I'm not as optimistic as you are that Obama can even be elected.

In the 2004 election, you saw old prejudices against Catholics as a contributing factor to John Kerry's defeat. I know a lot of people who viewed Kerry as a "cafeteria Catholic" that did not possess the depth of conviction to be president. It tied in nicely with his "flip-flop" image. The black/white divide is a much more profound and troubling problem that this country has had to deal with from day one.

The key question with his candicacy in my mind is the "I am Tiger Woods" effect. To what extent will people around the country look at his background (father who grew up poor and immigrated to the US, raised by a white mother in Kansas and elsewhere) and say, "I know this guy" (at least enough to vote for him)?

Gaucho, I did not say I thought he could be elected. I am far from sure he can. I am only saying "if."
I can't think of a single Democrat who can defeat John Mc Cain (the possible 44th President who will make us as nostalgic for 43) as Bush makes us nostalgic for Nixon and Reagan.
At the same time, I think Obama, Gore, Biden and a few others could possibly beat the old warmonger. My argument is hypothetical.

Yes, I do understand that your post was a thought experiment of a certain type.

I do respectfully believe however that your post has a premise that is wrong: that the election of one man can permanently alter the national character.

You say that Obama's candidacy "offers the real chance that a candidate for President can solve America's longest and deepest problem simply by being elected" and an Obama election "would end the Civil War" but then "Would Obama's election solve the whole race problem. No." That's an exception that seems to swallow most of the sweeping rhetoric that goes before it.

It wasn't Lincoln's election in and of itself that changed America. It was years of conflict over the expansion of slavery coupled with a Second American Revolution that brought profound change. As much as Lincoln's leadership made the second part of that happen, it wasn't the mere act of his election that changed America.

THANKS, N.O.

The Best Choice for 2008

The Dems have, for the first time in over a decade, a chance to make a difference in the way the US is being run. Some of the issues which have been treated badly include the following:
1. A poor foreign policy
2. An unfair and inefficient tax policy
3. Lax environmental regulation
4. Lax business regulation
5. Support for worker's right to organize
6. A sustainable energy policy
7. Support for advanced medical research
8. Efficient health and retirement policies
9. A realistic immigration policy
10. Realistic plans for dealing with climate change

Now let's compare the list of what needs to be done with the list of potential presidential candidates for 2008. Is there anyone on the list who wouldn't be a thousand times better at promoting this list than the current incumbent, or those thinking of running on the Republican side? No.

The difference between the Dems are ones of degree and the differences between anyone of them and the Republicans are ones of a fundamental worldview.

So to all who want to play horse race tracking over the next year, I suggest focusing on getting some of the policy changes I listed above under way. A year of accomplishments will do more to help elect a Democrat (any Democrat) than any amount of political infighting. To get change made with a weak majority means a continual full court press, both on hesitant Democratic legislators as well as important Republican swing voters.

A project to track and pressure senators will have a much bigger payoff then finding fault with one potential candidate or another. The bottom line is that any Democrat will be better than any Republican as president. Let's make sure the party has something to point to as accomplishments when 2008 comes around.

Politics is the art of compromise. The ideal candidate doesn't exist. Getting satisfaction for past injustices by the present administration does not get some elected in 2008, giving the voters something tangible does. Stop bickering and get to work on the legislative agenda.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

"This notion that racism is eating away at America is one of the Left's greatest delusions."

What is your point with this obnoxious comment? In Chicago, we are in midst of a severe cold snap. The new programs are running short bits on warming shelters and the like. At least 9 out of 10 of the people they interview in these shelters are black. I, for one, believe that we owe a debt to those still being disadvantaged by the legacy of slavery that hasn't been repaid.

But you'd rather spend billions enlisting the US military in defending Israel against the rhetorical excesses of the Ahmadinejads of the world. Sorry, dude, I don't share your priorities.

Obama did not vote for the bankruptcy bill. It's impressive how hard it can be to dislodge errant memes. Here's his floor statement,
and here's the vote record.

