I wouldn't have guessed all of that, LWM, but you're right, I'm not at all surprised.

And that Mars makes you, in my opinion, something of a change-agent yourself. (Is that in your 5th or 6th house?)

So, I guess, then, that you understand why I'm ready to move on from all of that Leo energy (also my 6th house, and South Node)? Enough already!

I have Venus (0 degrees), Moon & Jupiter in Gemini; very late degree of Aq on Ascendant (so Pisces in 1st house). Sun, Mars, Uranus in Cancer (5th) squaring Neptune & Saturn in Libra (my trial in life).

Obama has had Secret Service protection for awhile now. The only other candidate to have same is Hillary, and that's because she's the spouse of a former president.

There has been concern for Obama's life from early on.

What happens when one side quits returning the (adjective) lobs of the other side?

Eventually, nothing. And that's the point.

...appointing a few African-Americans to important posts is actually a racist act.

For example, when those African-American appointees represent values that are complete anathema to the rest of the African-American community, and/but they are the only African-American appointees you have.

Get it?

* * *

W_M, I often make such pleas not to feed, but they usually fail. And so...

Agreed. But I also enjoy seeing him serve the GOP their just desserts. A long time coming...

The only prediction I feel comfortable in making this time around is that Romney will be their nominee, not Giuliani.

And I have based my considered opinion on what I know to be one of the highest values of the GOP "values" voters... hair. Mitt's got a helmet's worth. Giuliani's is challenged. We know that the GOP likes to rally around an obvious heir and Romney is really all they've got. [/sarcasm]

McCain is somewhat in between (hair-wise, too), and may do well enough in New Hampshire, but I'm not so sure he'll be able to sustain a campaign.

For the Democratic Party it just is not as simple, because for true-blue Democrats, it's all about the process of determining the nominee. And so far, everyone (committed to a Democratic victory) does seem more or less committed to that democratic process. (The M$M's commitment is another story.)

Especially interesting is that none of the big-time bloggers have really endorsed a single candidate, but have instead tried to cover the coverage and level the playing field where ever possible. A much better method, imho.

That's not my or our "expectations of what a person's beliefs should be based solely on their skin colour," but the African-American community's expectations, one of which is to see some representations of themselves in the public sphere, not only those who represent their complete opposite. We don't have to guess, either, since they make it very clear. Both in public debate and at the polls.

* * *

Note: another Britishim: colour

I completely agree with you that biases of gender and race intersect at class. In fact, if we as a country focused more on eliminating class issues, we'd do a lot to minimize the other biases.

However, that only makes me see Edwards even more clearly as the best (Democratic) candidate (still) in this race. His entire campaign is founded on the inequalities of class.

And that is precisely why the M$M loathes him the way they do.

I hadn't seen the post on Sadly, no, but I did see an excerpt of the Egan blog post.

Remember when the likes of David Broder were horrified by the not classy enough Clintons with their Ivy League educations? Wonder what he thinks now? (I'll have to look when I have time.) Karmic paybacks are always a b***h, aren't they? Where do you suppose Broder stands on the evolution/creationism continuum?

The faux rubes point is quite telling.

There's an interesting disconnect in the populism of Huckabee that really hasn't been covered. His apparent intention to raise taxes to take care of the less fortunate, and his simultaneous intention to eliminate the IRS and implement a sales tax to replace it. As Egan points out, you'd think that Wall Street would be thrilled.

What a show!

Edwards also went after Obama in Iowa for being "too nice." (Like a man of color has a choice. Edwards, as a white man, has a lot more historical opportunity to look angry on t.v. and to not be considered unelectable because of it, than Obama does. And I'm sure that Edwards knows this.)

I have also criticized Obama for thinking that he can change things by playing nice, because I recognize the truth of what Edwards says about how difficult it will be to make the corporatists give anything up.

What I hadn't considered-- and I really can't believe it didn't occur to me-- is that Obama really is not free to express a similar level of anger. Publicly.

Regardless of which of the three wins the nomination (or, even Gore, if ends up being brokered), I'll support that candidate. It's part of that democratic process I was touting earlier.

I would agree with you about the contested elections, except that I have seen some stories about the FEC effectively being shut down for this election cycle. I was busy before the holidays and didn't take the time then to read them thoroughly.

Has anyone else read anything about the FEC being compromised?

I didn't think of Ali. The other figures I did think of would have had some baggage.

And, Ali has the advantage of being a "figher," too.

Still, I'm flabbergasted with myself that I hadn't considered doloresflower's point on my own. I really should have.

It's coming back to me now...

I could only remember thinking that this election, even compared to the last few, might really need some FEC rulings, and that they might not be available. Horrors!

This entire place is a receptacle of embarrassingly shallow and disingenuous published opinions.

Really. Inquiring minds want to know.