I understand what Matthews meant. We are constantly reminded of the Presidents skin color especially on the FOX network. Last night President Obama was our American President not an African-American President. We would never say European-American President but that is exactly what every previous President has been. He is our President and trying lift up every American citizen not just preserve the wealth of the chosen few. I have been frustrated that we have not gotten anything done and that the President has not been leading effectively. Last night he again took the lead. Now its time for Congress to get things done.

Nels,

I had the same reaction that you did concerning Chris Matthews' comment on race. He also said, "I probably shouldn't say this, but..." and I thought at the time, no, Chris, you shouldn't. However, Chris Matthews never struck me as that enlightened.

Keith Olbermann's interview with economist James Galbraith dealt with one of my major concerns --- a change in direction for the administration to focus on the economy and jobs (though health care reform and the SCOTUS decision are close seconds, with education very important, too.) Video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olb...

BTW, I listened to the entire hour and 20-min. (approx.) speech and found myself engaged the whole time, which surprised me.

For me the best part of the speech was when the president said “ let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment” this is the great repulican’t lie of reagononics

I have been a micro biz for over 15 years there is no tax on investing in my own company it is actually a right off.

So there is no cost to this action. And if the repulican’t bring it up it proves the reagonomics was a lie

We the progressives must start saying the reagonics has failed the proof is where are the jobs.

Thom,

Earlier today, Wed., Jan. 27, I listened to your show and your "interview" with the guest who believes that he spent 20-odd minutes in hell (I know well whereof he speaks: I, too, have had to spend an even longer time at the DMV).

I will explain why I have typed the word "interview" in quotation marks. In the meantime, may I suggest that you cease and desist from devoting precious minutes of your broadcast to arguing with guests advocating a religious belief system?

I surmise that, like most progressives who are hip and trendy enough to reside in the hip and trendy Pacific Northwest, you are entirely too hip and sophisticated to believe in the existence of God, let alone that icky religion in which all those tacky, down-market, low-life, white trash who live east of the Cascades and west of the Hudson profess belief. If you are convinced of the philosophical and ethical merits of atheism, then that is your prerogative and you are to be respected for your belief system. Per Voltaire, I defend your right to profess an opinion to which I do not subscribe.

However, having a guest on your show for the intended purpose of baiting and mocking that person's religious beliefs (and you have done this at least more than once) is, at best, engaging in cheap shots. At worst, it perpetrates the public perception that progressives are contemptuous of religion and the faithful. Notwithstanding your right to demonstrate your contempt, this ultimately undermines the ability for the American democratic left to broaden its appeal. Whether you like it or not, religion --- and Christianity, in particular --- has a prominent presence in the lives of most Americans. These same Americans, if properly spoken to and educated, are amenable to a program of economic and social justice; however, mocking their religious sensibility has the affect of alienating this intended audience. Instead, when a progressive with a prominent media platform engages in this sort of mockery, that individual comes across not as someone with superior intelligence, but rather as a snotty elitist.

To quote Camille Pagila, "I believe it is fair to ask what drives obsessive denigrators of religion? Neither extreme rationalism nor elite cynicism are adequate substitutes for faith, which fulfills a basic human need --- which is why religion will continue to thrive in our war-torn world." Ultimately, your dialogue with your "hell-visiting" guest on today's show was less an interview than a verbal baiting, as demonstrated by your continuous interruptions of him.
You may not think that the contentions of religious persons are credible, but you were rude to continually interrupt him; indeed, if you don't believe in such claims, why bother spending your air-time with those who profess them?

P.S.: Lest one assume that this posting is the rant of a devoted follower of Sarah Palin, let me state that I stand well to the (democratic) left of the cowardly Democratic party. I revere the memory of my friend and Senator, Paul Wellstone; I miss him terribly.

I would absolutely LOVE to hear someone yell "Man Up!" at the President tonight. Alan Grayson, I'm looking at you, buddy.

I had it in my notes but I forgot to post it.

I want to wish Oregon success in forming a state bank, like North Dakota.

The state of Michigan will never have a state bank because the western side of the state is one massive red district. The westside of the state controls the elections. The only way a a Democrat becomes governor is through the two Santa Claus theory. The repugs screw up the state's economy so badly that the people will vote for a Democrat. After one week in office since the election the repugs will scream so loadly that the Democrat has failed and he or she wreck the Michigan economy. Since Americans have short memories, they will agree and they can't wait to vote another repug back into office.

'Bye for now, dear ones.

Nels,

It's so easy to make a typo. To call attention to someone else's mistakes is a pot-kettle thing I think (at least for me --- and I used to be an editor. 'Nuff said?)

I'm happy you express your views Gerald. Its also healthy that Quark wants to delve deeper into your point of view. Wonderful that people can disagree, or just differ a little and still have a rational and civil discussion. It helps everyone who's interested in either points of view to understand more.

Its why I blog here. More thought and insight than sights that devolve into name calling and insinuations.

I really have come to hate the word: Maverick.

DDay, yes I agree, I hope some of the more ideological Senators (the rare few, I know) take a page from Sanders play book. Stick to your guns, slow and steady wins the race.

And no, I don't think that last part of that sentence can be attributed to Capt. Kirk or Dr. Bones.... maybe Sulu?