I here pundits say that our democratic primary was not especially divisive or vitriolic but I beg to differ.
When Hillary first made the “threshold” comment before the Ohio/Texas primary, I braced myself. When she came out with her uniformed supporters and repeated it, I CRIED FOR THREE DAYS!
Because at this point she took it to another level, I felt it went from a “healthy marital” type fight to one that is headed for “divorce court”.
I cried because I knew, like me there were so many of us that felt so lucky to have two such wonderful candidates, I cried because this was the first time that I had ever allowed myself so see Hillary as anything other than a “matron saint” for everything she has gone through as a public servant. Anyway, once I accepted that the Clintons are and have always been human, I still love them, and had she won the nomination, I would be a proud supporter but she did not. Do not stop writing on the message board, keep communicating how you feel because that rawness you feel will pass, and trust it will. Please think about how many of our fellow Americans have lost there lives; at home and abroad do to the inability of this republican president and the people he has appointed. We owe it to them not allow this to continue, no more bodies floating down our streets as our governmental “officials” shop for shoes in New York , no more illegal wars of choice.

It's your Right to vote for whoever you want to Cap Boy, but when the smoke clears there will be a Democratic President in the White House because a united Democratic Party put him there.

I love it that horse's name wouldn't happen to be...Eight Belles?

Jim wrote:
“People who said that the claims of racism were not true does not, quid pro quo, make them racists as well. That's patent race baiting and a bit of fear mongering. What you are saying is, that's racist, and if you don't agree, YOU are a racist.”

RESPONSE: Jim, I thank you for providing a detailed and in depth post. However, I perceive you are arguing against a “strawman” argument, or you believe that in one of my post I said, “HRC, or Bill, or HRC’s staff, or anyone else I have cited is racist. I did NOT.

The “HRC is racist” argument fails the history test, and logic test. HRC has a long history in supporting Civil Rights. And, even if we accept the “HRC is racist” argument, why would a racist seeking the vote of African-Americans say things to alienate them? Even David Duke is NOT that stupid. And, HRC’s intelligence far surpasses David Duke’s intelligence.

In reference to comment, “The statements you provided were flimsy at best, I am afraid.” We are in agreement, if the purpose of my post was to show that “HRC is a racist.” However, that has never been my argument. My argument, which I still stand by, that HRC and her campaign lacked cultural sensitivity, which in turn cost her African-American votes.

I believed the Original Post (O.P.), “Obama Divided Us Not Hillary,” did not accurately describe why such a large division occurred among Obama and Hillary supporters. I believe, especially among African-Americans, that statements made by HRC, or her advisors, or those who campaign for her, showed a lack of cultural sensitivity when expressing her message or talking-points.

I have provided HRC’s statements, HRC staff’s statements, and HRC campaigner’s statements that alienated African-American. While, I do agree some African-Americans changed over to Obama when they believed he had become a viable presidential candidate, I disagree that explanation describes the motivation of most African-Americans. African-Americans left HRC’s camp in February. If Obama’s presidential viability represented the principle reason why African-Americans shifted to his camp, the change would have occurred in January. Everyone proclaimed Obama’s presidential viability after Iowa. HRC’s alienation of African-Americans did not happen because of one event, but rather, a corrosive component (or lack of a component) of her campaign cause the African American alienation.

Basically, if you want to “sell a message,” or “product,” your language or terms should not be so ambiguous or poorly constructed that you must spend tremendous resources to correct the message. HRC, who at the beginning was accepted as an insider among African-Americans, alienated them by her continual cultural insensitivity. We are in agreement, that was not her intention but that is what happened. Unfortunately for HRC, African-Americans did not judge her on what she meant to say, but judged her on what she said.

In the same vain, I would appreciate if you would responded to what I wrote, and not what you think I might of written.

Why was HRC’s comment culturally insensitive?
First, her comments only alienated African Americans, a specific cultural (ethnic) group. And, second, lack the ability or responsiveness to clarify her statements at the moment of dispersion.

