Refusing to see that is the true patronizing position. Refusing to see that is the partisan position. It is ironic that Obama keeps running to the middle by claiming he can bring people together while his supporters so sneer at ordinary Americans.

Whatever. I do sneer at anyone prepared to argue that retaining gun rights is more important than climate change or the threat of nuclear war. Not all concerns are of equal import. I know this sounds elitist, but I think it's manifestly true, sorry.

Instead, why don't you make your case for why Wright won't hurt Obama or how Obama can keep him from doing so?

Again, I'm not interested in the horse race, I'm interested in (broadly) advancing the cause of liberalism, not simply politically, but every day, in these sorts of exchanges, by standing up for what I consider to be liberal values.

Whew.

Now I'm tired.

Thanks again for interacting, AKA, I appreciate it.

I think we just have (at bottom) irreconcilable differences of orientation and perspective, and that's ok.

Crazies are out of the box. This is dangerous for us as a nation and it is dangerous for the world. Look at the consequences: half a million Iraqis are dead, millions displaced, not to mention our own casualties: 4000 dead and tens of thousands injured and trillions of dollars wasted.

We need sane and responsible heads in the office. Is your candidate one of the sane and reasonable politicians?

Hear, hear.

As usual.

Just perfect and raucously funny.

...we can not be led by fear, fear can not govern our decisions."

--Michelle Obama

I, for one, reject the politics of fear.

I hope I'm not alone.

Thank you, I appreciate yours too.

As to the rain, I hope it's not dangerous. If not, it must be an awesome thing to behold.

"I can change what my country does. I cannot change what some other country does. Thus, I focus on what I can change."

Hear, hear. As a fellow proud member of the Blame America First Crowd, I concur.

I've never quite understood why, just because other countries behave unjustly, we should therefore behave unjustly because, hey, it's a dog-eat-dog world. Better to exploit them before they exploit you.

I mean, I guess I understand it, it's a central premise to conservatism and there's a certain short-term pragmatism to it, but I don't see how that gets us to creating the long-term, sustainable peace we all claim to want.

It's a paranoid, fear-motived ideology and I frankly want no part of being governed be fear.

Why do not the cable channels round up some people who actually know a thing or two about what they're talking about when they "discuss" an issue?

Why not enlist philosophers, for instance, to discuss issues?

Why are all the "analysts" half-educated polemicists?

You can hardly tell the difference between the Onion and CNN these days.

God help us all.

I agree Obama's not hitting hard enough from the left, and that's why he wasn't my first choice (predictably, I was inclined towards Kucinich and Edwards). I wasn't convinced that he was a progressive.

I'm deeply convinced of it now and I think the central premise of his candidacy is that populism/progressivism can only be a force if it carries the weight of the electorate.

He tells an anecdote of having failed to enact some progressive legislation in Illinois because he'd failed to rally the electorate behind it.

His analysis of how to get progressive change, in other words, begins with us, the people, not the politicians. They can only do what they have a mandate to do and if this Wright business demonstrates one thing, it's that there currently exists no such mandate.

In Obama's analysis, which I find convincing, as long as sensational issues about angry negro preachers trump real issues of war and peace, the economy, etc., we will never achieve the electoral consensus necessary to put pressure on those in power because those in power excel at divide and conquer.

So the first order of business, according to Obama's analysis, is to sure up the electorate to where it can't be so easily pitted against one another.

I believe that Obama's vision for this country is a deeply progressive one, which is why he invokes the tenet that we are our brothers' keepers.

This is a profoundly progressive principle, but sadly, one that's been torn to shreds my entire lifetime, starting with Reagan.

Obama's analysis is a cultural one; as long as the electorate is susceptible to Willy Horton ads and generally, to fear-mongering, nothing will change because there's always something to be afraid of, if fearful is what you're looking to be.

The onus is on us, the electorate, to demand more, to resist divide-and-conquer tactics, and to repudiate, above all, the politics of fear.

Then, maybe, we can start to flex our muscle and demand a truly progressive legislative agenda.

This is his argument, as best I can see and I find it profoundly compelling.

What do you think?

That was perhaps the most moving and poignant story I've read in my short time here in these threads.

Thank you so much for sharing it.

You write: "I can't believe the vitriol in these letters directed against Joan Walsh. She's a liberal and if she has a hard time swallowing what Rev. Wright is saying, how do you think it's going to play to mainstream America in November?"

What many of us here are arguing is that Joan's claim to "liberalism" is tenuous, at best, as evidenced by her obstinate refusal to handle this issue with anything like the complexity it merits, if she insists on handling it at all.

Joan's perspective is not liberal in the least, as evidenced by the implicit premises in this latest polemic.

This isn't about Joan, it's about something much, much deeper, namely, what is liberalism, what are its core tenets, and are liberals willing to champion them or not?