Offensivetoyou says,

Half the population has an IQ below a 100, a quarter below 85. The latter cannot be educated. Usually there are generations of such people and, after years of liberal remedies, they have no work ethic either.

I just worked with a Mexican ...from Tijuana. No money, no possessions, self-educated, but very smart and very hardworking... I know, and he knows, that his qualities are noticed and appreciated by his employers and that he will soon improve his situation...as many have done before him.

Posted at July 3, 2008 1:25 PM in response to Class Warfare and the New Gilded Age

I am sympathetic with what you are saying. My heart is with TPM, Huffington Post, Kos, and Countdown, but my head is with the more cautious and pragmatic Obama. We need to be realistic. The country, since Reagan, has been a little to the right of center. If Washington, D.C. just moved to the center, that would be a huge improvement (and I think Obama can actually move the country a little to the left of center.) At this time in history, that's the best we can hope for. Blogs have much potential for improving the political landscape. Their great danger is that too many people spout off with their sacred convictions and call people who disagree with them idiots or worse. I quit visiting DailyKos, not because of the excellent posts by Marcos Moulitsas and other lead writers, but because of the nasty tone of posts by anonymous visitors to the site. People who aren't willing to compromise and - at times settle for second or third best - are naive and unrealistic. They actually hurt the causes they believe in.

Posted at July 2, 2008 12:09 PM in response to Goodbye TPM, Daily Kos, Huffington Post

Bob Schieffer said something ridiculous and over the top. Wesley Clark corrected him. What's the big deal?

Posted at July 1, 2008 1:58 PM in response to Clark Ridiculed McCain and the Left Doesn't Get It: What's Up With That?

Bush wanted the government to support faith-based charities, because he wanted government to eventually get out of the business of caring for the unfortunate. Obama is willing to allow the government to continue supporting faith-based charities, because he wants to attack issues like poverty and homelessness on multiple fronts - including government programs, churches, temples, mosques, secular charities, etc. As someone who is a progressive primarily because he cares about compassion and social justice, I am pleased with Obama's position. There is nothing intrinsically evil about religion, and I am tired of hearing people at progressive blogs say so. Nonreligious progressives should be more tolerant of people of faith (like Obama and the majority of Americans.) It is not pandering when one acts respectfully about the religious beliefs of fellow citizens. The Democratic Party is beautifully diverse. Let's keep it that way.

Posted at July 1, 2008 1:25 PM in response to Obama Speech: We Can Expand Faith-Based Charities And Separate Church From State

So, exactly what should Clark have said when Schieffer interrupted him, suggesting that McCain is untouchable on military matters because he flew a military jet and got shot down? Wasn't it reasonable to say that those things - in and of themselves - do not qualify one to be president? Should Clark have said, "Yes, I agree, McCain would make a better commander-in-chief, because, several decades ago, he did time as a POW?" If Democrats can't criticize McCain on issues of national defense, they will greatly facilitate his best (and perhaps only) hope of winning. I fail to see anything Clark did wrong. Perhaps Democrats should steal the number one technique in the playbook of Karl Rove: Attack from your weakness to your opponents strength. It certainly worked against John Kerry. How come Republicans can play that game but Democrats can't?

Posted at June 30, 2008 9:03 PM in response to Obama Campaign Condemns Wes Clark's Comments About McCain

I fail to see how we have a "screwed up nominating system." The rules were clear. Everyone agreed to them. All that's screwed up now is Hillary's regret that she ever agreed to these rules in the first place. It is impossible to say what the true popular vote was, since there were primaries, caucuses, and primaries that weren't supposed to count. Sure, superdelegates are interested in the popular vote. They are also are rightly interested in polls and an assessment of the electoral college. The best argument the Clinton people can make is that it has been very, very close. That's not good enough to take a win from the person who played by the rules and won.

