Angry? Certainly. Anti-American? Arguably. Racist? Dubious. Mentor? Not a chance. In fact the term had been banted about with wreckless regularity when no one's pastor has ever necessarily been also their spiritual mentor. However we can see that Obama, along with a host of thousands of God-fearing, patriotic American citizens (other politicians and public servants, doctors, attorneys, professors, CEOs both black AND WHITE, etc.,) has been associated with this firebrand and controversial orator for which Obama alone may pay the ultimate price because he alone is running for the White House.

Senator Obama has bee quoted saying: “he was not my spiritual mentor, he’s my pastor.” And of late you must place former with that title.

The following are Q&As taen from the latest Wright shtick at last nights National Press Club award ceremony:

MODERATOR: In light of your widely quoted comment damning America, do you think you owe the American people an apology? If not, do you think that America is still damned in the eyes of God?

REVEREND WRIGHT: The governmental leaders, those -- as I said to Barack Obama, my member -- I am a pastor, he's a member.
I'm not a spiritual mentor, guru.
I'm his pastor.
And I said to Barack Obama, last year, "If you get elected, November the 5th, I'm coming after you, because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people." All right? It's about policy, not the American people.

MODERATOR: Senator Obama has been in your congregation for 20 years, yet you were not invited to his announcement of his presidential candidacy in Illinois. And in the most recent presidential debate in Pennsylvania, he said he had denounced you. Are you disappointed that Senator Obama has chosen to walk away from you?

REVEREND WRIGHT: Whoever wrote that question doesn't read or watch the news. He did not denounce me. He distanced himself from some of my remarks, like most of you, never having heard the sermon. All right?

The Gas Tax is used exclusively for repairing our bridges and roads and already isn't nearly enough to do the job as it is. So cutting it will add insult to injury. It is so much political hooey. Something that sounds good to the uninformed, but is pure a campaign tactic.

"Real change has never been easy. ... The status quo in Washington will fight. They will fight harder than ever to divide us and distract us with ads and attacks from now until November."

-- Barack Obama, Pennsylvania primary night speech

With that, Obama identified the new public enemy: the "distractions" foisted upon a pliable electorate by the malevolent forces of the status quo, i.e., those who might wish to see someone else become president next January. "It's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics" and "trivializes the profound issues" that face our country, he warned sternly. These must be resisted.

Why? Because Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain than his own character and cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished daily by the hagiographic coverage and kid-gloves questioning of a supine press. (Which is why those "Saturday Night Live" parodies were so devastatingly effective.)

Then came the three amigos: Tony Rezko, the indicted fixer; Jeremiah Wright, the racist reverend; William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. And then Obama's own anthropological observation that "bitter" working-class whites cling to guns and religion because they misapprehend their real class interests.

In the now-famous Pennsylvania debate, Obama had extreme difficulty answering questions about these associations and attitudes. The difficulty is understandable. Some of the contradictions are inexplicable. How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of transcending racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?

What is Obama to do? Dismiss all such questions about his associations and attitudes as "distractions." And then count on his acolytes in the media to wage jihad against those who have the temerity to raise these questions. As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be president are less important than the "issues." As if some political indecency was committed when Obama was prevented from going through his 21st -- and likely last -- primary debate without being asked about Wright or Ayers or the tribal habits of gun-toting God-loving Pennsylvanians.

Take Ayers. Obama makes it sound as if the relationship consists of having run into each other at the DMV. In fact, Obama's political career was launched in a 1995 meeting at Ayers' home. Obama's own campaign says that they maintain "friendly" relations.

Obama's defense is that he was 8 when Ayers and his Weather Underground comrades were planting bombs at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol and other buildings. True. But Obama was 40 when Ayers said publicly that he doesn't regret setting bombs. Indeed, he said, "I feel we didn't do enough."

Would you maintain friendly relations with an unrepentant terrorist? Would you even shake his hand? To ask why Obama does is perfectly legitimate and perfectly relevant to understanding what manner of man he is.

Obamaphiles are even more exercised about the debate question regarding the flag pin. Now, I have never worn one. Whether anyone does is a matter of total indifference to me. But apparently not to Obama. He's taken three affirmative steps in regard to flag pins. After 9/11, he began wearing one. At a later point, he stopped wearing it. Then last year he explained why: Because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security."

