I don't particularly care what Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton believes when it comes to religion. That is their business and nobody else's. Still they manage to pour out their guts to attract the religious. I could care less about either one's faith in God. It's not a prerequisite for the Presidency. The Constitution makes a case for separation of church and state, yet like most other parts of the Constitution, the two-party system makes the case for religion in politics. This is not only wrong, but also a farce. Not one of the mainstream candidates has taken first use nuclear strikes "off the table". How can they justify that along with their religious teachings?  Is that what their "Lord" would want? Utterly ridiculous and this ridiculousness is not lost on the American people.

There's more...

A candidate supporter diary for MyDD

The notion of American exceptionalism is on old and noble one and an awareness of it is essential to understanding our historical role in world affairs.  It's an underlying self-perception of our nation widely shared by the general public as much as it is maligned and, especially recently, questioned and deplored by experts.  It has been with us since the sympathetic French sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville first coined the idea in 1835 and has informed our public policy and national aspirations on the world stage, for better or for worse, throughout our history:

American exceptionalism (cf. "exceptionalism") has been historically referred to as the belief that the United States differs qualitatively from other developed nations, because of its national credo, historical evolution, or distinctive political and religious institutions. The difference is often expressed in American circles as some categorical superiority, to which is usually attached some alleged proof, rationalization or explanation that may vary greatly depending on the historical period and the political context.

Wikipedia - American Exceptionalism

This belief that the United States differs qualitatively from other developed nations is often implied in phrases like restoring America's position or rebuilding our reputation in the world.  If you harbour a belief that America has a special role to play by virtue of it's size, power, egalitarianism or influence you are subscribing to this idea.  The hijacking of our foreign policy by neo-conservatives, whose notion of 'exceptionalism' was founded solely on our unique status as the last superpower standing in the post-Cold era, has so eroded sympathy for and confidence in American exceptionalism outside our borders that it has undermined the idea of America' special position in the world and led to an abandonment of this concept by intellectuals and our allies on the grounds of illegitimacy and shifting geopolitical sands:

All this has led some to conclude that the world would be better off if America slunk home. As Joyce Carol Oates wrote in The Atlantic: "How heartily sick the world has grown, in the first seven years of the 21st century, of the American idea!" It has become a "cruel joke."

Roger Cohen - Obama's American Idea 10 Dec 07

The criticisms of 'Pax Americana' and comparisons to the imperial ambitions, and decline, of ancient Rome have followed.  Many suspect we have quite simply unsheathed the naked blade of military dominance and promptly broken it.  They have a good point.  In this context there have been few champions of exceptionalism in the foreign policy debate, the right continues to promote the corrupted 'divine right of power' version in their neo-conservative agendas but the left, quite typically, has shied from asserting a bold, coherent, ideological vision, contenting themselves with promises of 'good governance' and remedies for the geopolitical excesses of recent years.  Except, apparently, for Senator Obama.

There's more...

The notion of American exceptionalism is on old and noble one and an awareness of it is essential to understanding our historical role in world affairs.  It's an underlying self-perception of our nation widely shared by the general public as much as it is maligned and, especially recently, questioned and deplored by experts.  It has been with us since the sympathetic French sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville first coined the phrase in 1831 and has informed our public policy and national aspirations on the world stage, for better or for worse, throughout our history:

American exceptionalism (cf. "exceptionalism") has been historically referred to as the belief that the United States differs qualitatively from other developed nations, because of its national credo, historical evolution, or distinctive political and religious institutions. The difference is often expressed in American circles as some categorical superiority, to which is usually attached some alleged proof, rationalization or explanation that may vary greatly depending on the historical period and the political context.

Wikipedia - American Exceptionalism

This belief that the United States differs qualitatively from other developed nations is often implied in phrases like restoring America's position or rebuilding our reputation in the world.  If you harbour a belief that America has a special role to play by virtue of it's size, power, egalitarianism or influence you are subscribing to this idea.  The hijacking of our foreign policy by neo-conservatives, whose notion of 'exceptionalism' was founded solely on our unique status as the last superpower standing in the post-Cold era, has so eroded sympathy for and confidence in American exceptionalism outside our borders that it has undermined the idea of America' special position in the world and led to an abandonment of this concept by intellectuals and our allies on the grounds of illegitimacy and shifting geopolitical sands:

All this has led some to conclude that the world would be better off if America slunk home. As Joyce Carol Oates wrote in The Atlantic: "How heartily sick the world has grown, in the first seven years of the 21st century, of the American idea!" It has become a "cruel joke."

