"The real question is what is the solution? All of us can sit here and point fingers at the other. It's the repbulicans' falut, it's the whites' fault, it's so and so's etc..."

Imo, the solution (inasmuch as there can be "a solution") is education, education, education.

You don't expect a surgeon to operate without a minimal degree of relevant competence, right? Nor should you expect a productive or even promising discussion without a minimal skill-set for discussing.

We've lost (if we ever had--I don't know, I'm in my mid-thirties) our ability to empathize with "the other" in a serious way (perhaps because we don't read novels and poetry and the films we watch are vacuous?) as well as the ability to formulate and evaluate an argument.

Somehow we've gotten to the point, encouraged by talk radio, or by some perversion of "democratic" ideology, where all opinions are deemed of equal merit. (Except the opinions of those marginalized as outside of the mainstream, of course.)

If you watch how "discussions" are conducted on the television, you'll find that there can be no advance of discourse because no one listens and no one is held accountable as far as adhering to the basic rules of logic.

"Discussions" are just false premises piled on top of false premises.

Case in point, the business about Clinton's "lie" concerning the sniper fire.

Logically, before it matters whether she was lying or not, the first question to ask is: how is her story germane to her argument that she has experience?

Giving her the benefit of the doubt, the question still needs to be asked: "Ok, so you went to Kosovo at a time of war, how, as you see it, is this germane to answering a 3am telephone call?"

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but somehow we all take for granted that it is germane but then rush to discredit her for the apparent deception.

But the real deception is in her advancing that anecdote as substantive proof that she is qualified to answer the 3am phone call when to me, it seems a complete non-sequitur.

Or maybe it's not a non-sequitur, maybe it is legitimate experience, but we never actually have that discussion, which would be subject to the rules of argumentation because the media themselves are just as ill-educated (or choose not to employ their educations, if they have them) as the public.

It's enough to make you want to despair.

"I don't think there's much at all to what Gary says. Elections are by definition patriotic affairs. "

With all due respect, I'm not convinced you understand what Gary says.

So that we're on the same page and can thus have a productive discussion, could you paraphrase his argument, as you understand it?

"We assume that Rev. Wright couldn't possibly be Obama's spiritual advisor on one hand and say things that run contrary to his political beliefs on the other. My question is: why?"

Because manichaean thinking and facile binaries are all many are capable of.

Because serious thinking is taxing and most can't be bothered or lack the time or the foundations or whatever.

It's the triumph of anti-intellectualism.

I once saw a documentary about Al-Jazeera and it was so fascinating to me to see that I, as an "intellectual" or "cosmopolitan" or whatever you want to call me, had more in common with the journalists there, who live in a place that's about as alien to my experience as can be (except perhaps genuine "traditional" societies), and yet I felt a far deeper bond with them than with many in my own country.

It's another deep divide: the educated v. the uneducated, the cosmopolitan v. the non-cosmopolitan.

The "fundamentalists" in the Arab world have so, so much in common with our own "fundamentalists," i.e., those who see the world in black and white.

We all have that inclination, of course, but education compels us to move beyond it, to exercise empathy and mind-stretching. Not that education is the only way or anything, but that is what it's designed to do. In esteeming a certain skill set and orientation, it makes possible the transcendence of lines of class, nation, race, gender, etc.

Dangerous stuff.

"This is a make or break election-- and we must do everything in our power to win in November. Wanna win? Then act like you love this country."

This is the crux of the dilemma!

You're presenting a view close to the "win at all costs" side of the spectrum, which has merit.

But it also has downsides, especially, imo, longterm.

If the only way we can win is by pretending to be who we're not because it's expected of us, what sort of damage does this do to society?

To me, as a black person, this is precisely the kind of thinking that leads to the tolerance of racism and the persecution of the Jews, etc.

Once you go down that road of pretending for the sake of short-term benefit, you legitimize opinions that might ultimately prove far more destructive than the outcome of one election.

I don't want to just win this election, but I want to win it with a clear mandate.

I don't want a candidate who's beholden to mindless patriotism because this mindless patriotism is itself a deep part of the problem.

As Obama says, he doesn't just want to end this war, but to end the mindset that got us into the war.

That's profound stuff and risky.

He might not be able to pull it off, but at least he presents a model of what that would look like.

It's about telling the truth.

It's about not pandering, at least on this issue.

It's about calling a spade a spade, you know?