I'm not saying they shouldn't, Vado, but doing the same thing in other, smaller states does not mean they can't still do it in New Hampshire. The population's are roughly equal, with New Mexico having slightly more people in a much larger area though with much greater population concentrated in certain areas. Also, New Mexico is obviously more ethnically diverse. Aside from that, I'm not sure where you get that it is more politically diverse. New Hampshire has one of the most progressive Democratic parties in the country, and a Republican party that has historically been split between two factions, one truly conservative and one libertarian. The biggest advantage that New Hampshire has as far as being an ideal place for an early primary is its government structure of town meetings, which require civic involvement. After this, the fact that the state has been holding the earliest primary since the early 20th century and since residents of the state have become accustomed to the process assures large and thorough involvement. I am not a traditionalist, so I don't think that that counts as any sort of legitimate reason for keeping the first primary, but I do think it at least means that the first-in-the-nation primary should not be haphazardly tampered with if we are to maintain the opportunity that each candidate is given to prove their case in New Hampshire. It will be interesting to see how Nevada's early caucus holds up, seeing as how that state has never held such a spot. I do not think that a well-organized and successful (all candidates being given equal opportunity despite funds, recognition, media attention, and so on) Nevada caucus will be any more reason to abolish the New Hampshire primary than an unsuccessful Nevada caucus would be to relinquish that state's position, either. My point is simply this, that New Hampshire has "earned", though it is not entitled to its early position through rigorous and historic effort, and that other, "more diverse" states should also be given the opportunity to have early contests (I really think the order of early states as it is now: Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, which puts many smaller states in different regions first is excellent), but also that "front-loading" would mean that a candidate would be chosen after only a few primaries have been conducted.
"I don't know where people seem to get the idea that McCain isn't that conservative"
Well, speaking as someone from his homestate, the place we got that impression is the same place where Republicans took the word 'conservative' and twisted it up into knots that somehow got it around to making a whole lot of laws that keep people from doing things. McCain is more of a traditional-conservative, as opposed to the evangelical-conservative that people have gotten used to today. Someone who doesn't feel the need to legislate everything they happen to believe is refreshing by comparison.
I have to think that more investgation from Americans about Obama is really needed. Something that bothers me to think about is the fact that people think that he is religious. My mother read in the past few weeks from a collumnist about Obama stating that he has just recenly started to attend a Christian Church making himself looking "Christian" In contrary he has been raised a completely different religion. Not sure what that was, and dont really care, but he is misleading people into thinking that he is a chrstian man and I think that I read from 3 other people in this particular thread that they think that he is religious in the christian faith. Again, I dont care about the reigious part, but if he is misleading us here, what else would be possibly mislead us into. I must say that Americans must be cautious, and I am not saying that in a very conservative way. I have been a firm follower of the democratic party. I do agree with someone on this thread that said that Senator Feingold should run. He has always been the type of person to get the job done, he is always honest and true to what he believes, and has served many well. I will add to the patriot act. He actually stood up for trying to centure the president when no one else would say anything, including Democrats. That has to say a lot about the kind of BALLS that this man has and he is not afraid to show Americans what he is REALLY like. I do believe that is the kind of leader that we need.
Oh, and there's always a thin line between a racist organization and one that attempts to benefit an disenfranchised population/race. From a strictly technical, black and white defenition organizations like La Raza, the NAACP, and the Black Panther Party are racist in the fact that they put one race over the other, however the goal of many such organizations is equailty and race/racism is not a black and white issue, we all know how complicated it is. Politicians speak at the NAACP all the time, why can't they speak at La Raza?
i want to point out that 'la raza' just really means 'the people'. Latin America is as diverse,if not more, than the U.S. Latin America is comprised of people that came from Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and of course the Natives. It may sound obvious but I am always surprised how people in the U.S. don't know that.
'la raza' at most represents people according to geographic location NOT race, thus it cannot be racist. Semantic issues aside, I actually do not know anything about la raza, I want to be enlightened.
any organization that does not distinguish between 'legal' and 'illegal' immigration is missing the point regarding united states laws and previous immigration (i'm talkin' ellis island, which was a legal process of immigration ..)
'la raza' at most represents people according to geographic location NOT race, thus it cannot be racist.
thanks for clarifying that - this how people such as myself feel about legal immigration to the united states. 'united states citizens' (and legal residents) represent people according to a geographic location and NOT race, therefore opposition to illegal immigration cannot be racist.
FRC, yes I agree. Illegal immigration is a hard issue, but I think that what a lot of people argue (including the president and a lot of other politicians) is that the system is obviously broken. We cannot round up all the illegal immigrants and doing nothing makes the problem only worse. What is the solution? It is obvious that we need to make some compromises.
And although I am sure this is not your case, there are people (Pat Buchanan comes to mind) who are explicitly xenophobic, about Latin Americans coming here in any way shape and form.
Finally, as much as the historical legalization process in Ellis Island likes to be romanticized, lets not forget that it was not fair to everyone:
just out of curiosity, if everyone is equal, why would the president's race or gender be considered a selling point? i'm not trying to be tacky or cynical. i'm genuinely curious why this is such a big issue in an era where equality seems to be the zenith of civilized society. did civil rights really mean everyone was equal, or is everyone just trying to stick it to the man as long as the man is a white upper class male? i don't think being black automatically makes obama a better candidate. i don't think being a woman makes hilary any better either. i care about their track records and how good they will potentially be for our nation, not the color of their skin or which genitalia currently resides in their pants.
the system is broken because the current laws are not enforced.
the solution:
1) build the fence, secure the borders
2) throw employers of illegal immigrants in jail (punishable by 5 years prison, something like $10,000 fine per illegal immigrant knowingly hired)
3) illegal immigrants will self-deport for the most part if there are no more jobs
the laws to fix the 'broken' system are in place, they just need someone other than incompetent george bush to enforce them.
for the record, i'm all for legal immigration and realize that about 800,000 to 1 million immigrants from latin america are made legal citizens every year - i have no problem with that
and i was just mentioning the ellis island thing because a lot people who want all 'undocumented migrants (illegal aliens)' to be made instant citizens like to say 'hey the u.s. let in all those europeans from ireland, germany, italy, etc. but now they're racist because they don't want anyone from mexico coming in ..'
and lastly regarding race i love chief justice john roberts' statement 'the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.'.
funny thing is FOXnews goes around telling people that it's a "National Security" issue, but the only fence being built is the one to the south of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. and the only people that are ever discuss is mexicans. so tell me again how the immigration policy is not racist?
