The survey of 1,209 registered voters found that Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 20 points, or 54 percent to 35 percent, among registered Democrats and those who lean Democratic nationwide.

Wow! I missed this. Great news. I'm guardedly optimistic that with the article I linked to, Newsweek is trying to make, rather than report, news. Obama didn't look so good last night, but on the other hand he does have a facility for defusing attacks, and the understanding that doing so, and doing so quickly, is essential.

"I don't have any functional or useful knowledge about this topic, but I am going to talk about it a lot anyway because I like pissing on Democrats and hanging out at BTF."

Thanks for telling us what we already know, about you and way too many of your friends. Really puts that "McGovernite left" comment in the proper light. By the way...

"I don't have any functional or useful knowledge about this topic or any other...

All fixed.

arkitekton, my reading is that other than a handful of Joeys, most of the country has made up their minds about Rev. Wright and bittergate, and even the ones who don't think that these issues reflect all that well on Obama are even more disgusted with the way Hillary and the media are obsessing over it. IMO that pathetic performance by Steffi and Gibson the other night crystallized this trend of thinking, and this poll likely reflects that. The only people defending those two morons were the Republicans, for obvious reasons. Even many of the Hillary supporters were put off by the inanity of spending 45 minutes beating these trivial "issues" into the ground.

And if the Republicans think that this is going to give them a free pass to the White House, they might want to look back on the 1998 mid-term elections, when the Republicans thought that the voters were going to reward them for their equally idiotic obsession with Pusssygate. Yet even though the voters were disgusted with Clinton's shoddy Back Door Santa antics, every single poll showed that at the end they were even more disgusted with the way the Republicans were running P-gate into the ground.

Funny how Hillary doesn't seem to have absorbed that lesson---but then there are a lot of things in her life that seem to take place under her radar....

George Will's defense of the proles pushes The New Republic's Jon Chait over the edge. Some choice bits:

Blue-collar whites now occupy the same position in American politics that people of color hold in the smaller political subculture of academia: a victim-hero class whose positions (usually as interpreted by outsiders) enjoy the presumption of moral superiority.

The victim-hero class is the object of competitive flattery and the subject of mutual accusations of disrespect. You can't read a Peggy Noonan paean to real America--"a healthy and vibrant place full of religious feeling and cultural energy and Bible study and garage bands and sports-love and mom-love and sophistication and normality"--without thinking of a junior faculty member extolling the dignity of Guatemalan peasant women. Bill O'Reilly's or Tim Russert's endless invocations of their working-class backgrounds are the equivalent of the campus activist who introduces every opinion by saying "As a woman of color . . . ." (The one difference being that the latter really is a woman of color, while the former are multimillionaires who retain only the most remote connection to blue-collar life.)

...

And, while it may be elitist to say so, voting for a politician merely because he can mimic your lifestyle is not a very good idea. George Will and the Journal editors would never dream of voting on the basis of which candidate related best to their culture. They support the candidates who share their policy goals, not those who share their passion for watching baseball, or flogging the servants, or whatever other pastimes they may enjoy.

Now, it's true that many working-class whites also vote on social issues that do have some political relevance, like abortion or gay marriage. It's certainly not irrational on its face to vote your values over your wallet. (Democratic billionaires do it, too.) On the other hand, conservatives routinely express their fury that a majority of Jews stubbornly flout their own "self-interest"--defined as low tax rates and a maximally hawkish Middle East policy--to vote Democratic. The process of trying to persuade others to reconsider the nature of their self-interest is not some Marxist exercise or an accusation of false consciousness. It's what we call "democracy."

Sorry, did that sound condescending?

Jon Chait on elites decrying elitism

This is a really creative idea that had not occurred to me before. Is there a location where it is put into practice? It seems like something that could be done even through donations. 1-2 college kids per class getting $15 per hour would be a pittance compared to some of the money wasted by schools, and would make a tremendous difference in some classes, especially for young teachers struggling with disciplinary issues

.

Not that I am aware of--and not at $20 or so an hour. The rare TAs I had always got paid #### or nothing. My mom tried to do it at her reading center but was told no. My buddy at the middle school thought it was a cool idea, but they have just had budget cuts. I may volunteer some more soon to help my buddy out. As you suggest, this seems an area for public/private partnerships--maybe companies could donate money for it, get a tax break, and then the tutoring pool could be chosen from a major/grad program applicable to the company's employment needs, thereby providing valuable exp for potential employees. This seems particularly possible for math/science.

Another option would be a three-way relationship among Ed Depts, companies/local businesses and schools: future teachers in Ed programs pick up university credit for doing it, and the school/company split the funding. The business gets the tax break/goodwill, and in effect gets advertising to all the parents. You administer it by working with teachers and parents on site, focusing attention on some kids who are severely at-risk, and making parents of those kids accountable through oversight/documentation for the kids being in class, and also focus on some very gifted kids who can do enrichment-type work.

The college kids divide time between the classroom, one-on-one work, and small group work, and report to the teachers.

Even many of the Hillary supporters were put off by the inanity of spending 45 minutes beating these trivial "issues" into the ground.

So judgment, honesty, and associations aren't relevant with respect to a candidate? Okay...

So judgment, honesty, and associations aren't relevant with respect to a candidate? Okay...

Don't forget lapel pins.

Thanks for telling us what we already know, about you and way too many of your friends. Really puts that "McGovernite left" comment in the proper light. By the way...

Who was this addressed to?

So judgment, honesty, and associations aren't relevant with respect to a candidate? Okay...

Well, I think the points are, again:

1. Most folks, like you, have likely already decided how much they care about Wright and about the bitter comment. They can tell Obama themselves come Tuesday in PA and again in Nov if they want if he gets there.
2. Obama has already addressed both extensively, and as you said when I flat-out asked, there is "nothing" in your opinion, he could say about Wright that would matter or help. So you want it brought up again although...

...like the "debate" itself, asking about it again was kind of pointless--except as an attempt to make him look bad, which is not the point of the "debate" from the standpoint of the moderators. You could say that is the point of it from HRC's standpoint, but doing that serves her interest, not necessarily the voters'. The best argument in favor of it was to "test Obama in the clutch" sort of, but you and Andy are a good example of why bringing up Wright again was just a political move, nothing more: Andy thinks the issues are "trivial" and will vote for Obama. You, of course, do not and will not, and that is where I think most people are. (And also Andy did say the "bitter" questions were reasonable given the context). But the questions are not, "Is it OK to vet? Is it ok to ask about associations? Is character important?" because all that has been and is being done--extensively. The question is "Was that the best use of the air time?" I think Republicans and hardcore HRC fans would say yes, but they are just as biased as Obamaniacs and I think even a lot of them would say "no."