That’s my argument. If you disagree, I am more than willing to discuss or debate if HRC campaign was culturally insensitive or not. If you believe my posts represent race-baiting, I am also willing to debate that argument. I am NOT willing to debate if HRC was racists, in the affirmative because I don’t believe that argument.


Respectfully,

Daniel

RESPONSE: Hopefully, your quote will never be needed in any future election. The 2000 election will go down in history as one of the most nefarious travesty of voting rights in the last 100 years. But, once again, GREAT SAYING! It captures, the 2000 election perfectly.

We don’t want Obama to peak too soon. Wait until after Labor Day before you begin paying attention to the polls.


Respectfully,

Daniel

Yes, it’s always unfair to pick a strategy to WIN. Look at McCain...he’s doing the right thing and picking a strategy to lose!

Thank you for your post, I understand a fair bit more about you point. From your earlier posts I inferred that you used those examples to paint a pattern of racism, overt or subtle, and you stated that this was the reason HRC lost the black vote.

Now the argument is clearer, you merely state this is a pattern of insensitivity.

Much more palpable.

But....look at the examples you gave. When someone uses one of these, they are usually cut to bring out the most sinister undertone, not the entire passage which would look much more benign. I credit you on the MLK example, you actually posted most of what she actually said, but the one used on the Media looked much worse the way they cropped it.

Again, I am not accusing Obama of race baiting, nor his intimate surrogates that he directly supervises. I am firmly in the camp that the racism in this campaign was purely media driven. Why? Well, for one thing, the media has no great love of the Clintons. This favoritism was evident early on and the early primary onus on race by the media played to the advantage of the Obama camp. Note: Obama never validated their behaviour, and dismissed their spurious attempts at labeling HRC.

Of your examples, fewer that a half dozen can truly be called insensitive, and of those ascribed to people directly under HRC, all of them resigned from her staff. That is sensitivity. But remember, they were backed against a wall at this time, trying to get out from an assault, and anything they tried to say was cropped and clipped to put them farther in the hole. I agree, no overt racism, but even the insensitive stuff shouldn't have been put on HRC's hands.

The loss of the black vote is debatable, I would admit. But specious accusations and cropped statements can only have so much of an impact. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry all underwent this kind of attack, not from the media, but from the right wing, and the black vote went over 90 percent for each of them. The black vote is strongly democratic. When HRC had the money, the poll numbers, and the momentum, the black vote was in her favor 2:1 over Obama. It's hard to argue that a black voter wouldn't like to see a personable intelligent black candidate in the white house, so why didn't they back him?

The answer is viability. People back a winner. When Obama took Iowa, that's when it shifted. SC had a huge swing in the black vote towards Obama and that WAS in January, not February.

I suppose the most dissapointment I feel is not with the Media, per se. Their job is to create interest and viewers, and this byline created a nice buzz for them. They got the candidate they wanted, and exacted a little revenge for the disdain they felt for the Clintons. Understandable. And I certainly don't blame either the Obama camp or the HRC camp, they tried to keep the thing civil despite all attempts to turn this primary season as ugly as possible.

Who I do blame are the more ardent supporters in both camps, those outside the loop of influence. HRC's supporters circled the wagons, cried sexism, and never understood the powers at work here. Obama's more ardent supporters took every nugget of innuendo as gospel, so willing to accept obvious propaganda. The clipped RFK statement made quite a few pages on this message board, really angry stuff. No one bothered to look at the context of what she really said. And I blame the leaders in congress who fueled this by feeding the fires and whipping up anger by criticizing HRC's and her camp's statements when they knew full well what their true intent was.

They were all to blame.

And now we need to pick up the pieces and win in November, and there are still some hurt feeling over what transpired, which was NOTHING but media driven propaganda and race baiting spurred by their disdain for the Clintons.

Thats my take anyhow. Thanks again for the discourse.

Respectfully,

Jim

Jim,

We are in agreement on all your points. After more than a year of campaigning, the common person knows more about the distracting comments (shuckin’ and jivin’). When I searched for the meaning I only searched for “shucking,” not “shuckin’ and jiving’.” The term is used in the Southern United States. You would think that the reporter would provide a definition for the African-American idiom “shuckin’ and jivin’” since it is not a national idiom but a cultural-regional idiom.

