He's already dropped it and moved on to talking about Iraq. As in the very next day.

Yeah, why would he talk about Iraq anyway? What's happening there?

On James's second point, though, I disagree. I think Obama's fervent hope is that his speech pretty much closes the issue of race in this campaign.

I completely agree with this. Furthermore, I think his hope was that the pundits would hear his speech but that the general population (particularly working class whites) wouldn't. His speech mostly impressed the pundits, and through them it can hopefully put a stop to the focus on Wright.

Flying H. Spaghetti Monster! A guy (who I didn't support originally btw) just gave the greatest speech I have heard since 1960 (and maybe the best in my lifetime) about the single most troubling issue our country has faced since its founding and all you pissants want to do is minimize it by making it all about politics?!?

Maybe you should pull your heads out of your asses, hop on a plane and stop here in fly-over country for a year or two. Listen to how real people talk about race. He simply hit the tune, black and white, to a note. He did it with grace and style, compassion and understanding, even-handedness and real heart.

If that was the type of cynical BS you guys want to pretend it is than I hope we have to suffer through 8 years of it!

I don't care if you support BHO or not, that was a speech that transcended politics. Not seeing that does not make you a racist, but it does call into question for judgment and your understanding of how actual Americans feel about race and their place in the country.

"His speech mostly impressed the pundits, and through them it can hopefully put a stop to the focus on Wright."

And even if some pundits do not stop, it allows Obama to now call them on why they are being so damn hypocritical and not calling McCain out for not doing more to distance himself from folks like Hagee, Parsley, Robertson, etc. etc. etc.

if you don't agree with the second point the only way you can agree with the first is by admitting that Obama is a cynical, scheming politician who's trying to spin his way out of a shit storm. When Hillary does this the whimpering children of the left scream bloody murder - but your god Obama does it and lo! he's a brilliant tactician. You people really are despicable. I hope you get your vaunted biracial president - it will be fun watching that train wreck.

One of the major strains of reaction to Barack Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech is that those who are not persuaded by it are therefore racist or at least unreasoning fools.

That's quite a strawman set up by Mr. Joyner. While I'm sure some extremely partisan observers on both sides of the issue will make divisive (is that dih-vih-sihv, or dih-veye-sihv?) statements, but has any respectable commentator made this claim?

Just as likely, if not moreso, are the claims from the right that those swayed by Obama's speech feel some kind of guilt for racism, and are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I've heard much more of the latter, and much less - well, actually, none - of the former.

I think it was a good speech.

On Diane Rehm it was mentioned that they felt it was the beginning of a dialog, but I think I disagree. I think they would prefer to make the dare to bring it up, and move on....

I think it was an excellent speech -- I think people on all sides are missing some of what was said.

On Diane Rehm, her guests mentioned that Obama discussed white resentment, but failed to note that Obama did acknowledge white American's have legitimate concerns.

If we have a dialog we need people from all sides, black and white, left and right to stop dismissing legitimate concerns from any group of people.

"to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding."

In the left blogosphere it is time to do away with dismissal of "angry white men."

It's not racist to object to Wright or Obama or something they say. It is racist, or at least it damn sure sounds like it, if comments that are critical of the United States are only considered objectionable if they come from an African American point of view as opposed to, say, a gay basher's. And likewise if you assume that only a black candidate (and not a white candidate) automatically agrees with everything his pastor says even absent any shred of evidence.

If experience is all that matters, Ashley Dupre should be our next president.

able,

Oh my. Are you telling me that Obama is actually (gasp) a politician? I'm shocked! Therefore, I should instead support McCain or Clinton who are ... politicians.

Yesterday Obama told the unlovely and uncomfortable truth. He trusted us to recognize it as true and deal with it. He is very unlike the pandering caricatures of leadership America is accustomed to.

I think we should all change our middle name to Hussein, and this fall we can do that "I am Spartacus" thing.

I thought it was a great speech, but agree that Obama hoped giving it would staunch the bleeding. Watching him walk off the stage with his shoulders hunched over, made me think that he is smart enough to know that it won't.

Just read Politico's story on how the GOP is chomping at the bit to use this or John Derbyshire on the Corner demanding that Obama prove Wright was actually a victim of racsim as a black man in the 1940's (according to Derbyshire it was all good times back then except in a "few states." Of course yesterday he was talking about how he and his wife don't want their kids to go to school with black children).

Obama's belief in the goodness and savvy of the American people was always my concern with him. THis is a country that elected that dumbass Bush not once, but twice. If he had a tenth of the political savvy needed to run for office, he would have quit that church years ago. I can hear people whining now that it isn't fair, but guess what? Life isn't fair. And having the good sense to see political fires ahead of time is what you need if you want to get your agenda pushed through when you get elected.

Teresa,
I somewhat share the concerns expressed in your last paragraph, but in defense of my country I just want to point out that we elected that dumbass Bush maybe once, maybe not at all.

Now it's not enough to give a great speech; one must have great intentions, too.

Of course Obama will move on to other subjects, such as Iraq and the economy as well he should.

He started a dialog. Doesn't mean it has to be a constant conversation.

Jim W. I agree with the first part of your analysis. Obama clearly hoped the pundits would hear the speech, but I disagree with the second. I have both read and listened to the entire 37 minute speech. There are entire sections that Obama would love for "the general population (particularly working class whites)" to hear. Sadly those are the parts of the speech that haven't gotten much play on the media. They are, however, some of his best work.

On the first point, I don't think the logical conclusion after the speech is that whoever doesn't accept it is a racist, it's just that whoever doesn't accept it wasn't going to accept any sort of answer from Obama.

On the second point, I think Obama had to know that this speech wouldn't end the debate. But what it does is frame the debate in a way that is more favorable to him than just letting the Wright clips play over and over again. Now they are talking about the speech, whether it will connect with voters, etc.

In the end, I don't think this was some great political move for Obama. There were a limited number of choices before him. I was listening to it and thinking at once, "This is amazing" and "He will never be President." I do not think it was the safe path for him.

Jim W,

Isn't the whole point of Obama worship that he isn't just another politician? So I guess you love him because he's different, and because he really isn't.
Love truly is blind.

Wonderful, beautiful speech, complex, subtle, essentially unresponsive; why does Wright being angry justify/explain dreadful comments again and again, why did Obama just sit there for twenty years? He sat there because it was in his interest politically and he sat there too long because he didn't know how boring the US Senate was and that a white woman would be running so soon. Same old problem: beautiful words, plenty of denial, no action.

