All people should have the opportunity to succeed in life, regardless of their race. But a recent Illinois district court decision jeopardizes that possibility.

In U.S. v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, an Illinois district court ended a twenty-three year old consent decree, which was intended to ameliorate segregation in Chicago public schools. Viewing the Chicago public school system through the lens of the particular constitutional violations that had warranted the initiation of the decree in 1980, the court determined that the consent decree was no longer necessary, because those "vestiges of discrimination" identified in 1980 were "no longer."

With an eye towards racial progress and expanded opportunity in the United States, this narrow view of segregation in public schools is deeply problematic. Although we might hope that race does not matter, too often it does. Even though over fifty years have passed since Brown v. Board of Education, according to a 2005 report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, almost 2.4 million students—including about one in six of both black and Latino students—attend schools in which the student population is 99-100% minority.  Nearly 40% of both black and Latino students attend schools in which the student population is 90-100% minority; conversely, only 1% of white students attend such schools. Additionally, 72% of black and 77% of Latino students attend schools in which minorities constitute a majority of the students.

There's more...

    It is generally acknowledged that for a politcal party to achieve success, it must be an accomadating entity that is willing to encompass views that differ somewhat from the "Party" line. This maxim has been exemplified by both the Democrastic and Republican parties at various times since the end of the civil war. At one point, New England was a vertable stronghold of the so called Yankee Republicanism, better known as the moderate to liberal wing of the Republican party. At the same time, the Deep South was once reliably Democratic, albeit conservative, which helped establish the Democratic party at the political center. However, recent years have seen both of the major parties moving back into a period of extreme polarity, resulting in the near decimation of the politcal center. As seen in the Lieberman/Lamont senatorial primary, many of the politcal left were unwilling to accept a candidate who shared the same politcal views except on foreign policy. Conversely, in the Laffey/Chaffey primary, the intolerance many conservatives felt for Chafee's percieved liberal nature on social issues nearly led to his defeat in the primary and played a large part in his GE downfall.
     This elimination of political centrists has its roots in the presidency of Bill Clinton but its consequences have been magnified through the Democratic presidential primary. Several times, I have expressed views that ran contrary to what the left wing of my party held to be non-negotiable; I was promptly excoriated by numerous users and told to "go to Redstate, no quarter, etc". To blatantly attack others for having some differing views from the party line is downright foolish, as evidenced by the inumerable number of Clinton supporters that fled Daily Kos as a result of the veritable beating they were recieving. It is only through acceptance of deviations from the party line that the Democratic Party can truly widen its influence.
       I have assembled a list of key issues that often produce stark divisions in primary elections and in general elections. They are follwed by my own personal views on each topic, but I would prefer not to be excoriated for any of them.

  Economics: I am a die-hard supporter of the minimum wage increase and generally support the Democratic position in this case.

  Foreign Policy: Sorry but I do not buy the "Change we can believe in" version. I am not a foreign policy hawk yet I was disgusted by Obama's declaration in a debate that he would meet with the leaders of  Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, etc in the first year of his presidency (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dSPrb5w _k). I was a vehement supporter of Hillary's advocation of diplomatic envoys.

  Gay marriage: It should not be illegal on the federal level and should be left up to the states. I do support civil unions.

   Abortion: I am unabashedly pro-choice, which is a major strike against a McCain presidency in my book.

  Affirmative Action: I staunchly oppose affirmative action. Giving an unfair advantage to individuals based on their race is actually reverse discrimination, and I support the decision of Michigan voters in 2006 to restrict it.

 Separation of Church and State: I am with Teddy Roosevelt on this one, the man who stripped our currency of the words "In god we trust." The separation of these two ideals is paramount to the existence of a functional and prosperous society.

  Healthcare: HAving had personal experience with the U.S.' terrible healthcare system, I strongly supported Hillary's universal healthcare plan. Obama's, while better than that of Bush, was simply not far reaching enough in my view.

So there you have it. Please post your own views on these topics and if they helped lead you to support a particular candidate in the Democratic primary.

There's more...

cross-posted on dailykos

Presidential candidate John McCain on Sunday endorsed a proposal to ban affirmative action programs in his home state, a policy that Democratic rival Barack Obama called a disappointing embrace of divisive tactics.

This should come as no surprise given McCain's incredible historic opposition to the MLK Holiday and, more recently, his complete abandonment of any principles.

"Divisive" is exactly right but predictable. As many have observed, the McCain campaign, desperate as a cornered wombat, has already demonstrated a willingness to win at all costs. And, clearly, they consider  pissing off the five percent of African Americans who would've voted for him an acceptable cost for riling up the 13% of the voting population comprised of bigots (source: conservative figure pulled from author's arse, but figure is likely slightly higher) . But, like most of the campaign strategies the Bush III campaign has employed, this one is likely to backfire. Though McCain et al. are stuck 1972, it is, in fact, 2008, and the number of moderates he will anger with his divisive pandering will far exceed the number of intolerants he'll motivate.

In the past, McCain has criticized such ballot initiatives.
In an interview that aired Sunday, McCain was asked whether he supported an effort to get a referendum on the ballot in Arizona that would do away with race and gender-based preferences, known as affirmative action.

"Yes, I do," said McCain in an interview on ABC's "This Week." The Republican senator quickly added that he had not seen the details of the proposal. "But I've always opposed quotas."

His reversal comes as McCain seeks to tailor his policies and rhetoric to independent-minded voters who will determine the outcome of November election. Both McCain and Obama have accused each other -- with good reason -- of "flip-flopping," a charge that carries weight with voters seeking consistency and authenticity in their political leaders.

Both ways Barack? More like Two-Sides Sydney:

Rather than engage in divisive ballot initiatives, we must have a dialogue and cooperation and mutual efforts together to provide for every child in America to fulfill their expectations," McCain told Hispanic business leaders gathered in Washington in 1998.

There's more...

Well, aside from the obvious.

Turns out he's a racist.

Like our friend Geraldine Ferraro, Nader is stuck in the past, and has certain expectations of a black politician:

There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."

Let's look at his remarks a little more closely.

There's more...

Hillary Clinton came into this race with virtually 100% name recognition, an ex-president husband, the support of women's groups and a nation full of Democrats who owed her family a favor.  She had apparent invincibility and a seemingly endless ability to raise money.  Moreover, as her surrogates so often remind us, she's white!

So, if Hillary Clinton is 150 earned delegates behind and has lost the popular vote when the superdelegates begin to weigh in, then how much affirmative action should Hillary Clinton receive from the superdelegates to put her ahead of Barack Obama?

This presidential race is very much like a college admissions process in which Clinton and Obama are competing to get the most points on the SAT's as well as their grade point averages and personal essays.  But if, after all of her obvious advantages, Clinton is still behind by 150 delegates and 800,000 popular votes when the admissions decision is made, how much affirmative action should Hillary Clinton receive to put her ahead of Barack Obama?  And why?

Have we really gotten to the point in America where a white candidates for the presidency can request and receive affirmative action on the basis of the fact that they are white?  That would certainly be a perverse and ironic twist in America's march toward color-blindness.  Where is Ward Connerly when he is most (for once) needed?

The fact is, Hillary Clinton came to this race with so many advantages in her favor that she doesn't deserve any extra affirmative action at all.  We need a strong president who wins on her own merits; not an affirmative action candidate who gets another leg up in spite of already having started out on top.

There's more...