<p>Until a few weeks ago when Golf Digest did the noose cover, I cannot ever remember any golf analyst saying Tiger is the 1st African AMerican who has won 23 (?) titles. They always talk about how he will take over Jack Nicklaus in championship titles with no inference to his race. Tiger even showed his maturity by saying that the cover was a non-issue, IMO he was saying I am not getting into the racial guagmire, and that he cared more about the game than what anybody else thought.</p>
<p>Why are we talking about Obama’s race? Why are we talking about Hillary’s gender? The only thing that needs to be debated are their policies and how they will be implemented.</p>
<p>Everyone needs to address the issues, not the genetic make up of the candidate. Tell me you are voting for/or against because of the programs they want to implement. No more of he inspires me through his oration or she is attached to Bill. In the end, the winner will be in the Oval Office representing every American and it is their ability to achieve their platforms that matters, not skin color or chromosonal make-up</p>
<p>* the end, the winner will be in the Oval Office representing every American and it is their ability to achieve their platforms that matters, not skin color or chromosonal make-up*</p>
<p>Well, if you assume that every participant in the process is involved regardless of sex/race/religion.
However, it’s easy to see groups that are supporting Clinton * because* she is female & voters who are drawn into the campaign * because* Obama is perceived as * black*, not to mention evangelicals for Huckabee, & LDS for Romney.</p>
<p>Are you saying that genetic make-up is more important than their platform?</p>
<p>I really hope that in the end, Americans vote for platforms and not backgrounds. Tell me I am voting because Obama will implement a withdraw date from Iraq. Say Romney has experience in a global economy. Huckabee has a plan for immigration. McCain does not believe in pork barrel. Hillary is for National Health Insurance. Please don’t say I am voting for a race, sex or religious purpose, there is too much at stake for that</p>
<p>no- im not saying that about the candidates- but we are human- we look for commonalities- otherwise why would an alumni network be so important ?</p>
<p>I think that it would be great if we all were informed enough to vote as independents. That we would judge each issue and candidate on it’s /their merits. But we don’t- we vote for the " lesser of two evils", vote party lines, vote because the name is familiar or they came from our hometown.</p>
<p>For many Americans, I hope that even if they initially became interested in the campaign because a candidate was * for example* Asian or a member of the “greatest generation”, that they would stay because of a platform & they will take the time to find out more about the issue/candidate</p>
<p>I actually think that many Americans are becoming Independents and walking away from “party lines”. </p>
<p>I agree that people are voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I just wonder, b4 they cast their vote did they do research, our did they just listen to media pundits?</p>
<p>I am an independent, I have looked at each candidates sites, googled fiscal policies, and listened to both Air America and Conservative channels. I only hope that people start looking at the issues, not rhetoric</p>
<p>. . . or personalities, or race, or gender. Oops-- too late. Has the American public ever looked at the issues? Sad to say, I don’t think this election will be any different. The best we can hope for is that we get a Democrat in the White House. And if that’s the case, all 3 are definitely far superior to what we have up there now.</p>
<p>It is accepted because no one looking at Tiger Woods or Obama would claim they are white. Both these men are black in accordance with the longstanding assumptions about race that have ruled both the past and the present.</p>
<p>Ron paul wrote in his newsletter of a coming race war, where presumably millions of whites will slaughter millions of blacks, even innocent ones. Should they come for us, they will not see Tiger and think he is white. Indeed, no one will think this. Even sympathetic whites will automatically seek to protect Woods along with other blacks because they know that not even one soul will see the man and think he is anything but black. His thick lips, hair, and brown skin, all point to one thing: The Man is Black, and it just does not matter about all the nonsense he invents about himself.</p>
<p>I understand your point about the nebulousness of race. But the American system developed under a racist paradigm that is still with us. That paradigm is not mathematically rigid, since some blacks can pass as white, but it does exist. We may not know precisely where it begins and ends, but we know it when we see it based on our centuries-long training.</p>
<p>I agree it is folly to have these assumptions. But try to see things from my perspective if you can. I can’t afford to act as if the assumptions do not exist while there are senators and presidential candidates operating under them who advocate race war against me. I cannot afford to act as if the assumptions do not exist when there are white racists infiltrating the military to gain weapons and training in anticipation of the day when they will comb the nation and extinguish people like my children and me. When politicians in the highest places of our government [openly</a> affiliate with racist groups](<a href=“You are being redirected...”>You are being redirected...) I cannot casually overlook the historic assumptions that drive us all and that may end up as the basis of someone’s threat against my family.</p>
<p>Tiger is black, and so is Obama. And we all know these guys are black.</p>
<p>I just do not judge middle-aged people based on mistakes they made when they were 15, especially if they repudiated those acts only a few years later.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine anything bad Hillary could have done at that age that I’d care about now. I mean, maybe if she’d committed some kind of violent felony or joined the Klan, I’d want to see her explain how she grew past that phase. But 15-year-olds are children. I won’t be voting for Hillary on Tuesday, but her childhood plays no role in that decision.</p>
<p>I think at a certain point (age), people do look at platforms. In my own experience (6 pres. elections), I have voted on both sides due to political platforms and how they personally effect me. When I was able to vote for the 1st time it was about pro-choice, when I was in my 20’s it was about taxes. In my 30’s it was about Nationalized Health Care (lived the system in the UK for 3 yrs and wouldn’t wish it upon my worse enemy) and taxes. Now it is about SS, taxes, civil unions and Iraq.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, by saying a dem is better than a republican, is voting for a party and vise a verse. </p>
