For the umpteenth time, Paul Krugman has devoted his precious space in print and online claiming that Barack Obama is really speaking for Republicans when seeks to bridge the divide and tries to convince America that he's the right candidate. It's old hat. Mr. Krugman seems to ignore the awfully right wing fight that the Clinton campaign is engaging in. Krugman does mention her support of the Gas Tax Holiday as her pandering to the right or at least getting it wrong. Boo hoo. That's the least of what has been coming out of that camp, and it's certainly not the last.

I believe that there is a point at which all of us looking at the very important issues must step back from the ideology that guides us, and step into the shoes of our opponents. We might not agree with everything they say or claim or demand, but compromise is the cornerstone of progress. It is clear to me, as a regular person, that words like "mandate" when coupled with services like health care set off alarms for conservatives who are averse to big government. "Socialized medicine" is already the common slur against the Democrats' attempts at universal health care. Thems fightin' words. Words that need to be considered when planning the showdown that will occur when this plan actually hits Congress.

When the Clintons' original plan, which inflexibly included a mandate, made it to Congress in 1994 Jim Cooper, a Democratic congressman from Tennessee, had already drafted a universal health care bill that "had 58 co-sponsors in the House — 26 Republicans and 32 Democrats". Both plans failed, because the Clintons' wanted nothing to with the Cooper bill over their own.

So here we are in 2008. Mandates or not, the Democrats are the only ones coming up with a solution and some of us feel so strongly about the minutia that it's worth constantly scratching away at the forerunner. It was annoying back in February, but now — after we've seen the O'Reilly show, the Richard Mellon-Scaife show, the "I'm more pious than he is" show — it sounds silly.

Lately there's a grumbling in the media about the similarity of former Democratic nominee George McGovern's run for the White House and Barack Obama's. Maybe that makes him unelectable!!! *sarcasm* Those same people said that electability was a factor that couldn't — and shouldn't — be assessed in the primaries just a couple of months ago. I won't go into the details of McGovern's 1972 run for President, but the gist is that he was wildly popular with a segment of the population — not enough to win the general election. It certainly looks like a comparison that is worth some investigation, but the media is not really investigating it. Not the mainstream media, that is.

I read an interesting piece about George McGovern's take on the campaign by Sam Stein in Huff Post the other day. In it Mr. McGovern explains that the problem with his candidacy in 72 was with other Dem. nominees who lost to McGovern before the convention. That nomination process went long and was decided late. The competition was fierce — and dirty — and apparently the rifts didn't heal in the brief Fall general election period. According to the former nominee, himself, his opponents continued their attacks throughout the Fall adding to the opposition's appeal.

I know that it is appealing to look back for a precedent that mirrors 2008. But it's hard if not impossible to use McGovern's name as a curse if that person debunks the very basis for the curse. On the other hand, history is not entirely wrong — McGovern had a loyal and limited group of supporters as all candidates do. So many aspects of our political climate are different from that time in our history, let alone any other, that we would be much better off just reporting on the progress of the race for a Dem. nominee. Journalists hardly report anymore, they represent interests that are sometimes obvious and sometimes obscured. Now journalists interpret, something that used to be left to Sunday morning talking heads. Now every minute of 24 hours news is full of tea leaf reading and innuendo, guessing and cataloging.

Obama is not like McGovern, yet. When the Democrats figure out that they can only win the White House if they come together for the general election then the big truth of McGovern's loss in 72 can be avoided. That will have to included all the candidates who lost. Already we see in the "Vote for Change" 50 state voter registration, a solid effort by the Obama campaign. The media can help by avoiding tags like McGovern or Brady that are divisive rather than illuminating. They can help by telling like it is and not like they think it should be. Some people are still listening.

He didn't really say that, but check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyNzC9W2C8Q

Obama talks about how connected he wants his government to be to the people. Town hall meetings — with him and his cabinet — and a White House web site that actually has information on it. He seems to be hinting at a MyBO style web site. Very exciting!

Now that Barack Obama has separated himself from Rev. Wright, an act that visibly cut Obama to the quick, maybe all — but the far right — can get back to deciding who's right on the issues. I still have something on my mind, though. The day before Obama gave his press conference rejecting Rev. Wright, the same day that Wright gave his own press conference at the National Press Club, I wrote about how much this episode in this long race has to do with a cultural misunderstanding. Then I saved it — rendering it untimely. I think it still bears examination.

"The most recent attack on the black church, it is our hope that this just might mean that the reality of the African-American church will no longer be invisible."
— Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, The National Press Club, Washington, D.C.

This quote, though merely a sound bite of words, sums up much of the controversy surrounding the revered Biblical scholar and retired pastor, Rev. Wright. His claim to represent the whole black church in this controversy sounds egotistical, but I feel that there's some merit there. It's clear from folks I've spoken with that Wright's not like most other African American preachers, but much of the strong reaction in the MSM and in the public has as much to do with what he says in his sermons as with how he says it. Nonreligious observers understandably lack insight into the value and complexity of a church community — that not all members agree or march in lock step with each other and their pastor. Religious observers, right and left, are often not familiar with any church tradition outside their own.

While much can be written on this, I just want to highlight two conversations that really opened my eyes to a cultural tradition that I was previously blind to. A culture that was invisible to me. The first conversation was with an African American coworker and the second was with a former student of Rev. Wright's. I learned something about the tradition of the black church — that it is an amalgam of traditions: the African tradition brought here, the African American tradition cultivated here and the Christian tradition shared at a basic level by all Christians (Catholic and Protestant). I learned also that black churches routinely meld the social issues of the African American community with the teachings from the Bible making the pulpit a place where ideas flow both out of and also in to. That it is not uncommon for the energy level to become elevated and for the volume to rise. While I attend a church that is staid and solemn, black churches engage in an exchange of ideas between the pastor and the congregation that can be imagined even in the simple call and response popular in hip hop. Because the issues relevant and vital to the African American community aren't always addressed in the MSM or in many other arenas, they become topics during the church service on Sunday. Far from being divisive to society, these problem sharing opportunities — containing passionate speech — are a catharsis. Just like revivals have been for more than a century.

Maybe this sounds like a high fallutin' look at the black church. That's OK. There is a misunderstanding, even an ignorance, about what goes on behind church doors among all races and creeds. Most folks don't know what it's like to worship in a mosque or synagogue let alone in an Orthodox church, a Catholic church or an Evangelical mega church. Though the latter gets beamed into many households every weekend. We could use a little anthropology on our neighbors faiths, then perhaps we could leave it out of the public forum for good.