If the media covered this campaign as news, most people in the U.S. would know about all the candidates views on REAL ISSUES: Economy, War in Iraq and Afghanistan, Violations of the Constitution, Corporate War Profiteering, Environment, Global Warming, Alternative Energy, Civil Infrastructure, Education, Jobs, etc. Instead, after a year of campaigning, Americans have little idea what positions the candidates hold. The corporate media complex issues to oversimplify, ambiguous tripe with a right-wing spin. No wonder newspapers are losing readers. We need newspapers that write at a senior in high-school level, not the 6th or 7th grade level. Adults buy newspapers, not children.

I feel glad that we reached an agreement.


Respectfully,

Daniel

Absolutely, and I appreciate the civil discourse as well, I learned a fair bit from you and for that, you have my gratitude.

Regards,

Jim

THOSE GOPER SNIPER GROUPS WITH NAMES LIKE FOR AMERICA AND PATRIOT BUNCH STARTA ABOUT LABOR DAY, THEY DERAILED EVERY DEM BUT BILL(CARTER WAS A WATERGATE RECIPIENT SO DONT COUNT HIM)SO FAR. HIS TURN AND YOU ARE RIGHT NOBODY NOT EVEN CARTER ON TEH HEELSOF WATERGATE HAD MORE GOING FOR HIM THAN OBAMA THIS YEAR. STILL, WE ARE NOT THERE ON THE COATTAILS OF A "REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE IN AMERICA TO LIBERALISM AS MUCH AS WE ARE THERE BECAUSE OF THE ABOLUTE FAILURE OF BUSH. A GIANT DIFFERENCE. WHEN BUSH FIRST RAN, THE SALE WAS MADE ANYONE CAN DO WHAT BILL DID. A PRESIDENT IN REALITY HAS NO EFFECT. SO THEY SOLD A BETTER MAN TO HAVE A BEER WITH AND GORE WAS NOT AS APPEALING A DRRINKING BUDDY APARENTLY. 8 YEARS LATER SOME ARE REMINDED WHILE OTHERS NEVER FORGOT, IT IS THE HARDEST JOB ON EARTH. WHAT AMAZES ME IS HOW LITTLE DEMOCRATS, MY OWN KIND, RECOGNIZE HOW TRULY RARE AND PRECIOUS IT IS TO HAVE A DEMOCRATIC MESSAGE, CRAFTED SO IT CAN CONVINCE TO REELECT AND IF A THIRD TERM WAS POSSIBLE MAKE YOU A FRONT RUNNER BY FAR. IN OVER A CENTURY, ONLY ONE DEMOCRAT FASSSIONED SUCH A MESSAGE AND JOB PERFORMANCE. FDR, DID IT BUT HE CANNOT BE LOOKED TO AS WINNING IN MODERN AMERICAN POLITICS. I APPROACED THIS ELECTION WITH A HEALTHY HUMILITY THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE ANOTHER DEMOCRAT BUT CLINTON HAD A MESSAGE ACCEPTABLE TO THE MAINSTREAM OVER TIME. TO ME, EVERY OBAMA SUPPORTER HAD TO VIEW THIS VERY ISSUE BELIEVING LOTS OF DEMS HAVE IT THEY JUST HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE. IF YOU DIDNT THINK THAT AND DID NOT TAKE AS CLOSE TO THE ONLY SUCCESSFUL DEM MESSAGE IN THE RELEVANT PART OF THE LAST CENTURY PLUS, YOU DIDNT THINK ENOUGH BEFORE YOU VOTED IN THE PRIMARY.IF OBAMA WAS NOT RUNNINGI AGAINST A VERSION OF THAT ONE SINGLE SUCCESSFUL MESSAGE, HE IS HANDS DOWN MY CHOICE BECAUSE TO ME CHARISMA IS AN IMPORTANT WEAPON TO DEFEAT THE GOPER ATTACK MACHINE AND HE HAS IT. BUT MY VOTE WS SIMPLE, WINNING IS THE ONLY THING IMPORTANT, NO ROOM TO EXPERIMENT OR GO FOR FLIGHTS OF FANCY OR EVEN FOR PRINCIPLED LEFT VS TRIANGULATION.I LOOKED AT OUR HISTORY, A WAR HERO MADE TO LOOK LIKE A NONPATRIOT EVEN WITH SHRAPNELL IN HIS LEG, WHO LOST AS UNPRINCIPLED. A DUKAKIS WHO LOST BECAUSE THEY FOUND A FUNNY HAT IN A TANK AND WILLIE HORTON AND MANAGED TO MAKE THE "BLUE COLOR WHITE VOTER" THINK LIBERAL MEANS LETTING KILLERS GO TO ATTACK INNOCENTS, ADDING A TOUCH OF RACISM AND LIBERAL STERIOTYPE THAT WHITE LIBERALS ARE SO GUNG HO TO FEED THIER WHITE GUILT THEY WILL WELCOME A KILLER INTO THIER KIDS BEDROOM AND YOURS. THEN CARTER, NICE GUY, HE SIMPLY LED TO A 20 YEAR REAGAN REVOLUTION.I FORSEE A BIG PUSH TO REMIND OF THAT WHITE GUILT IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN IT IS AS EASY TO SELL AS THE IDEA PEOPLE GET TO MUCH IN PERSONAL INJURY LAWSUITS, NO EMPIRICLE EVIDENCE BUT PEEOPLE WILL SWEAR IT IS ANYHOW.I CAN SEE GOPERS SAYING, HOW DO WE RECREATE THE DIVISION AMERICA HAD ONLY A FEW YEARS AGO WHEN OJ WAS SUPPORTED IN ONE COMMUNITY AND ANOTHER SAID, HE IS GUILTY. AGAIN, NOT 100% BUT A SIGNIFICALT NUMBER.TO ME, WE TOOK A CHANCE IT BETTER BE WORTH IT

