Angry young white person

I am an angry young white person. I'm annoyed that the Democratic Party doesn't have a nominee yet. I'm angry that the media has failed in so many ways to be fair, thorough, honest, principled, and substantive. I'm angry that Clinton's campaign plays dirty and keeps trying to change what it means to be winning, what states and demographic groups matter, and why. I'm angry that Obama's association with a former pastor is considered to be more important than what Obama actually has to say and what he hopes to accomplish. I'm angry that people aren't talking about McCain's prized endorsement by John Hagee, who says Katrina was punishment for homosexuality in New Orleans, the U.S. was founded to defeat Islam, and the Catholic Church is a great whore. Then again, maybe they shouldn't talk about it. Maybe we should talk about gas prices, the Iraq War, health care, global warming, and other things that actually matter. Apparently, those things aren't as fun to talk about as crazy pastors and flag pins.

Yes, I am one of those young voters that has been inspired by Obama to get involved, to care, to listen, and yes, even to hope. I have volunteered for his campaign. I have donated to his campaign from my meager graduate student income. I like that sometimes he sounds more like a professor than a politician. I like that he doesn't stoop to the level of his opponent. I would be crushed if he didn't get the nomination.

Despite what Clinton or much of the mainstream media tells you, Obama has a strong and insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, won from primaries and caucuses. This is supposed to be the lone metric that matters. His lead in the popular vote is likely to hold up, as well.

If Clinton gets the nomination, it would have to be handed to her by superdelegates afraid of an angry-sounding black pastor, and scared away by Obama's failure to win white working class voters in Republican-leaning counties in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It would crush young Democrats, who have blogged, volunteered, donated, marched, yelled, and cheered for their candidate. It would frustrate liberals and progressives that see in Obama a chance to get things done. It would deny African Americans the chance to see a fellow African American reach the nation's highest office, and would serve as a reminder that being black in America is still a disadvantage.

The usually bright Noam Scheiber at The New Republic surprised and angered some readers by suggesting that a Clinton nomination wouldn't be all that devastating, and that it would only be a blow to African American voters. Two comments by readers sum up my feelings:

His campaign is much more about the young and soon to be powerful than blacks. It is much more about convincing socially liberal mid-westerners that they can in good conscious vote for a Democrat. Nominating Clinton will confirm not only all the worst assumptions black america has about politics, but all the fears of the generation which has finally engaged with the political process. Not to mention, confirming all the fears the people in the center have that the dem party is too stupid and cowardly to be given the keys to the big guns. We will lose not just blacks who will no longer dutifully come out to vote for white candidates while being told their day will come, we will lose the next generation of voters who for the first time in a decade feel proud to be americans, and we will lose any hope of winning over the next coaltion of older middle class whites who are ok with a black guy, but not a woman who used every dirty trick at the expense of her party just in a mad quest for power. How do you think that polls?

And:

Wow, this is the most naive thing I've ever read by Noam, who's almost always razor sharp and realistic. A superdelegate override of the pledged delegates would be an utter debacle for the democratic party. We'd become the laughing stock of Washington for generations, and we'd deserve it. And we'd deserve the "elitist" title more than ever. If the GOP played its cards right, it could even cause a permanent defection by AA voters. If it did, we'd deserve that too.

This email from a Sullivan reader sums up the sentiment very accurately:

"If Obama is done in by this whole Wright thing I am done with politics. I can't invest myself in something that is so sure to disappoint me time and time and time again. If the Democratic party decides that it can not risk nominating a great and decent African American man because his pastor is a scary African American man, it does not deserve power because it will have caved to what is worst about America. Racists on both sides of the divide will rejoice at having taking down the biggest threat to their belief system since Martin Luther King....and young people like myself will burrow deeper into to the holes we were in before Barack Obama dug us out."

That's about where I am on this. It's time for you media types to find some balls and, instead of continuing with your amoral he-said-she-said analysis, push back against this non-story with a journalistic crusade for the heart and soul of American political journalism. Make your jobs mean something. Our system is broken. There's lots to talk about, and the wild opinions of a religious clown just ain't it.

