's middle name. His parents gave it to him at a time when the world was a much bigger place than it is today and it meant nothing.

That being said, for Christopher Beam to compalin that the Republicans should stop using Barack Hussein Obama when referring to the other Democratic candidate and characterizing it as some "oh what, me" insult just seems stupid. You can't have it both ways. You can't elect the first President of the United States of African American descent and deny the fact that he's of African American descent.

Oh, but that's right, I guess anything that gets in the way of Obamamania being rosey and perfect is not supposed to come to light. These standards only apply to Hillary Rhodam Clinton. Thanks for the lesson in fairness, Chris.

Debate Thoughts?

mercadia — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:01:11 GMT

Intense! Both candidates sounded smart at times, both sounded confused at times. The discussion about identity politics was tough (Obama brought up race, Clinton, gender. Both important issues.) NAFTA debate was good, health care debate was good. Clinton frightened me at times, and Obama bored me with his ramblings at times. I wish they would have asked Barack the question on Russia before Clinton, because it would have been more illuminating in terms of his foreign policy approach. I also wondering why they didn't re-address up the point about sitting down with Iran after discussing the Farakhan/Anti-semite thing (Mahmoud has said some very anti-semetic things and has threatened to wipe Israel off the map). Still, he sounded good throughout. Clinton taking back the Iraq vote made a stronger impact than Obama's Schiavo vote (but I guess that's a mixed blessing).

And no one discussed the subprime crisis, but whatevs.

Cringe moments:

Clinton mentioning the SNL moment (although that sketch was hi-laaaarious). It seemed unnecessary at this juncture.

Obama trying to pull a Clinton at the end of the debate in almost exactly the same way (come on guy!), and I giggled when he was railroaded by Brian Williams because, surprise, there's another question :).That was funny.

The entirety of the MSNBC pre-debate coverage. Keith Olberman is a total shill! Someone needs to put a leash on him. He's ridonk. I feel like he's got a cruuuush on Obama. I feel like Russert is laughing at him.

So, is Obama playing it both ways by not wanting to stick firmly to the public financing agreement he made with McCain? Is Hillary hiding something in her tax return, or is she just too busy as she claimed? Did anyone see SNL? What was your favorite sketch (I thought the Milkshake sketch was awesome)?

mormons and democrats

fleeing — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:24:33 GMT

I'd be very wary of voting for a Mormon - but that's because I'm a non-Mormon Democrat living in Utah. Here, LDS theology permeates many aspects of our government - from public schools to liquor laws - and I would not like to see that influence extend to the federal level. It's a very real and divisive issue - I'm not speaking from prejudice (we are friendly with many of our Mormon neighbors and colleagues) but from experience. Also, I think it's fair to say that many Democrats would not vote for a Mormon because Mormons are by and large socially conservative Republicans (my apologies to Harry Reid).

Probably too late

nerdnam — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:51:00 GMT

...but being a truer Democrat should have been the issue all along for Hillary Clinton.

She could have completely evaded race and experience issues by running as a better Democrat than Obama. She could have sharpened her appeal to working class people, hispanics, and suburban moms by zinging Obama's base of affluent liberals, many of whom are often iffy at best in their support for Democrats and working class issues, and sometimes positively hostile.

However, I do wonder if the Clintons really ever thought of themselves as mainstream 'Democrats.' After all, Bill ran for president in the first place as an outsider Democrat. No one in 1992 thought a Democrat could win against a popular war president, so proper Democrats like Cumo and Gore skipped the event. And it has to be admitted that the Democratic party as a whole really didn't come out in full throated partisan support of everything Bill Clinton did in office. Recall how much of the party fled in fear from Hillary's health care proposal. So it may be that being a 'Democrat' isn't something that naturally comes to the minds of the Clintons.

In any case, it's a bit a late in the day for this advice.

'Dressed' Obama

anna_g — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:46:29 GMT

Oh good Lord, Clinton campaign. What are you thinking?

Exactly how is this supposed to help you with the African-American vote?

