Super Tuesday Thread

Barack has this thang wrapped up because we want change. Once he's president, he's stopping the war (except for those republicans who would like to personally fight to keep the war going.) McCain is George Bush in an older corpse therefore I hope the country isn't dumb enough to elect him. Hilary will make a good vice-president or secretary of state. I can't wait until that broken down condo is gotten rid of and is back at Stanford, hell or where ever republicans go when returning home from screwing the people or the country.

Obama wins Georgia, thanks to a coalition of young people and African Americans. Love it. New York Times:

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is projected to easily beat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Georgia, the first of 21 Democratic Super Tuesday contests to be decided, capitalizing on large margins among young and African-American voters, according to television networks and The Associated Press.

Obama took more than 40 percent of the white vote in Georgia, per the NYT politics blog:

Mr. Obama had a pretty broad win in Georgia, according to the exit polls. He won overwhelmingly among blacks, as in South Carolina, but he did even better among white voters in Georgia (more than 40 percent) than he did in South Carolina (about one quarter). This is a good but early sign for Mr. Obama, if Southern whites are supporting him.

And this posted a few minutes ago:

The Clinton campaign is already playing down the results in Georgia. They want you to know that they never really played there, never devoted much in the way of time or money. (They don’t mention that Mrs. Clinton had the endorsement of Representative John Lewis, the civil rights icon.)

Message: Don’t lose heart just because this early-reporting state is going big for Mr. Obama, especially if you live in a state where the polls haven’t closed yet.

Another message re: Georgia would be that they didn't expect to win in a "black state" against "the black candidate." But the fact that Obama carried more than 40% among white voters pretty much demolishes that line of rhetoric. It also proves that "black candidate" pigeonholing is not as effective, as a campaign strategy, as the Clinton campaign had probably hoped.

Agreed. The truth is that the Obama candidancy is turning out *new* voters, and could explode a lot of political conventional "wisdom." I honestly don't think the Clintons know how to run against him. They're proving it. And I find that delicious.

No big surprise, but Obama wins Illinois.

The old song "Something happening here" could apply:

Mr. Obama’s victories in Illinois and Georgia were built on nearly 9-to-1 majorities among African-American voters and a wide margin among younger voters and men, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls.

Mr. Obama carried virtually every demographic group in Illinois, according to exit surveys, gaining the votes of women in his home state by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, the poll found.

In Georgia, exit polls showed that Mr. Obama won large percentages of both men and women voters and a majority of all voters under the age of 60. He also won among all income groups and among union members. Mrs. Clinton took a majority of white women and those who had a strongly favorable opinion of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Times

No surprise: Hillary wins Arkansas and Tennessee.

On the Republican side, I heard on the news that some people feel that Huckabee is taking votes away from Romney. Huckabee responded by saying it could be the other way around. BTW, if McCain wins, would that make him the oldest candidate in history? I thought I heard that somewhere, so I wanted to see what the rest of you heard. Also, I didn't know that McCain's wife was a stroke survivor.

On the Democratic side, regardless of who wins, this is a historic night for them. The last two candidates on the ticket are a woman and a black man. Wasn't sure about seeing something like that this soon in my lifetime. I expected to have more gray hairs before that happened.

Right. More importantly, Huckabee is making it hard for McCain to declare that he's going to be the nominee after tonight. Those southern states matter.

Don't know on the age question.

Definitely a historic night on the Dem side. Oprah was quoted in the NY Times Sunday saying that we need to enjoy the fact that we have this kind of choice (presumably meaning not a white man). And either one of them will be in a good position to take the White House in November, with the mood of the country toward Republicans. That said, I believe the Clintons can muck it up quicker than Obama. And I don't dig those devotion to party above all else, among other things. I'm more anti-Clinton than ever right now after all the tricks of late.

Now we wait for California ...

Stephanopolis just pointed out that, so far, Hillary only has *seven* more delegates than Obama, being that these aren't winner-take-all states, reminding us that the whole "winning states" thing is essentially useless. Charles Gibson then mumbled something how it will take them a while to calculate all the delegates.

Now, she only has a four-delegate lead ...

And in a raw number of votes nationally, Clinton and Obama are neck in neck, separately only by a couple hundred thousand votes right now.

Obama takes Connecticut. That's big, no matter how the delegates shake out.

Obama states so far: Alabama, Georgia, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah (though at this moment, he's down)

Clinton states: Arkansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,
Oklahoma, Tennessee

They're somewhat on an even keel as far as number of states won. Both have won a couple of big states. Obama was leading in Connecticut and Idaho earlier, but I don't know if either have gone to Obama. Clinton's victories so far are slightly more impressive as the states she's won are more populated than Obama's. That may be important in the delegate count. Of course, we're waiting on the Big One to strike (California).

L.W 8:40 p.m. post -->**BTW, if McCain wins, would that make him the oldest candidate in history? I thought I heard that somewhere, so I wanted to see what the rest of you heard. Also, I didn't know that McCain's wife was a stroke survivor.**

McCain might not be the oldest "candidate in history", but if he is elected in the November general election, he'll become, at 72, the oldest person to enter the White House as president. Ronald Reagan was 69 when he took office, and William Henry Harrison was 68 and died one month later after giving the longest inaugural speech in history on a cold, blustery day.

Obama takes Connecticut. That's big, no matter how the delegates shake out.

You posted that as I was writing mine. So that's nine to Hillary's eight states declared.

LW, there are a number of hard-line conservatives like Mary Matlin who believe McCain and the Huckster have formed a back door agreement that the Huckster stay in this race because he pulls votes from Romney. I can almost believe that some deal was cut in the WV race, and the Huckster seems to have an advantage over McCain in the Deep South. He doesn't have a prayer of stopping the McCain juggernaut, but perhaps he's staying in to jockey for the VP running-mate spot. That would be an interesting pairing, since I don't think they share the same political philosophy but Huckabee could draw in evangelicals and social conservatives who aren't really feeling McCain. I loved Huck's opening retort tonight during his AR victory speech acknowledging the media declarations that it’s a 2-man race, declaring "It is, and WE ARE IN IT!"

On the Democrat side, I think once the votes are tallied in the morning Obama and Clinton will end up virtually tied. Clinton managed to pull MA which surprised me a little. And Obama's getting 43% of the white vote overall tonight which is helping to keep him competitive.

