You seem to have confused Ian's statement, "Racists won't vote for Obama and sexists won't vote for Clinton," which the entirely different statement, "People who won't vote for Obama are racists and people who won't vote for Clinton are sexist."

I agred with yopur point, the convention used to express the equation looks a bit strange. I must have leart a different convention,

I would have expressed the equation:

All X are in Y, thus all Y are not in X.

With the convention you used, it looks like (to me)
X = Y; thus Y = X

Your point is valid though.

C++ notation :).

I overstated somewhat. I didn't really confuse the logic but generalizations like, "Americans, no matter what they say, aren't voting for a black man" are offensive. I'm an American and it isn't true of me. While there is an element of truth in it, it seems to legitimize racism. It leads racists to believe they are mainstream.

racism is mainstream. It's just couched in sly terms now--but it comes out in private. The number of relatives I have who talk about "wetbacks," "lazy blacks," and "ragheads" and who discuss how good at math all Asians are, etc. when not in public is very disheartening. Most people I know who are not racist have a lot of similar experiences with family and friends.

When Ian says "Americans, no matter what they say, aren't voting for a black man" he is not saying "Beto, no matter what he says, isn't voting for a black man" and he isn't saying "EVERY American, no matter what, isn't voting for a black man." He's saying that Americans as a group are not going to elect a black man. It's the group that's the target here, not the individual.

What I see up there says, "[i]a lot[/i] of Americans, no matter what they say, aren't voting for a black man," which is a critical qualifier. I don't think that was edited since I first read it this morning.

He's talking about some of my distant relatives from the South who would sooner let George Bush waterboard their kids than vote for an uppity N*&&*r. They don't ever venture online, so you won't run into them here or much of anywhere online but they are out there in bushels.

It sucks and I hate it, but it's true.

I have relatives in the Northeast, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic who believe the exact same thing. They don't say it quite that way, but it's part of their electoral calculus. It's everywhere.

Note that Edwards margins are MUCH higher = a better chance that the poll is right.

The extremely frightening thing about Hillary is her serious negatives. I have heard that as much as 45% of voters say they would NEVER vote for her. That is fatal. Beware Dems.

had the same negatives in 2000 and 2004. Bill Clinton had the same negatives in 1996.

It goes with being known. Among the Repubs McCain has the highest negatives. Why? Because he is the most known quantity.

You think Hukabees negatives are rising as people get to know him. They were low when he was unknown.

Bush Jr in 2000 was not that well known and I cannot believe he had anywhere near the negs that Hill currently has. In 2004 maybe, but he barely (?, Ohio) won.

I am doubtful that Bills were that high either as he was generally likeable and Hillary is not. Show me some data.

Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush started out their presidential campaigns with high unfavorable ratings.

From Pollster.com: Clinton had a 49 percent unfavorable rating at the outset of 1992 and 46% unfavorability rating at the start of 1996, and Bush was at 47 percent unfavorable at the start of the ’04 campaign.

In this election, Hillary’s high unfavorability numbers don't really reflect anything more than that she is very well known for a very long time, and presents little impediment in a general election. We live in a highly polarized political environment, and high unfavorables are the fate of both candidates for office in the general election

Hillary, because she's been in the national spotlight for fifteen years and has been subjected to endless political attacks from the right wing establishment, is simply ahead of where any of the other Democratic candidates would be in terms of amassing those unfavorables over the course of 2008. She has simply started out where any of the other candidates would get were they to win.

Her unfavorables also unearth some sexism, whether we like it or not and by virtue of the fact that more women than men vote, the negatives are actually overstated from how they behave in the general election.

Gallup polling data between 2005 and 2007 found that men are split on Hillary at nearly 50/50 favorable/unfavorable. But women have a significantly higher favorability. 59% of women rate Hillary favorably and only 36% view her unvaforably over that period. The gender gap is telling, and the fact 54% of voters are women the favorable unfavorable stats mean something different than they do for the men.

So we will see won't we.

I stand by the fact that every candidate offered by the Democrat party is excellent, capable, brilliant, talented. And while doing the job of President differently, bring the country on the whole in a much better direction than we have suffered the last eight years. To not support any of them, because YOUR candidate did not win, to me is what got us where we are today.

... but that is an opinion struck with many choices available. Even given the "never' attribute I tend to think that many minds will change when I clearer distinction can be made.

Hillary will look down right appealing with only one, bloodied, muck covered man to oppose her. ;)

I doubt many of us will get the chance to vote for Kucinch. But your comment caused me to remember something I heard Edwards say on Real Time with Bill Maher. He was saying how he feels Americans are hungry to work hard and make sacrifices in order to solve the major problems facing our country and the world. Although the comment came in reference to climate change, I think he was speaking generally. Anyways, it was refreshing to hear a "contender" a) acknowledge that we have big problems that will require sacrifice, and b) believes that when asked will be willing, even eager, to make things right. So often the candidates talk about helping everyone without recognizing the costs. (Obama has been better than most in being honest about the limitations and costs of policies and the need to make tough decisions)

Climate change will be a major issue for the next president (I predict an "oh $h!t" moment within the next five years where people really internalize the threat), and there is no easy answer. Mobilizing people to do something about it will require someone who knows that a solution will require tough choices and sacrifice, but also someone who believes that Americans not only can but will want to make the changes for the greater good. That sort of optimism is rare but important.