I cannot see how they think they'd get anything positive out of this. Her "shame on you" fit on Saturday is all over YouTube. Her weird rant on the "celestial heavens" -- on a Sunday no less -- didn't go over well with the Christians at my Sunday night prayer meeting, either. Everyone felt she was mocking them.

I'm not a Clinton hater, but I have long mistrusted their values and her character, in particular. She isn't giving me any reason to swing a vote in her direction, as far as I can tell.

Hillary, this isn't about taking "down" Obama. It's about trying to find a way to elevate yourself and convince voters that you're the best candidate, not just the best one at slinging dirt. If you can't, then go home.

Re: The Denial Twist -- Blame Canada (please)

Shenping — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:32:38 GMT

Just some background info on our current government up here in the Frozen North:

Our Prime Minister is an evangelical Christian with a degree in the same field of economics that the neoconservatives preach. Recently our government has banned any Environment Canada scientists from publishing any results or giving any interviews without clearance from the executive that such research conforms to government policy. (Said executive doesn't particularly believe in global warming.) Last week the executive also announced any film companies applying for labour tax credits have to have their contents cleared by a board appointed by the executive.

This is a minority government, but the opposition and press aren't so much playing softball with them as much as playing slowpitch without any fielders.

Myself, I'd like to start a petition to change his title from Prime Minister Harper to Party Chairman Harper, except he might sue me for libel--as his office today announced they are suing the leader of the opposition for libel over references to allegations that his party, while in opposition, offered a $1 million bribe to an independent Member of Parliament who was dying of cancer to help collapse the previous government. Said allegations arise from the MP's widow, who is seeking a candidacy with the Conservative Party.

So please keep this in mind when evaluating any claims made on behalf of our Right Honourable Party Chairman.

Dear White Women Over Forty

doodahman — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:01:32 GMT

Reposted from yesterday's TP:

"Hillary Clinton's campaign model," David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist told me this morning in Chicago, "is a very tired Washington model: 'I'll do these things for you.' Barack's model is 'Let's do these things together.' This has been the premise of Barack's politics all his life, going back to his days as a community organizer. He has really lived and breathed it, which is why it comes across so authentically.

"Of course, the time also has to be right for the man and the moment to come together. And, after all the country has been through over the last seven years, the times are definitely right for the message that the only way to get real change is to activate the American people to demand it."

Dear White Women Over Forty:

David Axelrod is right. And I'll go further. Hillary will lose the general election if she takes the nomination because she cannot sustain support among a sufficiently wide set of demographics to beat John "Not The Faith of Your Father's Waterboarding" McCain. Looking at the demographics of the national and state by state polling, it becomes crystal clear.

This is not a race in which each candidate shares a wide range of demographic support. This is basically a race in which one single demographic, white women over forty, are holding out against everybody else. More importantly, Obama has almost two to one support among independents over Clinton. As for Republicrats-- those who've normally voted Republican but who will vote against their party this cycle (plus those not willing to come out to elect John McCain) overwhelmingly support Obama.

To the contrary, Hillary not only loses those voters overwhelmingly, her nomination would electrify the GOPig base and bring them out in droves to vote against her. These are only two of several reasons why Obama is far more likely to beat McCain than Hillary-- which is itself THE reason to support Obama, if nothing else.

It's also easier to see why those Dems who stand against Obama are so adamant and why they think he's just talk and no action. They are the type of Dems that GOPigs and independents rightfully laugh at and deride. They are the ones who think that the government is just going to give them something worthwhile without them having to do anything other than turn a lever every four years. What nonesense.

They don't see Obama accomplishing anything because they have no intention or ability to HELP HIM accomplish anything. You know, like by joining and forming grass roots organizations that can raise money, raise consciousness, and raise the roof when it comes to competing with the corporate lobbyists.