TRANSLATION: sandwich

Translation: Bush carried-out his responsibility as President of the U.S. with absolute incompetence, providing Obama a good chance to win the 2008 election. GOPers proclaimed the job of president as easy, even Bill Clinton could do it. Neo-Cons have labeled Democrats as: tax-and-spend, Wilie Horton freeing, gun-stealing, abortion loving, family hating, to name just a few. Obama better win.

We are in agreement. The pendulum swings both to the right and to the left. After the conservative1950s we had the liberal 1960s and 70s, we then had the Neo-Conservative Reagan/Bush-41, followed by the Neo-liberal Clinton, culminating with Empire Building Bush-43. Obama represents the new liberal swing back to the left.

Daniel

Right-wing radio has completed destroyed the "art" of the civil discourse, leading to everyone digging in their heels, and focusing on "winning" the argument. Human beings have so much more in common than differences, we should concentrate on what we have in common. At the same time we should learn what makes us different, what makes us unique, and celebrate our individuality.



Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry received 90% of the African-American vote when measured against a Republican candidate. However, the African-American vote will spread more evenly among Democratic candidates. The truth be told, I cannot find any comparable compaign in Democratic history, which for African-Americans is less than 50 years of participation. We also have never had such a long campaign season, or least none covered for so long in the news. This election is unique in so many ways...

It has been a pleasure and a honor,

Daniel

Yeah, uh-huh.