Apart from the self-congratulatory fatuousness of that statement -- as if in this freest of all countries, political self-expression is somehow scarce or dangerous or a sign of patriotic courage -- to speak of pin-wearing as a sign of inauthentic patriotism is to make an issue of it yourself. For Obamaphiles to now protest the very asking of the question requires a fine mix of cynicism and self-righteousness.

But Obama needs to cast out such questions as illegitimate distractions because they are seriously damaging his candidacy. As people begin to learn about this just-arrived pretender, the magic dissipates. He spent six weeks in Pennsylvania. Outspent Hillary more than two to one. Ran close to 10,000 television ads -- spending more than anyone in any race in the history of the state -- and lost by 10 points.

And not because he insufficiently demagogued NAFTA or the other "issues." It was because of those "distractions" -- i.e., the things that most reveal character and core beliefs.

Obama May Win Pennsylvania!
That Barack Obama Might Win… Or Be Competitive In Pennsylvania

The Presidential Poll site above keeps track of the various poll results on a daily update basis. As the quote above indicates, yesterday’s polls had Obama pulling even or ahead of Clinton in PA. Bill Clinton has said that the race will be over if Hillary loses in Pennsylvania, probably believing such would not happen. However, Obama seems to have overcome some mean hurdles in recent weeks and looks to be moving right along.

A college thing with with MSNBC in West Chester PA last night showed Obama with his strongest new supporters — students totally enthusiastic about his campaign and comments in ways that I as a college teacher have not seen in several decades. If he can also reach working people and older women, he will finish off this primary campaign and the general election with massive and wildly enthusiastic support. As an old timer who first became politically aware and active in college myself, it looks good, better, and best from this vantage point.

From my contacts out there in the internet I gather that Obama is having the same effect on college students even in some of those nations less than friendly toward us. Perhaps he will become the secret weapon that will restore the respect and trust in the U.S. that Bush has squandered? Let us hope.
–
“A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope.” (Livy cited by Machiavelli)

As Bill Clinton's first Secretary of Labor, he was the liberal conscience of the Clinton administration. A friend of the Clintons for decades, the academic and author worked closely with Hillary Clinton before and during the 1992, while she was First Lady and after she left the White House to become the U.S. Senator from New York.

Few Americans know the Clintons better.

Few Americans know Hillary Clinton better.

Here is what Reich says about the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in a new blog titled: "Obama for President."


The formal act of endorsing a candidate is generally (and properly)limited to editorial pages and elected officials whose constituents might be influenced by their choice. The rest of us shouldn't assume anyone cares. My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer.

I believe that Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States.

Although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama's strike me as even more so. His plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a better chance of succeeding. His approaches to the housing crisis and the failures of our financial markets are sounder than hers. His ideas for improving our public schools and confronting the problems of poverty and inequality are more coherent and compelling. He has put forward the more enlightened foreign policy and the more thoughtful plan for controlling global warming.

He also presents the best chance of creating a new politics in which citizens become active participants rather than cynical spectators. He has energized many who had given up on politics. He has engaged young people to an extent not seen in decades. He has spoken about the most difficult problems our society faces, such as race, without spinning or simplifying. He has rightly identified the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that have commandeered our democracy, and pointed the way toward taking it back.

Finally, he offers the best hope of transcending the boundaries of class, race, and nationality that have divided us. His life history exemplifies this, as do his writings and his record of public service. For these same reasons, he offers the best possibility of restoring America's moral authority in the world.


Posted by John Nichols

Scruffy, seasoned, vetted, well worn Senator Hillary Clinton has been sharpening her eye teeth on the back of Senator Barack Obama in a no-holds-barred haranguing from the stump and over the airwaves sending the Obama "hope" Camp into a tale spin leaving him no alternative but to strike back. In her attempt to not just win but win big in Pennsylvania fisticuffs give way to switchblades as Clinton, with blood in her eyes, viciously goes for the jugular in an all out dump of half truths, spin and hilt-deep stabs at Obama's self-inflicted weak spots, which initially left enough blood in the water for the feeding frenzy that has ensued from the Clinton Camp and leaving Obama hagridden on a protracted defense mode. Senator Obama's attempt to conduct a civil campaign focused on the issues is scraped as the "politics of the past" show no sign of change in the shameless melee. Senator Clinton's hardnosed stance certainly show she is well armed and calloused over for a general election brawl with the GOP. She truly knows how Washington operates and is demonstrating that she is a seasoned politician. As a possible president already well connected and beholden to the Washington Machine and political powerbrokers she will indeed fit right into the lot and more than likely do as they all have done for the American people over the past 8 years, which is little to nothing.