And, assuming Obama gets the nom, I am sure the Republican operatives will get you even more on Wright and anything else that will make Obama look bad. So be patient.

Who was this addressed to?

I think you, unless Softball has me confused with Joey--a stretch. Anyway, I liked seeing it posted again.

2. Obama has already addressed both extensively, and as you said when I flat-out asked, there is "nothing" in your opinion, he could say about Wright that would matter or help.

I think I said "not much." Addressing the issue directly would serve to help the perception of his honesty.

But let's turn the question around: why isn't he answering it directly?

but you and Andy are a good example of why bringing up Wright again was just a political move, nothing more

Well, I don't think asking someone to explain his associations is "just a political move," and I doubt you and Andy would be complaining if this were (the discussed-to-death analogy of) John McCain and David Duke. I think to complain that they asked the question during the debate is kind of silly.

Same goes with Hillary and Bosnia, since she clearly lied and should be asked to account for that. Again - it goes to honesty, which, admittedly, is in short supply among politicians. (Except when Obama is giving a speech, I mean.)

...my reading is that other than a handful of Joeys, most of the country has made up their minds about Rev. Wright and bittergate,...

To my surprise, I think you're right. Er, not that you're right, but that the country might actually not be falling for foolishness aimed squarely at its ignorance. We'll see a larger test, I suspect, in the general, when the audience is broader than just the Democrats and leaners in the poll you cited. That McCain is polling even with Obama gives me the wrong kind of chills. Sheesh--Obama would probably be the first genuinely intelligent American president in my lifetime. Bill Clinton's cleverness doesn't pass muster.

From the article to which Chip linked:

Yes, that George F. Will. The fabulously wealthy, bow tie-wearing, pretentious reference-mongering, Anglophilic fop who grew up in a university town as a professor's son, earned two advanced degrees, has a designated table at a French restaurant in Georgetown, and, had he dwelt for any extended time among the working class, would be lucky to escape without his underwear being yanked up over his ears.

Just great.

Same goes with Hillary and Bosnia, since she clearly lied and should be asked to account for that.

She was asked, and she answered. I despise her, but I have no interest in revisiting the Bosnia issue.

She was asked, and she answered. I despise her, but I have no interest in revisiting the Bosnia issue.

I like how Sinbad was shown to be more credible on the issue than she was.

Well, I don't think asking someone to explain his associations is "just a political move," and I doubt you and Andy would be complaining if this were (the discussed-to-death analogy of) John McCain and David Duke.

Wrong. Andy has said several times that he thinks highly of McCain as a person and that he wants McCain and Obama to focus on policy and hopes that the campaign does as well. I have, too, although I am not as big on McCain as a guy as Andy is--don't know all that much about JM. My mind is open on that score. And the Duke comp is IMO BS, as discussed. The fact that you keep making it shows where you are on the issue. I have said about 3-4 times that I don't give a #### where McCain goes to church or what the pastor says when McCain is there, or who his "spiritual advisors" are. That IMO is McCain's business. What McCain wants to do in Iraq and about the economy, education etc is mine--and yours.

But let's turn the question around: why isn't he answering it directly?

He has said he heard some controversial remarks--he said that in the speech and has said it in other places. One of the main points of the speech was to clarify that, and he ###### it up the first time as I said BEFORE the speech and after it. You seem to want a sermon-by-sermon breakdown of what Obama heard and did not hear, which makes no sense at all. Wright has these parts of his worldview; Obama is/was tight with him, whether he heard particular remarks or not. If you think that WHICH ones of the ones that are out there are the ones he heard--AIDS, God Damn America, etc--really matters, then I think you are in the minority. How much the relationship matters is up to each voter to decide for him or herself.

to demand

"Demand" is your word and again, is telling.

She was asked, and she answered. I despise her, but I have no interest in revisiting the Bosnia issue

Plus, she already admitted she lied, as much as she can, since she can't say "I lied." She said she was "sleep-deprived" and "misspoke." And she took the hits for it--on the net, on TV, etc. And, people it matters to can take it into account on Tuesday. End of story--except apparently to Ray.

I have said about 3-4 times that I don't give a #### where McCain goes to church or what the pastor says when McCain is there, or who his "spiritual advisors" are. That IMO is McCain's business.

So if McCain were listening to a pastor preach white separatism and anti-Americanism for 20 years, you wouldn't care? Somehow I think you'd be in the minority on that issue.

Wright has these parts of his worldview; Obama is/was tight with him, whether he heard particular remarks or not.

"Tight with him." That makes it sound like they were college buddies who went to the track together.

Instead, Obama was and continued (continues?) to be a willing and eager (*) participant as Wright preached this stuff to him, to his family, and to the community.

(*) Remember that Obama embraced Wright in the past.

Plus, she already admitted she lied, as much as she can, since she can't say "I lied." She said she was "sleep-deprived" and "misspoke." And she took the hits for it--on the net, on TV, etc. And, people it matters to can take it into account on Tuesday. End of story--except apparently to Ray.

Actually, I don't think there's anything else I/we can learn from her being asked the question again.

But that's different from saying that it's unfair to ask it again. Pointless, maybe -- or maybe not -- but if she doesn't want to be beaten over the head for lying about stuff, she shouldn't lie about stuff to begin with. Seems simple enough to me. When did we enact this rule that once a candidate is asked about something, she can never be asked about it again?

So if McCain were listening to a pastor preach white separatism and anti-Americanism for 20 years, you wouldn't care? Somehow I think you'd be in the minority on that issue.

If it had been more than a few quotes over 20 years, it might mean something. Obama has already addressed this issue as much as is necessary, and his answer is more than satisfactory.

But the questions are not, "Is it OK to vet? Is it ok to ask about associations? Is character important?" because all that has been and is being done--extensively. The question is "Was that the best use of the air time?" I think Republicans and hardcore HRC fans would say yes, but they are just as biased as Obamaniacs and I think even a lot of them would say "no."

Well, what would have been the best use of air time? Because I go and look at the "substantive" part of the "debate," where they were asked questions about "the issues," and -- setting aside whether I agree with Obama or Clinton on these topics -- I certainly don't learn anything new about them. Do you?

Well, what would have been the best use of air time?

Something other than a debate. Let's face it, 20 debates was too many, and adding another one served no purpose.

If it had been more than a few quotes over 20 years, it might mean something.

I disagree -- even one comment can reveal a lot about a person -- but how do we know that it was only "a few quotes"?

Obama has already addressed this issue as much as is necessary, and his answer is more than satisfactory.

Obama has not addressed this issue as much as is necessary, and his answer is not satisfactory.

There. My conclusory statement is just as good as yours.

So if McCain were listening to a pastor preach white separatism and anti-Americanism for 20 years, you wouldn't care? Somehow I think you'd be in the minority on that issue

.