It's ironic, then, when Hillary mocks Obama with over the top descriptions of solutions coming down in a shaft of light from the sky. The fact is, that's exactly what she is selling-- that she will, all by herself, "fight" for change in Washington, and then turn around and bestow her gifts upon us hapless peasants. Uh huh, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The fact is, without the mass follow up mobilization of the public, there never will be a counterweight to corporate lobbying to actually force the kind of changes we need-- changes that we have yet to reach concensus on and push.

Hillary not only fails to see the necessity of mass mobilization, she cannot achieve it even if she did. She's divisive-- whether that's fair or what she wanted is immaterial. It is what it is. She will have half the country mobilized against her. Obaman, on the other hand, will go a long way to uniting the center-left/progressives and independents. His victory will energize the grassroots, and we will have the possibility of forcing Washington to reform.

If that doesn't happen, then people who say Obama is all talk and no action will be right. But the fault won't be Obama's. It will be our's.

But for now, the only thing standing in the way of our own success (or failure due to laziness and inaction), are Hillary supporters-- that single, stubborn demographic of white women over forty. Normally, I love white women over forty. It was my single most successful demographic in life, come to think about it. It's certainly the demographic I spend most of my time fantasizing about, anyways.

And truth be told, even that demographic is starting to move in the right direction. From 70-30 in favor of Hillary, it's 55-45 and getting better (I'm going from memory here-- if these numbers are wrong, I'm interested in what the real ones are).

And, you know deep down in your hearts that Obama is right about one thing-- if there is going to be real change, it's only if the people come together and fight for it with an ally in the White House. It won't come down from on High. You know it. You must know it because you never got anywhere without working for it together as a team.

So come on ladies. In this fight, you have to think outside the box (no pun intended), and look at things from a more objective view. I didn't pick Obama as my first or even second choice. I fell into line when I saw how the other segments of the center/left/progressives moved, and I gave up my choices for the good of the whole.

Ya'll ought to do the same.

If you do, I'll give you a foot massage!

dood

The Name Game

OIFVet — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:08:52 GMT

If Obama was ashamed of his name, he would have dropped it years ago.

It's a name. There are plenty of people out there named Hussein that are just as honorable as those named anything else. It's not like Barack did some hard time and came out of the penal system with a new "Muslim sounding name."

I'd sport it like a badge of courage.

I've stated before and I'll stand by the statement that I can in no way see how a guy named Hussein can do anything but up our cred some in the Middle East (and elsewhere).

For idiots to toss the name out there in hopes that it will incite anti-Muslim/African(name the group) sentiment is even more sophomoric than my typical smart-assed approach to life.

The only idiots that are going to buy off on this crap are the dolts who already got a glimpse of him, saw that he is darker than Wonder Bread and decided, based on that critical analysis that they aren't going to vote for him. So, there's no net loss anyway.

While we're on names, why did Hil drop her middle moniker when it came time to run for office? That seems like more food for thought than attempting to scorn someone for a name he was given by his parents.

Obama campaign being consistent re: McCain "Hussein" flap

burymyheart@jerkingknee — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:55:13 GMT

According to the article you linked to, Mr. Beam, the Obama campaign seems to be following precisely the same very reasonable precepts it did with Clinton: "'I suppose you could say, well, the first time, that's what happened,' said Helms. 'But when you see a pattern, of people making statements and then the follow-up statement, that that wasn't authorized, it doesn't take a genius to see that there's a thread going on here. How many times are we going to see the isolated incident followed by the denial before we just simply say, "Would you please stop?"'"

Two points: 1) the talk show host wasn't a formal part of the McCain campaign team -- Shaheen was part of Clinton's; 2) Shaheen's remark came after repeated similar incidents. So McCain gets a pass this time, and possibly the next time. After that, it will reasonably be construed that the attacks aren't coming from "loose cannons", but as a part of a deliberate campaign of insinuation, and the gloves will be off. This is precisely how this sort of thing should be handled.

Obama Sidesteps The Trap

the_slasher14 — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:11:22 GMT

First of all, let me tip my hat to McCain. The man does have class. Bush NEVER would have done anything like that -- he would have disclaimed responsibility. McCain, of course, knows that better than anyone.

