Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Do any of you that are complaining about Wright really believe Obama is going to set about punishing whites? Can you find even one thing Obama's said or done that might lead you to believe this? And does anyone really believe McCain is going to destroy the Catholic Church or ask God for help in tormenting gays? In the end we're not measured by the company we keep, good or bad, but by what we do.

Of course not, but when your campaign is based upon unity and hope, how can you so closely associate yourself with someone so divisive? Certainly, this is going to cause many to question whether your message is honest or simply good politics.

If he were campaigning on economic stimuli and health care reforms, it would be less on an issue. He's not and never has.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

FWIW, I am friends with priests with whom I disagree on some pretty fundamental points. But they have a lot of good qualities, and I am made a better person by my friendship with them. And they do provide me with some spiritual guidance.

I think that it is too hard on anyone to say that we should attribute to them the worst beliefs of their friends/mentors/partners.

This is how I see it. I understand the concerns, though, but I think ultimately this will be no big deal.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think Obama's problem is, he's basically been spending the last 20 or so years in a crash course on black America. He's not sure how to approach this because it never occurred to him that it would come up in the way that it has.

Oh, I think he knew.

In January 2007, Obama asked Wright if he would deliver a public invocation at his announcement to run for president. But Wright said Mr. Obama called him the night before the Feb. 10 announcement and rescinded the invitation to give the invocation. Instead, he prayed in private with Obama before the announcement.

[Jas_lov]

CNN says no Florida re-vote.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

CNN says no Florida re-vote.

Shockingly stupid, if true.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Shockingly stupid, if true.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...17/776838.aspx

First Read has obtained a letter from Florida Democratic Party chair Karen Thurman, in which she says there won't be a re-vote in her state. This seems to mean: 1) that Florida's delegates won't be seated; 2) that they will, via a vote from the credentials committee; or 3) that there will be some sort of compromise (like counting delegates by half).

"Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again," Thurman writes. "So we won't."

"A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option. Florida is finally moving to paper ballots, which is a good thing, but it means that at least 15 counties do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline. This doesn't mean that Democrats are giving up on Florida voters. It means that a solution will have to come from the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again in April."

Here's the full letter...

Dear XXX,
For a year now, the Florida Democratic Party has tried to comply with the Delegate Selection Rules of the Democratic National Committee.

We researched every potential alternative process - from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections - but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida.

We made a detailed case to the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, but we were denied.
Our Democratic legislators in Tallahassee tried to set the Florida primary on Feb. 5, instead of Jan. 29, but of course, their proposed amendment to House Bill 537 was greeted with laughter and derision from the Republicans who control the state government <>.
Does '537' ring a bell? It should. It's the number of votes that separated Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore in Florida in 2000.

It's the number that sent this country and this world in a terrible direction.

We can't let 537 - or the Republicans - determine our future again.

President Bush plans to stop in Florida tomorrow to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Republican National Committee's efforts to elect his successor in November.

The last thing America needs is a third Bush term. Despite the widespread anxiety that working families feel, not to mention the broad agreement among economists that we are in a recession, President Bush and John McCain blindly believe that the economy is strong.

And let me remind you that John McCain endorsed President Bush's decision to deny health care to thousands of Florida children by vetoing an expansion of the successful SCHIP program. McCain also promises to jeopardize the financial security of Florida seniors by privatizing Social Security. He continually threatens to push Florida's military families to the brink by keeping American troops in Iraq for "100 years" or more.

This is why we are Democrats, and this is why we must stick together, no matter where this ongoing delegate debate takes us.

Last week, the Florida Democratic Party laid out the only existing way that we can comply with DNC Rules - a statewide revote run by the Party - and asked for input.
Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again.

So we won't.

A party-run primary or caucus has been ruled out, and it's simply not possible for the state to hold another election, even if the Party were to pay for it. Republican Speaker of the Florida House Marco Rubio refuses to even consider that option. Florida is finally moving to paper ballots, which is a good thing, but it means that at least 15 counties do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline.

This doesn't mean that Democrats are giving up on Florida voters. It means that a solution will have to come from the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again in April.

When this committee stripped us of 100% of our delegates last year, some members summed up their reasoning by saying, "The rules are the rules." Unfortunately, the rules did not apply to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina when they, too, violated the DNC calendar by moving from their assigned dates.