Ah, yes: Kevin Drum, telepath extraordinaire!

"And on that score, I'd say that the Obama supporters James points to are doing precisely what Obama intended: trying to take Jeremiah Wright's incendiary comments off the table by implying that anyone who still insists on talking about them must be either a simpleton or a racist."

If anyone, including Drum, actually bothers to read what "the Obama supporters James points to" actually said, none of them said what Kevin posits! Of course, that's never stopped Kevin before--he's the idiot-savant of neo-liberal commentary.

I think Obama's fervent hope is that his speech pretty much closes the issue of race in this campaign. It just flatly doesn't help him in any way to keep it on the front burner.

You know, it's just possible that Obama thinks this issue is important enough that he wants the conversation to happen even if it does hurt his own campaign.

At worst, I think he was in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, and figured he was best served by offering his own honest views on the issue in the hope that they could have some effect on shaping the discourse. I read his demeanor not as discouragement because the speech didn't "work" politically, but as discouragement because it was needed at all. He can't be looking forward to four or eight years of being the spokesman for all of black America at the same time as he's the nation's president.

trying to take Jeremiah Wright's incendiary comments off the table by implying that anyone who still insists on talking about them must be either a simpleton or a racist

I read something more complicated (and interesting) in the speech: an attempt to take the comments off the table by implying that anyone who still insists on fixating about Wright's comments is petty and simply treating race identity and conflict as soundbite politics/media coverage. Folks may disagree with this implication, but I think it has merit. (Think about the way CNN has a continual meta-discussion on "race" without coming to terms with what racial oppression actually means.) And it's less well-poisoning than implying disagreement is racist.

As for the speech being politics, sure. He's running for office. But here the politics stand or fall on the substantive engagement listeners/voters have with what he's arguing.

Yeah, I think James Joyner was either being dishonest or he's a lot dumber than Obama. I thought your post was pretty much spot on (it's good to see you can write an honest post sometimes).

James Joyner wrote:

[W]e must tolerate a wide range of expressions on the subject.

As always, it depends on what you mean by "tolerate," but my feeling is that the meaning Joyner wants us to take away from this isn't a good one-- aren't there pretty much only individual correct answers, or a narrow range of "best" answers on race issues, as we would expect from any policy or social issue, and not a whole slew of great solutions, strewn across the political spectrum?

Shouldn't we after talking about it be able to winnow out bad answers-- that don't need to be considered anymore-- and be left with better ones? Is he asking me to be tolerant of racists?

I'm sorry, but Joyner's words seem calculated to stifle a movement that could make real progress on issues of race. Making progress takes figuring things out and making decisions, not endlessly tolerating everyone's point of view until a bad guy comes along and takes the initiative to wield the levers of power to make everybody have to do things his way. The indecision and "tolerance" Joyner advocates stand in the way of our deciding what to do, and becoming a coherent, cohesive movement that has aims and motivation.

cane,

Last time I checked, Obama was the only major candidate who opposed an idiotic war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents, in millions becoming refugees, in the waste trillions of dollars, and in the endangerment of our security.

To me, the fact that he has shown good judgment on such a critical issue, as well as other issues, seems like a good reason to support him. Its not because I believe he's some sort of fairy tale candidate.

It's naive not to also understand it as the political tool it was meant to be -- a distraction.

Obama would be happy to talk about race for 40 days and 40 nights if it keeps the media focus off of issues, qualifications, and the bedeviling details behind his Theory of Change.

As far as the issue of "tolerating" opinions on race, I've got to say that if we ever allowed having an ideological test to deport people from this country, no better one could be allowed than "Do you think this country should discriminate against people based on race in hiring employees and allowing citizens civil rights?" If they answer "no," send 'em to a racist colony in Botswanaland.

The Gettysburg Address, it is widely agreed, greatest speech ever given by an American president. It was given in the middle of a presidential campaign. It was both political and transcendent. Yesterday's speech was not the Gettysburg Address or anything close, but it was both political and transcendent in much the same way. The great campaign speeches always are.

He has all of us thinking. Hell, I have listened to it twice and read it. I haven't done that with a speech since Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech.

If they answer "no," send 'em to a racist colony in Botswanaland.

Oops, I meant if they answer "Yes."

Joyner's idea that the race-baiting Sean Hannitys might have some point to make that needs to be evaluated in a big dialogue after Obama defends himself against the stuff (Joyner would no doubt tell us this is "opening a can of worms," and that it would make sense for us all to avoid it, if we ever asked him if we should say something like Obaam said in another place) is nuts.

Obama would be happy to talk about race for 40 days and 40 nights if it keeps the media focus off of issues, qualifications, and the bedeviling details behind his Theory of Change.

Yes, I'm sure he's breathing a huge sigh of relief that nobody -- especially Clinton -- has pursued any of those angles during the campaign.

You know, the most important thing about the speech might not even be race. It might be - a politician dared to treat Americans like adults in the middle of a presidential campaign.
There's much to debate here, and Obama is saying - "Yes, please, let's talk about race, but not in the context of cheap soundbites and catchphrases we usually use. It's a bigger issue than that."

So yes, there is a gauntlet, but it's more intellectual than racial. That's what's truly shocking and polarizing to the old guard.

Obama's belief in the goodness and savvy of the American people was always my concern with him. THis is a country that elected that dumbass Bush not once, but twice.

Many people, myself included, decry the dumbing down of politics, that too many politicians refuse to be straight with the public, that we won't understand the complexities of the issue. It is refreshing to see a politician treat the American public with respect, to assume that, yes, we can understand the issue at hand, and will not make jnee-jerk reactions based on partisanship.

Likewise, Obama's continued support of Wright shows character, that a political campaign, even one for POTUS, will not dictate who Obama's friends are. If a majority of the voting public can't see that, I'm sure Obama is willing to live with the circumstances.

We were stuck with 2 terms of GWB because the press failed us in 2000 and made Al Gore a serial liar, and the democratic party failed us in 2004, by presenting a fatally flawed candidate. I work with the elections board in my home county, and new voter registrations are at an all-time high. My county is far from unique. These people aren't signing up to vote for John McCain.

Obama inspires people. We have not seen a presidential candidate of such talent and charisma since JFK.

"And on that score, I'd say that the Obama supporters James points to are doing precisely what Obama intended: trying to take Jeremiah Wright's incendiary comments off the table by implying that anyone who still insists on talking about them must be either a simpleton or a racist."

