Shokk--further to the super delegate issue.  The reason we have super delegagtes (this is from the top of my head, so I may be off in some particulars) is that in an earlier presidential election (I believe McGovern) but not completely sure, the prmary voters went for a very liberal, untested  candidate (similar in a sense to what's happening today with Barack Obama).  When the convention was held, this candidate had sufficient pledged delegates to win the nomination.  The party regulars, who were sure McGovern couldn't win the national, were unable to prevent his nomination, and the Democrats lost (to Nixon).  Subsequent to the election they introduced the concept of super delegates to keep this from happening again.  Thus, super delegates were instituted to keep someone with the largest number of pledged delegates from getting the nomination if the party regulars thought this nominee could not win the national election.

This is why it seems so disingenuous when Obama supporters say that the super delegates must vote whichever way the pledged delegates vote. If this were the case, the Party would have apportioned all the delegates to the voters and not retained 20% of the votes for itself.  The purpose of the super delegates is exactly the opposite.  They came into being to prevent the pledged delegates from totally controlling the nomination.  Obviously, if the super delegates believe that the nominee with the most pledged delegates is also the candidate most likely to win in the fall, they should vote for that candidate  But if they disagree with the choice made by the voters, but solely in terms of electability, they should vote differently.  In national elections, the only point is to win.   This is particularly true for those who vote platform, not candidate.

If, for example, the flap over Obama and Wright takes hold (I hope it doesn't) and it appears that Obama can't win the national election, but Clinton can't overtake his lead in pledged delegates, the super delegates can decide that Clinton should get the nomination. 

Whether this is fair is not the issue.  Obama is quick to say that the Florida delegates should not be seated because of the rules, but in the case of the super delegates he wants to change the rules--i.e., the super delegates must vote to support the candidate with the most pledged delegates.  This is not to say that if Clinton were in the same place as Obama she wouldn't take the same position. Each candidate pushes for what's best for him or her.  But in the end, it's winning the national election that counts.  So if in the end, it looks like Obama can't win the national, the super delegates may kick in and give the nomination to Clinton, which creates a whole other problem.

Which leads me to say at the end of this, that the Democratic Party hasn't a clue how to win elections! 

Apportioned Delegates: One other point. In the Republican primaries, the candidate that wins the popular vote in a state gets all the state's delegates.  If this had been true in the Democratic primary, Clinton would probably have locked up the nomination after Super Tuesday.  I believe it was after Jesse Jackson ran for the Democratic nomination that the Democratic Party changed the rules to apportion the delegates in each state.  Again, this is all from memory (old memory at that).  Jackson felt it was unfair that he didn't have more delegates at the convention.  The black Democratic vote is larger than the white Democratic vote in only one or two states (South Carolina is a good example), so he only received the delegates for those states but didn't get any for the large number of blacks that voted for him in the other states.  Back when Jackson ran, the Democrats followed the same rule as the Republicans--winner gets all delegates.  It was after this that the Democrats decided to apportion delegates. 

The problem is that no matter how you look at it, someone gets cheated.  The way it is now, the winner of the larger, populated, states is at a disadvantage under the new rules. In the national election, the candidate who wins the popular vote in a state gets all the electoral votes of that state.  I'm quite sure that the Democratic process will be changed next year after this election.  It's obviously not working the way it was intended, to be both fair and also to win elections.  My own view is that the popular vote should be the deciding factor, always, in primaries and in national elections and that the old system of selecting candidates should be thrown out.  All states should vote on the same day, some time in late April or May.  I

This would eliminate the concept of momentum, which some people might object to, but it would give the voters in all states more time to vet the candidates.  In addition, some of the lesser-known candidates who were eliminated early might still have a chance of winning the nomination.  If Democratic voters want a very liberal candidate that the party elders think can't win the election, I say tough. The Party elders is one reason, in my view, that we almost always get the same tired old politicians.   Just think of it, under my scenario, we might have had Dennis Kucinich as our nominee.  If we have to lose, let's do so with someone who at least has a sense of humor.  I haven't had a laugh out of Clinton or Obama for this entire electon season.

Of course, under the above scenario, we would have to change our laws on both funding of elections and time to campaign.  I think the season should start at the beginning of the election year (January of this year, for example), not months and years ahead, and that funding should be provided solely by the Federal Government, restricting the amount that each candidate can spend.  Otherwise, under my scenario a lesser-know candidate with little money wouldn't have a chance.  The old scenario, where Idaho and New Hampshire get to vote first, gives a little known candidate a chance to get known without spending globs of money.