It wouldn't be the same thing, of course, for a number of reasons, but that aside, really you are proving the point: you have made up your mind that this is an awful, awful thing. Fair enough. If the voters in PA agree with you but are not saying so, HRC will take Obama there by 15-20 points, regardless of what the polls say now. And if she does not, and enough non-Demo voters agree with you, due to the "political blind spot of the Left" as Good Face called it, McCain will clock Obama in November--which is why it didn't really need to be brought up again at the Democratic debate. It seems as if you want all the voters to care as much about it as you do. That is a common emotion but a largely useless one.

"Tight with him." That makes it sound like they were college buddies who went to the track together.

Instead, Obama was and continued (continues?) to be a willing and eager (*) participant as Wright preached this stuff to him, to his family, and to the community.

(*) Remember that Obama embraced Wright in the past

That is your read of the word. "Tight" to me means "very close relationship." And, as I said before to other posters who brought Obama's kids into it, while your concern for his daughters is touching, I think you should let Obama himself and Mrs. Obama worry about their own family and what the girls hear or do not hear.

Ok, now you can answer a question: I asked Joey something similar to this, but he blew me off. Let's say Obama wins. What, specifically, do you think will or could be the negative consequences for America and the world of the fact that he is/was close to Wright? Or is it just simply a visceral, gut thing--("Any man who would expose his daughters to that filth has no business in the Oval Office")?

Well, what would have been the best use of air time? Because I go and look at the "substantive" part of the "debate," where they were asked questions about "the issues," and -- setting aside whether I agree with Obama or Clinton on these topics -- I certainly don't learn anything new about them. Do you?

This assumes you two were the target audience for the debate.

Here's a hint: you weren't.

Well, what would have been the best use of air time?

Something other than a debate

I agree, and I suggested a joint Town Hall with video hookups several pages upthread. Obama has already declined to debate her again in NC, I think. But I do think questions about issues other than Wright and Bosnia would have been more useful, yes.

unfair

I guess you didn't read the part of the thread that addressed this earlier. Again, that is your word.

disagree -- even one comment can reveal a lot about a person -- but how do we know that it was only "a few quotes"?

One comment can reveal a lot about a person, but everyone is subject to engaging in hyperbole to make a point. And as for it being only a few, well, the burden is on you to give evidence that it isn't. No one that I know of has claimed that it was frequent.

Obama has not addressed this issue as much as is necessary, and his answer is not satisfactory.

There. My conclusory statement is just as good as yours.

Except yours are just "I don't like him, therefore he can never address the issue in a way that is satisfactory to me."

It wouldn't be the same thing, of course, for a number of reasons, but that aside, really you are proving the point: you have made up your mind that this is an awful, awful thing.

No, I think Wright's comments were awful, and that Obama's behavior was questionable. If it were me, I certainly wouldn't sit and listen to someone for 20 years if they were occasionally/frequently/whatever making racist and anti-American comments. Why on earth?

I didn't expect Obama to "walk out" of a sermon (as some have suggested). That misses the point. All he had to do was not return once it became clear to him what Wright's views were.

I don't care how Obama raises his daughters. I'm talking about his judgment. Either Obama thought Wright's comments were helpful to himself, his family, and his community -- which calls into question Obama's judgment -- or Obama did not think the comments were helpful -- which calls into question his judgment.

Or he was just there for the street cred -- which calls into question his honesty.

Why on earth?

I'm talking about his judgment.

Well, OK, but in the speech he explained this--pretty well, I thought. Whether you buy it is up to you.

EDIT: A big part of what Obama was trying to say about Wright was, that to Obama, it is a hell of of a lot more complex than an "either/or" issue. That is how it looks to you. Obama, due to his background etc--sees it and Wright differently.

Something other than a debate. Let's face it, 20 debates was too many, and adding another one served no purpose.

Obama and Hillary mud wrestling literally rather than figuratively?

Ok, now you can answer a question: I asked Joey something similar to this, but he blew me off. Let's say Obama wins. What, specifically, do you think will or could be the negative consequences for America and the world of the fact that he is/was close to Wright?

I object to the question. What "specifically"? I haven't the foggiest clue.

But I consider judgment, honesty, and associations to be relevant factors in evaluating a candidate, and I doubt I'm alone.

I didn't expect Obama to "walk out" of a sermon. That misses the point. All he had to do was not return once it became clear to him what Wright's views were.

So what do you think of JCinDC for not leaving the Catholic faith when it became apparent that they were shielding child molesters in an effort to prevent a political backlash?

You'll dismiss it as hypothetical, but it gets to the core issue: What do you do when a spiritual leader takes political views for reasons that contrary to their spiritual beliefs? What Obama has done is rejected his political views but accepts the spiritual. Is that honest? Yes, because we can't expect anyone to be perfect and live out their spiritual beliefs without error. When I see people say "He should have walked out and never returned!" it does nothing more than make me think that we should reject people solely for having a trait or a view we dislike. It shouldn't surprise me that such people would reject Obama because that's the opposite of his message.

I'm usually not a fan of the slippery slope argument, but if this is allowed, then don't we have to allow students to pick the school at which they take every course? Maybe it would benefit some, but at the introduction of how much red tape?

Actually, I had this arrangement--skipped third grade, took fifth grade twice taking the cross town bus to take a math and history class at the local high school, then skipped sixth and seventh and started at the five year high school at 11.

People would mutter a lot of crap about my parents "ruining my life" and "destroying my social life".

I didn't really like high school, but all in all it worked out great. I never had a dysfunctional love relationship, nor too much trouble dating (after high school, I mean I graduated at 15). The only obstacle to friendships is that I'm a workaholic, and I quickly learned that mastering calculus at some early age was not something to brag about--and certainly wouldn't help you avoid being locked in a locker ;)

So it's doable, and has been done. I would extend this to homeschooling as well. Sure, if your model is to lock the kid in your basement with books, it might not be healthy.

But you could push your kid to immensely social and not in the normal limited paradigms.

To illustrate, I spent one of my summers teaching 8th graders who failed and needed to catch up so they could move on to high school. Many of them were coming from juvie.

We did a lot of crap activities, but my favorite was an easy one. The kids developed interview questions and we went to millenium park to interview strangers.

These types of things are probably easier to do with homeschooled kids.

Obama and Hillary mud wrestling literally rather than figuratively?

A sitcom. At this point, anyone that cares to know their positions will already know, so a debate would be pointless.

A sitcom. At this point, anyone that cares to know their positions will already know, so a debate would be pointless.

If we made it a fight to the death, it would solve an awful lot of problems. No more issues related to Michigan, Florida, superdelegates...

