@ Offensive

Good to see you admit to being a social Darwinist. I'd always thought of you as just a self righteous jerk. But you think you actually have a coherent, if abhorrent, philosophy. It gets me wondering why you have any interest in political debate. After all, politics is primarily about people joining together for mutual interest or to resolve mutual problems. A true social Darwinist wouldn't be interested in these sorts of activities. Perhaps you need to reconsider how you label yourself. You may really just be a self righteous jerk.

I just wonder how "socially Darwinist" you would be as you're sinking in quicksand and a few of us are standing around with rope, just watching.

Sorry for all the flaming, fellow postes, but I feel offended and want to lash out.

Posted at July 22, 2008 4:52 PM in response to Intellectual Usury Feels Good, at First

I actually sent a similar response to the DNCC last time they solicited a contribution. So I'm in and will actually double the amount (but keep the .08) so I'll send 50.08 to each.

Posted at May 21, 2008 3:18 PM in response to Inviting fellow Obama supporters to make a split $50 pledge, half to the DCCC and half to the Obama campaign, the day after Hillary concedes.

dnorman76
"Race matters to black voters AND IT SHOULD.
Gender matters to women voters AND IT SHOULD.
(I don't think I need any statistics for these assertions, do I?)"

I have to quibble with your "agreement" with me (although I appreciate the sentiment).

I would change "and it should" to "and it will". I personally don't think "it should", but I do understand that it does, so I was attempting to articulate the reasons for and implications of that reality. But I would much prefer that group identities did not play a significant role in voting decisions. Hopefully that will be the case in November.

Posted at May 21, 2008 1:20 PM in response to How come Obama is actually winning.

I think the distinction is one of a positive vs a negative motivation for voting choice. While a significant percentage of Black voters may have favored Obama for reasons of racial pride (a positive emotion), the percentage who admitted or implied that they were voting against Obama for racial reasons show bigotry, a negative emotional trait. So while one can make the case that both candidates benefit from identity based voting, it is only Obama who has people voting AGAINST him for those reasons. I have seen no data indicating that anyone voted AGAINST Clinton because she is White, or FOR Obama because she is a woman.

The importance of this distinction is that in the general election, most voters who preferred Clinton for gender solidarity or pride will likely gravitate to Obama since he supports their agenda, while those who voted AGAINST Obama for racial reasons will gravitate to McCain, even if they voted for Hillary in the primary.

Posted at May 21, 2008 12:44 PM in response to How come Obama is actually winning.

Well perhaps not Daschle. Bill Richardson fits the mold, but I don't know about him as a campaigner. Bob Graham?

Posted at May 8, 2008 6:45 PM in response to The VP Question

For Obama's VP, keep in mind his own criteria. He expressly doesn't want someone with military/foreign policy cred because it would undermine his own and reinforce the meme that he needs help in that area. I think he wants someone who knows DC inside and out, but isn't considered a K Street flunky. Someone who knows Congress well, and also the Fed beauracracy. I don't have any specific people in mind, but I think that will be his criteria.

I've thought about Tom Daschle along those lines but don't really know enough to consider his pros and cons. But someone like that who knows DC inside and out, but can be independant of the power brokers.

Posted at May 8, 2008 6:36 PM in response to The VP Question

David Seaton:

I understand that you are not an Obama supporter so I have to wonder if your "questions" are sincere. But even if they are not I will treat them as such.

Obama has made it clear that he decided to run for President in late 2006. You can choose to believe him or not.

He has also made it clear that he is running because he believes he has something unique to bring to the position. You can choose to agree or not.

But the most important thing he has made clear is that he does not "need" to be POTUS. He is a candidate on his own terms and is willing to be elected or not on those terms. I like the terms he offers. You obviously do not. That's why we have elections. But electing Clinton or McCain will hurt us as Americans much more than it will hurt Barack Obama as an individual, just as electing Bush cost us far more than it cost Al Gore.

So as you suggest, he is not dumb. Just honest. Maybe more honest than most Americans can handle.

Posted at April 29, 2008 2:42 PM in response to Obama: Dump Wright Now Before He Destroys You

In your zeal to be offensive, your last paragraph shows how little you understand. You make your racism perfectly clear by claiming a concern for your whether someone likes your skin color or culture. You also prove that you don't know what the word "racism" means.

You find it perfectly reasonable to ascribe Wright's views to Obama- that is one example of your racism. Another is your clear description that "your interests" are based on your skin color and culture. I'm sure with time you would illustrate many more. But one thing I agree with you about- you are not a racist based on media manipulation, but rather on your own long held beliefs. Congratulations for coming to this perverted conclusion all by yourself.

And please don't blame "much of American higher education these days" for my views. I went to college in the 60's and 70's where I learned about people like you.

Posted at April 29, 2008 2:25 PM in response to Obama: Dump Wright Now Before He Destroys You

Thanks for that. My thoughts exactly.

Posted at April 29, 2008 1:20 PM in response to Rev. Souljah and the Laius Complex

I'm really torn on this. Wright has no obligation to change or suppress his own views, right or wrong. He may be frustrating us Obama supporters but that's our problem, not his. And even if Wright repudiated his previously stated controversial views, who would believe him? It would be dismissed by the media as political pandering to help Obama, and Wright would lose his own credibility with his supporters. It would help no one.

And Obama can do no more than to include Wright as ONE PERSON among many that he LISTENS to in order to inform himself about the various issues that we face. Distancing himself from Wright as a person is meaningless except to clarify what Barack Obama believes and what his political positions are. The most he can do is continue to talk about the value of listening to all points of view in the process of developing one's own views, make it clear that he has his own views, and Wright's are no more important to him than all the other people he has heard from across the country. Hopefully voters will understand that we all have views that we would disagree with each other about, and none of us are responsible for someone else's ideas.

It's up to voters to distinguish between Obama's beliefs and Wright's, and if enough voters cannot make that distinction, then we again get what we deserve, as a country. We may wish that so many voters, due to their own fears and bigotry, weren't easily manipulated by the media, but that's a reality we have to face.

If White voters desert Obama because of what his pastor preaches in church, to me that's just a rationalization for their latent racism, ie. "if you seem White enough we'll consider voting for you, but if you show any signs of actually being Black, forget it". It's the "is he Black enough, or too Black" issue that was raised early on. The early verdict was that he was "just right", but now it seems like it's "just Wright". The verdict now is, "he's too Black". I suppose that could change again, but time is running out.

What I value in Barack Obama is his wisdom, honesty, and authenticity. If he has to give that up to win the nomination or election, we lose either way. So let Wright be Wright, and let Obama be Obama, and let the majority of voters have what they want. I've been in the minority of voters for over 40 years, even when I voted for Bill Clinton (who thanks to Perot never won a majority of votes, just a plurality to win the electoral college). Each election I do what I can to change that to a majority, but if it doesn't happen, life goes on. Until this election, I've voted for who I thought was the lesser of the evils, but not this time. Now that I've seen the alternative offered by Obama, I've decided that less evil isn't different enough from more. So if it ends up being McCain-Clinton, I'll just vote down ticket and let each presidential candidate's supporters decide which of the evils they prefer.

If enough Americans cannot see what Obama is offering and value it, then we lose out again.
I will continue to support Obama, will never vote for Clinton or McCain, and I'm willing to live with the consequences, as will my fellow citizens.

Posted at April 29, 2008 12:56 PM in response to Obama: Dump Wright Now Before He Destroys You