As the late great Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "We must adjust our ideas to the facts of today… Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are."

The Florida Democratic Party has stuck to its principles throughout this debate. We've remained open-minded while never wavering from our commitment to an open and fair election that would allow all Florida Democrats to participate, whether serving in Iraq, retiring in Boca, studying abroad or entertaining at a theme park.

Another late great President -Abraham Lincoln, a Republican - said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

If Democrats heed this wisdom, we will win in November.

America needs a great president again, but a President McCain will settle for the status quo and carry on the disastrous Bush tradition.

President Clinton or President Obama will make history and lead this nation in a new direction.

Let's remember this as the delegate debate continues. We must stick together as Democrats. The stakes are too high and the opportunities too great.

I will keep you posted on any major developments. Thank you for your concern and your commitment.

Sincerely,
Congresswoman Karen L. Thurman
Chair, Florida Democratic Party

[Vegas Vic]

Florida is obviously a very important state.

[CamEdwards]

This is interesting:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...News_Hour.html

From a Newshour interview by Gwen Ifill talking to Barack Obama:

MS. IFILL: Anybody watching this campaign for the last week to 10 days would think it was all about gender and race between what Geraldine Ferraro said and what your former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. Do you look at this and think that maybe with a woman and a black man running against each other that this was going to be an inevitable conversation?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I’m not sure if it was inevitable. I think that there’s no doubt that race and gender are powerful forces in our society. They always have been. And I think it would have been naïve for me to think that I could run and end up with quasi-frontrunner status in a presidential election as potentially the first African-American president that issues, race wouldn’t come up any more than Senator Clinton could expect that gender issues might not come up.

But, ultimately, I don’t think it’s useful. I think we’ve got to talk about it. I think we’ve got to process it. But we’ve got to remind ourselves that what we have in common is far more important than what’s different and that if we’re going to solve any of these problems, we’ve got to come together and bridge our differences in ways that we just have not bridged them before.

MS. IFILL: Is that the speech you’ll be giving tomorrow in Philadelphia?

SEN. OBAMA: That will be a major focus of it.

Okay, seriously... if that's the major focus of the speech then I'm just about willing to pronounce the Obama campaign over.

Obama's been saying "we're the one's we've been waiting for." But this seems to be "You are the one with the problem." I mean this is the same platitudinal bullshit that Obama's been saying all along. And this is his big address on race?

Wow. As a sneak preview, color me unimpressed.

[CamEdwards]

dola

Another gem from the same interview:

MS. IFILL: The distinction between you and Senator Clinton that’s been drawn by both of you over the last several weeks has been judgment versus experience. So let me ask you about your judgment on some issues, not only Reverend Wright and your association with him over the years but also Tony Rezko who you’ve talked a lot about recently, the Chicago developer who is now on trial on federal charges. Do you think that your association with those two people or people we don’t know about would raise questions about your judgment?



SEN. OBAMA: Well, no, look, all of us have people in our lives who we meet, we get to know, in some cases form friendships with, who end up getting themselves into trouble or say things that we don’t agree with. And probably what’s true is because I haven’t been in Washington as long as Senator Clinton or others that I have not distanced myself from these people for as long a period of time as somebody more steeped in Washington politics might have.But keep in mind, on all these issues, there is no allegations that I’ve done anything wrong, just as in the situation with Reverend Wright there is no allegation that I’ve said something that was inappropriate. And so I think the American people recognize that all of us have friends or associates or people who we meet along the way who are not ideal or perfect. But that’s part of what life is about.

That's a weird line. And again, it's not that Rev. Wright is "less than ideal" or "not perfect". The dude thinks the government invented AIDS and is responsible for distributing crack as a means to imprison the black community, and on and on.

I'm finding Obama's responses amazingly pedestrian (for lack of a better word). I thought he was supposed to be a rhetorical genius.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

CNN says no Florida re-vote.

John McCain smiles.

[Young Drachma]

Tribune editorial on Rezko and Obama after he spent time with them answering every question they had about it. Story ran yesterday.