Kevin, what's happened to you and this blog? It's becoming unreadable. This comment is directly contradicted by Obama's own words in his speech - that he doesn't think people should be taking any little comment they find to accuse others of the race card.

So you seem to be accusing Obama not only of deliberately playing the race card, but also being insincere as well as a liar about the intent and purpose of his speech.

I would have no problem with you exhibiting a positive preference for either candidate - there are plenty of good things about either Democrat. I also don't have a problem with you calling out either candidate for obvious failures, contradictions, or flaws. Neither of them is perfect. The NAFTA dig is well deserved for both Clinton and Obama.

But if I didn't know this comment was written by you, I would have guessed that this kind of cynical inference about Obama's speech came from Michelle Malkin or some other shrieking idiots on the right. Seriously, what gives?

Shouldn't you at least be willing to take his words at face value until you find something he does or says that contradicts it and supports your cynical take on it?

Otherwise consistency would dictate that you criticize every speech by every politician as cynical and self-serving. And you would probably be right most of the time, but you always wouldn't be adding anything of value to the conservation but rather contributing to the poisoning of the dialog. I hear enough of that from lunatic conservatives. I don't need that from you. You've consistently over the years been far better than that. But recently... I dunno. This primary seems to have effected you for the worse.

"One of the major strains of reaction to Barack Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech is that those who are not persuaded by it are therefore racist or at least unreasoning fools."

This is a strawman argument - I'm sorry, but how can he claim a major strain less than 24 hours later.

More importantly it attempts to block those persuaded by the speech from questioning the agendas of those who weren't by claiming this violates the spirit of the speech. It's not only sophistry, but a pre-emptive dismissal of an entire set of opinions - the very definition "poisoning the well".

"...given that it was delivered during peak working hours..."

I'm not sure exactly what time the speech happened, because I was still in bed; I think I heard it happened at 7:15 AM PDT.

Hey, East Coast! Over here! It's us, California! You know, 20% of all the electoral votes needed to win the White House?

WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT TIME ZONE THAN YOU GUYS!!! Try to factor that into your thinking every once in a while.

You know, the most important thing about the speech might not even be race. It might be - a politician dared to treat Americans like adults in the middle of a presidential campaign.

Exactly right.

Oops, I meant if they answer "Yes."
Interesting slip there, Swan.
a racist colony in Botswanaland
On behalf of the citizens of Botswana let me say that you really are an ignorant shit.

Um, Robert Earle, in most of the rest of the country (where it was 8:15, 9:15 and 10:15 a.m. at the beginning of the speech), the majority of people were working.

What is it that you're actually complaining about--that you could have seen the speech in California if you hadn't still been asleep?

On behalf of the citizens of Botswana let me say that you really are an ignorant shit.

And by criticizing Swan, thersites outs himself as a secret conservative. You hid your pro-GOP feelings well all this time, thersy, but you can't fool Swan.

Curses! Foiled again.

(And, outed as a sucker. I'd resolved to ignore him but couldn't resist the bait.)

I think that speech risked opening up a dialogue on race that he didn't want to touch, because it is a reality. Frankly, I bet that many of the commenters here, as well as in the punditocracy, try to live two different worlds: that of real life, and that of their profession. Of course, they run into problems of everyday life, and I don't think they react with the same condemnation as they say they do.

What's the real reaction, if somebody makes an off-color joke at work? You just shrug it off, and keep going. You laugh at it, but only because you're in on it (like black people laughing at their own expense at comedy shows, for example), or do these same people commenting just get up, make an official statement condemning the remark, and go on with their ideologically "pure" way of thinking. I'm willing to bet that more or less people react realistically, either by shrugging it off or laughing in on it, whether they are in on the joke or are being hateful.

What Obama did was sorta of lay bare some of the misgivings on both sides, whether by white or black people. And he stood by his pastor. I noticed that some wished that he had stood by Samantha Power, well he chose to stood by his pastor now, for all his strengths or weaknesses. To condemn Obama for a realistic association is, well, unrealistic. I have a brother who believes in conspiracies, but what am I going to do? Say "I'm sorry, but your weak logic and inflammatory rhetoric have no decent place in bla bla". Gimme a break.

Obama took a break. In my opinion, he tried to be pragmatic about it. It's just a question of whether that would be effective against the double-standards that we place on public officials, that we don't place on ourselves. That's why that "denounce" and "repudiate" thing was ridiculous. It felt like some courtroom, rather than a regular discussion, and his answer reflected that. But, I think some people would rail against Obama regardless, so I don't think anything can be done to change their minds.

I second Augustus and Vorkosigan 1. Obama gives a speech about race and racism in America that is subtle and supple, that asks the majority white culture to acknowledge the pain and skepticism of the black community and at the same time asks the black community to understand the bewilderment and rage of a white community blamed for effects of racism it had little part of. He speaks of truth and hope and reconciliation to the nation. He offers his own complicated and sometimes painful experience to both explain the complexities of the race issue and to offer the promise of a better future.

And what do you do, Kevin? You say that you KNOW what Obama intended by giving this speech. You say you KNOW that his real purpose--a purpose totally at odds with his words and his history--was to give his supporters the tool with which to label any legitimate criticism as racist.

Do you point to some history of crass racial manipulation by Obama? No. Do you offer the timeline of events where Obama played the race card? No. Do you point to some of Obama's own words to catch him out in his evil purpose? No.

Instead, without evidence, you declare yourself able to probe the deepest recesses of Obama's heart and your ability to find the basest motive there.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, can truly understand the deepest motivations of another human, without lots and lots of extrinsic evidence from that person's own words and actions. And even then it is something of a guessing game.

I suggest, Kevin, that if anyone's deeper motives need to be probed, those motives are yours.

Shortstop -

That doesn't make it "prime working hours", that makes it "the start of the working day for most of the country". It was arguably "prime working hours" on the East Coast, which is clearly the only thing Mr. Joyner considered when he wrote that sentence (if he made any great consideration at all), and that is what I am objecting to.

I'm complaining that East Coast media etc., think the country ends (as in that famous poster) at the Hudson River.

I remember vividly during the 1988 Democratic Convention, Jesse Jackson gave the keynote speech. After Jackson had finished, Tom Brokaw was on giving his impressions, and he said something along the lines of "It was a very good speech, but unfortunately, because things ran late, the Democrtas didn't manage to get him on during television's prime time."