Was there another vote that I'm not finding?

Obama has been reliably pro-choice, but his pandering to the religious right bothers me. It doesn't help that he wagged his finger in the face of secularists at the same time.

I stand corrected. He voted against the bankruptcy bill, but also opposed an amendment that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30%. Here is the relevant paragraph from Ken Sliverstein in Harpers:

Although The Bond Market Association didn’t lobby directly on the legislation, Williams took note of Obama’s vote. “He’s a Democrat, and some people thought he’d do whatever the trial lawyers wanted, but he didn’t do that,” he said. “That’s a testament to his character.” Obama has voted on one bill that was of keen interest to Williams’s members: last year’s hotly contested bankruptcy bill, which made filing for bankruptcy more difficult and gives creditors more recourse to recover debts. Obama voted against the bill, but Williams was pleased that he did side with The Bond Market Association position on a number of provisions. Most were minor technical matters, but he also opposed an important amendment, which was defeated, that would have capped credit-card interest rates at 30 percent. “He studied the issue,” Williams said. “Some assumed he would just go along with consumer advocates, but he voted with us on several points. He understood the issue. He wasn’t closed-minded. A lot of people found that very refreshing.”

I have to say, I'm impressed not just by his stances quoted here on the war and the bankruptcy bill, but also by the words he used.  They're eloquent, they articulate a leadership position, and they put the issues in terms that people can understand, even if some of them couldn't use "irrespective" correctly in a sentence.   I may have underestimated him. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/ 

Daniel Greenberg didn't say that racism doesn't exist.  He didn't say that blacks are not discriminated against.  He just implied that to characterize it as "eating away at America" is ridiculous hyperbole.  Which of course it is.

Racism is a big issue and one would like to do what's necessary to combat it.  But precisely how it is "eating away" at America is a bit of a mystery, for that implies that it is getting worse and metastisizing (that cancer analogy again).  How? Is race conflict worse than it was, say, 50 years ago?  That would seem to me hard to argue.  Furthermore, for 200+ years we as a nation have survived and prospered, despite racism that was infinitely worse than it is now.

I think saying things like "racism is eating away at America" makes leftists feel morally superior to those of us who disagree.  It's the left's equivalent of those wedge issues so beloved by the wingnuts: to disagree is to appear callous and insensitive and out of the mainstream.

It's bullshit.

OTOH the point being made is that perhaps it is not pandering but genuine religious sentiment, on his part.

I would vote for Obama on principle.

Personally, I find this no different from the wingnuts voting for George W. because he is a born-again Christian.  Voting for someone because of who they are, not what they stand for or what they can do, is one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in now.  Not that there's anything wrong with Obama per se.  Just that on principle, it harms democracy to vote on so narrow a basis.

Personally, the most important issue to me is universal healthcare. I agree, that voting for Obama just because he is who he is would be a distraction from my personal goal. The only reason I could justify it is that racism really is a very big problem in this country.

The problem goes back to the holocaust that happened on the slave ships and the foundation of the country as a nation. With respect to slavery, the United States Constitution was a reactionary document from its inception. Northerners did not want to accept that slaves counted as human beings at all. Southerners were willing to accept that slaves were 3/5 human, but not because they were more charitable than Northerners. Although the Revolution was fought with the rhetoric of liberty, paradoxically, conditions for black people, both slave and free, actually worsened after the Revolution.

In retrospect, it might have been better if America had stayed in the British Empire. Alternative history is always a dubious exercise, but it seems likely that slavery could have been abolished without warfare if we had stayed in the British Empire. Without the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan as we know it would never have been created. The enemies of the planters invariably used black people to fight against them, starting with the British in the Revolution. If this had never happened, it is conceivable that racial relations might not have been as bitter as they were.

That part is highly speculative, but it is not speculative that the legacy of racism is long and deep in this country. I see the results of it all around me every day. I am grateful for any signs of progress that I can see, but I would also like to give things a push in the right direction.

It is not so clear to me that we ever vote for someone just because of the issues in the abstract. Don't we always vote for someone - at least in part - because of who he is?