[JPhillips]

The Florida revote means nothing come the general. There isn't one person who will switch there vote due to the primary delegates. I think it's likely a red state, but that has nothing to do with any revote issues.

As to Wright, humans have a tendency to buy into conspiracies. This certainly isn't something specific to Wright or black churches. Look at how many people think Saddam was behind 9/11 or how many think it was a Jewish/government plot. People of all ideologies are prone to believe bullshit conspiracies when the truth is too hard or random to accept. While Wright is offbase to think HIV was a government plot, unfortunately he's certainly not on the fringe to believe in crazy conspiracies.

Supergrover: I know it will hurt him politically, but I still don't see how Wright's words change Obama's positions. In the end the choice is clear, do you believe everything he's said for decades or do you believe it's all a conspiracy designed to put some sort of Black power radical in the White House?

[Ksyrup]

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Florida revote means nothing come the general. There isn't one person who will switch there vote due to the primary delegates. I think it's likely a red state, but that has nothing to do with any revote issues.

As to Wright, humans have a tendency to buy into conspiracies. This certainly isn't something specific to Wright or black churches. Look at how many people think Saddam was behind 9/11 or how many think it was a Jewish/government plot. People of all ideologies are prone to believe bullshit conspiracies when the truth is too hard or random to accept. While Wright is offbase to think HIV was a government plot, unfortunately he's certainly not on the fringe to believe in crazy conspiracies.
Supergrover: I know it will hurt him politically, but I still don't see how Wright's words change Obama's positions. In the end the choice is clear, do you believe everything he's said for decades or do you believe it's all a conspiracy designed to put some sort of Black power radical in the White House?

I think you are stretching it there. People who believe in crazy conspiracies are definately on the fringe as it pertains to those beliefs.

[SirFozzie]

This actually happened at the best possible time for Obama, because there's no votes for five more weeks. This will be a dead story by then

[Ksyrup]

I also think trying to bring some legitimacy to conspiracy theories by equating the Sadam & 9/11 issue with the government/HIV thing is way off-base and a bit disturbing. One is an incorrect belief based on a mistaken set of facts; the other is truly a fringe, wacko belief. Misinformation does not equal a conspiracy.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

This actually happened at the best possible time for Obama, because there's no votes for five more weeks. This will be a dead story by then

Well, he has announced he will give a speach tomorrow (Tuesday) on the subject, going beyond the comments, but to discuss the issue of race in the campaign. Here is his quote:

"I am going to be talking about, not just about Reverend Wright but just the larger issue of race in this campaign, which has ramped up over the last couple of weeks,” Obama told reporters after a town-hall meeting. “Part of what I’ll do tomorrow is to talk a little about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church community, for example, which I think views this very differently.”

[JPhillips]

Ksyrup: I completely disagree. Remember that the government did in fact let blacks suffer the ravages of syphilis long after we knew the cure. Saying that HIV is a government invention to a poor, black audience does have a perverse set of facts that backs that up. After all it wouldn't be incorrect to say, "The US government has studied sexually transmitted diseases by withholding treatment from black men and allowing them to die.

Certainly you'd agree that saying that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is just as nuts? And if you don't want to accept that what about people who believe that Kofi Annan is/was the Anti-Christ? Or that there are backward messages in heavy metal? Or that I-35 will be some super highway to multi-nationalism? I'd bet that over half the population believes in some sort of crazy conspiracy theory.

[stevew]

I didn't put much stock into Rev. Wright's conspiracy rants until he brought up that part about Neil O'Donnell being paid to throw Superbowl XXX away.

I now blame George Bush for the sickle cell.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Supergrover: I know it will hurt him politically, but I still don't see how Wright's words change Obama's positions. In the end the choice is clear, do you believe everything he's said for decades or do you believe it's all a conspiracy designed to put some sort of Black power radical in the White House?

WTF are you talking about? When did I say anything about conspiracies?

Look, Obama's entire campaign has been based upon the fact he's different. He's a uniting force of nature that will bring and end to disparate politics and instead foster change through cooperation and understanding. That's it.

Now, how can someone bring about unification when he calls someone family who is obviously a crackpot? Should Wright's opinions affect your views of Obama? Not if you believe in him because of policies. However, if you believe in him as a conduit of unity, then Wright's words better reverberate, because I guarantee you they will with many in this country.

