One more thing. One of the reasons that Latino marketers like casting MOS roles (no speaking) in Los Angeles is because "you can cast Italian looking people" to play the roles of Latinos and it's easier to fill the needed roles. They do not even insist that all the people pretending to be Latino are Latino. This is endemic.

I couldn't agree with you more. I also must point out that much of the blame for Latino sterotypes that are perpetuated on television must be also ascribed to the Latino owned Advertising and Marketing industry.

Most children's first impressions of a culture unfortunately come from television these days and commercials, ads, etc. The image sought after by Latino Ad Agencies and Corporate brand managers who are Latino are almost universally what they distustingly call "Pan Latino" This is used in casting specs for commercials, marketing guidelines, etc. They do not want to cast anyone who looks indigenous, they want to cast "predominatly white looking" actors. They will actually say on conference calls when reviewing casting; "too Latino looking". And these are all Latinos saying this.

They rationalize it all by saying that it's an "aspirational" message. I say to deny and try to massage one's culture and appearance into something that it is not, is a big part of the overall problem here.

Obviously education is your issue here; there is no arguing that improvements need to be made to our public education system. The problem is basically a matter of priorities and either Democartic candidate if they have a participatory and like-minded Congress will start to effect such change. Education is an entire and complex issue unto itself.

The fact still remains that millions and millions of motivated Americans attend public schools and universities and do very well. If you have parents that emphasize education and reading and you are motivated to do so, there are no significant obstacles that stand in one's way of getting an education. One can go to community college, get good grades and get into a good university after two years.

Gee Gilliam I can't post? Oh no! I am devastated and so distraught! How many times have I posted on this site lately Gilliam? No more than a couple of times in months after being one of the most prolific bloggers here and do you know why? Because I had zero interest in doing so since you instituted what in my opinion was a policy of censorship, changing writers headlines, and having one's words re-written when they didn't subcribe to what in my opinion was a narrow, elitist, patronizing point of view that is the polar opposite of what progressive thought should be. I wonder why so many talented writers and bloggers have deserted this site; why there is such a turnover, why most of what's posted are pick-ups from other sites. Gee that's a tough one, let me ponder that and I'll see if I can figure it out.

Oh by the way IP Sherlock. You might want to think more carefully about what you accuse people of. 100% for sure? Those were my fingers typing? You positive? You saw me? People share computers in a household and surprise, others share my politics.

I'm done penance as a voodoo doll before so sycophants, feel free to flail away with your poison pins. I will wear them like a badge of honor.

LOL I have been called worse believe me. Peace, love and bell bottoms.

Someone saying my name in vain?

Correction Jim. John McCain is not a great man. He is a war monger and the polar opposite of what I would call a patriot.

You are comparing Vietnam to The Revolutionary War and WWII? I would rethink that if I were you; there is no moral equivalency whatsoever. There are moral wars of dire necessity and immoral wars of choice and Vietnam was the latter.

The women and children who were living on the ground in Hanoi were not firing AK-47's as we carpet bombed them. Those who were were fighting for their country to repel invaders they never attacked. That would be us!

We don't torture people based on skin color and ethnicity? How many blonde, blue-eyed white persons have we tortured lately? Or ever for that matter? Every single innocent person we have rendered and tortured lately has been of Arab. heritage.

I can understand why McCain is up double digits against either Obama or Clinton in more than a few polls. It's in large part due to the naive, possibly suicidal, Democratic mud slinging that the American voter has been observing for months now. I said this as far back as a year ago and now, almost every single Democratic party leader and elected official is saying the same thing.

As an Obama supporter I take no pleasure in believing Barack's legions are more to blame. Not for the actions of the campaigns, but for their reaction to them. Hatred and demonization of Hillary is absurd; Obama has the nomination wrapped up and no one is served by extreme public Hillary and Bill bashing except John McCain.

This is why Democrats lose. To think that a GOP candidate is competitive at all, given Iraq, the economy and so many other egregious actions on the part of this the worst administration in history is ludicrous.

Well, now that you have revealed yourself as an anti-semite . . "but should have known by your name you couldn't think past your wallet" . . . "That is because of your genetic makeup",. . . thia is the last response you will get from me. Good luck turning your life around.

Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright is fiery. If you watch his sermons that is a rational conclusion, not a code word. Nor is fiery pejorative. Ted Kennedy is fiery, Howard Dean is fiery, etc. To say that right-wing pundits and talk radio trash like Hannity and Limbaugh and others of that ilk are racist and use certain language to demean minorities is absolutely valid and true. To say the New York Times uses code words to nullify what a minority person might say is not true, not fair and not borne out by the facts. To suggest they do so institutionally, a bastion of intellect and generally progressive thought and journalism is also not borne out by the facts. Perhaps Jodi Kantor erred, perhaps her editor didn't do their job as well as some would have liked. That's a valid point to make.