*BTW, if McCain wins, would that make him the oldest candidate in history?

Yes, it would. I wonder, too, if that will play a factor in some voter's mind in November should he win the nomination for the Republicans. That probably was Bob Dole's downfall against Bill Clinton. That and the fact that he didn't have anything of substance to run against Clinton with.

McCain might not be the oldest "candidate in history", but if he is elected in the November general election, he'll become, at 72, the oldest person to enter the White House as president.

Thanks, Kacy. You worded it better than I did. :-)

William Henry Harrison was 68 and died one month later after giving the longest inaugural speech in history on a cold, blustery day.

I remember that story. Fascinating.

BTW, did any of you hear Ann Coulter say she will support Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination and John McCain wins the Republican race? There has to be some kind of punchline or set-up somewhere.

Massachusetts likes Kennedys, but it's also very partisan.

I wouldn't completely discount that Obama could kick her butt in the West where the "independent" spirit is revered, and partisanship isn't quite what it is in New England. Not saying he will, but don't discount the possibility. Early returns are looking good for him.

I heard on NBC a few minutes ago that Huckabee wants to get rid of the IRS. What does he want to replace it with?

Also, they just interviewed Tavis Smiley, and he said that the way blacks and Hispanics voted tonigh shows that they are not monolithic because it wasn't all black voters voting for Obama or all Hispanic voters for Clinton. He said this shows that black and brown people just want to live in a country where America lives up to its promises (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.)

Huckabee wins Georgia

He also won in Alabama and his home state of Arkansas, so don't count him out.

BTW, did any of you hear Ann Coulter say she will support Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination and John McCain wins the Republican race? There has to be some kind of punchline or set-up somewhere.

I heard that too. I can't imagine Clinton and Coulter talking campaign strategies over a cup of coffee without throwing the coffee in each other's faces.

I heard on NBC a few minutes ago that Huckabee wants to get rid of the IRS.

Not a bad idea, actually.

One trend I've been noticing in the primary/caucus season is that more Democrats have been turning out than Republicans. Is this a harbinger of things to come in November?

Massachusetts likes Kennedys, but it's also very partisan.

I heard that most MA citizens have JFK portraits hanging up in their houses.

NBC just said that Obama won Minnesota.

Obama is leading big in Colorado. Keep your eye on Missouri. Obama has narrowed the gap there and now trails by 19K votes with 81% of the precincts reporting. Kansas City and St. Louis are usually the last to report and that's what happened in the Senate race there in 2006 and the state went to the Democrats. Maybe these two cities will help Obama?

Looks like Fox News has declared Obama the winner in Colorado.

Right-o, golden. I truly think he's going to rack up in the West. California, of course, is its own thing. But those women did amazing at UCLA Sunday. We watched on C-Span after getting in from San Francisco. The Super Bowl was over, after all. I just heard Michelle and Maria's speeches, but they kicked a$$.

Do you mean Maria Shriver? When I heard that she was endorsing Obama, I kept wondering what things were like at her house right now.

CNN estimates that Clinton will get 22 delegates and Obama will get 12. They don't have an estimate for the Republican candidates yet.

Do you mean Maria Shriver?

Yep, and I was somewhat surprised. But she is related to the Kennedys (her mom, if I'm not mistaken, is the sister of Ted, John, and Robert), so I guess being a Democrat didn't stop at her marriage with Arnold.

CNN says that in California, mostly whites and blacks voted for Obama, and mostly Latinos and Asians voted for Clinton.

As expected, McCain is in the lead in CA, thanks to Ahhhnold's endorsement.

Yeah, I know Maria's related to the Kennedys. Her mom's name is Eunice, I believe.

Somebody on MSNBC predicted that Obama and Clinton would each get between 500 and 600 delegates, and that it's very possible that the night could end up with an 839-839 tie in the overall delegate count.

Re McCain-Romney-Huckabee, I wouldn't be surprised if Huckabee ends up with substantially more delegates than Romney by the end of the night, especially if Romney fails to carry California.

Would anyone like to guess the results for the MS primaries next month?

CNN says Huckabee won Georgia. Obama is ahead in Idaho.

Clinton's ahead in Arizona.

Okay, heading to bed - about to fall out of my chair. Nighty-night.

Latasha, unless Clinton has a prohibitive lead by then, I'd be very surprised if Obama doesn't carry Mississippi in a landslide. He consistently outperforms her by a 3:1 by 5:1 margin among black voters, who are likely to make up two-thirds to three-quarters of Mississippi voters in a national primary, and he also appears to have inherited a lot of support from white YDA folks who previously supported Edwards. Clinton will carry a huge majority of whites over 45, but unless things change radically by March 11th, she'll lose in every other demographic.

Good night! :o)

Of course, Maria is a Kennedy, and Sargent Shriver's daughter. She looks as much like a Kennedy as any of them.

She's leading so far in California; don't know who has reported. But she seems strong among Latinos.

Am I the only one a bit bothered by McCain's quip about being able to grow up and be president? Why wouldn't HE be able to? Was that a slap at Obama and Clinton? If so, icky.

Obama definitely giving the speech of the night. On fire.

" ... a war that should never have been authorized ..."

Nice.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for."

This is amazing.

Shriver said the same thing Sunday.

His speech was amazing.

And the AP et al got it wrong earlier; they just called Missouri for Obama.

NBC saying McCain and Clinton winning in California.

Tell you who lost tonight: Republicans, or at least the style that has held the country, and Washington, hostage of late. Not one of them boyz left standing so far.

they just called Missouri for Obama.

Look at what I said at 10:13 tonight:

Keep your eye on Missouri.

I'm watching Fox News and I don't see where Missouri has been declared, but this is a huge come-from-behind victory if it holds.

Also, Obama's leading in the Alaska Caucus and Clinton's been declared the winner in California. But I feel like the Democratic race will come down to the convention this summer.

As of 11:30 MSNBC won't call Obama the winner in MO even though the numbers suggest he will win it by a slim margin.

What a great night for Obama. And the race isn't over, which hit ought not be just because some of the states had their primaries the same day. (And it looks like he's winning more states, and in unexpected places like, er, Utah. Wow.)

