onegoodmove

"One in eight biology teachers still teach creationism"

But you should remember that number is worse that it might seem otherwise, because these '1 in 8' aren't randomly distributed geographically: it's not as though many of them will be in New York or California, for example. Consequently if you look at particular states (I dunno; Utah, Texas, Florida, Alabama?) you'll find the number might creep as high as e.g. 3 in 8. This perpetuates the political importance of the scientifically illiterate.

Geology was the Closest I came to a creationist science teacher, called biology (due to evolution) "malarky". Luckily, he only had to talk about it during fossils, and the rest of the year was spent polishing rocks.

I had one science teacher in Jr. High that told anybody who had a problem with the teaching of evolution to leave the classroom, because she wasn't going to deal with upset parents, amazingly (in mormon heavy utah), nobody left.

Then, the only other time religion and science came close was when my AP Bio teacher started talking about what aspects of H20 had to exist for life to exist (cohesion, ice being lighter than liquid, etc). She never explicitly said "god", but the subtext was written pretty clearly.

The Ferraro statement is very concerning, as she legitimizes the feelings of many older white women, who fear the change an Obama presidency may bring more than they despise the Republican policies of the past 8 (or 30) years.

It's a sad statement on her part, but it's also representative of the hurt feelings and the vindictive nature of a sizable segment of the Democratic Party base. It represents the politics of identification over the politics of unification. Winning and losing versus caring and changing.

Wow such a collection of interesting posts, the mouse, and the penis helicopter....… The best.

Now re Ferraro, I am so upset and disappointed in her, and to be honest Clinton. To quote Jon Stewart, how is this helping? Sure there is sexism in American, sure it is (much, much) more overtly accepted than racism, but it is the democrats fault? It is Obama's fault? If Hillary wants to do something, why has she not given an inspiring speech about gender in America, how things have improved but still exist. (Sort of like Obama's speech on race), no we have to fuel a bunch of supporters NOT to vote for the democrat? How is this helping, how??? On the same line how is it helping to accuse Bill and Hillary of being racist?

Hillary needs to also talk about how the world and America have changed, how they are finally willing to vote for a women for president. I am just so appalled by this, accusing every one of sexism is clearly the wrong move. How about some inspiration Ms Clinton, make me proud, stop complaining but inspire me.

Clinton is behind because her campaign really screwed up badly, the war vote, and the family dynasty issue. That and the amazing Obama speech making skills. She is not behind due to media manipulation or sexism. I like her, I would vote for her, but boy am I disappointed.

Lieberman has been a pariah of the Democratic party ever since he lost the state primary. And Ferraro, who in her prime was a serious political figure, is an aging clown with a penchant for detracting from the accomplishments of black political figures (on Fox news, no less).

There are whack job conservatives who won't support McCain. Here's Delay (see 6:06):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji9E60e8os8

And I'm sure you all know about Ann Coulter's view of McCain.

I think Democrats should worry about Lieberman and Ferraro less than Republicans should worry about Ann Coulter.

Geraldine Ferraro is such a loser as to be an official commentator on FOX News. Even the Clinton campaign does not support her wacko views and comments.

NEW YORK -- Fox News Channel has signed former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro (D-N.Y.) to exclusive deals to act as political contributors to the network, officials said last week

"The Democrats' mistake was to sit back and think nobody would believe this garbage. But some of it stuck and the harm was done. This time we'll be out there fighting back," insisted Miss Ferraro, a feisty New York native who is a regular commentator on Fox News, the conservative television network.

[Fox News Contributor Geraldine Ferraro: The "Luck" and Privilege of Being a Black Man

Do note that Ferraro takes PRIDE in being a Fox News contributor.]( http://sociologistsforobama.blogspot.com/2008/03/fox-news-contributor-geraldine-ferraro.html)

Check out this interview on the Today show featuring Rachel Maddow and Geraldine Ferraro.

Ferraro comes across as being a bit nuts. And Ferraro brings up some legitimate sexism re certain people, but she's way off base in bringing up sexism re Obama.

Also, Rachel Maddow is way more intelligent and rational, and fun loving, than the angry irrational Geraldine Ferraro.

