Pangloss

I thought this was a strong example of Obama's ability to act as a strong and positive role model for black men (in the Bill Cosby mold). We've all heard the awful statistics of black families in the US, how most black children grow up to single working parents and how they're usually missing father figures. I think it's possibly one of the most serious problems facing my country at the moment, and I'm glad to see him stepping up on this issue. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080615/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=A0WTcW.r.1VIzvYANwxI2ocA A common political view is that it's a move to try and deflect accusations of extreme liberalness, and that may have some truth to it, but I think it may very well be his honest opinion, which I think bodes well for the future. What do you all think?

The great thing about ActionScript 3.0 is that it is basically just a strongly typed version of JavaScript, so if you're familiar with that language you can convert very easily, you just have to learn the various method calls for pushing objects around the stage. Flash CS3 has a fairly decent IDE (maybe two generations back from current IDE standards), and debugs pretty well. Sounds like Mooey has a good project here for someone to use as a learning tool. I sense a good opportunity here!

Well tomorrow the gay marriage issue comes to the fore again, with California beginning to marry gay men and women. Interestingly, the marriages may not ultimately count if the Californian people pass the constitutional amendment in November banning them. Polls have consistently shown Californians to be opposed to gay marriage. It's unclear whether that law would nullify people already married, though. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/15/MNQC118UG3.DTL&tsp=1 Both presidential candidates are opposed to gay marriage. For McCain that's obvious, but with Obama it's a bit thinner line to straddle. But ultimately this is, like video game censorship, one of those areas where Democrats find there to be sufficient room to straddle the line in order to gain "crossover" appeal in the red states. That's because many Democrats who are part of religious minorities (blacks and hispanics) are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, and that robs the liberal base of some of his power in this area. Which, of course, is another reason why Democrats like to focus on the Economy.

I'm actually in Washington at the moment, and more or less away from the boards, but I just popped in because of this story. Everyone here's been talking about it all day. I picked quite an eventful week to come here; I was in the House of Representatives on Monday when Kucinich was reading in his impeachment bill, and then I was in the Supreme Court when the decision on Guantanamo Bay came in. Then just to cap off the Irony Troika I was in the Newseum today when the word on Russert came in. Bizarre, eh? Anyway, it's awful about Russert, and my first reaction was that the election this fall just won't be the same without him. (I'll be back on the boards around Monday or Tuesday. See you guys then.)

(races to beat iNow to the punch) Al Gore!!!!!!!

Well, I'll give you credit for spreading the blame between Democrats and Republicans, and for coming back to share responsibility amongst nations. I have a problem with people saying that we're "the leader of the pack", but then criticizing us when we do "lead the pack". I think your selections show a bias based on a predetermined goal (criticizing the US), I think you're justifying that criticism through the use of 20/20 hindsight about issues that were not at all clear at the time, and I think you are placing ideological goals ahead of what's actually the best course of action in specific situations. But I say that not to be insulting, but just to tell you what my reaction is to what you're saying. In fact I respect your opinion a lot more having had this discussion, and I certainly understand you a lot better now. Why don't more members STAND UP for what they believe in? I give you huge credit for that, and I'll bet ParanoiA will agree with me there.

NBC's Chuck Todd said on Meet the Press today that another "secret meeting" needs to take place -- between Obama and Bill Clinton. It's an interesting point because I think we've gotten so wrapped up in the Hillary-Obama relationship that we sometimes forget that the nation's most recent Democratic president is completely at odds with the Democratic candidate for the president right now. Bill feels that he's been called a racist by the Obama campaign, and the Obama campaign feels it was attacked pretty viciously as well. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out over the summer.

Ran across this while doing some research. It's a Wiki at York University that summarizes research topics in Information Systems/Science. It's a pretty good germ of an idea because it's a bit of a step up from the Wikipedia for people actually pursuing research in these areas, serving as a more useful starting point because of all the citations. http://www.fsc.yorku.ca/york/istheory/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

You know, say what you want, but don't think for a moment that what you're doing in this thread rests on any higher moral ground that "nationalistic chest beating". I think that's very much what you're doing when you downplay specific contributions that aren't even relevent to your argument. But fine, if that's your claim, so be it. Oh no, you don't get to dodge responsibility for that. The rest of the world is as responsible for us being "the world's policemen" as we are. You yourself chastised the US earlier in this thread for "not taking action" in Rwanda -- never mind the fact that nobody else was taking action either, wouldn't support American action, and would have accused us of acting against the world's interests if we had. Not only is the popular anti-American notion of our responsibilities abroad ass-backwards, it's also revisionist and hypocritical. Though for what it's worth, I mainly agree with your points about Iraq and the UN above, and disagree with ParanoiA in that regard (though I respect his opinion on it). Whew, that's good to know! Thank god! (breathes a sigh of relief)

