if all of the talk were about barack's gender and hillary's race would anyone have anything to say?

an honest answer should bring into focus the poignancy of hillary's comments to tim. we are so far from fair and balanced when it comes to following leaders, who are not barack's gender and hillary's race, it is almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion above the noise.

no clear signals here, intelligent, issue based coverage is coming in on a weak signal. it’s like listening to local public radio stations, where you have to keep adjusting the dial to tune out the static.

turn it one way, all you hear is race; turn it too far the other way, all you hear is gender. if you are really good and persistent you find that one place where the signal is true. that one newspaper article, that one segment of cspan, the one blog response, where the signal comes in clear. if hillary's comments allow her to hold her own, i hope it’s because she dialed into the space where facts and issues relevant to voters rise above the noise.

in my estimation if hillary succeeded in turning her conversation with tim back to a discussion of comparative positions, she did more than hold her own. perhaps she did enough to have tim take notice, compelling him to keep the tuner dialed in, sparing us a recent tendency for journalist to settle for adding to the noise.

a super feeling after super tuesday!

a competitive race (albiet too influenced by race right now - i hope this too passes the way of the idea that any candidate would be cornated this early. i guess howard dean was right again). with candidates on both sides dedicated to public service in the best sense of the word. i say the party has started for all of us, and promises to end well.

great stuff!

including record veiwership of a televised debate (right up there with Law and Order SVU - go figure)? i guess the idea that voters prefer candidates whose positions can be packaged into 30 second commercials is a mistaken notion. its seems voters, when given the chance to be informed by substantive debates, say "yes we can!"

ideally our demonstration of the depth of our ability to pay attention will be rewarded with increasingly substantive debates, in increasingly interactive formats, that promote real discussions of leadership and policy stances, all, punctuated by comparisons of results, positions, and ideas, past, present, and future.

the cherry on top; that exchanges to come, will take place in a manner that exemplifies mutual respect, with recognition of the imporatance of being willing to engage as many folks as possible in the excitement of the political process.

now if hillary has a plans that sound like this… …thas my kinda party!

In a word, no.

In a few more words (a lot more...). He would have won me over (well probably not - buy maybe) if this was the speech he had given at Hampton in February 06 as an announcement of the reason he should be president.

This late in the game, my emotions say, its just eloquence in the moment, wrapped around the same reaganess social wars that emphasize personal responsibility, overstate the idea of victim mentality, and pander to magnanimous self sacrifice.

I did enjoy reading the two paragraphs on systemic origins of inequity, but i think i missed that part about focusing on structural rather than social solutions.

Art and culture has done well to unite us in a common love and celebrations of music, film, sports, and theater. Hip-hop is universal, jazz is global, my sister loves John Denver. The social work is done in every moment we celebrate as Americans cognizant of the unique experience we share in building this country.

What we need is less rhetoric and more focus on the how of solutions that expand wealth, create an environment of innovation, and provide access to resources in a manner that levels economic playing fields. Notice there is no mention of race here. Nothing unites better than shared failure or shared success. In order to experience either, we need to be working on the real.

So my response to Joan's question, is again, no. The feeling I am left with in hearing and reading Barack's speech is, how?

disappointing, i hope this means Elizabeth will endorse Hillary.

i respected the role Edwards played in introducing wealth disparity into the race; i had even more respect for his decision to let the process run its course without the influence of any powerbrokering endorsement.

he just dropped a notch in my book.

i had higher expectations of Edwards, hoping he would see the wisdom of letting these two candidates finish strong, independent of any sideshows.

taking the race through the states will demonstrate how strong a case there is for a combined ticket. isn't it clear that is what voters want?

no? well how much louder can they say it...

Popular vote* count after W. VA is: 16,778,086 vs. 16,651,426. .4% difference.

if John were in Hillary's shoes, what would he do?

*the count the votes blend, i.e., with caucuses, FL, and MI (MI giving Obama all of the uncommitted votes).

just let it ride.

p.s.

just thought of something, oh my god! is John wanting the VP thing again? it was not a good idea the last time.

why is it so hard for some people to see the value of keeping a woman in the mix?

disappointing to say the least.