I had a great hope in Obama for several reasons. The foremost amongst them was that he was not Bush, and that he was not trying to achieve the office on Bush's coat tails. Secondly, perhaps, was the promise or at least the hope that America had finally risen above race, and that we had elected a president who embodied in stark reality the sense that we were finally moving on beyond a propensity for a simplistic stereotypical polarization of society based on superficial attributes as a substitute for real discourse.

What is painfully apparent is that Washington is so corrupt as to be poisonous to our future as a nation. You may hate the idea of European economics. I embrace that idea. Neither will have a fair chance in “court” if we continue down this path toward the annihilation of ideas as corporate interests are served as a substitute for representative government.

People like you and I agree far more than pundits want us to. They fabricate fantastical battles in which we are supposed to lose complete sight of what it is/was that made us politically active in the first place. We have an opportunity to hold our noses and talk – folks like you and I. If we allow monied interests to define the conflict at their convenience, we are fools.

I had a great hope in Obama for several reasons. The foremost amongst them was that he was not Bush, and that he was not trying to achieve the office on Bush's coat tails. Secondly, perhaps, was the promise or at least the hope that America had finally risen above race, and that we had elected a president who embodied in stark reality the sense that we were finally moving on beyond a propensity for a simplistic stereotypical polarization of society based on superficial attributes as a substitute for real discourse.

What is painfully apparent is that Washington is so corrupt as to be poisonous to our future as a nation. You may hate the idea of European economics. I embrace that idea. Neither will have a fair chance in “court” if we continue down this path toward the annihilation of ideas as corporate interests are served as a substitute for representative government.

People like you and I agree far more than pundits want us to. They fabricate fantastical battles in which we are supposed to lose complete sight of what it is/was that made us politically active in the first place. We have an opportunity to hold our noses and talk – folks like you and I. If we allow monied interests to define the conflict at their convenience, we are fools.

I had a great hope in Obama for several reasons. The foremost amongst them was that he was not Bush, and that he was not trying to achieve the office on Bush's coat tails. Secondly, perhaps, was the promise or at least the hope that America had finally risen above race, and that we had elected a president who embodied in stark reality the sense that we were finally moving on beyond a propensity for a simplistic stereotypical polarization of society based on superficial attributes as a substitute for real discourse.

What is painfully apparent is that Washington is so corrupt as to be poisonous to our future as a nation. You may hate the idea of European economics. I embrace that idea. Neither will have a fair chance in “court” if we continue down this path toward the annihilation of ideas as corporate interests are served as a substitute for representative government.

People like you and I agree far more than pundits want us to. They fabricate fantastical battles in which we are supposed to lose complete sight of what it is/was that made us politically active in the first place. We have an opportunity to hold our noses and talk – folks like you and I. If we allow monied interests to define the conflict at their convenience, we are fools.

Sotomayor moderate… hmmm. We will see. As for intelligent arguments, well, intelligence is often a speculative thing. As pedantric as it sounds, good for you for being three dimensional, looking at both sides of the coin.

You have mistaken me for the yin to your yang. I am in fact much more three dimensional.

Try this: formulate your own thoughts. Don't mimic Rush or Coulter or O'Reilly for a change, and do the research yourself. You, as do so many others, take Sotomayor out of context. The context has been reiterated many times and in many places, but folks like you continue to ignore that inconvenient fact. I take it you must be a “birther” as well.

Here's the big funny: Sotomayor is quite moderate. Republican legislators are secretly delighted Obama made such a centrist choice. The balance of power in the Supreme Court will remain unchanged. They know she's going to be confirmed, so they have nothing to lose by taking advantage of just one more opportunity to get racial tensions worked up. And you play right into their hands.

Think. You are literate; I will give you that. That implies that you are capable of higher thought, and not dependent on talking points. Depart from them, and formulate intelligent arguments.

How would you feel about that? It is very, very similar, although more transparent and direct, to Sotomayor's statement. Would you embrace what benefit a person of another race and culture would have to offer to enrich this patchwork quilt of America? Or would you balk at a Republican telling you that they might audastically know better than you? Would you say that person is race baiting, or would you say that person is showing pride in who they are and their heritage and is sharing their uniqueness with us all for all of our benefit?

I personally would find this particular self expression troubling. To what or how would America benefit from some other culture, when there are so many present in the U.S. and they all need to be taken into account when deciding policy? And, does that experience include both the positive and the negative of that culture? Are we also going to have to deal with the prejudices of that culture as much as we are going to have to deal with the 'wisdom'?

Sotomayor is a latina, and a woman, as that noun implies. I got no problem with that. I do have a problem with a person in the judicial system bringing in a perspective that may possibly exclude another person or people: whether they are Democrat or Republican. In the Judicial system, we are supposed to be judged by our peers, fair and impartially. If there was a bigoted white redneck taking that position I would be as worried as I am with Sotomayor. Sotomayor made a statement that brings to mind a serious question about her being impartial.

And yes, I used the old slanderous statement of 'slick willy', to point out that sexual misconduct knows no political bounds. That was said in response to someone pointing out Republicans' sexual promiscuity, without also pointing out the same actions of some noted Democrats.

How would you feel about that? It is very, very similar, although more transparent and direct, to Sotomayor's statement. Would you embrace what benefit a person of another race and culture would have to offer to enrich this patchwork quilt of America? Or would you balk at a Republican telling you that they might audastically know better than you? Would you say that person is race baiting, or would you say that person is showing pride in who they are and their heritage and is sharing their uniqueness with us all for all of our benefit?

I personally would find this particular self expression troubling. To what or how would America benefit from some other culture, when there are so many present in the U.S. and they all need to be taken into account when deciding policy? And, does that experience include both the positive and the negative of that culture? Are we also going to have to deal with the prejudices of that culture as much as we are going to have to deal with the 'wisdom'?

Sotomayor is a latina, and a woman, as that noun implies. I got no problem with that. I do have a problem with a person in the judicial system bringing in a perspective that may possibly exclude another person or people: whether they are Democrat or Republican. In the Judicial system, we are supposed to be judged by our peers, fair and impartially. If there was a bigoted white redneck taking that position I would be as worried as I am with Sotomayor. Sotomayor made a statement that brings to mind a serious question about her being impartial.

And yes, I used the old slanderous statement of 'slick willy', to point out that sexual misconduct knows no political bounds. That was said in response to someone pointing out Republicans' sexual promiscuity, without also pointing out the same actions of some noted Democrats.