“Christianity has nothing to do with racism. That’s political and our faith is personal.”

Hopefully in another couple of years current "political" issues like poverty and peace won't be taboo within the Church.

And whether or not one is voting for Obama, one can't deny that this is a truely historic moment.

Posted by: Travis Mamone | June 5, 2008 3:12 PM

in 1964, I marched with my Black brothers, in 1965 I was in the military and I drank, planned cards and danced along side my Black brothers. I sang their songs, listened to their music and laughed with them all my life. I AM WHITE! For me this is also a great day for America.

The scripture that plays heavy in my heart is:"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither free man nor slave, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Col 3:28)

What plays a joyful melody right now is the fact that Obama did NOT use the race card in his speech Tuesday night. That is what makes him a true American. If the Republicans through the race card out it will only anger those of us who only see the oneness of Christianity and the oneness of America.

The same could be said if Clinton had won the nomination. FINIALY we can see beyond the stereo-typing of the past and look at people for who they are. God is going to bless us because we have opened our eyes (regardless of who wins in Nov.)

Posted by: Paul | June 5, 2008 3:22 PM

While I appreciate your feelings Jim and your "moment of victory for your candidate" I want you to know that this reader voted for Hillary. Having a black person in the White House, while historic, is NO MORE historic than it would have been to have a female. While you may celebrate this achievement, the hatred spewed on every level at Hillary and "all women" has been shameful. His presumed election (he has not won yet) shows that Sexism is far deeper than Racism and while both are tragic your comments completely overlook how little progress has actually been made. SO - I will once again, swallow my disappoinment and vote for another MALE who purports to hold my agenda, but truly - no one can hold my agenda like a woman.

Posted by: Linda | June 5, 2008 5:10 PM

Thank you for your heartfelt thoughts on this amazing step in America's life. I agree that it is moving and life changing. It gives me hope again in the American people. Let's keep working to bring about the change that Barack is advocating.

Posted by: Joy Lapp | June 5, 2008 5:27 PM

And what do we get in return--BARAK OBAMA sells his soul to the Jews. He talks like a warmonger before the American Israeli lobby. Ten years a friend with Jim Wallis and this is what he learns. Obama sells the peace movement down the river. This is disgusting. The man is a sell-out!

. Check it out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060403508.html

A mere 12 hours after claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday -- and changed himself into an Israel hard-liner.

He promised $30 billion in military assistance for Israel. He declared that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force has "rightly been labeled a terrorist organization." He used terms such as "false prophets of extremism" and "corrupt" while discussing Palestinians. And he promised that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Vowing to stop Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon, the newly minted nominee apparent added: "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel. Do not be confused."

How could they be confused? As a pandering performance, it was the full Monty by a candidate who, during the primary, had positioned himself to Hillary Clinton's left on matters such as Iran. Yesterday, Obama, who has generally declined to wear an American-flag lapel pin, wore a joint U.S.-Israeli pin, and even tried a Hebrew phrase on the crowd.

Obama even outdid President Bush in his pro-Israel sentiments. On the very day that Obama vowed to protect Jerusalem as Israel's capital -- drawing a furious denunciation from the Palestinian Authority -- Bush announced that he was suspending a move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

Posted by: Dave J | June 5, 2008 5:35 PM

As an white male I rejoice that the door is open for the majority race in this world [non-white] to take power over this country by due process under the law. All Christians should rejoice over the fact that we are all now one [when it comes to political power] as Jesus declared we should be. There are other hurtles to jump before equality of the races is achieved but it is a great start!

Posted by: Bill Davis | June 5, 2008 5:44 PM

It's a good development (and I understand that Obama is your friend), but I personally am feeling simply devastated today because I favored Hillary. I and many others feel that she has gotten a raw deal from the party and the press. People (mainly bloggers and Internet commentators) have hurled epithets at her that shouldn't be voiced im polite company.

I'd have to say that misogyny has ruined this campaign for me.It's hard for me to figure at this point whether I will vote at all in the fall. If I do it might be to write Hillary in.

Posted by: Wendy Contos | June 5, 2008 5:48 PM

I have to admit that I've been praying to God to help us find a courageous and compassionate person to be our new President. One of the prayers I recite is the Magnificat - The Canticle of Mary, and last night these verses really resonated with me, in light of Sen. Obama's victory:

He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.

I choose to believe that God heard our prayers.

Posted by: Sandy | June 5, 2008 5:57 PM

I too listened to Obama's speech the other night.
For the first time in a very long time I felt proud to be an American. Obama's nomination sends a message to the rest of the world that the American dream is not dead - that a man of mixed race, with intelligence, hard work and heart can become (inshallah) the next president of the United States. He gives hope not only to this country but by extention the world!

Posted by: Lissa Caldwell | June 5, 2008 6:02 PM

You, Jim Wallis, also deserve so much thanks for forming Sojourners to give others of us who remember those times and, like you, couldn't reconcile traditional religion's presentation of God with what God told our heart he was about through the Gospels, through Jesus' actions while on earth. Your efforts have not only benefitted us, but are a big reason for the change in our country - the change that brought our country to the place where we could nominate (and hopefully elect!) a person of mixed race. Your synergy with Barack Obama at the Compassion Conference was very striking. His promise to you to make eradicating poverty in America a goal of his administration appeared to be very heartfelt. I hope that he makes a prominent place for you in his administration to help lead America toward that goal.

Again, thank you for your leadership and Sojourners - and continually reminding the world that God is a loving God and of where our priorities in life should be placed.
Wisty Olsson

Posted by: Wisty Olsson | June 5, 2008 6:09 PM

Tranformational moment indeed!!

Unlike Mr. Wallis my faith -- as it was preached then -- the Roman faith -- led me to see racism as sin in my teen years even though my small town, blue collar parents remained oblivious. It was for me an article of faith, after I heard Dr. King's speech from the Mall, that "We shall overcome." was synonymous with the Exodus and Ressurection. As I moved on to college I grew further. I was far from distressed or put off by "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner". I loved that Irish monseignur. My inherent, God given, emotional affinity for the down trodden and Faith History as Revolution began to be articulated in political terms.

I don't pretend to know what it means to experience being black. In my youth I thought I knew and I angered many African-Americans with my naievete. For that mea culpa.