Go, Obama. And g'night.

OK, MSNBC is calling MO for Obama at 11:40. Who would have thought Obama would be this strong at this point in the race? The Clintons clearly underestimated this dude, and that's why BJ has barely been able to contain his anger that Hillary could actually lose this and kill his chance to loophole around the Constitution and get 4 more years through her.

What a great night for Obama. And the race isn't over, which hit ought not be just because some of the states had their primaries the same day. (And it looks like he's winning more states, and in unexpected places like, er, Utah. Wow.)

As I said earlier, he's winning states, but Hillary's winning the big ones, like New York, California and Massachusetts. But that's still a good thing because this is going down to the wire.

Obama is doing very well in states deemed conservative. He's doing very well among white males, too. Get those white males behind him in the general election, along with the black voters and Hispanic voters (which Hillary's doing very strongly amongst) Obama wins in a landslide.

Oh, and Ari Fleischer thinks the November elections may have the largest turnout ever and could very well be big for the Democrats.

Here's the link to Obama's Super Tuesday Speech that Donna was referring to.

Would anyone like to guess the results for the MS primaries next month?

Considering a few months ago they looked irrelevant? I'd say the dems will go for Obama over Yet Another Clinton. The republicans will vote for McCain, the media's favorite Republican over anyone else who would actually qualify as one.

Fall will devolve into a lovefest for the democrat while shredding, lambasting and generally ripping the heart out of the republican.

I expected Asians and Latinos to be anti-black folks and therefore against Obama. What's up with this if anyone knows. Maybe we need to stop supporting them by not eating their foods or patronizing them in other ways. And maybe we need to become more anti-immigration.

However, before we go off too far, we need to remember that Harold Washington got nearly 80% of the Latino vote in Chicago when he ran for mayor. Also Kirk in Dallas, Webb in Denver and Dinkins in New York got about better than 70% Latino votes when they ran for and become mayors of those cities.

I can't speak for Asian support with any solid numbers, but would be surprised if a black candidate with the exception of Mickey Leland in Houston ever got great support from them. Mickey Lealand specifically reached out to Asians and got good support in return. Anybody got any stats on Asians' support of black candidates for political offices?

I didn't know republicans had a heart.! I thought that was their problem.

Ray, I know one that does. :)

Lady, I know Ghost is a big-hearted person. I can tell by his commetaries. I just couldn't resist making that comment. Imagine me doing a little dance after saying that to celebrate Ghost creating an opportunity for me to so easily make that comment yet appear to be responding to comments.

George Bush and this Republican Adm. have truly made a mess of things for this country. This is historic for most Republican Administrations. We always end up in a recession and a war.

I hear you Justjess. Not only do republicans not have a heart (excepting Ghost) they don't have a conscious either. Watch them race to vote in McCain who will follow Bush's bad leads. I used to like McCain until I found out he doesn't have a conscious or a stand alone creed, and he is more willing to follow bad republican policy than to object to it. Republicans are bad for America and there is no wonder we're ar war, suffering a near recession and viewed throughout the world as a truculent and evil empire except for those whose palms we're greasing and those holding their hands out hopeful of getting greased. Trash in, trash out.

I have come here to make an announcement.

I am voting for Obama, in the hopes that he actually wins. I will never vote for McCain, and I will not let him use our Republican name when he is a Democrat. If someone is going to *$@# stuff up, it will be a Democrat this time, and not a Republican.

I am shocked. SHOCKED I say, at how quickly the Democrats have turned against the "first black president." I think it's great! Anyways. I'm not excited about him though. He'll just raise taxes and ban guns. At least he's honest about his socialism though... sigh...

Good Gosh Almighty. A republican finally "coming in from the cold." Welocme home prodigal son. You finally learned something out there in the wilderness. We will kill the fattest pig/cow and feed you.

I am voting for Obama, in the hopes that he actually wins.

Ah, we agree on something, LawClerk. Or two things. ;-)

Actually, "the Democrats" have not "turned" on a would-be black president. You're reaching. That's a poor characterization that seeks to take what's happening out of context. Many establishment Democrats are backing the more establishment candidate, who wonderfully happens to be a woman. It's great to have such choices; Dems haven't been in the place in a long time.

But Obama is a movement, and I'm supporting the movement.

Not sure what you mean by your "socialism" quip, but you misuse that word all the time so no matter. (If you'd love that kind of overblown rhetoric, you know, you might convince more people. It would be like me using "fascism" for every Republican policy I don't like. Doesn't help me a whole bunch; would just make me look a tad ignorant and reactionary.)

McCain's speech was awful last night. So was Romney's and Clinton's. Huckabee's slightly less so. Obama ruled the airwaves.

Additionally, Law Clerk, if the country is going to spend the money anyway on something I'd rather spend it on the people creating jobs, education, good will, the sick, the poor and needy rather than spending billions on killing people (war, what is it good far), stirring up trouble around the world, and leaving the door open so that select republicans can secretly creep into the country's depository and steal all the monies and assets they want. Socialism my a$$? What about a rogue government?

LawClerk your administration has screwed us royally. We paying for something we din't even enjoy. We don't want anymore, and the whore is going out of business. And rightfully so.

I think, as of right now, I'm actually going to vote for Obama too. I like the way he thinks: much more so than any of the Repubs running.

Ray, you're a sweetie.

After listening to an Obama speech, how could you not vote for the guy?

It's now being reported that Romey is suspending his run for the presidency. If we can get Huck, McCain and Hilary to do the same, we'd be on our way to fixing this country.

Why, Ray? You've got three Democrats and only One Republican left. You've got Obama, Clinton and McCain on your side so I don't see a problem.

Uh, IG? McCain is running as a Republican...

Oh. I've pretty much tagged him as a "Republican in Name Only". He's there to be a good fall guy come November for Obama.

Ghost, just as it's wrong for a man to not claim his children, it's equally wrong for republicans to not claim their candidates. In case anyone is wondering why I don't use a big R to spell republican let me tell you. It all happened late one evening as I was overwhelmed with work. As I tried to type the word republican with a big R, I heard a strange and threatening voice. For a while I had no idea what or who it was. However, the voice said, "Don't use me in conjunction with those ..... The curse words used erased all inquiry about whether it was the Lawd talking, although surely he objects to. For republicans unable to deduce, which I imagine now amounts to nearly all judging by their inability to see the party is almost over, the capital R objected.