Oh, well, I'm starting to write myself right back into supporting the old system! For sure, our conservative Supreme Court would never agree to limited funding of election campaigns or the time to campaign.  Sigh! 

Grace--actually I read his approval rating was 31%, not 33%.  Maybe that's since yesterday!

I agree regarding Michigan and Florida that both Hillary and Obama will push for the solution that best suits his or her needs.  I feel strongly that Michigan has to have a redo, and a primary not a caucus, and if we can't get a redo in Florida, we should give the delegates as reflected in the January vote.  The idea that the DNC has to get both candidates to agree to the solution is ridiculous.  The candidates (all 20, or whatever) weren't given the choice when the decision was made about Florida and Michigan back in 2006 or 2007; they were just told to accept the decision.  We need someone making the decision who has the good of the Party in mind, not a particular candidate.  Maybe we should ask Ralph Nader to be the moderator!

I agree that CNN is, by far, the network most fair in its coverage of the candidates.  MS-NBC's coverage is so unfair that I generally avoid it these days, and I have doubts I'll return after the election.  I never watch Fox--annoys me too much and if I watched Bill O'Reilly, we'd have to buy a new TV.  I actually throw things at the screen when I'm angry. 

I think that McCain is a lazy thinker. Without knowing the detail, it's impossible to come to the big picture, which is after all made up of all those little pixels.  If you don't know why the Sunni and Shi'a have been fighting for centuries, you'll never figure out a solution--if there is one.   And, for sure, you have to know if Iran is Sunni or Shi'a.

Susie,

I hope very much that McCain stays with his declared intention to stay above the nasties, and I will certainly honor him for it if he does.  Desperation too often creeps in when a candidate thinks he may lose.  My question is this:  during the Florida primary, McCain's campaign (not an outside group) was accused of spreading false information about Romney. I even believe his campaign did some push polling in that respect.  I'll look it up later, and if I'm wrong I'll come back and retract. 

About his slip in mistaking Sunni for Shi'a--I sure hope it was a gaffe, and I do make more mistakes of that kind as I get older (still not as old as McCain), so it is possible it was just a slip.  Hope so! 

Anne thank you for bringing my post from the new "Obama for President" thread........you and I were posting at the same time............and as old as I am I am still computer "stupid"..........as soon as I figure out a response I will post again.............I am soooooo tired today........Shokk

True Susie, but in the end it really is the responsibility of the candidate.  If the candidate is absolutely serious about keeping out the dirt, he and she have to make it absolutely clear that one small slip and the person is fired and with a bad reference. 

I don't know how to keep those outside the campaign in line.  Republicans in this respect have been the most offensive:  Willie Horton, accusing Kerry, who served in Vietnam, of cowardice when their own candidate was missing in action, no doubt out partying while fellow Americans of the same age were dying in Vietnam.  That still rankles.  Even worse, if possible, the Bush people did it to one of their own, also accusing McCain of being a coward and a traitor and the father of an illegitimate black child.  And that's one reason why I have issues with McCain.  I can't understand how he could have hugged the man who did that to him.  And in Bush's case, it wasn't some outside group.  The guilty parties were clearly working within Bush's campaign.  Hard to forget, at least for me.

Puppy--I agree completely, and we can also discuss this issue if you wish.  My father, born in Ireland, was so enraged by what had happened to the American Indian that he read every book he could find on the various tribes and what happened to each and lectured everyone he met on the injustices. Like me, he loved to discuss politics and to argue.

I remember one evening (I believe he'd had a few beers) when I was about sixteen.  He looked at all of us (his five children born here) and said: "You should be ashamed of what you did to the American Indian." We all looked at each other, like what did we do.  You were here before us.  But he was right, because the wrongs haven't been redressed yet, so we are responsible.

I am really tired so I hope I make some sense.......the Rev. Wright's mentor is Dr. James Hal Cone........he basically started the Black Liberation Theology movement in America........this is really scary stuff............here is a link that pretty much just gives some background to Dr. Cone   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hal_Cone

I'm glad McCain's campaign fired the low level staffer. I hope all candidates do the same. So it's been done before. Two wrongs don't make a right!