I think Obama can really resolve A LOT of DOMESTIC issues. Meaning, he can really help the U.S. separately, but when it comes to foreign relations - it will be his weak point.
On the other hand, a lot of presidents sucked at foreign relations and left it to the secretary of state.
apurimac, literally 'la raza' means 'the race', but because of the diversity i describe above it doe not literally mean the race. it means the people. It is like calling USonians, Americans, they literally do not cover all the continents that make up the Americas but it still sounds right.
also, three of the 'fort dix six' brothers were smuggled across the u.s./mexico border as children. that millennium bomber was caught crossing the u.s/canadian border and security is a joke up there, too.
sorry, beta to the third, but if the vast majority of illegal immigrants, drug smuggling, and potential terrorism come from south of the border, then that's where we need to focus most of the border enforcement. there simply isn't a massive wave of canadian illegal aliens coming into our country. how is it racist?
Obama will never be President. Unlike the Bush / Gore & Bush / Kerry Elections...people will actually turn out to Vote to Keep him out of office. His only hope is the Mexican Vote and attached Amnesty promise. Similar to Bill Clinton, he just may squeak by with the 18 year-old vote (see rock the vote scheme and saxophone stunt). Add up the African American, Mexican, and college students' who don't know shit about anything votes, and you've got Obama as a president. Otherwise, as mentioned before, those sleepers who hadn't voted last two elections due to indecision, will this time around. Also, is his Hawaii birth absolutely verifiable?
Since he was born in 1961, in hawaii, two years after it became a state, I'd say he really made it by the seat of his grass skirt. Ahnold can't even run.
I think Obam will be a great forign policy president. i dont think he's as liberal as some might think and will support premptive measures to prrotect trade. Plus - his demeanor, or swagger, although subjective, seems to resonate with people, especialy forigners and it certainly wont hurt our postition. I think his drawbacks are his domestic issues like classic 1950's democratic union rah rah shit. messege to Obame - Go your own way.
This guy has the chance, the slightest chance, to break the democrat mould from bloated mid century beaurocratic blunderers. Im a reg democrat, I think Libetarian and typ. vote republican for the president. I'd like to think this guy could reflect something along those lines.
Pimpanzee - if you think people will go out only to vote against Obama, what do you think people will do if Hillary is on the ticket?
I have heard far more people they would vote against Hillary than said they would vote for her. And none because she is a woman.
Most because they don't trust her (that would include me) and many others because they don't want a Clinton in the office....end the Bush/Clinton/Bush cycle.
We are still well over a year out from election day. A lot can change, but I think it doesn't bode well for the dems to go with Hillary. I think she could jeporadize what appears to be an almost sure thing for them in 2008.
It will be a crime against America if Obama even was considered to be president. I mean his middle name is HUSSEIN for heavens sake! I even read somewhere that he was tought at a MADRASSA!!!!! What next??? That he was one of OBL's top aides?????
I mean this is America we're talking about here! W're trying to take away the influence of Moslems in America not give it right back to them!!!!
Pimpanzee, I'm sorry I got angry with you over the sea bass post, I was frustrated to not see you engaging in actual discussion instead of just posting "news" articles, but obviously I was wrong, as evidenced by your post above and others recently.
Again, I apologize.
As to Bobby Permanti, I don't believe he's real, so don't get too worried, Steven.
And on topic: from what I've seen of Obama he has the makings of a statesman not a politician, so in an Obama/Hillary fight at this point I'd go Obama.
My only fear is that he's trying to act too classic democrat. Right now, the first sne moderate will capture the majority of the middle who doesnt give a f*ck about guns, abortion, gay marriage etc. That may be important for some out there, but we got bigger issues no one is dealing with and a statesman is just what we need.
Honestly, and I don't know much about any of the candidates, and don't want to till closer to november 08, but....
I think America would elect a black president before they would elect a female. It sounds harsh, but I think thats the reality. My husband thinks that Obama would be assasinated buy some crazed KKK or Arian member, but I dont know about that. Again, neither of us know much about any candidate that is considering a run, so this is based soley on race/gender and how I percieve most of the country to still think.
I, personaly, if had to choose between only the two, would choose Obama, and thats because I DONT trust Hilary, she really rubs me the wrong way.
I've said this before on here, but right now I'm going for Edwards because I think his focus on poverty, as well as his willingness to address the need to control the oil, pharmaceutical and insurance companies demonstrates a greater attempt at getting to the source of problems and truly bringing about reform. so far, in my opinion, Obama and Clinton are still basically proposing band-aid solutions that will do nothing to really challenge the status quo. I have my differences w/ Edwards for sure, but personally I don't get all the hype about Obama yet. A few months ago I really, really wanted to vote for him, I wanted him to be the next Kennedy--youthful, forward-thinking, a reformer who was able to energize people and rally around a cause, but so far I think Edwards has turned out to resemble that much more closely. That said, I think Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd or Richardson would all make fine presidents. I'm not asking this to start a political debate, but because I really want to know what people think about this and because the election is so far away and I don't think I can say I'm irreversibly committed to any candidate yet: what is it about Obama and his policies that has any of you so personally interested in him? Thanks.