<p>I am more concerned about how are these programs going to be paid for. I am so tired of I will do this or that…reality… the senate and congress will allow any president to do this or that. </p>
<p>If you start looking at every candidates promises, there is NO WAY they can implement the progras they promise. What should be asked, if you can only implement 1 PROGRAM, which would it be. I don’t want to hear I will pay for healthcare by reducing the defense budget (we can’t predict where the troops will be needed). I will give a tax cut for the middle class by increasing corp. tax (co.s can find other loop holes negating any revenue). I will reduce the amt of federal employees and thus the federal budget…great and where will these employees go…unemployment?</p>
<p>“As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union.” </p>
<p>is not saying the same thing as, “I was a strong advocate for civil rights as a 15 year-old.”</p>
<p>It just isn’t.</p>
<p>It is not Hillary’s job or responsiblility to explain she was a Goldwater girl at every or any speech.</p>
<p>It was not Reagan’s responsibility to tell his conservative audience that he was a strong believer in FDR.</p>
<p>It is not McCain’s responsibility to say that while he is a strong advocate for campaign reform, he took over $100,000 from a guy who cost the country over $3 billion. It is not McCain’s job to go around and tell everybody he is a member of the Keating 5.</p>
<p>Being a Goldwater girl at 15 doesn’t mean she has not been a strong advocate for civil rights as an adult. Now what Hillary does say is she has been a strong advocate for civil rights as an adult.</p>
<p>I agree with Drosselmeier that in America if you look black, you are black. That’s the way you will get treated for better or worse. However the fact that Obama has a white mother and a sister who while half Asian often gets mistaken for Hispanic means, I suspect, that he understands all sides of the race question in America than most of us.</p>
<p>In this particular election, I think the 3 Democrats in the running now are far superior to any Republican up there running, half of whom I think are nuts. I cannot envision having any of the Republicans who are now running, as President. McCain would keep us in Iraq forever. Huckabee is crazed. Guiliani is down in Florida talking about how his first priority will be to send us to Mars. He also wants this ridiculous universal insurance system. Yeah, right. Romney is certainly presidential-looking, but I have no idea where he stands on anything. I can’t remember who is left. Oh, yeah. Ron Paul. Turns out he’s a little nuts, too.</p>
<p>Edwards would pay for healthcare by ending the tax cut for the wealthy. And, to be honest, you do have to look at the billions (trillions?) we’re spending on the Iraq war. We cannot sustain that sort of spending. Unless that ends, I don’t see a lot of the other issues being implemented. Ending Bush’s tax cut for the wealthy is a start, but I don’t know how much that will cover.</p>
<p>I did not insult you, but showed disrespect for what I perceived as your dissembling behavior. To get around this issue you actually submitted a claim that probability was insufficient for you to take a position, even claiming that 99% probability is not certain. That is just insulting – to you, and I simply wanted you to know this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I need not read it again. The matter is quite clear, which is why Novak wrote about it and why many people reacted as they did to it. To underscore this point let us consider a Nazi Vet who, after WWII, flew Germany to live in another country. He settled in a region with a large German Jewish population. Some twenty years after the war he decided to run for local office, he waged a fine campaign that worked vigorously for the Jewish vote. Here was a man who worked ardently for Hitler, but because he once heard a speech by a famous Jew, claimed “I remember during the war having the great privilege of hearing him challenge us to stay awake for the revolution that would make Germany a better place!” And all the Jews cheered.</p>
<p>There is no essential difference here from what Hillary did. She, rather than being what her speech implied, was actually an ardent supporter of the enemy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do wish you would try to be more subtle here and not focus only on the technical words that were uttered that day, but also on their context and meaning. Were you to do this, you would see Hillary’s dishonor quite clearly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not 100%, but we do not need 100%. The evidence is quite good enough for us to conclude that Hillary is not being truthful.</p>
<p>I am from NC, there is no way Edwards would be able to carry his home state…he carries no weight…heck he didn’t carry the state in 04 as a vp candidate</p>
<p>I agree with you and disagree.
People forget the death tax effects alot of people who are not millionaires…look at the farmers, their land is worth millions, by eliminating it you are hurting their family.</p>
<p>Iraq… that is a whole different ball of wax. I believe we are not being honest about how it will effect the world…remember we are there for many reasons, which include: Iran, Mid-east stability, Oil, and terrorism. All of these factors effect the entire globe.</p>
<p>Until someone disputes the IRS, stating that the top tier taxpayer are paying the most, then I am not for the cuts. Show me actual facts from the GAO, not rhetoric. BTW, I am not even close to the AMT, thus I am not considered wealthy</p>
<p>A Nazi veteran is not the same as a 15 year-old Goldwater girl.</p>
<p>Hillary has publicly stated her past. She wrote a book. Did plenty of interviews. Was on television many times where she mentioned she was a Goldwater girl. This was before her Selma speech. She has not hidden the fact that she was a Goldwater girl.</p>
<p>Who do you think is more likely to be a racist, Hillary Clinton or Rober Novak?</p>
<p>Me either, Hanna. I judge them based on the lies they tell about what they were in the past, this, whether they tell these lies directly, or whether they imply them.</p>
<p>bulletandpima: I agree about NC; of course, I don’t see NC going for Obama or Clinton, either. I do agree with the latest news items, though, that Edwards will be a power broker at the Denver convention (worst case scenario). Honestly, though, this is still early days. I predict more Obama/Clinton fallout. The closer they get to implosion, the closer he gets to the nomination. He’s actually pulling in a lot of donations on the internet lately.</p>
<p>I’m for Edwards, because I think he has put out the most detailed and viable proposals-- on all the issues-- and did so early on. The other two followed. Clinton has been too vague for me on the Iraq war and on Iran. I also simply trust Edwards more than the other two. So, up until the day he decides to leave this race, he still gets my vote (and my financial support). ;)</p>