Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

Madalyn--I'm really glad you raised the last point.  It's absolutely true that when the U.S. wanted the Taliban to fight the Russians the Taliban was wonderful.  They were treating women just as viciously back then but not a word said against it by our government, not until after 9/11. And Saddam was our dear friend when he was trying to kill millions of Iranians, and supposedly, killed a million of them.  U.S. policies are infamous for their inconsistencies. Thanks for the reminder.

Inna,

Historically, Bush has always insisted that the people surrounding him do all the research, and then bring to him the best possible plan for implementation. That way he doesn' have to tax his few brain cells. If he doesn't like what they tell him, he tells them to change that. Bush is a man who can only survive with those around him whom he knows will tell him what he wants to hear. Rice's intelligence and brilliance has nothing to do with her position in his cabinet. The main reason she stays is that she tells him what he wants to hear, unlike Colin Powell and others who have since left of their own accord or were fired. Powell left because he saw the writing on the wall, as we all did when we saw him left out of strategy meetings regarding the war and related issues. His being silenced was very telling.



I never said that the minorities hired or given jobs by Bush weren't qualified for them, I'm not even addressing that issue. You are making assumptions about what I am saying.



As far as the Rev. you point to, he has misinterpreted the application of Affirmative Action. AA was not set up to hire people who weren't qualified, it was set up to "provide a level playing field." In other words, AA came into law because racism in job hiring existed all across this United States. People who weren't white couldn't even get their foot in the door for an interview. AND if they did, there was generally a white person hired who was less qualified, less educated, but looked like every other person in that company.



AA has historically been looked past in order to hire someone's best friend, or neighbor down the street--no not the colored fellow--the white guy. AA was used to level the playing field for people of color seeking admission to a college or university (public that is--private can pretty much do what they want as you saw in my previous post about the African American university educator whose children were seeking a spot in a private university); or who were seeking a position of employment in a college or university. AA was not for "favoritism" toward a person of color, it was to set in place a number of criteria that were applied EQUALLY to each candidate or representative.



AA was misinterpreted by any number of college/university officials and seen as giving "preference" to people of color. Go back and read the original documentation of Affirmative Action. You will see where the likes of Ward Connor (yes, a black official at UC Board of Regents) who fought to have AA overturned (and most unfortunately) won.



Affirmative Action was put in place because an Equal Opportunity Employer statement didn't mean squat!



My dh is a white man, who over the past 35 years has gotten every job he ever had because he knew someone who knew someone who was hiring. He was often the only person interviewed. He competed with no others for the job--this is corporate America! The VP or whoever is hiring puts the word out to his other male workmates, who in turn tell their workmates. The job is never printed in the paper, it rarely ends up in some temporary agency worksite or it goes to a headhunter who has just the right person for the job--oh, my, could it be a white guy? You got it.



My husband was shocked when he applied for a job at a local community college. He was told that he should come on a certain day at a certain time and the search & selection committee would interview him. What the...he asked me what was going on. Well, academic institutes, if they are worth their salt, have search and selection committees for every position they offer, from a classified (clerical worker) to a faculty member to an administrator. The rules may be subtley different for each classification but they all basically operate the same. One of the members of the committee was always the Affirmative Action Representative--till AA was overturned. Now colleges and universities still follow the premis of AA but each may call it something different. Equal Opportunity Representative is ours. So, the committee is made up of the Chair (generally the dept head), EO Rep, Union Rep, Member at large, 1-2 members from the dept. The committee meets together and reviews the job announcement--this has been publicized on the website as well as in the newspapers for 2-8 weeks (shorter for classified, to longer for administrators). Together the committee decides what criteria from the job announcement only will be used for paperscreening applications, interview questions, and reference checking. ONLY AFTER these are decided and interview questions written are the committee members allowed to look at the applications. From paperscreening, the committee must come to an agreement to interview applicants. All committee members must be present at interviews and are only allowed to ask the questions agreed upon prior to seeing applications. After interviews, the committee must come to a consensus and forward their finalists to the President of the College, or in case of classified, a final candidate is chosen and dept head calls to offer job after reference checking is done.



Having served for over 12 years at my college as the Equal Opportunity Rep, I can tell you that if it were not for the safeguards put in place to protect our process, some members of some of the committees I served on would have gleefully worked to eliminate all qualified minority candidates from the process or the possibility of being hired for the job.



Believe me, other reps and myself have heard it all and seen it all. It is amazing that with even these strict criteria in place, what some would try to get away with. And I'm not talking about just committee members but the Chairs also.



