ThePhilosopher

I think that the superdelegates are terrified of deciding the election before all of the primaries are over; they don't want to be perceived as undemocratic even though the final outcome will be the same. It's a shame, but politically understandable. posted 04/30/2008 at 14:57:14

I agree with Stephen that this is religion, but that by no means justifies it. This is disturbing and shows just how far religion can lead people astray. It's shocking that this is allowed to happen in the US. I personally believe that we shouldn't allow home-schooling or private schooling; if public education is compulsory, this type of abuse would be far less likely to occur. posted 04/28/2008 at 23:01:14

I've never watched his show so I'm not really qualified to make any major criticisms. However, judging from this article in which Lauer points to the importance of the place as 'tourist destination' and 'exotic' implies that this really isn't being used to educate US citizens about the plight many around the world are in in terms of poverty. The Taj Mahal? If you're in India, there are so many better places that also would capture the real feel of the country and give Americans the sense of what the place is about--this is a really neat idea that could be used for great things, but I doubt it is. posted 04/29/2008 at 00:07:53

He's the party chairman and it's his job to stay neutral until all voting is over. It's pretty safe to assume that he'll act differently behind the scenes; as he says, it'll be obvious in June (even more so than now) as to who needs to drop out and that person will drop out. The Party won't allow it to continue beyond then. However, as chairman Dean needs to maintain an aura of neutrality to remain legitimate and to be able to interact with both sides. posted 04/28/2008 at 23:14:31

Do you have to make everything about the US? This journalist is a brave sole who faced hardship many of us will likely never have to deal with in a country where even the most basic goods are highly valued and hard to come by. We should commend him and hope for better times in Zimbabwe. posted 04/27/2008 at 01:46:32

Are you just voting on personality? You pick one candidate who is to the right of the Democrats and one who essentially to the left of the Democrats! Do you not have any political philosophy? posted 04/27/2008 at 01:25:56

She'll at least have to close the popular vote gap without Michigan; a case can be made for including Florida (though I don't believe it should be included, either) but no case can be made for Michigan, not only because Obama (nor Edwards) wasn't on the ballot but also because despite the fact that Clinton was the only 'viable' candidate on the ballot, she still only won 55% of the vote with a whopping 40% voting 'uncommitted' posted 04/25/2008 at 03:22:29

Congratulations cla62! You win the award for completely nonsensical and pointless injection of an anit-Obama slur into a comment about an article that had absolutely nothing to do with the election or Obam! Yay for you. posted 04/25/2008 at 03:45:03

To all those saying this is 'undemocratic' - you do realize that they are talking about intervening once the primaries are over, right? And that they are planning to intervene to ensure that the candidate who has won the most votes and pledged delegates gets the nomination right? That they are going to intervene to ensure that the person who loses the popular vote and the pledged delegates doesn't steal the nomination, right?

And furthermore, you do realize that these primaries are not a general election but are to determine the nominee for the Party. The Democratic Party is a quasi-private organization; the nominee is supposed to represent the party and it's quite legitimate for the party leaders to step in to ensure that the nominee is chosen fairly. posted 04/25/2008 at 02:57:09

I dislike McCain, but I really doubt he had any idea that this occurred. posted 04/25/2008 at 03:41:43

Ideally, we shouldn't have such a massive nonviolent prison population. The US has the largest prison population in the world. We complain about China's human rights violations and treatment of prisoners, yet although they have a population five times larger than ours they have less prisoners. Many of the people we have sitting in our jails shouldn't be there at all; we need to find other ways to deal with most nonviolent offenders. As for a GED, I personally believe that a full high school education should be compulsory for the entire US population, period.

As for the political even in question within this article, I doubt that McCain knew anything about what happened. That being said, it was highly inappropriate. Blatant partisanship by the mayor and questionable legality. The mayor should lose his job for this.

Also, it's kina ironic that the prisoners set it up seeing as they can't even vote. posted 04/25/2008 at 03:40:44

Does he realize how damaging this would be for his campaign? It would be and would be perceived as the ultimate act of political pandering. Please do it, McCain!

