Even though I'm not for Obama (I'm still hoping Clinton is the nominee), I think all this scrutiny of what a preacher said, even from a church he went to for 20 years, is not terribly important, and it would not alter my choice of who I'd vote for one jot. I realize that may not be the case with a lot of people, but it seems overblown, particularly since Obama didn't seek Wright's endorsement. That's the difference between him and McCain, who did seek Hagee's endorsement, and Hagee's views are far more offensive because he seeks to harm other groups of people (like gay people). Hagee and McCain deserve the amount of scrutiny being misdirected at Obama.

The main issue here is still what the media chooses to scrutinize. If they'd paid even half the attention to McCain as they do to Clinton (and now, somewhat, Obama), we'd have heard less about Clinton's Tuzla comment, and more about all the pandering and flip-flopping McCain has done his entire career. Or, better yet, why not look at what the candidates are actually advocating, and analyze that. Now THAT would be a real service to the public!

But, little chance of that happening. Most of the media still thinks Maureen Dowd is the cat's meow, rather than the cat scratching the chalkboard.

We have a deeply dysfunctional media, and given the importance of the media to our national interest, it should leave little doubt as to why we're in the state we're currently in. The government and politicos would not be doing, and getting away with much of anything if we had a rational media.

--Ron Robertson

There are a lot of products that need to be shipped overnight, for instance, internal organs for an extreme example, to cut flowers and other perishable products.

Of course, I'm sure that some people will callously say that cut flowers are not as important as reducing fuel consumption, but I do not believe it is an either-or situation. Incidentally, instead of trying to limit what people can do, I think the more rational approach is to work to invent alternative sources of fuel. Having something (actually, a huge number of things) to ship is a necessary part of making this sort of invention viable economically.

Our society is devolving into out-and-out tribalism, and the tribes are both getting bigger and smaller, but it's all based upon the (false, but wide-spread) notion that there's one pie out there, and everyone wants to get their slice, in other words, a zero-sum game.

That's not what our country is supposed to be about, but until people start to learn to reason again, it's just going to get worse. That lack of thinking capability, the inability to stand on non-subjective premises that are identified and clear, are at the root of our (and the world's) problems. But, don't look to who should be the first people solving these problems, philosophy professors (or worse, Camille Paglia), to find answers, they're too busy trying to undermine your minds with the idea that nothing we perceive is real. So, we're all basically going to have to start thinking for ourselves (in some cases, for the first time ever), and being clear about our thinking.

I remember seeing a sign regularly when I was a kid that I think is even more appropriate now: question authority. Question ALL authorities, if they can't explain themselves, then they don't know what in the hell they're talking about.

--Ron Robertson

I'll answer these questions off the top of my head (the questions are below):

1) Suppose the primaries were conducted like the election will be. That makes sense to me, if you plan to pick someone more likely to win. So, if that would have been the case, you assume that Obama would win if he had played his politics that way. That's a big assumption. You might be right, but I doubt it.

2) It's not a question of being cynical or not, it's a question of using a process more likely to produce a winner. I'd prefer to pick a winner, myself.

3) You actually don't know that, it's an assumption on your part. And just because you think it's over-the-top, does not mean Mr. Wilentz' article is. It actually brings up valid questions, in fact, the same questions I've had myself for some time. This whole process hasn't made sense.

Now a few questions back:

I don't care that caucuses are similar to New England get-togethers. They are not democratic because they exclude too many people. I think that's a bigger problem than Obama supporters are willing to face.

Obama's supporters ARE actively thwarting the possibility of getting some kind of solution to the Michigan and Florida primaries, including blocking a revote. Sure, a revote is not perfect, but it's far more perfect and fair than pretending that giving himself half of those votes arbitrarily could possibly be.

NOT A SINGLE OBAMA SUPPORTER has touched the nonsense that Obama got more delegates in Texas and Nevada, despite losing the popular vote. I think that stinks, and any Obama supporter who thinks it's just okey dokey is a hypocrite, because I believe they'd be screaming their heads off if it had gone the other way.

If Obama does get the nomination, I will vote for him, despite how obnoxious so many of his supporters have turned out to be, and anyway, that's not necessarily his fault. I've seen both Clinton and Obama supporters behave and argue pretty irrationally here and elsewhere, that has been a disappointment. I'd mistakenly thought democrats didn't have so much in common, intellectually, with right-wingers.

I really don't get why people are so extremely excited about Obama. All I've seen of him is just another politician. His policies aren't the least bit better than the other democrats are, so that just leaves personality issues, which I refuse to consider. Unfortunately, far too many Americans do consider that, judging by the zero sitting in the white house now.

<<Instead of criticizing the swift and furious response of Obama supporters? Like

1. that Obama successfully tailored his campaign to the existing rules and would have done the same if the rules were whatever Wilentz wanted them to be?

2. that a "winner takes all" format is decidedly NOT democratic and kind of a cynical approach to aspire to?

3. that the article had an over-the-top partisan tone that "accused" Obama of trying to win in precisely the way his candidate would if she were in the same circumstances?

It just seems kind of evasive that you'd focus your comments on the passion and volume of the disagreement rather than the content.>>