Absolutly nothing. Edwards is a classic control freak democrat. Hillary too. Republicans have to clean the radical right out before I can vote for them again. Obamas fresh, and its the ability to have people want to like you that gets comprimise done. I think thats his skill - mediator. Skill that reflects his mixed heritage, very symbolic. Leaders need to oscilate - some eras demand one thing, then we change direction and go another way for a while. And I think He'll be very good for urban development issues like fixing the god dam CTA. Plus, who wouldnt want the cool relaxed mind of this guy......
I think the people who are drawn to Obama recognize that what we really need is a whole new paradigm. This is the 21st century now, and we still treat the world like were fighting the cold war. I mean edwards is cruising photo-ops of RFKs greatest hits from the sixties. Now of course poverty and healthcare and getting out of iraq are huge huge issues, the difference with Barack is that not only are his plans for reform spot-on, he actually means what he says about them. They arent just talking points, and because he isnt taking money from the big machines that usually sidetrack real solutions, hes the first person in decades who can actually follow through on them.
In 20 years I want to be able to take my kids to Mecca and Iran. I dont want my kids to be buried by student loans for 20 years just to get a decent education. I dont want to be paying 8 bucks a gallon because we still havent made any progress on renewable energy or lose my house if I get sick or get into a wreck. To me Obama is our best genuine hope to see those changes happen.
thanks, that's the first time i've been able to get any real answers out of obama supporters about what change he'll bring about, since he seems to be the media-annointed change candidate this election. oe, my biggest issue w/ edwards actually is his 1960s era economic platform basically--supporting the unions and all, which is fine to an extent, but i think it's a better policy to realize that in a globalized economy, we need to accept things like free trade and an american economy dominated by the service industry and work to improve that rather than touting american manufacturing and so on. aside from that though, i still think his focus on deeper issues and his willingness to take on big insurance, pharmacy and oil companies is good. can you tell me more why you think obama's "plans for reform spot-on"? i'm really curious, because i feel like from what i've read of obama's platform his health care policy is nothing drastic, his plan for withdrawl is very cautious (even though he was opposed from the start, which is admirable but means little now), and so on. but i really don't know and i'd like to know more from people who like him who are more educated about him, which i think you guys are. i feel like most people i know like him because the media's touting him as the change candidate and all this, so i really want to hear something more substantive, because as i've said i'm certainly not completely set though right now i still think edwards is the one most fired up about actual reform. thanks!
I would argue that talking about change and being serious about it are different things. I realize thats bit intangible, but when it comes to differences like this most recent one between Obama and Clinton over whether to talk to 'rogue-states' I think it shows itself to be very real. Obamas and Edwards healthcare plans are very similar. The primary difference is that with edwards plan insurance is mandatory for everyone, putting most of the burden on employers, and Obamas plan is only manditory for children and uses subsidies and restrictions on insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cover the difference. As I understand it its also less expensive because its more focused on reducing total costs. This may be 'less-drastic', but the idea is to be practical enough that it could actually make it through congress and not get lost in the hillary-care graveyard.
As far as the Iraq war, Im pretty certain all the democrats plans are virtually identical. Its just a physical reality that even if we started removing people and equipment today it couldnt take less than 6 months to get out, and most analysts predict closer to 8 to 10. Its also pretty universal that we will be leaving 5 to 10 thousand troops in Kuwait and Kurdistan as a base for humanitarian aid and backing up and training the iraqi army.
The main things for me, the things that show he means what he says is how devoted hes been to real, honest ethical government. The fact that he hasnt accepted a dime from lobbyists or PACs says volumes. His commitments against no-bid contracts and lobbyists in administration positions shows real hope that we could finally see fuel efficiency standards and federal student aid actually happen rather than get stalled by corporate bureaucrats.
Dems and Republicans were both guilty of the war in Iraq. The members of both parties were equally clueless about Iraq, its history, its people, its religions, and its politics. You would think that after 12 (after the first Gulf war) they would have gotten a clue or learned a thing or two besides for the same tired and worn out cliches (the weapons of mass destruction, the "terrorist infrastructure," Saddam the madman, etc"), but they didn't -- it even got worse.
Just about everyone in the democratic party are guilty including people like Hillary and Kerry.
The only true liberals are people like Dennis Kucinich, Robert C. Byrd, Edward Kennedy, Ralph Nader, and such. They were people of leadership telling us from the beginning of what could go wrong.
No one listened only because there was a mass assault on America's "liberal" constituency. In other words, it became fashionable for everyone including democrats to blast liberals into oblivion. So everything associate with "liberal" became deionized and vilified.
One of the reasons that I am favoring Obama at this point is his lack of baggage. As oe said, "The fact that he hasnt accepted a dime from lobbyists or PACs says volumes." I feel like the best thing for the country at this moment is a clean slate, someone to start fresh with no history of shady business dealings or political pandering. This is what I say when people claim that Obama lacks experience....I think his lack of experience, coupled with demonstrable integrity, is what the country absolutely needs right now. We need a problem-solver with a fresh view on things, not someone who will look at the health care problem and say, "well such and such gave me money so I am going to tailor my health care plan around their needs so they are safe". Which is what I feel many of the candidates could do, save for Kucinich and Gravel....but they are crazy.
Another thing is that I actually do think that some of Obama's positions on things are vague....which I am pleased with! He is showing that while he doesn't always know the answer to a question, he is willing to seek out the information about the problem from many different perspectives and then form his own conclusion. I think his positions and policy initiatives will only get better and more specific with time.
