jrtom

and has some amusing and cogent things to say about jocks and nerds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW7OPByRGDY

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEyLuiVkdd-f1RM5wnoR0kF4WbvgD94FHP480

...threatening?

...feces-smearing?

...mock-lynching?

*sigh*

For those that suggested that anti-woman prejudice was responsible for Obama's victory over Senator Clinton in the primaries: maybe that hurt her more than anti-black prejudice hurt Obama. I doubt it, but it's possible; it's a complex issue, and certainly members of both groups have been discriminated against.

But, while I may be wrong, somehow I doubt that women everywhere would have been attacked, or harassed (at least in the same way), for voting for Clinton in the general election, had she won the nomination.

Obama's grandmother apparently died this morning, around 5 AM ET.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/03/obama.grandma/

sigh.

http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/546

Especially interesting given Obama's background as a community organizer. I wonder how much he had to do with the specific form that this organization has taken?

...and it is herself:

from http://rivka.livejournal.com/426444.html, quoting this article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm

Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

I actually don't think that Clinton meant to equate "hard-working Americans" and "white Americans". Honestly, I think she stumbled and meant to say something semantically equivalent to "blue-collar whites". I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she doesn't actually believe, even in her heart of hearts, that Obama's supporters are primarily either overeducated (*cough*Wellesley/Yale*cough*) or black (or that blacks are neither working nor hard-working).

(I _am_ annoyed at the fact that she keeps bringing race back into this as part of an argument about electability--even though there's little real data to suggest that blue-collar white voters are unwilling to vote for Obama: saying "they didn't vote for him now running against me, so they won't if he's running against McCain" is a hard case to make, and I don't think she's made it. But that's a separate issue.)

Here's the funny thing: I think that the only person that can save her right now is...Obama. And I think that he should.

He could basically stand up and say "You know, I'm sure that she meant to say "blue-collar white voters". And then go on to both (a) debunk this statement, once again, and (b) decry this sort of race-based analysis. This would give him another opportunity to present himself as presidential...and to start reaching out to her partisans.

This wouldn't give Clinton any advantage (calling attention to her error won't help her, even if he forgives her and makes it clear that he believes it was a stumble rather than a miscalculation), and could be a really impressive political judo move on his part.

I've been really annoyed recently by the abuse of the phrase "mathematically impossible" in the popular press to describe the likelihood of either of the following:

(a) either candidate gaining the support of at least 2025 delegates (pledged or super)...
(b) Senator Clinton gaining the support of more pledged delegates than Senator Obama...

...by the time the primaries are over (but before the convention).

In short: neither of these are "impossible". Highly unlikely, maybe. But calling it "mathematically impossible" is simply ridiculous.

( math geeking )

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/

Apparently he was quoting someone else, although it's hard to know where that quote left off and his own words began again.

Anyone got a link to the sermon in which Wright said "God damn America?"

(My personal take on this is that Wright is getting a lot of flak for what is primarily what one might call "preaching while black". That is to say, there really are a lot of extant injustices being done to blacks, and historically there have been many, many more...so one can hardly blame them for being pissed off about it. Not to say that I agree with everything he says, or consider his comments to be constructive...but I don't necessarily condemn him, either.)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/12/81339/4516/40/474909

Hmm. The gist of the argument appears to be that

(a) Republicans started voting in the Democratic primaries in much larger numbers after McCain secured the R nomination

(b) Rush Limbaugh has exhorted his audience to support Clinton (as a weaker opponent to McCain)

(c) exit polls suggest that Republicans voting for Clinton actually don't like her.

Now, I'd like to see stats on how much Republicans that voted for Clinton liked _Obama_...but this does seem to add up to shenanigans.

I feel as though this is all technically within the rules, but it does rather leave a bad taste in one's mouth.

Not sure how to fix this in a way that doesn't induce more problems, though. (Disallowing people from switching parties between the primary and the general election might be an interesting dodge, but there's a can of worms there, too.)

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/video%20interviewer-picks-the-wrong-obama%20supporter-to-try-to%20railroad/

Man, I wish I were this coherent in front of a camera.

(I'll have to check the rest of the site out later.)