Barack Obama would solve America's race problem simply by being elected? Wow that's backward. Rather, the fact that we are even thinking about Obama for President shows that America's race problem has come a long way already towards being "solved."

I think saying things like "racism is eating away at America" makes leftists feel morally superior to those of us who disagree.

That's because we're morally superior to you. heh heh.

But seriously, I don't think there's any objective yes or know answer to whether "racism is eating away at America" or whether it's hyperbole or not.

I think it all depends on where you're coming from. I assume many of the people who disagree that racism continues to "eat away at America" are probable white guys who live in the suburbs. Generally speaking, of course.

I'm sure the black guy who just got called a nigger by a bunch of white foik may think otherwise. Or the family of Sean Bell. 

In any case, I don't think it's an issue of moral superiority. Or, maybe it is. Your "proof" is that racism is better than it was 50 years ago, and for 200 years we've "prospered."

I think there's an argument in there to be had, that maybe things cannot be as easily dismissed as you think. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

cscs

help me out...I'm just not getting it. How is that boxed quote regarding how some liberals view religion..'pandering'?

He voted against the bankruptcy bill, but also opposed an amendment that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30%.

These were not 2 separate votes. He could only vote against the cap if he voted FOR the bankruptcy bill. This is a common trick, to get politicians to vote for a bill. Generally, the devil is in the details, and when it comes to legislative bills...the devil is in the amendments.

You are seemingly falling into the classic trap that such amendments are done for. Which is to castigate the Senator for not voting for the cap because he voted against the bankruptcy bill. Had he voted for the bankruptcy bill you would not laud him for voting for the interest rate cap of 30%...you would do just as you have here...attempt to question his positions by noting his vote FOR the bankruptcy bill.

This is classic politics, a damned if you do ad damned if you don't vote on a bill. Either way you vote, somone can use against you politically.

I imagine we will hear more of this dupliciousness if he runs/

Exactly which liberals do that?  Which liberals think religious people are opponents, not people of faith? You know who also says the exact same thing about liberals and religion? The right wing.

When you meet with a Christian group and you distort and dismiss the base of your party's position, that's pandering.

When you, as this WaPo story says, "[chastise] fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to 'acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people,'" that's what I call pandering.

Because I don't see Obama saying that anywhere else. Perhaps he should come to the 08 Dem Primary Convention and give a speech about how liberals think religious people are their political opponents, or that liberals "fail to acknowledge" the important of religion in people's lives. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I guess I see a black Presidency (Obama's, or someone who comes after him), as not being in itself a solution to America's race problem, but rather a prerequisite to that problem's solution. How can we say that we are not a racist nation until we have agreed to be led by an African-American? And how can we say that we are not a sexist nation until after we have been led by a woman?

When you meet with a Christian group and you distort and dismiss the base of your party's position, that's pandering.

OK, I see this point.

Exactly which liberals do that?  Which liberals think religious people are opponents, not people of faith? You know who also says the exact same thing about liberals and religion? The right wing.

So, are you saying you have not heard liberals speak dispragingly as well of evangelicals and how they have no place in the political discourse if they cannot separate their religious beliefs from political policy? That faith should not drive policy?

When you, as this WaPo story says, "[chastise] fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to 'acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people,'" that's what I call pandering.

In my view, this is simply a negative spin, on a Democratic exhorting members of his own party to engage on the faith debate. Particularly, as Obama also gave criteria for doing so in this same speech. So, if you want to take this out of context of the entire speech you could spin it like that. OTOH, I see it as a very astute politician telling his own party colleagues how they can find common ground and not relinquish this group of voters to the GOP. I see it as an exhortation, not a chastisement. Based on the numbers of Dems that had him speak on the campaign trail, I would say they did not feel chastized for the most part. They called in the winning QB to throw their passes during the fourth quarter.

I can accept that you see it pandering...but I really believe that is open to interpretation. Particularly, when all we have is this one  excerpted statement which  does not reflect the substance and overall message of the speech it was excerpted from.