spread out amungst democrats till this unique election with a black candidate. I still feel empty inside having heard democrats basically catagorizing the Clinton's as "THEM" lumping them with those who have not been a friend to the black community and who for all sorts of reasons were not good democrats. Hearing democrats arguing change means ending the bush/ clinton legacy to me, became sickening to listen to, as if the 8 years of Clinton, in any way, could be compared to Bush the crook. As if misdeeds involving infidelity could be compared to lying to bring us to war for profitteer friends.By making that comparison, so many democrats were willing to destroy our proof that our policy works in practice, not just promise.I fear, where gopers were unsuccessful in making the case to erase those 8 years from the collective memory of americans, democrats this year managed to succeed where they could not. The way a Mcleland book can, or "blinded by the right" can. FRANKLY AS ONLY A TACID ADMISSION FROM THE SAME SIDE CAN.Fact is, but for the two term limit, Bill might still be president, certainly America wanted a third term the polls all showed this. It has taught me, how different democrats are.It has taught me I must side with those who do not value things I do in a very fundemental way. This is not articulated anywhere for what it truly is. People rather catagorize it as "sour grapes" or remorse associated with loosing, and all sorts of other concepts that frankly the winners in our party get to define. Wel lthey will never define it in a way that points out a difference in them that is anything but virtuous. In fact, anyone being as honesnt as they can, as I am trying to define it, will be treated by fellow democrats, the way Mr Ritter was by a bush machine not wanting truth telling about wmd.But make no mistake, the hurt is much deeper than a candidate in this particular case.This hurt is, to many, a continuation of a fight that started 16 years ago and up to now, we won it in every way. Now metaphorically the TV has the "Ann Coulters" and "huffingtons on the left" joining in song about how the Clinton legacy is dead. I was a kid once and can understand the out with the old in with the new, everything old fails to get it mentality. We can overlook them. But the rest, who now look at Bill as not liberal enough and not really a lefty like they, they will never see the geniouls of Bill managing a message to get us in, in a time when the lefts message was fringe.They are persona non gratis not getting his increment, and success, kept our ideas alive.

Yup, it would be a BIOS setting.

Not necessarily. I mentioned previously the problems I was having with numlock. Well, last week I bought a new hdd. Well, windows was acting flaky with my old hdd, so I decided to do a clean install, reinstall all my software, and just transfer my files from my old hdd to the new one. My numlock is acting as it should now.

There are various ways to set the num lock at the OS level. But the BIOS is the first place I would check because that's always worked for me.

daniel we agreed right till the end of your post. Now I make a distinction without meaning on it's face, but a very big distinction in reality. "IS THE PENDULUM SWINGING" Anyone who supports Obama from the get go, and they are a distinct half of our party, belives as you do. why else would they pick the most liberal member of the Senate and feel bold enough to "go for the liberal gusto". the "whole package." It makes sense, you see a president and gop that has fallen like Satan in paradise lost and you percieve that as a swing to liberalism. I am not convinced you are right. Neither are the millions of democrats who voted for Hillary for the right reason( other than because she is a woman or other such reason) that right reason is just what I have been saying and makes all the difference UNLESS you are absolutely right. The Clintons, in a nation split in half as our last 5 elections show, managed to find a way to bridge the gap between voters and find a winning message. Bill Clinton, and his wife, alone in American history, and now with Obama as our candidate, will remain so, had a singular message, from a member of our party, acceptable to the American electorate as they existed for over 20 years.Obama assumes a major shift, that is why he is not part of the equasion . We democrats hate to come face to face with this reality because after all, we are for all the correct things. I got to admit, being right on the isues and knowing your policy is in the interest of the majority can cause you to loose site of the fact, americans seem more comfortable voting for what screws them. Maybe not intentionally, but certaily factually given the goper wins as president.If reality is, and it might very well be, that America is not swung left, but mearly totally pissed and disenchanted with the right because the last righty was a "crook," then,we are not selling the wanted message, we are selling the other message. The alternative to the crook. That might be enough for any dem to win, but it might not. If we loose and we had victory in the bag with a more centrist message of triangulation, I intend to blame that wing of my party that misread the tea leaves.Blame will be the only vehicle to teach these people and it must be done while fresh in the memory because the far left tends to be like women who have babies in the way they forget the pain and do it again and again. During an unthinkable McCain fiasco,the truth, That the numbers show it is slightly easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than to get a democrat elected for 8 years. mill cause the other half of our party to RESPECT how hard it is to win and be as successful as our one exapmple was

Since I already plan on installing XP Pro (it came pre-installed with Vista Home Premium) we'll see if that works. I don't plan on doing it today because I'm out of XP licenses and I'm too cheap to purchase the discs anywhere but online.

I strongly suspect it's the BIOS though, the numlock is usually an option built into the BIOS and not the OS, hence the reason why the numlock and/or caplock lights will come on while you're computer is booting usually before the windows splash screen starts.