But I also bow to Obama for keeping the whole thing at a low profile, though I'm not surprised. The reason Obama has a decent shot at becoming our first black president is because he doesn't try to pose as a victim, something Hillary Clinton could learn to her benefit. He understands that playing the victim is a double-edged sword. It gains you sympathy from those similar to yourself, and from those who dislike seeing others abused. But it also is seen as an attempt to make people who are NOT similar to yourself feel guilty, and it always backfires more than it works. Sad, perhaps, but it's the way things work, and Obama has dodged the temptation to cry "poor me" at every turn.

Now Taking Predictions:

bentontheworld — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:03:22 GMT

Senator Clinton recently stood on stage and said "Shame on you, Barack Obama." How does the eminently wise Fray crowd think the public will react to her new tactic.

My inclination (full disclosure: I am a strong supporter of Senator Obama) is to believe that this will result in a significant drop in Senator Clinton's poll numbers and election results. I was rather nervous that she'd be able to hold on to Texas and Ohio and spin a "momentum" narrative of her own into a brokered convention. However, I now feel confident she will lose Texas at the least, and most likely both Texas and Ohio.

Her outburst demonstrates her failure to comprehend a few key lessons from this election:

(1. Going negative doesn't help her. Time and time again, from South Carolina to Wisconsin, the harder Clinton attacked, the worse her numbers became. I suspect the campaign attributed her New Hampshire victory to increasing emphasis on attacking Senator Obama's record, when in fact they should have given more credence to her "Diner Sob". The way gender influences our perception of political candidates is a topic for another post, but I suspect women are able to get away with showing emotion more easily, and men are able to get away with showing combativeness.

(2. Going positive does work. Showing emotion, finding her voice, acting with class and grace--these are all positive attributes for Senator Clinton, when she opts to use them. Voters reward her for it. After the debate, I was, again, genuinely worried that her rousing conclusion could be parlayed into a string of momentum-changing victories. This will blunt or--more probably--reverse those potential gains.

(3. Voters are informed. In the early nineties, it would have been easier to express outrage about some fliers, insinuate that they were malicious and false, get a couple powerful friends in the press to agree with you, and let your victim try to respond. Now, we're instantly able to see the fliers, to cross-reference their statements, to form nuanced opinions, and to reject claims that are overly stated. I suspect this will happen here: if Senator Clinton wants to quibble with whether she used the word "boon", or whether she only thought NAFTA was beneficial, it clearly doesn't justify the indignancy she showed yesterday.

(4. On a related note: consistency matters. Most voters are aware of the tenor of her conclusion to the debate Thursday; most of them have seen her say she was honored to be on stage with Senator Obama, and shake his hand. Now, they see her expressing outrage at materials that his campaign had distributed long ago.

There are only two alternatives here: either she knew about the material, or she didn't. If she didn't know about them, she dangerously out-of-the-loop and running a truly, madly, deeply disfunctional campaign. People have been talking about the health insurance flyer for quite some time, and I would hope that Senator Clinton has long been aware of it. If she did know about it, then what changed between Thursday and Saturday? There was no significant development on the campaign trail, other than the fact that most pundits were characterizing the debate as a situation in which she really needed to knock Obama down, and that she hadn't accomplished it. If this is the case, this kind of government of the pundits, by the pundits, and for the pundits would be pretty disturbing.

The most significant factor, I believe, is #1. Running against the "change" candidate, you cannot try to cast yourself as the "shame" candidate and hope to succeed. With the amount of coverage that the incident has generated, and with the way Senator Clinton came off during her news conference, I suspect her "Day of Shame" will prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back. We'll be able to get a pretty good idea of whether or not that's true if polls taken after February 23rd show a sharp drop-off for Senator Clinton; this could well be her "Dean Scream".