But through these 40-50 years since that time, in years of estrangement, I have -- Thank the Lord -- not "lost it". I see The Creator at work in human history. It manifests itself in moments of "Passover". I too connected with the Creator on Tuesday night. I cried genuine tears of joy!

The Creator Lives!! Now is the day of JUBILEE!!

In 50 years I have become estranged from Roman orthodoxy.

Posted by: Richard | June 5, 2008 6:31 PM

Fantastic article! Thank you for this.

Posted by: toddh | June 5, 2008 6:36 PM

I don't want my kids, or yours, to be "color blind." In the first place, it's not possible, any more than it is possible to "not see" whether one is male or female. I want them to see, and respect and honor, one another's color, to not use it as an excuse to discriminate or stereotype. As the former secretary of the NAACP said (I'm paraphrasing), It's not a matter of being color-blind--that's not such a worthwhile or realistic goal; it's, once having seen color, what one does about it.

Posted by: ann weller | June 5, 2008 6:41 PM

Whoops I didn't mean for my post to appear 3 times. It just kept not posting. When it finally decided to do it, it went up three times. Maybe somebody could delete two?

Posted by: Wendy Contos | June 5, 2008 6:54 PM

First off, I object to you calling Barack Obama a "young black man." Obama is more than a decade older than me and I consider myself an "old man." At the very least, I do not consider myself "youth"; nor, do I think, does most of American society.

But I understand your excitement. Barack Obama's campaign is transformative, breaking new groun on so many different levels, and hopeful in terms of the future of our country.

I appreciate Barack Obama's campaign and I appreciate Sojourners for leading the fight for justice from the perspective of the Christian community.

Posted by: William Burnett | June 5, 2008 6:55 PM

I am a Canadian who will now take a special interest in the American presidental election because Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination to run for President. I am hoping frevently that he will win. The fact his policies are so much better than McCain's is more important than his race. But, when his race and his polices are taken together, he and his win of the nominatin inspires hope. If I were an American, Obama is the first presidential candidate that I would campaign for that can ever rememgber ( I am 60 ). It is no wonder most nations and people of the world are excited by this change as the Bush admininstration has managed to alienate even its nearest neighbours and closest friends that we Canadians had been in the pat with the U. S.. However, cozy the Canadian Federal Harper government may be with the Bush Administration, most Canadians have felt alienated by the Bush Adminstration and disillusioned with the U. S. being a bastion of democracy for the world. The U. S. is isolated even from its nearest and closest allies including Canada as a result of the Bush Administration policies and actions. With the nomination of Obama, perhaps American relations with the rest of the world including with Canada will start to improve and continue IF Obama wins.

If Obama wins, I am hoping that it will help to pressure the neo-conservative, right wing governments Federally and in a lot of provnces including my own of British Columbia to become more liberal politically generally and in their social policies specifically. Our Federal government is governed by the Conservative Party of Canada which is a carbon copy of the neo-conservative, right wing of the American Repulican Party. Our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper is a member of the "religious right" just as George Bush is because he claims to be a CHristian and goes to church. My province of British Columbia is also governed by a neo-conservative, right wing political Party which is the Liberal Party of B. C.. Our Premier,Gordon Campbell, is also right wing, neo-conservative except in the areas of the Environment in which he is seeking to deal with climiate change in imitation of California and in creating a Ministry of Aboriginal Reltations and Reconciilation to improve relationships with and deal with the Aboriginal peoples of B. C. for which I applaud him. It is my hope that if Barack Obama wins the Presidency of the U. S., it will encourage Canadians to vote out the Conservative Party Federally and British Columbians to vote out the Liberal Party provincailly. There will be both Federal and provincial elections in Canada and in B. C. next year so that if Obama wins in the U. S., it can not but help to encouarge Canadians to seek CHANGE also. WE Canadians can campaign for change too. This gives me hope that the reign of the neo-conservatives and the religious right is coming to end in both the United States and in Canada. May God make it so. I shall pray for it.

Posted by: Tyler Barnes | June 5, 2008 7:05 PM

With everyday of this electoral process progressing I find myself holding my heart in my hands, remembering everything that my childhood can recall about the 60's.

I still remember a time when the director of the FBI could make phone calls that would influence the leadership of our churches when he wasn't having them bugged. We still live in times when our administration feels they have the right to read our emails and listen to our phone conversations. An administration that has clearly defined how they see religion's role in politics. We still have institutions and monuments named after J. E. Hoover.

I live for a day when our leaders and political institutions take a hands off approach to our religious institutions. I think Obama has the right approach and he should hold McCain's feet to the fire on this issue.

'Set those holy men down and leave them alone.'

Don't cuddle up to them for votes and don't expect them to agree with you.

It is one thing for people of faith to have dialog in the pews about their values. It is quite another thing for politicians to ask for their endorsement or following.

It would have been nice if Hilary didn't have Bill for baggage. However she has set a president. There are many qualified women who would make great VPs . i.e. Linda Sanchez from CA. is no light weight.

We need to get busy and name some of these women.

Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | June 5, 2008 7:23 PM

I'm 62 years old. My mother's ancestors came here in 1685 pursuing religious freedom. They became southern slave owners and, after Emancipation, nauseatingly racist bigots. They tried to indoctrinate me too, but I never bought it. They claimed to be God's devoted Christians, never seeing the contradiction between their behavior and our Sunday School song "Red and Yellow, Black and White, ALL are precious in His sight." They claimed to worship Jesus while never doing anything Jesus said we should. They lost both me and my brother before we were 20. We'll never be back. To see Barack Obama victorious as Democratic nominee is to see our ancestors' bigotry vanquished. Unapologetic to Hillary supporters, we feel more loyalty to people of color than to women, who were our chief abusers. I want to see a person of color in the White House -- not just any, but one worthy, as I believe Obama is. If not a Native American, which is my dearest wish (I'll be long dead before that!), then an African American. And I want to see Christians start acting like followers of the teachings of Jesus instead of behaving like the Antichrist. Today is a momentous day -- a small step, but a great leap for America. May God protect Obama, whether he wins in November or not.

