The Friday Political Thread: Special Half-Strength Edition

David Weigel | May 30, 2008

Quote of the Week
"You’re a hot ticket now but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?" - Bob Dole, issuing a Viagra-powered beatdown to Scott McClellan.

The Week in Brief
- No primaries were held, thank God. (OK, the impact-less Idaho primary was held.)
- John McCain and Barack Obama played chicken over visiting the front in Iraq.
- Cynthia McKinney hit the delegate threshold to win the Green Party nomination. (I think she's in a stronger position than David Cobb was when he, similarly, tried to hold off Ralph Nader's lazy effort to take the party's nod.)
- Another cloth-clad Obama ally took it upon himself to yell and scream like an idiot with mere days until the next votes. (It was mostly interesting for the historical curiousity of Catholic League mullah Bill Donohue attacking a Catholic priest.)

Below the Fold
- Logical Premise does the heretical and elucidates the reasons why "Ron Paul lost."
- Barack Obama crushes John McCain in the (coming soon!) League of Democracies nations.
- Glenn Greenwald goes postal on Mike Allen for saying Scott McClellan sounds like a blogger going postal.
- Geraldine Ferraro keeps talking.
- Denis Boyles profiles Phill Kline.

I'm liking the fan-made prog videos more and more. Here's a collage of classic video games set to "Service with a Smile" by Happy the Man, which I maintain is a terrible name for a band and nearly as bad a name for a respectful tribute song by The Cure.

SUNDAY UPDATE: I mostly ignored yesterday's Democratic rules fight, learning that Michigan and Florida would be seated at half-strength by, of all people, Eugene Mirman. (At his show in Arlington, Virginia, he eyed the empty front row of seats and joked: "I'm sorry that the Rules and Bylaws Committee couldn't make it. I always put them on the list!") So after five months of brutal warfare, they've applied the solution that the Republicans applied to these primaries months and months earlier. The Republicans sucked it up; the Democrats screamed and cried about it.

The fight produced some mighty good reporting, though. At the top of the pile is Eve Fairbanks' evocative scene, with its pictures of crazed Hillary supporters accusing Obama of murder and begging signatures from a deranged tabloid C-lister who's alleged he had a night of gay sex and smooth cocaine with the candidate. (Just don't ask him to produce the evidence!)

What does the delegate split mean? If I were Clinton, I'd stop alienating Democrats with weird Harold Ickes antics and suspend my campaign next week, ready to take over in Denver if he implodes by convention time. I think Clinton's basically going to do that, but the antics aren't stopping. Ickes was on CNN today whining that only George McGovern had won the nomination without a "popular vote majority." Months ago, the Clinton campaign pushed for new, re-run Florida and Michigan primaries because they wanted a chance to beat Obama in the popular vote. When they didn't get the re-runs, they started pretending that Florida and Michigan votes counted anyway. No one with oxygen flowing to the brain believes it, and yet they keep delegitimizing Obama by harping on it.

Comments

|5.30.08 @ 6:17PM|#

Dave,

You linked to a story about Obama and McCain from February.

|5.30.08 @ 6:33PM|#

Thanks Dave. Never heard of Happy the Man before, which surprises me considering how long they've been around. Good stuff...off to Amazon.

|5.30.08 @ 6:43PM|#

David Weigel does...what Nintendon't

LLStone|5.30.08 @ 6:45PM|#

Um, not that it was a big earthshaking deal or anything but Idaho had a primary on the 27th, which was this week.

|5.30.08 @ 6:46PM|#

I'm glad Scott McClellan's getting a beat-down.
If he offered any concrete or new damage against Bush, I'd be for him, but with this stunt he only re-hashed all the old whiny criticisms we've seen from liberals a thousand times before.
Fuck him.

|5.30.08 @ 6:47PM|#

From the Catholic League web site:

About Us
What is the Catholic League?
The Catholic League is the nation's largest Catholic civil rights organization. Founded in 1973 by the late Father Virgil C. Blum, S.J., the Catholic League defends the right of Catholics - lay and clergy alike - to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination.

Motivated by the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment, the Catholic League works to safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened.

Is the Catholic League Necessary?
Absolutely. Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. once observed that prejudice against the Catholic Church was "the deepest bias in the history of the American people." Yale professor Peter Viereck commented that "Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals."

And today's brand of anti-Catholicism is more virulent and more pervasive than ever before in American history. While it is true that Catholics as individuals have made progress in securing their rights, the degree of hostility exhibited against the Catholic Church is appalling. Quite simply, Catholic bashing has become a staple of American society.

What Does the Catholic League Do?
When slanderous assaults are made against the Catholic Church, the Catholic League hits the newspapers, television, and radio talk shows defending the right of the Church to promote its teachings with as much verve as any other institution in society.
When Catholics are the victims of a bigoted portrayal by the media, the Catholic League issues news releases bringing the matter to the attention of the public. It may also encourage a boycott of the program's sponsors.
When Catholic students or employees are denied their rights in school or on the job, the Catholic League makes a formal response to the guilty parties; the league response may include litigation.
When the religious freedom rights of any American are threatened, the Catholic League stands ready to fight for justice in the courts.
When Catholics are slighted by public officials, the Catholic League calls press conferences alerting the public to the unacceptable behavior of their servants.
When Catholic interests are unfairly represented by public policy initiatives, the Catholic League offers testimony before legislative bodies to set the record straight.
When officials in government, the media and education need an informed perspective on Catholic civil rights issues, the Catholic League provides a quick and effective response.

Anyone care to take a whack at explaining how any of this relates to denouncing a Catholic priest who insulted Hillary Clinton while hamming it up in a UCC church?

|5.30.08 @ 6:48PM|#

This is not the reason B. Hussain Obama is going to lose:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y&eurl=http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/29/9431/74527

This is:

Barack Obama crushes John McCain in the (coming soon!) League of Democracies nations.

Colin Clout|5.30.08 @ 7:01PM|#

Joshua Corning,

The way I see it no matter what happens Obama's success is pretty clearly the most unique thing to happen in presidential politics in some time.

|5.30.08 @ 7:04PM|#

I'm glad Scott McClellan's getting a beat-down.
If he offered any concrete or new damage against Bush, I'd be for him, but with this stunt he only re-hashed all the old whiny valid criticisms we've seen from liberals a thousand times before.
Fuck him.

Fixed that for you.

Larry\'s Friday Political Thre|5.30.08 @ 7:06PM|#

Hmmm... looks like there's a a challenge for Drew Carey of Reason Magazine... my braces are too tight... I see that Huck has smacked down libertarianism, good for him, nice fellow... looks like there's a model parliament for this Union thing they tell us doesn't exist... if Liza can't make it is Liz available?... now that's some solution to the Rachael Ray/Dunkin' Donuts hubbub they told me about!...my producer told me this week's prog antidote is "mar-velous", but I have no idea what that means... has anyone seen my other pair of braces?........

highnumber|5.30.08 @ 7:22PM|#

Lonelywhacker's theme song?

|5.30.08 @ 7:23PM|#

There are a number of issues I might accuse reason of being "psuedo-libertarian" on. Immigration is not one of them.

|5.30.08 @ 7:26PM|#

How many years has Bob Dole had to reflect on the damage he did to his country in the name of his corn-farming constituents? I'm talking about ethanol.

Compared to an unwillingness to reflect, being an "ingrate" seems trivial to me. We're supposed to keep lying to avoid being an ingrate?

|5.30.08 @ 7:26PM|#

Anyone care to take a whack at explaining how any of this relates to denouncing a Catholic priest who insulted Hillary Clinton while hamming it up in a UCC church?

He brought shame on the Church as well as himself with his performance, so that would trigger

When slanderous assaults are made against the Catholic Church, the Catholic League hits the newspapers, television, and radio talk shows defending the right of the Church to promote its teachings with as much verve as any other institution in society.

In any case, this is the predictable result of moving the altar into the center of the church. You never saw YouTube video of a priest making a fool of himself before Vatican II, did you?

Kolohe|5.30.08 @ 7:27PM|#

looks like there's a model parliament for this Union thing they tell us doesn't exist..

Here's a model of something else that they tell us doesn't exist.

|5.30.08 @ 7:29PM|#

He made a slanderous assault on the Catholic Church?

Really? I must have missed that part.

Because "policing the statments of Catholics" isn't found in there Chris.

In any case, this is the predictable result of moving the altar into the center of the church. You never saw YouTube video of a priest making a fool of himself before Vatican II, did you? I can't argue with that. Tell you what, that's one priest I wouldn't mind seeing the back of. heh

Kolohe|5.30.08 @ 7:29PM|#

So a priest, a minister and a maoist walk into a presidential campaign, and ask 'is the modern media some kind of joke?'

|5.30.08 @ 7:31PM|#

Shame on you Kolohe. Obviously if a few academics and students are promoting something, there must be a vast government conspiracy to bring it to life. Duh.

Jonathan,

If the "old whiny criticisms" of liberals are confirmed by the former spokesman of the Bush Administration, don't you think that maybe gives them a little more credence?

I have a feeling that if Bush himself came out tomorrow and said he'd been lying to us all along, you'd still dismiss it as more of the same "old whiny criticisms."

|5.30.08 @ 7:32PM|#

joe, the great irony is that previously, if anybody dared to challenge something a priest said on the altar, Donohue would accuse that person of attacking religious freedom. He may be the most irony-free person on the planet.

Kolohe|5.30.08 @ 7:33PM|#

In any case, this is the predictable result of moving the altar into the center of the church. You never saw YouTube video of a priest making a fool of himself before Vatican II, did you?

OTOH, Mel Gibson belongs to a sect of the Catholic church which believes Vatican II was heretical sellout. And he has made a fool of himself on youtube as well.

|5.30.08 @ 7:35PM|#

Brian24, you mean like this?

Motivated by the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment, the Catholic League works to safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened.

|5.30.08 @ 7:37PM|#

You know, if Pfather Flager had said that in Latin, this whole thing would have been a non-issue.

I have to admit, my interest in the Latin mass cooled a bit when I learned that the homily is still given in English.

|5.30.08 @ 7:49PM|#

He made a slanderous assault on the Catholic Church?

From a certain point of view, yes.

|5.30.08 @ 7:52PM|#

When did the greens decide to become the biggest laughing stock since the know-nothing party?

-jcr

|5.30.08 @ 7:52PM|#

I for one think The Catholic League would be a great name for a rock band (sure beats the hell outta Happy The Man)...

|5.30.08 @ 8:02PM|#

I have to admit, my interest in the Latin mass cooled a bit when I learned that the homily is still given in English.

Sapientia est celere scientiam...

(Wisdom is the concealment of learning)

Les|5.30.08 @ 8:03PM|#

If he offered any concrete or new damage against Bush, I'd be for him, but with this stunt he only re-hashed all the old whiny criticisms we've seen from liberals a thousand times before.

I don't doubt that McClellan's always been an opportunist toady, but is it really "whiny" to criticize dishonest warmongering? And didn't a whole bunch of non-liberals "whine" about it, too?

|5.30.08 @ 8:05PM|#

Actually, "wisdom is the concealment of knowledge" is a better translation...

|5.30.08 @ 8:15PM|#

That type of preaching supposedly gets its power from its ability to "shake people out of their complacency" and "fearlessly speack truth to power," but Pflager wasn't saying anything challenging or dangerous or rebellious to that congregation. He was just sucking up to them.

Rakune|5.30.08 @ 8:21PM|#

Since I'm going to throw away my precious vote; could Cynthia McKinney provide the most entertainment on a fun/vote scale? Which headline would provide the most satisfaction: "McKinney gives it to McCain"; or "Barr sucks Conservative votes"? I'm torn and hopelessly undecided.

|5.30.08 @ 8:32PM|#

I've never paid much attention to third party politics outside of the LP. Why, exactly, did Nader split with the Greens? And why are they running a candidate against him?


Oh, and as far as ex-Georgia US Representative third party 2008 Presidential candidates, I think the Libertarians definitely got the better deal. Barr might have some problems with his ideological bona fides, but Cynthia McKinney is downright, no-holds-barred batshit insane.

Though at least between her and Baldwin maybe the Libertarian love affair with Troofers will come to an end.

|5.30.08 @ 8:33PM|#

I think the most entertainment would be if McCain asked Ferraro to be his running mate (hey, it's at least formally a possibility in some universe...). I want to hear her make kooky comments about Obama all summer.

|5.30.08 @ 8:52PM|#

All I want to know is when is Politics and Prog going to post some Keith Emerson. What the fuck, have you no balls? KE is God.

Happy the Man, however, I do like...

|5.30.08 @ 8:53PM|#

As far as a funny band name of that sort of form goes, Japanese hard rock band Maximum the Hormone comes to mind... definitely not the same sort of music, though.

Rakune|5.30.08 @ 9:04PM|#

And then David Duke marries Gerladine and they name their (in-virto) baby Robert E Jefferson Davis Ferraro-Duke. Speaking of bat-shit insane, I just figured out the one thing that could get me to vote for Obama.

Rakune|5.30.08 @ 9:09PM|#

in-vitro...as in the best bourbon comes out a glass (not plastic) bottle

Neu Mejican|5.30.08 @ 9:09PM|#

Re: Happy the Man...

I can't believe that song clocks in at under 3:00.

It felt like it was longer than the live version of Karn Evil 9.

Lefty,
ELP was the first album I purchased as a child, but it takes a lot to forgive Love Beach don't ya think?

|5.30.08 @ 9:18PM|#

The article on why Ron Paul lost is spot on the money. Right in the middle of the comments section is some nutjob named Joan who starts ranting about how Ron Paul is a electoral genius who has a secr^H^H^Hundisclosed plan to win with delegates in November. All in 48pt type. Sigh.

Logical Premise missed one crucial point in his analysis: Everytime Ron Paul seemed to get ahead in the polls, some troofer nutjob showed up to scream in a camera.

|5.30.08 @ 9:50PM|#

The article on Ron Paul is OK, especially about the campaign. I agree with the Reason analysis that the TV ads they put out were dumb and did nothing for him, especially in New Hampshire.

