quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... Rich white people get to use AA has a peace offering because it's a really, really cheap way to ignore a lot of valid problems.
Its also a great way of pitting some minority groups against other minority groups instead of having to deal with them as a unified group. Divide and conquer.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Obama did say that a lot of people use their anger as an excuse not to take responsibility for themselves. Anger, like guilt or pain, is only useful in bringing about change. It's not an address to plunk down and settle in for the rest of your life, becoming depressed and passive because you have been wronged or hurt and there is nothing that can be done about it.
He is saying that black people have forged chains for themselves from their victimhood, but there is hope to break free.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that was a frightening and ultimately unenlightening article (the second one.) I get that this shadow banking is a) too complicated for just any Ph.D. to understand and b) became popular after the LTCM debacle. But after six pages of reading, and seeing those points repeated at least three times, I'm not sure what "this monster" is.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: You know, I didn't deal with CDOs in here and they play a huge part I don't really understand yet. I think I was too wrong to be of help, so I'm taking it down.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I think that's good, because I think it is complex. An article that explains the facts, but doesn't register an opinion? Whoddathunkit?
-Bok
Actually, I felt it did the opposite. However, I did manage to glean something not so different from what Mr. Squicky described, so maybe it wasn't all bad. But I only know that much because I watched the Nova episode about LTCM.
Basically, it sounded as though these were like life insurance policies, but on businesses instead of on people. The risk was pooled by grouping things that are more likely to die with things that are less likely to die.
In the past, a mortgage was considered something less likely to die because it is where someone lives, and normally, people default at relatively low rates.
The LTCM debacle involved real estate valuation in Asia as well. When will they ever learn? Why don't they see that if real estate is yielding profit at a higher than expected ratio, they have become unstable?
[edit: Well dang. I'm a humanities major so read my interpretations accordingly. I have no reputation in this area to blow.]
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan."
Horse puckeys. The same Clinton-supporting state Democratic party leaders who prevented fair contests in their primaries once again worked with their Republican allies to prevent a revote.
posted
Yeah, your Brooks quote is just not true. All of Florida's US House Representatives were against a revote, and that I think was the biggest factor in squashing it.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that we're trying to cut a couple billion from the state budget next year and the revote would have cost $10 to $12 million we don't have was the biggest factor, but I quibble.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks like Clinton's Camp is drawing a line in the sand with the nasty remarks and not apologizing. Carville calls Richardson "Judas" in commemoration of Easter. Something interesting about this is that I've actually heard of James Carville prior to this campaign. While this was techincally true of Ferraro as well, I think we are starting to get into the non-expendables.
I can't imagine he didn't say this for calculated shock value to deliberately draw an end to the media reign of terror. But how will this play with hispanics and Catholics? Will they really take it as a strike against Richardson, or will they recognize that Carville is invoking religion in a cheap political manipulation? I suppose it depends on whether they think Hillary is their messiah.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was stupid for Carville to say that--it only emphasizes Richardson's ties to the Clintons, and therefore magnifies his choice of Obama over Clinton.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"we're trying to cut a couple billion from the state budget next year and the revote would have cost $10 to $12 million we don't have was the biggest factor"
A new election would cost $1 per $45thousand dollars out of Michigan's state budget. Less than a drop in the bucket. Rather than reposting the same ol' thing, here is where the (non)issue is specificly addressed. And Michigan already has an election scheduled for May6th. Nearly the only extra cost would be printing up a separate ballot with the presidential candidates' names on them. A million-or-so dollars (ie ~$2 per $1million of the budget) at most because counting those ballots would use just a few extra hours of labor and electricity.
quote:In February alone, more than 94% of donors To Senator Obama's campaign gave in amounts of $200 or less. Meanwhile, campaign finance reports show that donations of $200 or less make up just 13% of Senator McCain's total campaign funds, and only 26% of Senator Clinton's.
posted
Carville wasn't speaking to voters. He was speaking to the superdelegates. He wanted to make sure that the superdelegates understood that the Democratic machine would regard that kind of defection as a betrayal.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Carville wasn't speaking to voters. He was speaking to the superdelegates. He wanted to make sure that the superdelegates understood that the Democratic machine would regard that kind of defection as a betrayal.
The inability of Clinton's team to understand how something they are saying will sound to normal people staggers me. I mean, that advisor to Obama at least wanted her monster remark off the record, and Wright's comments were 5 and 7 years in the past. Well, except the more recent ones about Clinton, but... yeah. He's just your old fashioned uncle, right? To be honest, I I'm a little blurry on Wright's comments.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay's links on the previous page contain much longer excerpts of the relevant sermons than the soundbites that were reported in most of the coverage.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out (Jesus) for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," [Carville] said.
Huh?
I'm sorry. No apology needed to Richardson in my opinion. That's one of the more hyperbolic, ridiculous comments I've heard in this race so far. It boggles my mind to think anyone would take that comment seriously.