WaPo is entitled to their subjective view but it is not reflective of the entirety of the speech.

Obama has no experience in foreign policy, knows no foreign leaders, has no prestige outside of the U.S., hasn't studied diplomacy and military capabilities --- is ill-prepared to take on the foreign policy role that the next president must take on. He would be the captive of whatever advisor's he chose, and so would we.

What foreign policy training does Wes Clark have other than how to use the military? His resume can be summed up as a CEO  of trained assassins.. What experience does he have at diplomacy and negotiation which will be far more useful in terms of foreign policy than militaristic solutions.?? What legislative skills does he have? The military can not solve the world issue we have today.

 Obama is a consensus builder and has superb coalition building skills which are essential for effective foreign diplomacy. He also has the brains to understand the issues unlike the present occupant of the WH. He can also appoint a person who is highly regarded among global heads of state as  a global leader to be Secretary of State i.e.  Bill Clinton.

It wasn't that Southerners wanted to reduce the representation of slaves from 100 percent to 60 percent.

There was no "representation of slaves" at all -- there was just an increase in the representation of southern white men, who were the only people who got to vote.

MJ you just don't like being called on your anti-Israel positions.

Now lets see. While Bobby Kennedy was dying many of his Black aids and my mother were in our livingroom deciding which Blacks had to be invited to his funeral. My mother was there at the founding of Black Enterprise Magazine and continues to be a friend of Earl Graves.

What I cavalierly dismissed was the every popular notion by the soft-headed whole like to flog the United States that racism is a peculiarly American dilemma. It is not. Also I don't think Obama can get elected precisely because of the continuing racism in among Americans. It is a reality which overtime, I hope, will fade.

I can see why you are so popular at this site. You are a sob sister for all the favored groups. You allow for no freedom of choice not measure of balance. Sort a Jewish Bush.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

So, are you saying you have not heard liberals speak dispragingly as well of evangelicals and how they have no place in the political discourse if they cannot separate their religious beliefs from political policy? That faith should not drive policy?

Sure, I've heard that. Does that represent a large enough part of the liberal base to warrant mentioning it in a speech?

I'm not so sure.

Moreoever, this also substantiates and plays right into the right-wing portrayal of liberals as anti-God. Obama could have said what he said 10 different ways without relying on the same strawman the Right uses against us. That's the bigger problem as I see it.

Many in the base felt Obama was wrongly calling them out in that speech -- and the downside is now comments like the one that started this thread.

I'm not saying this is a showstopper. Everyone recognizes Obama has some good qualities about him, qualities that can one day maybe take him to the White House.

But it does show a side of Obama, that maybe he's a little to quick to confirm things the right says about a large part of the Democratic base. It's something to watch for -- he took a lot of heat from that speech, and it will be interesting to see if he learned something from the experience. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I did not say that racism ended 50 years ago only that things are much better than they were before Brown v Board of Ed. To deny that is not to be realistic.

I agree with your view about a Black President. I think it is true of a woman or a Jew as well. This country is first and foremost dominated by White Protestant males and those who think they should retain political power.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

My mom mentioned Obama to me the other day.  She had seen him on TV and was deeply impressed by him.  She added that if she were his wife, she would worry. 

I asked her why, and she said, well, if he runs for president, I would be afraid that he'd get shot.  Which I thought was an excellent point, although it hadn't occurred to me until she said it -- perhaps that in itself is a small measure of progress in some twisted way.  For my mother, who was a teenager in the 60s, it was kind of an automatic response.  A black leader... running for president?  Of course he'll be shot.

Moreoever, this also substantiates and plays right into the right-wing portrayal of liberals as anti-God.

Obama's speech has not helped spread the stereotype that all liberals are militant atheists, in fact, by pointing out that there are some liberal atheists in the Democrat party, he is demonstrating a larger truth, and that is that there are just as many Democrats (I hope) who are comfortable with religious language.

From the reception that his speech is gettng here, I guess we will have to wait and see whether Democrats prove him right and the stereotype wrong, or the reverse.