I have a different take. Look at the current (previous) Administration. Censorship has been implemented so often no one cares anymore. When, early on, anyone spoke against the war they were censored, shamefaced or vilified. Press meeting reporters and journalists were hand picked, questioning scripted and speech attendance heavily censored over the past eight years.

On the otherhand, the Internet is not necessarily a democratic practice and cannot always be for a variety of reasons. There are sites that choose (within their own power to do so) to screen out any preceived offensive material or elements they deem contrary to their purposes, themes or agendas. It is the right of the webmaster.

That said, EVERYTHING IS SCREENED AND ANYTHING THAT IS NOT THOROUGHLY PRO-HILLARY ON HER CAMPAIGN BLOG SITE IS NOT POSTED.

This IS NOT THE CASE on Senator Obama's Campaign website. Anyone can voice dessent if they do not agree with his policies and so forth.

I know this from experience not thirdhand reports.

And so who operates more in the "traditions, rights and freedoms" of the American way in practice just on an internet level? And who is more right? It could be argued that it is Senator Obama by some just because it is him. Some would say Hillary is just because it is her.

Is Senator Clinton being Un-American or Senator Obama more pro because he provides the freedom to post anything and she doesn't? I think not. There are scores of blog sites that do what her site does. Scores of them that allow almost anything like Obama's.

A blog IS NOT a debate. There are debate site specifically designed for this exercise. Bloggers on SodaHead choose to debate the issues on political topics and most welcome such a format on their posts, yet this is not the rule, but a choice.

Reply does not mean debate. Reply does not mean opposing viewpoints or even agreements are necessary in the response.

And so if someone feels their blog is undully trafficked it is within THEIR POWER AND the RIGHTS OF THE SITE to delete, block or whatever tools they have at their disposal to use. To say this isn't right is presumptuous and even egoistic. It is undully self-important of us to assume that everyones blogs demand our response simply because we feel strongly and have a view on the subject.

If someone posts they may do so not wanting to debate the issue, but simply to convey what they believe. That is THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO and should be respected. And in light of the pall mall way in which the back and forth goes on here with redundant abandon it is not altogether unreasonable.

Dear Friends and Fans:

Like most of you, I've been following the campaign and I have now seen and heard enough to know where I stand. Senator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest.

He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President. He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where "...nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone."

At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams of My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.

After the terrible damage done over the past eight years, a great American reclamation project needs to be undertaken. I believe that Senator Obama is the best candidate to lead that project and to lead us into the 21st Century with a renewed sense of moral purpose and of ourselves as Americans.

Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President.

"Barack Obama Was Right"
Has Sen. Barack Obama had a bad few weeks on foreign policy? Or is his a new approach representing "change"?

His campaign is naturally arguing the latter. After causing an uproar by ruling out using nuclear weapons against terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan -- a view that other Democrats dismissed as a sign of inexperience and naivete -- his campaign issued the following memo. Their hope is to tie together the threads of the last few weeks -- his spat with Sen. Hillary Clinton over rogue leaders; his speech on Pakistan; his nukes comment -- into a coherent campaign message.

Find the full memo penned by Samantha Power, a former journalist and Harvard professor who is advising the campaign below:

It was Washington's conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.

Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States "finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda." He warned that a "dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq would result in an "occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is "persistent and evolving." Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.

Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington's conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.

On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things. On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense that break with the very conventional wisdom that has led us into Iraq.

Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:

The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.

By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you're not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator - he's ready to tell them what they don't want to hear because that's how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that's how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.

Barack Obama's judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges.

Terrorist Sanctuaries: For years, we have given President Musharraf hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, while deferring to his cautious judgment on how to take out high-level al Qaeda targets - including, most likely, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Here is the result:

Bin Laden and Zawahiri - two men with direct responsibility for 9/11- remain at large.
Al Qaeda has trained and deployed hundreds of fighters worldwide from its sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.
Afghanistan is far less secure because the Taliban can strike across the border, and then return to safety in Pakistan.

By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants to turn the page. If Musharraf is willing to go after the terrorists and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base of operations, Obama would give him all of the support he needs. But Obama made clear that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan - and the Pakistanis continued to refuse to act against terrorists known to be behind attacks on American civilians - then he will use highly targeted force to do so.

Barack Obama's judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq.

Nuclear Attacks on Terrorist Targets: For years, Washington's conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use - inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.

Barack Obama's judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America's prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.

Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.

Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.

Barack Obama's judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change.