I was surprised that Romney dropped out. I thought it would stick it out just a little longer. Also, I heard that Hillary was leading in New Mexico by a razor-thin margin. At last check, no one's been declared the winner there, even though the media projected Obama to be the winner on Tuesday night.

Ironghost, don't try to give McCain to the Dems. I would think just the opposite: McCain is being tauted as an undisirable republican by other Republicans to fool well thinking Independents, Republicans, Evangelicals and Democrats. If such conservatives as Rush Lumbar(sp) and company are filling the airways with hate talk about McCain, I know it is a trick.

McCain will try to validate and ligitimize the Bush Adm. for the war in Iraq. McCain says daily that the "SURGE IS WORKING." This is the greatest problem facing America. We must end the war! At this time, only Clinton, Obama or other Dems who share that belief can save our country. We are in BAAAAAAAAAAAAD SHAPE.

Jess it's spelled Limpbaugh. Even the worse speller on here can spell his name correctly.

Thanks Ray for jogging my mind. From now on, I will put the "p" in the right place and not allow others to spell it L I M B A U G H. LOL!!!!!!!!!

Just call him Limpballs.

Ghost just as LawClerk came in from the cold yesterday, and declared he was voting for Obama, so can you. LC is eating icecream with his girlfriend right now. We killed the fattest cow and fed him well. He then shaved, bathed, combed his hair and put on some clean clothes. He commented afterward, "I'm so glad to finally be on the right side, after all the years wondering aimlessly in the wilderness, stealing, killing, lying, eating with dogs, cats and pigs, and pretending to be something I wasn't. I'm so happy to be home and free." LC is fastly picking up weight and manners. He even said he didn't hate poor folks any more!

I don't understand why the media "projects winners" in the state primary races for the Democrats any way. That only makes sense if it's "winner take all." As it is, only the delegate numbers matter. That's a media construction that gives undue weight to what state is "won" by each.

It's rather like all the national polls showing who is leading popular opinion. It doesn't matter with our glorious system that allowed Bush to take the White House when most Americans didn't want his dumb butt in there.

And look where we are as a result.

Outside of his little war obsession, McCain isn't close to being a republican.
As for "coming in out of the cold".... No thanks.

So, I've been itching to ask all you "real" Republicans who hate McCain so much: What specifically about him is *not* Republican in your view? I'm not talking about him p!ssing off the current GOP power structure (I should say the former one) by not going along with the program. Who cares about that now?

Tell us specifically what is not "conservative," or not "Republican" about McCain, please.

Who can blame McCain? It would take astounding lunacy to be an old styled republican right now. Whenever I'm depressed and needs something to make me laugh, I turn to Fox news. Jerry Springer can't even rival it. Ghost, go to the front page of MSN and read what Charles Barkley, former staunch republican, is saying about being a republican these days. He could be wrong but I doubt it! He talks bad about Jessie and Al too, no doubt a brief flashback to his republicanism. He announced he's coming in from the cold too and voting Obama.

MSN? You trust your news to the Microsoft News Network? *snicker*

The only reason McCain is being treated nicely is because he'll be a perfect target for the media come fall.

Hey Iron, please don't miss my question. What positions does McCain take that make him un-Republican?

Iron is like a t-model ford arguing about why he does't like mercedes or lexus. He doesn't want to move and certainly not fast or in style.

I'm also not in the mood to be double/triple/quintuple teamed anymore, Ray. I've got more in life to worry about than who's going to end up ruining america. Any one of these schmoes will be a disaster.

I'm out Iron. I'll leave the door opened though. We Democrats still have room for you and Cliff Cargill. I'll leave word at the door to let y'all in without delay.

Who's double-teaming you? I'm curious from you and other Republicans who despise McCain why he's not a Republican. Is that a difficult question?

I haven't heard anyone say that he's not a Republican; I've heard a lot of people say that he isn't a conservative, which is different.

Personally, I think he's obviously conservative but not as conservative (in the sense that the word is generally used today) as George W. Bush. He opposes ANWAR drilling, wants to tighten anti-torture regulations and close Guantanamo, wants to offer a citizenship path for undocumented immigrants, opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, and supports stricter campaign finance reform than most Democrats. On top of all that, he referred to leaders of the Religious Right as "agents of intolerance." That's going to run him afoul of a lot of conservatives.

I would compare it to folks describing Lieberman as a neoconservative because he supported the Iraq War, when his position on every other issue I can think of has been consistently progressive.

Oh, and McCain also opposed the tax cuts the first two times they came up. So, really, he's managed to tick off some folks in all three branches of the conservative coalition--foreign policy, social policy, and fiscal policy.

Did you read this Robert Novak article regarding Barbour, Cochran, and McCain? Interesting reading.

Cochran's comment surprised me, but it's worth remembering that both serve in the Senate and have no doubt clashed over appropriations many times, considering their very different approaches to the issue.

As I remarked on another local forum, I think McCain's approach to appropriations is courageous but does not take into account the needs of underdeveloped states, of which Mississippi is one. Sensible earmarks paid now can stave off new entitlements and poverty relief programs paid later. Pork barrel spending is, at times, an efficient use of capital.

Obama has the most delegates right now. Hopefully if he wins he will pick Hillary as vp or someone else who can pull the female vote. She has lots of talents that are valuable. I just want to see repugnant republicans run back into the caves or pits of hell where they came from. All this crap about their fiscal responsibility, evangelical morality and sound national security and domestic policy, et al, is hogwash. If they win again, they'll start more unnecessary wars and continue their neo-colonizing ways that involves taking advantage of everyone everywhere who is non-white.

And the repugnants are dumb. Most of us learned on the playgrounds, after a few ass-whuppings, that you don't jump on the boy who never stops fighting. So why in the hell did we jump on Iraq. Moreover, what decent human being would want to belong in a club that has Coulter, Hannity and Limpbaugh?

Obama has the most delegates right now.

A very razor-thin margin right now, but it will grow after tomorrow, especially if it's a sweep.