[SuperGrover]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Ksyrup: I completely disagree. Remember that the government did in fact let blacks suffer the ravages of syphilis long after we knew the cure. Saying that HIV is a government invention to a poor, black audience does have a perverse set of facts that backs that up. After all it wouldn't be incorrect to say, "The US government has studied sexually transmitted diseases by withholding treatment from black men and allowing them to die.

Certainly you'd agree that saying that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is just as nuts? And if you don't want to accept that what about people who believe that Kofi Annan is/was the Anti-Christ? Or that there are backward messages in heavy metal? Or that I-35 will be some super highway to multi-nationalism? I'd bet that over half the population believes in some sort of crazy conspiracy theory.

He was linking Saddam and 9/11 not the government and 9/11.

Anyone who believes HIV and crack are government conspiracies doesn't deserve to be part of any intelligent discourse on race in this country.

[JPhillips]

Supergrover: But there's no evidence that Obama believes any of the most offensive things that Wright has said. I still want to know how Wright's statements change Obama's positions. In the end what's truly important is what Obama will or won't do. Wright's words in and of themselves don't mean anything to me.

Will it hurt Obama, of course. I said many posts ago that I wouldn't be surprised if Wright kills Obama's campaign sooner or later. My point is that most of the people going crazy about Wright are people that were opposed to Obama to begin with and see a way to destroy him. I don't believe that any of you seriously believe that Obama is secretly a black separatist.

On conspiracies in general, I've been giving this a lot of thought. I think people are so drawn to conspiracy theories because they are a way to retain a predetermined worldview in the face of contrary evidence. Without doing the research necessary to prove this, I would hypothesize that some, perhaps most, people are more willing to accept an irrational theory that supports their closely held beliefs than accept verifiable facts that go against their beliefs. I'd bet that while each individual conspiracy theory is on the fringe, the totality of fringe conspiracy believers in general is near or above a majoity of the population.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Certainly you'd agree that saying that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is just as nuts? And if you don't want to accept that what about people who believe that Kofi Annan is/was the Anti-Christ? Or that there are backward messages in heavy metal? Or that I-35 will be some super highway to multi-nationalism? I'd bet that over half the population believes in some sort of crazy conspiracy theory.

Wait a minute - "9/11 was a government conspiracy" and "9/11 was perpetrated by Sadam Hussein" are two totally different things. One is a true conspiracy theory, the other a mistaken belief. That's the dichotomy I was trying to draw with the Sadam/HIV thing. There is no Sadam "conspiracy theory."

And also, I can say from personal experience that there are, in fact, backwards messages in heavy metal. But they were either purposely planted there, or just something that people think they hear from a mish-mosh of sounds...they weren't placed there by Satan. And yes, I had an awful lot of free time during college.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

He was linking Saddam and 9/11 not the government and 9/11.

Exactly, I was responding to the original comment using the Sadam example.

[Raiders Army]

What a fucking whiner. She won the state, now she's quibbling.

AUSTIN, Texas(AP) The Texas Democratic Party said Monday it had denied a request by Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign that it take extra steps to verify the signatures of election night caucus-goers before party conventions being held at the end of the month.

State chairman Boyd Richie said Texas Democrats will not "set up an unnecessary, ad hoc 'verification' process that could effectively disqualify delegates selected at their precinct conventions after the fact."

An estimated 1 million people attended Democratic caucuses after the party's presidential primary concluded March 4. Those caucuses began the process of choosing 67 pledged delegates to the party's national convention in Denver in August.

Clinton's campaign, in a letter to the state party Friday, said it wanted the signatures of those attending caucuses double-checked before county and state Senate district convention convene on March 29.

Richie said the party conventions already have rules in place to address complaints and problems.

Clinton's campaign said it received more than 2,000 complaints of violations following the historic turnout on March 4, and that it is the party's responsibility to ensure the integrity of the caucus process. Among the problems cited were caucuses starting before precinct polling places closed and results being taken from head or hand counts instead of a written roll.

In an unofficial and incomplete caucus tally, the state Democratic Party reported Barack Obama was ahead of Clinton with 56 percent to her 44 percent, after reports from 41 percent of precinct caucuses.