Patriotism, flag pins, and religion

Patriotism has been something of a hot topic recently in the Presidential campaign. Critics of Barack Obama have questioned his patriotism on the grounds that he doesn't (usually) wear a flag pin and that once he didn't have his hand over his heart during the national anthem (or didn't face the flag or something awful like that). His involvement at Trinity Church in Chicago and Rev. Wright have caused some to question his patriotism. These issues are bound to come up time and time again if Obama is the nominee. Karl Rove has already offered a "mind-bending take" on the whole flag-pin thing, says Jason Linkins. Rove somehow managed to suggest that Obama is persecuting Republicans who "can be a true patriot and speak out on issues AND wear a flag lapel pin." Unbelievable.

Nash McCabe, the woman during the ABC debate that asked Obama whether he "believe(s) in the American flag," was apparently featured in a NY Times article beforehand. I guess that's how she was found. She says she was really irritated when she saw Obama turn his back on the flag before the Pledge of Allegiance was over. What does it mean to "believe in the American flag," anyway?

Conservatives will inevitably try to paint Obama as an unpatriotic elitist this fall. But anyone who doesn't agree with them could be one, I suppose. This is hypocritical and dirty, I believe, and I hope that Americans see through it.

So what is patriotism? And why does all this talk of patriotism make me feel uneasy? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, patriotism is "love for or devotion to one's country." Simple enough. In fact, too simple. Pretty hard to evaluate whether someone is patriotic by that definition. What does it mean to love or be devoted to one's country? I could come up with a million different answers to that question. I guess that's sort of the problem.

Patriotism the way it's commonly used today seems to be somewhat akin to nationalism, something which admittedly I'm even less comfortable with. Nationalism, according to the same dictionary is

loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one national above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

Maybe nationalism is just a more extreme form of patriotism. But it seems to me that when a lot of people talk about patriotism, they have nationalism in mind. And nationalism is something I am less comfortable with, as it goes against my hope for world peace and greater equality, and against my hope for greater appreciation and respect for other cultures and religions. It goes against my strong belief that I am more human than American, and more a resident of Earth than of any one nation. Don't get me wrong. I feel blessed to live in the United States. I support my country and will seek to make it a better place as long as I live. I guess I'm patriotic in that respect. But I will not do so out of some belief that it is superior to all other nations and that we have a right to be some international bully and imperialistic force accountable to no one. And it seems that this is all too often how patriotism is defined.

Flag pins and patriotic bumper stickers abound, don't they? I have nothing against them really. I just don't like it when we place too much importance on them and lose sight of what really matters. I admit I'm more likely to have a "Dissent is patriotic" bumper sticker than a "Support the troops" one (my brother notes in the comments that dissent is patriotic as long as it's responsible - I agree). That doesn't make me unpatriotic, I don't think. Like I said, my patriotism is being grateful to live in America and being willing to support its constitution and its freedoms.

There are certainly links between religion and patriotism. Survey data repeatedly demonstrate that religious conservatives are more likely to express "patriotic" sentiments, believe in the superiority of the United States, and support military action. They are more likely to hold "civil religious" sentiments, as well. Civil religion refers to the sort of general religion of American public life that holds that as a nation we are bound to a higher power and that we can draw on that higher power for support and guidance.

How does Unitarian Universalists envision patriotism? I'll go out on a limb and say that most UUs probably have similar ideas to mine. I think the 6th principle sums up the kind of concern that we should have about overzealous nationalism: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.

Obviously, we should be proud of our heritage as Americans. We should support our government and our military when it is on a moral and just cause. We should also speak up loudly when feel that we are not living up to our potential as a nation. And we should never lose sight of the fact that we share the planet with billions of other fellow human travelers, and that just because we're American doesn't mean that we're better than any of them, or that we don't have a responsibility to share the planet in an ethical, loving way.