Ray, I agree that Obama needs to pick a female veep--the race vs. gender stuff has become too pronounced for him to do otherwise. I've been talking up Janet Napolitano for the position, but if she took it the Arizona governor's mansion would end up in the hands of a Republican for a couple of years so I don't know if she'd want it. Blanche Lincoln is a definite possibility; Kathleen Sebelius another.

Winning Main brough Obama within 30+ deligates. If Obama wins the nomination and that is after the "Super Deligates" have their say. The Clinton - Obama or an Obama - Clinton ticket is being tauted as a "Dream Ticket."

I agree with Ray Carter about Hilary. She is brilliant and if you take of the rough edges, she would be great, in my opinion, as a rep. for America.

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/11/delegates/index.html]Clinton leads in superdelegates, but her overall lead is by 27 delegates. She'd be trailing without the superdelegates.

I've heard only media types drool over a Clinton-Obama/Obama-Clinton ticket. I've also heard Obama shoot it down many times.

...but then they don't care about people like me, do they? :)

I can't imagine that would be a good idea, politically. I think he'd be better off with Edwards. Or someone completely different.

I want to also say that I have long believed that McCain would get the GOP nomination this year. There is simply a backlash against the most recent style of corporate Republican who uses social issues as wedge issues, but clearly don't mean it. McCain certainly has the best shot against Obama. And it seems clear that Obama has the best shot against McCain because he will increase the voter turnout of independents and progressives who haven't bothered to vote for the same-old, same-old.

A McCain-Huckabee ticket could be smart as well, although there would be noone there to appease the corporate Republicans. But with any luck, their relevancy will continue to decrease anyway.

I'd still like to hear from a conservative—not you, Tom, but thanks for your comments—about what specifically they don't find conservative enough about McCain. That would be great fodder for discussion, and it seems odd that no one wants to go there.

... and Golden, the NY Times reported yesterday that some of those superdelegation are getting cold feet about Clinton.

Go, Obama. Go away, Clintons.

Look at this crowd.

Since I'm obviously conservative I shall respond when time permits.

Ironghost, I've always suspected the Clinton's original *plan* was to put Obama on the top of the shortlist as VP if he stayed in his place at a strong but distant second, making Clinton seem enlightened enough to recognize his presidential potential despite his being "just another black candidate" even if she chose someone else to run with her. Instead he has shocked them with the realization that he's a much better campaigner than they ever imagined, and now the distrust and distaste between the two appears to be insurmountable. But politics makes strange bedfellows, so who knows? Perhaps the Demorat Powers-That-Be in will push them to join forces as the only way to *heal* the party.

Everyone here knows I'm sure no Clinton fan, but am I the only one who finds Marshall Ramsey's cartoon today over the top as a depiction of a serious female presidential candidate? Thoughts?

I found it mildly amusing.

The joke is funny, but the rendering itself couldn't be confused as chivalrous. Perhaps a little editorializing in that?

That sentiment is what we've been hearing in the media a lot. That she's less than thrilled with how this is turning out is not surprising.

I'm not talking about the sentiment, Iron. I'm talking about her being turned into an angry witch with her butt so over-exaggerated. The frothing-angry-big-butted image is such a hackneyed way to make fun of a woman that I'm surprised Ramsey did it.

Um... My wife gets grumpy when I compare women's anatomy, so I don't know if I can call her butt big or not. I do know Marshall has one specific style, and a lot of his characters end up exaggerated. I'd put it down as artistic license rather than accuse poor Marshall of being a closet republican or something. :)

My butt is not big.

It's just well padded. :)

Or were you talking about the cartoon?

I didn't understand the cartoon.

As to us republicans and conservatives who happen to know why we're conservatives and/or republicans, consider this. First of all, don't erroneously assume that most or all of us know what a conservative is or why we identify ourselves as such since we haven't been tested and graded. We conservatives who happen to call ourselves conservatives knowingly and with understanding don't like McCain because, although he has a hair trigger like vice president "shoots" Cheney does, as evidenced by his cursing out a few repugs and holding grudges against many others, he seems to think it alright to shoot republicans and Democrats alike depending on the issues at hand. Moreover, McCain isn't from the south or other regions where we train our republicans just right. He ain't no Coldwater or Goldwater, Strung Thurmond, Jessie Helms or Guvner Bilbo, who stood for conservatives values, except for occasions when they needed something that required acting on the downlow, or when the doors were closed and nobody was looking, if you will, if you know what I'm saying. These genlemen who so eloquently and admirably defined our role and cause didn't fool with blacks and other abominable people and situations before the eyes or view of good conservatives or the chosen race. They had better training and sense than that. Appalling McCain is different than the gentlemen above therefore I can't support him.

Furthermore, McCain is a little too nice to Mexicans, other minorities, surly women who have the gall to step from their rightful place and the poor. Time is out for looking out for the poor or common man. %*#@ the poor or needy! The common man couldn't exist without the moral and religious good that corporate America can only provide. The new deal and great society programs failed miserably. Sure it helped some needy folks, but the needy will always be needy. Without the needy continuing to be the needy, we the un-needy and rightful kings and queens to the throne of America and the world want have peasants to work our plants, tobacco fileds, sweat shops, wood yards, farms and the likes. There is only so much wealth to go around. In all great societies there are the "them" and the "us." McCain can't seem to make up his mind whether he represents and believes in the Us or Them.

Likewise McCain has the gall to interact with the enemies across party line and has the out-of-style-morality to question whether the Gone Off Party (GOP) is rightful in all its foreign and domestic policies. Of course we're right because our evangelical leaders such as Robertson, Haggord, Aldridge and Faldwell said we're right. Our leaders knows God intimately. Some of them has probably met God.

Oh God... Ray's pretending to be anything but a Democratic Lawyer. :)

Re: I was referring to HRC's rear. Not my wife's.

Isn't it a "Bloody Mary" witch-in-the-mirror reference?

Iron, could you please tell us what about McCain is too un-conservative for you? You seem to be evading the topic.

Funny, just now for the second or third time, I got this piece by Robin Morgan forwarded to me in an e-mail:

During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women’s movements, I’ve avoided writing another specific “Goodbye . . .” But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers of this country—been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.

Goodbye to the double standard . . .

—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.

—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)

Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .

Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the b!tch?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black b*stard?” For shame.

Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.

Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.

Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.

Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?

