Of all the things one can bag our future Justice about, this is the one thing that really drives me crazy.  Even slightly misworded statements that can be made to sound inflammatory - or even ragging on food that many people think is "gross" - doesn't piss me off nearly as much as the Repub cracking on Ms. Sotomayor and the fact it seems that Spanish was her first language as a child.

Maybe its because I'm the kid of Chinese immigrants and I've seen how hard my parents worked to get their english as square as possible. But its just absolutely aggravating to see pundits try to score points because the woman was born in a Spanish speaking home.

I was just at the Dallas Farmers Market a few months ago and at the ice cream stand I saw a  hispanic couple buying ice cream for their kid from a hispanic teenager.  Guess what language they were speaking between the four of them?  At the time I thought it was a interesting and touching moment of american assimilation that would especially make even right-wingers proud -- but I guess not since its now painfully obvious that its their existence and not their language skills that drives conservatives to conniptions.

Those clips of Reverend Wright has never really bothered me.  It think it is because I spent my teenage years attending a white church with a preacher who truly believed that his role in this world was to be a jeremiad about the state of America. Even though I share very few beliefs in common with him anymore, I can still admire someone who sincerely, honestly and stridently exhorts his congregation. As such, I understand why Obama continued to attend church that was a bit excessive in its plantifs about America. There is a power in religion and religious services that can have a long emotional grasp even if / when you don't totally agree with the words (or anger) of the guy at the pulpit. Sitting there does not mean total assent to all the words coming out of the preachers mouth.

More than the guilt by association issue, I have a problem in how the Republicans have tried to marginalize these expressions of anger in Black churches.  Black Christianity from its modest forms to its flashier mega-churches are products of the American culture and history.  These expressions are American exclamations of who we are in this country, even when it excessively condemns the evils that have been perpetuated by commission or omission in this nation. Election year political correctness has created an extremely narrow and vanilla definition of patriotism which ignore the diversity and dissent that is part of our American democracy. 

Growing up in the Rush Limbaugh revolution, I was brainwashed into thinking that big government = bad. Even now my gut reaction is to prefer the concept of smaller government. But since the Republicans seem utterly incapable at making government smaller nor can they effectively manage an increasingly larger government, why not try big government run by the Democrats? 

at least if I can trust Jack Cashill analysis of Obama and William Ayer's memoirs.  The gist of the arguement is that 1) Obama has very little paper trail before writing his book, 2) his speeches do not have a very similar cadence to the style of the book, and 3) the literary styles and genre (including slight fictionalizations) of the two memoirs are similar.

Presumably it means that this memoir must also be written by Ayers since it is improbable that a Dreams could not come from a novice writer/lawyer from Chicago.

I should mention I have not read any of Obama or Ayer's work....and I find this pretty silly, but something interesting to throw out there....

I guess when one is desperately is grasping at straws for their own candidate....

Wow, I just youtubed the South Dakota statements by Obama today responding to the Repubs.  And it reminded me of Obama's painful spring.

As many pundits had mentioned, he was on the defensive for much of the period (esp. between Penn and NC/Indiana).  And I also sensed a lower energy malaise also and now I realize why.  While some people complain Obama's camp and Obamabot bloggers may have (fairly or unfairly) been pointing out Clinton's weaknesses, I think that most reasonable folks admit that Obama himself avoided the heavy hitting.

Unlike Clinton, Obama realized (of course he had a nice comfy lead) that what comes out of the candidate's mouth does carry much more weight than the words of his/her minions.  As such he refused to hammer a fellow Democrat on her personal issues even as he was being buffeted by his own.  That meant he couldn't pivot away from his own problems which made his defensiveness seem listless and weak.

Like he said in some town hall, he wouldn't be so nice with the Republicans (if/when he became the nominee).

And now that he has something to pivot into, its nice to see him slamming and punching hard again!

So what looks worse?  Obama losing two states as a presumptive nominee or the battle to continue going on?  I mean he doesn't have a chance in those two states one way or the other right, unless she takes her name off the ballot since they won't count for anything anyways.

Just curious...

As an Obamabot I do often wonder why on earth Clinton still has such traction among voters...I have to remind myself that almost 1 out of 3 people STILL approve of George W's performance!

Given this currently growing meme of Obama = McGovern or Dukakis I'm curious who Clinton supporters would use to analogize thier candidate (presumably positively)....

As an Obama supporter, I would not be charitable so I'd rather see what other folks would say...