A trip through "bitter" land

This last week I took two trips through "bitter" land. A literal one and a figurative one. The literal one really was a trip from central Pennsylvania to western Pennsylvania to see a concert just outside of Pittsburgh. Of course, by "bitter" I'm referring to Obama's comments at a fund raiser in San Francisco. Obama called small-town, working class Pennsylvanians "bitter" and said that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

As I said, my literal trip through the land of bitterness took me through some small Pennsylvania towns en route to Greensburg for an Iron & Wine concert at the historic Palace Theatre. Great concert and great venue. Worth the trip. Anyway, it's a really interesting (and at times very scenic) drive through small, working class towns. The kind of people I presume Obama was talking about. I stopped in Johnstown to visit the Johnstown Brewing Company. The JBC is housed in what used to be a country club for Bethlehem Steel executives. It's true to its roots and has a lot of neat "artifacts" from its steel days, including hard hats and news clippings and such. It's a really neat place. Johnstown itself is an interesting city. A Wikipedia article tells the story. Economically, it's been hurting for a while, in part due to the loss of all those steelmaker jobs. It's famous for three devastating floods, most recently in 1977, which I think also led to the demise of the steel industry. Anyway, the bartender said something interesting when I asked about what people in Johnstown do. He smiled and said "go to church and drink." I'm fully aware that that's just one person's view of Johnstown (a bartender's view at that), but I thought it was interesting in light of Obama's comments. All in all it was a cool trip. I stopped in Altoona to eat some Mexican food, too. There's nothing here in State College.

My other "trip" through the land of bitterness was just following all the media coverage of Obama's comments. His "bitter" remarks drew a huge response from the media and from his opponents, McCain and Clinton. Pundits were getting a little carried away, calling his "gaffe" a devastating blow to his chances, particularly in the general election. His opponents (along with many pundits) called Obama an out-of-touch liberal elite. However, many voices came out defending his words to some extent, acknowledging that, while probably poorly stated, Obama's comments have some truth.

An account I read (but can't find now) written by someone in attendance at that now infamous San Francisco meeting said that Obama's remarks have been grossly taken out of context. When asked about how to campaign for working class Pennsylvanians' votes, Obama chose to take a minute to discuss and even theorize a bit about the challenges they face. He broke out of politician mode and probably went more into professor mode, much as he did for his speech on race. He was actually really trying to sympathize with these voters, rather than blame or condemn them. That's all getting missed. I agree that his comments were not that great, and probably not even that accurate. Linking these individuals' religiosity, support of gun rights, and their anti-immigrant or xenophobic sentiments to economic dissatisfaction is probably pretty tenuous, and does kind of look like liberal stereotyping. Obama said what a lot of liberals think, but would probably not say out loud. Also, I think he's trying to argue that sometimes these voters cling to those issues in the voting booth instead of basing their votes on other things. To some extent, these claims could be tested. This is what political scientists and sociologists do, for crying out loud. I've yet to see any good treatment of this in the media, but I suspect that some political scientist will be invited to speak on NPR about this or something.

Obama's comments are seemingly a gift to Republicans, though. Matt Shaner, who is running for Congress in my very own Fifth Congressional District in Pennsylvania, just sent out a mailer that says "Obama called us a bitter people. He criticized us for 'clinging' to religion. He criticized us for 'clinging' to guns. Now it's time to send a message back to Barack Obama. I'm a God-fearing, churchgoing, NRA member and proud of it." I think that Shaner is completely twisting and misrepresenting Obama's comments, and I think it's ridiculous that a politician can run based on the assertion that he is endorsed by God and the NRA, but I can see how all this could be good for some Republicans. (By the way, I support and plan to vote for Bill Cahir in the primary on Tuesday.)

What followed all the outrage about Obama's comments were claims that he is "out of touch" or "elitist." I can understand conservatives claiming this (though for some good perspectives on how hypocritical that is, see this nice piece and this one), but Hillary has, too. This led to her slamming down shots of whiskey and bragging about her gun experience as a girl, both of which probably looked pretty lame to those working class voters she was trying to impress. Obama got some good laughs making fun of Clinton and calling her 'Annie Oakley.' Both Barack and Michelle have also made the case that calling them "elitist" and "out of touch" is ridiculous given their own humble backgrounds. While they make a good case, this unlikely to convince people who feel like elitism is less about biography and more an attitude of disdain and paternalism toward those beneath you. On that point, too, I really believe that Obama is not "elitist," though his comments may make some people feel otherwise. What's unfortunate about this is that it really ignores everything he has worked for in his career, as well as his well-articulated and very impressive views on religion and its role in public life and politics.

