John, I see what you're saying and agree that racial issues are still treated as an elephant in the room, if you will. However, I think that Bob is right in wondering how you made the connection in Erikka's post to one of race? Unless I misread, I really thought it was about how Clinton reached out to the younger voters - of all colors. Sure, we can argue that it was all phony-baloney but in the end, the gist of the initial blog post was about that. Your commentary should've (well, to me at least) focused on his ability (or not) to reach the younger voters and how Obama may or may not be on the same path. Erikka's post was not about race. It was about age/generation and popular identity. However, your comments made it about race. I like to think that Clinton ate at McDonald's to appeal to the lower economic classes (of which a significant percentage are white) not because he wanted to connect with po'black folk. But maybe I'm wrong. To push the point a bit further, your binary thinking shows that you have an innate belief that race is about black and white. Studies of race show that there is quite a large gray area (pardon the pun). What about Latinos? Don't we count? Was Bill ignoring us? No, no, no...you are a smart man. Please don't perpetuate the idea of the colored person as an ignorant savage, incapable of forming a coherent thought or of identifying condescending statements. We [people of color] are pretty intuitive and can pick up on intent. In the case of Clinton's intent - I don't know and I think it's irrelevant to this conversation. In the case of the original post, it wasn't about race. In the case of the current candidates - absolutely race is playing a part but again, that's not what this post was about.

I guess it's a good thing no one's snapped a pic of Barack eating fried chicken, huh?

I understand your feelings and agree and disagree with Nonimus.

We all want to feel like we've got something worthwhile to contribute and if I understand you correctly, it wasn't so much about how YOU feel but about his team being able to recognize your special skills and their apparent conscious decision to NOT use them (vs. Hillary's flattery.)

Perhaps, this is where her 16 year head start (as the recent LA Times article points out) comes in handy.

um...i feel your passion - i really do. however, i don't think that's the answer.

throwing undeveloped ideas into the pot just for the sake of participating is valid up to a point. your energy is great though!

i just don't think killing anyone or anything is the answer. let's be realistic here...

why don't you read some of the posts on our War On Greed site and after you've mulled that over a bit, let me know what your thoughts are. This could lead to a great discussion!

Thank you, zoey.

You are right. Unfortunately, policies like nafta are often packaged in such a way as to get people to think that there is some modicum of hope for a better future if only people let big business in to do their thing.

Waves of immigration show that these policies are just not working.

wait...we still have racism in america???

Huh...looks like the gipper was quite the judge of character...

This clip is nothing short of ridiculous. Where is common sense?? What in the world? I don't even want to justify this idiotic discussion with any type of analysis. In the end, it's just sad that this comes on TV and actually provokes (or manipulates - take your pick) discussion about someone's style of reaching out to children who were sitting in front of a TV for hours at time, often at a baby sitter's, because the parents had to work long hours in order to pay the bills. Jon, what does Fox have to say about the Catholic Priests who toyed with the psychological well-being of hundreds of young children of that same generation?

Let the poor man rest in peace, for God's sake.

I agree with Tim. Theoretically, your plan is sound however, we must remember why and how we ended up in this mess in the first place. I guess this is where we get to experience the difference between theory and practice.

In reference to gays in the military, when I was in the Navy, my roommate was gay, and so was her girlfriend.

He should have added a few chrysanthemum's to the scenery to round out the sexual imagery and innuendo.

Like, o mi gawd...i love the way g.w. was questioning the "percussions" of the war!

Ya-ya...I understand what this is really about but perhaps, might there be other topics a tad more important to discuss in Congress? I guess my fear is that we'll be able to use our iPhones with any carrier WAAAAY before we have universal healthcare, some solution to end the war, or have ninkumpoops taken out of office.

It seems to me, that often people ride the momentum of a movement and feel that there is no need to do something because lots of progress has already been made. What we forget though, is that progress was made BECAUSE people didn't sit back and just let things happen. While karol's observation of unions appears to be the predominant thought, the reason we're in this mess now is because unions can no longer unequivocally provide the benefits or rights we're accustomed to getting from them because they spend the majority of their time fighting the large corporations about so many other issues that honestly, should just go uncontested but unfortunately, don't.