But I consider judgment, honesty, and associations to be relevant factors in evaluating a candidate, and I doubt I'm alone

And who is saying you are? No one. I just see the Wright issue differently than you do.

I object to the question

.

Yeah, well, I demand you answer it anyway. Just kidding.

What "specifically"? I haven't the foggiest clue

.

Fair enough.

If we made it a fight to the death, it would solve an awful lot of problems. No more issues related to Michigan, Florida, superdelegates...

They'd have to even it out to give them both a 50-50 shot so the winner is the one that wants it more. Obama is younger and male, so he'd have the advantage in a fight to the death. Give Clinton a club? Give her throwing knives? There's a lot to consider there in terms of evening it out.

Obama and Hillary mud wrestling literally rather than figuratively?

No way. She'd crush him. As an Obamaniac, I am opposed to this option.

People would mutter a lot of crap about my parents "ruining my life" and "destroying my social life".

You are doing that on your own by coming here so much.

So if McCain were listening to a pastor preach white separatism and anti-Americanism for 20 years, you wouldn't care? Somehow I think you'd be in the minority on that issue

I don't care that much if McCain occasionally hangs out with Rush Limbaugh and the Easter Bunny. I am, however, deeply troubled by the fact that he hasn't distanced himself from the woman he freely married over this moral debacle:

McCain Website Pilfers "Family Recipes"

Not that I am aware of--and not at $20 or so an hour. The rare TAs I had always got paid #### or nothing. My mom tried to do it at her reading center but was told no. My buddy at the middle school thought it was a cool idea, but they have just had budget cuts. I may volunteer some more soon to help my buddy out. As you suggest, this seems an area for public/private partnerships--maybe companies could donate money for it, get a tax break, and then the tutoring pool could be chosen from a major/grad program applicable to the company's employment needs, thereby providing valuable exp for potential employees. This seems particularly possible for math/science.

There is actually a lot of this under NCLB. However, it means that the tutors are being selected by Princeton and small business owners who don't have any skills of identifying good teachers or connections to qualified candidates. Or in the case of Princeton and Kaplan, the student population is not one they are particularly interested in.

The companies receive huge hourly payments per student and pass little on to the tutors. I did this for a little while after I finished my years in Japan and needed to get certified in the U.S.

Most of the workers were first year education students with none of the skills or training to work with at risk students. The extra money the companies were receiving were not showing up in the form of supplies and material which were often missing or insufficient.

It went well for me, because I went with the best company I found--a small start up that promised tiny student-teacher ratios. I got to teach kids from Cabrini in groups of three or four. It was awesome. But the company had no clue what they were doing.

I love the idea of small class tutoring environments. I love the idea of team teaching (as I did often in Japan). But why not use the money directly to provide that to all kids rather than just pay privates to execute the plan poorly?

You are doing that on your own by coming here so much.

I thought I was merely proving that I'm more socially adjusted than a murder of lawyers. (Damning with faint praise?)

Or he was just there for the street cred -- which calls into question his honesty.

WTF is this? Sorry, I can't hang out with you anymore. I don't want to jeopardize my candidacy for the White house.

So what do you think of JCinDC for not leaving the Catholic faith when it became apparent that they were shielding child molesters in an effort to prevent a political backlash?

You'll dismiss it as hypothetical, but it gets to the core issue: What do you do when a spiritual leader takes political views for reasons that contrary to their spiritual beliefs? What Obama has done is rejected his political views but accepts the spiritual.

Well, I don't know what JC said, since I haven't read the entire thread. But I'll answer the question from my own perspective. I'm Catholic, but I'm not religious; I've only been to church for weddings and funerals. So I have no desire to defend the Catholic church for the sake of defending it, and I haven't been in this situation myself. (Since I'm not religious and have never attended a Sunday sermon, there is nothing for me to choose to "leave.") But there's a big point you're missing with the analogy: what the Catholic priests did in shielding child molestors -- Christopher Hitchens is right to use the term "child rape" instead of "child abuse" -- was despicable; but Catholic priests don't preach child molestation in their sermons. Wright's comments were a part of his sermons.

When I see people say "He should have walked out and never returned!" it does nothing more than make me think that we should reject people solely for having a trait or a view we dislike.

Of course we should "reject them" -- in the sense of choosing not to associate with them -- when the situation calls for it. I wouldn't listen to Louis Farrakhan every week either.

Well, I don't think asking someone to explain his associations is "just a political move," and I doubt you and Andy would be complaining if this were (the discussed-to-death analogy of) John McCain and David Duke. I think to complain that they asked the question during the debate is kind of silly.

First, I didn't complain that the questions were raised, only that they were belabored for 45 minutes. And as Mark Shields observed tonight, the battle-tested Jim Webb doesn't wear a flag pin, but the draft dodging Dick Cheney does. Should reporters therefore begin badgering Jim Webb about that?

And second, show me one example of when I've ever suggested that McCain should be subject to repeated hectoring over trivial issues, such as Rev. Hagee or his "100 years" comment. Show me one time where I've ever tried to tie McCain to any white racist who might happen to be supporting him. First Nieporent and now you seem to be so insecure about what I say that you feel compelled to put words in my mouth. The "insecure" part may be a stretch but the "compelled to put words in my mouth" is based strictly on the evidence. Out of all the zillion comments I've posted on this subject, you'd think that you could find at least one that you could honestly represent. Apparently not.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's fine to question Obama about Wright or "bitter," and it's fine to grill McCain on Rev. Hagee or "100 years." But when a "reporter" persists in repeating the same question for weeks on end when there's absolutely nothing that either candidate can add to the subject, it's exactly the sort of syndrome that Obama has been raising as one of the main reasons he got into the race---and it's also why he attracts many independent voters who are sick of Hillaryism.

And if Obama or McCain haven't answered those oh-so-vital questions to your satisfaction, then you have a simple solution: Vote for someone else. Demonstrate your solidarity with the white working class by writing in Ron Paul.

But as Chip notes, the two of you (and Joey) aren't exactly the target audience for a Democratic Party debate. And you might want to take a look at those polls on Hillary's rapidly rising negative numbers if you think that she's winning any converts with her slimy innuendos.

You all are banking on 2008 being a repeat of Willie Horton and the Swift Boat blitzkrieg. And maybe it will be; November is a long way away. But you might also want to look back at 1998 before taking all your cash to Vegas.

There is actually a lot of this under NCLB.

I didn't know that. No schools I know about here--about 15-20--have anything like that. I don't rip NCLB other than for the title since I have not read up on many of the specs. I don't assume Bush=bad. What do you think of NCLB on the whole?

To me, the keys are paying the kids enough to make it worth their time, administering/hiring at the site level with teacher oversight, and training them a bit first. But even without that, when I was working Title I just out of school with hard-core at-riskers, ANY one-on-one/small group attention, even untrained attention, was a big plus. But all I could get was sporadic volunteers.