Most of the Article though is the same old moderate crapola. If Ron Paul had come out with a moderate platform, would he have inspired the Revolution at all? Not likely. And gradualism does not work because every time you cut a program, you have howls of "Why me, and not him" and then the pressure to restore the program is back. There is no utopia, you have to get the idea that the whole system sucks or you won't get anywhere at all.

New Zealand and Ireland did it--made dramatic sweeping changes to their society without an economic collapse. Will the US, with all our resources and wealth, ever have an economic collapse? Maybe not. So we will have centrism forever, making others suffer while we stew in mediocrity.

Fluffy|5.30.08 @ 10:07PM|#

Hohensee is just running one of the two ridiculous bullshit talking points on McClellan that the neocons want out there.

He's doing "There is nothing new here, everyone knew this already," which is fucking CRAP, because you can't claim everyone already knew things that the Bush administration has always denied. After every last member of the Bush administration admits every one of their faults and performs a suitable act of contrition for them, we can maybe talk about moving on to other news. Until then, on the basis of their continuing denials, there is no justification for moving the conversation on. At all.

The other BS talking point is the one exemplified by the Dole statement in the original post. The cocksuckers employing the "you betrayed your President" talking point want the conversation to be about whether McClellan is displaying the proper "thieves' honor". There seems to be a line of thought that says that once you commit to a corrupt enterprise, it is dishonorable to turn on the other members of that enterprise, sell them out, and tell all. That is, of course, bullshit. There can be no such thing as a moral requirement to keep faith with coconspirators in an immoral purpose. Unless what McClellan is saying is false, the issue of "betrayal" does not exist because no one he could possibly be "betraying" has any right to expect or demand silence or discretion. Tough dots, cunts.

corn flakes urinalysis|5.30.08 @ 10:19PM|#

Maybe McClellan is getting the contrition out of the way so he can try for the nomination from the Party Formerly Known As Libertarian in 2012.

|5.30.08 @ 10:25PM|#

Nice writing, Fluffy. Dead on too.

Nearly everyone has become jaded. Politics have become about destruction.

Even a recent conversation with a neighbor got heated when the subject of school vouchers came up - now I know who he listens too (wingnut radio).

|5.30.08 @ 11:17PM|#

never understood the ELP love. They always struck me as all pomp and no circumstance.

Kolohe|5.30.08 @ 11:25PM|#

The other BS talking point is the one exemplified by the Dole statement in the original post. The cocksuckers employing the "you betrayed your President"

To be fair, Dole may have thought everyone was still talking about *George* McClellan.

||5.31.08 @ 12:22AM|#

Yet Another Pastor Disaster from Obama. How many more will there be until November?

|5.31.08 @ 3:30AM|#

What's interesting about the Obama campaign for me is seeing all of these fringe Chicago political figures pop up from time to time. Pfleger is well known in Chicago for never meeting a TV Camera he didn't like. He's also one of the folks who crusaded against the Jerry Springer show.

He had this crusade about 15 years ago trying to shut down liquor stores on the South Side, and I see on Wikipedia he's gone after gun shops too now.

I wouldn't worry too much about Obama being beholden to this guy anymore than Wright though: he's just a crank that was useful to Obama in local politics and is easily discarded.

|5.31.08 @ 4:05AM|#

Father Pfleger's pandering is remarkable. I don't agree with his demagoguery, but it's amazing to watch the audience lap up what he spills.

Also, I can't believe Geraldine Ferraro is still playing the victim card. But then, I'll say that the "victim mentality" crosses a lot of racial and probably cultural lines (hint, hint).
I can't defend the appeal of a Rev. Pfleger or a Farrakhan, but I can understand urban African-American resentment within a historical if not neccesarily modern context.
I think its counterpart exists among poor, uneducated whites, the ones Ferraro said are "upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white".
There's a "grand thesis" here somewhere about how some unfortunate people really have been let down by society, but how some poor and uneducated people are just looking for somebody else to blame for their own lack of success.

I might not be completely coherent here, but I know if I were a sociologist, the circumstances surrounding Revs Wright/Pfleger and Geraldine Ferraro/Hillary pandering to Appalachian whites would be a goldmine.

|5.31.08 @ 4:07AM|#

Here comes Obama with yet another "spiritual advisor" who hates my children because they are white.

BO speaks well and is charismatic, but so does Louis Farakan. I like to listen to Farakan's speeches, and I often find a small nugget of wisdom in them, but I would not make him president. I am beginning to think the same of Mr. Obama.

|5.31.08 @ 4:15AM|#

What Rev Pfleger said is embarrassing and actually kind of shameful. But this Ferraro quote, to me seems kind of crazy.

They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.

I ask this in all seriousness. Why is it some people are convinced that poor/working class black people and poor/working class white people don't have similar issues? I'm genuinely perplexed at times when the race issue even comes up. Don't all people regardless of race just want a decent education/job/community to live in?

|5.31.08 @ 4:17AM|#

Here comes Obama with yet another "spiritual advisor" who hates my children because they are white.

Well, considering Pfleger can live with himself, I'm thinking he's just pandering.

|5.31.08 @ 4:45AM|#

I wouldn't worry too much about Obama being beholden to this guy anymore than Wright though: he's just a crank that was useful to Obama in local politics and is easily discarded.

I am just speaking for myself but I don't worry about Obama being beholden to his racist spiritual advisors.

I worry that BO is himself just a polished, secretive racist and will follow his "conscience". BO's racist-advisor eruptions are indicative of his own thinking because these are the people who were closest to him and had his ear.

His wife's "this if the first time I am proud to be an American" remark, when frame by Wright and Flager, becomes telling.

I don't want a racist in the white house.

|5.31.08 @ 4:50AM|#

And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems

Ferraro really seems to express this uncritically. But the implication is that, because Obama is in a different racial category than 'Ferraro's stopping people', he has to address their problems, specifically by race?
Wow.
Maybe, "I haven't forgot about you because you're white. I know it's easy for you to be ignored, because Caucasians are only a small minority in this country, but I will not neglect your needs."

|5.31.08 @ 4:59AM|#

I don't want a racist in the white house.

I can't tell you how to think. But I like this Nixon quote: "A public man must never forget that he loses his usefulness when he as an individual, rather than his policy, becomes the issue." If that's the case, Obama was already behind the eight-ball, because he as an individual will always be some kind of issue.

And that Michelle Obama quote about her pride in her country has been taken so miserably out of context I can only shrug.

I worry that BO is himself just a polished, secretive racist and will follow his "conscience".

Damn crypto-racists. But seriously, on every 'racial' issue it's about whether you believe there is a greater sophistication to Obama's worldview than to Wright's basest comments.

|5.31.08 @ 7:01AM|#

Damn crypto-racists. But seriously, on every 'racial' issue it's about whether you believe there is a greater sophistication to Obama's worldview than to Wright's basest comments.

Not so crypto, actually. If you hang around with the grand-wizard one can reasonably conclude that you are at least sympathetic to the grand-wizard's views.

I can not imagine any white guy with a past similar to BO's who would be given a pass. Apparently it is supposed to be different for those who racially discriminate against whites; how else do you explain and justify affirmative action, for example

|5.31.08 @ 7:15AM|#

I can't tell you how to think. But I like this Nixon quote: "A public man must never forget that he loses his usefulness when he as an individual, rather than his policy, becomes the issue." If that's the case, Obama was already behind the eight-ball, because he as an individual will always be some kind of issue.

That is an insightful observation on Mr. Nixon's part. The general problem with that point of view, though, is that it excuses poor character so long as one pursues the right policies. Trent Lott certainly got no such leniency when he offered a birthday toast to his fellow senator, for example.

I am certainly willing to listen to your take on Michelle Obama's shame. The context I see is one where Michelle has been handed every benefit this country can bestow; where she most likely has been given head of the line privileges because of her race. It seems to me that she ought to be very grateful and proud to be American.

|5.31.08 @ 7:26AM|#

Why is it some people are convinced that poor/working class black people and poor/working class white people don't have similar issues? I'm genuinely perplexed at times when the race issue even comes up. Don't all people regardless of race just want a decent education/job/community to live in?

They do have similar issues. "Race comes up" because poor white people are discriminated against by the state in favor of middle/upper class black people mostly.

Yes, all people want a decent education, etc. All people want an equal opportunity to succeed. Affirmative action is not about equal opportunities though.

|5.31.08 @ 7:49AM|#

If you hang around with the grand-wizard one can reasonably conclude that you are at least sympathetic to the grand-wizard's views.

The two things I don't like about Rev. Wright's worldview are his conspiracy-mongering and his hyperbole concerning America's history and role in the world. I wouldn't compare him to a "grand wizard". I don't agree with anybody walling themselves off in the name of Afrocentrism (reminds me of some sort of self-imposed exile). Demagogue, yeah, but he's not quite the black equivalent of a klansman (unless he said all white people should go back to Europe and starts espousing mob justice).

The context I see is one where Michelle has been handed every benefit this country can bestow; where she most likely has been given head of the line privileges because of her race. It seems to me that she ought to be very grateful and proud to be American.

Take out the part that starts after the semicolon and ends in race and I'll agree with you. I'm not exactly a fan of racial quotas in colleges, etc., but I find assertions like this hilarious, and insulting:

"Race comes up" because poor white people are discriminated against by the state in favor of middle/upper class black people mostly.

Because all those poor Appalachian kids were going to go to Stanford or Yale, but some Cosby kid took their spot, they couldn't even get to state college and they ended up poor and broke working in a steel mill.
And, yes, Affirmative Action is about equal opportunities, but you do know what they say about "the road to Hell".

|5.31.08 @ 8:02AM|#

I guess Hillary later developed sympathy for those poor white victims. FWIW, I'd like "Affirmative Action", if not abolished entirely, to be race-neutral, like Hillary says we should work toward in this speech.

What says Obama? Apply affirmative action to poor white college applicants. (Apr 2008)

Oh, crap, are they making the same noises?

|5.31.08 @ 8:13AM|#

His wife's "this if the first time I am proud to be an American" remark,

I always assumed she was referring to this being the 'first time she was proud to be an American', as far as her pride in how many young people were taking part in the electoral process and as far as a sort of renewed faith in the national political scene.

Hell, I always appreciated this country, but I don't remember swelling with 'pride' except on a few occassions (like when we beat the Soviets at the Olympics).

|5.31.08 @ 8:15AM|#

Because all those poor Appalachian kids were going to go to Stanford or Yale, but some Cosby kid took their spot, they couldn't even get to state college and they ended up poor and broke working in a steel mill.

Alan Bakke proves my point. The kids trying to get into Michigan's law school at Ann Arbor prove my point. Yes, "some Cosby kid" did take their spot.

It is convenient for Obama and Hillary to suddenly embrace a "content of their character" philosophy when they run for the presidency. There must be something about running for office that clarifies the mind.

|5.31.08 @ 8:23AM|#

I always assumed she was referring to this being the 'first time she was proud to be an American', as far as her pride in how many young people were taking part in the electoral process and as far as a sort of renewed faith in the national political scene.

That seems an awfully weak defense of her remark.

|5.31.08 @ 8:25AM|#

wayne. I'm with you on the problems surrounding Affirmative Action, but wasn't Bakke in 1978, and didn't he win? I remember something about the situation at the Michigan law school, and it was cool that those kids stood up for themselves (really, I'd expect that from a future lawyer).
And I agree with you that such things are unacceptable, but I disagree that Affirmative Action has kept anyone poor and uneducated, at least that I've ever heard of.

|5.31.08 @ 8:27AM|#

That seems an awfully weak defense of her remark.

I'm asking this not sarcastically, but are you swelling with pride to be an American, every day, or do you sort of take it for granted?

|5.31.08 @ 8:30AM|#

And, yes, Affirmative Action is about equal opportunities, but you do know what they say about "the road to Hell".

If you know the definition of "equal" and "opportunity" then no, affirmative action is not about equal opportunities.

|5.31.08 @ 8:33AM|#

If you know the definition of "equal" and "opportunity" then no, affirmative action is not about equal opportunities.

You might need to read my post again. Or you might just have to question which criteria it's important be "equal".
Did that sound like a defense of Affirmative Action?

|5.31.08 @ 8:37AM|#

I'm asking this not sarcastically, but are you swelling with pride to be an American, every day, or do you sort of take it for granted?


I take it for granted, mostly, but to stand up and say, "this is the first time I have ever been proud to be American..." implies that before now I have been ashamed to be American, particularly when placed within the context of the good Reverend Wright's remarks.

|5.31.08 @ 8:42AM|#

but I disagree that Affirmative Action has kept anyone poor and uneducated, at least that I've ever heard of.

So, it's OK then, as a matter of law, to discriminate against black kids and simply tell them, "you can go to Howard or one of the other historically black colleges"? After all, that is exactly what affirmative action tells white (and Asian) kids today.

|5.31.08 @ 8:44AM|#

placed within the context of the good Reverend Wright's remarks

Or juxtaposed. Look, it seems like those who want to believe the best in Obama believe in his speeches but disregard what Wright says. And the cynics seem more apt to do the exact opposite. If Nixon's darkness was one great big gooey mess, and Clinton's was channeled almost entirely through his penis, I wonder about Obama's own negative associations. No wonder people call him an "empty suit" or a Human Rorschach. I guess it can be hard to get a bead on him (of course that goes for Hillary and McCain, too).

Guy Montag|5.31.08 @ 8:45AM|#

Is anybody going to watch the circus at the Marriott-Wardman Park hotel in Woodley Park (DC) today?

Closest METRO rail stop is the Woodley-Park/Zoo station and I do not find that ironic at all.

|5.31.08 @ 8:46AM|#

You might need to read my post again. Or you might just have to question which criteria it's important be "equal".
Did that sound like a defense of Affirmative Action?

I reread your post, and I quote:

And, yes, Affirmative Action is about equal opportunities,...

I reiterate: if you know the definition of "equal" then you can not conclude that affirmative action is about "equal opportunities".

|5.31.08 @ 8:48AM|#

fluffy-I think you comments at 10:07 are the best analysis on the McClellan thing I've seen.

Wayne and ART Pog-I do think there are issues where poor whites and poor blacks (and Hispanics) split. There is a natural competition between such groups for resources (such as jobs). Affirmative action is one of the main ones. Having to sit around in schools and hear how oppressed all blacks are and how great whites have it when you are poor and white can get ones hackles up a bit too. Having one of the most popular hobbies in poor white America feel threatened by urban pro-gun control politicians, many of whom are black, doesn't help either.