I am proud of the service I gave (voluntary service) to search committees and the hiring of the most qualified for the position. It was not an easy task, nor was I treated very nicely by some committee members. There were times when I wanted to walk away and felt like I just couldn't stand one more racist comment or ignorant generalization. But I refused to give up. Many of us banded together and supported each other in this important work. Proudly, through my participation and those of my fellow white employees, we saw our numbers grow with the most wonderful people of color, and people from other cultures and interests, to a large group of mixed people working hard to provide an equitable education for our students. Our employee population now closely mirrors (almost but not completely) our student population, where the majority (white) are now the minority. And our Asian and Hispanic populations are growing by leaps and bounds. These are incredibly intelligent students who will go on to run this country someday. We need to make sure they get the best education, and the best chances of a really, really good job, so they can continue to do a good job for us in the future.



And lest we forget--Affirmative Action was the MOST beneficial to WHITE WOMEN. Another reason for Connor and his fellow idiots to get rid of AA. The argument being that it had accomplished what it was set out to do. Hello? NOT AA was not written to satisfy quotas and the naysayers of AA were unfortunately able to convince the public of what AA was not--they lied to the american people.

Amy maybe I'm not educated enough or smart enough to grasp Obama's speech since so many on the left are so highly enlighten about the world's sufferings and have a "true" understanding of the injustices that the horrible war mongering conservatives just don't "get" but when I see Obama I see an Ivy League educated ambitious man that had his sights set on a career in public office..........I see a man that was raised by upper middle class white Americans (mother and grandparents)  that lived in Hawaii and lived a pretty comfortable life..........I see a man that decides and picks IL for his political ambitious but he is unknown..........so he decides to pick a progressive large black church in the south of Chicago to begin is career and to get to know as many of his future supporters as he can...........do I think for one minute that Obama believes what the Rev. Wright is preaching.........no.........I really do not believe he does.........What Rev. Wright says has nothing to do with Obama..........Obama was raised by his mom and grandmother who were white.........he doesn't have Rev. Wright's history or is he his age..........it's just too bad that Obama just hasn't come out and say the truth........and let's not forget the Rev. Manning who is a big supporter of Hillary and Bill Clinton.........do I hold Hillary or Bill responsible for what Rev. Manning says.....no for one thing they have not been sitting in his pews for 20 years........but here is what he had to say about Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDUand just so you guys know no we all don't agree but I do enjoy the debate..........Grace I missed you yesterday..................Shokk

Anneshirly,

Please provide the name of the most senior member of Clinton team who was an African American. I don't seem to recall one, certainly not at Rice's level.  

When I say people who agree with Bush , I mean people who share his vision. When a new CEO comes to a compnay they usually bring an executive team with them. I don't undertsand why Bush hiring Rice is so different. And how do you know what they agree or disagree on. All the discussions are taking place in private and not in public. I mean what is the difference between Bush hiring his Cabinet and Clinton hiring his ?

Inna--further to Grace's post on Affirmative Action, and to your comment:

[Manning] said that they were in this country 500 years already and it was time for them  to stop talking about  salvery. He even ripped into affrimative Action saying that it implied that African Americans could not be as good as white people and therefore  was insulting.

I'm not doubting what this man said, just wondering at his example, and thus his own intelligence.  African-Americans were first brought as slaves to Brazil, and true it was nearly 500 years ago (1532). I can't imagine how he could suggest using 500 years as a yardstick for not talking about slavery since 350 of those years were spent in slavery.  The EP was issued in 1863, and even that didn't free the slaves--happened quite a few years later during Reconstruction. And it's really only fifty years since legal discrimination stopped (Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 when I was already an adult). Lots of horrific things happened in this world more than fifty years ago (WWII, for instance) and we haven't stopped talking about it.  So why are we asking African Americans to get over it!  I still seethe when I think of what the English did to the Irish, atlhough I'm dealing with it better since the Irish surpassed the English in GNP. LOL  I'm sure when African Americans are sitting in the cat bird's seat, they'll get over it and not before.  And who can blame them?

Re KKK.  Probably not stay, but I did stay in my church for ten years after I found it was selling "None Dare Call It Treason" in the back of the Church. John Birch Society, the publisher, was absolutely against passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which goes against everything the Catholic church says it believes in.  But I wasn't aware that Wright gave an award to the KKK, or if he did, that Obama was aware of it.  I'd think his congregation would have strung him up for that one! 

Sorry Inna--completely missed your point on the KKK until someone pointed it out to me.  Lots of stupid people say stupid things, as Louis Farrakhan did.  However, to compare giving an award to him as equal to giving an award to the KKK is, in my opinion, over the top. Farrakhan is one ignorant man, among many. The KKK is responsible for the murders of thousands of African-Americans and during the 60's for the murders of lots of white Americans as well, including many of the Jewish faith.  They burnt down homes and tortured people, held group hangings, and so much more.  You cannot compare the two.  I think Wright was wrong to give Farrakhan that award, and it would have been both politic and moral for Obama to have condemned it earlier.  But I don't think that he didn't will keep people from voting for him, among them some of my very stubborn Jewish friends.  And I would never use that example to suggest they not vote for Obama, or they would bite my head off. 