And I look down at my watch and see that it is 9:30 PM. That is the *very heart* of prime time in California (where 20% of the electoral votes...). "Yoo Hoo! Tom? Over here! California?" etc etc.

Happens over and over (and over and over) again. It is annoying.

That doesn't make it "prime working hours", that makes it "the start of the working day for most of the country".

Still asleep at 7:15...8:15 or 9:15 is the "start of the working day"...hey, where can I get your job, Robert?

Seriously, I do understand and sympathize with the west coast's annoyance with the east coast media bubble. But consider that for those of us between the coasts, left coasters often seem equally insular, though that particular obliviousness shows up more in movies and general TV than in news.

"hey, where can I get your job"

Be careful what you wish for. I still say I'm unemployed. My sister says I'm retired.

To-may-to. to-ma-to...

While it's clear the political elites really liked the speech, it's less clear to me that the average undecided voter will. I don't think they want to hear about the country's long troubled history with race, they want to hear that we're a colorblind society, no more racial problems, nothing to see here....

That was the most honest, and thoughtful speech a US politician has given on race in 40 years. And many supposed democrats are carping on how it was cynical because at the end O basically dared the press to keep after him on this?

Interesting there are so many democrats who are just as willfully clueless about race and history as any republican. I never would have predicted that 6-months ago.

Isn't it odd that I wrote a few anti-racist comments, and then the supposedly liberal commenters come out calling me an "ignorant shit" and so on again? It's so important to them to criticize me that they come after me for this.

And regarding my so-called "interesting slip," what did I say in any of my comments above that any liberals should be opposed to? If I was a closet conservative, wouldn't I, um, be trying to promote conservativism somehow? Instead of emphasizing liberals' basic points that make liberal politics relevant for our society- like that racism is real and that the powerful too often use their power selfishly? Why is it that people only pounce on me when I write things like that the media is corrupt-- things that it would help liberals to acknowledge?

Looks like we have some conservatives here trying to sweep the things I talk about under the table so you all won't pay attention to them.

Obama is asking Americans to not judge things by first glance, by soundbites, but instead to understand them thoroughly and then make decisions.

That happens to benefit him. It also would benefit our entire nation After all, knee-jerk reactions and soundbite decisionmaking exacerbated by negative campaigning is destroying political discourse's ability to help Americans solve their problems.

That he wrote this thing himself, in a space of a few days and it sure seems like not focus-grouped or consultantized was the profile in courage.

And that said, that he essentially said not one wrong thing, but many right things in the process shows incredible wisdom.

The Gettysburg Address, it is widely agreed, greatest speech ever given by an American president. It was given in the middle of a presidential campaign.

Autumn of 1863 would be during (have my doubts about the middle of) the Presidential campaign on the current calendar, but was most definitely far before the start of the campaign for the 1864 election.

frankdawg81:
I don't care if you support BHO or not, that was a speech that transcended politics.

It was a speech that transcended politics, but I'm not sure if it convinces people to vote for him. I'd say in terms of language it's similar to Bill Clinton's '92 acceptance speech - however, Clinton's speech was better, because it had more substance, and it contained specific solutions. Obama outlined the issue eloquently, but how specifically is he going to address the race issue? Town hall meetings? A national initiative on race? Seems like the only solution Obama came up with is "not this time." Sounds suspiciously like Nancy Reagan's "just say no." For that, I have to deduct points from it.

Excuse me but how honest can this speech really be given in it he showed himself for a liar? After all, last Friday when he tried his first approach to dealing with the Reverend Wright comment fallout he claimed there was nothing he ever heard from Wright while in church that he found offensive, yet in his speech yesterday he suddenly claims that there were times he did hear things from the pulpit he found offensive and disagreed with. I find it remarkable how many people appear to have forgotten that he went on multiple networks last week to deny ever hearing anything offensive and being surprised and saddened by what the media was showing to now saying that he had heard at least some of these objectionable offensive statements while there.

I thought Obama was supposed to be a politician who told the truth to the American people and not what was the most politically expedient, at least that is what I have heard from his campaign and from so many of his supporters online. Last week he was downplaying his connections to Wright and then yesterday he refuses to disown him while citing his grandmother (and I personally thought that was not a smart thing to do, given he already has issues with the older female vote regardless of any other consideration, it also to those that just see it in clips can easily look like he was willing to thrown his grandmother under the bus for political considerations/expediency, not an attractive sight) as some sort of racially insensitive person and essentially equating the two despite the fact you cannot chose your family/blood relations while you can choose your spiritual leader.

This speech may have sounded wonderful to those predisposed to favouring Obama, but I have to wonder whether it worked for the rest of the electorate; somehow I get the sense it for the most part did not. Not to mention the fact he has studiously avoided dealing with race as an issue until he had no choice, making this look far less about principle and far more about damage control and political expedience, which undercuts his candidacy’s core message about his being a different kind of politician that can be trusted to be honest and to not suffer from the old racially charged politics of the past. I would close with this, I did not comment anywhere on this yesterday, I wanted to wait a day and sleep on it and then reread the speech today to see what kind of impressions it left on me, and from that perspective while this was a good speech it was not IMHO transcendent and will not withstand the test of time of so many of the speeches others are comparing it to from Lincoln to JFK to MLK. No doubt this will be a minority view at this blog given the comments I have read so far.

Do not gve Obama any pass on his connections iwth his pastor. The media will - they need to be tough on him and definitely probe this. How can he get away with distancing himself frm his long long time & tight pastor. Why does everyone else have to fire or disavow anyone close to them that states anything remotely associated with race - talk about discriminatory.

If HRC was smart this issue would stay front and center. No one should step away from it - it is interesting to note that these incendiary types of folks will be coming out of the woodworks if he wins. This is not something that should be brushed under the rug.

jimmy boy - "That was the most honest, and thoughtful speech a US politician has given on race in 40 years" -- WRONG!!

Obama lied his head off and first claims there was nothing he ever heard in church from pastor Wright that he found offensive but in his speech he said there were times he did hear things from himm he found offensive....

Too many people forgot that Obama denied hearing anything offensive to the media last week. This guys lied but all of us can not talk abotu it cuz we are racists then - BULL!!

Scotian said it all - read his comment again it says it all. Obama's speech is not one for the history books nor is it even one of depth. He has lied about this issue and the other politicians and the media should call him on it.....oh but then they would be racists??

Apologies, Scotian and Perma99, if his speech served to undercut your hopes for the Reverend Wright to be an issue. It was out during the primaries, and he dealt with it like the Barack Obama I supported. If it keeps coming up, then it will be shot down as yesterday's news once common sense takes over.