Posted by: French | June 5, 2008 7:39 PM

Regarding "colorblindness":

When my daughter, now 41, was four years old, we were in a US Army base laundromat in Germany. She was playing with a group of children, only one of whom was black, a girl in a yellow dress. My daughter came to tell me something about her partner in their game. She did not say "the black girl." She said "the girl in the yellow dress." I thought, "Thank heaven, in this is our hope." She has never let me down.

Posted by: French | June 5, 2008 8:14 PM

After graduating from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1951, I was called as Chaplain Assistant and Activity Director at The State Industrial Farm for Women (Prison) in Goochland, Virginia. I was shocked at the discrimination forced upon all activities. In church the black chior stodd on one side and the whites on the other. White baseball teams could not play against the black teams. I could dance with any white prisoner but not with black prisoners.Holidays activities were scheduled with one day for the whites and the next day for the blacks. I decided to leave and work in a church in NY State. I got a call from the prison asking me to take one of the young black women into my home and help her. Yes! I got her a job as a live-in Nanny for a doctor and his family. It was a start.

Posted by: Genie | June 5, 2008 8:18 PM

Further to my comment above, what I really want to know about Obama is:
Will he, instead of fighting against the flesh and blood of human beings (for example Iranians), fight against the principalities and powers (in both the spiritual and the organisational spheres) that have caused his country to pursue dominance over others?

meurig

Posted by: meurig | June 5, 2008 8:53 PM

As a Christian, I am sorry that along the way to his nomination Mr. Obama repudiated his long-time pastor, apparently for political purposes. The way the majority of the media treated the Rev. Wright demonstrated a profound ignorance of and contempt for both the prophetic tradition in Christianity and the black church in America. While I can understand the happiness of Americans of faith -- all faiths -- at the prospect of having a president whose policies may be consonant with our shared values, I would warn against socially and politically "progressive" Christians making of Mr. Obama what our conservative sisters and brothers made of George W. Bush. To do so would serve neither the church or the Gospel of Jesus Christ particularly well.

Posted by: Robin Ressler | June 5, 2008 9:14 PM

What would have been truly amazing is if a woman had been elected president. It is shocking that India, Vietnam, Ireland, Germany, the Phillipines and other countries have had women leaders but the United States of America has not.

Churches in America that discriminate against people of color through doctrine would (should!) be fiercely criticized. Yet, there are churches in America who clearly and routinely practice limiting a woman's authority in church and somehow the Christian community is not outraged by this.

It is tremendous to have an African American man as a viable candidate for President. However, let us not forget the gender disparity that still exists.

Posted by: Katie | June 5, 2008 9:16 PM

Some may take for granted that a man who happens to be black is running for president. I am currently reading a book about a white minister in 1957 who risked his life along with those of the black community who helped to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The struggle to get to this point has been hard fought and many who fought the fight or fight the fight for racial equality often are forgotten for their love and ultimate sacrifice.

Jesus welcomed all to the table and to think that people have lost their lives or risked their lives to include all at the table as recently as the 1960's (and still all over the world) makes Obama's rise to power and prominence in our country so incredibly wonderful.

During my formative years, I witnessed the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy. Later, I learned of those murdered during the Civil Rights movement for their work. Even now, I personally was told not to list my work for racial justice on my resume for fear that someone may think of me as too radical to hire.

May God open the hearts of those that let hatred blind them to God's love for all people - regardless of color, religion or whatever other human constructed division we construct to promote hatred.

Posted by: Grace | June 5, 2008 9:50 PM

It's just as prejudiced to base a choice FOR someone on her sex or his race as it is to vote against that candidate because of sex or race. There probably are those who did not support Mrs. Clinton due to sexism or misogyny, just as, without a doubt, there are those who would never vote for Mr. Obama because he is black. But that doesn't mean that all people who don't support Obama are racist, nor does it mean that the only thing preventing someone from supporting Mrs. Clinton is misogyny. I am a middle aged white woman. I would love to vote for a woman candidate for president. But I did not prefer this particular woman candidate.

I choose to assume that most people voted for the person they thought was best qualified, and will do so in the general election. Perhaps we can help that happen by encouraging our friends and neighbors to educate themselves about the issues and to choose based on a careful assessment of who would be the best leader, and by leading discussions that are issue-focused, not fear-based or irrelevant (or untrue).

Also, let's not forget that we all need to stay involved and make sure Washington hears what we, as people of faith, care about and what we want them to do.

Posted by: Amy | June 5, 2008 10:12 PM

My understanding is that Obama is not black but bi-racial.

Posted by: judithod | June 5, 2008 11:02 PM

Thank you Jim Wallis for your comment. You and I are about the same age and many of your memories are mine also.
There are tears too in the eyes of this middle aged Christian southern white woman.
I do not vote because of someones color, gender or religion. However, that a man of color, has been able to achieve this nomination is groundbreaking and historical and my heart swells with pride for the country I love.
Although my first allegiance was toward John Edwards (who I, like his wife, was sorry that he was neither a woman or of color), I like what Obama has to say. He has my vote because of his attitude and his stand on important issues of our time.
Hillary ran a tough fight. I feel badly for her bitter pill of defeat. If she supported issues dear to my heart she would have had my vote...not because she was a woman. It will be another transforming event when a woman is elected to our highest office, and I am certain that will happen. Hillary did break down barriers and has achieved a victory, just not the victory she was looking for today.
Thank you, nuttshell, for your comments.

Posted by: pedsrn | June 5, 2008 11:09 PM

Wonderful comments on a wonderful man. As a Canadian travelling in India, I sincerely hope that Mr.Obama will be aware that the economic and political future of the world is shifting from the United States to India and China. What is happening in the USA right now is of much lesser interest to these two counries than most Americans and Canadians think it is. Power is definitely shifting - and a new world is dawning

Posted by: george millard | June 6, 2008 12:31 AM

Truely history is in the making, not only in America but through the World. I read a comment above someone saying "Obama is not black but bi-racial" and something in me jumped; isn't just it? There is neither black nor white, we are human beings, each made in the image of God. South Africa is going through a shameful period and we all (most) are ashamed, and should be, because of this xenophobic violence. Acrhbishop D. Tutu appealed to the world and particularly Africa for forgiveness. I'd like to believe he spoke for us all. A 'coloured lady' (bi-racial in SA) asked a question, "who is really S. African?" and she went on to answer it; "I am, the only truely born in SA. All of you, whether black or white, originates from somewhere else, your great-great-great..grantparents migrated into this area from somewhere; 'White Africans' from Europe and Black Africans from East or West Africa. I use White Africans as a provocation because Obama's choice is really a provocation of our prejudice (strongholds) as people. Today South African leadership stands in the best place to speak a message of true reconciliation to our African brothers because we (blacks) caused the offence, the opposite of apartheid time when we were wronged. SA stands again at a crossroad, a good choice for reconciliation may open a door for true broetherhood, reconciliation and hopefully well rooted development in Africa. The opposite will be a lost opportunity. Chabeli, L.