It is a terrible story about how, in the 12 years following the war, the United States government allowed the south to crush any chance that African-Americans would have political rights. It is a story of pogroms like something out of Europe. Really, it has to be read to be believed.

Where have you been? Eric Foner was saying this 20 years ago, Kenneth Stampp 40 years ago, and they were not the first: W.E.B. DuBois was saying it as early as 1909.

That aside, I have to say that although I find Barack Obama an exciting political figure (though one that may need some seasoning on the national scene before he's ready for the presidency), I am among those who are skeptical that Obama could solve the problem of racism in this country by the mere fact of being elected. It would be an important step (I don't say "an important start" because earlier important steps have included electing black politicians to Congress, to governorships, and appointments to the Supreme Court); I think it is a long way from the last one that would be needed, though.

What seems obvious besides that people on the left like to deny facts as much as people on the right that racism is not unique to the United States.

You keep raising this, as if someone here was arguing that racism is particular to America.

We all know it's not. Who here is arguing that? It's everywhere. Please show me someone here who said it wasn't? 

And then tell me what that has to do with MJ's post? Or the horrible, stinky hippie Left, which you keep calling out? 

You're all pissed off about an argument that no one's making.

I believe we, in the business, call that a strawman. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Sure, I've heard that. Does that represent a large enough part of the liberal base to warrant mentioning it in a speech?

Yes. However large the segment it has   created a non-voting bloc for Democrats and basically ceded that group of voters to the GOP. So yes this merits mentoning if you want to chip away at the hold the GOP has had on the evangelical vote. Again, Obama was proviiding a pathway to those voters for the democrats.

Moreoever, this also substantiates and plays right into the right-wing portrayal of liberals as anti-God.

Naw. Not when he is simultaneously claiming to have a strong faith, as well. He is saying that faith is a common ground, not an opposing political ground. Nothing anti-God there. I really wonder if the very people who hold this particular critical view are the very liberals he was speaking of.  I mean, the essence of Obama's remarks is that being liberal does not mean you are anti-God.

But it does show a side of Obama, that maybe he's a little to quick to confirm things the right says about a large part of the Democratic base.

Again, I think this is the wrong take. Especially, given how he campaigned for so many of his fellow Democrats and in essence added to the Democratic base by bringing in those folks who were swayed by the GOP values rhetoric.  He let those voters know that the Democrats have values, they have faith as well and there is nothing anti-God about being liberal and democratic.

Eh.  He said "at worst."  And in the context of the whole speech -- the overall message is very clearly not that liberals hate religion because we're concerned with separation of Church and State.  He is, after all, speaking to an audience of religious liberals who share the same concerns. 

And I think the sentence is a perfectly reasonable one.  There are, at worst, some liberals who do exactly as he says.  You pretty much won't find them on the national stage, but there are some, and if you're the sort of person who would be at the Call to Renewal conference, you are bound to have encountered them, probably with some frequency.  It makes sense to mention it, not as pandering, but because you're talking to a group of politically active religious liberals about whether and/or how to express that you are a religious liberal.

I'm sympathetic to the criticism of him for putting it quite the way he did, but at the same time... eh.  When candidates scrutinize every sentence of every speech to death because of how it might be spun nationally, they just end up sounding overscripted.

"We could solve that problem by voting for Carolyn Moseley-Braun"

Or Condi Rice.... Would you vote for Condi because she's black and female, as opposed to a Democrat who does not believe in single-payer health care?

Faith is common ground? Faith is just as often something people will fight to the death over (as they are doing this very minute in Iraq). Evengelical Christians do NOT represent my faith. John Kerry, a cafeteria Catholic like me, represented the complexity of my conflicted religious beliefs precisely. That doesn't mean he is great candidate for 2008. In fact, he'd be a terrible candidate. But Kerry and I would have common ground on faith.

But common ground on faith these days means kneeling before a version of Christianity that many of us do not accept. After all, those evengelicals have been known to tell Catholics that we will all burn in hell. They've certainly told me that to my face! On matters of policy we may have common ground but on faith? No.