And Ferraro brings up Michelle Obama's comments to support her notion that Obama is sexist... wow...

And Ferraro brings up the "Annie Oakley" comment, which Obama used not to be sexist, but to point out that the Welsley elite, Hillary Clinton, attempted to portray herself as a good ole gal.

I am shocked that Hillary Clinton, of all people, now represents the white, hard working, white white, hard working people of the Appalachians?

Did this mean that Obama represents the non-white lazy people?

In fact, Obama's base are the liberal, educated Democratic base, and young voters who represent the future of our country. And the young voters are sick and tired of the politics of war and fear.

Barack Obama may have an 'appalachian problem', but Hillary Clinton has a problem with the liberal base and the Blacks.

I believe that Obama and Hillary should join hands for the so-called "dream ticket". Obama has the liberal, educated base of the Democrats and Hillary has the more conservative "hard-working whites"

Also, Hillary has the older white-woman vote.

Wonkette nails it

. Here is Hillary Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro on the Today Show talking about her hilarious misinterpretation of that time Barack Obama referenced a Jay-Z song. She also suggests a few racist slurs people might have hurled at Obama but did not, because racism is not Allowed the way sexism is. The most sexist thing is how fellow guest Rachel Maddow, a woman, is not allowed to speak throughout this entire interview.

How Obama fares in rural America may, in the end, have to do with whether he shows up. In politics not showing up and losing are kissing cousins. Obama made three visits to West Virginia. In Kentucky, he limited himself to appearances in the state's two biggest cities, Louisville and Lexington. He didn't come to my part of the state, or try to make any friends in rural areas.

This is surely correct. There is also a trend in Obama's polling that suggests that the more exposure he gets, the better people like him. The problem is that the analysis that leads up to the remark above, for the most part, seems to be uninterested in the empirical facts, and to have buried it's head in the sand. Particularly disingenuous is the absurd speculation that perhaps the candidate's policies had something to do with Obama's loss--the differences between Clinton and Obama on most policy issues is evanescent, but nevermind because--all the facts we have on the issue suggest otherwise. See here.

About one in five whites said race played a role in choosing a candidate Tuesday — on par with results in several other Southern states. Nine in 10 of that group backed Clinton — the highest proportion yet among the 28 states where that question has been asked in exit polls.

Only three in 10 whites who said race was a factor said they would vote for Obama should he oppose McCain in November. Nearly four in 10 said they would back McCain, while the rest said they wouldn't vote.

So of the full one fifth of voters who said race was a factor, 90% broke for Clinton.

For a breakdown by recent states on these issues, see here.

If Obama wins a few other big swing states the pitiful number of electoral votes he loses among small states like KY won't matter. Still, I think he needs to campaign harder in those areas.

I believe that Obama and Hillary should join hands for the so-called "dream ticket". Obama has the liberal, educated base of the Democrats and Hillary has the more conservative "hard-working whites"

Joann, I think most of the stuff you said is spot on. I wondered about this bit. As I've mentioned before, I have no problem in principle with the 'so-called' dream ticket. But I don't see how it would help--Clinton alienates far more people that she brings along, in my view, including some of the disillusioned conservatives who have broken for Obama. (I also think it possible that Clinton would try from the VP office to undermine a lot of the things Obama wants to do, since it is transparent that she is more interested in seeking her own advancement than anything else). I think Jim Webb or Kathleen Sebelius would be much, less divisive choices who might help Obama a great deal in battleground states.

Anyway, that's not intended to be a 'knock-down' argument, just more or less a statement of mild misgiving intended to elicit a fuller statement of your own view.

Hi Adam,

I noticed that I put "dream ticket" in quotes, and you put "so-called" in quotes. That says a lot, no?

alienates far more people that she brings along,

Well, Obama also alienates a lot of people because of Jeremiah Wright and the clings-to-stuff issue.

also think it possible that Clinton would try from the VP office to undermine a lot of the things

Without Hillary Clinton, there will be nothing to undermine. Obama wins with only with the help of Hillary. Hillary wins only with the help of Obama. The two of them will just have to learn to get along.

