For two weeks now Taegan Goddard has featured Dan Conley, who was a speechwriter for Doug Wilder and has made some rather myopic and rather ascerbic comments on race and this election, such as these:

The McCain campaign won an important battle last week, goading Barack Obama into a defense of his candidacy that ventured into racial politics. Even though his quote about people on the dollar bill was likely inspired by a web commercial by a McCain supporter that transposed Obama's face onto a hundred dollar bill, Obama should have known better.  When it comes to General Election swing voters, race is a losing issue for Obama.

It wasn't the case in the Democratic primaries, at least in the critical mid-section of the race.  All Democrats like to think of themselves as champions of America's minorities, whether they've actually done anything to improve the status of minority groups or not.  The most prominent of those Democrats - former President Bill Clinton -- still bears a grudge about the way the primary campaign played out - he even took the opportunity to pile onto Obama's bad week by bringing up his racial attitudes and how they were portrayed during the primaries, giving more ammunition to McCain.

Over the next three months, it is highly likely that McCain or his surrogates will make statements that could be interpreted as racial code words.  My advice to Obama's campaign and his supporters - suck it up.  You're not going to change American racial attitudes in this campaign and you're not doing Barack Obama any favors by making this election about race.  If Republicans want to play it that way, let them.  Just keep turning the focus back to the issues and force voters to decide whether to vote their hopes or their fears.  Merely electing Obama is change enough, don't expect to change the way Americans think and talk.

As for Hillary being Vice, there are many reasons why this will be the case.  First, Obama really has no choice.  What, you say?  Obama can pick another female and make up the gender gap, right?  Not hardly.  The media never understood the real reason behind this epic struggle.  It was not black versus female, no, this primary was about my Grandma's Democratic Party giving way to mine.  And though I embrace our nominee to be, Barack Obama, I still hurt.

She said on many an occasion that she was our girl.  Many of us said I don't think so.  But she never gave in.  And I suppose what I feel now is something akin to getting an inheritance.  Lots of money-woohoo!  Lost loved one-boohoo.

In my lifetime I can remember 7 Presidential Elections.  With each passing election came a growing sense of ground being lost.  We would elect Bill Clinton and watch him compromise.  We would nominate Al Gore and watch a theft of democracy.  We would nominate John Kerry and see electoral clumsiness.  This time I will not go with the flow.  I will not support first the Rock Star or the ex-First Lady.  I will support and vote, even if I am the last one doing so, for John Edwards.

Though I am only 31, the endless triangulation and selling out has taken a toll on me.  Having grown up in Texas I feel that the analogy I am about to use is most appropriate.  I feel as though I am in the Alamo.  I feel as though there are only a few of us and the Mexican Army is moving forward.  I suppose while this may not literally be life and death, I can begin to understand a little bit why the Texans did what they did.  Someday, perhaps my children or grandchildren are going to want to know about me in a way that I did not describe to them about myself.  There are going to want to know what kind of person I was.  They are going to want to know if I was loyal, and they are going to want to know if I was honorable.  I have come to the conclusion that if I were to leave John's side now that I would be worthy of neither of the above descriptions.  In my heart I know the probable outcome.  I know that if I were to bail now I would save myself much pain, but I also know that John Edwards is the only candidate of my lifetime who knocked on my door not for my vote, but because he cared.  

We Edwards supporters are trapped behind a wall.  We know that the forces of the media and the other candidates are closing in.  Those who choose to stay will be rewarded with almost certain heartbreak, but those who choose to stay will also have had a hand in building our party's platform.  For every voice that is heard from in support of Edwards minds are opened, and for every delegate we garner our vision endures, and for anyone who has believed in the power of the common man their hope will live on.

So now there are two.  Strange as that sounds Romney is done.  You will probably look at national polls and say that Romney is doing well, but the truth is that he is no Natural Constituency on Super Tuesday, none at all.

I will explain:  For the Republicans, there are two regions, McCainworld and Huckabeeland.  McCainworld consists of New York, California, other NE states and probably all of the Southwest.  Huckabeeland consists of the southern Atlantic and deep south, with pockets of the middle of the nation thrown in.

This race is not over, but the edge has to go towards McCain.  However, Huckabee will win as many as eight states, maybe more, and collect many delegates, ensuring McCain will have to keep fighting, and if it becomes a one on one with Huckabee, The Governor's personality has a chance, a small one, to put him over the top.  On the whole though,  I am sticking with my prediction that I made that caused many of you to chuckle at me, John McCain will win the Republican nomination.

I was looking through a troll diary when I came across this absolutely disgusting commentary from one of our so called "progressives":  

John Lewis is a sellout, like the rest of them (0.00 / 1)

He's begging for Hillary's crumbs like the rest of HHH.

by rikyrah on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:16:25 PM EST

You ignorant fool.  You poor misguided sorry excuse for a Democrat.  I suppose you need some history lessons, form wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_(politician)

Mr. Reagobama has a problem.  He was not winning the Democratic Primary as a Psuedo-Democrat, and he is not winning as a Republican either, from our friends at Open Left:   http://openleft.com/frontPage.do

by: Chris Bowers
Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:27:41 AM EST
Polls taken from wikipedia:

Post-Iowa Polls, Democrats State Polls  Clinton Obama Edwards P. Delegates
Alabama 3 36.0% 30.7% 11.0% 52
Arizona 1 45.0% 24.0% 9.0% 56
California 4 43.5% 31.5% 10.5% 370
Connecticut 1 41.0% 27.0% 9.0% 48
Georgia 2 34.0% 38.5% 13.5% 87
Massachusetts 2 48.0% 23.5% 12.5% 93
Missouri 1 43.0% 24.0% 20.0% 72
New Jersey 3 46.3% 28.3% 10.0% 107
New York 6 50.0% 27.3% 9.5% 232
Oklahoma 2 39.4% 17.7% 26.8% 38