Beesie--can you tell us more about the woman who wrote that essay? Is she white, black? Is the paper considered conservative in Canada? I don't agree with what she said. I do think that people are afraid to talk about race. I think the time has come to get it out in the open and say what's on our minds. We need to listen to everyone, whether we agree with them or not. Barack is right when it comes to judging others--we are great at it! One of the most difficult traits for a person to give up. I went to a meditation group for 30 years, and the leader was still working on giving up judgement of others.



Shokk--of course the US isn't a perfect union. That's why we have to keep working on these hard issues. Race is a really, really difficult issue to discuss. We didn't solve the race problems in this country with legislation. And we won't solve it by who we elect for president. Barack is asking us to do something FOR our country, instead of asking our country to do for us. It may be difficult to swallow the fact that we have operated in this country with prejudice, discrimination, and hate crimes because a group of people is different from us. Teens in high schools that aren't sure how they feel about gender are made to feel like they are lepers--and that's where we have the highest suicide rate. It's not a question of "fixing it," like we whites have any answers. It's a question of opening the dialogue. Have you ever attended any kind of diversity or multicultural training workshop? At my first one we sat in two circles, the whites on the outside and the people of color on the inside. We sat and listened to these women of color tell us their stories--stories of being watched by security when they went into a store, being asked to leave because they "don't serve your kind here,"--this happened not long ago to a group of Asian women on vacation and traveling through Utah, passed over for a jobs because they were of color, never called on in a meeting and if they did by chance get an opportunity to speak they were ignored--and their idea was later mentioned by the "white guy" in the room who got credit for the idea and not credit for repeating someone else's idea, asked personal questions on job interviews like where you live and how many children do you have. They had been spit on, cursed and pushed, threatened by young white men that if they didn't get out whereever they were these guys would give them what they deserved. They were turned away from renting an apartment, only to find out that the next day the sign was back up even though they were told it had been rented. Unable to get a loan to buy a house in the neighborhood they could afford--because that neighborhood was the "ghetto" or the "barrio" to the white loan officer. I could go on and on. I was appalled that these women whom I work with every day could have been treated so cruelly in this day and age. These are the covert signs of racism, and they can be so subtle only those who have been subjected to them repeatedly are aware it is going on, until they share those stories with us. And of course, it's easy to say, not me, I never hurt someone of color, I'm not a racist. Of course, we wouldn't want to admit even if we were because somehow that is something bad. It's how we were conditioned. You can change what you don't acknowledge. As "good" as we think we are, we have seen these covert signs of racism and chances are we just kept walking. Now is the time for all of us particularly us white folks who are feeling so guilty to say enough is enough, let's change how we treat each other. Let's make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else; no matter whether it's race, religion, class, sex, gender, or age. We can change. We must change if this country is to survive the next 100 years. We won't survive if we don't come together and make it better for each and every one of us.



Puppy--I too would like to talk about what has been done to the Native American people by this country. It is shameful that so many do not know the real history, and are taught the same old white history in school. It is time to re-write that history and have every child and every adult learn exactly what took place when the white people used genocide to inhabit and "own" this land.



We lost a wonderful heritage of cultures and nations that could have taught us eco-environmental habits long before the invention of the automobile and the railroad. We white people scarred this nation for life.



When I was at university I met a woman I thought was African American. She and i began to study together, and ever the curious one, I asked her about her background. Turned out her mother was from Jamaica and her father was from a tribe in Arizona (ackk--med brain again). She is very dark skinned and grew up on the reservation. When she left to go to the university her grandmother found out that the school was built on Native American burial grounds. She told her granddaughter she could not stay there, it was too dangerous, unless she was willing to perform a sacred cleansing ceremony. My friend agreed to her grandmother's wishes. It brought tears to my eyes when she told me this story, and I felt safer knowing that a cleansing ceremony took place. I learned much from her about reservation life and her mother's desire to push her children to do better than she had. Her father wanted the children to stay on the reservation and wasn't sure a postgraduate education was necessary. She remembers going back as an adult and having to fight for the right to vote on matters regarding the reservation at meetings because her skin was so dark. Once she mentioned her father's name, she was accepted once again.