I think the black vote is for the Democrats what the relgious white vote is for the GOP: a reliable source of votes which myopically forces the nominee into positions that turn off an equal and sometimes greater number of potential independent voters.

|5.31.08 @ 8:49AM|#

So, it's OK then, as a matter of law, to discriminate against black kids and simply tell them, "you can go to Howard or one of the other historically black colleges"? After all, that is exactly what affirmative action tells white (and Asian) kids today.

No, it's not OK. I was not refuting your complaints about Affirmative Reaction. Instead, I was referring to Ferraro's op-ed (should have made that more clear) wherein she implied that "Reagan Democrats" were concerned about 'their time being over' or something.

|5.31.08 @ 8:50AM|#

"Is anybody going to watch the circus at the Marriott-Wardman Park hotel in Woodley Park (DC) today?"

Is it on C-SPan?

|5.31.08 @ 8:54AM|#

I hate to answer my own question, because it betrays the laziness that made me ask it, and THEN look up the answer...But, yes, it's all on TV:

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp

I like politicas, but I imagine it will be as boring as all get out. I'll be watching that new Spider-Man cartoon...

|5.31.08 @ 8:55AM|#

Wayne and ART Pog-I do think there are issues where poor whites and poor blacks (and Hispanics) split. There is a natural competition between such groups for resources (such as jobs). Affirmative action is one of the main ones. Having to sit around in schools and hear how oppressed all blacks are and how great whites have it when you are poor and white can get ones hackles up a bit too. Having one of the most popular hobbies in poor white America feel threatened by urban pro-gun control politicians, many of whom are black, doesn't help either.

I mostly agree with your point. There is nothing 'natural' about AA though.

|5.31.08 @ 8:59AM|#

I reiterate: if you know the definition of "equal" then you can not conclude that affirmative action is about "equal opportunities".

OK, I'll agree with you here. A lot of organizations set arbitrary percentages...and in my understanding, it depends which definition of "redress" you go with.

hear how oppressed all blacks are and how great whites have it when you are poor and white can get ones hackles up a bit too. Having one of the most popular hobbies in poor white America feel threatened by urban pro-gun control politicians, many of whom are black, doesn't help either.

Shoot, I'll speak up in that situation. From my limited experience, black people spend more time opressing other black people than white people do. The latter point is something I never thought about, but still valid.

|5.31.08 @ 8:59AM|#

wayne-then we more than mostly agree, because I meant to imply that the competition for resources was natural, not affirmative action. Sorry for not being clear. AA is an affront to individual rights and bad policy (it does not in fact make "race relations" better but makes them worse).

|5.31.08 @ 9:06AM|#

but I disagree that Affirmative Action has kept anyone poor and uneducated, at least that I've ever heard of.

Well, let's see: There is Bakke, and there are those kids rejected by Michigan Law, and those numbers can be multiplied by the number of public universities who have practiced such discrimination for decades.

That those kids were able to succeed in life despite their AA motivated mistreatment is no better, and no more persuasive, than saying that those at the back of the bus still arrive at the same destination.

Bakke did win, and so did those Michigan Law students, but only after a legal battle. And let's not forget that the Supremes decided that though the Michigan Law school admission policy was illegal, its undergrad AA program was (and still is) legal because it increased the "diversity" of the campus.

Affirmative Action is a doomed policy because it is wrong and unfair, and constitutionally prohibited despite what the Supremes think.

Guy Montag|5.31.08 @ 9:08AM|#

The Affirmative Action discussion is just more proof that we need a government program to solve this problem.

|5.31.08 @ 9:15AM|#

The Affirmative Action discussion is just more proof that we need a government program to solve this problem.

:D

Affirmative Action is a doomed policy because it is wrong and unfair, and constitutionally prohibited despite what the Supremes think.

Um, I'm not defending Affirmative Action. I was explaining to you why Ferraro's article made little sense. If the "Reagan Democrats" had a problem with Obama's stance on AA, they should also have had a problem with Hillary's stance.

Guy Montag|5.31.08 @ 9:20AM|#

Art, I was not talking about just your comment. I was talking about the whole discussion.

I suggest new legeslation and enforcement.

Fluffy|5.31.08 @ 9:25AM|#

Wayne, one problem with your assertion about Michelle Obama is that, to the best of my knowledge, she did not attend a public university.

As far as I am concerned, if a private university wants to admit blacks in preference to Asians, they should be allowed to and can knock themselves out.

Basically you're saying that she should embrace America's racist history in its entirety because some white people were nice to her and let her into a good college. And that's silly.

I don't like the "victimology" engaged in by many African-American politicians when it manifests itself as a demand for unjust compensation such as asking that I pay reparations for something I did not do. If you want reparations, you can talk to the hand.

But that's different from the counter-demand of many Repubicans, which is that blacks should pretend that America was never racist. That's the demand I see embedded in the criticism of Michelle Obama over the "proud" statement. I refuse to be punished for historical crimes based on race in which I had no part - but at the same time I don't expect black people to look back at our history and to like it, and to have the same attitude about the American historical narrative that I do.

|5.31.08 @ 9:26AM|#

Art,

I did not read Ferraro's article, but I honestly think there is only one principled stance possible on affirmative action since "affirmative action" is just a flowery phrase that means state sponsored, and sanctioned racism. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "end it, don't mend it".

To see Dems beating each other up on race issues is great theater though.

It sounds like we more or less agree.

Lefty|5.31.08 @ 9:30AM|#

Neu Mejican | May 30, 2008, 9:09pm | #
"Lefty,
ELP was the first album I purchased as a child, but it takes a lot to forgive Love Beach don't ya think?"

Yes Love Beach was an abortion; I was embarrassed as a 19 year old when it came out that I should have filed a complaint of late teen abuse against myself for even buying it. But that shouldn't invalidate an entire career, should it?

You ought to check out the KE Band stuff like here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY3Olb0baa4

|5.31.08 @ 9:36AM|#

It sounds like we more or less agree.

Definitely about Affirmative Action. I think I learned something, too.

|5.31.08 @ 9:38AM|#

Wayne, one problem with your assertion about Michelle Obama is that, to the best of my knowledge, she did not attend a public university.

As far as I am concerned, if a private university wants to admit blacks in preference to Asians, they should be allowed to and can knock themselves out.

Fluffy,
I agree with your point. The one quibble I have is that Harvard certainly receives public funds.

America does have a racist history, but its history is not exclusively about race, and its history on race is not solely bad. The underground rail road and the civil war are also part of America's history. The emancipation proclamation is also part of America's history. Those are things to be proud of.

I think Michelle O's statement stands to be examined on its own merits. It sounds to me like, "oh poor me, I am black and a victim... boo hoo. The fact that I earn $300,000 per year as a hospital administrator and my husband is a senator is of no consequence."

|5.31.08 @ 9:46AM|#

"But that's different from the counter-demand of many Repubicans, which is that blacks should pretend that America was never racist. That's the demand I see embedded in the criticism of Michelle Obama over the "proud" statement. I refuse to be punished for historical crimes based on race in which I had no part - but at the same time I don't expect black people to look back at our history and to like it, and to have the same attitude about the American historical narrative that I do." Again, I agree 100% and its nice to hear someone say something that strikes me as so obviously sensible.

"As far as I am concerned, if a private university wants to admit blacks in preference to Asians, they should be allowed to and can knock themselves out."
I disagree here, 1. to the extent that we have things called "public accomodations" I think most large private universities, like Princeton, should be under the same laws. Perhaps discrimination laws should not apply to this category, but to the extent it should (and I do think it should) then I think Princeton should qualify and 2. when these private colleges take federal $ (and heaps of it) they should have to comply with non-discrimination laws. These laws should of course protect people with white skin and men as much as they do people with dark skin and women.

Guy Montag|5.31.08 @ 9:48AM|#

The circus is just beginning. FOX is covering it. My Club G'itmo shirt just came out of the drier, time to hit the METRO before I miss the show on the street.

|5.31.08 @ 9:50AM|#

"I think Michelle O's statement stands to be examined on its own merits. It sounds to me like, "oh poor me, I am black and a victim... boo hoo. The fact that I earn $300,000 per year as a hospital administrator and my husband is a senator is of no consequence.""

Wayne, are thinking of the "proud" statement Ms. Obama made? Because I think fluffy's take is dead on. Regardless that she has done well in US society she is still a member of a group upon which this government and society took a massive dump during the majority of its history. I can't see how that would make any member of this group say "I'm proud to be an American." It astounds me that so many blacks and Native Americans fought for the US during wars while their government was systematically depriving them of basic human rights...If I were Irish living in Britian and making 300k a year I would still have a hard time being a "proud Brit."

|5.31.08 @ 9:57AM|#

Remember that Ms. Obama's parents most certainly lived at a time where the simple color of their skin was a factor that their government that they paid taxes to and the society they lived in (by all accounts peacebly and productively) held against them. The fact that this changes during her lifetime and opportunities are presented to her which she takes advantage of resulting in her doing quite well would not make her all that proud of the nation methinks. If my dad worked for a company that shit all over him (and let's say the company had some rent-seeking agreement or something that made it impractical for him to simply leave), and then later the company reigns were handed over to a new generation of more enlightened owners and eventually hired me and treated me well, I think I would still harbor some ill will toward said company. Oh, and did I mention my great grandfather was the great grandfather of the company owner's actual slave?

Guy Montag|5.31.08 @ 9:57AM|#

Howard Dean just now: "Texac is ready to turn blue"

Me: Please, hold your breath on that one.

Guy Montag|5.31.08 @ 10:01AM|#

Texas*

Elemenope|5.31.08 @ 11:02AM|#

GM --

And so Ann Richards was...what, again?

Elemenope|5.31.08 @ 11:03AM|#

Fluffy @ 9:25

p.s. Really quite well put, especially the second half.

Bill Cooke|5.31.08 @ 11:03AM|#

Many of you are not aware of this, but we Catholics have a special policy. Only Bill Donohue is allowed to rant and rave like an idiot. This priest violated that policy.

Gobble|5.31.08 @ 12:08PM|#

By the way, is Bob Barr still a PAC raising money for Republican candidates to use in their races against the LP, the way he was just a few weeks ago?

Read the report

Rotter|5.31.08 @ 12:09PM|#

But that shouldn't invalidate an entire career, should it?

Isn't ELP's career self-invalidating?

|5.31.08 @ 12:31PM|#

Oh, and as far as ex-Georgia US Representative third party 2008 Presidential candidates, I think the Libertarians definitely got the better deal. Barr might have some problems with his ideological bona fides, but Cynthia McKinney is downright, no-holds-barred batshit insane.

And the Constitution party got themselves an "ignorant hillbilly redneck whack-job preacher". I can't wait to see what the major parties do for the VP slot. Any nominations for the most idiotic, yet still plausible VPs? Both GOP and Democrat possibilities are solicited.

I'll start. Huckabee to shore up the base, and continue the Republican effort to purge themselves of rational, small government thinkers. Clinton* in the name of party unity, thereby encouraging both the racists and sexists in the party to stay home on election day.

* I still think it will be Edwards, a white male southerner. Those are the voters Obama needs to put this thing away. Middle aged white women democrats aren't going to bolt the party and will still show up on election day. They won't be smiling, but they'll grudgingly pull the Democrat lever.

|5.31.08 @ 12:40PM|#

I don't want a racist in the white house.

So you weren't too happy with the Johnson and Nixon years?

Nutter|5.31.08 @ 12:43PM|#

J sub D
If Obama wants a white southern male wouldn't Jim Webb be a better choice? Edwards is a spent force after flopping in 2004 and 2008.

Episiarch|5.31.08 @ 12:45PM|#

Bill the Cat for VP! Ack thhpt!

Neu Mejican|5.31.08 @ 1:01PM|#

There is apparently a military coupe happening in Guinea.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080530/NEWS07/80530055/1009/news07

|5.31.08 @ 1:02PM|#

If Obama wants a white southern male wouldn't Jim Webb be a better choice? Edwards is a spent force after flopping in 2004 and 2008.

I agree that Webb would be a better choice. Veteran vs tort lawyer? C'mon whois more liked?

I think a backroom deal was done with Edwards for his endorsement.

Neu Mejican|5.31.08 @ 1:07PM|#

More from Guinea
http://voodoofunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/coup-detat-or-army-mutiny.html

BakedPenguin|5.31.08 @ 1:19PM|#

J sub - stupid but plausible - Byrd for the Appalachain White vote that's the only reason Hillary's still in this. Also, for the ancient "get off my lawn" vote.

|5.31.08 @ 1:23PM|#

"If Obama wants a white southern male wouldn't Jim Webb be a better choice? Edwards is a spent force after flopping in 2004 and 2008."

I'm not sure the South is worth the Dems time. I'd want those Western Swing states and go with Bill Richardson, though Obama-Richardson may seem to "ethnic." Isn't there a popular woman governor from that area? That would be the ticket I would think.

Baked-Byrd is way too old to be considered. He appears to be about 300.

|5.31.08 @ 1:26PM|#

Napolitano, right? What's wrong with her? I guess her chance of swinging her state (Arizona) would be slim, but she would take some of the feminist hate off Obama and could claim to "understand" the Western states...

D.A. Ridgely |5.31.08 @ 1:31PM|#

"You're a hot ticket now but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?" - Bob Dole, issuing a Viagra-powered beatdown to Scott McClellan.

Bob Dole's alive? Finally, a VP candidate emerges who would make McCain look youthful!

BTW, imagine my amazement to find these Top Ten Surprises in McClellan's book!

(Yes, I know. Shameless blog-hawking, but what the hell, it's the weekend and nobody reads this thing on the weekend anyway. Right?)

Episiarch|5.31.08 @ 1:43PM|#

Not bad, D.A. Normally I wouldn't stoop to reading some third-rate blog like Urkobold yours, but I am at work today because of Monday's holiday and I is BORED.

BakedPenguin|5.31.08 @ 2:00PM|#

MNG - Byrd's age is one reason why it was a stupid idea. As for Richardson, I have to laugh at someone who would find him a ScaryEthnic.

