"It neglects the fact, however, that for many in the Clinton camp (and many in our country, actually) there is more than just policy to be considered when electing a President."

Like one's genitalia?  Or skin color?

Please elaborate.

I have to admit his Special Comments go on too long and are overheated.  His hero Edward R. Murrow developed his points INTELLECTUALLY, not emotionally.  I wish Keith would exhibit more self-discipline.  (But then again, his ratings are skyrocketing, so I'm not holding my breath.)

I agree with the diarist here that Keith's dismissive "Koolaidish" comment was inappropriate and distasteful, and his logic for making Katie Couric the WPITW choice was tortured, to say the least.  I'm not a fan of Hillary, and I think she lost the campaign for other reasons--but she was certainly the victim of sexism in the media and online.  KO was way off base here.

As far as I know he hasn't.  So why would this issue be one upon which to judge his credibility?

To me a VP choice seems to be a rather personal choice, reflecting the nominee's personal style, and the chemistry of the people involved.  Since neither you or I are privy as to how Obama and Hillary "fit" on a personal basis, I think it's really up to him to make the decision.  I mean, if it's a lousy fit, it's not going to be good for Obama, Hillary, or the Democratic Party in the long run, is it?

Don't you think that maybe...just maybe...Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Richardson, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, and the other Democratic Party notables that have enthusiastically endorsed Obama may have a more informed opinion as to just how substantive and qualified Obama is than either you or I do?

Your post suggests that you don't perceive the last 8 years under Bush as the horrifying national nightmare that I and many other Democrats do.  If sitting by and allowing John McSame to get elected and continue the neanderthal policies of BushCo for another 4 years is an acceptable option, I consider you neither a good Democrat nor a concerned citizen.

Your post suggest an inflated sense of your own inerrancy, and reads like a petty exercise in sour grapes.  But since all us Obama supporters are just to stupid to get it, and you have no desire to take the leap of faith necessary to support your fellow Democrats (not even Hillary, evidently) in this time of crisis, then by all means take your ball and go home.  

No, but endorsement by the mayor of a town of almost 15,000 has got to be worth something.

Not much--but something.

and the folks in Florida and Michigan who decided to shoot craps with the votes of their people by moving up the primary dates.  

Obama didn't make up the rules, he just followed them.  Nobody should expect him to undermine his own supporters, and override the rules against his own self-interest.  That's not altruistic, it's stupid, and disloyal to those who are contributing to his campaign.  

And if Hillary was so damned interested in giving these delegations a place at the table, she would have accepted the Michigan compromise.  Only that wouldn't have been in her own perceived self-interest--so naturally, she didn't.  

I don't really blame Hillary much on this--except for raising the whole "disenfranchising" flag.  That decision was made by the legislators of Michigan and Florida, not Obama. To say that Obama should accept these delegations is the same logic that held that Gore should yield the Presidency in 2000, and Kerry shouldn't contest the Ohio results in 2004.  Haven't we had enough of that sort of thinking already?

After Watergate, Nixon defenders whined "everybody does it...or they would if they could" in order to deny the political fallout from those deviant actions.  Your logic here, although less overt, echoes some of those themes.

Nobody argues that Obama is not trying to win.  For example, I don't doubt that his campaign has been dragging its feet in resolution of the FL and MI situations--and is entitled to do so, since they did NOT write the rules, and owe their supporters nothing less than to make their case.  But here you have a longstanding Clinton ally turning against her, providing objective verification that there is indeed something rotten about the Clinton campaign, it's NOT just some "Obamabot" delusion.  In the ongoing superdelegate wars, this Reich endorsement is going to provide a LOT of political cover for movement toward Obama from here on in.

Jerome, your professional affiliation with the Clinton campaign denies you the opportunity to claim objectivity on this point.  The Reich endorsement speaks for itself, loud and clear--and you really have nothing useful to add here, except to bemoan a major political blow to your candidate's already slim hopes.

The reason the subject was race was because that was what needed to be talked about at this time.

Look at the anger you're spewing here.  It comes from pain, right?  The kind of pain that others don't understand, right?

That's what Obama was trying to address.  That Rev. Wright has HIS anger, because of HIS own pain.  He alluded as well to class concerns, and corporatism, and other ills that have contributed to the pain and anger we feel.  And all he asked is that we acknowledge our own difficulties recognizing what makes those OTHER people angry, no matter who we are, so we can unite in common cause.

I'm not negating your pain by asking you to understand others' pain as well.  Obama's asking ALL of us to understand other people's pain and resultant anger, so that we can all come together as a people to solve our problems--which is the only way that they will EVER be solved.  

That's an imbalance of power there, addressing a narrower range of problems.  

Obama was under the microscope himself, then gently turned it back on the American people, to confront larger issues of racism, tolerance, love, and the American dream.  

I love Big Dog's speeches, but Obama's was in a different league.  After all, look at how many people are talking about this one.  Care to compare the impact of the two?

Obama gives the greatest progressive speech of our lifetime, addressing an issue that neither you nor I have the capacity to understand, and you fault him because he didn't throw an intimate relationship under the bus for the sake of political expediency.

It's pathetic that you're evidently obtuse enough to equate the actions of Eisenhower--which involved an issue of national security and military discipline--to a political figure's admission of his very identity.  If Obama was in fact Jewish and it negatively affected his candidacy, should he coverup his past and lie about his heritage?  The simple fact here is that Obama has more political courage than you can even imagine, because he's willing to accept a person's worth despite some abberent views ("only words", as Clinton supporters are prone to say nowadays), in an act of love that embodies the ideals of being a liberal, and being an American.  Remember the old adage, "I may hate what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it"?  No, I guess you don't.

I have a dear friend that is a Hillary supporter, and she insists that Hillary HAD to vote for the Iraq War because of her position as a Senator in New York at the time.  In other words, four thousand American soldiers have died, tens of thousands are maimed, trillions of dollars wasted, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and dying--but she had to do it.  Because it was politically necessary.

If political expediency is the measure of a leader's worth, then Hillary is the perfect candidate for you.  Because as far as I can see, that is her guiding principle in life.
 

If Obama is just an ordinary guy who's lucky to be black, then why don't ordinary guys make speeches like his today.

Sorry, he's extraordinary, whether he wants to publicly acknowledge it or not.

I hope this is snark.  Because otherwise you should be ashamed of your ignorance.

to me (a white guy), Rep. Ferraro's statements sounded just like a racist old white biddy.
And I found them more offensive than Wright's comments on 9/11, because hers were PERSONAL.

But "visceral response"--i.e. Rush Limbaugh's universe--is a piss-poor grounding for political judgments.  Trying to understand what you don't understand is the driving principle of liberalism--or empathy, if you prefer.  

the lizard brain (i.e. "visceral response") is all we should pay attention to.  That's all one needs to know about Reverend Wright.  Ignorance is strength.

I thought this was a PROGRESSIVE website.