I more or less team-teach the Math class now with the kid I hired for that--he is very sharp and the students love him. When he started doing more, I got the director to pay him more.

But why not use the money directly to provide that to all kids rather than just pay privates to execute the plan poorly?

Well, the keys are cooperation and making the schools appear less defensive, and getting admin on board etc. Tough.

a murder of lawyers

Freudian slip? New collective noun, like "pride of lions" or "gaggle of geese"?

Whatever it is, you are ###### with the lawyer vote if you run for president--the rest of the country will back you, though.

...but Catholic priests don't preach child molestation in their sermons.

This is positively Bushian. In other words, as long as you don't preach it, it's not as big a deal as actually doing it, then covering it up? Surely you don't mean that, Ray.

This is positively Bushian. In other words, as long as you don't preach it, it's not as big a deal as actually doing it, then covering it up? Surely you don't mean that, Ray.

Obviously not, since that's not what I said.

The sermon is not about child molestation, and, as far as those listening know, the particular priest is not a child molestor. I won't presume to tell people when they should or should not leave the Catholic faith; my point is simply that the message (and the particular messenger, presumably) have nothing to do with child molestation. So I don't see how the analogy to child molestation holds. Wright's controversial remarks were part of his message.

The sermon is not about child molestation, and, as far as those listening know, the particular priest is not a child molestor. I won't presume to tell people when they should or should not leave the Catholic faith; my point is simply that the message (and the particular messenger, presumably) have nothing to do with child molestation. So I don't see how the analogy to child molestation holds. Wright's controversial remarks were part of his message.

The better analogy came from the writer Charles Pierce a couple weeks ago, shortly after the whole Wright thing first broke, directed at every Baby Boomer RC like himself:

For those of us of the Papist persuasion, Good Friday services always came as two hours of existential dread. Purple swatches all over the sanctuary. Gloomy hymns. Latin intoned with an extra-special kind of lugubrious Lugosiness. More to the point of the past week, the Good Friday liturgy was a carnival of anti-Semitism, an extended exercise in Jew-bashing so egregious that even the Vatican came to notice it several centuries on. Now, I know I sat through this. I know Russert, and Matthews, and Maureen Dowd, and Pat Buchanan -- and JFK and John Kerry, as well -- also did. This wasn't the improvised rhetoric of one pastor in one church. This was the formalized celebration of Christ's Passion, performed in exactly the same way in front of millions of people in thousands of churches all over the world. So here's the thing, Mo and Tim and Chris. (I leave out Buchanan because, hell, he probably thinks the liturgy was too diverse.) Did sitting through this make you anti-Semitic? And to what degree? And have you ever rejected and renounced 2,000 years of popes -- to say nothing of the church over which they presided -- because they authorized this dangerous thooleramawnery? if you haven't, you should probably lay off Barack Obama and his minister, is all's I'm saying.

ANDY: "Show me one time where I've ever tried to tie McCain to any white racist who might happen to be supporting him."

I have found four examples where you did just that, Andy:

1. "McCain has been in bed with white racists." --Andy Source.
2. "What about all of McCain's supporters who are white racists?" --Andy Source.
3. "McCain may not wear bedsheets in public, but he is in bed with the Klan." --Andy Source.
4. "McCain dreams of a white racist America." --Andy Source.

"And have you ever rejected and renounced 2,000 years of popes -- to say nothing of the church over which they presided -- because they authorized this dangerous thooleramawnery?"

What is thooleramawnery?

EDIT: I found this after Googling "thooleramawn": "A thooleramawn is Irish from dúlamán, which is in turn from dúramán, a dull-witted or stupid person."

thooleramawnery?

Don't diminutize the guy's words, Rich.

Thanks, Rich. Pretty droll stuff. You've given David and Ray fresh new ammo to quote when their memories and/or imaginations once again fail them.

1448. robinred Posted: April 18, 2008 at 08:58 PM (#2750561)

a murder of lawyers


Freudian slip? New collective noun, like "pride of lions" or "gaggle of geese"?

Not "new":

mur·der Audio Help /ˈmɜrdər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mur-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

To me, the keys are paying the kids enough to make it worth their time, administering/hiring at the site level with teacher oversight, and training them a bit first. But even without that, when I was working Title I just out of school with hard-core at-riskers, ANY one-on-one/small group attention, even untrained attention, was a big plus. But all I could get was sporadic volunteers.

I more or less team-teach the Math class now with the kid I hired for that--he is very sharp and the students love him. When he started doing more, I got the director to pay him more.

I agree and the bold parts are critical. Under NCLB though, the money is diverted from the discretionary fund, so it's essentially, moving money away from poor schools that need the money the most (for fire pulls, supplementing field trips and student supplies, etc.) to corporations.

Again, I'd just like to enact exactly what you suggest:
1. More adults per classroom.
2. Protections for those adults.
3. No classrooms entirely turned over to unlicensed teachers.
4. On-site selection
5. External funds or administrative funds utilized

And yeah, the use of a group of crows was intentional :)

Thanks, Rich. Pretty droll stuff. You've given David and Ray fresh new ammo to quote when their memories and/or imaginations once again fail them.

I'm not sure what David has to do with anything I've said. But, to respond to your point of:

And second, show me one example of when I've ever suggested that McCain should be subject to repeated hectoring over trivial issues, such as Rev. Hagee or his "100 years" comment. Show me one time where I've ever tried to tie McCain to any white racist who might happen to be supporting him.

This is a strawman. I never said you said any of these things. And Wright was far, far more to Obama than either Hagee or "any white racist who might happen to be supporting" McCain. You of course try to minimize the Obama-Wright connection by comparing it, laughably, to these other things. Hey, that's the same tactic Obama used in his speech.

With the same lack of effect.

The question I raised is whether you would care if they badgered McCain during a debate given the same type of longstanding, intimate relationship between McCain-Duke as exists between Obama-Wright. And the key question inherent there is whether you would consider such a relationship "trivial" (since your complaint above is that Obama was being badgered over "trivial" issues).

The question I raised is whether you would care if they badgered McCain during a debate given the same type of longstanding, intimate relationship between McCain-Duke as exists between Obama-Wright. And the key question there is whether you would consider such a relationship "trivial" (since your complaint above is that Obama was being badgered over "trivial" issues).

The problem is that your hypothetical compares someone who made racist remarks a few times with someone who had an entire ideology based on racism.

Ray believes that pastors of black nationalist churches in South Side Chicago are identical to KKK dudes who switched to the KKK because they were MORE mainstream than his previous crazy affiliations and then switched to the Republican party because it allowed him to retain his hardcore racist beliefs and actually have a shot at mainstream power.