What is not valid is for Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright to say the New York Times has no integrity and that they are George Bush and the Republican party's national blog. Worse yet, is for the Reverend to make the statement that Barack Obama might be "this nation's first honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office". Sorry Al Gore, John Kennedy, George McGovern, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Honest Abe Lincoln, . . . looks like you just don't rate anymore.

The New York Times, moderate Democrats, etc., anyone who doesn't fit a certain perfect, narrowly defined uber-progressive mold. Attack them, destroy them, villify them, hate them and most importantly make sure millions of Democrats are so disillusioned they won't go to the polls in November. John McCain thanks you.

You wait long enough and the truth comes out, nothing really to say to all that. But I'm sorry to hear the county clerk is harassing you. Funny isn't it . . . I have lived my entire life with not one single government official harassing me unless I was doing something to provoke it. Go figure.

Please. They never endorsed McCain, now you are doing exactly what you accuse the Clinton's of doing, engaging in hyperbole. Obama has made a calculating political decision to have a certain personna in this campaign, he wants power just as much as the Clinton's do.

All you are doing here is proving my point, Obama is good, Clinton is bad and you are motivated by whatever misguided reason to loudly and vocally scream that to the world along with many others. What you do is harmful and destructive to the chances of any Democrat winning this November. Just like Ralph Nader and his supporters back then . . . you accuse Clinton of not stopping for the good of the party and the country. Why don't you and others like you do the same. It's what Bill Richardson said yesterday; it's what many prominent Democrats are saying every day.

Your hatred should be directed at McCain not Hillary and Bill Clinton, two liberal stalwarts of the Democratic party who were immensely popular before Obama came on the scene and for good reason. They are not Joe Lieberman.

Obama will win the nomination; there is NOTHING to be served by Hillary hatred.

No you didn't repeat yourself but you did say something that isn't true. The Clinton's never endorsed John McCain.

Oh, the Obama campaign takes the highroad you say? You mean like today when a major Obama supporter said this,

"Bill Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress."

You just don't get it do you, you keep saying the same thing over and over again. Obama good, Clinton bad. I get it already and McCain is beating Obama in latest Rassmussen poll handily. Happy?

Name one politician ever who thought they had a chance to win at this late date and bowed out for the good of the country. It's a competition, that's our sytem and Clinton thinks she would be a better president. I wanted her to drop out months ago, but that is not her desire. That really has nothing to do with Hillary bashing though does it. What's wrong with ignoring her and Bill's comments and going into the voting booth and doing your thing? What's wrong with that? Isn't Obama supposed to be taking the high-road? Is comparing Bill Clinton to Joseph McCarthy taking the high road? Bill Clinton???

Comments made in the past were to the worst right-wing trolls and I have since ceased to engage them and my comment on the racing form was a joke to bring a bit of levity to a serious conversation and wouldn't imagine it would be taken any other way. I think you know that.

I have no desire to end anything. I don't apologize for being frustrated at what I consider political suicide on the part of some well-meaning democrats. You see, it's my life too and I think a McCain presidency is a concept beyond comprehension and I firmly believe that democrats who engage in this kind of rhetorical Hillary hating crap are contributing to a greater possibility of McCain winning. It's the same to me conceptually as Nader's campaign way back when. Think you have some moral highground when it's just meaningless hyperbole that leads to defeat.

I don't care what Hillary or Bill has done or said. Obama is going to be the nominee. Period. All we do when we engage in smearing her is perpetuate the bad blood and insure disillusioned Hillary supporters come this summer. And yes, there are many millions of good democrats who love Hillary and Obama needs them all to have a chance of winning.

That's how I feel and it's not just me. Bill Richardson said the exact same thing on Hardball today.

As usual when defeated on the playing ground of ideas, some resort to ad hominem attacks on people's intellect.

Race not an issue in the United States? Surely you are kidding. Colour blind? That is perhaps as preposterous a theorem as I have ever heard. Now you blame the media, CNN, for reporting the reality that Obama is winning 90% of the African-American vote?

And what do you mean a war that "even I" am against? My friend, you have no idea what my politics really are. For your information, I wish this was a Socialist country; the fact that it never will be and that being pragmatic might just actually improve people's lives significantly is something you "idealists" should ponder just a little more. If you truly care about people's lives that is.

His country Serbia tried to ethnic cleans the Balkans. You call Clinton a traitor? I take it you are a Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh supporter then.