Anyway, that's not intended to be a 'knock-down' argument, just more or less a statement of mild misgiving intended to elicit a fuller statement of your own view.

Not to worry. I respect what you say.

So of the full one fifth of voters who said race was a factor, 90% broke for Clinton.

Race and gender are two powerful forces in this election. I wonder what this poll would reveal about how many voters said that gender was a factor? I have not seen such a poll. Why do the polls question race and not gender as a factor in the way that we vote?

Hi Joann,

I noticed that I put "dream ticket" in quotes, and you put "so-called" in quotes. That says a lot, no?

Yeah, that was a typo. I meant to follow you and put "dream ticket" in scare quotes. :-)

Well, Obama also alienates a lot of people because of Jeremiah Wright and the clings-to-stuff issue.

Would he get most of those votes anyway? I very much doubt it.

Race and gender are two powerful forces in this election. I wonder what this poll would reveal about how many voters said that gender was a factor? I have not seen such a poll. Why do the polls question race and not gender as a factor in the way that we vote?

Agreed. Most definitely. But I think the gender issue has far less of an impact at the poll for the simply reason that, if the break down by gender in registered voters follows gender distribution by population generally, 51% of voters are guarenteed to be women--and even if there's not an exact correlation between population distribution and the registered voter population, it's probably close enough. (It is not the case that 51% of voters are guarenteed to be black). To take an extreme case that is belied by actual fact (about which more in a moment) for the sake of illustration, if all males vote on gender against a women candidate, and all women for her on the same basis, that candidate would probably still win.

At any rate, some facts. 67% of women who voted on gender voted for Clinton. More surprisingly, 64% of men who voted on gender also voted for Clinton.

See here

The sexism issue is a red-herring as a voting issue--it is only at the level of cultural representation and identity politics that it has an impact. I think the latter issue has been pretty muted in impact, frankly, precisely because Clinton has unquestionably been a tremendously strong female candidate.

Would he get most of those votes anyway? I very much doubt it.

Actually, I had one little bit to say on this to meet you half way. I do not think onus of victory in this election will be in the main determined merely by so-called 'swing voters'.

Both Obama and McCain are confronting divided parties, albeit for very different reasons. McCain is between a rock and hardplace: his main appeal is to independents and that is incompatible, in broad terms, with courting the base. By courting the base, he alienate independents and vice versa. (Hence his inconsistency on issues such as whether we'll stay in Iraq for a long time or whether we'll be out by 2013, miraculously, through "victory," whatever that means).

Obama needs to win over Clinton's supporters. I think he should simply ignore the more rabidly ignorant and fanatical ones because that is a hopeless, thankless task. If people are voting against him because he's black, then it does not matter that most of his policy proposals are fractionally different than Clintons, and there is no saving word he can magically utter that's going to convince them.

How many voted on race against Obama in KY? There were roughly 669,000 votes cast in the primary (officially 668,902 = Clinton [459,124] + Barack [209,778] -- but let's keep the math simple). One in 5 voted on race (133,800 votes), 90% of those voted against Barack: 120,420. (Granted, this is a little speculative, because that 1/5 of voters are the people who would publicly admit it, not everyone who actually voted on race). Now Clinton beat Barack by 249, 346 votes--so roughly half of her victory margin was determined by racism. Barack should try to win over the other 130,000, and ignore the rest of the ignorant yokels.

Boy, I love personality politics, don't you?

Ugh.. Obama was speaking about decreasing taxes $1000 per family today. Pah-lease stop talking about cutting taxes during wartime. Back over Here obama, on the left, where we pay for our social programs...

Obama needs to win over Clinton's supporters.

This is best done by Hillary being the vice president.

Ugh.. Obama was speaking about decreasing taxes $1000 per family today. Pah-lease stop talking about cutting taxes during wartime. Back over Here obama, on the left, where we pay for our social programs...

Yep, the Dems and Republicans are both moving to the center in order to offend to least number of people.

John McCain is moving a bit to the left, although basically being a right winger.