Clinton narrowly won the primary stage of the two-step contest, which allocated 126 delegates.

"Our only concern is that the caucus outcome accurately reflect the voices of those who were eligible to participate," said Adrienne Elrod, a Clinton campaign spokeswoman.

Caucus delegates are awarded as a result of three stages: the precinct conventions, or caucuses, held election night; county and state Senate district conventions planned for March 29; and the state Democratic convention on June 6-7.

[JPhillips]

Ksyrup: I'm not trying to attack you on a 9/11 conspiracy. All I'm trying to point out is that there are a multitude of fringe conspiracies that people believe in and are no objectively crazier than Wright's beliefs. We humans seem to have a love for hard to explain conspiracies. That's my point.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Ksyrup: I'm not trying to attack you on a 9/11 conspiracy. All I'm trying to point out is that there are a multitude of fringe conspiracies that people believe in and are no objectively crazier than Wright's beliefs. We humans seem to have a love for hard to explain conspiracies. That's my point.

I don't take it as an attack, I'm just pointing out the difference between a true conspiracy and a mistaken belief that you lumped in as being equivalent to a conspiracy.

The problem with making a statement like "there are a multitude of fringe conspiracies that people believe in and are no objectively crazier than Wright's beliefs" is that it legitimizes them to some extent AND excuses him from any responsibility in the position he's in. Personally, I'm fascinated by certain conspiracy theories. I remember when I first heard of that Titor guy years ago, I spent a solid week reading stuff on the net about it. And then when I finished, I came back to reality and put that back on the shelf where it belonged, in the fiction section.

I also have some issues with people who buy into that kind of stuff. Yes, I know people who legitimately believe 9/11 was started by Bush as a pretext for the Iraq War, and also believe Pearl Harbor was bombed by the US as a reason to get us into WWII. I do not give their opinions much credence. But they're just people posting on a messageboard. They are not on a pulpit preaching to people and mixing conspiracy theories with the Word of God.

Let's say a Cabinet member of Congressman or someone bought into the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Do you think it would be responsible of them to use their office as a means to argue their belief? And if they did that, would you not think less of them or question their judgment on other things? Again, this all comes back to Obama - which is the reason we're even discussing this - and me just not understanding how one could listen to something like this and not want to get as far away from it as possible. It's one thing to argue that the US government has not acted in the best interests of the black community. It's another to throw out such ridiculous nonsense as fact, in the context of being the leader of a church.

[JPhillips]

We have exactly what you describe in Congress right now. James Inhofe has said that 9/11 was punishment by God for America's sins. In the White House it's been widely reported that Cheney is a fan of Laurie Mylroie who wrote that the 1993 WTC bombing was Saddam's doing. Richard Perle even wrote a blurb for the cover saying the book was, "splendid and wholly convincing." I'm sure some of the same people pushing the Clinton/drug dealer stuff in the nineties are working in the White House now. I bet I could find more if I tried.

I'm not trying to excuse Wright's conspiracy theories. I'm just trying to make it clear that the belief in conspiracy theories in general is a mainstream position. Honestly it's more of an academic argument, but since I'm an academic it has appeal to me.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

What a fucking whiner. She won the state, now she's quibbling.

She actually didn't win the state, if winning means the person who got the most delegates.

She won the primary, but he won the caucus and that resulted in a positive net number of delegates for him. The media invented that she won, but he won more delegates out of Texas than she did. And she has no one to blame for the process, since Bill Clinton was part of the group that helped re-write the rules there back in the 90s.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm just trying to make it clear that the belief in conspiracy theories in general is a mainstream position.

I simply disagree. It's not mainstream. Curiosity in conpiracies is mainstream; belief in nearly all of them (I'll allow that there is probably some bit of truth to some conspiracy theory out there somewhere) is either flat-out ignorance or, as you say, something people latch onto as a way to explain the unexplainable. I've never heard of the WTC or Clinton/drug dealer things, and they certainly are not out there as mainstream positions. Frankly, given the political implications of the Clinton thing, my guess is that is/'was being pushed more for political gain than as a belief in a "conspiracy theory."