Maybe you and Daniel should volunteer at your favorite state prison.

I notice that you failed to mention the Civil War in which 600,000 Americans died and which had as a result the end of slavery. This makes slavery however horrible rather than different than the Holocaust.

Second as a result of WWII including the Holocaust Germany was bombed into submission so no it did not prosper as a result of it. However, thanks to U.S. and German talent it has since propered and of course thanks to cheap labor by Muslims.

How convenient to ignore the issue. Which is racism now eating way at America. It seems rather obvious that it is not. I do not know if you want to say that having to Black Secretaries of State is meaningless but it would seem to me to say that things are not as they once were.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

MJ

I noticed that you tried calling me a racism and that did not quite work for you. So now you are going a different way.

So yes I have been to Israel. I currently have family who lives there. My family has friends that live there.

I don't oppose any deal the Israelis want to enter into. I certainly think a peace deal that results in the Israelis getting pretty much the deal offereed at Taba would be great.

It is just that unlike you I recognize that the reason there are so many Palestinians killed is largely in the hands of the Palestinians and other Arabs. I credit them with being adults who can make their own decision. You arent trying to stop the death of anyones 18 year olds you are just trying to make yourself better.

What you largely propose unilateral actions by Israel will get lots of Israelis killed. But at least you casn feel morally superior.

Pal, why are your posts so popular with those who want to blame all of the Middle East's Problems on Israel and even don't care if Israeal survives?
Daniel A. Greenbaum

CSCS

Is true that no one here can read? First MJ quote used the phrase "the racism is eating away at America. I believe it to be untrue, indeed moronic.

MJ and a couple of other posters then suggested that somehow I was being a racism. I am tired of this drivel. So read MJ original post again you will see that this is dicussed. Then read posts like Bluebells kneejerk responses.

You will see that MJ accused me of something that was untrue and disgusting of him. Instead of being man enough to admit it he just went another way to attack me.

Hey we live in a country in which Bush sets the tone. It ahame that so many who think they are better than him are just like him.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

PS here is the quote from MJ's original post:

Racism is and has always been the cancer eating away at the heart of America."

I disagreed is the \ orthodoxy that this true.

Sorry, Daniel. Just think next time before you trivialize racism.

We had slavery in this country from 1607 through 1865. 258 years.
We had another 100 years of Jim Crow.
That is 358 years of fully institutionalized racism.
It's been getting better for 42 years.

42 years out of 358. Is there another western country that comes close to that record?

Thank God the Dems won last month. Not new Dems either, but real Dems who do think we need to address racism. The neocons on this site who deny the existence of racism as an excuse for tolerating it have a bad few decades looming up ahead.

Oops, "that Jamestown made"

Sorry, Langston. 

MJ

You are disgusting human being. Next time you do anything try thinking. it is likely to be a first.

I didn't trivialize racism you did. You know anything about the changes in this country from Brown v Bd or Ed to now? I doubt it. if Obama is a serious candidate then it only proves the point that racism isn't "eating away" at this country nor is it unique to this county. It is however a continuing problem.

This has been useful. It now clearer why you posts on Israel simply repeat the regular anti-Israeli drivel You are not a moral person nor a serious on,

Your ad hominem attacks on me were a disrace. By the way I probably have employed more Black people and house more Black people than you know.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Goethean, did you mean to give whiterosebuddy's comment above a zero rating? I know it's possible to click on the wrong rating sometimes, as I've done it myself.

Thanks, Daniel. Your last comment about hiring and housing black people is too weird for words.
I am no longer responding to you.
Just one last thought. Pretend, for a minute, that African Americans have suffered as much as Jews. Just pretend. And then pretend to some empathy.
Shalom and [no] l'hitraot.

The phrase "eating away at America" has a broad enough meaning to me that I am not finding it difficult to see truth on both sides of this argument.