Inna,

Ron Brown was the first black Sec of Commerce. He served in the Clinton first term. He was killed in plane crash in 1996 while on a fact finding trip overseas.

Alexis Herman, the first black woman to serve as Sec of the Treasury, Clinton's second term.

Cherryl

Chris Matthews--Boy do I dislike that man, and now to learn he can't dance either!  Does he have any virtues?

Cherryl,

I stand corrected. Alexis Herman was Sec of Labor. But I still think that Sec of State is the most senior position that an African American has ever occupied. Let's not talk about Ron Brown though, his appointment was a total failure, he was under investigation and on his way to jail when his plane crashed. I think his son did go to jail though.

Hi Anneshirley,

Sorry I had to duck out - had to teach a class.

Inna, I agree with Anneshirley. Ron Brown was under indictment, but how dare you classify him and his tenture in Commerce as a failure. What standards are you using.

Yes, Inna, Sec of State is the most senior position a black person has occupied when Powell was appointed. That is until Obama is sworn in.

Cherryl

Gosh, Inna, just because the Klan isn't active today doesn't let them off the hook. Think about the hundreds of blacks who were lynched and the thousands terrorized by these people!

Cherryl

I am not getting KKK of hook.  Someone mentioned that Farrakhan is OK since they've not killed Jews. I was just saying that today's KKK as vile as it is happens to be close in rhetoric to Farrkahan.

Inna, I can provide a full page, single line list, of Bush's failures. You haven't cited any examples to justify your comments on Brown, just the very broad statement that his appointment was a "total failure." Not that I care particularly about Brown's reputation but I'm sure his family does. Why do you dislike him so much?

As I wrote earlier, when I found that my particular church sold a publication published by a right-wing organization that was against passage of the Civil Rights Act, I called the highest authority in my church (excepting the Pope) to lodge a complaint. I didn't leave a particular church, I left religion altogether.  

Where did someone on this thread say that Farrakhan is okay since he did not kill Jews?   I can't imagine anyone here condoning any type of racist or anti-semitic ranting. 

And no one is trying to minimize your dislike of Farrakhan; I understand it perfectly.  I don't like him myself.  I'm not an Obama supporter, as you may know, but I don't see how Wright's award to Farrakhan is reason to discredit Obama.  If Obama hadn't rejected Farrakhan's teachings, as he did very publicly, I might agree with you. But he did reject them, and denounced them as well.  And I totally disagree that the damage Farrakhan has done in this world is analogous to the damage done by the KKK.  It's not.

Just because I support a particular candidate (Hillary) doesn't mean that I see everything about every other candidate in a negative light. There are many good things to say about each of the candidates. I thought Obama's speech was excellent--and courageous--and there's absolutely nothing wrong with me saying so. I believe he deserves a lot of credit for making that speech, and I think in years to come it will be taught in schools in the same way Martin Luther King's "I had a dream" speech is taught or the Gettysburg Address, which believe it or not I still remember.  Seventh Grade!

I agree shokk, that it's too bad Clinton didn't do something about Osama bin Forgotten, although to be fair to Clinton and Bush, I don't think anyone could have perceived a scenario of 9/11-- even if the intelligence was there. We as a country were arrogant in thinking it couldn't happen here. I have never blamed Bush for 9/11, just taking us into the wrong war. I agreed with going into Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

Beesie, if you listened to what Obama said about hearing controversial things in church when one of the reporters, not sure if it was Anderson Cooper, Terry Moran or someone from MSNBC asked what he meant by controversial, Obama talked about some of the colorful words Wright used to talk about adultery. Unless you or someone else has absolute, irrefutable proof that Obama has heard Wright using that type of language in person, then you cannot make the assertion that he must have and have that stand up to a litmus test. There has been no proof or assertation that Wright talked this way every week at church or even once a month.

Inna, it's hard to answer your question with a straight face, because it has nothing to do with the discussion. An award? I'm not even sure what you mean. Since I'm an atheist,I wouldn't even be in a church.

Oh and could someone please tell me how supper delegates are chosen?  Shokk

Shokk and Delegates in Florida.