Licenses... did I hear someone say "Ubuntu"?

Yup - quite astute of you

I have to admit, as much as I use Linux on servers, I have never used Linux on a home box but I really should try Ubuntu out and I've actually thought about it with that one laptop. I have another laptop with XP on it but it is now my laptop which stays in the case and hasn't been taken out for several weeks. I think before committing too much to putting Ubuntu on a machine I use on a regular basis, I might install it on the old laptop first just to get the hang of it and see what it can do. Thank you for reminding me

Good idea about installing it on your laptop to try it out first. You could also dual boot your main machine.

Gnoppix
http://www.gnoppix.org/

Try out linix without having to install a single thing on your computer. An entire stable linux setup on a bootable CD.

Ubuntu has live CDs/DVDs as well as many other Linux distros.

Znarfk,

We are in agreement that much division exists among the Democrats, and the country at large. Over the last couple of weeks we have seen the divisions lessen among Democrats, even though difference in opinion about what the term “change” specifically means still alludes us. Right now, 75% of the country does know that America is in the crapper, or as the corporate media so delicately puts it, “Going in the wrong direction.”

Several of Obama’s choices for advisors show a far more conservative perspective to his administration than many may realize. Obama’s economic advisors strongly support free market policies, like Jason Furman. On the other hand, Earlier in his campaign, Obama's senior advisers included some of the more innovative and cutting-edge thinkers from the foreign policy establishment, such as Larry Korb, Joseph Cirincione, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power, Robert Malley and Richard Clarke, all of whom opposed the invasion of Iraq and took a more holistic view of national security. Now, however, it appears he has surrounded himself with backers of failed foreign policies based upon contempt for international legal norms and military solutions to complex political problems. Two examples of failed policies are Madeleine Albright or Warran Christopher.

I agree, some people did not want a Bush 41, Clinton 42, Bush 43, and Hillary as Clinton 44. Putting aside the interesting fact that it would be the first time in U.S. history that two families had alternated the presidency two times, many people wanted more change than what Hillary was offering. But, as my previous paragraph indicates, Obama may be as center-right as Clinton. That does not take away that the Clinton era will always be remembered fondly, in comparison to the multiple absolute failures of the Bush administration.

The truth of the matter is that the Bush administration has hastened the fall of the U.S. as the “sole superpower.” We are now entering the era of multiple global power centers: U.S., European Union, China and India. The U.S. has ill-prepared for many of the challenges that face us now, and have not even identified the future challenges. The corporation and the values contained within has permeated the commons, the shared space of the people. The corporation has too much influence in government, too much control of health care, too strong of a voice in education, too much power over our lives.

Over the last 30 years, the corporations have changed from long-term plans to 1 year strategies. This short-term strategies leaked into government, at a time when we need long-term planning with short-term strategies. Unfortunately, the corporations seek to satisfy their purpose of existing, maximizing profit. Both Europe and Japan increased their energy efficiency by 100% since 1973, while the U.S. has decreased energy efficiency by 3%.

When economic historians look back at this period, they will use the word stagflation to describe 2008. The American people have felt this economic malaise since 2007, but the corporate media ignored the signs. Now, reality is interrupting the false dream we have been fed. As people moved from corporate T.V. and right-wing radio to the internet, a real competition of ideas has occurred. The corporations no longer have control over the message. The Iraq War could have gone on unopposed for both of Bush’s terms if it weren’t for the internet. Everyone can become their own researcher, and if not, they can choose to read the research of others. As a new technology, you find many more liberals on the internet, while conservatives tend to receive their information from talk-radio or right-wing corporate talking-points on T.V. Republicans strategy of doing the will of the corporations, while tossing in some Christian Right legislation no longer persuades the majority of Americans. When conservatives use the internet, they risk exposing their “flock” to ideas from the “others,” those who have different perspectives.

Democrats will win not only the executive office, they will win from 2/3 to ¾ of the Senate and House seats in play this election. Then comes the near impossible task of getting America out of an extremely deep ditch that Bush’s policies facilitated. The conservatives are playing on our turf, the internet. What we are doing on this forum, is going to be the interactions that defeat the Republicans. And as Democrats, we can use the internet to hold our own representatives feet to the fire.