There is more to the piece, and it ends with Morgan saying that she is voting for Hillary because she (Morgan) is a woman. I, on the other hand, plan to vote for someone else because I believe he is a better candidate—but I sure am glad that Clinton is a serious candidate. Progress will be when we can have a variety of choices and not vote for, or against, someone because of their gender or race.

All that said, the anti-woman viciousness needs to be called out. It feels like it's easier to be sexist today than to be racist. We need to call out both whenever we see it.

If we don't know what a conservative is or we're using the term to mask something deeper and more ole styled than we care to admit or acknowledge, then, we can't tell you what we don't like about McCain or anyone else not fitting our secretly held opinions or views, beyond the so obvious. I'm speaking for me only as a conservative, not Iron or anyone else.

Ray Carter, remember this one:

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall,
Who's the fairish of them all?

ME, Snow White and don't you for get it.

I'm not evading the topic, I'm evading being double teamed by you and Ray for hating McCain. Granted he might possibly be better than Clinton/Obama, but seriously...

I'm not teaming with anyone, Iron. I'm acting alone, as usual. I pilot my plane individually, Ghost. That's why I fly so nicely! As a staunch conservative I outta be able to ask questions and give opinions too.

Thanks, Jess.

But seriously...

Why won't you tell us what you hold against McCain? I mean, I'm pretty specific about what I don't like about Team Clinton. I'm certainly not trying to double-team you. Can't speak for Ray. He's a loose cannon.

BTW, Ray, I got an e-mail from a suspended user blasting me for allowing you to hate all over white people on the site. You hate us all, the good Doc declared.

Please stop the hate, wouldja?

Alot of these folks do not know why they do not like McCain other than the radio talk show host tell them that they should not. Most of the people that hate McCain love Bush and its not a big difference between them.

Someone took Ray seriously? Wow.

Also: Why am I being pushed on why I don't like McCain? I don't like the guy. Simple! I don't like the whole "I'm right and you suck" attitude. I'll skip voting for President if this is the best the Republicans can do. Why should I like the guy? Just because he's a registered republican? That's no excuse.

I'm, uh, curious. The whole thing befuddles me slightly.

As for taking Ray seriously ... I know. It's one thing if you just pop in for a few minutes and catch his satire, but for a lady who has been obsessed with this site for a while, it's remarkable. I think she's just mad that she got herself kicked off. You know the type.

The good news is that they go out there and help us get traffic. They, thus, become part of the business plan. ;-)

That doctor is jealous of me because she doesn't have my skill, acclaim or likability. I won't even mention irony, satire, sarcasm and psychological, political, social, racial and cultural understanding and edification. She can beat me spelling though, but I bet she uses spellcheck and grammar. I don't use grammar or spellcheck because I don't want to look preppy or politically or grammarically correct. Needless to say, I'm succeeding big time in that area. I've already left word at all hospital that if she's the only doctor on call to just let me go on to meet the Lord, without any help from her, that is.

I've already left word at all hospital that if she's the only doctor on call to just let me go on to meet the Lord, without any help from her, that is.

Snicker.

BTW, Ray, get this: A little geeky bird tells me that the new JFP site (shhhh) will allow y'all to edit your comments for several minutes after you post them.

WOW, that's the best news I've heard all day!

I saw Doc on the CL board yesterday screaming about something else. Or maybe that was Folo. I can't remember. All I do know is that she gets around.

As per on topic conversation:

"Obama is dreamy."

That is all.

I just thought I would make a stereotypical "female" response and see if Marshall would draw me in a cartoon with large A$$. (That would be slang for "booty". I don't want him to draw me in a cartoon with Haley Barbour)

Justjess, the new site is cool (and it's password-protected, so don't bother trying!). Meantime, feel free to butter up to the iTodd in cyberspace and bat your lashes a bit to get him to go live soon (I won't wallop you if it's for a good cause). He's trying to make it perfect, but I figure y'all will help us work out the kinks when it's open for business.

Oh, and I promise: No four-line URLs no matter how many lashes you bat. So don't even try.

Some thoughts:

1. I thought today's cartoon was great.

2. As far as the choices for president are concerned, I would be happy voting for any of the three major contenders-- Clinton, McCain, or Obama-- in the general election.

3. At first glance, a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket appears too artificial for my taste. I'd prefer if one won the nomination that he or she choose someone else.

4. At times, I think the anti-McCain rhetoric is like Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch.

As far as the choices for president are concerned, I would be happy voting for any of the three major contenders-- Clinton, McCain, or Obama-- in the general election.

I definitely agree that much of the political skank has fallen to the wayside.

I used to be more impressed with McCain than I am nowadays. He's played some mighty politics with the meaning of "is" when it comes to Iraq if you know what I mean.

And, frankly, he just doesn't sound or look presidential. His speech on Super Tuesday night was pitiful. The U.S. is ready for a president who can inspire and help mend the mess the Bushies have reaped both here and abroad. As much as I admire his independence, I don't see McCain doing that.

It is funny to watch people so partisan that they will hate their own man for not going along with the pre-ordained partisan program. Meantime, Democrats seem to be set to reward a man who won't go along with the pre-ordained partisan program.

In other words, much of America is ready for a president who isn't a partisan cog. McCain and Obama's ascendancy prove that, and it's refreshing to watch, regardless of what views of each I agree and disagree with. There is a true feeling within this that unity really is possible, even as the partisan grousing goes on in the background. We're reaching a who-cares point quickly, and that goes for both parties.

Well, in all fairness, both McCain and Obama represent candidacies that have historically reflected less than 50% of the party-affiliated vote, but were pushed over the 50% hump by independent voters. I think that if this works out to an Obama-McCain race--and I hope it will--it will be perceived as a victory for independents.

I agree with that, too, Tom. But I don't hear the same kind of naked nastiness directed toward Obama from the party stalwarts that McCain is getting from his. And I do think Dems will unite behind Obama if he gets the nomination (fingers crossed); with McCain I'm not so sure. They could have a turn-out problem, or at least enough of one to play badly against all the extra people Obama will inspire to turn out on top of the party faithful who will do anything to get the White House out of GOP hands.

Tom, I do not think your numbers are true of Obama. IT would be hard to peg him like that when he had brought so many new voters into the fold. But he does not depend on independents nearly as much as McCain. Obama has a base, McCain does not.

