That's a horrible sentiment. It makes it seem as if Obama only works with Whites and Latinos because he has to, otherwise he wouldn't accomplish anything.

No, I think its telling people to grow up. It's a way of engaging people by their selfish interest.

I disagree with this idea of sublimation that we'll all suddenly become pure and until then we can just walk away from those who aren't. Common cause means accepting other people's crap and putting up with it for the good of all.

If Obama wanted to be hermit or recluse, he could take the path you suggest. But that's not the path of the politician.

I can see why you are offended. But I must confess that the Holladay story drove me nuts with the amount of coverage it got relative to things like Iraq. And how many non-white non-female disapparence stories get that level of coverage? Paranoids might wonder why.

The next one that comes to mind is Lindbergh. Maybe you follow that more closely than me.

Let's not forget Florida revote hurdles either:

It's illegal to have a mail-in vote in Florida.

It's illegal to share the voter rolls outside the govt; so nearly impossible to subcontract out.

I would have stop reading the Salon letters. A lot of nasty, hateful, and perhaps unredeemable stuff from all sides.

My point is that this sort of visceral reaction -- the recoil -- that people may experience when seeing Wright emote angrily, will damage Obama. Now. And in November. That is what we can count on.

Alright, I agree with that. But posting one's reaction encourages more feedback in gut reactions.

And honestly, I have no idea why Obama stuck around Rev Wright, especially if he had presidential ambitions since he was 5. Doesn't sound very cold, calculating and manipulative for somebody supposed to be same.

Please remember that the violence of the war has not been broadcast the way it was during Vietnam. If it had been, that war would have ended by now. The image is powerful.

Well, that and the draft. Beginning to think that ending it was a mistake. The draft is good feedback mechanism to keep the voters in the loop. Go ahead and vote for war. Your ass or your children's will be first. We might never have gone with to war with the draft in place. The public and the feeble congress would have certainly kicked the tires first. Certainly would have been more of a Republic and less of an Empire.

We were with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War because, as history has shown, Islamism presents a most clear and present danger.

First, let's assume that anyone posting here is not on the A-team, despite your claims. We gave military support to Iraq to offset the Shia Iranians. That was realpolitik. And we wanted to piss off the Russians and mess with their sphere of influence.

Islam is not a clear and present danger. It has been a religion of conquest, just like christianity. It also has a rich tradition of many sects, such as the Sufis which are of the more mystic sort.

The Wahabist sect of Islam is a radical sect, a sect sponsored by the house of Saud for over a hundred years. That's the sect we have to watch out for. All but a few of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudi. So think about that while you're happy we protected Saudi Arabia from Saddam. We protected Saudi Arabia for our own selfish reasons.

There was nothing in the rules that said that Michigan or Florida could not hold re-votes later in the year. The DNC, who make the rules, said that this election was within the rules. The only "rule" that this election violated was the one that the Obama campain wrote that says that anything the diminishes his chances of winning the primary in any way must be stopped.

On the contrary, MI and FL waited too long to reschedule a vote. The state dems refused to yield in the pissing contest with the DNC. It takes a lot of effort to revote in larger states like FL and MI, including complying with lots of state and federal laws. Check out what people on the ground, who actually have to run the vote have to say:

http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-28/1205851812198890.xml&coll=7

As far as the Obama campaign's position, it might be instructive to read the actual memo they sent out. You can find it here:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/in_new_memo_obama_camp_effecti.php#more

I don't think a fair and open mind can easily dismiss all the concerns raised in that memo.

In the abstract, I agree that nothing would be better than to hold free and fair primaries in MI and FL. But the govt isn't known for getting anything done fast or in an ad-hoc manner. Govt isn't exactly known for innovation and thinking out of the box.

Can you imagine Cheney telling Obama "go fuck yourself" on the Senate floor?

Yes. We. Can.

(Sorry, I'll crawl back to the peanut gallery now)

Hillary Clinton leads in the Electoral College vote and the popular vote.

Obama leads in the baffling caucus vote. Who came up with the rules for caucus voting in the first place?

There is no Electoral college vote. Obama is leading the popular vote. You can check here for all kinds of slicing and dicing:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

As far as the history of the caucus goes, there is a thing called google:

Although the Iowa caucuses are more than a century old, their national impact on the selection of presidential candidates is a fairly recent phenomenon.

http://iowacaucus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061227/IOWACAUCUS03/61227001

There are many reasons to support Hillary. I don't see how the above statement is one of them.