McCain's actions have been about as bad as Specter's when it comes to talking up a good game and ultimately caving (I'd bet that decades from now people will still quote when Specter stood up on the detainee right's bill and said it was a disgrace that overturned 800 years of law and then voted for it anyway) and their view that we should constantly make “compromises” has greatly led to the Administration's failures, not only in upholding the law but also just massive policy blunders formed by hubris and ideological rigor.

I'm not sure it was for political expediency and could very well agree that it was out of genuine concern that they were doing what was the best for a bad situation, but ultimately they were key in emasculating Congress. If he (and a few other moderate Congressmen) stood up for what they believe in, I guarantee you that we would not be focusing so much on trivialities in this election, but rather debating about what it means that the top leaders sat down and created a program that broke the Geneva Conventions, generals were paid to be media consultants, we're missing tens of billions in Iraq, etc. etc. and how to move on.

The only other option is to think they never actually believed any thing they were saying.

The reason I think it's important is that some people might still support him if they see themselves having some differences on principle, but not if they think he sacrificed principle for political expediency. For the most part, I think it's the former much more than the latter.

But earlier in the decade he made statements against how much radical religion was affecting the GOP. Now he's accepting Hagee, which in all honesty has said as many or not more crazy things than Robertson, et al. while I am not aware of humanitarian contributions from him that that first group had.

He's said in the past that Bush's tax cuts were awful because they weren't accompanied by spending cuts. Now he's proposing massive massive tax cuts with hardly any reduction in spending. Etc.

Don't get me started about the indirect cover he gave to Bush on torture, which I actually felt personally pained for McCain as I'm sure it was devastating.

No one that knows much about him ever thought he wasn't a conservative, it's just that for the last 4 years he has seemed to lose most of his principles, and it's morphed even more during the race. A lot of life long Republicans I've read feel the same way too.

Because, it's McCain running today and not McCain of 8 years ago. You bring back that McCain and he wins in a landslide.

I don't recognize the one I see today.

Sorry to get off topic, but I think that people who feel as you do about McCain are actually mostly mistaken about his past rather than correct about him changing so much. I think a lot of people read things into his past positions which led them to believe he was less conservative than he really is. I honestly don't see that he's changed much at all- just that some independents and people who lean to the left who formerly thought that he was sticking it to the rightwing didn't see his past actions in the correct light; all along he's been someone who has a mostly conservative perspective but tries to forge bipartisan coaltions.

I see it produced some interesting comments (some less so).
To get my own thinking straight, I've separated the different subtexts.

We have Obama the person, Obama the politican, and Obama's ideas.
It's clear now, that this nation is not ready to make that same kind of separation, and I suspect that is what holds us back, stuck in the same old rut..

I think the very nature of politcs (the need to pacify and appeal to the electorate) makes it hard to separate the ideas from the man and the politcs – at least in our current culture. Simplistic slogans ('tear doen this wall') are so much easier to sell than transformative ideas. We lose however, every time we scramble the man, the politician and the ideas in the same pan, without noticing that there are diffenent ingredients involved.

This, to my mind, is really more of a test for the nation than for Obama.
It looks like we're failing,the test, and I'm proud to be elitist enough to say that the inability to deal with ideas above the immediate gratification level is the cause.

That's not to say, however, that immediate concerns should not be understood or taken into account. In fact, a lack of understanding all around is the major contributor to the urge to operate by denouncing ( as if that solved anything) instead of correcting .and moving forward.

Using Rev. Wright as an example, again, we need to reject his “crazy' notions about the spread of HIV/AIDS. But how crazy are his notions when the memory of Tuskegee is still alive? What's more, by denouncing the man, we can't destroy his notions.

I don't see how we can fight extremism by reacting in an extreme fashion, without stopping to understand where that extremism comes from. How much more fruitful it would be to stop sweeping history under the rug, acknowledge the bad in the past along with the good, and only then talk about the need to move past the scars of history?
Isn't that why the Confederate flag still flies in the South, because we've never acknowlled their sense of loss?

It's always the winners who say 'enough is enough', and I find that ironic. After I cause you suffering I'll tell you when it's time to stop being angry about it. Reconciliation can only take place when both sides feel equally understood and acknowledged, and saying 'enough is enough' is a duet, not a solo. A supplement to this would be an appeal to pragmatism by pointing out what is simply counterproductive, rather than insisting that the offending party kneel before us in repentance. Reason above retribution, is my choice.

Regardless of how this race turns out, it will be up to us, the US nation, to decide if we keep Obama's ideas alive, even if the man and the politician are vanquished..

[shrug] His most adoring groupies aren't good objects for substance anyway*, and as the election goes on I suppose we'll learn more good and bad about him. Even if faults are exposed, they will be evaluated in comparison to those of the others.

* Yet they're often elitist! Now _that_ is where you have hypocrisy…

Chicago is old, run-down, Cyanide Nation, corrupt Dem-machine-ridden notoriety.

Crook County is the perfect stereotype and club, less powerful than it could be only because so much of Cyanide Nation is less important and relevent than it was in 1960. (hahaha)

Obama's left-wing-Dem agenda is almost identical to Clinton's left-wing-Dem agenda (while dishonest people say she's not lefty).

Ameliorating our concern over such an agenda is that the GOP may hold either in check. Also, though Clinton was responsible for 1994 due to arrogance and conceit as well as offensive far-left politics, we suspect she has learned lessons since 1994 (making the kiddies mad, as they were over welfare reform; tsk, tsk) we don't have the fear, much less paranoia, of her the lefties like to imagine. Just normal, sound wariness. That and cynicism, which we share about McCain (and with our disillusionment and worse regarding Dubya & Co.).