Posted at May 27, 2008 12:53 PM in response to A Sane Discussion Of Hillary And The Popular Vote

I am a liberal, and I think the charge of elitism is painfully accurate, even today. At its inception liberalism was focused on the protection of the rights and economic well-being of working-class whites. (FDR, I’m sorry to say, ignored racial injustice.) But, as liberalism grew in its idealistic pursuit of social justice, it fell out of touch with the very people it was originally designed to help. Just as Bush misunderstood the culture of Iraq, so have liberals misunderstood the culture of working-class whites. Though I agree with the intent, liberals have made clumsy and arrogant mistakes in areas of school busing, affirmative action, abortion rights, anti-gun legislation, removing religion from public life, militant feminism, gay marriage, and a disdain for patriotic symbols like the American flag. We have ridiculed and demonized the culture of whites who have never been to college. How can we expect them to vote for us?

I say if Obama is willing to talk to Ahmadinijad, then liberals should be willing to open a dialog with working-class whites. I say if a future liberal president is willing to engage in a sympathetic dialog with Islamic culture, liberals should also be willing to engage in a sympathetic dialog with American working-class whites who go to Main Street Baptist Church and put up a flag on Memorial Day. Let’s face it: Far too many liberals get off on feeling superior to small-town working folks; just as working-class white people tend get off on feeling superior to Blacks and Hispanics. Hillary Clinton seems to have discovered this late in her otherwise unseemly campaign.

Where is the common ground between a liberal, well-educated professional in Seattle and a carpenter or waitress in a small town in southern Ohio? If we don’t take the concerns of the last two into account as we pursue social justice, liberalism will die.

Posted at May 19, 2008 8:26 PM in response to Where Does American Liberalism Stand Today?

John McCain should have been easy to defeat, but the Democratic Party is self-destructing right before our eyes. The party is now deeply divided along racial lines. Race relations have been set back 40 years. (Also, a whole new generation of young voters may soon become disillusioned and abandon ship.) I blame all this on Hillary Clinton and her staff. They saw the only way they could have a chance at beating Obama was to go negative,creating endless doubts about his character. Well, being Black IS part of his character. This nefarious strategy worked extremely well. Obama, as much as I like and admire him, is damaged goods. I offer this radical solution: How about a deadlocked convention - a convention so terribly deadlocked that someone else emerges as a compromise candidate - John Edwards, Al Gore, Christopher Dodd, whoever? As far as I am concerned, 2008 will go down in history as the year Bill and Hillary Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party. If Hillary gets the nomination (as she now may), I will vote for her, and then engage in some ritual cleansing activity - perhaps a sweat lodge ceremony.

Posted at May 1, 2008 6:00 PM in response to Pew: Obama Losing White Working Class Dems To Hillary In Landslide

After enormous hype from Fox News' "Obama Watch," the next president of the United States entered enemy territory, took on all questions with grace and confidence; showed respect for Republicans and Republican ideas, while not compromising on his own progressive agenda. He came across as patriotic, but not chauvinistic. He totally deflated McCain's economic policies. He wisely complimented Petraeus, while making it clear that he, not Petraeus, would set policy. No candidate this season has looked and acted more presidential. Obama didn't make a single mistake. If that's not taking them on, I don't know what is.

Posted at April 28, 2008 12:57 AM in response to Obama Doesn't "Take Fox On," After All

As much as I don't like Fox News, I'd have to admit that Chris Wallace treated Obama with more respect than Stephanopoulos or Gibson did during the ABC debate. Not only did Obama give a solid performance, he did indeed "take on" Wallace by giving articulate and nuanced (yet clear and easy-to-comprehend) answers to the loaded questions we all knew Fox News would throw out at him. The winner was Obama, who got to speak in a compelling way to an audience that rarely hears him, and the loser was Fox News who failed to get the hostile or ill-spoken sound bites they hoped to recycle in endless loops. Greg Sargent is way off base on this one.

Posted at April 27, 2008 8:08 PM in response to Obama Doesn't "Take Fox On," After All