Not to say that I like everything about Edwards. He still drives me crazy when he keeps going into anecdotes about mill workers rather than answering questions, and I like him better when he is progressive rather than populist. But the Bill Maher exchange gave me a new, favorable perspective on him.

(I know people whose judgement I trust who know him personally and socially and who tell me things about him that leave me favorably impressed) serves very well to move the Overton window on electability. By contrast to the candidates of the previous American elections of the 21st century, Edwards looks highly progressive (speaking now in terms of current American political context) and the presence of Kucinich in the race serves to mute that impression and push him mainstream.

...is not really "he's most electable"; just read back through prior posts. Really, this is a "Ha ha! Edwards *is* electable!" post, based on polls that normally don't include the annointed #3.

Probably a good deal of Kerry support was based on the "foolproof" selector - that he was more closely related to British royalty than George Bush. Doesn't seem to apply in this election.

I don't put too much faith in the polls it's based on. I think Hillary, Obama or Edwards beat any of the current R candidates - mostly because I think the current R candidates are all in serious trouble, or will be in short order. Good chance the R's will come up with someone else.

Like many if not most, I will support whoever the D's nominate. I favor Kucinich (unlikely), Edwards and Dodd more than the others. Out of those, I think Edwards has the best shot at the nomination. I also think he has the best chance in the general election, because he will *seem* safer to a lot of independents.

Dailykos is just too noisy to read. Gave up on it some time ago.

half the returns on resumes as whites with idential resumes. In cities like New York.

Anyone who tells me America is not a racist country is living in complete denial.

I did know, however, that pointing such a thing out would get me labelled as racist, however, so I don't feel any particular outrage at it actuall happening.

That totally predictible labelling however, is why most political analysts I know will admit they worry about racism if Obama is the candidate privately, but they won't write it.

Agreed with Gordon. Probably /any/ Democrat can win. Probably. The Republicans have really tarnished their brand.

Probably.

Me, I'd prefer to have the highest margin possible, and the most left wing candidate possible. Right now, that's Edwards.

America is racist. It seems to be a little more complicated than that. Americans rapidly assess your position - call it class - and stick with like, not based on race, but some cue that they value and it isn't even always wealth. It can be looks, intelligence, political views. But what Americans don't broker is being with someone 'different' relative to what they value.

So the fact that Obama is a successful, articulate, intelligent black man - the attention are on his positive attributes and then race is overlooked. Same thing with a female, or Mormon, or whatever. It is a unique strength, but also an achilles heel.

I saw a show on Brit TV one time asking the question why does the Muslim population behave more violently in Europe than America, when it is America that is so disruptive in the Middle East. And the reason was that Muslims in America feel a sense of opportunity, have been able to create successful communities in the larger communities they have settled, open Mosques without incident, wear what they want, get financing, jobs, community support. They feel part of, whereas in France and England and Germany they are ghettoized, marginalized, made to dress certain ways and that feeling of opportunity is gone, and you end up with a young angry population. In America it is very difficult to recruit young Muslims for terrorism because there is not that amalgamation of anger to draw from that exists in the European Muslim population.

I don't know if I have articulated this well, but I do sense this difference, and that makes Obama a very viable, dynamic, optimistic candidate.

In general, the racism is no longer crude or explicit. But there are still lots of people, especially white middle-aged men and married white middle-aged women, who think that government takes away from hard-working white people to give to shirking blacks. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had where race came barreling in out of left field. Example: "I think we have a good chance of getting health care." "If they want to give it to blacks. They aren't going to give white people anything." There really are people who introduce race as an issue into every political discussion. My sense, perhaps wrong, is that these men did not get the unquestioned privilege that their fathers got from white skin and a Y chromosome, and feel terribly robbed because of it.

...are quite explicit that the privilege needs to be preserved, or it's no longer "America".

Stirling, in his BOPnews days, said something along the lines of "even if the motivation is classist, there's no easier way of distinguishing the Other than skin color". Or as Lao Tzu might say, "class and race are not the same thing; neither are they different".

whereas in France and England and Germany they are ghettoized, marginalized, made to dress certain ways and that feeling of opportunity is gone, and you end up with a young angry population.

Most of the Moroccans in the Netherlands impose segregation on themselves. They refuse to learn Dutch and watch only Arabic stations on satellite tv. Their refusal to integrate is the problem. On the other hand, the Turkish Muslims have adapted very well to Dutch society.

the same has been said about Mexicans and other "good example" latinos

self imposed segregation is thrown around a lot and im starting to think it isn't anything inherent but a reaction to actual and perceived discrimination. i may be wrong but it seems the more modernized and if you will Europeanized turks are going to fit in better than Moroccan muslims.

...the "Obama did (and maybe even dealt) drugs" thing takes him out most places, but tracing it back to Hillary takes her out in Iowa (where they hate that kind of stuff), leaving Edwards in the clear?

Iowa and NH are now horse race time - any slip up can be fatal.

editted to correct typo him her

If someone is going to complain about Obama having done drugs, they should do so for the psychological reasons I stated earlier, not because he's risen in the polls.