And the Inhofe thing you refer to is NOT a conspiracy theory, either - unless you're arguing that God is conspiring against us. That's a Falwellian comment that got some play when it happened, but I don't see any evidence that it took hold in the mainstream public as having any legitimacy. It's just a stupid comment from the kind of person that has made me, as a conservative, all but decide I'm either sitting this election out, or voting Libertarian.

[JPhillips]

If you don't like Inhofe what about Sen Coburn's assertion that there are so many lesbians in Oklahoma schools that girls can only go to the bathroom one at a time?

As to Inhofe's comment, that kind of assertion has been preached by numerous pastors around the country. I'd imagine tens of thousands of people or more have heard some variant of God caused 9/11. If you won't see that as a conspiracy theory, at least you should be able to see it's of no substantive difference to God damn America.

Mylroie is fairly influencial within a subset of Neocons, it just so happens that many of them are also the ones running the country. If Obama's relationship with Wright is out of bounds why isn't Cheney's agreement with Mylroie? The Clinton drug dealer stuff was in the Wall Street Journal. It's crazy, but certainly was out in the mainstream.

Again, though, I'm not arguing that any one conspiracy is a mainstream thought, just that belief in conspiracies in general is mainstream.

[BrianD]

Just to aid in the discussion here:

con·spir·a·cy /k?n'sp?r?si/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, plural -cies. 1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Many people believing in something crazy (e.g. God caused 9/11) isn't a conspiracy.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you don't like Inhofe what about Sen Coburn's assertion that there are so many lesbians in Oklahoma schools that girls can only go to the bathroom one at a time?

As to Inhofe's comment, that kind of assertion has been preached by numerous pastors around the country. I'd imagine tens of thousands of people or more have heard some variant of God caused 9/11. If you won't see that as a conspiracy theory, at least you should be able to see it's of no substantive difference to God damn America.

Mylroie is fairly influencial within a subset of Neocons, it just so happens that many of them are also the ones running the country. If Obama's relationship with Wright is out of bounds why isn't Cheney's agreement with Mylroie? The Clinton drug dealer stuff was in the Wall Street Journal. It's crazy, but certainly was out in the mainstream.

Again, though, I'm not arguing that any one conspiracy is a mainstream thought, just that belief in conspiracies in general is mainstream.

Re: Coburn... I don't even know what that means, or that it logically makes sense. It sounds stupid on its face, though.

Re: Inhofe, the issue here is the influence of someone like that on the President, not the statement/idea in a vaccuum. So even accepting your suggestion that the Inhofe statement is equivalent to the God Damn America statement, the question is, shouldn't the influence of the person making the statement on a Presidential candidate at least be a consideration when judging the candidate? If Bush considered Inhoke a close confidant and spiritual guide, then I think it would be proper to question whether Bush agrees with that kind of statement. That's he just a Senator means the party as a whole should have to answer for it, to the extent he represents the party, but I don't see this as analogous to the Obama situation, given his close relationship to Wright.

Re: Mylroie - this goes back to the hindsight thing. Sure, that link should have been questioned. What are you going to do about it now? We have the information about Obama/Wright now, and therefore it may or may not play a part in our evaluation of the candidate, as we each see fit.

[JPhillips]

I think this discussion of Wright and Obama could get to something interesting if allowed. The fact is that in churches all across the country, of varying ethnic compositions, angry rhetoric is the norm. Political speech is heard every Sunday. Hateful attacks on some mysterious "them" is a part of weekly sermons all around the country. The fact is that Wright's type of angry denunciation isn't by any means unique. A discussion about what is said in churches of varying political and racial mixes could benefit the country.

There's also the issue of tone. It was kind of sad to watch David Broder Sunday fret over the way Wright spoke. He was almost more fearful of the style than the words and I imagine his reaction is pretty common among older, mainstream Christians. In reality, though, that style that evolded from the Pentecostal tradition is common in lots of churches, regardless of racial makeup. The passion and fire of these preachers is what draws folks in regardless of that particular Sunday's message.

If this controversy were able to expose more Americans to some of the different strains in American Christianity it would be good for all of us. I don't expect that to happen, but it would be nice.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Many people believing in something crazy (e.g. God caused 9/11) isn't a conspiracy.

That's what I've been trying to get at.

