The problem I have with the Rev. Wright issue, and apparently I'm the only one in the universe with this particular problem, is that the USA is founded on the principle of separation of church and state. Did we not split from England lo, those many years ago, in large part to have the freedom to worship as we chose? Rev. Wright is not running for political office. I don't care where Obama, Clinton, or McCain go to church. I don't care where their family members, frat brothers, co-workers or garbage collectors go to church. We had, for awhile there, a candidate is actually WAS a pastor at a church and nobody ran around wringing their hands. We also had a Mormon dude, as I recall. The few people who had the temerity to question whether this would color these candidates' decisions had their hands slapped quickly because it was wrong to mix politics and religion. And yet, here we are, actually DEBATING about Obama's pastor and choice of church. Did we change the Constitution AGAIN this month? (I know it's hard to keep track of; anybody seen the first or fourth amendments anywhere? I seem to have lost mine...)

(from Edward Murrow) Maybe we need to see the reality that is staring us in the face. Look, a striped horse-like creature grazing in the savanna probably is, in fact, a zebra. Bush's administration has twisted, mis-used, re-interpreted and outright changed the law for almost 8 years. They have not been removed from office, despite too many offenses to count. The 5 major gas companies have just been given no-bid contracts in Iraq; not only was the war about oil, the administration doesn't even now care that we KNOW it. And yet, no general outrage from the public, no Congressional hearings, and the US soldiers did NOT, en masse, say "Good God, I'm not dying for some friggin' oil!" and throw down their weapons and refuse to fight. Obama would not have voted to go to war. Not because it was morally corrupt- I've never heard him say that - but because it was "unwinnable". I think only Kucinich came out and said it was actually an illegal invasion and wrong on moral grounds.

There is a resolution due to come to the floor, backed by lots of Democrats, that would, while not allowing an outright attack with weapons, authorize some strong measures against Iran that any country would take as acts of war. Will our representatives sign on to this and begin the count-down to war with Iran? Probably, because apparently the urge to flex our muscles and rule the whole world is too pretty a prize to turn down.

Is there anything that the Bush administration has done that our Congress considers so craven that action must be taken? Apparently not. Do any of our representatives want to curtail the taking of lobby money, the rule of big corporations over our country? I think the answer is no.

Obama voted for that farm bill a few weeks ago, the one that gave more subsidies to the big agri-businesses; that was a day after I heard him tell a bunch of mid-western "family farmers" that he was "looking out for them".

Obama is without a doubt a much better choice than McCain in pretty much all regards, but he is a product of what our political system is now. All of our representatives are. We elected them and then ignored what they were doing. While we (OK, not me, not you, not Glenn, but 90% of America) were watching "Idol" or staring at cars driving in circles for hours -Nascar - our group in Washington, Republicans and Democrats alike, were just doing what most benefited them without regard to the welfare of the general public.

Maybe the reason that the Democrats have caved on FISA and war-funding without a time-table for withdrawal and have said impeachment is off the table and will probably vote to embargo Iran is the "zebra truth" I first mentioned. Maybe they look at the absolute and unfettered power of the Bush administration and want it for themselves. Maybe it just looks good to them. Maybe it is that simple.

When Obama says, basically, "It's all right, don't worry about it. If I'm President, I won't mis-use this un-Constitutional power", maybe he is not kidding. Maybe he would LIKE to be President and maybe he would LIKE to have this un-Constitutional power. And maybe he won't mis-use it, maybe that part is even true. (It kind of begs the question of what happens if McCain wins and happily scarfs up all the Power In The Universe, but Obama correctly assumes no-one will remember his one vote in a sea of votes to give away this power when, 3 or 4 years from now, some people are grumbling about how the government is still spying on us.)

I am being simplistic. I know that. But perhaps it IS all just that simple. They all look like zebras; I would first assume they all are before bothering to get into some silly argument about whether it's white stripes on black, or black stripes on white.