Episiarch - for that unwarranted shot, may you go home to a malfunctioning TiVo that plays nothing but episodes of "Star Trek: Enterprise" tonight.

Episiarch|5.31.08 @ 2:09PM|#

Unwarranted? Change the black background and color scheme that draws the boss' eye like full-screen pictures of Lindsay Lohan, and maybe you can call it unwarranted.

Larry\'s Friday Political Thre|5.31.08 @ 3:27PM|#

Fun question: why did Reason smack down RonPaul, but they haven't done anything like that regarding Obama when it would be incredibly easy for them to send someone to one of his appearances to call him on one of his lies?

P.S. See my first comment for what else happened this week.

|5.31.08 @ 3:34PM|#

Fun question: Why does Lonewacko keep posting his drivel here? Does he get off on the abuse he is justifiably subjected to for his condescending self-absorption? Is he so delusionally full of himself that he honestly thinks he has something useful to say? Does he really suffer from Aspberger's, as popular theory has it?

Someone needs to go down to his mom's basement, stick a camera in his face, and ask him these questions. Post the answers on youtube so everyone will know The Truth!

Nutter|5.31.08 @ 3:39PM|#

I'm not sure the South is worth the Dems time.

True, Mr N, but I think Webb has military cred that Obama will need and (imho) more than just regional appeal. He's also better on the attack than Richardson. There may be suitable western pols I am unaware of. Obama is probably too straight-laced to go for Vegas mayor Oscar Goodman...

|5.31.08 @ 3:51PM|#

Some super-classy class warfare from Bill Clinton:

"Clinton asked the crowd to remember 'every time you turn on the television and you listen to one of those people dissin' [Hillary], they all have a college degree. They've all got a good job. They all got health care. And they're having no trouble fillin' up their gas tank.'"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10715_Page2.html

|5.31.08 @ 4:12PM|#

Just to clarify, Pfleger is a Catholic priest, not a reverend. He would have long since been fired and removed by the archdiocese, but he has made himself a bit of a cult hero on the south side, and an extremely popular hero in his parish (St. Sabina's).

So they basically ignore all but his most egregious (in their eyes) transgressions. An absolutely fascinating character in local politics, but that doesn't make him a particularly good guy to have hanging around the fringes of your campaign for President.

|5.31.08 @ 4:54PM|#

Fun question: Why does Lonewacko keep posting his drivel here? Does he get off on the abuse he is justifiably subjected to for his condescending self-absorption? Is he so delusionally full of himself that he honestly thinks he has something useful to say? Does he really suffer from Aspberger's, as popular theory has it?

Answered in the order asked.

Why does Lonewacko keep posting his drivel here?
He is a monomaniacal dipshit moron. Any other website would have brought down the ban hammer years ago. Reason OnLine's commitment to free speech and open minds allows LoneWacko to post even though the vast majority of visitors despise the creep.

Does he get off on the abuse he is justifiably subjected to for his condescending self-absorption?
He can't affoed the Dominatrix he so desperately desires so this is how he copes with his pathetic desire to be called obscene names and treated like dog feces.

Is he so delusionally full of himself that he honestly thinks he has something useful to say?
Yes. I hold out hope that further research into brain chemistry will soon yield effective treatment.

Does he really suffer from Aspberger's, as popular theory has it?
No, those folks are being charitable. Full blown autism is a more accurate diagnosis.

You can get more answers from Shell by sending a self addressed stamped envelope to -

The Shell Answer Man
1600 Pennsylvania Ave,
Washington D.C, 20500

|5.31.08 @ 5:12PM|#

I don't want a racist in the white house.

But black women from the South Side of Chicago get Ivy League Law degrees handed to them for their race.

|5.31.08 @ 5:16PM|#

I like Edwards for veep to get the southern white vote. The women down here think he's dreamy amd the men?

Let's just say he's got a real purty mouth. A T.V. spot with him squealin like a pig? I reckon that would seal the deal for Obama

Episiarch|5.31.08 @ 5:21PM|#

Since we're talking about the Lonely and Wacky one here, I posted the following on another thread earlier:

Off topic, but did anyone know that Mickey Kaus links fucking LoneWacko and uses him as a seemingly ReliableSource?

The ImmigrationNuts must be contagious or something.

(the LoneWacko reference is about 2/3 down)

Kolohe|5.31.08 @ 6:41PM|#

Man that gallery in the rules cmte meeting is a surly bunch.

Kolohe|5.31.08 @ 6:48PM|#

They have voted to seat FL:
52.5 Hill
33.5 Obama
6.5 Edwards.

Kolohe|5.31.08 @ 6:56PM|#

Ickes is without honor.

Kolohe|5.31.08 @ 7:12PM|#

And it looks like they will seat the Michigan delegates with half strength as well.

|5.31.08 @ 7:13PM|#

"Ickes is without honor."

I think anyone arguing for taking the MI vote at face value (with nothing for Obama), as many in the Clinton camp apparently were still doing today, is pretty deficient in the honor area. There's at least some plausible justification for taking the FL votes at face value, but it's just completely shameless to try that with MI, where two of the three leading candidates at the time weren't even on the ballot.

I just read an amusing Stephen Colbert comment about Clinton's arguments: "Now, some say this is inconsistent. But I say she's being remarkably consistent in saying whatever it takes to win."

||5.31.08 @ 7:21PM|#

Obama has just resigned from his Church. Smart move. He doesn't need that crap following him until November.

|5.31.08 @ 7:34PM|#

"Obama has just resigned from his Church. Smart move. He doesn't need that crap following him until November."

A little too late if you ask me. The African-American mainstream is fraught with insane views though, which is why I've consistently thought Obama to be a crazy risky choice for the Dems. This kind of talk is common place in many black institutions (too be honest, it's completely understandable if insane).

"They have voted to seat FL:
52.5 Hill
33.5 Obama
6.5 Edwards."

That's bullshit to an amazing degree. There were rules set ahead of time. Both candidates competed under them. FL and MI were not to count. Their state parties were dumbasses and knew what they would get for violating the rules. Both candidates could adjust accordingly. Now they bitch and the rules are changed. Fuck that. The Dems act like the true Stupid Party, absent the creationism...

|5.31.08 @ 7:42PM|#

"The Dems act like the true Stupid Party, absent the creationism..."

If I'm not mistaken they did exactly what the Republicans are doing with FL and MI - seated their delegates but gave them each half a vote. It just doesn't matter that the Republicans did it because with so many winner-take-all states it had almost no chance of affecting the outcome of their race.

I think it also might be consistent with the rules as they were set ahead of time, although I've heard so many different things about those rules that I'm not sure. But I did read something about losing half the delegates being the _minimum_ penalty, although losing all the delegates was also possible.

||5.31.08 @ 7:54PM|#

I can't help but crack a smile, though, at the fact that most of the Democratic Party has finally figures out what the rest of us knew all along. That the Clintons are classless, polarizing, power hungry sociopaths who only care about themselves.

|5.31.08 @ 7:59PM|#

"I don't want a racist in the white house.

But black women from the South Side of Chicago get Ivy League Law degrees handed to them for their race."

joe, you are right that many don't give Ms. Obama the credit she obviously deserves for her accomplishments. Whether black or white or blue you don't just get a Princeton degree for example. However, with the current regime of affirmative action its plausible to think she got advantages that a poor white from Chicago would not have gotten. Now, perhaps there were "social" disadvantages that Ms. Obama had that the poor white may not have had. I think that is important, but I think that the de jure advantages that she may have had are not only equally troubling, THEY are preventable (we might not be able to prevent people socially from dropping hints to a black child that they are inferior, but we can stop a blatant government program (or even private, see my comments on private colleges above) that de jure engages in obvious racial discrimination. We should prevent what we can that is wrong.

Of course, there are some racist ideas aimed at whites these days. Not nooses and cross burnings, that is certainly true (and an important distinction). But its there. The other day I watched "Talk to Me" the Petey Greene story. In it (a movie which was critically lauded) disparaging comments about whites are made as "honkeys", "crackers" etc., and it is supposed to be "funny." When Martin Luther King's assasination is shown characters state "They" killed him. I don't know about you but I didn't have a hand in that.

There is tendency to lump "whites" together that is certainly racist. "They" have the power because whites are all of Congress or all of the CEO's (the average white is far from having much political power or economic power despite the fact that most of those with such power are white, this is to misundertand the concept of averages). "They" held "us" down (of course an amazing number of whites took dramatic risks [Civil War, NAACP (mostly white founders), student activists, etc) to give blacks freedom and desegregation). If you are a poor or middle class white kid who does not get the breaks a black kid gets it helps one amazingly little to hear that people with your skin color make up a disporportionate number of Congress or CEO's...

|5.31.08 @ 8:01PM|#

Sparky,

Republicans: Half the number of delegates, each with a full vote
Democrats: Full number of delegates, each with a half vote.
So it's not exactly the same, but the effect is.

The Dems' rules, like the GOP's, said that states moving outside the time period they were allowed to have a primary incurred an automatic halving of the delegate count, even without any direct DNC action. However, the DNC decided to go further and refuse to give them any delegates so as to "make an example" for other states that tried to do the same thing.

So, basically, the DNC majorly screwed up by taking that extra action. If they had just let the automatic penalty come into force, we never would have heard about this (have you heard a peep out of the FL or MI GOP, which also lost half their delegates, demanding the full seating of their delegations?).

Guy Montag|5.31.08 @ 8:04PM|#

Fun question: Why does Lonewacko keep posting his drivel here?

Apparently the same reason as joe and the other partisans who share not one shred of free market/free mind substance with the rest of us. Whatever that reason may be.

|5.31.08 @ 8:05PM|#

Apparently the same reason as joe and the other partisans who share not one shred of free market/free mind substance with the rest of us. Whatever that reason may be.

To keep the place from becoming an echo chamber?

You know, the same reason we welcome Iraq War supporters here...

|5.31.08 @ 8:08PM|#

"Apparently the same reason as joe and the other partisans who share not one shred of free market/free mind substance with the rest of us."

Your not a partisan Guy? And I don't mean LP partisan either...Puh-leeze.

|5.31.08 @ 8:11PM|#

Chris,

"So, basically, the DNC majorly screwed up by taking that extra action."

Thanks for the details on the GOP/DNC rules. I'm surprised those details are so rarely mentioned when this is discussed by "The Media," but I probably shouldn't be. In the DNC's defense, I don't think anyone envisioned such a close race. But they certainly do seem to have put themselves in a no-win situation with their "make an example" approach to FL and MI. They can either piss off some people in an important state and a very important state, make a joke of themselves by ignoring their own rules, or come up with some half-assed compromise that no one really likes but most go along with for the sake of their eventual candidate. They're living the dream.

Guy Montag|5.31.08 @ 8:11PM|#

Report from the circus at Woodley Drive:

The most polite group outside of the Marriot, where the DNC Rules Commettee gathered today, oddly the most polite bunch was the LaRouche folks, occupying the sidewalk between the METRO elevator and the Marriott/Starbucks awning.

Lots of chants were chanted. Pretty quick changeup on those too. I departed before "we want a pitcher! not a belly itcher!" was recited. If it was, I cound myself as unfortunate to have missed it.

No lesbians on stilts, but some guy dressed up as "Uncle Sam", lots of funny hats, and less racial diversity than a NASCAR race during the time I was there. Some heated words between camps too.

|5.31.08 @ 8:14PM|#

I agree with joe a lot here. I disagree with him quite a bit too. But c'mon...

When joe stands up against Bush's torture techniques, or when he criticizes excess military spending, or when he criticizes anti-immigration policy (which I have disagreed with him on), and when he criticizes unreasonable searches and seizures of the Bushies (wiretapping)....this demonstrates he "share not one shred of free market/free mind substance" with the "us?" Not one?

Do you have any honest bone in your body?

Guy, how is life under the bridge awaiting the Billy Goats Gruff?

|5.31.08 @ 8:18PM|#

Actually, I've got my definitions confused. Guy's not so much a troll as what we used to call a party hack.

|5.31.08 @ 8:23PM|#

Sorry, but as a big believer in the Confucian "rectification of names" Guy's accurate designation might be "ideologue."

an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/ideologue

Neu Mejican|5.31.08 @ 8:28PM|#

MNG,

Guy Montag's proper designation is "bore."

Guy Montag|5.31.08 @ 8:30PM|#

Your not a partisan Guy? And I don't mean LP partisan either...Puh-leeze.

Oh SNAP! Another Socialist is calling me partisan!

Is this the Comedy Channel thread live from Havana?

Guy Montag|5.31.08 @ 8:33PM|#

Thank goodness that Sen. Obama has finally ditched that "Church" and, in his words, is one not worthy of defending.

Doubt he reads this, but I would suggest the Homewood Baptist Church in the south suburbs. At least in the 1970s they actually preached about Christ and related things. Not sure if it is still around, but it was pretty darn good back in the day.

|5.31.08 @ 8:33PM|#

Yeah Guy, I'm a SOCIALIST. Anyone who believes anything different concering markets, or heck, even laws, than you do is a SOCIALIST.

Boy, you have some nuanced thinking buddy.

Guy Montag|5.31.08 @ 8:39PM|#

A Socialist on a Libertarian board calling free market people troll/"party hack" (of what party, I have no idea)/ideologue/partisain, in a snowstorm of posts, suggests they were looking in a mirror the first time they posted about it.

|5.31.08 @ 8:39PM|#

"At least in the 1970s they actually preached about Christ and related things."

Guy, I doubt you're much or a reader (at least of books that are not recommended to you by your favorite blog and/or talk show host), but the whole idea of "Black Liberation Theology" (which I am no fan of) is that it is really "Christ centered" tossing off the focus on Paul that many white Christians have. For example, Jesus was crucified, a punishment usually reserved for political offenders. That kinda means he might have been anti-establishment. Etc.

||5.31.08 @ 8:39PM|#

Good God. Neither major party is even close to Socialist, or even Social Democratic. America has a center right major party and a far right major party.

|5.31.08 @ 8:44PM|#

Guy
WTF do you think a socialist is? The common definition is ownership of industry by the government. Do you have some proof that I am this? Or do you just like throwing such crazy assertions out there?
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00

|5.31.08 @ 8:47PM|#

"Neither major party is even close to Socialist, or even Social Democratic. America has a center right major party and a far right major party."

