i guess we'll have to agree to disagree. i didn't think hillary had portrayed herself as a "wheeler and dealer" - the tenor of her campaign has been more that she's a fighter, who's gonna fight, fight, fight the republicans on everything. and given the fact that half of the country actively despises her, i find it hard to believe that she's going to be the agent of compromise. in fact, it's been obama who has been conceding that in order to make progress, we can't automatically assume everything the GOP says and does is evil and wrong, and we actually have to find new ideas that solve our problems instead of the trench warfare-style politics to which we've all become accustomed. hillary is more trench warfare. obama is a negotiator who gets to the root of problems instead of just telling people what they want to hear.

but i very much appreciate the points you've made, and i especially appreciate the calm manner in which you've made them.

This is a people's movement, not something that Obama started. Barack Obama has found himself at the right place, in the right time. The times we live in, are informing the man that Barack Obama is. He could not have been half as effective if he were running in say 2000 or even 2004. The country had to come to this dismal state of an illegal war, a bad economy and everything else, to stand up and demand change. Obama has taken that opportunity to be an agent for that kind of change. Hillary represents that which is the same old, same old, the politics of status quo, the politics of the few to rule over the many, the politics of lobbyists and special interests that have squeezed this country dry.

Is this a movement? Hell yes. But it is not a movement that Obama generated. He just happens to be caught right in the middle of it. Look what movements generated? The feminist movement got Hillary to where she is, the anti-war movement put an end to the war in Vietnam, the civil rights movement ensured that someone as gifted and talented as Obama could also run for the President of the United States of America. The Reagan and Bush years were all about rolling th clock back and returning the country to an elitist brand of governance.

I am hoping that this movement, whatever we want to call it, will bridge the gaps between rich and power, between women and men, between black and white and brown, between all Americans.

I think a lot of people haven't given up trying to legislate morality and have a hard time believing that the cure is worse than the disease. A lot of the Spitzer posts illustrate that perspective.

Still I'm not entirely sure where to draw the line.

Shoud have the founding fathers cut the deal for the constitution with the 3/5ths compromise, etc. or should have they walked away into a less certain future? We're facing a similar choice today. Do we pick from the best avaiable (in our not humble opinions) and work with that, knowing that a lot is left on the table?

Judging by your handle, at least part of your income is due to the drug war.

I would expect that you would be a drug warrior since part of your income and ability to lord it over others is dependent upon it.

I see what you're saying, and I have heard Obama himself state his plan to have "open hearings", etc. It sounds very good in theory... but...

I have stated this conundrum in a previous post. American steelmakers complain that foreign competitors are "dumping" their products in the market, and that the government should impose tariffs to protect American workers. American car makers oppose that, because they need cheaper steel to make their cars more competitive. What is a government to do? In either case, someone is going to feel that their interests were not taken into account.

Now, get those two sides in a public forum and have them argue, ad infinitum. Multiply that by tens of thousands of different issues.

Imagine the consequences.

You see, it is impossible to please everybody. That is why we have elected officials for a constituency. Those officials are elected to defend the interests of their constituents. Different constituencies have different demands. Hence, compromise is required. That is our system of democracy.

Why do you think this system of "democracy" that I have just described is what has worked in this country for so long and is what most other democratic countries are using up to the present? It may not be perfect, but it is better than anything else out there.

So I hear what you are saying, but I don't believe it will work. Nice theory, though.

Obama first states:

Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Then Obama states concerning Wrights words:

"They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America.

Obamas assertion that since "we" all occasionally disagree with our spiritual advisors, we also then continue to associate with said spiritual advisors regardless of any profoundly distorted views they have, is false. Most people do not continue to associate with people with profoudly distorted views of anything, and most people do not even dream of attempting the moral gymnastics he feels proud of.

BTW, is Obama now acting like Wiley-Coyote, backpeddling from his initial claims of not knowing about Wrights more extreme sermons?

I'd also add that one of the problems of expecting perfection in people is that when you do believe in someone, then you have to believe they're perfect. Those who criticize others for their lack of perfection in a candidate are too oft blind to the flaws of their own. Those seeking perfection will be eternally disappointed - or eternally hypocrites.

One thing I have encountered among Obama supporters is a kind of surety that seems to be for many (not all, sadly) a surety born more of "Obama's one of us." He's not perfect, he's human, he's like us. It's a refreshing change from the bizarre religious devotion I see among the Republican party, and I think I find Hillary lacking - I feel she somehow thinks she's distinct from me (which is weird because Bill really had a one-of-us appeal I felt).