Life is complex, and apparently you two are only willing to recognize that complexity when it suits your predisposition against his candidacy. Sort of as simplistic as those Obama supporters you rail against. Talk about change...

ola89 and Perma99, I take it neither of you actually listened to the entire speech. If you had you would realize that he moved way beyond calling anybody names. In fact he was down right sympathetic to both blacks and whites who find themselves blaming each other for the problems beyond their control.

Oh, ola89, you claim Obama lied, but then you misrepresent what he said. He said he wasn't in church when Wright said the couple of things that seem to be looped over and over for dittohead consumption. Then he said he heard things of which he didn't approve. Both statements can be true. It is entirely possible he didn't hear the statements made in the dittohead loop but heard other things that made him uncomfortable. So far nobody has any proof he was present when any of the dittohead loop was said. When you have such proof then you can call him a liar. Until then, you owe all of us an apology.

By the way, are you the same guy posting over and over again. Your sentence structure and word choice seems to be in sync.

I think most of us who saw obvious flaws in the speech wanted to give the worthy parts some time to settle in, before bringing it back to earth.

Racial reconciliation is absolutely key to the long term success of the American Experiment. However, assuming that the bill has been paid and it's all over is a fool's ticket to disaster.

Many of the key holes in the speech stem from the observations of a man who did not grow up in the mainstream US, and a man who did not grow up as a Christian. His understandings about race and redemption are exactly those of an outsider looking in. And this is enough to resonate with people in the same situation, like Andrew Sullivan. It is unlikely that a man who grew up black or even half black stateside and was actually Christian rather, than absorbing Christianity like an ethnic flavor, would have written or spoken this speech.

The key aspect of Christianity is redemption, particularly the redemption that will be commemorated around the world Friday. To make a speech this week and not refer to this at all, shows however well intentioned, indicates it's for show.

Ironically Wright is actually correct, and his message will resonate with many pastors of all colors who value Jesus above nation. Of those Christian nationalist congregation, all will be opposed to the Wright's message, and non would vote for Obama anyway. Which is why it was such a mistake not to actually take the Wright sermon and show why from Christian principles it is correct. The denial non-denial just makes the man's whole platform to be a giant pander. But then this is the understanding of the whole campaign by those who were too grounded to be swept up in Obama-mania.

Scotain, I must add you to the list of dishonest posters. I have to applaud you however, you have written more and said less than anybody I have read in a long, long time.

The problem is not people who discuss the issue afterwards.

The problem is people who don't even bother listening to the speech, but just wait for their talking points to be issued, and the people who make the talking points just mining the thing for whatever fodder they can find.

That's why every discussion about this is infested with BS-spewing "noreallyimnotarepublican3848" types. They neither know, nor care, what he actually said, or the (quite compelling) argument that he's not going to throw friends to the wolves in a pathetic attempt to please doctrinaire Republicans and their idiot comment-troll sycophants. All they know is their "TWENTY YAERSSS!!!!!1" talking points. And that's what they'll keep repeating.

Scotian: After all, last Friday when he tried his first approach to dealing with the Reverend Wright comment fallout he claimed there was nothing he ever heard from Wright while in church that he found offensive, yet in his speech yesterday he suddenly claims that there were times he did hear things from the pulpit he found offensive and disagreed with.

If I'm not mistaken, he said last week that he had not heard Wright make the comments on the now-famous God Damn America video. If someone has a link to a report or a video of Obama ever saying he'd never heard Wright saying anything offensive, I'd sure like to see it. That would concern me, too.

One of the major strains of reaction to Barack Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech is that those who are not persuaded by it are therefore racist or at least unreasoning fools.

This is not only a major strain of the speech but More importnatly has been one of the major strains of Obama's whole campaign.

Every criticism of Obama on any grounds for any reason has since January been twisted by his supporters into a claim of racism.

So when Bill Clinton talked about the "fairy tale" of Obama's antiwar credentials given that he had done nothing after being elected to the senate that was jumped on as a horrible racist comment, when it was clearly no such thing.

Did Obama even address the unfairness of this no.

Then in Neveda- Obama supporters run campaign Ads in spanish sayin "hillary has disrepected our people" blatantly bringing in race.

Does Obama even express any concern on this- not- he ignores it.

And it goes on and on.

And it was only after his Pastor was shown to be a blatant racist that he felt the need to address the issue. Clearly, charges of racism only matter when they are made against Obama.

And the speech was- Don't blame Wright- he is really just a victim of endless racism from whites. Not great- but really not his fault.

Given this context- I find the speech and the whole thrust of the Obama campaign to be the exact opposite of hopeful.

Eloquence doesn't excuse ugly actions and thoughts- not when its Wright and not when its Obama.

Ron Byers:

"Scotain, I must add you to the list of dishonest posters. I have to applaud you however, you have written more and said less than anybody I have read in a long, long time." Ron Byers on March 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Why thank you, but I cannot compete with you in that regard, you are clearly the master in that, along with attacking the messenger and not the message and in painting that act as some sort of defensible approach as you just did.

Boorring:

"Apologies, Scotian and Perma99, if his speech served to undercut your hopes for the Reverend Wright to be an issue." Posted by: Boorring on March 19, 2008 at 4:40 PM

I just love your amazing telepathic capacity to know what I am really thinking/hoping and then telling everyone else about it, an absolutely remarkable trait, ever think of using it for some real good service like helping the police read the minds of suspects so they can bypass all that hard detective work they must do? Give it a rest. Oh yes, I understand complexities in life, but then I am not the one trying to see things in such simplistic Obama good Clinton evil terms as you and some others have around here. You really need to practice what you preach a bit better before you get on that high horse of yours, you know?

shortstop:

I will see if I can find the source, but I am certain I read a transcript where he claimed he heard nothing objectionable ever, not just the specifics from the Wright recordings being played. As I recall he tried to limit it to that point but the interviewer refused to which is why that stuck out in my mind. Unfortunately I have no working sound card so I am blocked from playing video files directly. Remember shortstop I have always been one to offer my opinion after I have integrated all I have heard/read, I am not one that traditionally hangs onto links to pass along. I know it is a failing, but it is how I have operated all along as you should know. Also remember I am currently on a cardiac watch and have been told to take it easy until we know for sure what is going on there, so I may not be able to get back to you quickly on this depending on how much work it takes, sorry but I place my health as more important than anything online.