If you're a far, far right person, you think we have a far left party and a center-left party. I suspect that Guy's dilemma.

||5.31.08 @ 8:50PM|#

I'm a proud far right winger and I still say the Democrats (esp. since the 80s) are center right and the Republicans far right. Saying the Democrats are "socialist" is partisan hyperbole. Maybe from 1932-1972 they were Socialist (or Social Democratic) but not since then. The space on the political spectrum between, say, Bill Clinton and Nixon is minute.

|5.31.08 @ 9:01PM|#

Play to the crowd harder, Guy! They respect you, really!

|5.31.08 @ 9:03PM|#

You see, Guy, this is smart a thoughtful bunch.

They would rather discuss ideas intelligently with someone with whom they disagree than read...well...whatever the hell it is your sorry hack ass manages to type.

||5.31.08 @ 9:04PM|#

So, who here, regardless of party, thinks Harold Ickes is a class-A dickhead?

I vote "yea".

|5.31.08 @ 9:05PM|#

Yea.

|5.31.08 @ 9:08PM|#

"So, who here, regardless of party, thinks Harold Ickes is a class-A dickhead?"

He's a hired gun, which is usually a dickhead for all practical purposes.

||5.31.08 @ 9:09PM|#

Can any Democrat here tell me whether the crowd booing and hollering in the hall was being paid off by the Clintons?

I just can't believe that there are people who are enthusiastically pro-Hillary. Maybe enthusiastically anti-Obama, or terribly afraid afraid of Hillary, but pro-Hillary? To that level?

|5.31.08 @ 9:13PM|#

I have to think paid off to be honest. I've defended HRC against some of the more fevered attacks around here, but she is really pushing it here. I'm just non-plussed that in the face of her recent activity anybody likes her. I really think it can be chalked up to the amazing weakness of the Obama candidacy...Many Dems are like, Holy Shit we are not going to nominate this guy, are we? Anything but that!

||5.31.08 @ 9:15PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy, I guess you're a lib. So are you finally figuring out, after 16 years of trying to convince you, that the Clintons are classless sociopathic power-hungry scum?

|5.31.08 @ 9:17PM|#

BTW-I'm on record that Obama is a terrible candidate. But no more terrible than HRC. And his terribleness does not mean he will not win: McCain has a terrible albatross around his neck: eight years of his party really mismanaging things. The GOP is finding out that when you are th party in power it gets increasingly hard to blame very hardship and fuck up on the party in power years ago. That was their game plane for a long time, but it no longer makes sense...

Their advantage: a ready made media apparatus that will work for them (FOX, Limbaugh, National Review) because they have no principles other than helping their party win elections...

|5.31.08 @ 9:18PM|#

No-name-guy,

No, it's true. There are a whole lotta passionate, devoted Hillary Clinton fans. I was surprised myself. I wrote the phrase "a mile wide and an inch deep" about 100 times on these threads, describing her support, and I was dead wrong. I thought her big lead in the polls in 2007 was just like Joe Lieberman's big lead in the polls in 2003.

Turns out, that's not true. There are millions of people across the country who think Hillary Clinton would be a fantastic president.

Who woulda thunk it?

|5.31.08 @ 9:20PM|#

"Mr. Nice Guy, I guess you're a lib. So are you finally figuring out, after 16 years of trying to convince you, that the Clintons are classless sociopathic power-hungry scum?"

I worked on the Jerry Brown campaign in 92. I was WAY more excited about it than Obama. Jerry was really a great speaker, and a SPONTANEOUS speaker, which I don't think Obama is. The Clintons pulled an amazing amount of dirty tricks to sink Jerry (like implying he did coke before the NY primary when he was doing well, then later it came out, well, we have no proof of that, etc). They don't care a shit about liberalism or the Democratic Party. I've felt that much of the right wing hate directed towards them is irrational, but I've never liked either of them since then.

|5.31.08 @ 9:20PM|#

Many Dems are like, Holy Shit we are not going to nominate this guy, are we? Anything but that!

It's a big mistake to attribute pro-Hillary sentiment to anti-Obama sentiment. Older women, young white feminists, TVA Democrats, and certain other groups of people LOVE Hillary Clinton.

|5.31.08 @ 9:21PM|#

"Sociopathic" is a bit strong, but neither of them has any class.

|5.31.08 @ 9:23PM|#

joe-I think a lot of women like her. I love my wife and she is an intelligent person, but she always, no matter what HRC does, still has this idea that maybe she is getting "screwed" because she is a woman and wouldn't it be nice for a woman to be President. I can't blame her. 50% of the population of the US has never had a representative as Prez, and that is largely due to government oppression and insanely stupid societal prejudice. I still think a lot of HRC hate is anti-woman based...

||5.31.08 @ 9:24PM|#

I remember the coke charge against Gov. Brown.

Especially ironic since it was Roger Clinton who said his brother has a "nose like a vacuum cleaner".

|5.31.08 @ 9:24PM|#

Joe-those voters in KY and WV were probably not "Older women, young white feminists, TVA Democrats." And they were DEMOCRAT primary voters!

|5.31.08 @ 9:26PM|#

She sounds like my aunts, MNG.

And I couldn't agree more, the vile misogyny that gets thrown so casually at Hillary Clinton is pretty revolting, even to someone who thinks she's been pretty revolting herself over the past couple of months.

You've got people who hate her just because she's a powerful woman. And then you have people who dislike her for some legitimate reason, who get wound up into this insane loathing, and it's always expressed in gendered language.

|5.31.08 @ 9:27PM|#

You may feel this or that way about Jerry Brown, but I think it is hard to deny the guys 1. sincerity and 2. off the cuff speaking ability.

The Clintons had more money, more political manuevering, and ironically played themselves as "more electable" (pot-smoking, cheating, draft dodging, tax raising and all that notwithstanding)....It was his Southern accent that made him so I guess (honestly I think such things might matter, like Obama's very name will hurt him)

|5.31.08 @ 9:28PM|#

MNG,

TVA = Tennessee Valley Authority.

TVA Democrats is EXACTLY what the Hillary voters in Appalacia were.

||5.31.08 @ 9:29PM|#

Its such bull that being against Hillary is being against women politicians.

I'd vote for Kay Bailey Hutchinson for President. When she gets a few years more experience, I would gladly vote for Sarah Palin. I might possibly vote for Libby Dole if she was interested in running.

But Hillary Clinton? No thanks.

I will say (grudgingly) that to his credit, Obama has not played to race card to nearly the extent that Hillary plays the gender card. Thats why Bill Clinton suggesting that hes just like Jessie Jackson is weird. Obama is more like Doug Wilder. If he were painted white he would be like any other generic liberal Democrat.

|5.31.08 @ 9:30PM|#

If I was woman who dabbled in politics, and I knew that HRC was as qualified as anyone else, and she suddenly blows this big lead, I would think "holy shit, this is sexism." Especially with the over-the-top hate of the woman expressed regularly...And the nearly 300 years of no woman President though the US population is 50% women, would help me think that.

|5.31.08 @ 9:31PM|#

Well, No Name Guy, there are two things that are going on.

There are people who dislike HIllary Clinton because she's a woman - or, who dislike her more than they would dislike a male candidate who did the same things.

And then there are people who dislike Hillary Clinton for other reasons, but who give in to some pretty repugnant, sexist demonization.

|5.31.08 @ 9:33PM|#

Is Hillary Clinton any meaner than, say, Dick Cheney?

Where's his nutcracker?

|5.31.08 @ 9:35PM|#

"Obama is more like Doug Wilder." That is so true! I grew up in VA and my parents still lived there, and I always think when I see some Obama embarrassment, Doug would never have let that happen...

"TVA = Tennessee Valley Authority."
I see your point, but I just don't see that they are "pro-HRC" but "anti-Obama." I mean, these are plain folks. This guy is not only "black" he's the product of racial mixing. His father was not even an "American." His name is really funny. His preacher said outrageous things. Etc.

|5.31.08 @ 9:37PM|#

Doug's problems were that fine, fine, Kluge snatch he got caught up with...It all went downhill from there for him, but in fairness, I've seen it in porno mags, so I can only partially blame him...

|5.31.08 @ 9:39PM|#

I don't question that there was a lot of that going on, too, MNG. (Interestingly enough, there seems to have been more of it in Appalacia, including areas like western PA, SE Ohio, and wester MD than in the South), but don't misunderestimate the warm feeling that exist for Bill Clinton in a lot of those places. The 1990s might have been the first time in generations that some areas of Appalacia saw a detectable economic upswing.

|5.31.08 @ 9:40PM|#

Gotta love the timing.

"A lot of that," meaning racism behind the anti-Obama votes. Not the Kluge thing.

|5.31.08 @ 9:44PM|#

No Name Guy,

I wouldn't vote for her, either.

But you don't see me calling her a cunt.

You go back through the threads about the campaign, there is a lot more stuff about Hillary you wouldn't want your girlfriend to see, than stuff about Obama you wouldn't want your black friends to see.

|5.31.08 @ 9:44PM|#

joe-I agree that Bill's terms were unusually good for the working "joe."

No Name Guy|5.31.08 @ 9:47PM|#

But Joe, I hate Hillary Clinton for exactly the same reasons I hate Bill Clinton. As do many people who dislike her. So I don't know why the detractors say this is about gender. Or how the feminists can, with a straight face, defend her philandering husband.

|5.31.08 @ 9:49PM|#

I have no problem with a woman president. I have a huge problem with Hillary Rodham Clinton as president. This is not sexism, voting for Clinton just because of her gender is the true sexism.

|5.31.08 @ 9:50PM|#

"You go back through the threads about the campaign, there is a lot more stuff about Hillary you wouldn't want your girlfriend to see, than stuff about Obama you wouldn't want your black friends to see."

In "fairness" a lot of the irrational HRC hate comes from irrational Bill Clinton hate. I remember being at the gym shortly after he won election and a fellow approaching me (I had a Clinton-Gore sticker on my car) and saying "man, you seem cool, but did you really vote for that nigger-lover?"

If HRC were, say, a racist woman, many of her haters would be A-Ok with her.

This is not to say HRC and BC are not incredible douches. They are. Ask me about it :).

No Name Guy|5.31.08 @ 9:51PM|#

With regards to 1992: Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Perot.

|5.31.08 @ 9:54PM|#

No Name Guy
As Joe said, just read some of the past threads here, you'll see the sexism I think...Though as I said, much of the HRC hate is anti-Bill hate, some of it legitmate, some of it not.

I'm not sure how the philandering part is suppossed to make feminists hate the guy. Feminists are not so much dedicated to monogamy.

I've never held that against him. The guy really likes pussy, and finds it hard to turn it down when it is thrown at him. Oh the horrors...

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|5.31.08 @ 9:55PM|#

OK this is slightly off-topic, but:

French market rice with chicken - cheese or no cheese?

Strike the slightly.

|5.31.08 @ 9:58PM|#

SWDWLHJ
Why would you EVER, EVER, not get cheese. Cheese is God's gift to man.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|5.31.08 @ 9:59PM|#

OK done! Thank you my friend.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|5.31.08 @ 9:59PM|#

That was a sincere "my friend" and not a McCain "my friend".

|5.31.08 @ 10:00PM|#

If I have a chicken sandwich, cheese on it would make it better. If I have some eggs, cheese on it would make it better. If I have a salad, cheese on it would make it better. If I wake up in the middle of the night and am hungry, a slice or two of cheese would be great.

What is wrong with you, CHEESE ;)

|5.31.08 @ 10:02PM|#

Hey, SWDWLHJ, I seem to remember that your job involves mathematics. Have you ever read Flatland?

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|5.31.08 @ 10:04PM|#

I had my students read some excepts from that book in Fall '06 for a Foundations of Geometry class.

No Name Guy|5.31.08 @ 10:05PM|#

McCain's "my friend" is quickly becoming like Bob Dole referring to himself in the third person. *Sighs*

|5.31.08 @ 10:09PM|#

It's no Philip K. Dick, but it's cool proto-sci-fi.

Let me ask you a ? off topic, though cheese related. The same wife of mine who tends to sympathise with HRC says that when you order a pizza with "extra cheese" that there is, in fact, no extra cheese. She says they just throw the cheese on top in such orders. I argue that there is in fact, "extra cheese." Your insights?

|5.31.08 @ 10:11PM|#

What happened to joe? Drunk? Joe, I've had more to drink than you tonight, and I'm still typing! Snap too it soldier!

But seriously folks...It in many ways does not matter why people hate HRC. What matters is, as always, that the number is so very large, and it is growing...

No Name Guy|5.31.08 @ 10:15PM|#

I know its early, but convention heres my convention drinking game:

For the Republicans

Whenever McCain says "my friends" have a shot. When he says "we will never surrender" or "General Petraeus", have two shots. If he completely disowns Bush in absolute and literate terms, drink six shots and/or finish the bottle.

Whenever Obama says "hope" or "change" have a shot Whenever he says "third bush term" take two shots. If he mentions his church have three shots. If he says "Goddamn America" finish the bottle.

Somehow I think my drinking game will still be very useful, even in late August.

|5.31.08 @ 10:21PM|#

No name guy
Under these rules I would get alcohol poisoning.

No Name Guy|5.31.08 @ 10:22PM|#

Well, adjust as needed for your tolerance.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|5.31.08 @ 10:33PM|#

I always suspected that extra cheese was a scam of "big pizza" myself, MNG.

No Name Guy|5.31.08 @ 10:40PM|#

SWDWLHJ-

It depends on what chain you order from. I did an experiment in this area. Don't ask me why, but I was bored.

With Papa John's and Dominoes you do in fact get a lot of extra cheese. With Pizza Hut and Little Caesar's, you don't get jack squat.

Take that for what its' worth.

TallDave|5.31.08 @ 10:45PM|#

Well, I'm just glad Obama put the whole Wright thing behind him with that speech a couple months ago. I think it's fair to say that's a dead issue, and we won't be hearing any more about it.

Well, time to go check the news...

