How can it be that Obama, who has known Wright for 20 years, not know of Wright's views?

How is it possible that a minister who brought Obama, a religious skeptic, to faith not be his spiritual mentor(or of sorts), especially when Obama attended only one church?

Obama might agree with Wright or he might not agree, but Obama cannot now know Wright!

Obama, or his campaign, or both did not have it in them to go on the offense. Only recourse was to vilify the pastor.

How is this any different from the Clintons?

Who will Obama vilify next?
I remember his wife saying that she is proud of America for the first time (you see, the truth does not matter)
I remember his wife also saying "the race situation - that is America" ( you see the context does not matter)

Washington post's editorial admonishes Wright's audacity.
Eugene Robinson concludes Wright threw Obama under the bus and implores Obama to do the same. Robinson feels compelled to separate himself from Wright, and loathes Wright's egocentric behavior.
George Will goes on a complete rant on Wright, Wright's importance in the campaign, "correctness" of the use of Wright in the campaign attack machines.
Bob Herbert, at the NYT says Wright went to Washington to bury Obama.
(Oh, I could not ready this kind of bullshit in other places, which I am sure there is no dearth of)
I spent 15 minutes yesterday watching few infotainment pseudo-reality networks (CNN, MSNBC, are there anymore? I would not know) and it was all about how Wright is screwing things up for Obama.

I have even read Josh say "I think Rev. Jeremiah Wright's new kick Obama in groin-athon is playing a big role too.", in the context of why Obama's appeal seems to be loosing.

And I am saddened.

Saddened that democrats can not bring home a more effective offense (NOT defense) to blunt the "Oh my God, Obama is friends with Wright" stuff.

Saddened that the American infotainment industry still dictates the direction of the conversation.

Saddened that America, as always, is on a self-gratifying circular loop.

Incensed at Obama's aloofness at  setting the direction of the conversation and taking control of the narrative.

I am frustrated at the dumbness of the media, self-apologetic attitude of the democrats and, in this case, THE BLACK COMMUNITY, and Obama campaign's incompetence.

The only thing Obama's campaign did so far was cash-in on Obama's charisma. Maybe it is to get to doing some real work.

I am no big fan of Obama. He does not come off as a policy person, does not provide specific ideas, does not educate the public, does not engage in conversations until he is forced to.
And I am a skeptic of his Iraq plan. He has never spoken at length of the sufferings of the Iraqis.
And I don't find him charismatic or super-eloquent, or even super handsome.
All that said, I believe Obama is the most temperamentally, emotionally, and intellectually suited to be the President - not even JFK let alone Mr. Clinton, in my opinion, was so qualified.
Which brings me to one component of the debate - Electability: Can Obama really win the general against John McCain?
a) Oh my God, McCain will say he is linked to terrorist
b) Oh my God, Republicans will link him to Wright
c) Oh my God, Republicans will portray him and his family as America haters
d) Oh my God, Republicans will say that he is elitist and is not in touch with Real America

I have heard these questions over and over and over and over again. Not just from Clinton surrogates, (empty) talking heads, and even Obama supporters. And I am forced to ask myself: Are democrats such set of cowards that they are not even confident that they can plan a counter attack that they want to nominate a candidate who is less controversial or has been fully vetted even if he or she is hollow?

And NO, anyone who says that there are very few differences, if any, between Clinton and Obama are wrong. There is a huge temperamental difference, and a huge emotional restraint difference.

I am convinced that Hillary's Administration will be no different, in many aspects, to George W. Bush's, and it is of no benefit my causes: Transparency, treatment of citizens as adults rather than as children, and pushing for, and convincing citizens to share collective responsibility and sacrifice.
To me this election, at the primary level and at the national level, is either fundamental democratic change or no change. I am tempted to say I would rather choose that "no change" which will make it possible for me to choose the change I want next time around.

Washington post has an interesting article on John McCain.

John McCain sounds very rational and well thought in his positions.

John McCain, to me comes off as an extremely complex politician.

I am not sure McCain, as the President, would stick to his rather right-pandering ideas.

I have a feeling, maybe wrongly so, that John McCain, when it comes to policy issues, can be persuaded and can be rational.

OK! I was total dickhead to not know how to paste the embed link. I still am a dickhead, but here is the link.

A video that I thought aptly accompanies the news!

<embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/videoplayer/flvplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="355" flashvars="file=http://www.theonion.com/content/xml/76782/video&autostart=false&image=http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/CONSPIRACY_THEORY_article.jpg&bufferlength=3&embedded=true&title=9%2F11%20Conspiracy%20Theories%20%27Ridiculous%2C%27%20Al%20Qaeda%20Says"></embed><br/><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/9_11_conspiracy_theories?utm_source=embedded_video">9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says</a>

The cabal just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
The New York Times reports

Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Full report here

President Clinton made two statements, and people should take note of
these two statements - a mistake both Mr. Russert and Mr. Todd,
and even Mr. Robinson made today on Meet the press.

President Clinton said

I think it would be a great
thing if we had
an election year where you had two people who loved this country and
were devoted to the interest of this country.

AND he further went on to say

And people could actually
ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other
stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.

Clearly, the first statement states that there are some candidates in the race who don't necessarily love this country and are not devoted to the interest of this country.

There are some people who think this as a stretch, but all those people should listen to and read what the Republicans, conservatives, and talk-show & talk-radio hosts have been saying ever since Michelle Obama's I-am-proud-of-the-country-for-the-first-time rap, including, I must add, Peggy Noonan's column "praising" Obama's speech.

It is naive to think that there are no "customers" for this kind of talk. It is important to note that President Clinton was addressing a group of war veterans in North Carolina.
I do not believe that war veterans or men/women in uniform overwhelmingly make up these "customers" but it is political and I believe (not think or know) common perception that war veterans and men/women in uniform tend to "respond" more to this kind of "patriotic talk."

Coming to the second sentence of President Clinton and a follow up by Gov. Rendell, who according to AP said

Bill Clinton was saying what many people think, that the campaign should focus on the economy, health care and the candidates' experience, for example, and not on race and other distractions.

It is an outright jab at Obama's Tuesday speech. Essentially Mrs. Clinton's supporters, if not Mrs. Clinton herself, are saying that race should not be an issue, for it is a non-issue and distracts us from real issues.

While the fact remains that addressing race head-on can alleviate many other issues in this country, including but not limited to, education, poverty, and affirmative action- I am sure everyone would like a society where there is no need for affirmative actions, Clinton supporters are more than suggesting that it is a distraction.

That said, Obama's campaign could use a dose of discipline, ranging from Mrs Obama's "proud of America" statement, to Mr Obama's "typical white" remark, to Gen. McPeak's remarks, not to mention Prof. Power's monster gaffe and "Obama-not-bound-by-Iraq-withdrawal-plan."

They might not have said anything wrong, but they sure are saying things that are putting them on the defensive, and frankly, the campaign can live without.