On another blog someone posted this article by Tim Wise entitled "Jeremiah Wright, Barak Obama and the Unacceptability of Truth -- Of National Lies and Racial America".  It was such an excellent article I thought I would link to it here also.  The full article at Counterpunch.org.  An excerpt:

"But white folks have a hard time hearing these simple truths. We find it almost impossible to listen to an alternative version of reality. Indeed, what seems to bother white people more than anything, whether in the recent episode, or at any other time, is being confronted with the recognition that black people do not, by and large, see the world like we do; that black people, by and large, do not view America as white people view it. We are, in fact, shocked that this should be so, having come to believe, apparently, that the falsehoods to which we cling like a kidney patient clings to a dialysis machine, are equally shared by our darker-skinned compatriots.

This is what James Baldwin was talking about in his classic 1972 work, No Name in the Street, wherein he noted:

An interview from "The Real News" with Jeremy Scahill, author of "Blackwater USA  The Worlds Largest Mercenary Army".  Scahill discusses the Clinton and Obama plans for Iraq. (7 min)  A similar discussion with Scahill on Democracy Now can be found here. (8 min)

UPDATE: Obama to give speech Tuesday addressing Rev. Wright.

The Wall Street Journal:  "To be sure, such attacks often fail to mention that presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain had a similar uncomfortable brush with controversy when he gratefully accepted the recent endorsement of Texas televangelist James Hagee, best known by some by some for referring to the Roman Catholic church as “the great whore,” and a cult. “I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics,” McCain said, during a recent stop in heavily Catholic New Orleans.

Will Obama get a similar pass? The Illinois senator clearly hopes Tuesday’s speech will help. An aide said it is specifically tailored to address the mess wrought by Wright."

***** 

There is, at least in my mind, a political racial platitude to the whole controversy, still....I think it qualifies as worthy of analytical debate.  This is one of those things which should be put into the context of it's actuality.

I know some here, and elsewhere, would poo-poo the idea that the person who holds the title of "Most Powerful Person in the World" should have some relevant experience before getting that job.  Some of those people would even write emotional articles directed at me to shout down my arguments- I'm flattered guys.  They use rhetoric, irrelevant historical blurbs, logical leaps and emotion to promote something that feels good to them.  I think that approach to politics is extremely dangerous.  Frankly, it's not unlike what the neo-cons have done from the other side.  As progressives, we need to have a better approach. 

Back on topic, when we elect a President, we as a people, need to understand what the President's job really is.  First and foremost, it is to keep the nation safe, both from external threats, and internal.  Anybody who seeks that post, in my humble opinion, should have some credentials.  Simply having a vision that feels good isn't enough.  Vision, as wonderful as that is, won't keep me safe.  Would we hire a police chief in our city who has only been a street cop a few years?  Neither should we hire a President that has little or no experience in issues of national security. 

The tired mantra "experience" thrown around by the Clinton campaign is getting annoying.  How long will her campaign continue to attempt this tactic when already it has every sign that it's working against her.  For those who are still "deliberating" over this non-issue, some points you might want to consider. 

Experience is great but not necessarily "better".  Do you want the "experienced" surgeon or the one who knows what he's doing?  G.W. Bush has SEVEN years "experience", are you reasoning he'd make a better president than Clinton or Obama with that fact ALONE...? 

The fact that Clinton is "still there" after all the political treachery, does not in and of itself PROVE or even have any bearing upon whether Obama can "make it".  She's done it and I credit her for that.  But over-contemplating  Obama's fortitude is allowing the "politics of fear" to override critical observation.  Obama is "THERE" and he has a huge following.  

As far as the Republicans attack during the general election, wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume Clinton has just a few thousand pounds more political baggage than Obama and that that will work against her? 

Prediction is Obama by six to eight points; likely garnering a double figure pledged delegate win.

That's assuming that Obama’s people stay motivated and hit the field hard, a fair assumption.

Good analysis on Kos by Ben Masel.

Update III: Polls: Obama Holds Edge In Wisconsin, Madison-Milwaukee Turn-out Decisive

Update II: TNR: WI, Ohio, Texas Polls Underreporting Obama Strength

Update: Woman flies from LA to Madison to make history and support Obama

Update: CQ Politics’ Four Questions About Wisconsin’s Feb. 19 Primaries

In the wake of John Edwards' withdrawal from the race, Dave Obey today endorsed Barack Obama:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In response to many questions from private
citizens and members of the Press, Wisconsin Seventh District
Congressman Dave Obey (D-WI) today issued the following statement:

"For eight long years, in extreme partisanship, George W. Bush has
governed this country by dividing it. He has pursued disastrous foreign
and domestic policies and has stubbornly refused to listen to anyone’s
views except those who march in lockstep with him. America desperately
needs a new president who can reach across old barriers to form new
alliances that can produce a new era of optimism and a healthier
respect for the needs of others. I had originally supported John
Edwards for President, but with his withdrawal I am voting for Barack
Obama. People will, and should, make their own choices, but I believe
that, while both remaining candidates would make outstanding
presidents, Senator Obama has the best chance of giving this country
the new beginning it so desperately needs."

There has been a recent string of endorsements for Obama in the state, including

Well, okay - this is just too darn easy. Bill O is apparently just getting desperate to get Barack Obama to talk to him. So he's in a fighting mood. Okay, people lose their tempers, people do dumb things (okay, some do this more often than others ---)

But to actually have the nerve to consider pushing a campaign worker around as defending the constitution???????

Anyway, it's kind of funny - look at the "fair and balanced" coverage Obama's been getting from Fox News. Makes it really hard to understand why he's avoiding Bill O.

Republican Senators made the Iraq war their own on Wednesday when they refused to pass a bill simply guaranteeing our troops a reasonable respite between repeated tours in Iraq.

We've been calling it Bush's war, but GOP Senators have made certain that their support of Bush's war will be the main issue in Senate races in 2008.

They are very nervous about that prospect, and with good reason. By huge margins, the voters want that war to end and our troops to come home.

Republicans had a chance Wednesday to show they support the troops, as they always claim. Instead, they supported the President.

Now, looking for cover, they have thrown a smoke grendade in the direction of MoveOn, the liberal group that dared to question whether Gen. David Patraeus was fudging the numbers in his report to the Congress last week.

MoveOn's choice of language in its full page NY Times ad, calling him "General Betray Us," set many teeth on edge. I was one who said I wished the attack had not been personal.  I also said that having stars on your shoulders doesn't make you infallible; it just makes you think you are.

But, as Bush and the Republicans like to remind us, this is war. People are dying every day. If it takes ruffling a general's feathers to get some attention, so be it. Service members are dying to protect our right to freely express ourselves, even in unpopular or distasteful ways.

Or is the First Amendment off the list of things they are defending?