Leave it up to Jon Stewart to point out how ridiculous this whole thing is by absolutely making fun of it (go here for video). I still feel like what Obama said is dumb, and will probably hurt him a bit, but I think that Stewart has some great points, particularly the fact that from a certain point of view it's kind of silly not to want an elitist President, and that we're just deluding ourselves if we think that any Presidential candidate is "one of us."

Just a few final thoughts on the recent debate on ABC. The negative response to the debate itself has been overwhelming. A few voices have defended it (like the hosts themselves and NYT's David Brooks), but overall I think the general consensus is that it was a sad moment for politics and for American journalism. It might have well been planned and executed by E!, that trashy and tabloidy cable network. Jon Stewart had a good time with it. In an open letter to ABC, several journalists and news analysts condemn ABC's handling of the debate:

We're at a crucial moment in our country's history, facing war, a terrorism threat, recession, and a range of big domestic challenges. Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they're deeply worried about the country's direction. In such a context, journalists moderating a debate--who are, after all, entrusted with free public airwaves--have a particular responsibility to push and engage the candidates in serious debate about these matters. Tough, probing questions on these issues clearly serve the public interest. Demands that candidates make pledges about a future no one can predict or excessive emphasis on tangential "character" issues do not. This applies to candidates of both parties.

Neither Mr. Gibson nor Mr. Stephanopoulos lived up to these responsibilities. In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos turned in "shoddy, despicable performances." As Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher, describes it, the debate was a "travesty." We hope that the public uproar over ABC's miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.

Not a good day for atheists - Rep. Davis' tirade in Illinois

I initially heard about this story on Keith Olbermann's Countdown. Wednesday afternoon at a hearing in front of the Illinois House State Government Administration Committee the following exchange occurred between Rep. Monique Davis, a Democrat, and atheist activist Rob Sherman:

Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.

I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?

I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.

Wow. Afterward, Sherman said he "felt like Rosa Parks." The hearing had to do some funds that had been allocated to the repair of a Baptist church or something. Davis' remarks are shocking, and really completely inappropriate and irresponsible. She seems to be taking some heat for it now and she has now apologized, apparently.

She said some pretty lame things. I just hope that her views are not too widely held. A widely cited study done by some University of Minnesota researchers from a couple years ago did show that atheists might be the least-trusted minority group in America. But Davis is saying that atheists are not fit to give public testimony and that our children should not even know that atheism exists because it's so dangerous.

Keith Olbermann pretty much sums up all that's wrong with Davis' tirade from Wednesday:

The myth of "anything goes" and Unitarian Universalism

In my last post I talked about a conversation with my mom and I challenged the myth that only religious conservatives are "pro-family."

A conversation with an acquaintance the other day made me think of another myth. We were talking about our religious backgrounds. He was raised Catholic but now attends a non-denominational Baptist church with his wife (from talking to them and visiting the church's website, it seems fairly moderate). We got to talking about Unitarian Universalism and I asked him how much he knew about it. He said that he doesn't know much about it, but that his understanding is that in UUism and other "ultra-liberal" faiths pretty much "anything goes." I sort of chuckled at that and took a few seconds to think about how to respond. I don't remember exactly what I said. Something about how Unitarian Universalism is in fact not a strict religion but that that does not mean it doesn't ask a lot of its adherents. I also mentioned that while conservative faiths tend to emphasize personal purity and morality, liberal faiths have an eye toward social problems and social justice.

But I've been thinking a lot about our conversation since then. The more I think about the "anything goes" myth the more disturbed I get. I think it should bother UUs that this idea exists. I think the "anything goes" idea becomes ridiculous if you understand the seven principles of UUism and the ideal of living ethically, responsibly, lovingly, and actively engaged in bettering the world.

I did mention to my friend that I wouldn't be surprised to hear a minister or conservative Christian repeat that idea, since it would be in their interest to disparage other belief systems that don't agree with theirs. But it's not just religious conservatives that would repeat the "anything goes" myth. In their popular and widely-read book Acts of Faith, two leading sociologists of religion place Unitarian Universalism in the "ultra-liberal" niche. Faiths in this niche exist in very little tension with the surrounding society and ask little to nothing of their adherents. Tension or strictness has been shown to be strongly related to denominational growth and vitality, so this has obvious consequences for liberal and mainline churches, which generally have not done well over the last century (and even longer).