I actually like all of the candidates and I feel that they are staying on topic and positive, for the most part. When it gets down to it, though, I still have to go with Obama.
Archmed, do you think there's any chance Ted Kennedy will run again? I'm just kidding, but I do love the guy. He can drown as many women as he wants, he's still a hundred times better than my senators (Sununu and Gregg) combined.
TedKennedy2008
even if i thought hillary could get elected, i'm convinced that if she was allowed to make it into office - what with the supreme court's willingness to get involved and the papers' willingness to publish anything damaging - it would be impossible for her to get anything done once there. it would be like the end of bill's presidency all over again. she will be the target of every petty thing that the republican's can possibly invent. it would be disastrous. the amount of hate that the clinton's can still elicit from republicans baffles and amazes me - and scares me a little.
lots of people are slamming gravel, and ill admit, he is obnoxious and in no way electable... but thats not the point... its critical that people like him and kucinich are able to get attention in primaries. Its almost singularly their job to expose the top candidates to uncomfortable questions, because anyone whos watched debates knows moderators never have the balls to hold candidates feet to the fire. I admire gravel for how confident he is, even when (im sure hes aware) most people watching these debates think hes insane.
as far as i can see in these debates the only idiot is Bill Richardson...
i have also been really, really impressed with Chris Dodd... that is a brilliant dude, really impressive speaker and debater.
llet, i agree that kucinich and gravel have a place and are valuable in their position. raising awareness of issues even when a candidate doesn't have a chance is valuable as long as they don't divert so many votes away from a credible candidate that he/she loses (ie: nader). i'm not sure i agree with you at all about richardson, but certainly about dodd. i wish he could get some traction, too, because i think he's a very intelligent, compassionate guy with great stances on policy matters. plus i'm not ready to give up on new england liberal democrats yet. but oh well.
and i think steven makes some good points. i, too, am baffled by the right's hatred of the clintons especially since clinton's economy policies aside from giving us a great economy embraced free trade, globalization and all the other things republicans are supposedly for.
here is how i see the canditates (dem) breaking down.
i should preface i am not including any republicans, seeing as of right now, none seem to be real contendors, and frankly if any developed into one... well.
clinton: i am warming up to her. she's smart, but i have a weird feeling about her as a president, but really think she could win. (bush,clinton,bush,clinton?)
obama: he is my favorite, right now. he has slowed down a bit, but he is clever enough that it is probably for the best. but he has a freshness that makes people gravitate towards him and that is really exciting as well as make me disregard the "experience" question, as if anyone is ready for the presidency.
edwards: good guy, not sure about the presidency, but honestly dont know much.
richardson: i think if experience is important (see:obama) he's got it and has tried to capitalize on it. i think the few previous posts i've read he isnt given enough credit. from the debates he has been inching forward on making his points and basking in previous successes. i wish him more as a vice though, a double minority ticket. and a great counterweight for obama. further, as an architect, his experience as an energy secretary could make him the antithesis of cheney's policy in the area.
dodd: uninspiring. don't see a reason to vote for him, or for him to be running (see:kucinich)
biden: (see:dodd)
kucinich: closed to my politics, so i always love to see what he has to say. and he definetly fits the niche of being the one to keep the left's position in the debate, even if it doesnt show up in policy later on.
gravel: sure he's a loss canon. but he seems to favor yelling after/over candidates rather than bringing on the discussions that those 3rd teir candidates are good for (see:kucinich). claiming all other cadidates to be ridiculous and con-artists while not presenting anything more than information from a single news article. but to backtrack a bit, maybe the debates need a crazy loon like him instead of deflecting questions like "what dont you like about the candidate to your left?"
here's why i really like john edwards and i know that people will say that he's a trial lawyer, a former senator and vice presidential candidate, but i think he's really being authentic this time. i think last time he played it safe and sort of staked out careful positions on things, then he went back home, reflected on his past campaign and the state of the country, started a poverty center and decided to run again because everyone now (with a chance) is playing it safe (to some degree) again and someone needs to get out there and be a bit more genuine (i don't mean to sound like obama, etc. aren't possibly doing the same thing). i think he's running this time because of conviction and a desire to challenge the status quo of the country and really improve it. sorry this is worded so quickly, but i really just can't help but feel inspired by this guy and find him really authentic.
i find something interestingly compelling about the fact that obama's a smoker. sure, it's easy to say that anyone who will knowingly continue to do something that's obviously going to kill them is an idiot, insane or both, but it's cool to see that he's an actual human being.
a man with needs! he's comfortable with being himself so much so that he's been photographed and filmed smoking! for me it has a very humanizing, man-of-the-people feel to it.
maybe they've realized that i'm likely not the only one who feels this way, and possibly even see it as an asset.
i liked obama before i started thinking about this anyway, but still...interesting.
