Maybe he loves his granma. Maybe she even allowed him to throw her under the bus. The point is that a respectful grandkid doesn't publicly paint his grandmother in the worst possible light for the kids benefit.

After the cokehead Bush, the last thing we need is another cokehead at the White House. Bush got us where we are, Obama will keep us there.

Good Judgement??? I'd say no.

Those who lack wisdom and those how lack grace, will milk any angle in the name of race.

Although Obama has pointedly disagreed with the thinking of Rev. Wright, it's difficult to overlook traces of the minister's influence on Obama's own ideas. Rev. Wright is of the generation which came of age in a time of true racial repression. He seems unaware of the progress already made toward racial equality in this country. When he rails against rich white capitalists, he seems to forget that there are more than a few rich black capitalists, CEOs, also black judges, black governors, black mayors, black congressmen, black generals, and a black Secretary of State. This is not to mention black professionals and the various media and entertainment celebrities who also happen to be black. At this point in time the real issue in America is not black vs. white but rich vs. poor. Rather than being racially divided, America has become a nation where social inclusiveness has become a moral imperative. Obama's mantra of uniting the races seems almost quaint in a culture where white teens have been aping "cool black kids" for over a generation, where interracial marriage has become virtually a non-issue, where black and white work at the same jobs and socialize freely, where children of mixed racial heritage are setting the new American standard of beauty. It is true that there remain appalling inequities in this country--particularly in education and health care--but these inequities are suffered by the POOR, black and white together. Frankly, Obama's running as an underdog because of his race seems not only specious but dated. If anything, Americans have already become so attuned to social inclusiveness that, despite his innate gifts, Obama just might win because of his race.

I guess I should never be surprised by the amazing ability of some people to completely misinterpret (or intentionally misrepresent) something which seems so patently obvious that a six year old would comprehend it.

Anyone who heard or read The Speech, yet still maintains that Obama "threw someone under a bus" is, IMO, either too illiterate to function, or too disingenuous to be taken seriously.

As a service to the learning impaired, I'll provide a little perspective: Obama threw no one under a bus. In fact, he did the exact opposite: he embraced flawed people whom he loves, warts and all. When faced with the choice to do the politically safe thing, or the right thing, he chose the latter. He did what great teachers and real leaders do: he seized the moment to help us better understand a complex issues by using his own experiences as an example. In doing so, he gave us a strategy to help us begin a healing process that is so desperately needed.

Any parent should understand this. When you disagree with something your kids do, do you disown them or do you love them in spite of their flaws? Good god, the very nature of liberalism is an inherent belief that humankind is more good than they are evil (kudos to Thom Hartmann for pointing this out as often as he does). It would be unthinkable to disassociate from someone for saying something you disagree with, especially when you've witnessed that person doing so much good for years and years.

Mrs FXC, I too am a member of the Catholic Church, and although their stance on many issues angers and frustrates me, I will continue to work to change them from within, using logic and reason rather than simply write them off or dismiss them altogether. Change only comes when courageous people take a stand. Nothing happens when you act cowardly and run away from those whom you disagree with.

The text of Obama's speech is just superior. I hope the superdelegates have the curiosity to read it. It may just assure an Obama nomination.

Sorry. I only read one of your serial posts. All I know about Obama is what I've heard him and others say through the media, and what he says in his two books. I read a lot; not a much as my wife, who goes through three or four books a week. I do not hate Hillary. I hate injustice, the war in Iraq, the economic chasm between the rich and poor that widens by the day, and the erosion of rights that were alleged to be "unalienable". Edwards was my first choice. I have great respect for richardson, and think he ought to be the VP choice, or perhaps Secretary of State. I do think that, of the two remaining choices, Obama is by far the better of the two. I listen, I read, I decide. I've been wrong before, and will be again. My thoughts, if you can wade through the vitriol to dredge them out, are that the Clinton legacy is one of division, diversion, and capitulation to special interests. Obama is a stretch. So was Lincoln. So was Ike. It's time to get the hell out of the middle of the road and run with someone with a huge upside. If you want to endlessly parse pastor wright's sermons over a twenty year period instead of dealing with the issues at hand, be my guest. Today was the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, which Hillary helped facilitate. She has yet to apologize, as Edwards so eloquently did. If you want to cite character flaws, there's one for you. Bueno suerte.

Our family is immersed in wordplay. It's genetic. FXC says foxy to me, and is not meant as any disrespect. On these threads, as is all too readily apparent, my rancor is about what I find to be ignorant or divisive (dee vice sieve, or dee viss ive, whatever). I'm not an aggressor by nature, but this election, I firmly believe, is the most important in my lifetime, and I was born in 1947. Give your husband my best; even better, give him yours! tom