[flere-imsaho]

I wonder what the pastor of W's church has said in his sermons or, for that matter, what kind of things Rev. Huckabee said in his....

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think this discussion of Wright and Obama could get to something interesting if allowed. The fact is that in churches all across the country, of varying ethnic compositions, angry rhetoric is the norm. Political speech is heard every Sunday. Hateful attacks on some mysterious "them" is a part of weekly sermons all around the country. The fact is that Wright's type of angry denunciation isn't by any means unique. A discussion about what is said in churches of varying political and racial mixes could benefit the country.

I have to say that I have no idea what you are talking about here. Not that it's not true, but I personally have never been to a service where something even remotely close to this has happened. And I've been attending church services (fairly ) regularly my entire life. Maybe it's that I have always attended "mainstream" denominations - United Methodist and Presbyterian (with a couple of Catholic services when visiting my parents). But I have never heard "angry rhetoric" at a church service, never had political views expressed - in fact, I've heard many preachers go out of their way to say "however you choose to vote this week" or something along those lines. Even when something like abortion is raised, it's never in a political setting. Can't say I've ever heard a discussion of the gay lifestyle in church, other than how it affects who can be ordained.

In short, I don't relate to this at all, and perhaps that's why I'm coming down on this where I do, because I would hightail it out of any church that even discussed politics to any substantive extent, let alone went off on "angry rhetoric" bends on certain issues under the guise of teaching the Word of God.

[JPhillips]

Ksyrup: I'm close to agreeing with you. My question would be, what influence do Wright's words/thoughts have on Obama? As far as I can tell from what he's done and said over the past decade Wright's controversial thoughts have had no influence whatsoever. If evidence can be shown that Obama actually believes what Wright said I would quickly change my opinion of Obama. Until then, Wright's word's are just that, Wright's words.

Much the same way you say Bush's decisions aren't based on Inhofe's thoughts I believe Obama's decisions haven't been based on Wright's thoughts. I'd say the same about McCain and Hagee/Robertson/Falwell also. I'm much more concerned about what the actual candidate says and does as opposed to the supporters/mentors/endorsers.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Just to aid in the discussion here:

con·spir·a·cy /k?n'sp?r?si/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, plural -cies. 1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Many people believing in something crazy (e.g. God caused 9/11) isn't a conspiracy.

But what substantive difference is there in a crazy conspiracy theory and a crazy theory?

[cartman]

The text of the speech is out there.

hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html

hxxp://drudgereport.com/flashos.htm

Choose the link that is least offensive to your sensibilities.

[JPhillips]

Ksyrup: I've also been with mainstream churches my whole life (Methodist, Disciples of Christ), but I have enough friends and relatives that are evangelicals and have seen enough video to know this goes on all across the country. I couldn't begin to tell you how many people are exposed to this weekly and it's important to note that even the churches that engage in the type of speech that we're talking about don't do it every Sunday. It's important for people to realize that this kind of sermon is by no means limited to one guy in Chicago.

[Young Drachma]

This thread is unplayable.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Ksyrup: I'm close to agreeing with you. My question would be, what influence do Wright's words/thoughts have on Obama? As far as I can tell from what he's done and said over the past decade Wright's controversial thoughts have had no influence whatsoever. If evidence can be shown that Obama actually believes what Wright said I would quickly change my opinion of Obama. Until then, Wright's word's are just that, Wright's words.

Much the same way you say Bush's decisions aren't based on Inhofe's thoughts I believe Obama's decisions haven't been based on Wright's thoughts. I'd say the same about McCain and Hagee/Robertson/Falwell also. I'm much more concerned about what the actual candidate says and does as opposed to the supporters/mentors/endorsers.

I guess for me, the bottom line is that it goes to the candidate's judgment and leaves a lingering question of whether the person has left any lasting influence on him that would manifest itself. But mostly, it's just judgment - how can you not outright reject that in action, not just in words? And by that I mean, you don't attend his church, and you certainly don't have him as a part of the most significant moments of your life. That is very troubling to me.

