"Disgraceful, but revealing. Bond isn't the only erstwhile Civil Rights leader to accrue power by delivering "the black vote" for white candidates."

I am an Obama supporter but what is actually disgraceful is your classless cries of Uncle Tom at the head of the NAACP. Bonds is regularly attacked from the right as a leftist dogmatist, and now from the left... crabs in a bucket indeed!

It is not his job to deliver votes to a candidate and I've not met one person who has catagorically voted because "Jules Bonds says so"... the idea is laughable. Perhaps he thinks Clinton has a better approach to universal health care, which would behoove people of all races especially under-covered minorities, or MAYBE he just thinks a resolution to the unfair and undemocratic dismissal of the two delegation is wrong... and it is.

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate"

First of all, anyone aware of Rendell's record in Philadelphia would have a hard time saying he is racist or attempting to appeal therein. People need to relax. I recall he was also attacked by reactionary Democratic mugs for acknowledging that Gore was unlikely to be the next president, when things looked off in 2000... this when he was the DNC chair. Clearly the man speaks off the cuff.

Now, lets look at the rest of the quote:

-------

To buttress his point, Rendell cited his 2006 re-election campaign, in which he defeated Republican challenger Lynn Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steelers star, by a margin of more than 60 percent to less than 40 percent.

“I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann been the identical candidate that he was — well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking — but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so,” he said. “And that (attitude) exists. But on the other hand, that is counterbalanced by Obama’s ability to bring new voters into the electoral pool.”

----

Erm.... seems pretty clear that taking quotes out of context is no good.

I think the thesis is interesting... although is not delivered on even in the slightest. Especially the 'Ugly American' attempt. I hate action movies, but all manner of XMen transgressed international boundaries even though they may have been german or whatver the fack they are. The note about how the movie would have played out had the character been foreign is a complete and utter stretch, and I certainly think the author here must know it. No shortage of superheroes and superspecial people violate such norms all the time.

However, now that I am thinking about it, perhaps Nightcrawler and other superspecials are able to violate national boundaries because either:

A) They are 'special' e.g. 'individual' capable of existing in our special competitive American model.

B) Far more likely, they can do these things to instill the identifying reader with a sense of specialness. After all, speaking of the XMen, they were the most popular comic book by far at the time because their readership identified with their 'special outsiderness.' Being a weird, awkward teen transgresses national boundaries, no doubt.

If the point was that this is the message that we are sending out to the world, then perhaps I see your point. I remember a friend telling me he went to an american movie in Sri Lanka some years ago in which there was a food fight. The locals were not amused nor upset nor bored nor irritated so much as baffled and astounded.

Still, if that was the point, I don't think it came across so much as Hannaham's musings on what people think so much as that HE thought these things when he reads the movie. ... just how it came across to me.

Its nice to see Hillary trotting out the positives in her record that differentiate her from some of Obama's 'mistakes'... a good stategy that COULD HAVE BEEN TROTTED OUT 3 MONTHS AGO!!!!!

I am an Obama supporter, but I'll agree with some people who say that Obama's camp really does specialize in attracting complete arsewells... not that the Hillarizers are without fault...

"I never have to read another word about a First Lady's wardrobe."

I hope I never have to read another word about the First Lady (or Man, or dog or cat) at all, besides maybe a picture caption here or there. I don;t want to hear my co-workers blather on about their husbands/wives/pets and especially children. I don;t want the president to either unless it's somehow in context or in passing. Morever, I don't want to hear anyone ELSE blather on about.. the MEDIA for example.

I don't want to hear anything about them at all... their hopes... their dreams... I don't f-ing care. And First Children are meant to not be seen OR heard.

Anyone who would disagree... it is simple conflict of interest to have a politically invloved spoouse when you are in such a position. Moreover, even if it is apolitical, such as a large hospital or company, the conflict of interest is pretty obvious. It doesn;t help that the Conservatives are such scumbags that their first instinct when Clinton was elected was to attack his wife... complete and utter used condoms, they are. I just elect the president... lets leave it at that.

It looks bad no doubt... but then again, penn isn;t selling himself as president... he is selling Hillary. One could argue that he might not have been in favor of such legislation as a poltician, but as a businessman, his job is to pursue advantageous positions.

Still, looks a tad off..

"In a liberal democracy, that would seem like a no-brainer."

Erm... anyone recall the French ban on headscarves in public secondary/high schools?