On Clark, I was disappointed that O. didn't hold his fire a little bit on the comments-though I do think it was very clumsily worded and would elicit strong emotions initially from just looking at once and not doing any further thinking on..

Which is of course, what most of the GOP does..

so it invited questioning and ambiguity..

I would at least, like to see O. give his supporters the benefit of the doubt-chastise the comment, but not the commenter. Clear up the ambiguity by staying on same page.

Giving in to fear-by reacting to GOP "feigned indignation" only shows weakness/giving in to GOP framing. All coins have 2 sides, all debate 2 sides--Just gotta be better at explaining your OWN thinking and principles-and quit worrying what others think or have as thiers..

You don't convince people by explaining that away with quotes from famous people or historical analysis--you convince them by leading by your own example,by your ability to think and coordinate the past,present, and future in the NOW-moment of analytical thinking in to action/progress.

It also involves melding all parts of ones' mind,body, and soul into one unified message that is written in our spritual(perhaps?) DNA.

That is the foundation of the core beliefs of staying true to oneself from a soulful purpose standpoint.

Too esoteric? Too metaphysical/philosophical for you readers here?

Your mistake would be in interpretting my meaning in anything religious...

Pertaining to higher belief? Yes--but not organizing as to infringe on others beliefs.

I rather like O's more funding Kuo's programs like Kuos'-but I don't like the idea of the labeling to stereotype anything "religious" and would like it to be recognized more as "spiritual"-to eliminate any partisan-church affiliation or elimination of Buddhism, Hinduism, metaphysics...to be more respectful of others' rights to thier beliefs.

The object should not be to convert more to Christianity-but to create and enforce an ideal in all of us, that will in turn, have a common goal of a more peaceful,happy,equal,just, and tolerant world which serves to bring out the individual best in all.

Thank you for your honorable service...

You have a point. I went and looked up the actual comments, and in context they don't engender the same reaction as the description in Glenn's post did:

In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic. Still, what is striking about today's patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s - in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself - by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day

.

Most Americans never bought into these simplistic world-views - these caricatures of left and right. Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic, and that there is nothing smart or sophisticated about a cynical disregard for America's traditions and institutions. And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away. All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments - a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.

Given the enormous challenges that lie before us, we can no longer afford these sorts of divisions. None of us expect that arguments about patriotism will, or should, vanish entirely; after all, when we argue about patriotism, we are arguing about who we are as a country, and more importantly, who we should be. But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America's common spirit.

It really has been an extraordinary two weeks, hasn't it? I simply stared at the announcement regarding his position on using religious belief as acceptable hiring and firing criteria when I saw it at Think Progress earlier. Although it's been parsed out since, I'm not sure what the effective difference is.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/
obama_speech_we_can_expand_fai.php

I'm not really surprised, and I shouldn't have been. There have been many voices along the way during the primaries warning that Obama wasn't a progressive candidate (see L.W.M.'s archive). Or, that someone taking the positions he was taking was most unlikely to be a progressive candidate.

I was somewhat surprised by the position Kos took in response to Obama's attempt to denounce his allies (link at sig). Frankly, if Kos is withholding support, things must really be off the rails. I'm fairly amazed, however, that we appear to need a progressive candidate to defend the Constitution. That just boggles my mind. I would have expected that support to have come from the more Conservative flank. Not the Authoritarian Right, of course, but I wouldn't have guessed at the outset that the entire GOP in the House and Senate fit in that authoritarian framework.

I am in hopes that some inroads can be made within the Republican Party over time. I got a survey/campaign contribution letter from Marilyn Musgrave yesterday asking me to weigh-in on a list of issues in terms of their importance and whether I'd be willing to support her for re-election. In her letter she referenced a position she took which earned her the ire of the party seniors, and to which she held firm in the face of party pressure. I wrote her a letter in return spelling out a mix of traditionally progressive, and traditionally conservative, positions which I regretfully noted did not appear on her list. I acknowledged that, based on her survey, she and I didn't share much common ground. I wouldn't be donating to her campaign at this time, or offering volunteer support, but I would keep an open mind should some port of trade open up in the future. At this point, members of the GOP may be more amenable to supporting core American Values (like the Constitution) than the Democrats. What better way is there to distance themselves from Bush and the worst excesses of their own brand?

I fully expect the press to hammer Obama mercilessly on these issues. Paul Krugman wondered whether Obama was prepared for the post-primary period when he lost his favored child status.

What I always wondered, during the primary, was whether the Obama campaign was ready to deal with the post-primary environment, in which McCain would be the media darling, and Obama would lose his sheltered status and face the usual treatment.

So far, the answer seems to be no.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/wes-clark/

L.W.M. speculated in a comment I wish I'd bookmarked that the current Democratic Party was a mix of DNC, DCC and disenfranchised Republicans. IIRC, he speculated that was a tough group around which to form any kind of coalition. The party constructed that way pulls in too many directions to be effective in any of them. Which is why I've decided to keep my Unaffiliated/Independent status (despite some earlier qualms) and push my personal support in the direction of the Strange Bedfellows coalition.