Honestly, McCain has absolutely no skill when it comes to making effective political maneuvers, a fact this is going to become increasingly obvious as this campaign moves forward. posted 04/25/2008 at 03:50:01

For all the praise Rove has gotten over the years (as a purely political mastermind, not as a decent human being), I've never been that impressed with his political analysis. All the analysis I've seen him offer in the media over the years has been relatively unsophisticated and much of it has been rather obvious. Perhaps he saves his real, deeper analysis for people who are paying him behind the scenes but I just don't really believe that he's the political genius a lot of people say he is. posted 04/25/2008 at 03:33:23

I briefly liked Craig Kilborn, but the more and more I watched him the more I became convinced that he was actually really, truly arrogant and a complete asshole. At first I thought it was just an act, just part of his 'schtik' but I really think he's just a jerk now. posted 04/25/2008 at 03:12:18

I may be mistaken, but I believe the proper adjectival form of 'Quebec' is 'Quebecois' posted 04/25/2008 at 23:34:52

And people think that Obama has no chance at beating McCain? McCain's stubborness is going to destroy him once the media begins to focus attention on him after the Democratic primaries. He does realize that more women vote than men, doesn't he? posted 04/25/2008 at 02:52:47

Absistinence-only education is ridiculous and inappropriate. The fact is that teens are going to have sex, period. They always have and always will. Instead of denying and ignoring this we need to be giving teens the tools needed to ensure that the sex they are having is as safe as possible. Teaching about contraception and other safe sex habits is important to reducing stds and unwanted pregnancies, teaching only absistence ensures that teens who still decide to have sex aren't going to know how to do so in the safest possible manner. It also totally ignores the many teens out there who are gay and therefore aren't deterred by the 'it prevents pregnancy' argument. Abstinence-only education is failing our kids, its time to own up to this and start teaching kids how to have sex in the safest possible way.

Also, as a side note, this whole absistence-only education assumes a certain moral position that many Americans don't agree with. There is nothing wrong with sex and its not immoral for young people to be engaging in it. Stop shoving this conservative ideology down our throats. posted 04/24/2008 at 00:19:03

Right now she's leading by 8%, which is likely where it'll stay judging from the exit polls. There's no denying that Clinton has a solid win here, nor is it surprising. She was expected to win. However, as early as a month ago she was expected to win by 20 - 25%, there has been a huge decrease in her support and an equal increase in Obama's support during that time. Quite frankly, from the demographics of PA, she should have won by much more than 8%. Regardless of this win, Obama still has won more states and is significantly ahead in the overall popular vote (EVEN when Florida is included). What's more, the remaining states tend to favor Obama. The race is over, Obama is the nominee regardless of Pennsylvania. posted 04/22/2008 at 22:38:23

You are correct that Obama needs to find better ways of reaching certain demographics, but it's not as bad as it may appear now. Once he seals the nomination he'll have the full backing of the Democratic Party which will substantially help him reach certain traditionally Democratic populations who have been going for Clinton. While many Democrats who support Clinton are threatening to vote for McCain, I believe that once Obama has the nomination and the general election starts and once they learn more about McCain, they'll flock to Obama. There is still a lot of time between now and November and McCain has gotten little scrutiny in recent months because the Democratic Pirmaries have been dominating the news. Once the machinery of the Democratic Party and all the money that Obama has been raising is aimed at McCain, I'm willing to bet he doesn't stand a chance. Clinton supporting Democrats will come around--the fact is, Clinton and Obama are very close on the issues and McCain is far to the right. Democrats may threaten to support McCain now, but they'll support Obama because of the issues when the time comes. posted 04/22/2008 at 22:33:38

They, like most other major media outlets, called it on the basis of exit polls which indicated pretty clearly that she had won, though the votes had yet to be tallied. posted 04/22/2008 at 22:50:16

THE REAL NEWS out of Pennsylvania is the John McCain only won 72% of the Republican vote, despite having secured the nomination over a month ago. That means 28% of Republicans who made the effort to vote in the PA primary came out to vote against their party's nominee. Certainly doesn't bode well for McCain's chances in November and shows that he hasn't been all the effective at consolidating his support within his own party. posted 04/22/2008 at 23:03:40