Concern about his relative lack of experience in Washington is valid, even if it risks being labeled (often wrongly, though who knows, maybe not all the time) as hypocrisy if it comes from those who don't want people in Washington forever. (McCain is a “fixture,” as I've said before, for example.)

The truth is, at least informally as observed here in Iowa, nobody I have spoken to has any problem with the competence of any of the three candidates. We would like to know, as is true in every election, who else the candidates would want to bring into their Cabinets and adminstrations. (Brzezinski is advising Obama on foreign policy, for example. Carter retread)

A “new kind of politics?” From a guy who made his political bones in Chicago? Are you fricking kidding me?

Those who can't see that hypocrisy drips from every word this guy utters deserve his presidency.

Rick,
Is “Chicago” the new rightwing fright-word? San Francisco! Chicago! Hollywood! Oh my god! Run for the hills! New York City!!!!!!!!

If you have something substantive to say about Obama's experience in Chicago, then say it. The same thing goes with your accusation of hypocrisy. Where's the beef? ™

My personal opinion, I am now dissapointed in both. I guess that's just tough for me then. Rev. Wright has done immense disservice to his intellectual stature and record of achievement in his community. On the other hand I have to be brutally honest that I think a portion of Obama's response is less principle and more pandering to White discomfort at confronting such racially charged outbursts. Like I said, many of Rev. Wright's comments have been shared or repeated in private company, even in jest …….so the moral indignation to a certain degree just rings hollow.

I don't recognize the one I see today.

“”I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he's done enormous good. … But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. … There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced.”"

Actually CS in previous threads I've said my main concern about Obama is that he is not realistically presenting the conflicts that are bound to arise based on fundamental disagreements and that at the first sign of difficulty the entire thing will fall apart.

It's easy enough to band together and be fed up with the current political scene, but entirely different to actually make something new. What I said in the prior post was more a statement that it's not that certain subgroups have such clinging to divisiveness but that we all tend to use it as a defense mechanism (to use an Obama idea) . If he truly started attacking that mindset to the extent that it exists I think he would quickly lose all support.

I am a strong believer not only in post-racial or post-gender worldview, but a post-identity worldview. Like I often joke that I am a terrible [computer scientist][guy][sports enthusiast][etc.] because my self expression is pretty tangential to my interests/traits, while most people define themselves in terms of their interests/traits. I'll tell you, it really weirds some people out (to the point of extreme hatred occasionally) that they can't figure out what I will think or do in general.

My “liberalness” exists inasmuch that I believe that the vast majority of people operate on identity lines, and moreover there is a huge discrepancy between how different subgroups are treated. So on one hand I'm empathetic with the view that people should just get over race, or sexuality or whatnot, because to me it's about as defining as the fact that I don't like raw tomatoes…but I also acknowledge that most of the time when people are told to “get over it” it's about marginalization. A lot of people that (rightly) complain when race is used as a justification for victimization or whatnot have no problems turning around and victimizing themselves when their views are marginalized. The “Obama is only where he is because he's black” line is a humorous example of this. There is a very strong pull to wash away the experiences of millions by pointing out there is one person who isn't fitting the stereotype so obviously we'd all be better if no one brought it up.

The progress the country has made is that I have met very few people whose individual interactions are changed by bias. In the vast majority of cases, it is possible to work closely and be friends with someone you vehemently disagree/look down on, and that is Obama's primary message…and I think that over time that sort of realization will deflate extremism. People are so defensive that sometimes it's better to talk past them about something else rather than try to convince them they're wrong. As long as Obama fights against illegitimate uses as they come up to affect public discourse, I'm not sure it's too bad.

I fully agree with everything you say but there is no way that the country will change to reflect that on any predictable timescale. It might not even be possible due to human nature.

I'd like to add a different perspective to this debate, and a pointer as to why Obama will LIKELY NOT repudiate Rev. Wright outright. I consider myself a reasonable and intelligent person, like most Americans I'm sure. As a member of the African American community many of the statements Rev. Wright makes have some legitimacy and credibility in my eyes. Certainly I agree with Obama that the tone, delivery and reasoning of Rev. Wright in some instances is both intellectually dishonest and self serving, BUT I ALSO agree that many of his comments are borne from an underlying reality that is both factual and honest albeit communicated crudely. I'll give a few concrete examples, many people term ridiculous the comments about AIDS, but I'll profer that many in my community do not consider it beyond the realm of possibility. Likey maybe not, impossible……do not have that level of confidence in the government to say so categorically. Next….KKK comments……….definitely intellectually dishonest for Wright to make such sweeping generalizations, but is there truth in the underlying sentiment? Certainly when there is irrefutable proof that racism was tacitly and actively institutionalized through government, not now perhaps, but certainly in the past.
And finally the infamous 911 comments…….again intellectually dishonest on the part of Wright since obviously the terrorists didn't discriminate and spare those Americans who potentially might have been sympathetic to their grieviances but again is there truth to the underlying sentiment that chickens came home to roost? Certainly in my book, America's long foreign policy history is far from illustrious especially in the part of the world manufacturing these terrorists.

My point, as I said earlier, Rev. Wright is obviously not the sanctioned spokesperson for the black community or the black church, neither is that community monolithic in their support for him but the underlying point is does he AND HIS VIEWS have legitimacy and credibility in that community? Certainly and a lot, including with people like me who don't share much of his perspective. Barack Obama knows that and that is why he will disown some of his statements but not the man. And that is why I support Barack Obama because I think he has been put in the prime position of demonstrating you cannot pretend these grieviances away including even if you think they are illogical….the sensible thing is to confront them through sensible and rational dialogue as opposed to highly emotional and divisive rhetoric.

But lately he's been sinking to the level of his commenters.