Look to Obama, not his supporters on TPM.

Posted at April 9, 2008 4:12 PM in response to Wavering on Obama

I wrote Edwards today as well. In the end, if he really intends to pursue a long lasting leadership position within this party, he is going to have to begin to act as if he is that progressive Democratic leader and make the pragmatic political decision to either endorse Obama (and thus make Clinton's defeat all the more inevitable) or endorse Clinton (and thus give her currently dubious "superdelegate and pledged delegate switcheroo" strategy a dash of feasibility).

Continued inaction will not be valued by the Democratic Party, not in retrospect.

Posted at March 27, 2008 1:46 AM in response to My letter to John Edwards and the PPP poll

"addressing the issue and the policy positions" should be "address an issue and the related policy positions"

Posted at March 26, 2008 1:58 AM in response to If She Thinks Richardson is Judas, What are We?

And how, exactly, are your recent postings going to aid the Democratic Party and its candidates in the quest to build a stronger retirement system, limit water pollution and so on?

What does your fixation with the percentage of Arab-African to "black African" blood within Obama have to do with any of these issues? The sad thing, d54, is that, even if you are a real Democrat, none of us are going to take you seriously after you have attempted to make a big deal about ethnic and racial distinctions which, as I pointed above, are not considered strange or controversial within East Africa due to the constance presence of Arab-Africans in East Africa for over a millennium. Lebanese Arabs consider themselves to be white, and Somali Arabs are considered by the entire Western world to be black. As a result, it should not be surprising that the son of a Luo-Arab is going to identify himself in relation to: what he remembers of his father; what he has learned from his African relatives; what he has learned from his white family members on his maternal side; and what he has learned on the street in America (i.e., if you look black, you're treated as if you are black).

None of these facts have any bearing on the reality of this election. If you really care about real issues, you can start a thread addressing the issue and the policy positions of the two candidates. If you don't, you can continue this conversation and confirm the suspicions of others on this thread: that you are simply a troll.

The choice is yours.

Posted at March 26, 2008 1:45 AM in response to If She Thinks Richardson is Judas, What are We?

I hate to break it to you d54, but the vast majority of the Democratic party is not interested in engaging in fear-mongering and race-baiting.

The bulk of the Dixiecrats left the party long ago.

Perhaps you should follow.

Posted at March 25, 2008 9:00 PM in response to If She Thinks Richardson is Judas, What are We?

Arab-African families are highly common at all levels of society in East Africa. Indeed, Somalis and Djiboutians, who are considered by many to be a part of "black Africa," consider themselves to fully Arab (both nations are full members of the Arab league). While Kenya is a predominantly Christian and black African nation, there has been quite a bit of cross-cultural interaction between Arabs and native Kenyan tribes for centuries. For a Western reporter to try to distinguish between the idea of a pure black Kenyan and a false Arab African Kenyan is to promote a fallacious exercise in futility. For an educated American to buy into such an analysis? That is a travesty.

Posted at March 25, 2008 8:57 PM in response to If She Thinks Richardson is Judas, What are We?

What will the Clintonistas be promoting next?

Phrenology?

Posted at March 25, 2008 8:44 PM in response to If She Thinks Richardson is Judas, What are We?

Nooooo... I think you should reread his or her message. He or she is implying that Richardson was selected by Bill Clinton because of what he could do for the country, and that Richardson has made his choice based on what he thinks Obama can do for our country. Neither choice was based on permanent personal loyalty.

You don't have to agree with Richardson. You don't have to like him. But to pretend that his selection is somehow ignoble is beyond absurd.

Posted at March 25, 2008 5:13 PM in response to If She Thinks Richardson is Judas, What are We?

Qwerty summed the situation up in one sentence: "Richardson owes his loyalty to his country, not to Billary!" We're electing the President of our nation, not the president of our sixth grade class. Anyone who believes that Richardson is bound to remain "loyal" to the wife of his former boss instead of making a logical judgment based on reason and the facts of the ground is either mad or so emotionally invested in the success of a particular candidate that they would probably be better served if they take the rest of the week off...

Posted at March 25, 2008 4:55 PM in response to If She Thinks Richardson is Judas, What are We?

Ah, yes... Wright made several passionate comments which demeaned the state, and David Duke led a racist organization known for violently repressing Black, Jewish and Catholic individuals for having the audacity to not be both white and protestant.

No difference, no difference at all.

Posted at March 25, 2008 4:36 PM in response to Hillary Finance Committee Member Compares Wright And David Duke, Says Obama "Used Race Where It Suited Him"