Obama '08
I'm not saying they shouldn't, Vado, but doing the same thing in other, smaller states does not mean they can't still do it in New Hampshire. The population's are roughly equal, with New Mexico having slightly more people in a much larger area though with much greater population concentrated in certain areas. Also, New Mexico is obviously more ethnically diverse. Aside from that, I'm not sure where you get that it is more politically diverse. New Hampshire has one of the most progressive Democratic parties in the country, and a Republican party that has historically been split between two factions, one truly conservative and one libertarian. The biggest advantage that New Hampshire has as far as being an ideal place for an early primary is its government structure of town meetings, which require civic involvement. After this, the fact that the state has been holding the earliest primary since the early 20th century and since residents of the state have become accustomed to the process assures large and thorough involvement. I am not a traditionalist, so I don't think that that counts as any sort of legitimate reason for keeping the first primary, but I do think it at least means that the first-in-the-nation primary should not be haphazardly tampered with if we are to maintain the opportunity that each candidate is given to prove their case in New Hampshire. It will be interesting to see how Nevada's early caucus holds up, seeing as how that state has never held such a spot. I do not think that a well-organized and successful (all candidates being given equal opportunity despite funds, recognition, media attention, and so on) Nevada caucus will be any more reason to abolish the New Hampshire primary than an unsuccessful Nevada caucus would be to relinquish that state's position, either. My point is simply this, that New Hampshire has "earned", though it is not entitled to its early position through rigorous and historic effort, and that other, "more diverse" states should also be given the opportunity to have early contests (I really think the order of early states as it is now: Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, which puts many smaller states in different regions first is excellent), but also that "front-loading" would mean that a candidate would be chosen after only a few primaries have been conducted.
"I don't know where people seem to get the idea that McCain isn't that conservative"
Well, speaking as someone from his homestate, the place we got that impression is the same place where Republicans took the word 'conservative' and twisted it up into knots that somehow got it around to making a whole lot of laws that keep people from doing things. McCain is more of a traditional-conservative, as opposed to the evangelical-conservative that people have gotten used to today. Someone who doesn't feel the need to legislate everything they happen to believe is refreshing by comparison.
I have to think that more investgation from Americans about Obama is really needed. Something that bothers me to think about is the fact that people think that he is religious. My mother read in the past few weeks from a collumnist about Obama stating that he has just recenly started to attend a Christian Church making himself looking "Christian" In contrary he has been raised a completely different religion. Not sure what that was, and dont really care, but he is misleading people into thinking that he is a chrstian man and I think that I read from 3 other people in this particular thread that they think that he is religious in the christian faith. Again, I dont care about the reigious part, but if he is misleading us here, what else would be possibly mislead us into. I must say that Americans must be cautious, and I am not saying that in a very conservative way. I have been a firm follower of the democratic party. I do agree with someone on this thread that said that Senator Feingold should run. He has always been the type of person to get the job done, he is always honest and true to what he believes, and has served many well. I will add to the patriot act. He actually stood up for trying to centure the president when no one else would say anything, including Democrats. That has to say a lot about the kind of BALLS that this man has and he is not afraid to show Americans what he is REALLY like. I do believe that is the kind of leader that we need.
obama's hanging in there
i wish he and hillary weren't speaking at la raza events, though
FRC what's wrong with la raza?
Hillary would don a white robe a speak at Klan events if it got her votes, she panders to every crowd.
Oh, and there's always a thin line between a racist organization and one that attempts to benefit an disenfranchised population/race. From a strictly technical, black and white defenition organizations like La Raza, the NAACP, and the Black Panther Party are racist in the fact that they put one race over the other, however the goal of many such organizations is equailty and race/racism is not a black and white issue, we all know how complicated it is. Politicians speak at the NAACP all the time, why can't they speak at La Raza?
i want to point out that 'la raza' just really means 'the people'. Latin America is as diverse,if not more, than the U.S. Latin America is comprised of people that came from Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and of course the Natives. It may sound obvious but I am always surprised how people in the U.S. don't know that.
'la raza' at most represents people according to geographic location NOT race, thus it cannot be racist. Semantic issues aside, I actually do not know anything about la raza, I want to be enlightened.
any organization that does not distinguish between 'legal' and 'illegal' immigration is missing the point regarding united states laws and previous immigration (i'm talkin' ellis island, which was a legal process of immigration ..)
'la raza' at most represents people according to geographic location NOT race, thus it cannot be racist.
thanks for clarifying that - this how people such as myself feel about legal immigration to the united states. 'united states citizens' (and legal residents) represent people according to a geographic location and NOT race, therefore opposition to illegal immigration cannot be racist.
FRC, yes I agree. Illegal immigration is a hard issue, but I think that what a lot of people argue (including the president and a lot of other politicians) is that the system is obviously broken. We cannot round up all the illegal immigrants and doing nothing makes the problem only worse. What is the solution? It is obvious that we need to make some compromises.
And although I am sure this is not your case, there are people (Pat Buchanan comes to mind) who are explicitly xenophobic, about Latin Americans coming here in any way shape and form.
Finally, as much as the historical legalization process in Ellis Island likes to be romanticized, lets not forget that it was not fair to everyone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act_(United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
just out of curiosity, if everyone is equal, why would the president's race or gender be considered a selling point? i'm not trying to be tacky or cynical. i'm genuinely curious why this is such a big issue in an era where equality seems to be the zenith of civilized society. did civil rights really mean everyone was equal, or is everyone just trying to stick it to the man as long as the man is a white upper class male? i don't think being black automatically makes obama a better candidate. i don't think being a woman makes hilary any better either. i care about their track records and how good they will potentially be for our nation, not the color of their skin or which genitalia currently resides in their pants.
Funny, i always thought La Raza means "the race". I guess my spanish is rusty.
the system is broken because the current laws are not enforced.
the solution:
1) build the fence, secure the borders
2) throw employers of illegal immigrants in jail (punishable by 5 years prison, something like $10,000 fine per illegal immigrant knowingly hired)
3) illegal immigrants will self-deport for the most part if there are no more jobs
the laws to fix the 'broken' system are in place, they just need someone other than incompetent george bush to enforce them.
for the record, i'm all for legal immigration and realize that about 800,000 to 1 million immigrants from latin america are made legal citizens every year - i have no problem with that
and i was just mentioning the ellis island thing because a lot people who want all 'undocumented migrants (illegal aliens)' to be made instant citizens like to say 'hey the u.s. let in all those europeans from ireland, germany, italy, etc. but now they're racist because they don't want anyone from mexico coming in ..'
and lastly regarding race i love chief justice john roberts' statement 'the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.'.
funny thing is FOXnews goes around telling people that it's a "National Security" issue, but the only fence being built is the one to the south of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. and the only people that are ever discuss is mexicans. so tell me again how the immigration policy is not racist?
especially when terrorists would get into the country the same way everybody else does, fly in, or they'd fly to canada and walk across the border.
