No I don't think you realize that the reason Republicans are focusing on Wright and Ayers connection at the same time they bring up comments by Obama on small town people, is they're trying to question whether he really is a centrist and is capable of forging a post-partisan coalition.

As it turns out, they feel, he excuses people with extreme left points of view, while patronizing people with moderate right points of view.

I know and understand what Obama meant when he was talking about small town people, he didn't mean that their religion was because of hard times, but that voting based on social issues was because of hard times. Its completely patronizing and demeaning of Republican and conservative voters. A lot of people just happen to disagree with the social agenda of the left, and the best way to attract these voters is to moderate your social agenda. But Obama does not promote moderate views on social issues.

Its reminiscent of Howard Dean in 2004, who talked about the evil Republicans 'dividing America', while not realizing he was being divisive by blaming all the problems in politics on Republicans. Its reminiscent of people who think George Bush did the whole job dividing the country, and some of the blame doesn't go to his most rabid, unreasonable detractors.

Is that what Obama wasn't saying when he made his “One America” speech, that he thought Republicans were the ones preventing it from being “One America” (It's One America, and oh, by the way, Vote Democrat!)

The Republicans are trying to prove that Obama is one of those people on the left who thinks they're moderate and that even moderate conservatives are extreme rightists. And that nobody who supports staying in Iraq is a moderate, and that all moderates want to withdraw as soon as possible.

That is, someone who would fit very well with contributors to this blog.

And as such, completely incapable of bring a post-partisan dialogue to politics. For example, they point to Obama's comments about John McCain “wanting to be at war for 100 years” which is a dishonest spin on what McCain said. If Obama believes that we can't have a base stationed there then he should argue that, instead of spinning the comment.

If Obama wants to prove this isn't true about him, he has to start reaching out to Republicans and not attacking them.

That's a hard thing to do when you're pandering for money in a Democratic primary. If Obama moved towards the center, his money would dry up.

As an independent centrist, who doesn't like one party more than the other, I don't think we'll have a true post-partisan candidate until a viable independent or third party candidate runs for office again like Perot did in 1992.

Obama doesn't get that you can't fix politics while running in one of the two major parties.

If this were John McCain and it was about some association with a known homophobic pastor, we would be asking questions and rightly so.

Really? How many known homophobic pastors has McCain got to hug on stage or address at their churches before that rule of yours kicks in?

5? 10? 20?

That Obama never reached across partisan lines to get something accomplished?

Or the “point” that his supporters see him as the Messiah?

Or the “point” that peat is “blinded” by Obama?

Or the “point” that politicians from Chicago should be excluded from national office?

Or finally, the “point” that “Those who can't see that hypocrisy drips from every word this guy utters deserve his presidency.”

Come to think of it, the only real “point” Rick made was a question he asked that displayed his own lack of knowledge about Obama's legislative history.

So if you're saying you agree with Rick that Rick doesn't really know much about Obama other than his alleged hypocrasy in every word he says, then I'll get on board with you.

Otherwise, not so much.

Like the GOP has done, Obama has made sure that his religion is up front and center.

Well duh! Unlike the GOP Obama has had to try to refute a very strong rumor that he's a secret muslim.

As for not holding Obama to the same standard, I would say that there has also been an argument that the press and others have given Obama a pass and have not been really being as critical as they should be concerning a potential presidential candidate.

Again, do you watch CNN, Fox or MSNBC?

For days now they've all been literally a Reverend Wright loop.

If that consitutes them “giving him a pass” I'd really hate to see them turn on him.

Obama ipresented the nation with an invitation to transcend traditional political thinking. I'm sure he realized (I think he even said so) that he couldn't compelte the job alone. His candidacy was an opportunity for the nation to take the first steps in that direction.
It isn't about what Obama could do or who he is or waht Rev. Writght said. It
is about what we could do and who we are.

The nation is turning that invitation down in favor of nitpicking political scabs and by using traditional political calcualtions. I don't care whether that is due to elitism, stupidity or clinging to outworn symbols, but the nation is not living up to iits potnetial. as a result.
It's not even singing from the same page of the hymnal., according to this post.

We will get the government we deserve.

…as opposed to a Junior Senator from NY? Let's not even go into her ride-along as First Lady.
As far as I know the requirements to run for President are age, citizenship and lack of criminal record.

The truth is, age, along with perceived lack of experienced. Clinton versus Lazio.

Age applies, too, to McCain — some think he's too old (and they believe Clinton's time is now or never — she'll be too old and perceived to be Past History if she loses this year). In both cases, age is exploited as baggage against candidates.

Race has nothing to do with it among nearly all Americans. Consider how many of us would gladly have had a President Powell in 1992, 1996, 2000, even 2004.