Hillary is running for the President of the United States, not as mankind's savior.
Maybe an apology to Christians would be in order...
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another article on Asset Backed Securities. I realize the Weekly Standard is on the fringe, but it does attempt to explain them a bit.
quote: Why would a bank set up a separate vehicle where the parent bank is not even listed on the balance sheet as a primary beneficiary? One word: Greed.
It explains how these practices resulted in the detachment of the assets from what it was that had previously made them secure, and freed mortgage companies to relax underwriting standards, because the risk was no longer theirs.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
She's going to try and use it rather than letting it die. Of course, she does not point out the larger context of the sermons, nor is she saying anything about Obama's amazing speech. She's just going after Wright for his "hate speech". Words cannot describe at this point how much I hate Clinton and how much I want her to drop out.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never forgiven her for not running in 2004. I thought she had a chance to beat Bush but opted for what she perceived as more of a sure thing in 2008. I understand the political calculation but it points to her preoccupation with her personal success rather than a concern about what is good for the country.
Her actions in this election have only reinforced my evaluation. Anyone who wants power that badly shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo's link to that NYT article is exactly what I've been thinking for weeks now. She's done, she lost, sorry but it's over, and she's STILL going to do her absolute best to ruin Obama's chances at winning the presidency.
At what point does it become the responsibility of the party leaders to step in and smack her down? It's clear at this point that she is NOT going to win the nomination, and letting this go on is just going to hurt the party. Why wouldn't they step in, for their own sake, and smooth things out while there is still time? I think as much as it proves Clinton is totally unfit to be our national leader, it also proves how FECKLESSLY INEPT the leaders of the Democrat party are.
aspectre -
City clerks all across the state have protested the election, saying it would be an extreme strain, if not entirely impossible, to hold a new primary in under a month, which is what you suggest. They wrote a collective letter to Governor Granholm, and said that having one in June would also be nearly impossible so soon after the May election. It's just not going to happen, and I think most of the blame is falling right where it should: Howard Dean.
To think I volunteered in that idiot's campaign on 04.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the theory in letting her continue to run, as a general principle and not as to strategy for the election overall, would be if she had some position she wanted to demonstrate a mandate for in the convention. But her position is "Obama would make a great VP when he's not sickening me with his youth and his church attendance."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Write to your state superdelegates. Ask them to end this.
You think it's right to have the superdelegates "end this" now when there are hundreds of thousands of democrats left to vote in primaries and the Michigan and Florida issues haven't been settled one way or the other?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, primary elections are usually well over before millions of voters get a chance to vote so that doesn't strike me as outrageous. Second, the only way that Senator Clinton could win is if the superdelgates go against the majority of pledged delegates or the popular vote. To "end this" the superdelegates just need to make clear to the CLintons that they don't intend to do this.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You think it's right to have the superdelegates "end this" now when there are hundreds of thousands of democrats left to vote in primaries and the Michigan and Florida issues haven't been settled one way or the other?
Agreed. I don't like it, but she has every right to continue to run. I would be very against the party or any branch thereof trying to "smack her down" or "end this."
That's NOT how it works.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You think it's right to have the superdelegates "end this" now when there are hundreds of thousands of democrats left to vote in primaries and the Michigan and Florida issues haven't been settled one way or the other?
Agreed. I don't like it, but she has every right to continue to run. I would be very against the party or any branch thereof trying to "smack her down" or "end this."
That's NOT how it works.
Actually, that generally IS how it works. You mean to say that's not how it SHOULD work. Historically parties have not blushed at knocking people out of contention that they don't want, or in edging people out for the good of the party when they think more damage is being done than good. Sometimes they make it in despite the will of the party, generally due to overwhelming popular support from the people, but if the Democratic party were to do so to Clinton, it wouldn't nearly be unprecedented. It is the JOB of those party leaders to do so, for the good of the party in general. In fact, superdelegates were designed SPECIFICALLY for this instance.
Personally, I'm of mixed opinion on this. I'm not a Democrat but I want to see them win this time around. I think Clinton is going to lose no matter what happens. She's too far behind, and she'd need to win the remaining elections by margins she hasn't come close to thus far in the primary process. Polling data suggests she'd be lucky to win half the remaining states, let alone win them all by 20 points. She just isn't going to win, barring some major problem arising from Obama's camp.