However, I stand by what I said overall about the speech, it was a good one, but I don’t see it as transcendent, especially not after watching his campaign twist anything they could from Clinton supporters/surrogates as some sort of race baiting for two months and Obama saying nothing about it and now he suddenly is appalled by such behaviour/conduct when it is applied to him as well as the idea of a candidate being held responsible for the statements of his supporters/surrogates and in this case with Wright someone as close to him as immediate family. I also stand by the view this was pure political damage control and nothing more, especially given how much Obama has avoided being overt on race issues until this point where he no longer had any choice because of the clear damage his campaign was taking from Wright. I do not think it will stand the test of time well at all beyond being a good political speech, not a transcendent one and certainly not on a par with Lincoln or MLK. I think he had to do it, but I don't think he made the sale outside of his current supporters. I also think he made some serious mistakes in it by bringing up his grandmother, equating her and Wright both in why they have their respective racial attitudes and in terms of connectivity to him since one is someone you are born with and the other is someone you choose, and also in referencing Geraldine Ferraro which gives the appearance of partisanship in a speech he needed to have none of that within it IMHO.

I also think his defence of Wright in much of that speech will also be seen as undercutting his declared disagreement with Wright's more outrageous statements. It is when I take all these things together that I see this as a good speech for someone in his circumstances but not a great one and not transcendent or on a par with Lincoln/MLK either. I always feared what would happen if Obama's core message was discredited and his rhetorical oratory skills were taken out of the equation what else he had to recommend him to the Presidency and that I thought there wasn't much, now we will start to see whether that was true or not.

Remember ss, I grew up in a political family and because of that learned early on not to allow my emotions to drive my political critiques/analyses, and what always worried me about Obama was that he was running mainly on a speech he gave in 2002 for Iraq, a speech he gave at the 2004 DNC convention, and his grand rhetorical skills in prepared speeches without a lot of specifics on how he actually would accomplish these lofty goals in practical terms nor much of a record of showing how he had done so in the past. I would have loved to be able to buy into the Obama vision and I understood its appeal, especially after the past couple of decades, but I don't think the realities of the American political environment have changed so much in so short a period of time to think it will work in the GE. I also worried that Obama was too undefined by his own words, which while helping people see what they wanted to in his rhetoric also left him far too vulnerable to negative defining by the GOP, and I think the Wright controversy underscores that.

From Obama's speech, Mar 18, 2008:

Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely

From an interview of Obama in the Chicago Sun Times, March 15, 2008:

...[Wright]'s always preached a social gospel, in a style that, I think, was more casual, less traditional than a lot of people. But the sermons I've always hear were no different than the sermons you hear in many African-American churches. I had not heard him make such, what I consider to be objectionable remarks from the pulpit. Had I heard them while I was in church, I would have objected. Had that been the tenor of the church generally, I probably wouldn't be a member of the church.

Parse away. I'm sure if someone's desperate enough they'll find some breathing room for some claim to "consistency", however absurd on its face.

But whatever you do, let's not pretend that this is a "new politics", OK?

The swiftboating of Obama will not work. I have faith that Americans are sick of the "politics as usual," they are sick of the war and the race- and gender-baiting, and the fiddling while Rome (i.e. U.S. society and economy) burns. Americans are ready for a serious dialogue after the juvenile antics of the current administration, and they will realize that Obama is the person who will deliver it for them. It will be a new morning in America this November and not the same old politics. American voters are going to show the swiftboaters the door.

I told my wife Obama's speech had a 'silent whistle' that only historians and constitutional scholars would hear, and it sure got past KD. I think if Obama's elected, this will be one of the important speeches of our history.

The Republicans have made great hay from the liberal indifference to blue-collar whites who see their chances for college or good jobs disappearing. Liberals will have to listen to and understand what Obama said if they want to change this dynamic.

As for the Reverend Wright, well, if Bush can surround himself with senile war-mongers slavering and drooling as they mindlessly mumble their litany of lies as they defy the law, I'm sure it can't be too harmful if Obama once knew a black man who was, with good reason, angry. (Forget it, trolls, I don't give a sh*t what you think.)

frankly0,

I think you need some lessons in reading comprehension, if you cannot recognize that those two statements are consistent. I mean, there's a difference between hearing "such controversial remarks", ie, remarks as controversial as those being aired on the networks, and hearing "any controversial remarks", ie, remarks that are at all controversial.

This wouldn't be so hard if people weren't so dim.

The flaw in Obama's speech was that it was crafted as a political speech when he had a very rare opportunity of the nation's attention to make a speech that went above politics. He literally could have improved race relations in the country with one speech. Instead, he tried to parse the issue of Reverand Wright's mistaken and malicious approach and try to score political points about education, health care, the economy, etc.

The speech sounded good in a number of parts, but will not wear well. The MSM does love Obama and is providing mostly rave reviews, but I don't think it will fly in terms of helping him with swing voters. Making his pastor sound not as bad as he was and making his white grandma and reagan democrats into something bad is a strategy that could only make sense in the insulated world of a liberal presidential campaign.

I think brian is right about his last point, which is why I'm hoping that the main audience is the pundits and elite, whether or not that is what Obama intended.

As for the grandmother, an alternative way to interpret it is that he is not criticizing her, but just describing his reaction to her. So, in that sense, he is just being honest.

Listen, lots of Pastors say nutty things. The are an embarrassment to their pulpits, no matter what political persuasion they are. The difference here though is Obama has gone to this particular church for TWENTY years listening to this racist liberation theology. Now that the heat is on, he had to make this speech for purely political reasons, and he failed. He even threw his Grandmother under the bus. You can't choose your relatives, but you can chooses your Pastor, and he CHOSE this one.

Here are a couple of quotes Obama made about Imus affair last summer:

"There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude,� Obama told ABC News in an April 11 interview."

"He (Imus) fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women -- who I hope will be athletes -- that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It's one that I'm not interested in supporting."

Yet he fed his daughters this bile all their lives. Reprehensible.

I mean, there's a difference between hearing "such controversial remarks", ie, remarks as controversial as those being aired on the networks, and hearing "any controversial remarks", ie, remarks that are at all controversial.

Totally lame attempt at parsing duly noted.

As I said, if you're desperate you can come up with some way of making them "consistent".