Posted by: Lehlohonolo Chabeli | June 6, 2008 1:17 AM

Amendment:
In my post up above I wrote: "I didn't see that hatred." Obviously, we saw a lot of hateful things thrown out by some people during the primaries. More accurately, I should say, "I didn't pay attention to the hatred." Hate will always play a role in elections, unfortunately. Our role, as Christians, should be to ignore hate and spread love. It really is that simple.

Posted by: Mark | June 6, 2008 1:38 AM

Thank you Rev. Jim Wallis for understanding the historical significance of Barack Obama's nomination independent of the politics or the outcome of the vote.

Robert, Carolyn---Is a Constitutional right really a right if it cannot be exercised?
We need to view civil rights in historical context. In his address to a Joint Session of Congress in 1965 on the Voting Rights Act, President Johnson said, "...Wednesday, I will send to Congress a law designed to eliminate illegal barriers to the right to vote...This bill will strike down restrictions to voting in all elections, federal, state, and local, which have been used to deny Negroes the right to vote....But even if we pass this bill the battle will not be over. What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and state of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Becasue it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.
And we shall overcome." LBJ, March 1965

Paul---What is a race card? I have heard that termed used during this primary campaign and have no idea what it is. Race is not a membership so what benefits does this "race card" give you?

Wendy---Misogyny: a hatred of women. Please give us some examples. I am saddened that you would associate hatred of women with Barack Obama, a husband and father of two daughters. Are you saying that Hillary Clinton lost because most Americans hate women?

judithod---"My understanding is that Obama is not black but bi-racial."

What are his children--Black or bi-racial? In the U.S., Black is defined by having any African ancestry or "Black blood". If you do the genealogy, 75-80% of Black people in the U.S. have whites in their family tree. Are we suppose to redefine ourselves as Bi-racial?

Katie---Churches in America that discriminate against people of color through doctrine would (should!) be fiercely criticized. Yet, there are churches in America who clearly and routinely practice limiting a woman's authority in church and somehow the Christian community is not outraged by this.

Are you arguing that the political competition between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is somehow rooted in or related to Church and the Christian Community? Can you explain?

Posted by: SJ Brown | June 6, 2008 2:20 AM

Barack Obama won the Democratic race because he was the best candidate, period. And I say this as someone who would have preferred the policies of Kucinich (single payer and an APOLOGY to Iraq).
Not least important in the rundown with Senator Clinton is the fact that Obama was more loyal to the Democratic Party. To me, Hillary's most memorable quote is the following. "Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience. And Senator Obama will bring a speech he made in 2002." I can repeat this quote exactly because it was in today's newspaper. The story? Republicans are running a videotape of this speech in their own television ads. Which was inevitable the moment Hillary let it out of her mouth. Has any Democratic candidate EVER praised the Republican over the Democratic rival? This is not a matter of sex or race, it is the obvious fact that Hillary will say ANYTHING to gain an advantage.
And yet there are still Hillary supporters who are so hurt and angry that they will vote (or abstain, which is the same thing) to repeal Roe v Wade, for transferring our school money to millionaires, and for "Bomb, bomb Iran." It is truly wonderful that our two final candidates have been a woman (the time will come) and an African American. But what is at stake here is, at least, our democracy and our national economy, and, at most, the survival of the planet. It is time to get to work to elect Obama. All of us.

Posted by: Laurenceofberk | June 6, 2008 3:47 AM

I was touched by Jim's article on Obama's success as I was by his achievement in securing the nomination. At the time I watched it on the news (and there has been sidespread coverage here in the UK) I couldn't help thinking what Martin Luther King would be thinking if he could see all this. I'm writing this from my office in Olney, just yards from where the abolitionist and campaigner for racial justice John Newton lived, worked and coined the words 'Amazing Grace' with which Jim ended this article. I'm sure Newton would be applauding too.

Posted by: Andrew Betts | June 6, 2008 4:37 AM

See, miracles really do happen. God is doing a new thing. None of us living as a teenages in the 1960's expected to see a black man running for governor of a state as a nominee from a major party; much less, President of the United Sates. Faith, hope, and love; these three abide, but the greatest of these is love.

Posted by: Jim Megrail | June 6, 2008 8:09 AM

Why is the focus on race?
Why is the focus on gender?

Look at the corridors of power -- and then come back and ask that same question.

When conservatives have high powered minorities it is not celebrated.

And never will be, because everyone knows that they have no real authority -- which is the issue here.

if we had a genius dog that happened to be a conservative politician it would be virtually ignored and played up as a scheme by the "right".

And that would be the truth.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 6, 2008 8:54 AM

A transformational moment.

What has changed?

Hillary was not nominated--so we are still backwards and sexist. If a couple hundred unelected 'superdelegate' insiders switched (or decide to switch)-- would that then mean we have experienced a different kind of transformation?

Would we take back this "we nominated a Black man" transformational moment and have a different one.

Hey, the superdelegates could switch now and we would have had both.

I seriously do appreciate this moment; but I do think it worthy to think about what has and has not changed.

Tears came to my eyes when I saw a picture of Michele Obama campaigning in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses in the all-white county in which I was raised.

I digress to say to Johnnie Skinner that I heard Tom S for the first time in the early 70's while I was in High School. It was in a park in Mason City, IA. I read his books, heard him speak many times, and would listen to recordings over and over. Tom walked with great faithfulness and likely never knew the persons like myself whom he touched.

Think of the great price which so many have paid to overcome a simple, dumb lie about the pigmentation of skin; the cost of the civil war to this nation; the cost of demanding people use separate drinking fountains; the poverty of states who clung to a racist system; the cost to the integrity of the US and the capacity of the church in the US to fulfill its purposes.