Hmmm. I think the McCain critics have been louder, but I'm not sure the reaction from so many white women over 45 against Obama hasn't been in its own way equally bad in terms of strongly part-affiliated voters. The comments by Marcia Pappas of New York State NOW that any male who supports Obama is committing "the ultimate betrayal," and that Obama and Edwards were guilty of "gang rape" for disagreeing with her at the first debate, were certainly more strongly-worded than the sentiments of most white second-wave feminists--but I think that deep down, there are many, many folks of that generation who do feel that way about the race. As someone whose feminist activism is grounded mainly in issues affecting young women of color, I find that depressing.

Goldenae, I agree that Obama is bringing in new folks--but what were they before he brought them in? Not loyal Democrats! So in a sense, I think both Obama and McCain are party-broadening candidates. I would expect record turnout in November, though I'm pretty confident the victor in an Obama-McCain race would be Obama, and by a sizable margin.

If it works out to Clinton-McCain, then lord, I don't know. You'd have a party-narrowing candidate against a party-broadening candidate. Unless voters are focused primarily on policy issues--Iraq, the economy, universal health care--I don't think Clinton can beat McCain. She's mean, and people can tell.

he comments by Marcia Pappas of New York State NOW that any male who supports Obama is committing "the ultimate betrayal," and that Obama and Edwards were guilty of "gang rape" for disagreeing with her at the first debate

Argh. That's awful. I hadn't heard that. I have been getting e-mails from women (older than I am) saying she is under attack and that as women we should vote for her, blah, blah. I've asked them to stop sending them, simply telling them that I plan to (hope to) vote for Obama, both in the primary and this fall.

I remain cautiously optimistic that Obama will pull it off. We good people who want change have to go vote for change. If you thought you saw dead men walking for the Mississippi flag vote, if Obama is on the ticket against McCain or any white person for president, you're likely to see old dead men and old dead women walking, running, flying, sliding, gliding, crawling and voting from the grave. If I'm proven wrong, I will at last let out Ray Charles Robinson's style, "O beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountain majesties, above the fruited plain. America! America! God shed his grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea.

Oh, yeah. Even Gloria Steinem got in on the act--writing an op-ed in the NYT stating that the reason young women support Obama instead of Clinton is because "women are the one group that grows more radical with age."

I'll be glad when this process is over, for more reasons than one. I'm tired of folks calling me a misogynist, and calling my friends gender-traitors. And this is particularly unfair for women of color--vote Obama and you get called a gender-traitor, vote Clinton and you get called a race-traitor.

In its own way, I find this every bit as bad as the McCain thing--but I strongly believe that if Obama carries the nomination, he'll unite the party. I don't think Hillary Clinton can, knows how, or especially wants to.

If Obama is not around and Hilary wins and become president, I'll say better her than a Bush. If McCain wins although I like him a little bit, I'll head back home to Africa. I already have ancestry.com looking for the Carters in West Africa. I'm getting ready to leave although I like my new home land in America.

You and Skip Gates, Ray. Except he ended up not coming from Africa, right?

You know you ought to give thanks every day ... OK, I can't pull that awful joke off. And this isn't the Northside Sun. ;-)

The cold medicine is making me loopy.

I'd use that excuse, but I'm not taking cold medicine and I've been loopy for damn close to 30 years now. ;o)

Get to feeling better soon!

Re "mirror, mirror": I thought it was kind of clever, but after hearing months and months of stuff like Pappas' comments...well, I think you can understand why I have Clinton Sexism Fatigue. I can't tell the real stuff from the fake stuff. Obama got nailed by one person recently for saying "when you fight the forces of the status quo, the claws come out"--one blogger called this misogynistic, writing this long tirade about how women are always compared to cats. So I don't know. The MSNBC "pimping out" remark ticked me off, but for anything less overt than that directed in Clinton's direction, I just can't get worked up anymore.

Especially not after that first debate, where she talked about how the two male candidates were "ganging up" on her and she's "one tough woman" to be able to take it. My feeling is that she's trying to play it both ways--present herself as weak and vulnerable half the time, then get offended when people treat her as if she's weak and vulnerable the other half. It doesn't seem to be working out real well for her, judging from the Virginia returns. Obama carried 58% of women in that state.

Yeah, I think she can take it, too. I'm more worried about the message such anti-women cliches send to the women in our state. Perhaps it's one reason we have so few female political commentators? So few women in elected office? It's bad everywhere, but worse in this state. I just expect better of Ramsey.

I can understand, and I'm not 100% sure I disagree. It's just hard for me to gauge right now with it being Hillary Clinton. If it were somebody else, I'd probably be more likely to be offended...

Speaking of women in elected office, I can't stress highly enough how cool it is to have Wooten and Campbell in Districts 71-72. No offense intended to the incumbents they replaced, but both of these newcomers are young, very progressive, and have long, bright political futures ahead of them. That gives me hope that things are going to get better on that front.

But the Mississippi Democratic Party is--no joke--going to need to make a generational shift for this to matter. Amy Tuck, the only woman in Mississippi who is in a position to run for governor in 2011 and win, is a Republican. When the Republican Party is ahead on female candidates, that tells us something about missed opportunities in this state.

I just wanted to point out that if Clinton wins she will feel compelled to pick Obama as VP. If Obama wins, he won't pick Hillary. Pretty simple math here.

And considering the comments Tom points out, it sure makes "pimping out" Chelsea minor...

Yeah, I hope Dems get it together at some point.

Re the sexist treatment of Clinton, Maureen "The Clintons Hate Me for a Reason" Dowd has an interesting column today on the topic. She broaches the kinds of approaches to her as a woman that make us uncomfortable, Tom, but then ends up essentially in the point that you made that Clinton has carved out her own place, and it's harder to feel sorry for her.

I essentially agree with all of that, but I STILL am concerned about what it means for other women considering public office. I think I end up in a place where it's not about her personally to me; that is, we still need to call out the sexism even if we support her opponent, just as Clinton (or McCain) supporters should call out racism against Obama.

I just saw on another blog where they are accusing you of being a hypocrite for criticizing the 'witch' Ramsey cartoon becase the jfp ran cartoons of Shirlene Anderson as Melton's maid? What say you to that??