If you confine "faith" to creed based churches, then you are correct, bluebell. Perhaps the "comon ground on faith" was awkwardly phrased, but there are common grounds across faiths. If there weren't, our country would not have survived. And we have to return to that sort of discussion.

I am a member of a covenant-based church where it is firmly recognized that each individual's spiritual journey is based on that individual's freedom to make that journey without interference. The members agree to treat one another with tolerance and to make church decisions using reason and rationality.

It should not be an unfamiliar concept. This sort of church was common in America at the time of our Founding Fathers. It is how they were able to find "common ground" across different faiths in reaching policy decisions.

We just cannot continue with any creed-based faith insisting that all elements of their particular creed has to be met in public policy decisions. It cannot continue to be an "all or nothing" approach if we want to continue our American success story. It has to stop and stop now.

That is what I hear Obama saying and it resonates with me.

I think you can work for common ground on values and how values are expressed in policy but government is not the place to be seeking common ground on faith.

What experience does he have at diplomacy and negotiation which will be far more useful in terms of foreign policy than militaristic solutions?

Dayton?
Supreme Allied Commander?

Let's admit that it's easy to fall into the trap of feeling that anything or anyone would be better than the current president.

However, one of the more important qualities militaries can contribute with in that position is the understanding of the limits of what can be accomplished with military strength.

Obama may have skills essential for diplomacy, but Clark has practiced. After the current president, one may hold that to be a rather fundamental request.

Leader-qualities are also a lot more important for making a military career than for becomming a CEO in civilian corporations.

/Tuomas

Obama has been invited before evangelicals, most recently to discuss AIDS...and he said that he knew his stand on his faith differed with the stand of most he was addressing, but he did not believe AIDS should be a death sentence. He received massive applause.

Obama speaks directly to the individual. Don't buy the hype that every member of these churches is a robot and follows every creedal position. They don't. Bluebell referred to "cafeteria" Catholics. That means one who hasn't bought all of the creed. As just one example, 90% of Catholics don't have an issue using birth control although their creed considers this use immoral. This isn't restricted to Catholics and isn't just there on one issue like birth control.

Obama speaks his faith; says everyone may not agree; says we have to speak with reason and rationality instead of "God told me so"; and searches for points of agreement so policies can be formulated. The leaders of these faiths may not agree with him, but he's not having the conversation solely with them. He is also having a conversation with the individual sitting in the pew.

The Democrats perhaps have legitimate "grudges" against some church leaders. But we have to speak to the individuals across all faiths if we want to be more than a minority party.

And I don't believe Obama is being insincere in his conversation. He believes what he is saying and it is resonating. I don't know of any other Democrat doing this successfully.

Hillary for President! That means that in few decades, students throughout the world would be taught that two dynasties, the Bushes and the Clintons, reigned over America form 1998 to 2012. As a foreigner from an Arab country who idealizes the American democracy, I'm really scared to figure out that not a single American among the tens of thousands skilled and bright citizens deserve to be the next President of the U.S. just because he's out of the two dynasties'circle. Something should be wrong within the Amercian democracy!!
I recently read Hillary's book and I'am really impressed by her courage and determination. But Hillary for president is simply not good for the image of the american democracy.

I am no fan of Obama, the man is wedded to the existing paradigm of political discourse in this country. Possibly because of Joe Lieberman's influence, possibly by his own tendencies. I do know that several fiscally radical (end social security!) and socially moderate (why are you wasting time hating on gays?) people I know, get this strange light of... I guess hope in their eyes when they speak of Obama.

That makes me convinced that if he is the nominee and the polls are close, he will be murdered, or at least someone will try.

The only positive to that, is that in the later stages of the campaign, if there is an attempted assassination and Obama survives it, he will become president.

Why don't you ask some black Americans if they perceive racism as a major problem, instead of declaring that it is not by virtue of your lofty perch above us all? And will you then tell them that if they do see racism as a major problem in this country, that they are incapable of thought as well?

Your mom is not the only one with that thought. That's one of the 1st things my wife thought- that he'd be assasinated before taking office.