It is such a great change to see the nomination of Obama--and yet such a 'nothing change.' It is like a cruel high school clique that drives a peer into depression and suicide for no good reason; then grows up and sees the absolute silliness of how they acted. They carried out great evil for no reason and then give up the reason--"It was nothing."

I must say I agree with those who contend there would be much less of this 'transformational moment' talk if it was Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, or JC Watts with a Republican nomination. They would not be seen as legitimate Black people.

Which is ironic because that is what this Democratic Party process demanded of Obama--that he simultaneously prove himself to be a Black man and that he is not a Black man. For this I give him all the credit in the world.

He maneuvered the process so the nation could select a candidate who happens to have darker skin--not seeing him as the "stereotypical Black man." Of course there is no such "composite stereotypical Black man." When we actually get to know the Black co-worker, church attender, or Oprah--they simply become the person they are.

The populace will break out of the racist and sexist stereotypes much faster than the power structure who sees themselves as the vanguard of enlightenment. Jesse Jackson, like Michele Obama, also traveled Iowa in 1984; and garnered much support from the cornfields and hog lots. But there is an elite class (mostly highly educated, liberal, white men in media, universities, seminary faculties, and politics) who beat the low-life up for being backwards, using them as an excuse for explaining why a Black man can't win, etc. etc. etc.

Race will be a bigger factor in this campaign than Obama or McCain wants; and than the broad majority of this nation cares about. It will be hammered and pushed by the media. The groundwork laid in the incessant storyline that late states which supported Clinton were racist.

We continue to dispense with the old superstructure of lies that upheld an unfathomable evil of racism. Yea!!!!!!!!!!!

The work of living out the Truth that set the captives free remains. We have a cloud of witnesses (Tom Skinner being one of them) cheering us on. The Liar is at work today, as every day, seeking to steal and destroy.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | June 6, 2008 9:38 AM

Jim - it seems your reflections are more about you than race or God, or faith. about your books, your speeches, your tours, your friends and associates in high places. why?

Posted by: Matt | June 6, 2008 10:30 AM

Barack Obama is NOT a "black" man, whatever that means. Biologically, he is as much "white" as he is "black". He is a mixed race person. Reality is not a binary proposition. My beautiful mixed race daughter loves the more African side of her family just as she loves the more white side, who were all part of the civil rights movement. In the end she is our daughter and a daughter of the human race and a unique person and labels that deny the complexity of her origins are inadequate and dishonest. I understand and share Jim's feelings about this wonderful event in American politics, but race is a biologically meaningless construct and an extremely flexible cultural construct. Racism is a cultural and mental pathology, the effects of which are entirely and completely negative. We will know racism is over when children with non- European ancestry are receiving equal health care and educations as the middle class. Anything less will be either progress, regression or meaningless noise. Barack's candidacy shows progress but is far from signaling the end of racism in our country and may bring out some of the ugly realities of latent racism in America.

While I have much hope of Barack and was elected as a delegate for Obama in my state, I fear a savior mentality among those who stand for a real change of direction. Mr. Obama's recent statements about Israel and about Iran and about military spending are deeply disappointing. It is time to end the macho posturing and war mongering and to stop spending our grandchildren's future on militarism. If he wants change he must convince Americans to spend their money on change, not more of the same. The work of Christians who are standing up for social justice is far from over.

Posted by: jonabark | June 6, 2008 11:04 AM

I'm not so sure it was a 'transformational moment' or an aura of spiritual frenzy I witnessed as I watched Senator Obama give his victory speech the other night. I agree wtih letjusticerolldown's comment that there 'would be much less of this 'transformational moment' talk if it was Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, or JC Watts with a Republican nomination. And, I'm not so sure the experience factor really means a whole lot either - Hillary is more experienced, as is McCain for that matter.

That said, I appreciate Jim opening up this forum. This gives a 'compassionate conservative' who strongly believes in social justice, a voice also. Personally, I'm not excited about either presumed candidate.

The kingdom of man is certainly not the kingdom of heaven. Jesus is my King and I need to live day in and day out reflecting this. This is my responsibility and I often come up short. Senator Obama is not the Savior or Redeemer of the US or our world. I am concerned for those who act as if he is.

Posted by: Tim | June 6, 2008 11:32 AM

Thank you for your piece on Obama and this remarkable time in U.S. history. I have been very moved by the words (currently reading Obama's first book) and by the tone of his campaign. I look forward to helping him win the general election.

Posted by: Amy | June 6, 2008 12:09 PM

I'm not the lest bit interested in Obama's candidacy. Thanks David J for the link on Obama & Israel. Google up Ralph Nader and hear him out on his criticisms of BO. Nader is doing what Jim Wallis used to do but gave it up: holding the feet of both parties to the fire.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | June 6, 2008 2:18 PM

I find it interesting that Obama comes under attack for what he wants to do but there's never a discussion about what McCain wants to do. Apart from staying in Iraq and bombing Iran, what does John McCain plan to do with our country? How's that going to affect our plummeting dollar? If you like how the country is doing, then vote McCain. If you like how the economy is tanking, then vote McCain. Did he vote for an increase in CAFE standards? I realize the automakers whined but that was medicine they needed. Maybe if they had increased the CAFE standards, 4 auto plants wouldn't be closing and thousands of people wouldn't be losing their jobs. Oh, by the way, the uptick in the unemployment rate is the highest jump since '86.

McCain's biggest argument is that while things aren't going well, change is unpredictable and may not work. That's courage for you. I guess he hopes that by doing nothing, something miraculous will happen to turn our economy and our country's reputation around. That's not even a strategy we encourage our kids to embrace. We encourage and exhort them to do things differently when the path they are taking is wrong. Why should we be different with the direction of our country? Most people in this country (81%) believe we are on the wrong track. All John McCain is recommending is either the same track or taking a parallel track. Barack Obama is a fresh face with fresh ideas and he no doubt scares the bejeesus out of a lot of people. Life is an adventure and is not for the weak willed. Hang on because the movers and shakers are not going to wait on the fence-sitters.