Roger Cohen - Obama's American Idea 10 Dec 07

The criticisms of 'Pax Americana' and comparisons to the imperial ambitions, and decline, of ancient Rome have followed.  Many suspect we have quite simply unsheathed the naked blade of military dominance and promptly broken it.  They have a good point.  In this context there have been few champions of exceptionalism in the foreign policy debate, the right continues to promote the corrupted 'divine right of power' version in their neo-conservative agendas but the left, quite typically, has shied from asserting a bold, coherent, ideological vision, contenting themselves with promises of 'good governance' and remedies for the geopolitical excesses of recent years.  Except, apparently, for Senator Obama.

There's more...

Well the last day for Q3 contributions will soon be upon us and the Obama campaign has set the ambitious target of 500k individual donations and 350k unique contributors.  Though we have come to expect amazing fund-raising results for Obama's campaign these figures are once again historic targets.

As of 7:39PM EDT the figures stand as:

347,958 of 350,000 donors
496,655 of 500,000 donations

Having watched these figures ticking over surprisingly quickly the last few critical days my apprehension that his goal could not be reached has given way to a hopeful anticipation.  Those who like to claim that Obama's campaign has lost momentum, purpose or relevance might once again have to work pretty hard to explain away his unprecedented and broadly based support.

[Update] One hour later

As of 8:39PM EDT the figures stand as:

348,413 of 350,000 donors
497,752 of 500,000 donations

That's 455 new donors and 1097 new contributions in ONE HOUR. Wow!

[Update] Another two hours later

As of 10:39PM EDT the figures stand as:

349,216 of 350,000 donors
498,647 of 500,000 donations

That's steady rate of more than 400 new donors and 600 new contributions per hour. Ten per minute, one every six seconds. And I thought this was going to be a close run thing but it definitely looks like he is going to make it.

[Update] Around 3:00AM

As of 3:21AM EDT the figures stand as:

350,055 of 350,000 donors
500,029 of 500,000 donations

CONGRATULATIONS to all of you who donated, canvassed, blogged or talked to your neighbour or workmate for Obama. You are making history!

There's more...

In a very interesting assessment of the 2008 election in some 'off-the-record' remarks recently reported in the national media Bush made some observations on the war, the succession and specific candidates in the Democratic primary contest.  As you may be aware the President occasionally lunches with noted media personalities and while his remarks are not directly attributable he uses the opportunity to get some of his weirder messages across.  I was very surprised to read this account in the Washington Post (emphasis added):

At an off-the-record lunch a week ago, Bush expressed admiration for her tenacity in the campaign. And he left some in the room with the impression that he thinks she will win the election and has been thinking about how to turn over the country to her.

[snip]

Bush made no explicit election predictions, according to some in the room, but clearly thought Clinton would win the Democratic nomination and talked in a way that seemed to suggest he expects her to succeed him - and will continue his Iraq policy if she does.

[snip]

"He had kind of a striking analogy," Stephanopoulos said of Bush on air a few hours after the lunch. "He believes that whoever replaces him, like General Eisenhower when he replaced Harry Truman, may criticize the president's policy during the campaign, but will likely continue much of it in office."

[snip]

According to people in the room, he said Clinton was formidable and will raise a lot of money. He seemed particularly impressed that she has held up so well under the enormous pressure of the campaign trail, noting that running for national office is extremely hard. Just as he had the advantage of having seen it up close during his father's four national campaigns, he noted that Clinton benefits from being on the frontlines of her husband's two presidential elections. Bush added that Sen. Barack Obama was impressive in his own way but the president seemed dubious the freshman senator could win given his inexperience in high office and national campaigning.

Peter Baker - 'The Trail' Washington Post 21 Sep 07

I was startled to note that Bush didn't seem to mind acknowledging that a Democrat might win the general election, and seemed to imply it would be Hillary.  What's going on here?  Is this a Rovian reverse psychology manoeuvre or is there an outside chance Bush is sincere?  Is he really looking for a bi-partisan continuation or resolution of his Iraq war strategy or is this intended to harm Hillary's chances with the Democratic base?

He certainly seems to argee with Hillary's assessment of Senator Barack Obama's inexperience.  Is this yet another ploy?  Personally I believe that an Obama nomination and a populist bi-partisan campaign against them is the Republican party's worst nightmare.  Your comments and any insight on this most curious development welcomed.

There's more...