The only reason i support the fence is to stop illegal immigration
I think Obama can really resolve A LOT of DOMESTIC issues. Meaning, he can really help the U.S. separately, but when it comes to foreign relations - it will be his weak point.
On the other hand, a lot of presidents sucked at foreign relations and left it to the secretary of state.
argueably, america's foreign policy is more fubared than its domestic one,
apurimac, literally 'la raza' means 'the race', but because of the diversity i describe above it doe not literally mean the race. it means the people. It is like calling USonians, Americans, they literally do not cover all the continents that make up the Americas but it still sounds right.
oh no! this is not a FOXnews story: blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter
also, three of the 'fort dix six' brothers were smuggled across the u.s./mexico border as children. that millennium bomber was caught crossing the u.s/canadian border and security is a joke up there, too.
sorry, beta to the third, but if the vast majority of illegal immigrants, drug smuggling, and potential terrorism come from south of the border, then that's where we need to focus most of the border enforcement. there simply isn't a massive wave of canadian illegal aliens coming into our country. how is it racist?
you old 'bama
Obama will never be President. Unlike the Bush / Gore & Bush / Kerry Elections...people will actually turn out to Vote to Keep him out of office. His only hope is the Mexican Vote and attached Amnesty promise. Similar to Bill Clinton, he just may squeak by with the 18 year-old vote (see rock the vote scheme and saxophone stunt). Add up the African American, Mexican, and college students' who don't know shit about anything votes, and you've got Obama as a president. Otherwise, as mentioned before, those sleepers who hadn't voted last two elections due to indecision, will this time around. Also, is his Hawaii birth absolutely verifiable?
Since he was born in 1961, in hawaii, two years after it became a state, I'd say he really made it by the seat of his grass skirt. Ahnold can't even run.
I think Obam will be a great forign policy president. i dont think he's as liberal as some might think and will support premptive measures to prrotect trade. Plus - his demeanor, or swagger, although subjective, seems to resonate with people, especialy forigners and it certainly wont hurt our postition. I think his drawbacks are his domestic issues like classic 1950's democratic union rah rah shit. messege to Obame - Go your own way.
Pocz - I totally disagree on this one.
This guy has the chance, the slightest chance, to break the democrat mould from bloated mid century beaurocratic blunderers. Im a reg democrat, I think Libetarian and typ. vote republican for the president. I'd like to think this guy could reflect something along those lines.
evilp, I'm glad to hear that he strikes a chord with you, and I agree with you for the most part!
This was right after he shook my hand. I'm not a celebrity hound or anything, but it was pretty cool.
Pimpanzee - if you think people will go out only to vote against Obama, what do you think people will do if Hillary is on the ticket?
I have heard far more people they would vote against Hillary than said they would vote for her. And none because she is a woman.
Most because they don't trust her (that would include me) and many others because they don't want a Clinton in the office....end the Bush/Clinton/Bush cycle.
We are still well over a year out from election day. A lot can change, but I think it doesn't bode well for the dems to go with Hillary. I think she could jeporadize what appears to be an almost sure thing for them in 2008.
It will be a crime against America if Obama even was considered to be president. I mean his middle name is HUSSEIN for heavens sake! I even read somewhere that he was tought at a MADRASSA!!!!! What next??? That he was one of OBL's top aides?????
I mean this is America we're talking about here! W're trying to take away the influence of Moslems in America not give it right back to them!!!!
No more rubber bullets!
welcome back bobby. [groan.]
bobby... WTF???
time to close up shop and turn out the lights. a thread is over once bobby shows up.
nothing like a little xenophobia to help wrap your day up.
Pimpanzee, I'm sorry I got angry with you over the sea bass post, I was frustrated to not see you engaging in actual discussion instead of just posting "news" articles, but obviously I was wrong, as evidenced by your post above and others recently.
Again, I apologize.
As to Bobby Permanti, I don't believe he's real, so don't get too worried, Steven.
And on topic: from what I've seen of Obama he has the makings of a statesman not a politician, so in an Obama/Hillary fight at this point I'd go Obama.
GOOD CHOICE OF WORDS - STATESMAN - OOPS caps off.
My only fear is that he's trying to act too classic democrat. Right now, the first sne moderate will capture the majority of the middle who doesnt give a f*ck about guns, abortion, gay marriage etc. That may be important for some out there, but we got bigger issues no one is dealing with and a statesman is just what we need.
Honestly, and I don't know much about any of the candidates, and don't want to till closer to november 08, but....
I think America would elect a black president before they would elect a female. It sounds harsh, but I think thats the reality. My husband thinks that Obama would be assasinated buy some crazed KKK or Arian member, but I dont know about that. Again, neither of us know much about any candidate that is considering a run, so this is based soley on race/gender and how I percieve most of the country to still think.
I, personaly, if had to choose between only the two, would choose Obama, and thats because I DONT trust Hilary, she really rubs me the wrong way.
