I was pretty much on Wright's side until he reffered to Obama as a "politician." Not a leader, a senator, a statesman, or a candidate for the nation's highest office, but a politician, who was "saying what he had to say."

When Obama gave his speech in Philadelphia he did not disavow his friendship with his former pastor. He disavowed remarks the pastor made. It seems apparent that Reverend Wright was wounded by the disavowal, and he is now exacting his revenge.

This situation also reveals something about Obama. He is trying to have it both ways, criticizing the out of context remarks, but not saying what it is that was so reprehensible. If he were to listen to the entire sermon, he would do better to say what was in error in greater detail. Instead, he gave an answer befitting a candidate for office, a politician.

I'm old enough to remember the candidacy of John F. Kennedy. The one thing I remeber Kennedy saying over and over was "medical care for the aged." I don't hear anything like that from Obama - no breakthrough proposal, no new ideas, unless you consider uniting the country a new idea. The wrongness of the "war" on "Iraq" is not much of an idea if you don't advocate trials for treason and war crimes for the Bush gang.

I will vote for Barack Obama if he is the nominee - something I can't say about Hillary Clinton - but with more than a little umbrage. I believe he offers a more civilized approach to both domestic and foreign concerns, but he is a pretty conventional politician - yes, politician - when it comes to what he actually intends to do. He will not deviate far from the neoliberalism of - yikes - Bill Clinton. It will take events on the scale of the Great Depression and/or World War II before we actually begin to make any real changes.

A few points are worth empasizing: (1)Glenn Greenwald may be the best investigative reporter in the "U.S" today; (2)The business of war is intrinsically corrupt; (3)NBC is a division of General Electric, a major defense contractor; and (4)Brian Williams, as an employee of NBC, and hence GE, is by the nature of his employment compromised as a journalist. If he were to take any stance against established war interests, he would quickly be out of a job.

As far as the exalted status of highly decorated generals, check out the decorations of David Petraeus here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus . He did not serve in combat until the "Iraq" debacle, serving there as a general. He has a chest full of medals that goes almost over his left shoulder. Compare this to medals worn by World War II generals: http://whilewestillhavetime.blogspot.com/2008/04/heroes.html . Read here for the heroism of Barry McCaffrey: http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bm.html . A bit on his role as "drug czar" can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_McCaffrey .

Something that a good scholar is likely to examine one of these days is the psychosis of celebrity. Brian Williams is now a celebrity journalist. The term is an oxymoron, the two words being a contradiction. The celebrity becomes a figment of his own imagination, a beingness. A Brian Williamsness in this case. In his own mind his words are gold, as are his good looks and persona. God made into man, only the hour of death will reveal to him his true nature - nobody in particular, soon to have no body.

There are a couple of things the "Democratic" hierarchy might want to consider. One is that a great number of voters, myself included, will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. She is less than the lesser of two evils (McCain being the other). I don't think we've seen such an unprincipled candidate in any presidential election in the nation's history.

I would vote for Barack Obama if he is the nominee, based on his character and his advocacy for an elevated level of dialogue, domestically and internationally. On actual policies I favor Ralph Nader, and will vote for him if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

The other thing to consider is the question of why the Clintons want the White House so badly they are willing to sell what is left of their souls. There has to be some overarching reason behind the scenes, under the table, in the closet, or up their sleeves that would make them so desperate to regain the presidency.

The Clintons don't have any platform positions, policies, or gimmicks that the country and the rest of humanity need in order to save themselves. Their history hasn't exactly been one of benevolence, with welfare "reform," NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, the "Iraq" sanctions and bombing, the bombing of civilian targets in Belgrade, Waco>Oklahoma City, Wen Ho Lee, the "Patriot" Act, the vote for Bush's invasion of "Iraq," and the vote to authorize action against "Iran." Did I leave anything out?

Someone knows the answer to this question. The task, should "America's" journalists choose to accept it, is to find the person who can provide it. Hint: follow the money. Apparently, there isn't a whole lot of it to follow.