"What I (and a very few others) say is this: you can wish all you want for people to elect Obama based on his logical arguements, BUT THEY WILL NOT! One of my relatives, a completely sane, educated, Democratically-minded voter, will not vote for Obama. Why??? Because she's convinced he'll let Muslims into the country and they will overtake us!! Unfortunately, MILLIONS of Americans feel like her. So, here's the crossroads: Obama, to get their votes, MUST convince people that he IS a patriotic American (I have no doubt that he is), OR, he can talk all the logic he wants, and McCain will be the next President. Period, end of statement. It's times like this when theory needs to be tempered by reality, and all the philosophical BS in the world doesn't amount to a hill of beans, especially when that's all we'll be eating when McCain is elected."

I get it, but again, I ask, are there not potential consequences as well to the pandering you suggest?

Might not that pandering itself be largely responsible for the lemming-like obedience shown to the current president?

In other words, I believe that our deepest problem is not the Bush administration, but the fact that so many signed off on its misadventures.

You're talking short term (winning this election) and I'm talking long-term (challenging the mindset that got us into the war).

We are indeed at a tough spot, and there are costs and benefits both to pandering and not pandering.

I, for one, believe that winning under false pretenses (i.e., by pandering) is not winning at all, because there will be no clear mandate as to what the victory means and because it leaves in place the structures by which the right, in the the next election cycle can simply outpander the left, as it's been doing for decades now.

For me, I see the Clinton years as part of the long-term, structural problem.

I do not believe a return to that sort of politics will be worth a hill of beans in the long run.

Do you at least take my point, because rest assured, I take yours.

One other thing:

"Unfortunately, MILLIONS of Americans feel like her. So, here's the crossroads: Obama, to get their votes, MUST convince people that he IS a patriotic American"

The factors which lead people to vote or not to vote are complex.

It may all boil down to what you say it boils down to, but I'd need to see some data to convince me your analysis is sound.

"Ok, so I'm at the Olympics. Call me silly, but I'd be rooting for the Americans in say, ice hockey. OOops! I can't wave the American flag. Hmm. What to do? Or, is waving an American flag (or any other flag) for some athletes a bad thing? Just wondering how far you'll take this thing."

What to do, what to do...

Well, there's no right answer, of course, you do what you're comfortable with.

Speaking for myself, I don't know if the Olympics does more harm than good in the fostering of world peace and understanding. In general, I do think nationalism is ill-advised, that it does more to separate us than to unite us.

I also believe in a world without borders, that we sink or swim together.

I understand that right now we have nations, but I think it's important to work towards a world without them.

"Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do..."

I'm a deeply passionate Yankees fan. I love the Yankees and I love baseball.

At the same time, I'm disturbed by the sort of mindless loyalty such fandom creates. I think it's akin to the sort of culture that unleashed World War I.

But I love baseball so much I look past it.

I guess it just depends on context. What's the message behind any particular expression of nationalism or patriotism?

I was sent to the principal's office in junior high school for refusing to stand for the pledge of allegiance. To me, I just couldn't bring myself to participate in what seemed to me cultural brainwashing. That was my choice. I didn't criticize others for standing, but exercised my own right to think freely.

So I guess that's what I'm saying about Obama: it's far, far more important to me that he be a free-thinker than that he be locked into rote and often hollow expressions of patriotism just to gain the trust of a certain segment of society.

That sort of pandering is just not what I'm looking for in a leader.

Another thing your question brings up is the Olympics under Hitler. 1933, was it?

Have you ever seen Triumph of the Will?

It's one of my favorite films. It's a masterpiece of cinematography and secular ritual.

It's stunning, really.

And profoundly disturbing.

I find the Germans' sense of "patriotism" awesome to behold. It's hard for me not to get chills watching it, chills both of just how beautiful the whole thing is, as well as how sinister the whole thing is, given that such sentiments were harnessed to exterminate millions of people.

So to me, I do find that sort of mass patriotism scary.

And I think that without it we'd never have gone into Iraq.

Our country suffers from not having been torn apart by war in the twentieth century.

It seems to me that Europe, having born the brunt of its own mindless nationalism, has learned its lesson and is far more skeptical of that sort of culture. They've learned their lessons, to a large extent.

I don't know.

It's not patriotism per se, but mass hysteria that frightens me.

How is that relevant to anything?

I for one don't have the answer to that question, but I'd remind you that Wright's congregation is in Chicago, not the middle east.

I don't quite get your question: are you suggesting it's incumbent upon Wright to critique all the injustices visited upon people by all governments throughout the world?