It's time that American's realize that manufacturing jobs are leaving for good and that we shouldn't try to stop it; the economy is changing. Job sectors develop then decline and are replaced by new sectors; instead of fighting it (and reducing the efficiency which, ironically, many of the same peole who are fighting 'outsourcing' claim to value) we need to focus on offering programs and government support to those losing jobs to help them retrain for other jobs. Raise unemployment benefits, improve healthcare and education, offer free job retraining programs, provide incentives for developing new high-tech and service industries; these are the right choices. Clinging to inefficient manufacturing industries that can be done for cheaper elsewhere is fighting the inevitable. posted 04/25/2008 at 03:05:26

More than 800 million people in the world, predominantly children, suffer from chronic malnutrition. Less than a dollar a day given to one of these individuals would make all the difference to them, yet there are actually people who would and apparently have paid $1,000 for a sushi role. Morally bankrupt, if you ask me. posted 04/23/2008 at 00:35:38

While its easy to blame Bush and company for the problems stemming from the rising price of oil, there really isn't all that much they can realistically do. I hate to defend Bush, but blame here is misplaced. The problem is systemic; oil production is coming close to peaking and global demand is soaring and will continue to do so as developing countries, led by China and India, add millions of cars to their roads annually. There is only so much oil available and production can't keep up with growing demand; prices may stabilize soon and even drop a bit, but the overall trend will continue upwards indefinitely. Increasing production in major oil-producing countries won't accomplish all that much, other than bring about peak oil even faster. Increased production will be diffused globally so the effects would be rather small.

We have to recognize that this problem isn't going away, regardless of who is president and which party controls congress. More investments need to be placed in alternative energy sources and promoting fuel efficiency, but these are long-term solutions. We're going to suffer in the short term, period. posted 04/23/2008 at 01:08:02

It's a prisoner's dilemma type situation. The overall situation would be better if no one hoarded, but each individual will do best if they do hoard. Since people tend to act in their own self-interest its not unexpected, just unfortunate. posted 04/23/2008 at 00:55:32

Dear. the comment to which you are replying was a joke. posted 04/23/2008 at 00:53:41

So let me get this straight... Clinton wants to be the Democratic nominee but is willing to attack the very activists who would be absolutely necessary for her to receive the funding and support needed to win the November election? It's really becoming apparent how little she thinks of her own party. posted 04/19/2008 at 14:38:20

CNN used to be at least half-way decent as a news source, but over the past couple of years it has steadily gone downhill, abandoning detailed and serious news for sensationalism and entertainment. The hiring of Richard Quest, who has to be about the single most ridiculous person to ever officially hold the job of 'reporter,' is a prime example of this trend. It's sad that he's a meth user, but its great that we won't have to see him on TV anymore. posted 04/19/2008 at 14:51:12

Many here are claiming that Deans comments are essentially disenfranchising voters from states whose primaries have not yet occurred. This is completely misguided. Even if every superdelegate chose tomorrow, the remaining states will still vote. The fact is that all the remaining states combined don't have enough votes to change the outcome, period. Obama is going to win the popular vote. Obama is going to win the pledged delegate vote. It's time to end this mess and the superdelegates need to take it upon themselves and do this. At this point its clear that its going to be the superdelegates who decide this thing regardless of how the remaining states vote. Why wait any longer? If no more superdelegates vote until the primaries are over, the situation will not change from what it is today. On June 3rd, after all voting is complete things will look pretty much the same as they do now, though Obama will have consolidated his win some more.

The fact is that this prolonged battle IS hurting the party. Clinton is doing the Republican's job in tearing Obama apart. She should be helping to build him up. When the general election is in full swing, the Republicans are going to be using attack ads that use Clintons comments against Obama... this is going to be disastrous. posted 04/18/2008 at 01:06:11

You should know that she is a highly regarded academic in the fields of political economy, comparative politics and political science; I read much of her work as a graduate student in international students as do most students of politicalscience. Regardless of whether or not you agree with Skocpol, attacking her academic credentials is ridiculous. She didn't write this particular article in an 'intellectual' manner because its an op-ed; that doesn't mean she isn't an intellectual. posted 04/20/2008 at 15:32:18

It really disgusts me that anyone can be worth this much money in a world where more than a billion people live on less than a dollar a day... posted 04/18/2008 at 01:15:48