That's what I got out of that.

Ray believes that pastors of black nationalist churches in South Side Chicago are identical to KKK dudes who switched to the KKK because they were MORE mainstream than his previous crazy affiliations and then switched to the Republican party because it allowed him to retain his hardcore racist beliefs and actually have a shot at mainstream power.

Are you talking about David Duke or Bob Byrd, D-W.Va.?

Why do you get the two of them confused too? Or do you just know nothing about David Duke?

Are you talking about David Duke or Bob Byrd, D-W.Va.?

That Byrd is still a member of the Senate is an abomination.

Of course, he did receive a 100% approval rating from the NAACP. I suppose though that as long as we are feigning outrage for people of color and not actually interested in their condition, it would make sense to pursue that line.

(And I'm intentionally writing that so it could be applied in either direction. I don't really have a strong opinion on Byrd either way, but to equate someone who has clearly developed and changed his core beliefs over time with someone who simply strategizes the best way to promote his white supremacist agenda is ridiculous.)

I suppose though that as long as we are feigning outrage for people of color and not actually interested in their condition,

Does this relate to anything anyone wrote, or is it just more of E-X being E-X?

I don't really have a strong opinion on Byrd either way,

Of course you don't. I guess everyone's a racist except the guy who was in the KKK.

but to equate someone who has clearly developed and changed his core beliefs over time with someone who simply strategizes the best way to promote his white supremacist agenda is ridiculous.

Do you know what else is ridiculous? Claiming that the Republican party provides shelter for a guy with hardcore racist beliefs while not acknowledging that the Democratic Party is equally guilty under this cartoonish depiction of the party.

I found this poll interesting:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows John McCain leading Barack Obama, 48% to 42%. The presumptive Republican nominee also leads Hillary Clinton 50% to 41%. Daily tracking results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time (see recent daily general election results).

Just 68% of Democrats say they would vote for Obama against McCain. Twenty-three percent (23%) would vote for the Republican, 5% for a third-party option, and 4% are undecided. Clinton attracts 71% of Democrats. In that match-up, 21% would vote for McCain, 4% say they would vote for some other candidate, and another 4% are undecided. McCain attracts 85% of Republicans against Clinton, 82% against Obama, and leads both Democrats by double digits among unaffiliated voters.

Considering that we are still 7 months from the general election and 5-6 months from the time when most marginal voters will form their final opinions, a poll today means very little. However, I think the fact that the Democrats are now viewed far more negatively in general reflects on their infighting.

Daily tracking polls mean less than a little, as long-term predictors.

Do you know what else is ridiculous? Claiming that the Republican party provides shelter for a guy with hardcore racist beliefs while not acknowledging that the Democratic Party is equally guilty under this cartoonish depiction of the party.

Yes. Because besides sheltering Bob Byrd's racist old carcass 56 years after he first started disavowing his involvement with the KKK, it's the Democrats in recent years who have:

- dallied repeatedly right into the 21st century with the KKK's spiritual heirs, the Council of Concerned Citizens (the "CCC" - nudge, nudge, wink, wink) in the Deep South;


... oh wait, that's the Republicans.



- said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," (a mere 54 years after that decrepit old segregationist ran for the office);




... oh wait, that was a Republican.



- used a racial slur to describe the dark-skinned opposition researcher who was videotaping his public appearances;



... oh wait, that was a Republican.



- called Barack Obama "boy" just a week ago;



... oh wait, that was a Republican.


- Hired David Duke's phone bank firm to work for their campaign, then tried to cover it up;


... oh wait, that was a Republican.



And on, and on, and on, and on ...

The question I raised is whether you would care if they badgered McCain during a debate given the same type of longstanding, intimate relationship between McCain-Duke as exists between Obama-Wright. And the key question inherent there is whether you would consider such a relationship "trivial" (since your complaint above is that Obama was being badgered over "trivial" issues).

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts....

I wonder if "Rev." David Duke would have counseled a white woman who had broken off her engagement to a black man on racial grounds---to reconsider her decision.

I wonder if "Rev." Duke would have spent his career within the framework of an overwhelmingly black-run (and integrated) United Church of Christ. I wonder if "Rev." Duke would have welcomed black people into his local congregation.

I wonder if "Rev." Duke has innumerable black friends who will vouch that he's no racist.

If the answer to these questions are "yes," then your comparison would begin to make sense.

Although it would make even more sense if the historic positions of the races in this country over the past 389 years had been reversed.

At that point the analogy would be wholly real. And McCain would be black and Obama white.

And if you substituted Rev. Wright for "Rev." Duke in the above questions, and reversed "white" and "black," and the answers were "no," then this would be a moot point, as Obama would have been dead in the water.

But strangely enough, in spite of all the rantings and obsessions of the media and the Hillaryistas, Obama is still standing, and Miz Hillary's chances of getting the nomination are about as great as the chances of your getting it up this evening if Hillary were to show up in your bed in her Victoria's Secret best.

Yeah, it may be that your obsessions about all this aren't quite as universal as you'd like them to be.

I suppose though that as long as we are feigning outrage for people of color and not actually interested in their condition,



Does this relate to anything anyone wrote, or is it just more of E-X being E-X?

It relates to the part where you feign outrage over one single guy being racist half-a-dozen decades ago because you want to justify your association with present day racism.

That shouldn't be too hard to understand if you weren't so busy playing the reverse racism card all over the place.

But hey, it's just Ray being Ray.

I don't really have a strong opinion on Byrd either way,



Of course you don't. I guess everyone's a racist except the guy who was in the KKK.

You guess wrong. You probably should stop guessing. I can make illogical guesses too:
You clearly have a strong opinion on Byrd. Maybe because he helps black people too much? Maybe your mother was torn to piece by a flock of birds? Maybe because you are a master of logic?

Do you know what else is ridiculous? Claiming that the Republican party provides shelter for a guy with hardcore racist beliefs while not acknowledging that the Democratic Party is equally guilty under this cartoonish depiction of the party.

Nevermind, I take it all back. You clearly just have no idea what the word "equal" means.

That explains your affiliation with the Republican party.

The only cartoonish depiction is rooted in your desire to make any and all types of race based decision making equal.

If some black guy calls you a "cracker" that's not the same thing as you depriving his kids of an education.

There's no such thing as a one-size fits all "certified seal of racism".

I wish you and the rest of you race hustlers would stop trying to apply one.

Yes. Because besides sheltering Bob Byrd's racist old carcass 56 years after he first started disavowing his involvement with the KKK,

Do you know what's better than "disavowing" one's involvement in the KKK?

Never to have been involved at all.

