another way is Obama's brutal beating on Tuesday shook up the Washington establishment that supports him. The solution was to hurriedly bring in a white guy to accompany Obama to small towns where those bitter racists live with their guns and religion.
Edwards had just said on Sunday he wouldn't endorse until all the people had voted and that endorsements were essentially meaningless. Edwards endorsement Wednesday suggests desperation in the Obama camp.

I came to the conclusion several months ago that Obama is smarter than me. And I think that he is basically a good person with generally liberal/progressive ideals. I am excited to see what he will do as president.

But he has already taken public positions that I disagree with strongly. I will not shut up about it. Maybe it's just a political reality in this country that politicians need to suck up to Israel. I think it's bullshit.

Obama is smart and will deal with political realities. One reality will be a lot of pressure from the right. He needs to feel pressure from the left too. It's hard to apply pressure when you see your role as keeping quiet and trusting Dear Leader.

But he is so much nicer than I am. More thoughtful and inclusive and less knee jerk.

I do want someone who is better than I am to be president. I trust that Obama is and I respect him for it.

has increased as the press and some portions of the public have pushed him on it.  The Wright nonsense was the tipping point.  And after that he injected it more and more into his speeches.  A recent Pew study indicated that the public considers atheists least acceptable, of all demographic sub-groups, for office.  Talk about ignorance and prejudice!

When Obama first burst on the national scene as a possible presidential candidate, one thing that bothered me was that very conservative friends in Illinois loved him because he was so religious.  This gave me pause.  Still gives me pause.  I do not like to see religion--a private matter--as part of the political campaign.  The men who wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution argued quite forcefully that religion was a matter of individual conscience.  And gave many reasons why that should be so.  I recently took a class where we examined many of the documents related to the two religion clauses of the First Amendment and various First Amendment court decisions since then.  It is amazing how Jefferson's "wall" between church and state has been eroded.

I remember when people were interviewed regarding their support for Bush and they said he was a "god-fearing Christian" and that was enough for them.  He's proven to be so moral and ethical, hasn't he?

about religion then they do about science and technology?

Why would eschew the primary factor - science and technology - that has made America great over the past 150 years talk about something - faith and morality - constitutionally outside the realm of the presidency?

diary way back when :)  I wrote that last year pleading for Democrats to not pander to religion, but to not be afraid to show that they are religious to take away the Republicans stranglehold on the Religious vote.

. . .one's faith is pandering.  I don't equate an unapologetic statement of his beliefs as "playing up" his faith.  It's just one aspect of what makes him who he is.  For some, it's an important element, for others, far less so.

One of the many, many factors that is very appealing to me about Barack is that he is so comfortable in his own skin.  He doesn't need to pander.  He says, "this is who I am."  

NOT believe, as you so smugly put it, that Jesus is an imaginary friend living in the sky.

And, frankly, I have no interest in educating someone as clearly close-, and SMALL-minded as you exhibit yourself to be.

I'd suggest you take a class in Comparative Religion, meditate, maybe take some good mushrooms, THEN come ask me about Christians and what the best of them might think about Jesus and how faith guides their lives.

In the meantime, you just come off as a snotty idiot.

My comment mirrors (see: mocks) the tone of absolute 100% certainty of the diary which treats Obama like he is a clairvoyant Messiah when in fact he's just a really good Presidential candidate.

My tone mirrors the diarist's identically.

sheesh

... for condescension.  

I think you're backpedaling.  Otherwise, you'd admit your own fault in presenting snark as truth without any clarifying information.

Either that, or you thought you could present specious information as truth and no one would call you on it.

Either way, your unpleasantness is unjustified.