Other states where Clinton probably leads: Arkansas, Delaware, Tennessee
Other states where Obama probably leads: Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas
Unknown states: Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah

Quite a few observers are now claiming that the campaign will certainly go on past February 5th. However, looking at these numbers, I'm not so sure. Clinton's advantage in Missouri and Massachusetts is much larger than many assumed it would be, and Edwards is not as close to Clinton in Oklahoma as some thought he would be. Clinton leads in Alabama, and isn't behind by much in Georgia. Sure, Obama is poised to get delegates in just about every congressional district in every state, but Clinton could emerge from Super Tuesday with a 250-300 vote lead in pledged delegates, without even including her advantages in Florida, Michigan or Super Delegates. Also, it will simply look bad for Obama if Clinton wins 16 or 17 states on Super Tuesday and Obama only wins 5 or 6.

In short, the situation on Super Tuesday looks a lot more favorable to Clinton all but cinching the nomination on February 5th than I think the current narrative suggests. Obama needs a big boost from South Carolina in order to make this campaign close enough to keep going after February 5th.

A lot of things happened in 1980, my team the Astros lost a great NLCS to the Phillies, the TWA hostages continued to remain hostages, interest rates were high, hope was low.  Of course that last part is what the pundits and Obama would say.  Now I was not even four when the 1980 election was held, but I can tell you Mr. Obama had his head up his ass in this 19th year on earth because Reagan did not use a hopeful vision to change the trajectory, he split this country along racial and socioeconomic lines like never before.

I wonder if Obama knows that Reagan announced his candidacy in Philadelphia, Mississippi.  I wonder if he even knows the civil rights significance of Philadelphia, Mississippi.  For a man who likes to compare himself to Martin Luther King his recent statements suggest pure ignorance.  While we're on the subject,  I wonder if on Mr. Obama's best day he is even half the man of John Lewis, a man of such honor and accomplishment that if I were myself to win two terms as President, I would not compare myself to John Lewis, much less Dr. King.  So here we have this man arrogantly running in the Democratic Primary as something other than a Democrat, telling us that in 1980 the country was sick of blue state policies and blue state results, nevermind the fact that as late as 1976 most blue states were south and most red states were north.  Nevermind the fact that to this day there is a higher Democratic registration in the south than in the north.  And nevermind the fact that despite two resounding election victories for President Reagan he lacked the coat-tails to send the Republicans into the control of Congress.  This man has the nerve to tell us that Reagan "changed the trajectory" of our nation.  The truth is the Democratic Party had been leaderless since 1968.  Anybody who knows anything about politics-which is to say anybody but a political pundit-knows that people didn't vote for Reagan because they were tired of Democrats, they voted for Reagan largely because they saw the Democratic candidates for President as ineffectual and not holding true to the FDR values of our party.  Simply put, more people did not vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980, less people voted for Jimmy Carter.  The term "Reagan Democrat" is overused, vague and misleading.  Combined with our disspirited base and racially disruptive dog whistle politics, Reagan was able to win large victories.

From the December 14th 2002 issue of TIME: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002 By JACK WHITE Southern Strategy: The race question has haunted Reagan and the GOP for decades Here's some advice for Republicans eager to attract more African-American supporters: don't stop with Trent Lott. Blacks won't take their commitment to expanding the party seriously until they admit that the GOP's wrongheadedness about race goes way beyond Lott and infects their entire party. The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state of denial about the party's four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting. They won't make any headway with blacks by bashing Lott if they persist in giving Ronald Reagan a pass for his racial policies. The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it's with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican's selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out. Space doesn't permit a complete list of the Gipper's signals to angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters. Then there was Reagan's attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University. Lott's conservative critics, quite rightly, made a big fuss about his filing of a brief arguing that BJU should get the exemption despite its racist ban on interracial dating. But true to their pattern of white-washing Reagan's record on race, not one of Lott's conservative critics said a mumblin' word about the Gipper's deep personal involvement. They don't care to recall that when Lott suggested that Reagan's regime take BJU's side in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, Reagan responded, "We ought to do it." Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court in a resounding 8-to-1 decision ruled that Reagan was dead wrong and reinstated the IRS's power to deny BJU's exemption. Republican leaders and their apologists tend to go into a frenzy of denial when members of the liberal media cabal bring up these inconvenient facts. It's that lack of candor, of course, that presents the biggest obstacle to George W. Bush's commendable and long overdue campaign to persuade more African-Americans to defect from the Democrats to the Republicans. It's doomed to fail until the GOP fesses up its past addiction to race-baiting, and makes a sincere attempt to kick the habit.

A word about this war. There are those who say the soldiers died for nothing. That is wrong. For as long as there are men and women willing to die to support the cause of freedom, there are millions of Americans who are inspired to contribute more themselves. Though the interests of freedom have not been well served by this war, the interest of self-governance and political activism have been. Casey Sheehan's courage was indeed exploited, along with thousands of others. However, the great lie of this war is not able to overshadow the great truth of soldiers like Casey: That belief in and love for one's nation can never be in vain, for it is the purity of that love which cleanses our country of the tyranny of those who would undermine it. Our fight to end this war bears that point out. We have lost brave men and women in this war, but their sacrifice has bestowed upon us a great gift: We have our will back, and this administration was not planning on that.

Cross-posted at:  http://waveofblue.blogspot.com/