Well, okay -- however, i would remind you that Clinton himself was quite like Obama is now, in tenor and presence... It didn't take too long for his conservative sympathisers (who were happy not to see a Kennedy, Hart, or Biden) to turn on him.

I generally dispise the New republic, but today, by no coincidence, to be sure, an interesting article appeared:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=7987126a-7ff9-41c0-a6d0-9f0e44ffbc8c

To cut and paste.

WASHINGTON--It was a remarkable moment: A young, free-thinking presidential hopeful named Bill Clinton sat down with reporters and editors at The Washington Post in October 1991 and started saying things most Democrats wouldn't allow to pass their lips.

Ronald Reagan, Clinton said, deserved credit for winning the Cold War. He praised Reagan's "rhetoric in defense of freedom" and his role in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back."

"The idea that we were going to stand firm and reaffirm our containment strategy, and the fact that we forced them to spend even more when they were already producing a Cadillac defense system and a dinosaur economy, I think it hastened their undoing," Clinton declared.

--

In short, playing nice with the right is no guarentee of success. Clinton came with little help from the moderate right and by midnight of the inauguration, the conservative media attack dogs were at work. Don't think for a minute playing nice with these bastards is going to change the world, or bring america together, or whatever.

And so you are going to discredit Fanon as well... I can see one of us has no respect for the universal call regarding the burden of AfroAsiatic man! Or indeed all peopleses.

Bah... France was the oppressor at the time. And beyond THAT, you suggested Cornell West was superior to Amilcar Cabral....

Now, how the hell are you going to go around comparing a great african author and liberator to that fat, rappin', chocolate catfish???

Perhaps yet another delving examination of the black family as seen through the Cosby Show might put him up there... but still a ways off.

So, you are essentially passing a judgement on the fact that Hillary can't win, because people hate her. You have spent a good deal of words expressing a main stream media chatty-cathy bullet point. It is essentially 'we should not elect Obama because America won't vote for a black man' that was bandied about.

Both, frankly, may be worth considering, inasmuch as it is possible the final result could be judged by a few thousand votes.... I am pretty sure a few thousand people will bot vote for each candidate because they are A) black, B) female or C) Hillary anyway... There is no "People will/won't vote for [type of person]... some people will and some people won't so i think your opinon is not based in any actual measure of value other than your personal feelings, which is not really a way to determine broader voting patterns.

The only thing that matters is that a person who is for universal healthcare and a more restrained foreign approch. The actual differences between Obama and Hillary approach zero, and while I am an Obama supporter, the bizarre messianic ideation some of his supporters have regarding his well-put but otherwise by-the-book proclaimations is truly mind-boggling.

So, black people should abandon universal healthcare to make a shortlived point that may install a conservative regime for years?

I think yours is an idea everyone can get in front of.

Still waiting for your aplogy to Amilcar Cabral by the way...

OKay, taking your general statement at face value...

And Obama is better than Clinton in this regard HOW?

Okay, I read them. Same old talking points people have been agreeing on for decades. "Change is at hand..."

Good lord.

Been a while since I worked in statistics, but the sample size is not even CLOSE to being sufficient in order to suffice and meet any significance levels.

Why do I keep seeing these sorts of studies out there these days? Used to be, even twin studies had to have at least 300+ individual PAIRS to be considered valid.

Correct me if I am wrong: when the ultimate nomination occurs, the delegates are not REQUIRED to vote according to the dictates of the primary caucus. Neither are delegates in the national election. You state delegates can submit whatever they want to the electoral college.

Similarly, delegates to the convention are not 'compelled' to abide by the caucus results previously deemed correct by voting. Hence, if Obama wins in Florida but it is discovered in three months that he has murdered a family of four and buried them in the back yard, I believe the delegaion can switch their votes when it is time for final submission.

It is still what was obviously going to happen. The MI and FL delegations have been pushing for this for some time -- this is not news, in that sense.

Still, it is poor and foul politics for Hillary not to strip her name off the ballot. Either that, or it is shit stupid for everyone else to have done so, when it was obvious, to paraphrase Charles Bronson: "This ain't ovah."

Basically, if it is close at the end, and MI and FL are reinstated, from all sides, we are going to see some of the sleaaziest grabass and arse-licking seen since before President Garfield was shot.

The way you... you talk... it really sets me off to a full alarm, child!