I think they're wrong on tension. I've actually spoken with one of the authors about this (he's my advisor). I think that on the liberal end of the religious spectrum, tension with society increases again. Are Unitarian Universalist ideas about marriage equality and full acceptance of LGBT individuals not at odds with society? What about Unitarian Univeralism's inherent religious pluralism? What about its openness and acceptance of atheists and agnostics? Its strong stances on war, the environment, and other issues?

There is one sense in which the "anything goes" idea is right. There is no one checking up on you at church. You can do all sorts of awful things and still comfortably sit in a pew on Sunday morning. But in my experience, this does not make UUs less insistent upon living moral, decent lives. And it's just flat out wrong that anything goes in a UU church. It's not OK to hate, to belittle, to exclude those with whom you disagree, or to discriminate based on race, gender, age, or sexual orientation.

We can't control what other people think. But let's not give them any reason believe the "anything goes" myth.

UPDATE (4/10/08): I've really appreciated all the comments I've received. It's been interesting to read them. Just today Philocrites made a great comment that I think everyone should read:

UUA President John Buehrens, speaking in Salt Lake City at the General Assembly back in 1999 on an interfaith panel on religion and sexuality, made a similar point. He drew a contrast between religions that define sins as particular acts and religions that define sins as failures to live up to principles. Applied to human sexuality, the point was that UUs don't judge the righteousness or sinfulness of a particular relationship by the specific sexual behaviors involved, but by the relational qualities the relationship embodies. A relationship of respect, mutual accountability, faithfulness, etc., gets the UU stamp of approval -- whether it's gay or straight.

I think he was getting at the difference between trying to orient your religious life around principles (which require critical application) and trying to orient your religious life around specific practices or commandments. Now, obviously, such a distinction doesn't have a very bright line down the middle: Commandments require interpretation, too, and principles can be applied in default modes that look an awful lot like unreflective obedience. But still, there's something to it.

Religion, the family, and the "anti-family" myth

The other day I was talking to my mom. She has taken my departure from the Mormon church pretty hard, and she's still trying to figure out what, if anything, has replaced it. It's difficult for her to imagine anything that would be up to the task. We were talking about some things going on in our family, and she said something like "I don't know how important family is to you now" and I said "Whoa! Hold on!" I asked her to explain what she means and she told me about how liberal her professors were when she went back to school in the 199os to become a family counselor. She told about one professor that had been divorced and remarried several times and argued that divorce is normal and healthy. She also mentioned that she had a lesbian professor once (that was a bad thing, apparently). She talked about the dangers facing the traditional family today. She even used the word "anti-family" in reference to those she perceived as doing or saying things to undermine the family (like liberals, I presume).

We then had a conversation about religion and the family. After listening to her for a while, I told her she sounded like a spokesperson for the Religious Right. She said that she considers herself part of the Religious Right. Makes sense. I went on to explain to her that I still dearly value my family and family in general, and that I think what makes a successful family isn't what or who it's composed of, but by how people treat one another and help one another grow and thrive. I said that I have had the privilege of knowing a same-sex couple raising children, and a wide variety of other loving, successful families. Then she changed the subject.

It wasn't the first time she hinted that my leaving Mormonism said something about how I value (or don't value) family. The first time she said something it actually really hurt me. Mom, if you're reading this, I love you tons and I know you love me and think I'm a good father and husband. I know that you're not an angry, hateful person by any means. But I just have to say this.

Evangelicals and Mormons have one important thing in common: they see themselves as defenders of the traditional family and of family values. I think this helps explain my mom's reaction. To her, families not rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ are at risk and destined to struggle. Families that lack a traditional structure are at risk and destined to struggle. And same-sex couples and parents, well, you can probably guess.