But I know Byrd regrets his involvement. After all, he told a reporter in 1997 that he'd caution young people to avoid the KKK because otherwise it would be an "albatross" around their neck that would inhibit their political aspirations.

it's the Democrats in recent years who have:

Snip. This is arguing by soundbite, Chip. The only thing missing in your attack against Republicans were a few "Halliburton!"s, "Mission Accomplished"es, and "Greeted as liberators"es, for good measure.

But, like E-X, you seem to be under the odd impression that I care about the Republican Party.

It relates to the part where you feign outrage over one single guy being racist half-a-dozen decades ago because you want to justify your association with present day racism.

You're putting words together and forming a sentence, but it doesn't actually relate to anything I wrote.

That explains your affiliation with the Republican party.

I'm not affiliated with the Republican party.

The only cartoonish depiction is rooted in your desire to make any and all types of race based decision making equal.

If some black guy calls you a "cracker" that's not the same thing as you depriving his kids of an education.

So now I'm depriving black kids of an education. Okay.

You're becoming a parody of yourself, E-X.

However, I think the fact that the Democrats are now viewed far more negatively in general reflects on their infighting

.

Yeah, I think so, too. I feel that McCain's negatives will go up some once people/media start focusing on him again. The only thing we really know about the general at this point is that it will almost certainly be close, barring something totally unexpected occuring.

If some black guy calls you a "cracker" that's not the same thing as you depriving his kids of an education.

So now I'm depriving black kids of an education. Okay.


Er, where exactly did he say this? It's read as "you" plural, but that's a great way of actually avoiding the point, Ray. And by "great" I mean "transparent".

With the same lack of effect.

Like I've tried to tell you, Ray, Wright/speech (and "bittergate") are "agree-to-disagree" issues, based on how people interpret what Obama said and what we know about him. You of course can talk about it as much as you want, but I don't see the point here, particularly since you said you "haven't the foggiest clue" how this might specifically impact an Obama presidency.

People will interpret Obama/Wright and the speech based on a combination of political partisanship, intellectual/personal background and worldview related to race and religion. That is why it's complex--and also why moving people off position is nearly impossible. It hits a lot of areas.

So, dropping in little digs like "with the same lack of effect" is just entertainment--which I'm all for here at BTF--but that's all it is.

Forget it. I love you Ray. Have a great one.

Forget it. I love you Ray. Have a great one.

You're a uniter, E-X.

Er, where exactly did he say this? It's read as "you" plural, but that's a great way of actually avoiding the point, Ray. And by "great" I mean "transparent".

He had a point?

Like I've tried to tell you, Ray, Wright/speech (and "bittergate") are "agree-to-disagree" issues, based on how people interpret what Obama said and what we know about him. You of course can talk about it as much as you want, but I don't see the point here, particularly since you said you "haven't the foggiest clue" how this might specifically impact an Obama presidency.

Sorry to keep bringing this up, robin, but we know EXACTLY how this all fits into an Obama presidency. Ray knows that we can run, but we can't hide.

You're a uniter, E-X.

Did I tell about when I was in Trinity to start the paperwork on adopting a kid? I now find it amusing that the Black David Dukes would let an Asian American and White couple adopt an African American child...:P

Andy, that cartoon is very funny. But who is running John Edwards? Insurance companies?

Quick! Someone say something inflammatory! The thread can't die this close to 1500!

Uhhh...

McCain has naked pictures of the Bush daughters in his wallet.

Bill Richardson lied about being latin american.

Home schooled kids have superfluous third nipples.

Duke University is secretly funded by David Duke, and that's why they have so many white players.

..."haven't the foggiest clue" how this might specifically impact an Obama presidency.

And this is just as much a part of the problem.

Look, put aside all of his recent verbal gaffes and his shady associations for the moment. The man is a complete and utter tyro, with absolutely nothing in his background or experience that makes him qualified or deserving of being the Commander-in-Chief. Hardly anyone had even heard of him a couple of years ago; he came from out of nowhere. Most people still knew practically nothing about the man up until just a few weeks ago.

And I know this is going to infuriate Andy, but what Geraldine Ferraro said was absolutely 100% true. The only reason Obama is even in this incredible position he's in now is because he's black (or multiracial). If he were a white guy, he would have been rightfully seen as nothing but a John Edwards clone, and most Democrats wouldn't have given a second thought to supporting him over the Clintons once again.

Blacks are supporting him almost entirely out of racial solidarity, and leftist whites are supporting him partly out of ambivalence about the Clintons, but mostly because of their complex issues of inner white guilt, and their insatiable neverending quest to receive the absolution and forgiveness that they think they need.

At some point this nomination turned into a battle of pure victimhood/identity politics. That would be silly enough in an election for Alderman or something, but is an utterly absurd and appalling basis on which to select a candidate for the Presidency.

Quick! Someone say something inflammatory! The thread can't die this close to 1500!.

And the next post is Joey B putting the liberals on his analyst's couch.

Life is beautiful...

If he were a white guy, he would have been rightfully seen as nothing but a John Edwards clone

Their personalities seem quite different. They both try to use consensus-based leadership strategies, but Edwards is more of an intellectual and Obama makes emotional appeals.

Their images are quite different, too. Edwards has painted himself as a working-class populist who focuses primarily on economic issues to spur social change. Obama's image is one of an impassioned reformer who wants to change the discourse of public policy to allow for a more democratic discourse.

Their voting records and policy proposals are quite different, too. Edwards' health care plan, for instance, is far more progressive in terms of scope and depth than Obama's opt-in plan. Somehow, Obama has been categorized as a radical despite having a very centrist voting record and consistently less progressive policy proposals than even Clinton. I don't say this judgmentally because I think the differences between them are minute, but to suggest that Obama's PR people are mimicking the Edwards camp seems to have shaky footing.

Andy, that cartoon is very funny. But who is running John Edwards? Insurance companies?

You fool---Edwards is controlled by Giuseppe Franco. I thought everyone knew that.

If [Obama] were a white guy, he would have been rightfully seen as nothing but a John Edwards clone, and most Democrats wouldn't have given a second thought to supporting him over the Clintons once again.

Yeah, and if Hillary had been a black woman, she would have been part of the first mixed marriage in the history of the Arkansas State House, I'm sure. And McCain would have breezed into his Arizona Senate seat in 1986 with equal ease, since Arizona's famous for electing black Senators.

I won't even bring up the thought of a black George W. Bush being elected President. That would be overkill.

How about a black Rusty Staub?

Le Grand Noir.

Somehow, Obama has been categorized as a radical despite having a very centrist voting record

Centrist as compared to whom? In 2005-2007, Obama voted against the ADA-endorsed position on ADA's key votes exactly once.