You should observe that immediately before Obama says, "I had not heard him make such, what I consider to be objectionable remarks from the pulpit.", he utters the sentence "But the sermons I've always hear were no different than the sermons you hear in many African-American churches." Obviously, this preceding sentence is saying that the remarks in Wright's sermons were quite the norm for many A-A churches. It is also strongly implying that there simply was no important objectionable content, because that is, presumably, the standard fare in such churches -- or at least, that is certainly what Obama is strongly implying, and leading people to believe. If he had in mind that there really was something objectionable in such standard fare, why didn't he say so, instead of being as misleading as he possibly could be on this point? Why didn't he admit at this time that he had heard controversial remarks, if he were in the slightest bit inclined to be honest, rather than mislead like this? Any honest reading of that sentence is that it's saying that, in any sermon for which he was present, he heard nothing that should catch anyone's notice.

And your assertion on the other hand that what he was, in his speech, admitting to having heard in the church was nothing very objectionable is contradicted likewise by the context of the sentence in question. Namely, he says in his speech, in the sentence right before he admits hearing "remarks that could be considered controversial", "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course." and, in the sentence immediately after his admission, "Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely." That surrounding context makes it quite clear that the content of what he admits he heard was not simply some trivially objectionable material, but something quite strong -- why else the "strong" disagreement expressed in the immediately following sentence?

In short, the sentences surrounding Obama's remarks go exactly against your completely forced and groundless interpretation. In the speech, the "controversial" remarks he admits to hearing are clearly intended to be quite strong, and in his interview, he is clearly suggesting that he hasn't heard anything beyond the presumably most unremarkable fare one might find in a standard sermon in an AA church.

Again, only desperation for "consistency" can save you here.

And some of us aren't desperate.

Waiting for the other shoe to drop.

When the Wright snippet hit the MSM, wasn't Obama's first response to say he had never heard this from Wright at the times he and his family attended services? When he, Obama, made his last speech, wasn't there a part in there in which he said, implied, that he was aware of this aspect of Wright's theology all along?

I'm just wondering when we'll start to here this apparent inconsistency being discussed and in what terms.

One other point.

Why did Obama say one thing in his interview on Mar 15 and another in his speech?

Because in his interview, he thought he could pretend he wasn't present when any controversial remarks were made, so he tried to pretend that he overheard none of them.

By the time of his speech, he realized he could easily be caught out on video tape or in some other way being in attendance at a "controversial" remark, and so he tried to protect himself in advance for any occasion in which the evidence would actually be produced, and this is why he so dramatically changed his tune.

Any honest person will understand that that is surely what really took place between the interview and the speech.

frankly0,

You're saying that he's inconsistent based on the assumption that no political or controversial remarks have ever been spoken in African-American churches. You can believe that if you want but it sounds unlikely to me.

Its not an attempt at parsing. His meaning is as clear as day. The two statements are obviously consistent.

The issue, at least in the short run, is whether the media will allow this story to die. MSM no doubt wants that to happend, and the public does have a short attention span. But I think the new media age will not allow the story to die. I just heard on the radio that even ABC is reporting that Obama has refused to provide information on what Sundays he was in attendance or what "controversial" comments he heard. In the past, a democrat could sucessfully stonewall the media (Clinton not releasing his medical records, Kerry not releasing his military records), but I doubt that it is still the case. Clinton supposedly did all that research on Obama and missed video tapes publicly for sale. If she had spread them prior to Iowa, this race would be long over and Clinton the winner.

On grandma, I'm sure Obama loves her and is very appreciative of what she did for him, but it was surprising that he was willing to rap a fail, ill 86 year old grandma in order to support his own political future. He probably rationalized it as a gentle rap, but I think even most politicians would have at least paused before resorting to that trick.

It also is pretty clear that he is at least exagerrating the rap against grandma. His original book described the incident as an isolated occassion when grandma had been accosted at a bus stop by a black man (not some general fear of blacks on the street) and one where she did not say anything that Obama heard. He also never said anything about her making offensive comments. Again, one of those lines that sounded great in the insulated campaign strategy room and even did not sound bad when listening to the speech, but upon reflection seems very bad.

Pastor Wright, Obama, And The Media

http://thewoundedbird.blogspot.com/2008/03/pastor-wright-obama-and-media.html

Why Obama's Speech on Race Was Such a Political Home Run

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/why-obamas-speech-on-rac_b_92374.html

Posted March 19, 2008 | 02:24 PM (EST)

By Robert Creamer*

Barack Obama's March 18th speech on race in America was game-changing, and very likely will be remembered as historic. Here's why.

In electoral politics -- particularly presidential politics -- people don't vote based on the issues or positions of the candidates. They vote based on their assessment of the qualities of the candidate. Their votes have much more to do with their assessment of candidate character than on 10 point programs.

The videos of the sermons delivered by Barack Obama's former pastor, Reverend Wright, presented problems for his candidacy because they caused voters to question three key candidate qualities that are central to Obama's narrative as to why he should be president.

Most profoundly they caused doubt among white voters as to whether Obama was "on their side" -- the threshold question of all politics. Ironically, the potential that he might completely disown Reverend Wright, raised the same question among African Americans.

Second, voters want leaders who have strongly-held core values. They don't want leaders who tell them one thing but believe something else -- or even worse, have no core values except their own desire to be elected. The Wright videos caused voters to question whether, as they believed, Obama was indeed committed to the core values of unity and hope that have been the central themes of his candidacy.

Third, voters want leaders who are strong, effective leaders -- leaders who can respond to crisis with cool, decisive, effective action. The videos had put Obama on the defensive for days. In politics, when you're on the defensive, you're losing. The crisis put Obama to the test. How, they wondered, would he respond?

With his speech in Philadelphia, Obama passed all of these tests of character -- and more.

His speech made it clear to all who listened that he was absolutely "on their side." He demonstrated a knowledge and empathy for both sides of the racial equation. His speech rang true to African Americans who grew up in the segregated America of the '50s and '60s. But it also rang true to white ethnics who have had to struggle for everything in life and whose jobs are now being outsourced to Southeast Asia.

Rather than a posture of moral superiority, he affirmed the legitimacy of both sides' anger and called on Americans to unite against the forces that have historically stifled the aspirations of both groups and fanned the flames of hatred and division.

He reminded everyone that as the son of an African father and a white mother from Kansas, he is the personal embodiment of an America where everyone is on the same side.

While Obama forcefully dissociated himself from Reverend Wright's remarks, his unwillingness to dissociate himself from his former pastor personally was a convincing testament that he passes the fundamental test of whether someone is on your side: whether or not he is a loyal friend -- even when the chips are down. Obama's speech made clear that while he is absolutely ready to stand firmly against positions with which he disagrees, he is not the kind of person who will throw someone under the bus to advance his own career. It communicated the unmistakable message that he is on our side for keeps.