Only in America? Are you aware that of the 30 odd 'developed' countries in the world, the United States has the least-encompassing, most underfunded welfare system? Partly as as a consequence, the US currently ranks 12th on the UN's Human Development Index which rates overall quality of standard of living. Countries who beat us? Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Japan, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Australia... all countries with more substantial welfare systems and considerably less poverty. Don't let your nationalism shade you from the truth. posted 04/17/2008 at 01:44:53

Why not tax the rich? Close all the tax loopholes and implement an extremely progressive taxation scheme. Don't tax anyone below the poverty line, tax everyone making more than one or two million a year at 75%. Couple that with increases in welfare spending, better unemployment and job retraining programs and policies, universal healthcare... posted 04/12/2008 at 02:13:06

You assume a false dichotomy here--that all news organizations must offer a strictly conservative pov or a strictly liberal one. In reality, news organizations should be offering primarily objective news analysis. The problem isn't that Fox is conservative, it's that it clearly has a political agenda which is antithetical to what journalism is supposed to be about.
Any station that was as blatantly liberal as Fox is conservative would be just as bad. And anyone who claims that msnbc, cnn or most other mainstream news sources are that blatantly liberal are suffering from a complete lack of understanding as to what constitudes objectivity. I'm not saying that these other stations are great--hell, CNN has been going downhill over the past few years and much of what these stations are passing off as news is crap. But their problem isn't that they are blatantly unobjective or partisan, it's just that they are completely inept. I find Fox's overwhelming partisanship that's being passed off as objective news to be worse than inept reporting... posted 04/12/2008 at 02:36:40

Unlike many posting here, I'm really mixed when it comes to these Olympics. Yes, China has a terrible human rights record and its subjugation of TIbet (and the issue of Taiwan) are morally reprehensible. Yet, China is also the most populous country on Earth with approximately 1/6 of the planet's people, it is a hugely important player on the international scene and it is a developing country. It has long been argued that the Olympics should be, on occassion, held in the developing world and for the first time this is happening. China is one of only a handful of developing countries capable of hosting the games.
It needs to be recognized that the Olympics being held in China can accomplish some good--it's drawing attention to these very issues which are not, by any stretch of the imagination, new. It's also drawing attention to the developing world more generally. I think it good that a country representing a sixth of the world's population is hosting the games. Things are changing in China at an incredibly rapid pace by any standards. Things are getting better in some ways, bringing the games to China is part of this process and may be one means of spurring greater change. I oppose China's human rights record, but not the games being held in China. The games may be a force for good. posted 04/12/2008 at 02:52:34

Moved? You can't just 'move' the Olympics, especially only months before the games. It takes more than four or five years minimum and millions upon millions (probably billions) to prepare to host the games, even for the wealthiest of countries. They could, perhaps, be cancelled but that'll never happen--too much money, time and effort invested. More realistic is a major boycott in which many countries refuse to participate in events or ceremonies. Regardless, the games are going to be more politically charged than they have in quite some time. posted 04/12/2008 at 02:41:49

I want to start out by stating that I am a huge Obama supporter and while I used to have a lot of respect for Hillary Clinton, I've lost most of it during the past few months. Yet, unlike many other Obama supporters here I must disagree that Chelsea was in the wrong here. Yes, she is a surrogate for her mother's campaign and she does have a duty to answer questions. However, not only does the Lewinsky 'scandal' have little, if any, relevance to this campaign, but people need to recognize that this is Hillary and Bill's daughter. It's rude, regardless of the circumstances, to ask someones daughter about her father's affair, period. We all know what happened, we don't need to be bringing it up and we don't need to be asking their daughter about it. It's both tacky and tasteless. I agree that the media should no longer deal with Chelsea with 'kid gloves,' especially now that she's campaigning but that doesn't mean that she should have to answer any question asked of her. It's a personal matter she bares no responsibility for. I dislike the Clintons, but come on people--leave the girl alone on this one matter. posted 03/31/2008 at 16:58:03

John Edwards is an opportunist. He isn't endorsing because he doesn't want to hurt his chances of receiving a cabinet position, and for no other reason. He claims he likes HIllary because of her experience, yet he himself ran for president with arguably far less experience than Obama. Edwards has all the nice rhetoric, but when it comes to acting on his supposed principles he always fails. He is a slimeball of a politician. I used to respect the man, but his opportunism is disgusting. posted 03/23/2008 at 20:49:49