It makes perfect sense to me that Florida and Michigan would want to move their primaries up.  The states that hold early primaries are most often the states that choose the parties' nominees.  The early states have the most excitment, with the media going to every rally, etc., and with all the candidates campaigning throughout the two states.  And it's the smallest states that hold their primaries early (with the blessing of the two parties), like Idaho and New Hampshire.  So, in effect, these states with fewer citizens generally have the greatest impact on who the nominee will be.  (It's particularly interesting that both these states are the antithesis of multi-cultural, so in effect white voters have more of an impact in picking the nominee.) Even if, in the end, it takes all 50 states to vote before we know who the nominee will be, it's in the early states where the momentum builds. The candidates winning in those states get more publicity and built up name recognition, distancing themselves from the pack.  I agree with Florida and Michigan that the process is unfair (I'm not speaking of Democrat or Republican, or Hillary or Obama, here, just the process). 

Anyway, in the case of Michigan, the decision was basically made by Democrats to change the date, and some of the candidates, like Obama and Edwards, removed their names from the ballot when the DNC said to Michigan that its delegates wouldn't be counted. However, there was an uncommitted slate of delegates, and Obama's supporters campaigned in Michigan to get voters to pull the "uncommitted" lever.  Quite a few did, but many more went for Clinton.  Because Obama didn't have his name on the ballot, I think it would be patently unfair to count Clinton's delegates, so it's of great importance to have Michigan revote.

In Florida, it was the Republican governor and legislature that decided to move the primary up--and both the Republican and Democratic primaries are held on the same day.  The DNC warned that any candidates that campaigned in Florida would lose their delegates, so none of them did campaign in Florida.  I should note that Obama ran ads in Florida, but said this was because his campaign placed national ads with some networks, so the ads were run all over the country, Florida included.  Clinton ran no ads there, but did attend some fund raisers, but she did this with the permission of the DNC.

So, in terms of fairness, the Florida vote could be easily counted without penalizing Obama since his name was on the ballot and Clinton's name was on the ballot.  Since Obama had by that time been in four prior primaries (with huge media coverage) and since he also had ads running in Florida, the argument that he didn't have name recognition does not, in my opinion, hold. 

Still, the fair solution to everyone is to have a revote. But the Republican Florida legislature has refused to pay for a revote.  It says the primary was a legal election and the votes should be counted.  The DNC wouldn't agree to any type of revote, including a mail revote, unless both candidates were on board. The Obama campaign raised many issues, as it didn't want to have a revote.  Clinton won the first time, and because of the large Latino and senior vote in Florida, it's likely she would win again.  And, of course, it won't agree to seat the delegates as they were awarded in January because Clinton won big.  So the Florida voters, again, will be disenfranchised. 

I find it particularly ironic that the fourth most populated state, and heavily multi-cultural, with some 1,700,000 votes in the primary (need to check that figure but I believe that's correct) will not have a say in picking the nominee, but Wyoming, with 60,000 primary votes (and a state that always goes Republican in the national with three times as many Republicans as Democrats) will.  I almost wrote it's a zero-sum game. But it's not a game.  Issues like universal health care, the war in Iraq, the failing economy, the foreclosure issue are at stake here.  In addition, recent polls indicate that a quarter of those who voted in the Democratic primary are saying they won't vote, or won't vote Democrat, in the fall if their delegates are not seated.

Harold Dean is probably the most ineffectual human being on the face of this planet. If someone in the Party doesn't take charge soon, the Democrats will lose the national election. 

Super Delegates (from Wikipedia)

Unpledged party leaders and elected officials

The formal description (in Rule 9.A) is "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates".^[1]

• 19 Distinguished Party Leaders (DPL) (officially 22^[2] less 2 Senators and 1 Governor here counted in those categories)
• 31 Democratic Governors (incl. the Mayor of DC and Governors of Territories)
• 48 members of the Senate (46 Senators and the 2 Shadow Senators from DC)
• 222 members of the House of Representatives (includes the 4 Congressional Delegates from DC and from the Territories)
• 398 Democratic National Committee Members (actually 402 delegates with 398 votes, considering the 8 Democrats Abroad delegates with ½ vote).

At the present time the total is 718 votes. The number frequently changes as events expand or contract the list of those eligible. For example, the count has declined because of the death of Representative Tom Lantos; the loss of Ken Curtis's credentials because of his current residency in Florida^[3]; and the resignation of Eliot Spitzer as Governor of New York (his replacement, David Paterson, was already a superdelegate as a DNC member). The count has increased because of the special-election victories of Representatives Bill Foster (IL-14) and Andre Carson (IN-7).

Unpledged PLEO delegates should not be confused with pledged PLEOs. Under Rule 9.C, the pledged PLEO slots are allocated to candidates based on the results of the primaries and caucuses.^[1]

[edit] Unpledged add-ons

Under Rule 9.B, each state party selects one or more "unpledged add-on delegates", who need not be PLEOs.^[1] There are 76 such slots.^[2] Many of the unpledged add-on delegates have not been selected yet.