Another thing, Obama may have corporate sponsors, but he doesn't strike me as a person who's so dependent upon them (so hungry to be president, to have power) that he'll bend over backwards to accommodate them.

I think if he can get a serious mandate he'll push as much as he thinks he can against them.

I'm not saying he's not a politician or that he's not calculating or cautious, he's all of those things, but I guess most importantly, he's not a tool.

Believe me, I'll be the first one on his ass if he goes down the Clinton triangulation path, but I just don't see it panning out like that. I don't think he wants power that badly that he'll be a corporatist or "centrist." If his policies are centrist, I think it's a function of pragmatism and not ideology. I believe he'll go as far to the left as the electorate allows him to but he's clearly a solid liberal by orientation.

I'm banking on my conviction that he has it in him to be FDR.

Forget the policy positions; move the country to the left or help facilitate that move and the legislation will follow due to overwhelming popular pressure.

The reason the "monied interests" rule the roost is because the American People suffer them to do so.

The fates of all of us, worldwide, are tied to the an electorate Obama professes to have faith in. God bless him, because lord knows, I have none.

I allowed myself to hope against hope that even the American electorate would not vote for Bush a second time.

So anything's possible, which is what you get under mob rule.

But my point isn't to express my deep and abiding cynicism and frankly, fear or the American electorate that would as soon bomb the Arabs as smile at their children. Or that votes on Willie Horton ads (hard to let that one go, that was a formative political experience of mine) or 3AM ads or whatever.

My point is, Obama has faith in these people despite countless reasons not to and I do believe in my heart that if anyone can help civilize this mob, he can.

It's a tall order, I understand, and he may well fail, but as I see it, he's the only one who even comes close to having a shot.

And I have seen flashes of greatness in him that I haven't seen in a political figure (or at least a prominent one) since probably Mario Cuomo. He similarly appealed to the best in human nature, and defiantly.

I see the same characteristics in Obama, albeit he's less combative by nature, but I believe no less liberal in the deepest sense of that word.

Bravo San Francisco! (for, well, being San Francisco)

And Bravo Joan's Tochter! (Hope you keep her away from those elitist schools on the other coast, Joan, no telling what kind of delusions they'll pollute her beautiful mind with. Seriously, to both of you, congratulations.)

Ok, now on to the ritual evisceration. (No, no, not really, but I do have a point to make.)

You write: "Right on cue, some people are saying this gay marriage decision will doom the Democrats again, and I had two quick reactions: I honestly don't think so, and if it does, that's just the way it is."

This is one of the more honest and illuminating things I've seen you write, as far as making clear what your principles are.

I think as radicals, progressives, liberals, whatever, we should all have a point where we draw the line, thus far and no farther. If we lose? "That's just the way it is."

Now, this is illuminating I think because to me, personally, as well as to others, your concern over Obama and his race problem never seemed to elicit this kind of stand on your part.

And that's ok, you're entitled to draw the line for yourself, but I think the fact that you choose to draw it here and not in the case of Obama is worth observing.

To me, if the "working white class voters" (actual malapropism uttered by someone on CNN, it was raucously funny) decide that in the end they just can't support the black man, well, "that's just the way it is."

Or that they can't support the pinko who won't wear a flag pin (though now he is), "that's just the way it is."

Or that they can't support someone who's not afraid to talk up to the country instead of down to us, "that's just the way it is."

You get the point. This could go on and on, but my basic point is to ask why this particular issue is one where suddenly the prospect of Democrats losing in the fall is less piercing, less, shall we say, concerning?

Not trying to antagonize you at all, just making what I think is a potentially productive observation.

...must have some fast times.

Feel free to email me at weeping_for_brunnhilde at yahoo.

Cheers.

Why don't you take your effete elitist historical perspective and move to Russia or better still, France!

Real Americans know that Neville Chamberlain was a godless homosexual Appeaser and none of your fancy booklearning is going to rehabilitate his image to the honest, hardworking white Americans who create reality.

Jeez.

My God, that was funny.

That loudmouth wouldn't shut up! Just like Bush, when challenged and exposed, he just thumps his chest harder and makes animal noises!

Ha ha hah aha ha ha!!!

Man, if only there was more fact-checking/standards in political coverage, like, say, on the BBC, where the interviewers actually have an education and aren't afraid to use it on their subjects, demanding a minimal level of knowledge and reasonable discourse.

Oh well, I'm not a big fan of Matthews (himself often an ignorant though jovial enough loudmouth), but this was savagely funny.

I'm concerned that Joan's not concerned.

Has the seventh seal been opened?