I've said this before on here, but right now I'm going for Edwards because I think his focus on poverty, as well as his willingness to address the need to control the oil, pharmaceutical and insurance companies demonstrates a greater attempt at getting to the source of problems and truly bringing about reform. so far, in my opinion, Obama and Clinton are still basically proposing band-aid solutions that will do nothing to really challenge the status quo. I have my differences w/ Edwards for sure, but personally I don't get all the hype about Obama yet. A few months ago I really, really wanted to vote for him, I wanted him to be the next Kennedy--youthful, forward-thinking, a reformer who was able to energize people and rally around a cause, but so far I think Edwards has turned out to resemble that much more closely. That said, I think Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd or Richardson would all make fine presidents. I'm not asking this to start a political debate, but because I really want to know what people think about this and because the election is so far away and I don't think I can say I'm irreversibly committed to any candidate yet: what is it about Obama and his policies that has any of you so personally interested in him? Thanks.
Absolutly nothing. Edwards is a classic control freak democrat. Hillary too. Republicans have to clean the radical right out before I can vote for them again. Obamas fresh, and its the ability to have people want to like you that gets comprimise done. I think thats his skill - mediator. Skill that reflects his mixed heritage, very symbolic. Leaders need to oscilate - some eras demand one thing, then we change direction and go another way for a while. And I think He'll be very good for urban development issues like fixing the god dam CTA. Plus, who wouldnt want the cool relaxed mind of this guy......
I think the people who are drawn to Obama recognize that what we really need is a whole new paradigm. This is the 21st century now, and we still treat the world like were fighting the cold war. I mean edwards is cruising photo-ops of RFKs greatest hits from the sixties. Now of course poverty and healthcare and getting out of iraq are huge huge issues, the difference with Barack is that not only are his plans for reform spot-on, he actually means what he says about them. They arent just talking points, and because he isnt taking money from the big machines that usually sidetrack real solutions, hes the first person in decades who can actually follow through on them.
In 20 years I want to be able to take my kids to Mecca and Iran. I dont want my kids to be buried by student loans for 20 years just to get a decent education. I dont want to be paying 8 bucks a gallon because we still havent made any progress on renewable energy or lose my house if I get sick or get into a wreck. To me Obama is our best genuine hope to see those changes happen.
i agree oe, barack is pulling from a pool of people that dislike today's politics, myself included.
but the real reason we should vote for o'bama?
white sox fan.
'nuf said
thanks, that's the first time i've been able to get any real answers out of obama supporters about what change he'll bring about, since he seems to be the media-annointed change candidate this election. oe, my biggest issue w/ edwards actually is his 1960s era economic platform basically--supporting the unions and all, which is fine to an extent, but i think it's a better policy to realize that in a globalized economy, we need to accept things like free trade and an american economy dominated by the service industry and work to improve that rather than touting american manufacturing and so on. aside from that though, i still think his focus on deeper issues and his willingness to take on big insurance, pharmacy and oil companies is good. can you tell me more why you think obama's "plans for reform spot-on"? i'm really curious, because i feel like from what i've read of obama's platform his health care policy is nothing drastic, his plan for withdrawl is very cautious (even though he was opposed from the start, which is admirable but means little now), and so on. but i really don't know and i'd like to know more from people who like him who are more educated about him, which i think you guys are. i feel like most people i know like him because the media's touting him as the change candidate and all this, so i really want to hear something more substantive, because as i've said i'm certainly not completely set though right now i still think edwards is the one most fired up about actual reform. thanks!
I would argue that talking about change and being serious about it are different things. I realize thats bit intangible, but when it comes to differences like this most recent one between Obama and Clinton over whether to talk to 'rogue-states' I think it shows itself to be very real. Obamas and Edwards healthcare plans are very similar. The primary difference is that with edwards plan insurance is mandatory for everyone, putting most of the burden on employers, and Obamas plan is only manditory for children and uses subsidies and restrictions on insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cover the difference. As I understand it its also less expensive because its more focused on reducing total costs. This may be 'less-drastic', but the idea is to be practical enough that it could actually make it through congress and not get lost in the hillary-care graveyard.
As far as the Iraq war, Im pretty certain all the democrats plans are virtually identical. Its just a physical reality that even if we started removing people and equipment today it couldnt take less than 6 months to get out, and most analysts predict closer to 8 to 10. Its also pretty universal that we will be leaving 5 to 10 thousand troops in Kuwait and Kurdistan as a base for humanitarian aid and backing up and training the iraqi army.
The main things for me, the things that show he means what he says is how devoted hes been to real, honest ethical government. The fact that he hasnt accepted a dime from lobbyists or PACs says volumes. His commitments against no-bid contracts and lobbyists in administration positions shows real hope that we could finally see fuel efficiency standards and federal student aid actually happen rather than get stalled by corporate bureaucrats.
At any rate, thats the realz for me,
Dems and Republicans were both guilty of the war in Iraq. The members of both parties were equally clueless about Iraq, its history, its people, its religions, and its politics. You would think that after 12 (after the first Gulf war) they would have gotten a clue or learned a thing or two besides for the same tired and worn out cliches (the weapons of mass destruction, the "terrorist infrastructure," Saddam the madman, etc"), but they didn't -- it even got worse.
Just about everyone in the democratic party are guilty including people like Hillary and Kerry.
The only true liberals are people like Dennis Kucinich, Robert C. Byrd, Edward Kennedy, Ralph Nader, and such. They were people of leadership telling us from the beginning of what could go wrong.
No one listened only because there was a mass assault on America's "liberal" constituency. In other words, it became fashionable for everyone including democrats to blast liberals into oblivion. So everything associate with "liberal" became deionized and vilified.
One of the reasons that I am favoring Obama at this point is his lack of baggage. As oe said, "The fact that he hasnt accepted a dime from lobbyists or PACs says volumes." I feel like the best thing for the country at this moment is a clean slate, someone to start fresh with no history of shady business dealings or political pandering. This is what I say when people claim that Obama lacks experience....I think his lack of experience, coupled with demonstrable integrity, is what the country absolutely needs right now. We need a problem-solver with a fresh view on things, not someone who will look at the health care problem and say, "well such and such gave me money so I am going to tailor my health care plan around their needs so they are safe". Which is what I feel many of the candidates could do, save for Kucinich and Gravel....but they are crazy.