I think Mormons and evangelicals see themselves in a war for the family and for morality. That's an important part of their identity. It motivates them and justifies their religious practice. I think much of their energy and motivation is in the right place. We need to worry about what's happening to our families. Religion can be a force to keep families strong and happy. But the idea that a family has to look or act a certain way in order to be strong and happy is just wrong. Like I said, what makes a family strong is communication, love, trust, courage, patience, humility, and accountability.

I got thinking about this myth that religious and political liberals are "anti-family" or something. I think it's just that - a myth. My congregation has an active religious education program for children and youth and a monthly service and dinner for families. The UUA has a "Family Ministry" section on its website. I also found what appears to be an older page called the Unitarian Universalist Family Network, with tons of resources for families.

A while back I talked about fatherhood and religion, and how in some ways I feel more free to be the dad I want to be. I adore my wife and children and I am absolutely 100% "pro-family." But as a Unitarian Universalist and as a proud liberal, I recognize that there is not one right way to be a family. I haven't been a UU long enough to really get a feel for how UUs see family and how the denomination as a whole sees family and its role in helping families. But all indications so far suggest that religious conservatives do not enjoy a monopoly on family.

Any UUs out there want to chime in on religion and the family? Or anybody else?

A very, very busy week (including a visit from Obama)

I've been meaning to post for a while now. It's been such a busy last week. Last weekend I went to Bethesda, MD for the annual spring conference of the Joseph Priestley District (JPD) of the UUA. The JPD represents 65 congregations in eastern Pennsylvania, Maryland, northern Virginia, Delaware, southern New Jersey, and D.C. My congregation paid for me to go. I got to ride there with our minister and share a room with him, too. We talked for the whole 3 and 1/2 hour trip. It was great. He's a great guy and we really have a lot of beliefs and values in common. It's amazing how similarly we think sometimes.

The highlight of the conference for me was a keynote address given by Rob Keithan, director of the UUA's Washington Office for Advocacy. His address was called "Who do we think we are?" which was fantastic for me because in a few weeks some other young adults and I are giving a service on "Religious Identity and Unitarian Universalism." Basically, Rob said that we UUs shouldn't shy away from calling ourselves religious. He said that the first principle is essentially a faith statement, and should be seen as such. I agree with him and believe that to be part of a dialogue about religion and faith in our country UUs can't abandon the "language of reverence," as Rev. David E. Bumbaugh speaks of. Rob also laid out a very strong case for being optimistic and proud of our religious heritage as UUs and our future, but also for the need to be humble and grateful, and honest about our shortcomings and our mistakes.

It was neat to be part of the conference and to meet UUs from other cities and congregations. It got me excited about being part of this unique movement. It was also a reminder that I've changed a lot over the last few years, and that I've begun to understand the unique way in which UUs understand and practice religion. Indeed, I've begun to embrace it.

I came back from the conference late Saturday night to make it back for Barack Obama's rally on the Penn State campus on Sunday. After a few hours of sleep, I went early to the rally site on campus to help. I ended up getting assigned to help with crowd control, essentially. Right before Obama's speech they let us volunteers go through the security gate to get closer for the speech. The speech was fantastic. I was fairly close to Obama, though to see him I had to sort of get on my toes and peek between heads in front of me. I'd actually heard most of his speech already, as I follow his campaign pretty closely. But it was still fantastic. Over 20,000 people attended, and I think it will really pay off for him in the April 22 primary. For me, it was a pay off for supporting Obama and volunteering for his campaign over the last couple months.

Things look pretty good for Obama right now. The Rev. Wright controversy seems to have not hurt him much, he is doing well in polls and in match-ups against Clinton and McCain, he has been enjoying a steady flow of superdelegates to his side, and he is apparently cutting into Clinton's lead in PA. Oh, and he still leads in pledged delegates and in the popular vote, both of which appear to be pretty safe barring something pretty extraordinary.

I particularly like an article by Chip Collis which lists the "Top 10 Myths Keeping Hillary in the Race." It's a nice article and something of a reality check for the media and for Clinton supporters.

This last week I also went to an Itzhak Perlman concert a few nights ago. Perlman, of course, is a world famous violinist. People may be familiar with his solo work on the Schindler's List score, composed by John Williams. It was a great concert. The man makes the violin sing with such a sweet and pure voice.