At university I read many books about the Native American history in this country and was astounded at what I did not know. I was astounded that our government thought so little of the Native American children and their connection with their own language and extended family, that they thought nothing of coming in and bodily removing these children from the reservation and placing them in special schools where they were not allowed to speak their native tongue--and in fact were beaten for doing so. Often they lost so much of their history and culture that many didn't go back to the reservation. Remaining in the cities was not the best place for them. They were ostrasized and made fun of. They were given alcohol which their genetic make-up was not geared for. They were thrown in jail for loitering. They were treated as if they were not human beings. I was angered and profoundly saddened that these wonderful kind people could be treated so harshly.



In 2003 my dh and I took a 5.5 week trip through Canada & Alaska. I searched for books and information on First Nation people. I wanted to add to the library in my office. I wanted to learn as much about the First Nation people as I could--their customs, recipes, crafts, wisdom, music. As we often stopped at some of the original "road houses" I was appalled at the treatment First Nation people received from the owners. One place they were told to use the portapotty outside and that they couldn't use the indoor bathroom. We had ordered food, and as a result had to cancel our order and left telling the owner we could not stay in his establishment based on his ill treatment of other people. it was a very telling trip and experience. Racism is alive and well in the north. We have a long way to go for people to understand how other people have been and are still treated.

Thank you for posting your words and picture. I hold you in my heart and hope we can continue this discussion.

AnneShirley & Beesie-- when I saw the sound bites of Rev. Wright at the pulpit, I did see a number of white people in the congregation. It wasn't a lot, but there were some there.



Obama did grow up in a single parent home. Someone said he came from upper middle class, but that isn't what I remember him saying. I got the impression that it was a struggle. And living in Hawaii I'm sure the cost of living has always been higher given the need to ship or air everything to the islands.



And I agree with you Anne that blacks cannot become white. I find this race stuff very complex and sticky. There are always people who will be offended. When I listen to the black guests on the news shows, I hear from them more concrete history and believe what they say about the church.



And to all reading this thread--I spoke earlier that I grew up in a house with a father who was a bigot, and made Archie Bunker look like an anti-racist. I mean truly. I was embarrassed by him many times with what he said in public, or racial comments he made about some stranger (often loud enough for them to hear). I listened to him rail on about someone on the news or lump some stereotypical behavior on a group because one person that looked like the group did that. I never disowned him. He was my father. I didn't like his racial slurs and yet I didn't discuss them with him. My father was my father. He raised me with standards and values that are different from the standards and values he applied to race. I accepted that. I didn't ask him about his politics, religion or race. I had my own thoughts about that. And as I grew up and moved out on my own, married and had a child, I distanced myself further, but I never disowned him. He was a bigot on the day he died, and nothing would change that. Except that I knew better. And that's what I believe Obama knows--better, and he doesn't have to disown this spiritual advisor to lead this country for the next 4 years.



And when Michelle Obama said this was the first time in her life she felt proud of this country, I know how she feels. I have had a hard time being proud of this country for a long time and I'm white. I have been treated fairly in this country, but I am not proud of they way we have treated others who don't look like me in this country. I want to be proud again. I want us to have this conversation about race and do something about making change so we can all be proud we live in the US. We have the technology and the intelligence to do just that.

I just heard Obama saying that his grandmother  was a TYPICAL WHITE person afriad of  unknown (African American people) on the street. Talk about stereotyping.

The good news as far as I am concerned ihe is digging himself deeper and deeper.

BTW, speaking of gaffe, how about Ted Kennedy repeatedly calling  Barak "Osama", not once but a few times! Was that a fraudian slip ?

Inna, Yes, that was yesterday's news--it was part of the wonderful speech he made on Race. And yes, it was stereotypical and was spoken in the 1950s, not currently by the grandmother. That explains a lot and lots of us grew up in the 50s in the US so understand what that comment meant.



Beesie, I disagree with her conclusion. I think she uses language that makes him look like a person who could be president simply because we as Americans lower our expectations of a black person--in other words, our standards are different for each race and we accept less from a black. I totally disagree with that. I may not like how Wright spoke as he did in the sound bites, but I agree with Tim Wise's analysis of what was said by Wright--that his words were misinterpreted to inflame people. I blam the media for that. I think many of us have accepted Obama's behavior and don't find it any different than when we had to listen to white ministers scream and yell about homosexuals and AIDS. Obama is his own person. This pastor doesn't have any power over him. I will agree that there are probably many white people who feel guilty about race and are shocked by what they heard, but I really don't think those were people who were going to vote for Obama anyway. White guilt or American guilt is not going to get him elected and Kay is way off base if she thinks that. JMHO