That's an easy distinction. The problem with Melton and Anderson is that he turned her into a maid, and she allowed him to. It's important to remember that I sat in his kitchen and watched her clean up after all of us, including the mayor and her assistant chief, and in front of media. I (and my photographers and the cartoonist) also rode around with her on the Mobile Command Center and watched her be there only to enable Melton to do anything he wanted to do. And on the first ride-along, he reeked of liquor, and she didn't do anything to stop him from strapping on weapons and doing all the crazy stuff we did that night.

In other words, the depiction of her as a maid was always in the context of him degrading the city's first black woman chief into the most horrible stereotype and her going along with it. It would be further degrading to them not to call them out on sending such an awful message out both about her gender and her race, and Darren's cartoons did that brilliantly. On point, many black women have thanked us for doing them because they, er, got it.

On this point, read my column, "The Mayor and His Women." It ends with:

It took Melton’s treatment of Barrett-Simon to get many folks’ attention about his shabby treatment of powerful women—especially North Jacksonians, many of whom believed Melton’s initial sound bites about running all the “thugs” out of town.

After all the shenanigans he’s pulled—most resulting in mistreatment of poor African Americans and excuse making for young criminals in his house, who so clearly need help he can’t give—it was his demonization of Barrett-Simon that made many people wake up (and, I suspect, drew that half-assed apology from Melton to her last week). I’ve heard many people say that he really “crossed the line” when he dissed her in such a way.

But that chivalry is overdue. Melton pole vaulted over the line with his ploy to turn a law-and-order district attorney into a cheap whore, and he set the progress of women, especially black women, back 100 years by forcing his police chief to parade around like an obedient maid, at his beck and call. Jackson women deserve better. As does the chief.

I'll bet you money that the people complaining about the Shirlene cartoons haven't raised an eyebrow about the assaults and body insults of the D.A. Bet ya. If they were consistent, they might have an iota of credibility. But they never are.

Donna wrote:
I used to be more impressed with McCain than I am nowadays. He's played some mighty politics with the meaning of "is" when it comes to Iraq if you know what I mean.

And, frankly, he just doesn't sound or look presidential. His speech on Super Tuesday night was pitiful. The U.S. is ready for a president who can inspire and help mend the mess the Bushies have reaped both here and abroad. As much as I admire his independence, I don't see McCain doing that.

I don't think we've had a presidential president since Reagan (though Bush 41 could be that way at times). I think a lot of it is that as media has evolved, politicians have generally appeared less presidential. That being said, McCain, like Obama, has a very good story. His experiences make people want to like him.

I thought McCain's Super Tuesday speech was good. One has to consider though that he historically has been on the margins of his party, so McCain himself might find it pretty odd that he's in the lead. Oh, and regarding my previous comment concerning anti-McCain rhetoric and Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch, here's something from CNN I thought was interesting.

"I'll bet you money that the people complaining about the Shirlene cartoons haven't raised an eyebrow about the assaults and body insults of the D.A. Bet ya. If they were consistent, they might have an iota of credibility. But they never are."

The same can be said for those who ignored that horrible, racist cartoons about Dr. Condoleezza Rice. People who complain about the treatment Hillary gets, but ignored that don't have credibility either.

Pikersam wrote: "I just wanted to point out that if Clinton wins she will feel compelled to pick Obama as VP. If Obama wins, he won't pick Hillary. Pretty simple math here. "

i agree, and even if Obama wanted Hillary as VP I really doubt she would accept his offer. As I've written before, I don't believe Hillary wants to be second to anyone else in the White House.

I believe I complained about Rice cartoon, didn't I, Cliff? There was no justification for that one that I could see. It's not like she cleaned Bush's kitchen.

There is plenty to pick on her about, anyway—like nonchalantly shopping for shoes in NYC while New Orleans drowned.

And I don't predict an Obama-Hillary ticket, or vice versa. I don't see why he would need Hillary to win, and I don't think he would accept her offer. Could be wrong, of course.

Yes, you did; I remember. We talkd about it on another thread. I'm just refreshing everyone's memory that didn't.

Good. I thought so. ;-)

There is just such a huge difference between a black woman allowing herself to be presenting to the world (and directly to the media there to observe) in such a way by a misogynistic man. That has to be criticized because it's so bad for black women, not to mention everyone else's perceptions of them. What's funny about the Shirlene-maid depiction is that the reasons behind were known and reported every step of the way. Comparing that to what we're talking about is a very disingenuous, and unintelligent, lifting out of context. No surprise, though.

As a card on my bulletin board above my desk says, "Are you afraid to think?" Many are.

This is my first time seeing the Condo Rice piece. It captured the essence of her, in my opinion. Therefore I'm inclined to ask where is the insult? She had a small frame which the author showed and she's unhappy and unfilfilled unless she feeding and caring for master's business, children and concerns while her own children and people suffer at the hands of a truculent neo-colonizer still insistent on pushing white supremacy, domination and superiority while subtly and simultaneously pushing minority inferiority and dehuminization. She's a disgrace to human kind and nothing like Colon Powell, a black republican with pride, dignity and independence. She's the kind of doctor our ancestors warned us about "educated fools." However, I would have used an actual picture of her then put the babies around and in her arms. I'm respectful like that.

I agree, people complained about those cartoons about Rice. I am just not going to go overboard for someone that seems to have been a "yes" woman for Bush. She did not deserve the things said about her or the cartoons made about her. But the Hilliary situation is different, she is not a victim. She is giving much more than she is getting. They should realize that it is counterproductive to paint her as being so helpless. There has got to be a point when a person can be objectively critiqued regardless of race or gender. A recent report came out stating the great efforts were taken to remove information that made Condeleeza Rice look incompetent leading up to 9/11. What she deserves and what we all deserve regardless of who the person is is for them to get a true critique. Whether they be white, black, a woman, a black woman, etc. they should be critiqued for their performance. I am voting for Obama, not because he is black, but because he makes sense to me. Of course being black, he makes me proud, but I would not have voted for Sharpton.

Ray, I will say this, Colin Powell always did carry himself differently. I am not for the over the top insults of Rice, but it did piss some people off that even with her history(church bombings), that she did not seem to connect with the black community at all. She does not seem to have demonstrated a single independent thought since she has been on the scene.