A Vote for Clinton:

bentontheworld — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:14:16 GMT

At this point, if you are a Democrat, a fan of HRC, and a resident in a state that has yet to vote, at what point does the following thought begin to factor into your decision-making process:

Obama has a pretty significant lead in pledged delegates, and a pretty solid lead in overall delegates. If Hillary picks up some delegates in my state, she might close the gap, but she's unlikely to catch up, especially in pledged delegates. If she closes the gap, there's the very real possibility that the convention could be ugly; Clinton could overturn the pledged delegate count with superdelegates, or there could be a Florida-Michigan debacle, or a vote-counting mess, or some combination of all of the above. It could cast serious aspersions on how democratic the Democratic party is, and hurt either candidate's chances of winning in November.

If Obama wins my state, the party is more likely to have a clear and convincing victor against whom McCain would have to run. If Obama leads by significant margins, there will be no convention debacle. Therefore, to increase the chances of putting a Democrat in the White House, I will vote Obama.

I'm an Obama supporter, so perhaps this train of thought sounds a little sweeter to my ears than to yours, but it certainly seems logical: a vote for Clinton is, at this point, essentially a vote for Clinton and a brokered convention. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama and a clear winner.

Thoughts?

You people are nuts

lubbesuh — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:26:17 GMT

If you applied any amount of critical thinking to this subject you would see how absurd these ridiculous claims about Palin are. You do realize how involved she has been in one of the largest trade issues we have in North America, which is oil and gas. This woman is brilliant. She has been unrelentingly bashed by the media but I believe that people are well aware of the ludicrous nature of these charges and are going along with the mockery because they are enjoying it.

Sara Palin is Smarter than you

kevistator — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:11:39 GMT

You ask if Sara Palin is smarter than a 5th grader? She is the Administrator of the largest state in the union. And you are.......? Hmmm thats right......a blogger on a "free" medium provided by tax payer funds. You have really gone the distance for self improvement.... Even the 5th grader can see who has done more with thier life. Perhaps a higher mathematics course? Besides, what would you do with that llama wool sweater anyway? Proceeds from our overblown NAFTA agreements.

How many states are there?

Don Schenk — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:15:38 GMT

The election is over, and SLATE still harps on Sarah Palin's reaction to the kind of "gotcha!" questions that Obama was never asked.

At least she didn't ell a crowd that hse visted 57 states so far, and that she had one or two more to go. (I'll leave all you Obama supporters to come up with excuses for your guy.)

Sarah Palin's Medical History Mystery Revealed !

AlFeldzamen — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:57:08 GMT

It seemed a bit mysterious, why Governor Palin's medical records were such a secret, and only released on the eve of the election.

She seemed adamantly determined to keep thos personal medical records from advanced public scrutiny, a most unusual stance for a candidate for such high office. What on earth was the lady hiding so grimly?

Coulc it be that, since the date of her first delivery is known, and also the date of her marriage, being a public record, is also known . . . that her medical records would reveal this first birth was not premature, but full term, and that it strongly indicated that the conception occurred before her marriage?

And that is exactly what the medical record showed, that the birth of her first child was full "term," which means 9 months plus or minus 2 weeks. Yet the lady gave birth only 8 months after her elopement wedding. Such marriages are often rushed, for pregnancy reasons, and that seems to have been the case here.

This certainly would have been most damaging in the election for one who professes such fundamentalist views and such personal virtue as the Alaska governor. She, after all, has been an ardent promoter of premarital chastity and abstinence, and an equally ardent opponent of sex education.

Seems to make her a total DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO hypocrite, no?

Palin

CLNurnberg — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:33:53 GMT

Is Obama smarter than a kindergartener? 57 states? Inhalators? Funny the questions you don't ask here, isn't it?

No, Obama was tired or just too hungry for that waffle to answer important questions or to keep little facts like 50 states in his brain. Palin, on the other hand, needs to be pilloried for rumors and her motherhood needed to be challenged at every opportunity.

Well now we have an inexperienced President instead of an inexperienced VP. Biden, however, believed that Roosevelt went on TV in 1929 to reassure America. I don't see the question "Is Biden more demented than a 112 year old?"