Hi Grace,

This is not from the yesterday's speech. It was from today's interview on the phone. I saw it in the afternoon. He was trying to explain his yesterday reference to his Grandma.  I think the more Obama speaks the worse it gets

grace, actually Obama made that statement today, trying to clarify what he said about his grandmother in his speech on Tuesday.  As for Kay's article, the reason I wonder about her conclusion is that even here on this website, there have been a lot of women who've said "What went on in Obama's church is part of African American culture; it is driven by black history and while whites may not agree or understand it, we can't expect African American churches to be like white churches and we have no right to criticize".  That does seem to me to be pretty close to what Kay is suggesting.  I'm not saying that all those who support Obama's recent actions and/or his church are taking their position for this reason, but it does appear that some may be.  

Speaking of Obama's grandmother and his reference to her in his speech on Tuesday, inna, you might find this interpretation of Obama's speech, from a newspaper in Australia, to be interesting. This is yet another interpretation from outside of the U.S.:

Barack Obama shops his grandma but won't save his skin

BARACK Obama's mistake was to choose to be black, and on Tuesday he only made that mistake worse by betraying his white grandmother.

And as a result, his speech to excuse his links to race-baiting black preacher Jeremiah Wright may have killed his chance of becoming the next president of the United States.

Sure, Obama will still win the Democratic nomination, but the polls are already turning sour and the man who promised to bridge the racial divide looks like falling into it instead.

Obama is the son of a Kenyan man and white American woman. His father soon abandoned his family, and Obama was later raised in Hawaii with his mother's parents. So his strongest cultural influences were "white" American, although he looked black.

This background meant Obama could have been above not only racial stereotypes, but racial identity. He could have been not just a black politician, but a multi-racial one -- representing Americans of every race.

But he chose instead to be black -- so black that in Chicago he joined the Trinity United Church run by Jeremiah A. Wright -- who in the two decades since has been Obama's pastor, mentor, adviser and acknowledged source of inspiration.

Trinity is not a black church simply in that almost every one of its members is black, or its black pastor discusses racism and is political.

Martin Luther King ran such black churches, too, yet still reached out to whites to join him in recognising that all men and women were equal under God, and should be equal under the American flag as well.

But Wright is not that kind of black preacher. The man Obama chose to follow does not fight racism, but whips it up against white America, portraying its government and institutions as fundamentally corrupt.

In the past week excerpts from DVDs of his sermons -- DVDs proudly sold by Trinity -- have been run on television to show Wright in full flight:

"The government . . . purposely infected African-American men with syphilis . . .

"(W)hat's going on in white America, U.S. of KKKA . . .

"Black men turning on black men that is fighting the wrong enemy . . .

"We cannot see how what we (the US) are doing is the same thing al-Qaida is doing . . .

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans . . .

"(With the September 11 attacks) America's chickens are coming home to roost . . .

"The government lied about Pearl Harbor. They knew the Japanese were going to attack . . ."

For 20 years Obama listened to a pastor with that message, and called him friend and counsellor.

When rumours of Wright's preaching first broke, Obama feigned ignorance. "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," he said. He hadn't heard Wright say stuff like: "God damn America."

But then the tapes hit the airwaves, and Obama realised he had to address them head on with a speech about race -- and Wright. True, he now admitted, he'd heard Wright say "controversial" things "which expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic".

But the man and his church comprised both good and bad, like "the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America".

For that reason, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe".

And that's where Obama lost me -- and perhaps the election.

Reread Wright's claims. Several aren't part of America's debate on race, but are wild anti-American conspiracy theories of the far-Left.

Obama dismisses them as the heated rhetoric of a protester against racism to make his failure to reject them earlier seem less craven.

And why does Obama characterise such lies about America as just part of being black in the US? Was that really part of King's preaching, too?

But worse is that Obama denounced his own grandmother -- still alive -- and likened her private fears to the public hate-mongering of his preacher.

His sin isn't just that he's betrayed his own grandmother to save his skin. It's also that he's undermined the very point he tried to argue -- that he is above the racial politics of a Wright and can bridge the black-white divide.

He's instead demonstrated that to defend a black preacher guilty of appalling bigotry, he'd shop even his own white relatives. I doubt white and Latino voters will miss that message. 

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23409722-5000117,00.html