Regards,

Daniel

These two post make equal amounts of sense to me.

carmonjones makes me laugh, I believe what is written is exactly how the ear hearsit from that one, unintelligable sounds or in this case, type, followed by BLACK then more of the same. In the end, it is a perfect post illustrating a closed mind and a mind who hears what they want to hear. it is a perfect metaphor for filtering only what you want and if it does not conform, filter some more. there is a belief this form of ignorance is ok if you defend something worthy, but it is a form of ignorance that cannot be justified when all you do is scoff with nothing more. It is quitnesenntial closed mindedness. The art of "scoffing" which untill recently I had thought the right had a monopoly on. Scoff, accuse, scoff accuse, personally attack. All you need to learn is how to create fear and you got the whole right wing playbook.If you have the audacity, to accuse another person of some sort of racism, do it by making an argument, not by creating a straw man. As I se it you cannot make any such argument and when that is true an accusation of racism is as bad as racism itself. (racism and false witness )Let me enlighten where there is darkness only. You defeat any nobility that might accrue by opposing racism unless it is with facts and a reasoned point. , If your unable or unwilling, opposing racism is much to important than to be left in the hands of those who defend it like an ignorant right wing scoffing straw man creating hack, because it does not persuade and often entrenches racism.Another words your the enemy of anti racism unwittingly. So abandon your quest be be a doo gooder who is unable, and leave it to those able to explain why something is or is not acceptable in a manner befitting the nobility of being on the right side of a racism issue.

Znarfk may want to consider paragraphs, I know that you are writing exactly what you feel but you must see how a solid block of uninterrupted text is boggling to the eye and difficult to read. (it is hard not to read it with a monotone robot-lke voice since the visual rythm is mechanical and daunting )Double spacing after sentences and use of paragraphs help break up this monotony and make your words more readable. Your formatting is 'quitnesenntial' bad form. Related ideas go together in a paragraph and when you change tack in a diatribe you should hit the enter key a couple of times to make the text more readable. , Don't lead sentences with commas as his is just plain confusing. You can also install a spell checker in your browser now whether it is ie of ff and that will help you avoid talking about what you "se" her views as. Meanwhile your use of the word "doo gooder" is at the same time unique, perplexing, familiar and silly. Am I to believe that you are Megatron or Cobra Commander some other cartoon bad guy out to foil those vile do-gooders? Who knew that doing the right thing earned one a label. Some moral code. But seriously when you type like this and swish back and forth between topics in one long meandering and unending paragraph of doom and dispair it makes it impossible for anyone to read you and still give you the benefit of the doubt. To the contrary goes the debt of courtesy and so as one who seeks to change minds should you go about fitting your words with brighter addornment such as proper formatting. Strunk and White if I recall are excellent guides in this endeavor.

Interesting Post. To start. Carters guy will only bring the gravitas of recall of the Iraq crisis, not my choice. Christopher, gt Obama a copy of the new HBO show on the 2000 election and watch the enlightened Christoper say" NO lawsuits" that one personally screwed my help and Gore got gored.I like Albright, always did. Clarrke, be wary, he is a conservative by genetics, his present alliance wiht us is born of necessity. That said, there is much to like about him and he is no Neo Con..... Your Bush Clinton analysis was a bit of a gloss over. It remains dishonest, and an unfair atttack on hillary that helpepd Obama...... ON the issue of Corporations, you are right on. This nation was founded on a healthy hatred of al powerful corporations. This legacy begins with the EASt Indies Corp. It did not take long for the first vestiges of facism to creep into our very constitution. The Casa Clara case is a clsssic example of judicial right wing activism, giving corporations status under the constitution that would have sent those very Tea drinking founders rocking in their graves.The changes in our economy reflect classically, an end to superpower status. Wish I could recall the author of the recent book on the subject doing a comparison with European dominace and fall and comparing the economic changes to service and then creditor and then debtor nation.To me, what has spread it up is the decline of labor as a force in america. And it is thier falut having made greed today thier credo when they still had clout.It is a very simple formula. Our nation became a superpower in large measure via FDRs creation of what was essentially artificial wealth and education in a former peasant class. Given Guilded age economics, pure market forces would never allow the rise of a middle class. Artificala minimum wage, , artificial collective bargaining rights, GI bills, and other government intervention permitted accumulation of spennding power and tax base in a class of as I said former peasants. Starting with Ronnie boy, the right has been successful in siphoning off that wealth from our one and only natural wonder of the world, our markets. As they do, as find you cannot go overseas and make it and come back and find anyone to sell to not layed off by, the exudus of business to make it cheaap to come back and sell it, our tax base dies.It is perhaps time for a radical. The danger is same as I posed from teh start, gample and loose and you end up with another reagan revolution for 20 years

