<br><br>well, yes, it is party politics and thus democracy as such plays no real role in it, eh? ;)<br><br>But I do wonder whether that will always result in the best candidates, whereby even that, in the end, may be debatable, because a mediocre candidate may turn out to be the better man/woman in a tight spot, and as long as a person is being elected, instead of a party, who knows?<br><br>I am missing a bit of current issues talk coming from the contenders, by the way.<br>How about Tibet, how about Basra?<br>Haven't heard any of the three make some statements about those issues.... or am I missing those parts of the news?<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

I've been puzzling myself about parties in the US a lot recently. In some states, like PA, only members of the party can vote in the party's primary. The implication of that, it seems to me, is that the party is a private club. In other states, any registered voter can vote in any party's primary--the voter picks which party's ballot to pick up. The implication of that is that the party is at least a quasi-public institution. I don't know which is the proper way of thinking of parties.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>How about Tibet, how about Basra?<p><hr></blockquote><p> right this minute they are too busy discussing the Reverend Wright.<br><br><br><br><br>

yeah, they intrigue me as well. on the one hand, they are nominating a person who will likely be competing with 1 other person for the highest office in the land. this process is where the positions for the party are tweaked and new directions are sought or avoided, etc. <br><br>but on the other hand, the "process" that we've been experiencing is not going to generate a winner so the party is actually going to be decided by party insiders. some of these insiders are elected officials and others are just party elders and party partisan and important people, etc. images of the smoke filled room come to light and that's far from democracy. but that's perfectly within the party's rights to do. it's all pretty odd to me and certainly not how i'd draw things up.<br><br>

<br>.... you know how I feel about religion. And you've not hidden where you stand. ;)<br><br>But I don't see the Rev Wright matter as a religious question, but one of political judgement.<br>Undoubtedly, going to that church was helpful when Obama needed local - south side- votes.<br>How he handles this matter now - to me - isn't about where he stands on the matters discussed by the Reverend (I would guess, as pragmatically as on anything else he believes his voters want to hear), but rather on how he deals with pressure and loyalty.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

When Sen. Obama joined the Trinity church, it was because he was organizing on Chicago's south side and needed to bring the church into what he was trying to accomplish. He began working as an organizer in '85, joined the church in '87 and didn't run for state office until '96.<br><br>Being a member of a church for 9 years is an awfully long time to be pulling off the ruse you're accusing him of.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U

<br>It would help, if all primaries were held the same way. A start, to level the playing field.<br>Also, a great deal can happen in the course of six months, and people who vote one way now, might have voted entirely differently in February.<br><br>As far as who can vote, party members should, in my opinion, carry more weight. After all, they support the party on an ongoing basis. Allowing only party members to elect the candidate (or have their votes mean more) would make it far more interesting, to join a party, and that might well mean that more people get involved at the grass roots level.<br><br>Anyway, an interesting system perhaps in need of some examination.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

You paint Obama as a politician who only tells his audience what they want to hear. The reason why some of us are so startled and approving of Obama is that he is clearly not telling the audience what they want to hear but what they need to hear, the truth. (See Obama in Nevada, Yucca Mtn, Obama in front of religious conservatives: gays are cool, Obama in front of etc. )<br><br>What the Reverend Wright is saying is that there is racism in America. This is a bit of a shock to quite a few it seems since we have been living on the fantasy of "everyone here is colorblind" since Reagan successfully ran on that platform.<br><br>So in one sense this dialogue we are having now serves a purpose. Unfortunately right now it is being led by the blithering idiots who are of the "how dare he call America racist" crowd. Maybe after further discussion we can get beyond that and Obama will not have to do this distancing from Wright that he is doing now. <br><br>But he is still a black man who is trying to get elected President of the United States. That he was able to pull that off without actually bringing race up until recently was an amazing thing. But, as Wright has pointed out, we are still a racist society. Better this is pointed out and discussed now instead of On October 31st. There might be no way to contain the fallout if the "OMG we are electing a black man as President!" and "Obama Seen Speaking to an Angry Black Man and Nodding!" stories so close to election.<br><br>What Obama is doing now is speaking in small words for the people too stupid to be able to concentrate through an entire 38 minute speech.<br><br><br><br><br>

<br><br>... yes, I am rather suspicious when it comes to speeches and the likes ..... if a German isn't, he hasn't been paying attention. ;)<br>But you are right in that he is in fact addressing issues which far too long have been swept under the carpet. That dialogue alone is a positive. And quite amazing, considering how impossible is has been to even bring up the topic. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

don't forget what he told the automakers in Detriot and what he told Wall Street while visiting there.<br><br>