The fact is that Obama should have distanced himself from this church when he came to the Senate and he should have encouraged his wife to do the same. Big mistake that he didn't.

I think doing so would have damaged him further with a block of African American voters who don't think he is legitimate, and have already criticized him over how the Rev. Wright issue is playing out. Maybe he thought he could keep the good, and throw out the bad. Which is probably not the best call for a US politician to make. Nuance is out. I've checked out the website for www.tucc.org. It doesn't look like a stronghold of militant blackpower. Maybe I have to buy the DVDs.

Hillary Clinton knows how the media works. Mark Penn knows how the media works. Bill certainly knows how the media works.

She had the perfect opportunity during the peak of the Ferraro dustup. The media loves the dollar signs inherent in conflict. She could have made a major speech about that topic and gotten all the free press she wanted. The media would have been drooling. She could have made a speech like Obama, acknowledging the situation and calling for everyone to rise above it.

She didn't make the speech.

I won't disagree with you, but you've chosen an extremely long row to hoe.

When many Americans can't find "the Iraqs" on the map, its going to be difficult to convince them we have an empire. And quite frankly, we've grown used to benefits our invisible empire. Right now, people are more worried about $4/gallon gas. How come that empire isn't working anymore?

I'll keep stirring shit by pointing out how none of the candidates are going to fundamentally change our flawed and failed imperial foreign policy or stop our CIA from covertly Spreading Democracy, and you keep ignoring reality and the real truth about our foreign policy over the last 60 years, just like the rest of America. Deal?

Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.

So your complaint is that he said publically what you have said privately? He's a politician, so his private life is fair game. I don't think less of him for revealing that his grandmother had her flaws, just like the rest of us.

To be blunt (always a bad idea, I know) I think you are too emotionally involved. It looks to me like you're always trying to put the most negative spin on Obama. Do you really think to presuade or are you just venting? My grandmother used to say inappropriate things about african americans. She certainly had cause with respect to a few individuals. But not with respect to everybody who is black. I can still love and revere my crazy old hungarian grandmother, but I can see her faults too. I don't think less of Obama's grandmother either, because I'm adult enough to know that people are complex and have the lightness and darkness inside them. Just like me. It looks to me that Obama's grandmother did a pretty good job. Her grandkid is running for president.

You're too into this Bipolar purity stuff where you are either a saint or a fraud.

Ha! you reminded me of Tom Leher and National Brotherhood Week

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY

should not we,

in false iambic

pentameter declaim

what bullshit?

Obama is counting on the people to hold the politician's feet to the fire (this will include his own two feet). That's why he wants to include a lot of people. That's why his speechs repeatedly mention good plans failing for lack of political will. The people have to fire the politicians. That will take a movement or a sea change in government participation. What is derided as a cult following is exactly what is needed t to break the current cycle.

This strategy is more likely to work than sending in some lone paladin that likes to fight, IM!HO Can enough people get involved and stay involved? Good question.

I think a lot of people haven't given up trying to legislate morality and have a hard time believing that the cure is worse than the disease. A lot of the Spitzer posts illustrate that perspective.

Still I'm not entirely sure where to draw the line.

Shoud have the founding fathers cut the deal for the constitution with the 3/5ths compromise, etc. or should have they walked away into a less certain future? We're facing a similar choice today. Do we pick from the best avaiable (in our not humble opinions) and work with that, knowing that a lot is left on the table?