Well the feeling is quite mutual, friend.



Whatever that was supposed to mean.

The Blacks™ do not follow your personal preferences or your dictates.

We never have, and we never will.

Move past it.

Brilliant and freaking hilarious!!

Mrs. Jonze!! Huraaah

Oh well if you are the new "moses" of "the blacks" I suppose your post, meets the minimal threshold for you to speak on behalf of "the blacks". If "the blacks" are your rock group or a softball team with odd name, your post makes sense of your their spokesman. If your the self appointed leader of "the blacks" and that means you may speak on behalf of everyone with color, that is idiotic... my frriend

Why gee yes, I am. How did you ever guess.



You don't know anything about "the blacks".

People like you rarely do, and speak solely from their own sense of wounded, MASSIVE, LEGENDARY resentments that you are not in control, rather than on-the-ground, historical fact.

People like you are as old as dirt. You are nothing new or novel.

Your problem, not mine.

I type nothing except an occasional post on a blog. You will never see me do anything but what I am doing. I have scriveners, you appear to be a good one.One is dropping a document I dictated as I type. Send your resume and maye I will hire you as a typist.... you must think yourself clever considering doo gooder a word unique and familiar, all at the same time. That comunicates little. It is a term that has gained popularity with our last president. It at least is a species of his view of the world with evil dooers. Myabe the presidents more infamous statements not widely known.My mistake. You ask," who knew doing he right thing earned a label."Point I made was he was not doing the right thing. When you missed that, you showed yourself a better scrivener than a critical reader... Not out to foil doo gooders, point again was without properly addressing with facts your not a doo gooder.Don't know who megatron is but who cares. Please advise where the gloom and dispair in my post was. I cannot even begin to guess what you might think fits. Tell me how a post which is what is know as a brutum fullman assertion that another is racist, constitutes doing the right thing.Or are you of the opinion that as long as you are arguing against racism, you have the right to create straw men and make accusations you cannot back up

Uh yeah, like making up b.s. that somebody called somebody else "racist" when they never did?

Like that? Like people in your camp do, because they want to proudly wear the badge of some nonwhite calling you "a racist"?

Give it up.

You are an angry wastrel of a tool, to be laughed at and publicly mocked.

I'd like peanut butter on my banana sammy, please.

I gave trying to read this after I realized that Scrivener's wasn't a disease.
But it did them occur to me, are you using an assistive device to input text other than a keyboard due to a disability? If so...I'll leave you alone and try to read your monographs.

fortunately your posts are all there to see. I stand by my description it is dead on. I was called Honkey back in the day and I got no stinkin badge. got called whitey in the scoolyard countless times, that is how it was in high school. My roommates both lived thier entire lives in Harlem, If I recall, they were black, Lived in harmony four years just like growing up, partied, worked togeother, chased girls together never had an angry moment. boxer Tracy Patterson was a guest every week for years, his DAD is a personal friend and hero But he deserved my respect. Color did not stop me one second thinking anyone a punk. Your chip on your shouldler you deal with it. You need to visit my camp you don't knwo a damn thing about it. Yours is the angry post, and you mock yourself.

Dems (and allies) will get it together and win. And change the country for the better.

(As long as they don’t go nuts and squirrelly…)

====