SIV|5.31.08 @ 10:55PM|#

I still think a lot of HRC hate is anti-woman based...

MNG,

Wash the sand out of your pussy.

No Name Guy|5.31.08 @ 10:59PM|#

I will vote for McCain. I respect him the more I hear him speak, he has real integrity and experience.

But I am not under any illusions. Obama will most likely be the next President, barring a meltdown on his part.

Bingo|5.31.08 @ 11:25PM|#

Boobs rule.

|6.1.08 @ 12:29AM|#

John McCain has had precisely the same amount of executive experience as Obama (as has Hillary). Running a Senate office is quite different from running the Executive Branch, I would think.

Kolohe|6.1.08 @ 12:49AM|#

Who resigns from church? Unless you're part of the clergy or otherwise on the staff?

Don't you just not go anymore?

Kolohe|6.1.08 @ 12:53AM|#

Good God. Neither major party is even close to Socialist, or even Social Democratic.

Agreed

America has a center right major party and a far right major party.

No, america has a center-left major party and a center-right major party.

|6.1.08 @ 2:19AM|#

Having worked in a pizza parlour, I can say that extra cheese was indeed extra cheese. Not double cheese, but perhaps 50% more. We had a special measuring cup just for the extra cheese. The same appears to be true for most pizza I currently order. (I do avoid mega-chain-pizza, however, so I don't know what they're up to).

|6.1.08 @ 3:09AM|#

But black women from the South Side of Chicago get Ivy League Law degrees handed to them for their race.

No. Black women and men very often do get admitted to Ivy league (and public) law schools and medical schools ahead of more deserving applicants though. I would not be at all surprised to learn that they also get a "few points of help" on grades during their studies as well.

Universities refuse to release the admissions data on their AA applicants. It would be very interesting to see the numbers (GPA, LSAT scores, etc). The fact that the universities refuse to release the data answers the question though.

|6.1.08 @ 3:13AM|#

maybe someday I will learn how to use HTML tags... or not.

|6.1.08 @ 4:41AM|#

To keep the place from becoming an echo chamber?

Yeah, and it's pretty cool.

I must say that casual sexism does seem to be a little more prevalent than casual racism (btw, Larry Elder raises some good points about casual racism among blacks, even though he seems to be consistently hocking his books). But then I thought of another giant gender-related elephant-in-the room, which is the rate of incarceration for males vs. the rate of incarceration for females. And it's possible that sexist attitudes are ridiculously ingrained in society, but then if gender roles and sexism aren't to blame I wonder what the exact reasons are that males are so much more likely to be convicts.

Sorry for rambling, and I'm not entirely sure what my point was, or if any of my ideas were causally related to any others.

|6.1.08 @ 5:51AM|#

I acknowledge the existence of prejudice, including sexism or racism, etc., but to me the far more fascinating phenomena involve the interior world, as far as self-doubt and fatalism, and how a person interacts with a community or a society at large.
I don't agree with the nation of Islam or the 5 Percent Nation, but I understand why they exist. To use a well-worn cliche, despite the greatness of western civilization and all the intellectual excellence it has borne out, little in the "mainstream". Because, as the statistics bear out, being black in America is a unique experience.
So there is a tangle of both negative and positive associations intrinsic to a "black consciousness", and what people saw with Rev Wright's negative comments was a fairly common "blame game" (I've seen Elder, Cosby and others talk about this). I'm not justifying this by any means, but I suppose I'm trying to put his comments within a larger context. Blaming the system has in large measure outlived its usefulness. To me, Wright is the sort of demagogue who's no good to the black community he's supposedly instrumental to.
There was a point in time when federal force was necessary to enforce the rights of African-Americans.
But libertarianism in my mind has been the cause of all people, including blacks. Part of the reason I say black people oppress one another moreso than any outside group (not counting political parties) is a frequent closemindedness and a shouting down of unorthodox political views that would probably stop libertarian ideals from gaining any foothold in a place like Trinity United.
But basically, despite the past necessity of federal interference, libertarianism, or at least libertarian ideals, have been on the right side of the issues that affect the black community. Ending the war on drugs=good, for instance. To me, a lot of resistance to libertarianism (i.e. abolition of Affirmative Action) is based on a fear that we as black people can't compete in a free society and in a free market. But I think, until this fear is repudiated, we're still mentally enslaved.

Sorry for the rambling "Black Liberation Libertarianism".

Brian |6.1.08 @ 5:54AM|#

"Happy the Man" is a perfectly good name for a prog band, seeing as it's also the name of one of the very first Genesis singles.

"Like a nun with a gun, I'm wonderful fun..."

Black Liberation Libertarianis|6.1.08 @ 6:09AM|#

You must try my Black Liberation Libertarianism, dammit.

|6.1.08 @ 9:17AM|#

No Name Guy,

It's not a yes/no question. Can you read the points I made, instead of just asking "Do I dislike Hillary because she's a woman?"

|6.1.08 @ 9:20AM|#

Well, I'm just glad Obama put the whole Wright thing behind him with that speech a couple months ago. I think it's fair to say that's a dead issue, and we won't be hearing any more about it.

Well, time to go check the news...

Yep, nothing there about Reverend Wright.

As some of us predicted.

Episiarch|6.1.08 @ 9:24AM|#

To be fair, joe, there is the news that Obama quit Wright's congregation.

|6.1.08 @ 11:08AM|#

A couple further points:

Oftentimes, a black conservative is referred to as a 'house negro' or an Uncle Tom. But to me, a person who *uncritically* toes the Democratic party line is every bit the 'house negro' as a person who uncritically parrots the Republican crap.

Also: what the hell? I was really looking for some feedback on my ideas. Yeah, I realize there aren't throngs of black libertarians waiting to exchange ideas with me, but I really want to know what ya'll think, unless I'm being too heavy.

Full disclosure: I myself am one of those 'middle-class'* African-American libertarians ya'll hear so much about on the news.

*I was raised in a middle-class setting, but I really fall into the category of "hard-working black people".

|6.1.08 @ 11:12AM|#

There are a lot of things that the newsies write about - that's what they do.

But the Wright/Trinity story has ceased to influence the campaign. There was a huge drop in the support for Obama when the Wright "mix tape" hit the news, and then an even larger rise in his support after the Speech.

The aftershocks, on the other hand, haven't budged the polls at all. Wright's little media tour didn't hurt him, Obama's denunciation of Wright didn't help him, and this flap isn't going to budge anything, either.

It's an old story that everybody has already made up their mind about. It's already had its impact on the campaign.

Episiarch|6.1.08 @ 11:17AM|#

I don't disagree with you, joe. I was just pointing out that there was in fact something there about Wright, and I would guess that is what fueled TallDave's comment.

Art-P.O.G., weekends are not a good time to try and start deeper discussions; people are, well, enjoying their time off. I suggest you reintroduce what you want to talk about during the week.

|6.1.08 @ 11:22AM|#

Art-P.O.G., weekends are not a good time to try and start deeper discussions; people are, well, enjoying their time off. I suggest you reintroduce what you want to talk about during the week.

Ah, so. But 'twill be hard to reintroduce during the week. One has to wait for the right opportunity.

|6.1.08 @ 11:23AM|#

Art POG,

I think it's easy to proclaim that the people who adhere to a political philosophy different from your own do so because they just aren't as smart, brave, and or otherwise as good.

I think black people abjure libertarianism for the same reasons that white people do so; because 1) it's never delivered anything (not having been in power, how could it?) and 2) it echoes too much of what was said by genuinely bad people during the civil rights era (the Civil Rights Act, for example) and 3) it indulges in a great deal of anti-poor rhetoric (proclaiming their situation to be the consequence of their being stupid and lazy, and their complaints about an unfair playing field to be fanciful blame-shifting).

Stuff like the Ron Paul Survival Report certainly doesn't help.

|6.1.08 @ 11:23AM|#

Episiarch,

It's not Wright's Congregation. He retired months ago.

|6.1.08 @ 11:27AM|#

I get what TallDave was trying to do, Episiarch.

I'm just pointing out that it was dishonest and inaccurate.

Episiarch|6.1.08 @ 11:29AM|#

But 'twill be hard to reintroduce during the week. One has to wait for the right opportunity.

Email Matt and see if he would create a thread for it, then. It's an interesting subject.

Episiarch|6.1.08 @ 11:30AM|#

I'm just pointing out that it was dishonest and inaccurate.

I also don't disagree* with you there.

* go double negatives!

|6.1.08 @ 11:37AM|#

I think it's easy to proclaim that the people who adhere to a political philosophy different from your own do so because they just aren't as smart, brave, and or otherwise as good.

Not what I was trying to say, but OK. Really, many of my favorite thinkers on race are democrats, but some of them identify as libertarians or even republicans. I'm not saying libertarianism's perfect (I'm not even a "big L" libertarian despite my bullshit). Nor am I saying one should eschew politics entirely. I am just saying that every party in politics is worthy of a lot of criticism. It seems to me that as long as the Democratic Party can count on the unconditional support of a large majority of black people, it can continue to take us for granted.

I think black people abjure libertarianism for the same reasons that white people do so

Intellectual laziness knows no racial boundaries.

Stuff like the Ron Paul Survival Report certainly doesn't help.

I'll admit that I'm ignorant of this "report", but I'll agree with you that it probably alienated some people, at least from Paul's campaign.

Maybe I am overly cynical about the reasons a large percentage of people in the R and D parties have membership.

|6.1.08 @ 11:39AM|#

So the DNC seated half the FL and MI delegations? How did they allocate the non-Clinton MI delegates? Will all those unallocated delegates be up for grabs by Clinton?

Seems like the DNC is doing its damndest to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory:

1) Huge moral hazard -- everyone knows they can ignore the DNC rules and, by whining and bitching, get seated anyway

2) They've shown that anyone who trusts them gets screwed over -- Obama didn't put his name on the ballot in Michigan, and thus not only got fewer votes, but all the votes he did get may be up for grabs.

3) Obama was days away from clinching it -- now the primary drags on and on and on, and HRC has a dead horse (the unallocated MI delegates) to beat until or unless that is resolved, making it possible to keep on claiming she's not mathematically eliminated. Basically, Clinton gets a chance to pull a Gore.

4) And if Clinton does manage to win the nomination somehow, she'll be toast, because all the Obama supporters will feel she stole the election.

Episiarch|6.1.08 @ 11:43AM|#

Exactly, prolefeed. Pretty great, isn't it? It's like Hillary is doing this just for me and my entertainment. And on the other side we get to watch the GOP go apeshit on libertarians, small government, etc.

The choices may suck but at least the spectacle doesn't.

|6.1.08 @ 11:43AM|#

Episiarch,

Once upon a time, "this story" was about Reverend Wright, Barack Obama, and Trinity United Church. Then, it became about Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church. Now, it's become about Trinity United Church.

Next, it's going to be about something someone said at a different church.

I expect that, by August or so, TallDave will be linking to stories about something a black guy said in a Burger King, and crowing about "the Wright Story" still having legs.

|6.1.08 @ 11:48AM|#

Email Matt and see if he would create a thread for it, then

Oh my gosh. I appreciate the suggestion.

joe,

1) it's never delivered anything (not having been in power, how could it?)

True enough. The Party of True Outsiders Principle could attract a sizeable minority of minorities, though. I mean, despite all your (fair) criticisms, I still say that Libertarian ideas are an important part of the noosphere, even if some of 'em are too terrible to ever be implemented.

The aisle-crossing bankruptness of 1)the War on Drugs and 2)bi-partisan efforts to censor rap and video games were what attracted me to "Reason" in the first place. Read my first issue at the Columbus Metropolitan Library at the tender age of (15?).

|6.1.08 @ 11:48AM|#

Art-POG,

It seems to me that as long as the Democratic Party can count on the unconditional support of a large majority of black people, it can continue to take us for granted.

It's funny how this argument works. On the one hand, I hear about "special interests" like unions, black people, feminists, and trial lawyers "control the Democratic Party" because they play such a large role in it. On the other hand, I hear about how each of those groups is being "taken for granted" by the party, because they are reliable voting blocs for it.

I think Democrats have delivered in a big way for black communities, since the 50s and 60s. Hell, they gave up their national majority to push through desegregation. I can appreciate your principled disagreement with how Democrats have worked to address the problems facing the black community, but it's a real stretch to claim that they are ignoring that community or taking it for granted.

|6.1.08 @ 11:52AM|#

ArtPOG,

I still say that Libertarian ideas are an important part of the noosphere, even if some of 'em are too terrible to ever be implemented

Oh, absolutely. That's why I come here.

Also, I'd say that certain libertarian IDEAS have most certainly found a receptive audience among black Americans. Opposition to the WOD is a good example. The anti-eminent domain movement, if tailored property (ie, if libertarians are willing to take it for what it is and not try to shoehorn The Revolution into it) is another one.

But neither of those require a break with the Democrats, or a conscious identification with libertarianism.

|6.1.08 @ 11:55AM|#

prolefeed,

1. They are getting 1/2 vote. Just like the Republicans. That's a pretty severe punishment.

2. The Michigan delegation isn't up for grabs, but divided between Obama and Clinton delegates.

3. Obama is still "days away from clinching it." The total number of delegates he needs went from 40-something to 60 something.

4. Moot. Obama's nomination remains a foregone conclusion.

This allows Clinton to save face, and avoid accusations of flip-flopping on her "count every vote" rhetoric. And that's about all of its significance.

|6.1.08 @ 12:00PM|#

I think Democrats have delivered in a big way for black communities, since the 50s and 60s. Hell, they gave up their national majority to push through desegregation. I can appreciate your principled disagreement with how Democrats have worked to address the problems facing the black community, but it's a real stretch to claim that they are ignoring that community or taking it for granted.

I guess I should refine what I'm saying. I totally agree with you about how much the Democratic Party did for African-Americans in the '50s and '60s. It's just hard for me to think of too many people (other than Barack Obama) in that party, or any other, saying too much enlightened about race relations in America since that era has passed. Instead, it seems like the Democratic Party ends up with individuals like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton attached to it. Demagogues and rabble-rousers, the sort of people who seem apt to tell their audience exactly what it wants to hear.

|6.1.08 @ 12:06PM|#

It's tough to blame the Democrats for the political atmosphere created by the Southern Strategy, Art.