If Hillary is now permanently out of the running due to her age (not at all certain, I readily admit, but a good possibiltiy), it might be interesting to speculate about what other women could possibly become the first female POTUS. Here are some of the more prominent female figures in the Democratic Party along with their current ages: Nancy Pelosi (68) Barbara Boxer (67) Dianne Feinstein (74) Blanche Lincoln (Sen. from Arkansas) (47) Claire McCaskill (Sen. from Missouri) (54) Less well known: Patty Murray (Sen. from Washington) (57) Maria Cantwell (Sen. from Washington) (49) Debbie Stabenow (Sen. from Michigan) (58) Amy Klobuchar (Sen. from Minnesota) (48) Mary Landrieu (Sen. from Louisiana) (52) Analysis: It seems fairly clear that Feinstein, Pelosi and Boxer will not be running for president. Blanche Lincoln is thought to be on the short list for Obama VP, but if he picks a woman then Clinton seems more likely. She could run in 2012, though, especially with a little help from the White House. Similarly, McCaskill has received a lot of press due to her heavy committee activities, though she is still a freshman. Mary Landrieu might be the most intriguing candidate. She made a name for herself following Katrina, has a lot of seniority, and has a strong track record with moderates (part of the Gang of 14, and a member of the centrist NDC). It would be interesting to see her run. I don't know much about Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell or Debbie Stabenow. I've never even HEARD of Amy Klobuchar. And from the Republican Party: Elizabeth Dole (71) Kay Bailey Hutchison (64) Olympia Snowe (61) Lisa Murkowski (Sen. from Alaska) (51) Susan Collins (Sen. from Maine) (55) Dole and Hutchison are probably too old. I could see Snowe running against incumbent Obama in 2012, but doesn't seem like a serious contender in spite of her solid track record. Lisa Murkowski could be interesting, but will have a tough time making a national name for herself if congress stays Democratically-controlled. And unfortunately the governorship of Alaska seems unlikely (see below). Susan Collins has made a name for herself as a centrist, and might make an interesting national candidate. Other names to watch would have to include Sarah Palin, the new governor of Alaska, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Representative from Florida who chaired Hillary's election committee. What do you all think?

Well a quick check of the Wikipedia says Thatcher became PM at age 54, and left at 65. Hillary is currently 60. Of course, modern medicine has changed a great deal since 1990, and changes a great deal more every year.

Jay Leno joked last night that putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket would deliver the "woman vote", while her husband Bill would deliver the "other woman" vote. Joking aside, that is a big factor in Hillary's potenial as VP candidate. The numbers really show a lot of support amongst women, many of whom feel let down by the loss. But I'm still not convinced this is a determining factor, nor as significant an impact as Bill Richardson might have on latino voters. Still, it's a valid point.

Sure you did, you made an overall generalization about American foreign policy and you said that your examples proved it. No goalposts have been shifted. Proof:

No, dual-booting won't slow your computer down, at least not in my experience. There's nothing actually running in the background or anything like that -- you either boot one OS or the other one.

I don't buy the "most liberal voting record in the senate" statistic. He's only been in the senate since early 2005, which is simply not enough time for that kind of statistic to have meaningful value, and it's a little too obviously a talking point for the right. I want specifics, not talking points. Great idea for a thread.

So basically we've been doing everything wrong since the Johnson administration. I see. Going back to that same point in time, it's funny how you leave out the positives. Helping bring down the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall, funding the UN, leadership in international charitable organization, market economics, world hunger and disease, etc etc etc. The problem with partisanship is that it makes you focus on the negatives and ignore the positives. That's the entire POINT of partisanship. The forest is irrelevent, it's only the trees that matter.

She would be 68 years old at the end of an 8-year Obama or McCain run. Almost as old as McCain is now.

Oh. Did this "Australia" get a full seating of its delegates, or only half?

What they really needed was 67 votes, since they would have had to override a veto. (And then of course a similar majority in the House.) But it was still progress. This is really the first time such a bill has been seriously debated and voted on since the scientific community reached a unilateral consensus on global warming. With both presidential candidates supporting the concept, and Dems likely to increase their majority this fall, it's obviously going to come up in the 111th Congress, and with a quite good chance of passing. Also, another year will give people time to adjust to the new energy reality, get out of their broken mortages (so they can move closer to work), and swap out their SUVs for better gas-mileage cars. That may sound like a big thing to happen in a small amount of time and for little gain (congress doesn't HAVE to listen to its constituents), but when people begin to realize that something like this can actually IMPROVE the energy-economic dynamic then congress will likely feel that vibe and act accordingly.

Well put, ParanoiA.

It's right between Germany and New Zealand, right?

I believe Obama will pick his VP before McCain does. He's under more pressure. (There's another prediction for you.)

Yes, that's it exactly. Also this is an interesting example of something that I think that one of the interesting outcomes of the Obama-Clinton battle. It's demonstrated to people of left-side persuasion that that stuff you just mentioned, that refusal to admit mistakes, that stubbornness, etc, those things aren't "Bush things", they're actually endemic to modern American politics. We need a president with a strong will and a firm commitment to recognize that these things, however necessary they may feel, however driven they are by opposing forces, are wrong and need to be actively engaged in battle. IMO we need that far more than we need a president who will fight for any specific political issue. That's why I'm already leaning towards crossing my normal right-of-center inclination and voting for Obama. He's the only candidate who's shown any sign of recognizing this problem and doing something about it. For what it's worth, the odd thing is he has historically been a really great speaker, just not over the last year or so. I've got a couple of really great speeches from him saved on my hard drive, which is more than I can say for most politicians. I don't understand it, it's like he's run out of gas or something. Perhaps we can find an ironic clue to the reason in one of McCain's own speeches (and one of his best, IMO), which was delivered only two years ago: ----------------------- Yes, he can't pick her right away, but no, he can't wait that long either, or pressure will build up. That was the assessment of ABC's George Stephanopoulos on World News last night, for what it's worth.

Yup, thanks for passing it along. I hadn't heard it elsewhere. I will say that it was interesting seeing how badly this race put the Clintons at odds with their own party. That was a really unexpected twist in this campaign cycle, something nobody ever predicted. So I can see why some might see in that the possibility of an independent run. By the way, I'm still predicting Bill Richards as VP nominee. It's the smartest play for victory in the fall, and it's also a good choice for after the victory. He's subservient, he's latino, and he's experienced. One thing to watch for will be how long it takes Obama to decide. The longer it draws out, the greater the pressure will be to bring Hillary on board.

Oh dear. It's the Ron Brown conspiracies all over again. (That was one of the uglier right-wing anti-Clinton bits that flew around in the late '90s.) I really hope that sort of thing doesn't come up this fall. I guess it will, though.