Posted by: Nuttshell | June 6, 2008 3:00 PM

"I will once again, swallow my disappoinment and vote for another MALE who purports to hold my agenda, but truly - no one can hold my agenda like a woman."

Can you image me saying no one holds my agenda like a black man? That would be utterly racist. Somehow your statement isn't sexist? Hillary proved beyond a doubt that a woman can run for President and win. She lost the nomination for lots of reasons but being a woman wasn't one of them.

Posted by: Andy | June 6, 2008 3:41 PM

I have no idea whether there is any black blood in my family tree, but it wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference in how I feel about the judgments of others toward those of a different race. As a (presumably) white guy born and raised in the South, I have been exposed to the various forms and functions of racism as it has gone from public policy to private "preference". I do not deny the existence of misogyny among the "macho" males—both straight and gay—who believe that a woman's place is (only) in the home and that they have nothing to offer in the way of leadership. However, I do not recall any lynchings or cross-burnings to drive home the point. Most insults directed at women are patronizing references to the fact (?) that "it is a man's world". They seldom contain the kind of invective reserved for those judged to be sub-human by virtue of their race, color, creed, or religion. I have seen Obama accused of being a "closet Muslim" who "hates America". Some have gone so far as to label him as the Anti-Christ.

I must say that it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things spiritual and material. The Bible makes it perfectly clear that no-one will know for sure who that "Man of Sin" is until God chooses to reveal him. And the Bible makes it equally clear that there is nothing anyone can do to prevent him from gaining power over the world's governments. Those who believe that they are doing God's work by voting against someone they personally judge to be the future Anti-Christ just may find that they have voted for the real deal instead. BTW, it is NOT Israel's GOVERNMENT that is under God's protection, but His people (which includes anyone who ultimately acknowledges the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ).

That being said, I must say that I see Barack Obama as more presidential in his demeanor and rhetoric than Hillary Clinton—who vows to "fight" for our rights. Haven't we had enough of the gridlock that leads only to agreement on such historic legislation as National Butterflies Week? Of course, there is also compromise on pork-barrel spending that gives us bridges to nowhere in Alaska and fountains in Beverly Hills.

I believe that Hillary Clinton has done a creditable job as the Junior Senator from New York—notwithstanding the accusations of "lying" about the number of jobs that she would like to bring to Western New York. What more could she have done with a divided Congress controlled by Republicans and a frat-brat with a Messianic complex in the White House? I believe that she may yet play a vital role in changing the "business as usual" mentality of Congress, if she is willing. After all, the bulk of her experience has been in the kind of adversarial politics that has dominated Washington for so long that few can remember a time when statesmen were not branded as "elitist" for using "high-fallutin' words in expressing their hopes for a brighter future.

Posted by: Hermes | June 6, 2008 4:17 PM

To all of you who are disappointed that Clinton didn't become the first woman President: Did you actively campaign on behalf of Carole Mosely-Braun in 2004? Or even Elizabeth Dole in 2000?

I'd like to see a woman become President, too. But why is it Clinton or no one at all? Why didn't anyone draft Barbara Boxer or Blanche Lincoln or Kathleen Sibelius or Maria Cantwell or Madeline Albright or Patty Murray or Olympia Snowe or Jan Shakowski or Barbara Lee or...?

No, it had to be the one woman who, fairly or unfairly, has the most baggage, the most vulnerabilities, and the most identified with the past.

Get over it. There was misogyny abounding, to be sure, and i share your anger over that. However, the feminist groups (with whom I sympathize for the most part, by the way) should have begun prepping a woman to run for President long ago. Instead, they just waited for it to happen and it was Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: I and I | June 6, 2008 6:18 PM

I appreciate your words, Jim. Thank you for so eloquently reflecting upon this momentous occasion in US history. "Who woulda thunk," huh?

Posted by: Tina in California | June 6, 2008 7:21 PM

Nuttshell,
I'm the mother of a U.S. Marine officer so I certainly understand the purpose of the surge and also receive firsthand reports. The Iraqis are indeed stepping to the fore. In fact, if you watch Charlie Rose, you would have seen several reporters interviewed in the past few weeks. All have been in Iraq since the beginning and report progress by both the government and the army(even NY Times reporters).

I don't listen to Rush, never have and never intend to do so.

What I appreciate about McCain is that he has a history of thoughtful independence as well as "reaching across the aisle." He definitely is not George Bush, as Obama charges. For starters, McCain served his country!

In regard to health care, McCain proposes using tax credits to shift from employer-based insurance coverage to an open-market system where people coulc choose from competing policies. Obama would retain the existing employer-based coverage and expand government involvement. He does support universal health coverage for those without insurance, but would only require coverage for children.

Posted by: judithod | June 6, 2008 7:28 PM

When I was watching "Bush's War" on PBS I found myself growing angrier and angrier as I saw how Colin Powell was being used by the man behind the curtain and his co conspirators. Cheney's buffunery was the stuff of late night comedy but the results were tragic beyond imagining.

If Colin Powell were to run for office I would be inclined to vote for him. He has the bruises to show he understands how badly things can go when ones mission is sabotaged by lunatics. I was embarrassed that an American administration could behave so wretchedly.

But he is not the only one on a long of list of minority appointees who have been used by this administration as the fall guy for their obsessive intentions.
Time and time again I find it insulting that Bush/Cheney have found ways to trick others into doing their dirty work. Its leaves a sour taste in my mouth when Preppy Frat boys misuse the talents of those gifted people who come to government to serve them, and then play innocent, has if they didn't know what their back hand was doing.
It is bewildering that they have such little respect for those who serve them.

My most heartfelt apologies to Collin Powell. I pray that he can turn his disappointing experience with Mr. Cheney and friends into a gift that makes a difference in the world.

With the level of incompetence currently in the White House I find myself in fear of how badly things will become before we can finally put the reins of our country in capable hands.

To some of you Obama may seem to liberal. The rest of you may realize just how conservative he actually is at the core. A most complex person he is. He probably won the nomination because he out middled the Clintons.

But in the face of what may be coming our way (as the Bush admin unravels) what we need more than left or right: is just plain vigorous talent and competence not to mention a sense of ethics and the courage to practice it.

Everything else will be icing on the cake.

Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | June 7, 2008 4:07 AM

Jim,
Thanks for bearing witness. However "being Black" is not what it's about.
Yea, he's got a funny name, big ears, and kinky hair. But he is also a master of the English language and becoming a "wise soul".

It's the charisma, the effect that he has on others, that makes this different. And it's his faith. It's what he sees, the questions he asks, and how he interacts with others.

I've been concerned that the current administration has given "faith in public life" a bad reputation. George W. Bush is a man of faith who doesn't let facts get in the way - I've been worried that we would have a secular backlash.

Instead we have a candidate who embodies Micah 6:8 - Justice, Mercy and Humility before God

Posted by: Roger127 | June 7, 2008 10:09 AM

I'm going to be raked across coals for saying this, but...

This country has been in a position to put a female or black president in office for years. An Obama win is not a victory (nor, certainly, a loss) for racial balance in America, and neither is a loss for Hillary Clinton a setback for women.

Either could have been elected eight years ago. It's just that neither was particularly seasoned. Elizabeth Dole and Alan Keyes ran for the Republican nomination, and both were taken seriously on the merits. On the merits, Dole was uninspiring and Keyes was utterly bananas.

In 1984, Geraldine Ferraro was the vice-presidential nominee. Her ticket was mowed down by a popular president and Walter Mondale, a white male who eventually managed to lose an election in every state.

The real question is whether Obama will make a good president, not whether his race will benefit us in some way. Wallis, and most people posting here, surely think that the former is true.

And he will have the opportunity to make that case. Let's hope we have come far enough as a country that his campaign can do so without reminding us of his skin color.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 7, 2008 5:13 PM

Either could have been elected eight years ago. It's just that neither was particularly seasoned. Elizabeth Dole and Alan Keyes ran for the Republican nomination, and both were taken seriously on the merits. On the merits, Dole was uninspiring and Keyes was utterly bananas.

They also brought no one else into the political process that had been frozen out, which is the point. In each case white men were still the behind-the-scenes honchos, especially in the case of Keyes, who as a conservative has never had black support.

The real question is whether Obama will make a good president, not whether his race will benefit us in some way. Wallis, and most people posting here, surely think that the former is true.

What he brings, in part because of his race, is a somewhat fresh alternative to the tired old ideas of the past. Already other nations are largely rooting for him because they too believe it's time for something different.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 7, 2008 6:24 PM

"For over 200 years, we have had male presidents. It is time we had a woman president."

Honestly I think the race thing is bigger than the gender thing. That takes nothing away from Hilary and her accomplishments. I am not ignoring the history of gender discrimination either. But I remember racism did not care about gender lines. Many white men and white women took great joy and delight in destroying the black race. So I disagree with your perspective and I can see that Barack's nomination means something greater than merely breaking the glass ceiling. It further signifies the equality of black people to white people. Since racism was America's second great sin (greed being the first) it makes sense that this must be this first.

p

Posted by: Payshun | June 8, 2008 10:27 PM

"They also brought no one else into the political process that had been frozen out, which is the point."

Are you seriously arguing that Barack Obama had been frozen out of the political process?

"What he brings, in part because of his race, is a somewhat fresh alternative to the tired old ideas of the past."

Only because of his race. He brings nothing new ideologically, though he is very ideological.

"Already other nations are largely rooting for him because they too believe it's time for something different."

They are rooting for him because he more closely reflects the ideological landscapes of those countries.

"Why would you get raked over the coals?"

It's a figure of speech. Do you want me to explain it to you?

"To make that mistake would be more egregious than anything you did say."

Yet, you could not resist.

"Honestly I think the race thing is bigger than the gender thing."

Of course.

"But I remember racism did not care about gender lines."

This is the beginning of a terrible argument. I don't have a horse in this race, as the politics of grievance is not my baileywick, but a cursory glance at the Constitution would be enough to cut your argument at the pass.

Posted by: kevin s. | June 9, 2008 1:57 AM

I don't have a horse in this race, as the politics of grievance is not my baileywick,...

Oh, please! You've always complained that the political right always gets short shrift here -- how is that not the "politics of grievance"?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 9, 2008 9:22 AM

The commentary and the comments on this blog astonish me. How many of you, who are so happy that Sen. Obama is the presumptive Democratic candidate, agreed with VP Gore's campaign, that then-Gov. Bush, having only been a two-term governor of Texas, a business executive, and a sports team owner, was inadequately prepared for the office of President? How many of you nodded in agreement with the talking heads who all learned the word 'gravitas' in the same 12-hour period, and used it to describe what Bush lacked, and Cheney 'brought to the ticket'?

What has Sen. Obama done that has prepared him to perform the duties of the office? Where is the evidence of gravitas in him?

Reaching further back, how many of you--again, I'm only speaking to you who are enthralled with Sen. Obama's candidacy--thought Sen. Quail hopelessly inadequate to be 'a heart-beat away', when he couldn't spell 'tomato' correctly? Or how many of you joined the media chorus of shock when candidate Bush could not place an obscure country in Asia? Well, how about Sen. Obama's count of the states: 58? How about his recounting of history, that somehow the march on Selma influenced his conception, some six years previous?

The term, 'chauvinist', has its root in a certain official named Chauvin, who was so resolutely loyal to his superior, that he would spin (as we would say now) any set of facts to put his patron in a good light.

The facts are in front of all of us, but about a quarter of the voting public appears oblivious: Sen. Obama has a half-page resume, good looks, and flowery rhetoric.

Take a look in the mirror folks! That's not clear-thinking good judgment staring back at you!!

Getting Sen. Obama onto the ticket in November is an accomplishment of some kind, but it is not worthy of much praise. It reminds me of the guy in the wheelchair, whom I saw at a healing service, who managed to stand, briefly, during the prayer time for him, but still went home in the wheelchair. In the end, nothing happened that was noteworthy.

Did it ever occur to any of you that if Sen. Obama is elected, and he demonstrates for all the world how hopelessly ill-prepared he is for office, that he will be the LAST minority president for a LONG time?

Placing emphasis on the wrong things will always cause trouble. As I have watched this campaign unfold, that is mostly what I have seen. Sitting on the sidelines, reading Rev. King's famous words, I've wondered how so many people could ignore the very heart of his dream, and focus so much attention on the candidate's color, or the other candidate's gender. He said his dream was that we would ignore color; that we would focus our attention on character, and base our judgment of a person on "the content of [his/her] character."