Bill Clinton may not have given MLK speeches, but the experience of black Americans and black communities in the 1990s is pretty tough to argue with.

I think there's an important point in the middle here, though - the good guys have been quietly plugging away, while the demagogues have been loud as hell.

(BTW, I wouldn't put Jesse Jackson in the same category as Al Sharpton).

|6.1.08 @ 12:08PM|#

Art, you must remember what race relations were like in this country in 1992. Everybody does - it was all over the teevee.

I think it's important not to underestimate just how much progress can take place just by not constantly picking at the scab, even in the absence of observable leadership.

|6.1.08 @ 12:11PM|#

But neither of those require a break with the Democrats, or a conscious identification with libertarianism.

OK, yeah. Not a "break" with Democrats, but I'd like it if the two major parties couldn't effectively minimize the Libertarian Party like they seem to do.
If anything, I feel sort of upset by what I imagine is the stagnation of ideas within the segment of the Democratic Party represented by Trinity United, Sharpton and Jackson.

Actually, I think I'm too hard on Jesse Jackson.

|6.1.08 @ 12:18PM|#

I think it's important not to underestimate just how much progress can take place just by not constantly picking at the scab, even in the absence of observable leadership.

Word.

Art, you must remember what race relations were like in this country in 1992. Everybody does - it was all over the teevee

Good point.

joe, you're one of my favorite posters.

Episiarch|6.1.08 @ 12:20PM|#

joe, you're one of my favorite posters

Hey now, this isn't a dating site.

|6.1.08 @ 12:29PM|#

Hey now, this isn't a dating site.

Heh heh. I was just saying that because people give joe shit, but he knows his stuff and he's not afraid to give input on a delicate topic. Anyway, although the LP itself might be near-uselessat the margins, I think it widened the field of discourse enough for me to reconsider how I viewed American politics. So the questions: "Why be a Libertarian?" or "Why be a Black Libertarian?" are worth at least a "very special episode" of Dateline or something.

|6.1.08 @ 12:38PM|#

Art P.O.G.

I think joe for the most part gave the answer I did as to why blacks don't flock to libertarianism. The other day on another thread (May 25th; Live from the LP Convention) I said that the problem with the libertarian stance is that throughout history governmental force has been used and the result is quite large wealth differentials between groups and individuals. Then libertarians say "OK, no more force or fraud by anyone" and in doins so they ignore that this leaves the unjust differentials in bargaining power that create real inqueality between people in life opportunities. When someone complains about this they tend to answer with the uninspiring yet common among libertarians line: "Life is tough." Interestingly the guy I was debating replied with "Life is tough" and "we have to draw the line somewhere."

To quote from the exchange (my posts outside the ""):
""But, free people just have to draw a line and say "no more". Yeah, it means the Cherokee get screwed." I submit this attitude among libertarians is why groups that have been traditionally oppressed through fraud and force, like blacks and women, are not very well represented at LP events or membership(I've been to some). Hey, we realize government force and fraud screwed you and your ancestors for a long time, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Sorry you ended up on a bad part of that line, but, you know, liberty and all...Which leads me to my favorite common libertarian appeal to justice:

"Life isnt fair. Deal." Well of course. That's often the libertarian idea of "justice."

:(|6.1.08 @ 12:38PM|#

Hey now, this isn't a dating site.


I know. Kerry hasn't answered a single one of my emails.

|6.1.08 @ 12:42PM|#

I think this attitude is why libertarianism in the US is often allied with conservatism. It's inherently conservative in that it does not seek to "undo" any past injustices (other than to end any further practice of them) or their effects. Hence it often serves to ossify traditional power structures.

And this "Life is Tough" response is bound to win applause from the many conservatives who are just cruel assholes.

|6.1.08 @ 12:45PM|#

I appreciate your input, MNG. And I have to agree with you. IMHO, strict big-L libertarianism isn't realistic anyway.

Full Disclosure: I don't belong to any political party.

|6.1.08 @ 12:48PM|#

If my ancestors used force and fraud to gain a massive advantage in wealth and hence bargaining power over your ancestors, then I can certainly go along with bringing an end to the use of such force and fraud. From the position I'm in I don't need that anymore. So this is why the conservatives who supported such force and fraud in the day would be OK with a form of libertarianism once they have gotten these advantages.

Don't get me wrong: most principled libertarians really want to see liberty. They have this in common with most liberals (conservatives want order and authority). Liberals just think some positive liberty (government assistance to create "freedom to" as opposed to "freedom from") is part of that equation.

|6.1.08 @ 12:48PM|#

And this "Life is Tough" response

...is proof positive that libertarians can be every bit as intellectually lazy as donkeys and elephants.*

*I'm not trying to say I'm better than anyone else. I get lazy, too.

|6.1.08 @ 12:53PM|#

Don't get me wrong: most principled libertarians really want to see liberty. They have this in common with most liberals (conservatives want order and authority). Liberals just think some positive liberty (government assistance to create "freedom to" as opposed to "freedom from") is part of that equation.

This is the dialectic I find interesting. How much government interference is to much/counterproductive? To what extent is your average "little l" libertarian satisfied with compromise on this front? IMHO, it can only help the country if the dems and libertarians have this dialogue.

My biggest complaint with the 2-party system is how easy it is to avoid/ignore tertiary-plus viewpoints and arguments.

|6.1.08 @ 12:54PM|#

"I appreciate your input, MNG."

"Art-P.O.G., weekends are not a good time to try and start deeper discussions; people are, well, enjoying their time off. "

Thanks Art, I appreciate you bringing a deep discussion.

I disagree with Epi's comments above, I do some of my deepest thinking on the weekend. But that's probably because my skills and hard, smart work (being greater than Epi's) has been recognized by the efficient and fair market in giving me a job superior in free time and compensation so I don't have to "rest up" on the weekends. Sorry Epi, the market has spoken. Life is tough.

; I keed, I keed.

|6.1.08 @ 12:57PM|#

Full disclosure: I myself am one of those 'middle-class'* African-American libertarians ya'll hear so much about on the news.

Dammit, you shouldn't have told me that! Now instead of ignoring you for what you say, I have to ignore you for who you are!

|6.1.08 @ 12:58PM|#

"How much government interference is to much/counterproductive?"

It's a great question. I tend to ask: will the measure in question in fact maximize the life opportunities of the most people? For example I recognize that restrictions on employers limit those employers liberty (their liberty to fire someone based on racial animus, or refussal of sexual advances, for example), but I think that they also expand the freedom of many more people (the many people who don't have to fear losing their job because they said no to giving the boss a blow job, or because they are black, etc).

But, Guy Montag's fevered imagination aside, I'm no socialist. This is because too much government simply does not maximize life opportunties for the most folks.

|6.1.08 @ 1:05PM|#

Dammit, you shouldn't have told me that! Now instead of ignoring you for what you say, I have to ignore you for who you are!

Heh heh heh.

MNG,
You make another good point.

TallDave|6.1.08 @ 1:07PM|#

I'm just pointing out that it was dishonest and inaccurate.

LOL Yeah leaving the church is totally different and has nothing to do with the Wright controversy. Totally different things!

Dead issue!

Hi-larious.

TallDave|6.1.08 @ 1:15PM|#

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23793430-663,00.html

DEMOCRATIC White House hopeful Barack Obama has quit his Chicago church because of racially tinged rhetoric by preachers from its pulpit.

Senator Obama's decision to resign his 20-year membership of the Trinity United Church of Christ followed inflammatory remarks by his long-time pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and more recent fiery remarks at the church by another minister.

I accuse the Herald-Sun of being dishonest and inaccurate!

Why, they mention Wright five times, even though he has nothing to do with the story. For shame!

Episiarch|6.1.08 @ 1:15PM|#

But that's probably because my skills and hard, smart work (being greater than Epi's) has been recognized by the efficient and fair market in giving me a job superior in free time and compensation so I don't have to "rest up" on the weekends.

Hey, my job allows me to post more while I am there. Who has the superior job? :-)

TallDave|6.1.08 @ 1:24PM|#

joe, you're one of my favorite posters.

Me too, you just can't buy this kind of entertainment.

|6.1.08 @ 1:30PM|#

I just read the Fairbanks piece. A disturbing reminder of how "unique" many people at the fringe of a campaign or political party are.

TallDave|6.1.08 @ 1:35PM|#

I ask this in all seriousness. Why is it some people are convinced that poor/working class black people and poor/working class white people don't have similar issues? I'm genuinely perplexed at times when the race issue even comes up. Don't all people regardless of race just want a decent education/job/community to live in?

Yes. Unfortunately, some of the means by which we've been trying to create equality also create diviseness. Instead of a colorblind society, some people are trying to build a hyper-racially-sensitive society in which people are defined by the color of the skin rather than the content of their character. Rather than universal institutions that work to help all people, we're splintering into ten million different institutions that work only for their own ethnicity (and therefore by definition against all the others).

Look around and see which ethnicities are doing best and they're usually the ones least invested in that process. Asians suffered terrible discrimination in early America, and we locked up 100,000 in WW II just for being who they were. Today they have higher average incomes than whites, because they work within the Western system rather than denouncing it and defining themselves as separate from it.

|6.1.08 @ 2:02PM|#

The Republicans sucked it up; the Democrats screamed and cried about it.

Of course, this is because Republicans are sheep who readily bow before authority, while Democrats think for themselves.

It's just a pity that independent-thinking, rebellious streak couldn't be put to use on more productive matters like stopping wars and warrantless wiretapping, instead of meaningless delegate disputes.

Paul|6.1.08 @ 2:02PM|#

from a deranged tabloid C-lister who's alleged he had a night of gay sex and smooth cocaine with the candidate.

Is this really the allegation you'd put forward if you wanted to discredit a Democratic candidate?

I thought it would be more on the lines of:

We had a night of wild scripture reading, and I attended an anti-abortion meeting with him!!!

|6.1.08 @ 3:17PM|#

Chris,

The reason the Republicans "sucked" it up probably had more to do with the fact it ultimately didn't matter (which is probably what the DNC assumed when they made the decision in the first place). In modern Presidential primaries, a clear winner has always emerged. The DNC just never envisioned the scenario that unfolded, with Obama and Clinton splitting votes right down the middle all the way to the bitter end. If it happened on the GOP side and McCain and Huckabee were tied you can bet the farm McCain's people would be trying to get Florida's delegates back to full size.

Orange Line Special|6.1.08 @ 3:50PM|#

Pardon me if I missed it, but did anyone bother trying to answer why Reason smacked down RonPaul and hasn't smacked down other candidates?

Why, it's almost like they were trying to curry favor with those who would lose money and power should RonPaul's more beneficial ideas gain more influence. It must be something else, I'm sure!

Kolohe|6.1.08 @ 4:36PM|#

Hillary looks like she will win pretty big in PR some thirty points, but some reports are the the turnout was lower than everyone expected.


The most surprising thing from the 2nd page of CNN exit poll is that some 38% of *Democratic* primary voters have a favorable opinion of George Bush.

Kolohe|6.1.08 @ 4:40PM|#

And their favorable opinion of their current governor (from the left of center party) is only 34%.

I suppose FBI indictments don't help.

|6.1.08 @ 5:23PM|#

*I was raised in a middle-class setting, but I really fall into the category of "hard-working black people".

All of the middle-class black people I've met have invariably been hard-working. That was WHY they were middle-class, or upper-middle.

Unless by "hard-working" you are referring to heavy manual labor, rather than putting in long hours and being dedicated to doing a good job.

|6.1.08 @ 5:31PM|#

If you're a far, far right person, you think we have a far left party and a center-left party. I suspect that Guy's dilemma.

If you're a leftish guy who doesn't much care for free markets, you'll likely label people as "far, far right" who actually believe in capitalism and not some watered-down crony capitalist market socialism.

When, if they also hold some views promoting freedom on social issues also, the correct term is in fact "libertarian".

When in fact the labels "left" and "right" are in fact slippery things that change constantly.

|6.1.08 @ 5:33PM|#

Unless by "hard-working" you are referring to heavy manual labor, rather than putting in long hours and being dedicated to doing a good job.

I was actually trying to make a joke based on Hillary Clinton's reference to "hard-working white people", but clearly I failed.

Anyway, I think Geraldine Ferraro became overly bitter after she got dissed on Wu-Tang's first album.

|6.1.08 @ 5:40PM|#

Liberals just think some positive liberty (government assistance to create "freedom to" as opposed to "freedom from") is part of that equation.

Brevity, MNG. Try this: "Liberals actually think government assistance can create freedom."

|6.1.08 @ 5:42PM|#

I was actually trying to make a joke based on Hillary Clinton's reference to "hard-working white people", but clearly I failed.

Nah, you were good, Art P.O.G. More like my sarcasm detector had a temporary outage.

|6.1.08 @ 5:48PM|#

"Liberals actually think government assistance can create freedom."

And "left-libertarians" split the difference? 'Cause it actually seems reasonable if you add the word "help" between "can" and "create".

|6.1.08 @ 5:55PM|#

Thank you, Art. I think you're a credit to your

|6.1.08 @ 5:56PM|#

...whack-job fringe ideology.





C'mon, what did you think I was going to say?

;-)

|6.1.08 @ 6:00PM|#

1. They are getting 1/2 vote. Just like the Republicans. That's a pretty severe punishment.

Umm, the Clinton camp is getting a bunch of delegates that the DNC rules that were laid out at the beginning of the campaign said they weren't entitled to. They got them by whining and successfully arguing to change the rules.

2. The Michigan delegation isn't up for grabs, but divided between Obama and Clinton delegates.

Right now, perhaps. I noticed the Clinton spokesman hinting that they might dispute the division that was arrived at.

3. Obama is still "days away from clinching it." The total number of delegates he needs went from 40-something to 60 something.

Just like Bush clinched it in 2000 when the votes were counted the first time? It ain't over until either Clinton concedes, or Obama is officially declared the winner at the convention. Perhaps Clinton is looking to gracefully step down, but her behavior so far would indicate she may litigate this all the way to the convention, trying for further reversals of DNC decisions.