Obama and HIllary are moving to the right although basically being left winger... well, "left wingers"at least as concerns politics in the very conservative U.S.A. In most other Westernized countries both Obama and Hillary would be on the conservative side of the scale.

Democrat Barack Obama would crush Republican John McCain in the U.S. presidential race by an almost four-to-one margin - 56 per cent to 15 - if it were up to Canadians.

Americans themselves are more or less 50/50 as concerns Obama/McCain...

sigh..

Obama needs to win over Clinton's supporters.

This is best done by Hillary being the vice president.

I think Jim Webb would bring in the blue-collar contingent of the Clinton camp with a little bit of publicity. He's a VA Senator and former Secretary of the Navy (under Reagan). Compared to him, Clinton's experience is laughable, particularly on national defense--hence, good for Obama on the experience issue. His central concerns are poverty and ending the War in Iraq; he is the author of a new GI bill offering soldiers a funded post-secondary education similar to the one that was available to WWII vets (Bush-Mr.-Support-Our-Troops has predictably threaten to veto it, but..).

I highly recommend the interview Webb did on NPR with Fresh Air--it's longish--40 minutes or so--but very worth it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90595861

Ferraro, wow, she's out of her mind. As for Lieberman, a staunch Republican he, nothing new there. I may write in Jello Biafra. Just kiddin. I'll vote for the Dem nominee, as Charley Brown kicks the football. I do hope it is Obama, and I'm glad it's working out that way, apparently. Running mate? I disagree that Clinton would help the ticket. I think she could sink it actually. I see good arguments pro and con on that point. But, she spent too much time shooting blanks at Obama, a'la right wing attacks.. 3 AM phone calls.. running through sniper fire.. it wont go well, she should not have done that. Obama is winning, in part, because he is willing to accept a loss if the people don't want his stated policies implemented. That is a candidate with class. Clinton, it seems, will change her tune from state to state, and go to any lengths to win. Very disturbing, and I hope she's nowhere near this race after the dust settles. If we have to be Republicans in order to beat Republicans, then why not just be Republicans? Obama is an intellectual liberal Democrat of the sort I have been hoping to see elected for a very long time. And he's winning. So let's help him win.

There are a couple interesting points to be made, and although I'm not the only one making them, it's sad that so few seem to consider them:

• Why is it racist for a white man to not want to vote for a black man, but empowerment for a black man to not want to vote for a white man.
• Why is it sexist for a male not to vote for a female, and empowerment for a female to not vote for a male.

It's not like I really need an answer, because it's obvious: it's the same pandering double-standard liberalism has touted for ages. But it's tiresome.

I'm not surprised Ferraro thinks Obama is sexist. He has a penis. People who call themselves feminists and become heavily involved in that special interest group are usually pretty damaged, to the point that they see men as their enemy. So they see sexism in everything.

What I don't understand is why we, supposedly intelligent people, continue to allow the sexist/racist debate to happen.

Why is it racist for a white man to not want to vote for a black man, but empowerment for a black man to not want to vote for a white man.

It's not like I really need an answer, because it's obvious: it's the same pandering double-standard liberalism has touted for ages. But it's tiresome.

At the risk of being odious, then: When you are in an excluded group, perhaps you think that seeing someone from your group run for high office, which traditionally was not possible for them, means something to you that it cannot mean to someone who is not part of that group. And if you still feel excluded from certain opportunities, and there are certain forms of discrimination still operative, then perhaps you feel electing someone from the (excluded) group will better ensure that these issues get acknowledged.

That is why it is different to elect a woman or a black man to public office--because they have traditionally (implicitly or explicitly) been excluded, and the claims of those respective groups have not yet been fully acknowledged.

It is not a double standard to recognize that a prevailing double standard is still effective--a different set of rules and expectations for white men, on the one hand, and on the other, for women and black men, among many others, respectively.

"Obama needs to win over Clinton's supporters."

I think this could be phrased better. How about this: "Clinton supporters need to untwist their knickers, take a fucking valium and realize that Obama just might be a better candidate — and that even if they can't bend their irate little minds to understand this, that it just might be a better thing for them to support Obama, because the alternatives would be a lot worse."