This is basically a scam. The Bush administration is under tremendous pressure to do something. They latch onto the most toothless idea and also, BTW, the option that demands the federal government do essentially nothing for ordinary people who are losing their homes or their investments. A total scam.

The perspective of Armstrong Williams and conservatives to the challenges of education is both disappointing and dishonest. First, this pundit simply doesn't get what is so very wrong with NCLB. The underlying premise of this federal mandate is 100% proficiency by 2014. I can tell you that isn't possible. There are significant learning differences among children and these will ALWAYS have an impact on acheivement scores. In the classroom, teachers, good teachers, make accommodations and adaptations so that most children can remain with their peers to learn, a key and critical benefit to inclusion settings.

Secondly, the Bush admin has, despite burdening states and districts with mandates, never increased school funding to the level many districts need to meet the needs of their students and NCLB. This is why I find it impossible to credit the Williams, Bennetts of this world. They start with a fundamentally UNEQUAL system and then proceed to attack the victims of this system: the children.

I would love to know how this type of expenditure is legitimized to the shareholders. I'd say that if you simply must have naked women to seal he deal, your product just isn't that great. Something to consider.

The underlying conflict that seems to pervade this author's perspective is that of paid/unpaid work. When one stay at home to raise children, that's work. It's just not paid work. All the same, this is work that SOMEONE has to do. When your child becomes kindergarten age, the issue changes significantly because schools now perform the function of raising and educating your children for several hours a day.

From the interview, it appears fairly obvious that the author is contemptuous of SAHM's and their lives. Why is that? What exactly is better about placing your child in someone else's care for the day while you get paid to work?

He's been around forever as those of us who follow hip-hop know. He's always had an over-the-top persona. I'm just glad he and Mouse have created a band that sells beyond what you normally hear on BET.

Hmmm. Let's look at this. Hillary started off the campaign process with more money than any other candidate, many insider connections, the largest donor lists and powerful machines in every state to help her get elected. And she's still losing.

Someone please let Hillary know that to be the underdog, you can't just be the loser. You have to start out with far FEWER advantages than others, not more advantages that you squander.

Can people really be that dumb?

I've been under the impression that both Democratic candidates view the near-complete withdrawal of troops as taking the better part of 2 years. How does that happen before 2011? No one wants a total humanitarian disaster and that could easily occur without US troop support.

Isn't it funny how much whining and moaning takes place when someone who is EXPECTED to win, loses?

The facts are that the rules were in place long before Obama came along and he succeeded in his candidacy the same as Kerry, Gore, and Bill Clinton. This just indicates that his campaign has been run better, far better than Clinton's. If you have been around national campaigns for decades and STILL can't figure out how to win, you are not particularly worthy of the job.

Mark Penn has the been for too many months a discordant and divisive figure in the Clinton campaign. I'm sure there's a party going on right now at her headquarters. The only question that remains is this: What took so long? Penn's easily been the worst part of the Clinton campaign and it hasn't even been a secret that he was widely loathed among her staff.

This is a real question: What was your point by writing that long post? I know you are a Clinton supporter but you sound almost paranoid.

Ana, you obviously have some educational background and you read. Come on now. You imply by your post that it's Obama's FAULT that he has worked the system so well. If you know about or read about politics, you should know how hard that is for an outsider and, compared to Clinton, Obama IS an outsider.

As for Wilentz, get real. I'd like to be 5 inches taller and have the ability to eat chocolate with impunity but I'm not. I work out daily and frequently need tailored clothing because I live in a world known as REALITY. I live with what is, not with what I want things to be. That's delusional?

How precisely is Obama "gaming the system?" There is strong evidence that he is a candidate winning by the rules as set out by others:

1) Establishing pledged delegate advantage, critical to swaying the supers.

2) strong ground game to get out the vote and minimize name-advantage by Clinton and powerful political machine connections.

3) Developing and MAINTAINING a message that resonates with new voters and will appeal in the general election as well

4) Playing by DNC rules established long before the first votes were cast in regards to MI and FL.

5) Raising huge amounts of money (over and over) without the support of many DNC deep pockets.

If you have other evidence that supports a "gaming the system" theory please write it out. I didn't see it in your post before. Frankly, the only thing I've read from you is anger that the same, tired, threadbare politcal games aren't working...for Hillary Clinton.