Given that, the damage she is doing to his chances might outweigh her vanity exercise. Analytically I want to say pull the plug, but morally I want to say for the sake of democracy she has every right to continue, so I'm conflicted. But I DO think there is a point where the party leaders have to step in and do what is best for the party. It's what they are there for. Hopefully that will mean pressuring her to drop out, rather than stepping in to hand the election to Obama on a platter, but the longer this goes on, and the worse it gets, the more I think I'm going to support them doing just that. But we'll see.
posted
This is the first time my vote has ever counted in a primary so I am not too upset by the last states not counting.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually it kinda is. Usually it's over long before we even reach this point. And at this point the only way she wins is by a massive turn around, which is becoming less and less likely. Realistically she cannot win. And by staying in she's polarizing the party against itself and making it more and more clear that she doesn't want to be President to help the American people, she wants to be President so that Hilary Clinton will have been POTUS and the most powerful woman on the planet. Unless she drops out there are only two results now:
1) Obama wins, she fights till the end, further polarizing the party from what it already is and doing a great deal of damage to Obama before he goes up against McCain. The standard GOP attack machine doesn't even have to work right now -- they can let Clinton do all the work for them.
2) By some miracle she gets to the convention and the Super delegates over turn the populate vote, the pledged delegate vote and the fact that more states have voted Obama. That would rip the Democratic party apart. If that happens, I'm voting Green. I don't care of Nader is an ass, if that happens Clinton is not going to get my vote. Because at that point, Clinton would be no better than Bush -- playing politics, doing and saying anything to win.
There is a final possibility, but it is beyond unlikely, and that is she somehow manages to come from 700,000 votes down and wins the popular vote. Or somehow manages to come from 150 delegates down and wins the delegate count. That would take a turn around of such massive proportions as to be incredibly unlikely.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: Carville's "Judas" comment. It also emphasizes that that's how the Clintons -- and most traditional politicians -- work. They do you favors, you help them out when they want you to. The fact that Richardson didn't and actually went with his conscience is bewildering to them, I think.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with rivka and dag that the superdelegates shouldn't "knock her out." I do, however, think it would be highly appropriate for them to tell her that behavior that is this potentially damaging to the party is not endearing them to her cause.
eta: and the more negative she gets, the more I hope it doesn't work for her. Policies and positions aside, I would just really like to see negative campaigning be not rewarded in a public enough way to make later candidates think twice before they start slinging mud.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I do, however, think it would be highly appropriate for them to tell her that behavior that is this potentially damaging to the party is not endearing them to her cause.
Works for me. But I don't know that it would be effective.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't imagine that they haven't already been doing that for weeks to no avail.
She has enough support from the entrenched party faithful still that she's not likely to get much specific condemnation from the party elite for her actions. Despite what she might think is a media favoritism of Obama, she's been given a lot of favors by the Democratic party and the media that no other candidiate would have gotten without their last name being Clinton (or maybe Kennedy)
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Actually it kinda is. Usually it's over long before we even reach this point.
De facto, yes. But officially?
Would you describe this year's republican nomination race to be "officially" over or on "de facto" over. All the candidate but McCain have suspended their campaigns and McCain has won enough delegates to take the nomination. Of course it won't be officially over until the republican convention but that seems like hair splitting at this point.
I'm not sure how Super delegates ending the race prior to the final primaries by declaring their allegiances is worse than candidates ending the race prior to the final primaries by suspending their campaigns. It may be different in its fairness to the candidates but both deprive the voters in the late primary states of a voice in the decision.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no reason that the superdelegates can't all vote now. 251 of them have so far pledge their support one way or the other.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a final possibility, but it is beyond unlikely, and that is she somehow manages to come from 700,000 votes down and wins the popular vote.
This is what the right wing, or at least the neo-conservatives, are hoping for.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. It isn't officially over till the convention, but the superdelegates can at least try to make it clear that they won't be supporting Senator Clinton. Her only strategy for winning at this point is to make Senator Obama unelectable. Her positives are static - as many people who are likely to favor her already do. She can only win by dragging him down. Which, btw, also increases her negatives.
At this rate, she is going to make both of them unelectable and it is the function of the party leadership to try to prevent that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Her positives are static - as many people who are likely to favor her already do.
But she doesn't believe this, is the trouble. She thinks she can steal people from Obama, or more likely, get back people she sees it as Obama stealing from her.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a final possibility, but it is beyond unlikely, and that is she somehow manages to come from 700,000 votes down and wins the popular vote.
This is what the right wing, or at least the neo-conservatives, are hoping for.
Either that or Clinton's constant barrage will bring Obama down to the point where they'll be happy to run against either of them.
Personally I'm crossing my fingers and telling myself that Clinton's attacks on Obama are getting this stuff out of the way in March instead of October, which gives him plenty of time to put it behind him and to step up his game for the right wing attack machine that is sure to come, McCain or no McCain. But even so, I think Rush Limbaugh is right, and the only person Clinton is really helping right now is John McCain.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
She thinks that if she can make it to the convention and it turns into backroom knife fights, she has a distinct advantage and she will win. Then she offers Obama the VP. If he takes it, the party is healed. If he rejects it, she blames him for the mess.
Even with a crippled party, she figures she can handily defeat the old man.
She is right.
The fact that a whole generation of Americans may well turn away from politics altogether in the aftermath doesn't concern her. It just makes the machine easier to manage.
In that, she is a monster.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