Another thing is that I actually do think that some of Obama's positions on things are vague....which I am pleased with! He is showing that while he doesn't always know the answer to a question, he is willing to seek out the information about the problem from many different perspectives and then form his own conclusion. I think his positions and policy initiatives will only get better and more specific with time.
I actually like all of the candidates and I feel that they are staying on topic and positive, for the most part. When it gets down to it, though, I still have to go with Obama.
Archmed, do you think there's any chance Ted Kennedy will run again? I'm just kidding, but I do love the guy. He can drown as many women as he wants, he's still a hundred times better than my senators (Sununu and Gregg) combined.
TedKennedy2008
hmm. I didn't know that, but I agree it's very good. I also agree with this:
actually like all of the candidates and I feel that they are staying on topic and positive, for the most part.
I really feel like no matter who the nominee is (except Kucinich or Gravel, but I'm not too concerned about their prospects) we're in good shape.
Democratic President2008
even if i thought hillary could get elected, i'm convinced that if she was allowed to make it into office - what with the supreme court's willingness to get involved and the papers' willingness to publish anything damaging - it would be impossible for her to get anything done once there. it would be like the end of bill's presidency all over again. she will be the target of every petty thing that the republican's can possibly invent. it would be disastrous. the amount of hate that the clinton's can still elicit from republicans baffles and amazes me - and scares me a little.
i'm for obama.
lots of people are slamming gravel, and ill admit, he is obnoxious and in no way electable... but thats not the point... its critical that people like him and kucinich are able to get attention in primaries. Its almost singularly their job to expose the top candidates to uncomfortable questions, because anyone whos watched debates knows moderators never have the balls to hold candidates feet to the fire. I admire gravel for how confident he is, even when (im sure hes aware) most people watching these debates think hes insane.
as far as i can see in these debates the only idiot is Bill Richardson...
i have also been really, really impressed with Chris Dodd... that is a brilliant dude, really impressive speaker and debater.
llet, i agree that kucinich and gravel have a place and are valuable in their position. raising awareness of issues even when a candidate doesn't have a chance is valuable as long as they don't divert so many votes away from a credible candidate that he/she loses (ie: nader). i'm not sure i agree with you at all about richardson, but certainly about dodd. i wish he could get some traction, too, because i think he's a very intelligent, compassionate guy with great stances on policy matters. plus i'm not ready to give up on new england liberal democrats yet. but oh well.
and i think steven makes some good points. i, too, am baffled by the right's hatred of the clintons especially since clinton's economy policies aside from giving us a great economy embraced free trade, globalization and all the other things republicans are supposedly for.
here is how i see the canditates (dem) breaking down.
i should preface i am not including any republicans, seeing as of right now, none seem to be real contendors, and frankly if any developed into one... well.
clinton: i am warming up to her. she's smart, but i have a weird feeling about her as a president, but really think she could win. (bush,clinton,bush,clinton?)
obama: he is my favorite, right now. he has slowed down a bit, but he is clever enough that it is probably for the best. but he has a freshness that makes people gravitate towards him and that is really exciting as well as make me disregard the "experience" question, as if anyone is ready for the presidency.
edwards: good guy, not sure about the presidency, but honestly dont know much.
richardson: i think if experience is important (see:obama) he's got it and has tried to capitalize on it. i think the few previous posts i've read he isnt given enough credit. from the debates he has been inching forward on making his points and basking in previous successes. i wish him more as a vice though, a double minority ticket. and a great counterweight for obama. further, as an architect, his experience as an energy secretary could make him the antithesis of cheney's policy in the area.
dodd: uninspiring. don't see a reason to vote for him, or for him to be running (see:kucinich)
biden: (see:dodd)
kucinich: closed to my politics, so i always love to see what he has to say. and he definetly fits the niche of being the one to keep the left's position in the debate, even if it doesnt show up in policy later on.
gravel: sure he's a loss canon. but he seems to favor yelling after/over candidates rather than bringing on the discussions that those 3rd teir candidates are good for (see:kucinich). claiming all other cadidates to be ridiculous and con-artists while not presenting anything more than information from a single news article. but to backtrack a bit, maybe the debates need a crazy loon like him instead of deflecting questions like "what dont you like about the candidate to your left?"
here's why i really like john edwards and i know that people will say that he's a trial lawyer, a former senator and vice presidential candidate, but i think he's really being authentic this time. i think last time he played it safe and sort of staked out careful positions on things, then he went back home, reflected on his past campaign and the state of the country, started a poverty center and decided to run again because everyone now (with a chance) is playing it safe (to some degree) again and someone needs to get out there and be a bit more genuine (i don't mean to sound like obama, etc. aren't possibly doing the same thing). i think he's running this time because of conviction and a desire to challenge the status quo of the country and really improve it. sorry this is worded so quickly, but i really just can't help but feel inspired by this guy and find him really authentic.
i find something interestingly compelling about the fact that obama's a smoker. sure, it's easy to say that anyone who will knowingly continue to do something that's obviously going to kill them is an idiot, insane or both, but it's cool to see that he's an actual human being.
a man with needs! he's comfortable with being himself so much so that he's been photographed and filmed smoking! for me it has a very humanizing, man-of-the-people feel to it.
maybe they've realized that i'm likely not the only one who feels this way, and possibly even see it as an asset.
i liked obama before i started thinking about this anyway, but still...interesting.
i'm sold frank.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.