Obama is absolutely not a radical liberal which is why I like him. He is not an ideologue like Kucinich and Edwards, but he appeals to the empowerment of the people moreso than the empowerment of government and doesn’t see the latter as necessarily enabling the former.

That’s what I see as setting him apart from Clinton as is evidenced by their health care proposals. I’m of the generally Libertarian persuasion, so the idea of using market forces to attract people to health care as opposed to ramming it down their throats appeals to me. Clinton’s approach is: elect me so that I can help you, so that I can fight for you. Obama’s is: elect me and we will take this country back together by forcing a mandate on Washington. The difference seems subtle to many but, for me, makes all the difference. Democracy works best when everybody is fighting, not just the President.

As for his speech, I had a few nitpicks and it would have been better had he not been forced into it but, in general, presented the racial situation as I see it very effectively. Now, given the reaction to Rev. Wright’s statements which, after parsing the most cited ones, I felt were not NEARLY as inflammatory as they are being made out to be, I doubt that the type of environment that he framed could be achieved anytime soon.

So yet again, I think it will be another blown opportunity for America to really go after the race thing.

Obama is absolutely not a radical liberal which is why I like him. He is not an ideologue like Kucinich and Edwards, but he appeals to the empowerment of the people moreso than the empowerment of government and doesn’t see the latter as necessarily enabling the former.

That’s what I see as setting him apart from Clinton as is evidenced by their health care proposals. I’m of the generally Libertarian persuasion, so the idea of using market forces to attract people to health care as opposed to ramming it down their throats appeals to me. Clinton’s approach is: elect me so that I can help you, so that I can fight for you. Obama’s is: elect me and we will take this country back together by forcing a mandate on Washington. The difference seems subtle to many but, for me, makes all the difference. Democracy works best when everybody is fighting, not just the President.

As for his speech, I had a few nitpicks and it would have been better had he not been forced into it but, in general, presented the racial situation as I see it very effectively. Now, given the reaction to Rev. Wright’s statements which, after parsing the most cited ones, I felt were not NEARLY as inflammatory as they are being made out to be, I doubt that the type of environment that he framed could be achieved anytime soon.

So yet again, I think it will be another blown opportunity for America to really go after the race thing.

I do think they’re both playing the race, gender, and age game, though in different ways. Hillary is doing it explicitly. Barack implicitly. They have to play it differently because of the way race is gendered and gender is racialized, but they’re playing it. We’ve both seen Obama use Bougie Negro Code Speak more than once, though today’s speech is probably the closest he’s come to unvarnished honesty with regards to race (and I still think most of his speech was “No, really. I’m a safe Negro.”)

I do think they’re both playing the race, gender, and age game, though in different ways. Hillary is doing it explicitly. Barack implicitly. They have to play it differently because of the way race is gendered and gender is racialized, but they’re playing it. We’ve both seen Obama use Bougie Negro Code Speak more than once, though today’s speech is probably the closest he’s come to unvarnished honesty with regards to race (and I still think most of his speech was “No, really. I’m a safe Negro.”)

I’ve never heard Obama say that about change being implicit because he were black but if you have then you have. I have heard Clinton directly say that about her being a woman several times. Frankly I think it’s either candidate’s prerogative to campaign along those lines if they so choose – I just think that it’s a generally lame strategy.

I’ve never heard Obama say that about change being implicit because he were black but if you have then you have. I have heard Clinton directly say that about her being a woman several times. Frankly I think it’s either candidate’s prerogative to campaign along those lines if they so choose – I just think that it’s a generally lame strategy.

They’re equally qualified in terms of elected political experience. But you can make the case that Hillary has an edge because she’s older, wiser, and has been there and done that by proxy.

They’re equally qualified in terms of elected political experience. But you can make the case that Hillary has an edge because she’s older, wiser, and has been there and done that by proxy.

BTW – Cinnamon gave me my message. Thanks. You’re pretty sassy too.

BTW – Cinnamon gave me my message. Thanks. You’re pretty sassy too.

Those are big numbers IMO, and I’m not sure it’s something we can say is due to our collective preference for Britney news.

Obama also hasn’t seen the full force Republican FUD yet since he’s not officially the nominee. While he may not have to sling much mud (though I think you’d be surprised), he will have to defend himself and address the lies.

Thus far, I don’t think he has done a good enough job of either getting out the truth or putting the FUD-ers on the defense. He’ll need to learn that very quickly if he wants the White House.