Clinton and Obama

[Sharmai]

Nice edit... No one wanted to see ass shitting pictures...

[renaissance]

Obama has cut Clinton's Superdelegate lead to 14. Interesting.

If she doesn't make a serious showing today, this is over.

[Araxen]

It was over weeks ago. The Networks are only hyping it up for ratings. I think Joe Scarborough said that pretty much a couple weeks ago on TV too.

[Sunder]

Originally Posted by renaissance

Obama has cut Clinton's Superdelegate lead to 14. Interesting.

If she doesn't make a serious showing today, this is over.

Unless she loses Indiana (which isn't happening), Clinton will find a reason to carry on. She knows that if she stays in for the remaining primaries, Obama will not be able to get the pledged delegates needed to wrap the nomination. That means this thing goes to the convention undecided which is exactly where she wants it. It gives her time to get all the political capital together that she can and try to get the nomination at the convention.

[renaissance]

I'll be real surprised if this goes to convention.

[TOOL]

Originally Posted by Payndar Circusdorf

If you're asking me to defend Hillary, look elsewhere. If you're suggesting that I employ a double standard between Obama and Hillary, you'd be wrong.

I will never ask anyone to defend Hillary. I'm not suggesting that you have a double standard, but you're only attacking one candidate right now. All three of the potential future Presidents have shown occasional lapses in judgment. I expect that because all three of them are human beings. If the one thing about Obama that's offensive enough that you choose to go out of your way to attack him for it is the pastor of the church he belongs to, I think he's doing pretty good as far as human beings go. Compared to the lapses in judgment the other two candidates are guilty of, I think Obama's doing pretty good for a potential future President too.

Originally Posted by Payndar Circusdorf

Don't be absurd. The role of pastor is one with substantial power in the life of one's children. One of the following is true, all of which are important to many many voters:

How is it absurd to remind you that the official positions that have important powers are not positions that Wright is eligible for? You're the one that brought up the absurd notion that Wright is in the same league as the legions of officials that Obama has appointed or will appoint.

The role of a pastor is one with substantial power in the spiritual life of one's children. Do you have any misgivings about Wright's spiritual message? If you do, I'd appreciate it if you'd find someplace else to discuss theology. I personally don't think a theological discussion is appropriate for a political thread like this.

And no, one of the following is not necessarily true. All three of them are a healthy mixture of fact, speculation, and opinion. Your opinion is much more valuable if you present it as an opinion. Your opinion starts loosing value as soon as you state it as if it were the truth.

[Drave]

Looks like a busy day...

[Payndar Circusdorf]

Originally Posted by TOOL

I will never ask anyone to defend Hillary. I'm not suggesting that you have a double standard, but you're only attacking one candidate right now.

There is a vast difference between "attacking" Obama and commenting on some of his weaknesses as a candidate. I voted for Obama on Feb 5th, still hope he becomes the nominee, and despite Wright would not cry bitter tears if he won the general election. I prefer McCain's policies over Obamas, but for many voters (including myself) character is a major, if not overriding, criterion and Obama's character is a pretty positive one. But to hear some of the posters on this thread, the man has never done anything that could weaken his candidacy. Those posters are naive and just flat wrong on certain aspects of his campaign strengths.

Tearing into Hillary isn't even sport.

[TOOL]

Originally Posted by Payndar Circusdorf

There is a vast difference between "attacking" Obama and commenting on some of his weaknesses as a candidate.
. . .
Tearing into Hillary isn't even sport.

I don't see quoting Farrakhan as sportsmanlike behavior, and I don't see how it's a comment on a weakness of Obama's either.

I think tearing into Hillary is good fun though.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Payndar Circusdorf

That may be, but again, you can't do that and consider your politics post-racial.

Which is why I said the "post-racial" tag is for campaigning, hopefully not for policy. Equal protection against discrimination is of course good, but I don't think it prevents targeted measures. Just like some kids get ESL classes and others don't. Not allowing race to influence policies means you block out important information just because it's not politically correct.

I'm not suggesting one set of standards for white kids and one for blacks. In fact, I think holding everyone to the same standard is crucial. Nor do I think race should be the only factor. But you throw race in with household income, whether a parent has a college degree, criminal record of parents, etc... then you do the whole thing for a neighborhood and you should get a good model. Then you design tailored measures on the local level to fix it. Again, probably not a good example, but in an area where people don't have college degrees, a program targeting parents of school children could help them realize the importance of a degree and get involved in their children's school work.

Isn't that what the states-right thing is all about? Realizing that what works in New York may not work in Kansas. I think the same applies to the local level, measures that make sense in Manhattan might not be suited for Queens.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Which is why I said the "post-racial" tag is for campaigning

But even still that kind of politically concious use of language opens a whole other can of worms for someone who is also touted as, basically, post-politics.

[Payndar Circusdorf]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Which is why I said the "post-racial" tag is for campaigning, hopefully not for policy. Equal protection against discrimination is of course good, but I don't think it prevents targeted measures. Just like some kids get ESL classes and others don't. Not allowing race to influence policies means you block out important information just because it's not politically correct.

Qualification for ESL, however, is not based on race. It's based on whether or not you speak English, and therefore benefits children whether they are from Mexico, Yemen, France, Senegal, or Brooklyn.

Again, probably not a good example, but in an area where people don't have college degrees, a program targeting parents of school children could help them realize the importance of a degree and get involved in their children's school work.

Which again isn't based on race. This is based on social class.

Imagine three scenarios:
1) Obama declares an initiative to uplift minority students. He allocates $200 Million to elementary schools with 40% or more latino and black enrollment to promote childhood literacy.

2) Obama declares an initiative to uplift underprivileged students. He allocates $200 Million to elementary schools where 40% or more students are on free lunch (meaning very low family income) to promote childhood literacy.

3) Obama declares an initiative to uplift under-performing students. He allocates $200 Million to elementary schools where 40% or more students are below grade level in reading to promote childhood literacy.

Can you think of any reason why #3 isn't the preferred option?

Isn't that what the states-right thing is all about? Realizing that what works in New York may not work in Kansas. I think the same applies to the local level, measures that make sense in Manhattan might not be suited for Queens.

True, but the Equal Protection clause transcends states rights.

[Badass]

Come on Indiana. End this fucking thing and vote for Obama. Enough is fucking enough.

[Payndar Circusdorf]

Originally Posted by Badass

Come on Indiana. End this fucking thing and vote for Obama. Enough is fucking enough.

Seconded.

[Slide]

You couldn't make this shit up. Congratulations to the Democrats for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.