4. Moot. Obama's nomination remains a foregone conclusion.

I would tend to agree, but does Clinton? Or is she going to keep arguing for full seating for the FL and MI delegations, etc ad nauseam?

|6.1.08 @ 6:08PM|#

Umm, the Clinton camp is getting a bunch of delegates that the DNC rules that were laid out at the beginning of the campaign said they weren't entitled to. They got them by whining and successfully arguing to change the rules.

Your point was about people who "broke the rules" getting seated anyway. The Clinton campaign didn't break any rules - the states in question did. The delegates who were not going to be seated (and who will now be seated with half-votes) are both Obama and Clinton delegates from those states.

I noticed the Clinton spokesman hinting that they might dispute the division that was arrived at. Which they would have done if there had been no decision made by the RBC yesterday as well.

ust like Bush clinched it in 2000 when the votes were counted the first time? It ain't over until either Clinton concedes, or Obama is officially declared the winner at the convention. YOU made the point about Obama being "days away from clinching the nomination. This argument rebuts your own point here.

I would tend to agree, but does Clinton? Or is she going to keep arguing for full seating for the FL and MI delegations, etc ad nauseam? It doesn't matter - she isn't going to win the nomination.

|6.1.08 @ 6:09PM|#

Oh, look, TallDave is LOLing almost as hard as when he told us the Wright scandal was going to destroy Obama in March.

I guess you keep counting your chickens early when your flock is this ragged.

|6.1.08 @ 6:17PM|#

wayne,

Has it ever struck you as odd that someone as passionately devoted to fighting racism "wherever it is found" as you claim to be only ever manages to "find" examples of racism that, allegedly, work to the detriment of white people?

Yes, yes, you will rise to the occasion when you think there are too many black people being admitted to good colleges, or when a black person denounces the privilege of rich white people like the former first lady, but that seems to be it.

And, regardless of your feelings about the immense, unfair advantages our society extends to black women born into poor families on the South Side of Chicago, looking at a successful, professional, individual black woman and assuming that she simply had everything "handed to her" merely because of her race, because of what you've read about affirmative action programs, is really no different than looking at an individual black man walking down the street and assuming, based on his race and what you've read about crime statistics, that that particular individual is going to mug you.

No Name Guy|6.1.08 @ 6:56PM|#

So joe, are you ready to admit that George W. Bush might have gotten into Yale and Harvard on his merits?

Like George W. Bush, Michelle Obama's test scores weren't that great but she got in anyway.

|6.1.08 @ 7:19PM|#

What! The Dems are seating Michigan and Florida delegates?!?! Pardon me for ignoring Democrat machinations up till now, but this is ridiculous! You cannot change the rules of the election after the election!

Far be it for me to tell Obama what to do, but if I were him, I would be hauling the DNC into the nearest court of law, and taking it all the way to the SCOTUS if I had to. This is nothing less than the naked theft of delegates.

|6.1.08 @ 7:35PM|#

"Far be it for me to tell Obama what to do, but if I were him, I would be hauling the DNC into the nearest court of law, and taking it all the way to the SCOTUS if I had to."

If the rules committee decision actually had a chance of affecting the outcome of the Dem primaries, I would agree. But for all practical purposes the race is over, and the seating of half the MI and FL delegates doesn't change that.

Also, there seem to be a lot of Democratic primary voters who suffer under a very strange delusion that Clinton has somehow been wronged here (in the handling of these two primaries), and this half-assed compromise will be a lot more effective at "bringing the party together" than a prolonged fight about it.

BakedPenguin|6.1.08 @ 7:55PM|#

Art POG, your point about the near-unanimity of blacks voting for the Democrats is well taken. Another point that could be made is the flip side of the Democrats taking blacks for granted - the Republicans haven't had a real reason to adopt policies to court black voters. I believe that was the reason Dick Gregory was a Nixon supporter.

As for the Libertarians, one thing that's disappointed me is the lack of a concerted effort to attract the black voters by going after police brutality & corruption, malicious prosecution, etc. I suspect in places the resentment over these things is so great, it could gain them real traction. If nothing else, it might force the Democrats to do something, instead of mealy-mouthing the issue because they're afraid of being called soft on crime.

|6.1.08 @ 8:05PM|#

Pollster.com has a great feature that allows you to look at polling averages state by state for McCain v. HRC or Obama. Clinton does better than Obama v McCain in FL (where she leads but he trails McCain), Ohio, PA...

http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Pres-GE-MvC.php

I have a hard time seeing how the Dems in in Nov. if they don't win at least 2 of those 3 states...

A cursory glance at the Southern States that Obama won shows him trailing McCain...

|6.1.08 @ 8:14PM|#

Looking at these numbers I think it is very difficult to argue Obama would be the stronger candidate against McCain...If someone want to make it I'd like to hear it (I would really like to hear it since I hope the Dems win in Nov and I think Obama has it locked up).

She runs stronger than him in key states like OH, FL, PA. The states where Obama beat her he trails McCain. I can't see according to these polls (which of course can change) how in the world he tilts the 2004 map in favor of the Dems...

|6.1.08 @ 8:15PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy,

At that pollster link, Obama is leading McCain in both Ohio and Pennsylvania (although not by as much as Clinton is, and Ohio is essentially a dead heat - Obama's up by a point).

|6.1.08 @ 8:17PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy,

Nevermind - I misread your first post. I thought you were saying Clinton was ahead but Obama was behind in all three of those states.

|6.1.08 @ 8:31PM|#

Check this site out. Look at a list of places where Obama beat Clinton, then look at how far behind McCain he is in most of those places...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

TallDave|6.1.08 @ 10:09PM|#

Oh, look, TallDave is LOLing almost as hard as when he told us the Wright scandal was going to destroy Obama in March.

LOL No I said it would hurt him, and you said it was a "dead issue" which was just as hilarious then as it is now.

TallDave|6.1.08 @ 10:12PM|#

nd, regardless of your feelings about the immense, unfair advantages our society extends to black women born into poor families on the South Side of Chicago,

What about the advantages they extend to Oprah Winfrey's children? Do they really need 20 points on their SATs? Do penniless refugees from N Korea deserve 10 points off?

Some people don't think more racism is the answer to racism.

America Wants To Know|6.1.08 @ 10:17PM|#

So who did Obama allegedly murder anyways?

Was it committed in a cocaine fueled rage?
Or was it to cover up his "on the downlow" gay lifestyle?

America Wants To Know |6.1.08 @ 10:22PM|#

Obama's preachers make those republican wackjobs look almost sane by comparison. The new young one said 9/11 was god's punishment for America's sins.Obama's Church is moving to "the center" of only Robertson/Falwell craziness.


Where is Hillary's preachergate?

The Rest of America Wants To K|6.1.08 @ 10:28PM|#

So how exactly did "America Wants To Know" get his head so far up his ass?

Did Lonewacko help?
Is he even more brainless than people opposed to Obama because he sometimes doesn't wear a little American flag lapel pin?
Should people who are this stupid really be allowed to vote?

America Wants To Know|6.1.08 @ 10:42PM|#

Who is behind the Obama campaign?

Do they really think they can win with his "baggage"?

The Rest of America Wants To K|6.1.08 @ 11:09PM|#

Who is behind "America Wants To Know"?

How does he type with his head up his ass?
Does that make his keyboard smelly?
Does he really think he can get away with his intellectually dishonest, misleading bullshit?

America Wants To Know|6.1.08 @ 11:19PM|#

Is the VastRightWingConspiracy behind Obama?
They are throwing Hillary under the bus, yet when the TruthComesOut about Obama, the Democratic Party will be stuck with him.Cocaine using, closeted "downlow" Black man who is on record supporting slavery reparations(wait for the tape-Sean Hannity has it already)

Hillary could have defeated McSame in a landslide but we are getting a scandal-ridden, flawed, immature, slow-witted criminal affirmative action candidate.

|6.1.08 @ 11:29PM|#

America Wants to Know...satire? Or????

|6.1.08 @ 11:53PM|#

Idaho rocks! 24% and 6 delegates for Ron Paul!

|6.2.08 @ 5:09AM|#

Should people who are this stupid really be allowed to vote?

Even though the answer is unequivocally yes, the presence of people exhibiting excessive mental midgetry in every major political party is actually something of a conundrum. Yes, the LP has its share of weirdos and mental defectives. Yes, the majority of the Democratic and even the Republican party are thoughtful, honest and intelligent people but the fact remains that under the big tents, there are Hillarybots*, Ann Coulter fans, Lew Rockwellers* and other such unpleasant and possibly impaired individuals. Does one accept them but try to minimize their visibility within the party? Does one marginalize them and still surreptitiously seek their votes and donations? Or does one lay awake at night, agonizing over what the presence of these, I'm sorry, freaks might say about their reasons for and affinity for their political affiliations?

*When I say Hillary-bots I mean the type of people in the Fairbanks article, not all or even most Hillary supporters. And though I complain about Lew Rockwellers, I'm sure there are still some decent ones.

|6.2.08 @ 5:23AM|#

I would just say fuck it, but every now and then I see some ad pandering to "uninformed tools" or "sheeple" wherein someone is implicitly told not to trust somebody because they have "San Francisco Values" or some shit. It shouldn't bother me, but it does, and obviously the journalists and bloggers on the site notice this sort of thing as well. Republicans seem to do it a lot more than Democrats (hmmmm), but the Dems do it sometimes, too (many of the most egregious cases of this seem to involve the Clinton campaign, but I digress).

|6.2.08 @ 5:41AM|#

And yes, I try to check myself before I arrogantly think "Oh, these people don't think like me, therefore they must be stupid, immoral (blah blah)," not that I don't slip up sometimes. There are many very, very good reasons to be a Democrat, and there even used to be some good reasons to be a Republican. But statistically, there are portions of the general public who are not very savvy at politics (and some who probably aren't very sapient at all), and I'm sure that there are people within the major parties whose jobs it is to appeal to certain subdemographics of the submediocre, (but it's hard to categorize people this way without seeming or being mediocre) just as there are resources devoted to appealing in general to more "acceptable" demographics.

Again, whenever I see an ad about "San Francisco Values" or some crap like that, I think who is this ad for? And I can only conclude that its intended audiences are "single issue voters" and "sheeple". And even though it's naive, I wish campaign organizers would believe the best in people and not condescend, blah blah. I mean, you obviously don't have to raise the level of discourse to Chomsky and George Will. And obviously there's a place in the market for an Ann Coulter. But the aggregate of the media coverage and political discourse in this country can only lead me to draw some pretty harsh conclusions about small subpopulations of the voting public.

Luckily, a person can be almost completely disinterested and uninformed about politics and still an awesome human being. However, I'd hope when they did poke their head into that terrible circus tent, they'd use their literacy and critical thinking skills.

|6.2.08 @ 6:02AM|#

Idaho rocks! 24% and 6 delegates for Ron Paul!

And stereotypes about people in "flyover country" not being informed be damned. I definitely have my disagreements with Dr. Paul's platform, but I have to respect his independent streak. A lot of people in Napoleon Dynamite Country sent a message to the Republican Party (but I bet the party leaders ignore it).

|6.2.08 @ 6:08AM|#

And yes, I realize that my intermittent loquaciousness is now ill-timed and possibly ill-placed. I'm not being needy for attention, but more inspired to write and genuinely interested in what you all have to say.*


*Well, technically not all of you, but the 95%-plus of the board that aren't trolls, authentic or contrived.

|6.2.08 @ 7:45AM|#

You move those goalposts, TallDave! Push 'em back, shove 'em back, waaaaayyyyy back, woo!

|6.2.08 @ 7:47AM|#

Some people don't think more racism is the answer to racism.

Some people think that affirmative-action inventor Martin Luther King was not, in fact a racist.

And that people who don't ever manage to find racial inequalities that harm black people to complain about, don't exactly define credibility on the issue.

|6.2.08 @ 8:11AM|#

MNG,

You don't win extra electoral votes by running up the score in individual states. RCP has Obama up five points in PA and Clinton up 10, for example.

There are a few states that Hillary can win that would be harder for Obama, but there are also states that Obama wins that will be harder for Hillary, like VA, CO, and NM.

The bottom line is that they both win all of Kerry's states, and then some. It's just a matter of where those flipped states are located.

|6.2.08 @ 8:18AM|#

No Name Guy,

So joe, are you ready to admit that George W. Bush might have gotten into Yale and Harvard on his merits?

You mean, after observing George W. Bush for the past eight years, am I "ready to admit" that he clearly has the native intelligence, commitment to intellectual achievement, and work ethic that indicates that his admission to his father, the Senator's, Ivy League alma mater was based on merit?

Uh, no.

Unlike Bill and Hillary Clintons, Al Gore, Barack Obama or Michelle Obama, Bush's performance and words haven't given any indication of those things at all.

Perhaps you have a better example?

|6.2.08 @ 8:38AM|#

joe, I can't speak for talldave, but I will admit to saying more than once that the Rev. Wright stuff would be death to the Obama campaign. I also predicted that something uglier would surface about Obama that would result in him withdrawing from the race before the convention. Mayhaps you are confusing my manure with his?

|6.2.08 @ 9:14AM|#

joe
The data show HRC picking up the following states that Kerry failed to take:
AR FL KY MO NV NM NC OH WV

She loses WI which he carried.

On the other hand, Obama only picks up the following:
CO IA NM OH
While losing MI.

And, Obama's lead over McCain in crucial Ohio is below the margin of error while HRC is way out there

|6.2.08 @ 12:06PM|#

MNG,

You have to assume that both Democrats' numbers vs. McCain are depressed right now, because they are still fighting each other, while he has had a unified party behind him for over a month. Moreso Obama at this point, because the Republicans have been laying off of Hillary. A 2 point shift moves a number of additional states into both their columns.

I think it's entirely plausible that Hillary could beat McCain by an even larger margin than Obama. If this was shaping up to be a close election year, or one that favored the GOP, Hillary would probably be the safer choice.

But it's not.

|6.2.08 @ 12:08PM|#

Oh, and, of course, even that smaller number of Obama states is enough to win the election.

Remember when people were talking about McCain winning NJ and Pennsylvania if Obama was the nominee? That's not going to happen, either.

No Name Guy|6.2.08 @ 10:18PM|#

Well Joe, for being such a dunce GWB did beat both Al Gore and John Kerry.