In case anyone's reading this and thinks that Robert Byrd is some sort of vampire version of Thomas Dixon being sheltered by the Democratic Party despite whipping his sharecroppers every evening, do check out electoral-vote.com's current analysis of voting records in the Senate and how liberal groups rank them. (And there's a parallel conservative ranking page.) The NAACP gives Byrd an 87% favorable rating as of 2007. Saying that the Democrats are sheltering a Klansman in Byrd is like saying the GOP was sheltering a trade-union leader in Ronald Reagan: technically true but fairly misleading.

Edit: And incidentally, Obama and Clinton show up as fairly middle-of-the-road Democrats on both those lists. Liberal groups rank McCain as very far right; conservative groups tend to place him on the center-left (such as it is) of the GOP. This happens because the groups aren't entirely mirror-images of one another.

But strangely enough, in spite of all the rantings and obsessions of the media and the Hillaryistas, Obama is still standing, and Miz Hillary's chances of getting the nomination are about as great as the chances of your getting it up this evening if Hillary were to show up in your bed in her Victoria's Secret best.

and

I won't even bring up the thought of a black George W. Bush being elected President.

You've outdone yourself, Andy. These are two images I will never entirely get out of my head.

and leftist whites are supporting him partly out of ambivalence about the Clintons, but mostly because of their complex issues of inner white guilt, and their insatiable neverending quest to receive the absolution and forgiveness that they think they need.

So, you're basically saying that we are clinging to white guilt, because of the bitterness we feel about the past, instead of voting in our own best interests or in the interests of the country.

Intriguing.

Saying that the Democrats are sheltering a Klansman in Byrd is like saying the GOP was sheltering a trade-union leader in Ronald Reagan: technically true but fairly misleading.

It's also interesting to note that in the same year (1964) that Robert Byrd was the ONLY non-southern Democratic Senator to vote against the Civil Rights Act, the Republicans' PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE voted against it---and it was also in that same year that the Republicans welcomed one of the Senate's more notorious racists (Strom Thurmond) into their ranks. It was no coincidence that aside from Barry Goldwater's home state, the only states that the GOP won that November were South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

Don't misunderstand me. This has absolutely nothing to do with John McCain, who doesn't have a racist bone in his body. But it has a lot to do with the origins and demographic makeup of the Republican Party's "southern strategy" over the past 44 years. As "Mr. Conservative" himself once famously put it, you go duck hunting where the ducks are.

But strangely enough, in spite of all the rantings and obsessions of the media and the Hillaryistas, Obama is still standing, and Miz Hillary's chances of getting the nomination are about as great as the chances of [Ray'] getting it up this evening if Hillary were to show up in [his] bed in her Victoria's Secret best.

and

I won't even bring up the thought of a black George W. Bush being elected President.

You've outdone yourself, Andy. These are two images I will never entirely get out of my head.

Well, now picture combining these two images in a menage a trois variant of Pusssygate II. And then call in Ken Starr and Charles Krauthammer to moderate the next debate.

who doesn't have a racist bone in his body

While I understand and empathize with his experiences, what did he use to speak his racial slurs, the cartilage in his nose?

I mean, I don't think he should be disqualified by any means for his heroic past that led him down certain paths. But certainly there's some irony that Obama was nixed in some people's minds by association when the Republican candidate has directly used racial slurs.

This is exactly why I don't agree with the idea that one action makes someone an unredeemable racist.

Well, now picture combining these two images in a menage a trois variant of Pusssygate II. And then call in Ken Starr and Charles Krauthammer to moderate the next debate.

My penis just fell off.

My favorite words of the campaign so far--sent them to KY when my relatives there were mad at Geoff Davis and told them to apply them to him and they apply across the board to Byrd Wright McCain etc:

And one other thing I think we’ve gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say “That’s a terrible statement!”…I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack — and I’m gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who’s gonna say something like this, but I’m just tellin’ you — we’ve gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told “you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus…” And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.

--Mike Huckabee

So, you're basically saying that we are clinging to white guilt, because of the bitterness we feel about the past, instead of voting in our own best interests or in the interests of the country. Intriguing.

It's not pleasant to have people who don't know you do the political psychoanalysis on you, is it?

I'm glad to see that you're finally starting to get it.

I know this is going to infuriate Andy, but what Geraldine Ferraro said was absolutely 100% true. The only reason Obama is even in this incredible position he's in now is because he's black (or multiracial).

I don't think it is "100% true." Saying that ignores the fact that Obama is a very talented politician, probably the best public speaker in America today, and a person who has inspired millions with his rhetoric and his views.

However, his father's race has worked to his benefit. I believe it is the primary reason that almost all black voters in the Democratic primaries moved from Hillary to Obama in the lat 12 months.

"If he were a white guy, he would have been rightfully seen as nothing but a John Edwards clone, and most Democrats wouldn't have given a second thought to supporting him over the Clintons once again."

There are some similarities between Edwards and Obama: both one-term liberal U.S. Senators and lawyers and lacking in their resumes to be president. However, clone is hyperbole. Obama, for one thing, has attracted a lot of liberal voters on the idea that he was against the Iraq War at the time Edwards was voting to authorize it. That has been a big issue among Democractic primary voters.

"Blacks are supporting him almost entirely out of racial solidarity..."

I would amend this by saying black Democrats who had been fans of the Clintons but are now Obama voters and supporters have done so out of racial pride and identification. But that does not make them unique. When Dukakis ran for president, he got 90% of the Greek-American vote, despite the fact that Greek-Americans voted Republican 3:1 in 1984 and 2:1 in 2002. The only difference is that blacks are more numerous than Greeks in our body politic.

"... and leftist whites are supporting him partly out of ambivalence about the Clintons, but mostly because of their complex issues of inner white guilt, and their insatiable neverending quest to receive the absolution and forgiveness that they think they need."

I don't buy this at all. First, I think because you are so conservative, you don't understand that Bill Clinton was never liked by the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Clinton was a true moderate. However, because people like Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell were attacking Clinton so visciously for so many years, the hatred of him by the left was drowned out.

I don't think the white left (save some uber-feminists), motivated by their antipathy of the Iraq War and their ongoing dislike of the Clintons on policy grounds, ever would have supported Hillary. They coalesced around Obama because he was the most attractive liberal and because they believed he could beat Hillary.

For those who think McCain will eventually face hard questioning from the media in this campaign, we have a nice test in front of us this week: McCain just released his tax returns. His heiress wife, whose family money enabled his entry into politics, didn't. Worse yet, she hid behind her children, citing their privacy rather than her own as the reason not to.

Kerry's wife tried the exact same thing in '04 - including using the kids as a shield - and was absolutely hammered for it in the press, until she was forced to reverse course and release enough info. from the returns to demonstrate exactly how rich she was.

Let's see if Cindy McCain gets the same treatment.