I pray for mercy for my nation, and for my countrymen.

Posted by: david of fox lake | June 9, 2008 3:56 PM

"When the Palestinians elected Hamas, Americans weren't upset about voting, they were upset that the Palestinians were so foolish to put an entity in power that was as radical as Hamas is."

Sounds like how much of the world saw the re-election of GWB.

Posted by: I and I | June 9, 2008 4:49 PM

Since there have been posts since I submitted mine, I will assume that it was somehow lost. Having read numerous, but not all, other postings, I can't imagine that it was somehow deemed too inflammatory, or in any way disrespectful. If it was, please alert me, so I can edit out the offending passages, yet preserve the significant commentary.

Posted by: david of fox lake | June 9, 2008 5:27 PM

While I agree that this is a miraculous moment in American history, I have to agree with Linda.
It is no more miraculous than if a woman had been nominated. We seem to forget that it wasn't that long ago that the suffragists were alo beaten, jailed, ostracized and murdered because they demanded to be treated as equal human beings and be 'granted' the right to vote.
White women were property of their husbands, not counterparts and while the benefits of white skin in this country cannot be dismissed, lets not dismiss either the benefits of male gender, whatever the color, ethnicity, culture etc.
Obama could have been her VP and gained much needed foreign policy experience before running in 2012.
I am extremely disappointed i.e. discouraged almost to the point of disaffection.
Horrendous, overt sexism brought Hilary down, racism will take Obama down and politics as usual will put Mccain in the White House.
It was their plan all along.
Laura, Monroe, NY

Posted by: Laura | June 10, 2008 11:28 AM

"It was their plan all along."

Whose plan?

Please read my post of 6/9 @ 3.56 PM.

Almost the same things I said about Sen. Obama could be said about Sen. Clinton. Instead of the Selma march story, we'd have sniper fire in Bosnia, but the same kind of stuff--and a similarly short resume.

There are many reasons for being discouraged that the likely occupant of the White House is Sen. McCain, but that it isn't one of the other two senators doesn't make the list.

My take on "Campaign 2008", as it has been waged since November, 2004, is that we, the People, were doomed from the start to have no substantive candidate, in either party, come this November.

On the Democrat side, as with Republican Sen. Dole in 1996, it was "Hillary's turn". Then Sen. Obama came along: well, so now there's a choice between two light-weights. So, it was a foregone conclusion there would not be a substantive candidate on the Democrat ticket in 2008.

It was a relatively easy matter to assure there would not be a substantive candidate on the Republican ticket: make sure none will want to run.

The focus of media and Democrats has been on how much the country needs the Democratic Party to govern it, and to play up every possible hint of a negative about Pres. Bush and his policies, going back well before the 2004 election.

Since this was 'Hillary's Year', the Republican primary was set up to be a side-show, and one which the media played puppeteer with.

Look at the field at the start of the primaries. There was no one with the credentials Pres. Bush brought to the 2000 campaign. Do you suppose the environment for the campaign, which was largely created by the media and the Democrats, looked like shark-infested waters? The term 'meat grinder' comes to mind.

Only media-darling Sen. McCain stood a real chance, as it became clear the media wanted a Republican candidate who was either not a 'real' Republican, or one who was on the fringe. A fringe candidate would have no chance in a national election, and a RINO would probably lose, but be tolerable, if elected.

So, here we are.

May God have mercy on us.

Posted by: david of fox lake | June 10, 2008 1:04 PM

Look at the field at the start of the primaries. There was no one with the credentials Pres. Bush brought to the 2000 campaign. Do you suppose the environment for the campaign, which was largely created by the media and the Democrats, looked like shark-infested waters? The term 'meat grinder' comes to mind.

To blame this on the media, of which I am a part, and the Democratic Party ignores the reality that the conservative movement by and large is a spent force with no real answers -- that should have been clear with the election results from two years ago -- because conservatives from the start were interested not at all in actually governing, only in staying elected to push people around to puff themselves up as all that. (There's a reason Karl Rove left the White House.) In fact, if conservatism were actually as legitimate as you believe and say it is this blog wouldn't even need to exist.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 10, 2008 2:01 PM

Mr. Nowlin: as a member of the media, you, more than most, should be able to distinguish between Republicans and conservatives. I am surprised that you confuse them.

We conservatives were apalled at the conduct of Republican office-holders, when we saw them begin to out-pork the porkers, and to set about building themselves a self-perpetuating empire. That was Washington-style politics, but that was not conservatism.

The electorate in this country have consistently voted conservative, when that has been an option. If we look at the presidential elections of the much-touted Pres. Clinton, we see that he never had a majority of the popular vote: the majority voted conservative, but was split between two candidates.

In 2006, the Republican incumbents lost their seats for being pork-barrel politicians, not for being conservative. In fact, the Democratic Party's Congressional Committee did a pretty consistent job of running conservative-leaning Democrats to upset those incumbent Republicans. Democrats voted for their own, and conservatives voted the incumbents out of office. It's no more complicated than that.

Conservatism will never be out of ideas, as you suggest, because the fundamental notion of individual freedom and responsibility, together with an understanding of market forces, is the well-spring of all sound public policy.

It is not a dearth of conservative ideas for dealing with the challenges of society that gives rise to blogs such as this one. Good-hearted people will always disagree. Your comment,

"In fact, if conservatism were actually as legitimate as you believe and say it is this blog wouldn't even need to exist."

overlooks the obvious: whatever anyone holds up as TRUTH is not going to win universal acceptance.

Surely, I don't need to provide you with examples.

Your post also contained this:

Republicans "...from the start were interested not at all in actually governing, only in staying elected to push people around to puff themselves up as all that."

Hmm. Well, let me leave you with this thought. We are already getting an indication of what the Democrats have planned for the country, should they win the White House, and extend their hold on Congress to include a 60-seat Senate majority. One of the top priorities is to shut-down conservative talk radio, under the guise of fairness. That strays pretty far from focusing on governing, it would seem, and gets pretty close to being focused on staying elected--wouldn't you agree?

If it goes that way, the mid-term elections of 2010 should prove interesting.

Posted by: david of fox lake | June 10, 2008 6:34 PM