Second, more than ever, Obama's speech gave insight into his commitment to the core values of unity and hope -- coupled with the even more fundamental values of empathy and responsibility. He demonstrated that he has the empathy to understand what motivates people in the direction of division and anger. And he also demonstrated his commitment to take responsibility to address and resolve racial tension rather than simply ignoring those divisions on the one hand or fanning their flames on the other.

Third, Obama showed America what strong effective leadership is all about. In the face of a crisis that could have sunk his candidacy, he was cool, decisive and bold. Over the objections of some in his own high command he personally made the most critical decision of his campaign and executed it with skill and confidence.

Barack Obama showed America that he is the guy you want answering the red phone at 3AM.

But Obama's speech gave us insight into two other critical qualities as well.

Obama talked to Americans as adults. He presented a serious, no-holds-barred discussion of race in America. He showed he trusted the voters. Voters don't want leaders who patronize them like children -- who pander or sloganeer. They want leaders who treat them with respect.

Finally, Obama demonstrated once again the power of inspiration. He showed us again that inspiration can overcome fear. When leaders inspire us they call on us to be more than we are; they call on us to be the best we can be. Obama didn't lecture or moralize. He declared his commitment to lead America to overcome racial division and hatred -- to be all that we can be.

In the end, it is his ability to inspire us -- to call on us all to be part of something bigger than ourselves -- to sacrifice for our common future -- that has the potential of making Barack Obama a transformational figure -- both in America and on the world stage.

The character of a leader appears in the greatest relief when he is tested. All of us who watched his speech yesterday saw firsthand why Barack Obama should be President of the United States.
________________

*Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.

Re: frankdawg81 at 1:19 PM

Exactly right, fd. Spot on in that Obama's speech was transformative in essence and nature, and I have to say that this post by Kevin is one of the very few where he's dropped the ball in a big way.

Mr. Drum, from a big fan, I have to say that this post is one of the shallowest, most puerile takes on such an obviously transcendent moment in American politics as I've seen from a person of your just as obvious intelligence and vision. Of course the aspects you mentioned are at work here; Mr. Obama would be an idiot to not attend to such realities, but the mastery he exhibited was in achieving his tactical goals even as he addressed, invigorated, and deeply informed a long overdue and by necessity ongoing national conversation about race and ethnicity in this country. I think your immersion in the DC circuit might be showing here a bit; perhaps you might get out, breathe some clean air, and refresh your worldview.

First, I'm an 'Edwards Democrat' who has now moved over to Obama.

I agree with the notion that if you still think Wrights an issue, then perhaps you are a racist: A deep seated racist.

If Wrights comments were made by a curmudgeon Rabbi or Priest speaking on behalf of Jews or Irish (my tribe) (or speaking on behalf of Italians, Poles, Greeks or Armenians), the comments would not be as note worthy. White Americans are familiar with the long story of those two tribes harsh history and so tend to be tollerant of any vitriolic chauvinistic commentary coming from those quarters.

But it didn't come from and on behalf of Irish or Jews, it came from and on behalf of Blacks. The reason it is so hair raising is because many white Americans fear a subversive black uprising and overthrow of the plantation, as it were, ending civilization as Scarlet O'Hara once knew it.

Wrights comments are not note worthy coming from and on behalf of other sectors of our society, only from Blacks. Like the proverbial dog whistle, Wrights comments mean little more than a curmudgeon with an ax to grind spitting for rank pedestrian chauvinism - and should cause little more reaction than a dismissal, unless, you have a fear of a black uprising.

If you fear the black uprising, you won't be inclined to empower any black, at any time, especially with political power.

Playing Wrights sermons over and over again reflects racism of this sort; a deep seated racism.

And as Huckabee suggested, you have to cut the guy some slack. He's from before the civil righst movement. The fact that the Federal constitution authorized slavery, the fact that the Federal Goverment for 40 years experimented on the disease of syphalis with blacks in Tuskeegee from 1932 - 1972 is a real greavance for men of Wright's generation.

serial catowner: I think if Obama's elected, this will be one of the important speeches of our history.

The New York Times, which has endorsed Clinton, seems to agree in a Wednesday editorial:

Mr. Obama’s Profile in Courage

There are moments — increasingly rare in risk-abhorrent modern campaigns — when politicians are called upon to bare their fundamental beliefs. In the best of these moments, the speaker does not just salve the current political wound, but also illuminates larger, troubling issues that the nation is wrestling with.

Inaugural addresses by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt come to mind, as does John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on religion, with its enduring vision of the separation between church and state. Senator Barack Obama, who has not faced such tests of character this year, faced one on Tuesday. It is hard to imagine how he could have handled it better.

...There have been times when we wondered what Mr. Obama meant when he talked about rising above traditional divides. This was not such a moment.

...he not only cleared the air over a particular controversy — he raised the discussion to a higher plane.

The reason Obama is so far ahead of Clinton is because the black militant viewpoints espoused by this congregation (and yes I fault all of them, they have brains and free wills) was not exposed to the public soon enough. When most of the reporters in print and on TV are dazzled by a candidate to the point that they don't do basic research on that candidate, we the people have a problem. I feel that an independent press is our protection against just this type of thing happening. Usually, crackpot ideology like this is rooted out toward the beginning of a race. Those candidates are weeded out when there are still other candidates to choose from. I'm sorry for the Obama supporters that they have to be disillusioned, but it is what it is. I blame the press for not doing their jobs.

The speech was brilliant. Unfortunately it will probably not call off the right wing dogs, who will only be satisfied if Obama kills Rev. Wright and kisses James Dobson's behind.

Marc---This isn't about the right wing. This is all about us! The right wing is just standing back and watching the pile up. They hope Obama gets the nomination. They know they can beat him now. But we as Dem or Ind need to figure out what our best move is now. Have you seen the polls? Obama is sinking. This is the one issue that I don't think he can recover from.

I'm not sure whether Obama's speech was merely the greatest speech ever given by a Presidential candidate, or the greatest ever given by a sentient being in the history of the known universe.

Maybe the Obama supporters on this thread can help me out?

Memo to Axelrod: Don't start the email chain on how great the speech was before the speech is actually given. And if you do, for pity's sake don't tell anybody on Democratic Underground, because they'll let the cat out of the bag and make the campaign look stupid.