I mean honestly, if I came on this board and made it known that while I personally don't believe that killing abortion doctors is right, but that one of my closest friends advocates killing doctors, you wouldn't store that information about me in the back of your mind and approach me a little differently than you otherwise would? I'm not talking about a relative you're stuck with and have to put up with on Thanksgiving - Obama was free to choose or reject this man as a spiritual advisor, and seems to have embraced him. That may not tell me that Obama is going to act on his advisor's outrageous statements, but that tells me something about Obama's judgment. And it's not good. That's the bottom line for me.

[Young Drachma]

The following is the text of Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia, as prepared for delivery and provided by his campaign.

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike. I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

[cartman]

I'd say he hit the proverbial home run with the speech.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But what substantive difference is there in a crazy conspiracy theory and a crazy theory?

Mostly I was trying to point out that you and Ksyrup were arguing past each other because you were talking about different things by using "conspiracy theory" in different definitions.

To answer your question though, I would say there is a big difference. Preaching that God caused 9/11 for whatever reason is probably not going to cause too much action. People aren't going to go attack God for being mean to us. People of different religions probably aren't going to start fighting over a theory like that.

A conspiracy theory - like saying the (White) government created HIV to kill Black people could be potentially damaging. People believing in conspiracy theories tend to become very unhappy with those doing the conspiring, and they have an actual target to direct that unhappiness toward.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you don't like Inhofe what about Sen Coburn's assertion that there are so many lesbians in Oklahoma schools that girls can only go to the bathroom one at a time?

As to Inhofe's comment, that kind of assertion has been preached by numerous pastors around the country. I'd imagine tens of thousands of people or more have heard some variant of God caused 9/11. If you won't see that as a conspiracy theory, at least you should be able to see it's of no substantive difference to God damn America.

Mylroie is fairly influencial within a subset of Neocons, it just so happens that many of them are also the ones running the country. If Obama's relationship with Wright is out of bounds why isn't Cheney's agreement with Mylroie? The Clinton drug dealer stuff was in the Wall Street Journal. It's crazy, but certainly was out in the mainstream.

Again, though, I'm not arguing that any one conspiracy is a mainstream thought, just that belief in conspiracies in general is mainstream.

Let me get this straight. Did you see the movie JFK? If so, you must believe in conspiracies. That is exactly what you are saying here.

Just because some one reads a book does not mean that they subscribe to a conspiracy theory. Just because I meet some one once does not mean that I am a close advisor. If you attend a church for 20 years and this same person is very influential in the writing of your book, that person is a big influence over your life.

If a lifelong catholic runs for the White House, I can understand abortion advocates being concerned with abortion legislation being passed, regarless of the candidate's actual statements regarding his position. This is the same thing.

The problem that Obama has, and will have is that he cannot let the debate devolve into issues. He will be seen as a fringe liberal, and that will scare many voters away. As long as he keeps the debate about his cult of personality, he will attract the mindless mob.

You bring up a very good point though. There are many conspiracy theories out there that many people have not heard or have not given any credence to. But, you're going to tell me that a close spiritual advisor of a candidate for president, one who attended this church for 20 years, has no belief in any of this at all. Even though, he credits this same person as being a huge influence on his life. But, that's ok because these are mainstream beliefs?

Sorry, I can't buy that.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'd say he hit the proverbial home run with the speech.

+1

[Young Drachma]

The conservative slant of people who clearly don't understand the debate of what's going on with a good half of the population in this country make this thread really hard to read. And this coming from someone who sits right of center and won't vote for the Democratic nominee either. But the line between punditry and just saying "OMG, I don't get it. No one wants to vote for a fringe liberal" completely defies the reality of NOW.

You can cite 1988, you can cite 1888 or whatever you want. No one has any clue what's going to happen in November, but the fact of the matter is...this year is different because the challenge we face going forward are different. Maybe the past is instructive, but it's not a real crystal ball for what's to come.

Something will change, things will be different and stuff will go in a different direction. The generation of twittering, emailing and bluetooth induced Americans don't care about who is a liberal and who is a conservative only care about sound bites and are looking for someone they feel they can trust. Whoever the people feel they can trust, they will vote for. Most of us are far more informed than Joe Average Voter. We don't represent the folks being polled or asked what they think on any of the sides of this debate.

[Fidatelo]

I only heard portions (stupid CBC kept cutting away), but Obama's speech was one of the best I've ever heard.