Obama's Race Speech...Wasn't brilliant. It was forced. And he needs to get off that stuff forced or not. -- The Notorious W.E.S.

Also, "that stuff" is going to be a part of this contest whether we like it or not. At this point its all the GOP can play with.

Obama has set the tone of such discussion and debate, however. The trick will be to keep that tone and keep it from becoming the centerpiece of the election.

Is there any better way to capture the inability and, more importantly, the unwillingness by our media to grasp reality than this?

The dominant narrative, that this is a "war in Iraq", doesn't help either. The 'war' (such as it was) ended in April 2003, and as the Jenning's transcripts make clear, Iraq simply doesn't exist anymore. The possibility of reconstruction of the country has come and gone; all we're left with is what anonymoose cheered so loudly last night.

The US invasion did this. All the misery and death since then came about purely by that event and that decision.

Small wonder the media won't touch this. They, at least, still have the capacity to feel shame at their own part in it.

It's the difference between Left and Right.

The modern "Right" isn't conservative in the traditional sense, but has become the refuge of a collection of cultural reactionaries that by historical chance converged in the Republican Party. Hence the prevalence and prestige of the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reily, Hannity, De Lay, Vitter, Cheney, and so on. Any functioning political party with a clear-minded and pragmatic agenda would have excised these idiots and their fellows some time back.

Worse, the political operations of the "Right" depends in large measure upon a disparate gaggle of sectarian groups, both for funding and grassroots work. Moon, Dobson, Robertson, Hagee, and the rest push agendas that have no realistic hope of being accepted in mainstream America, but have the funds and footsoldiers to ensure compliance among whatever officeholder they choose to favor. Its a cynical calculation on the politico's part, but one that's worked semi-well up to now.

In contrast, the "Left" is a diverse collection of interests (both progressive and in some ways conservative), but who lack a singular 'identity' - which is largely what drives the "Right" these days - and no overriding goal that might otherwise minimize friction between those interests. It also lacks a ready source of funds and grassroots organization like the "Right" does, although this appears to be changing.

The only saving virtue of this is that it also lacks a class of punditry and talking heads with the kind of national stature and prevalence enjoyed by the "Right". This means the Democrat's brand isn't as tainted as the Republicans now by the overheated rhetoric Limbaugh, Coulter and the rest trade in.

And given the complete decimation of the Republican party, both in candidates and fundraising, the "Right" may soon be left with nothing but talk radio and the old guard Religious Right. Hence the tendency (somewhat unfair) of associating the "Right" with blind hatred and reactionary policies as those are the trade of both.

The "Left" meanwhile has been building itself from the ground-up and offers a more moderate and responsive agenda. Getting it widely-disseminated is a critical challenge, albeit one that has been helped by the weblog community and tech-savviness.

In short, both sides have their extremists. But those on the "Right" have had the louder voice and less restraint, finally over-reaching themselves in the last 15-20 years (I mark it peaking in the early-90s and beginning a slow but steady decline since the OK City Bombing). Those on the "Left" are so marginal one would be hard-pressed to name a one.

Whether these trends continue or not is beyond any predictative ability. We'll see what the future brings.

Who knew there were so many avid supporters of tyranny and totalitarianism? I'm just amazed.

By that line of reasoning, shooter242, you are an avid supporter of ALL of the following:

*ethnic cleansing

*corporate and political corruption

*indiscriminate military action

*senseless murder

*the displacement of millions of innocent civilians

*the wholesale destruction of a country that did NOT attacked us

...all because you didn't like the guy in charge.

Forgive my language, but you are monumentally fucked in the head.

I'm actually embarrassed to have to admit you and I are the same species, never mind ashamed that my country could produce something as depraved as you.

Well I guess then that those Iraqis really are backward barbarians who require a killer to keep them in line. Sorry, my bad.

Now you begin to understand the fundamental paradox of both the region and its people.

And if you can understand that, why can't you get it through that diseased skull of yours that invading and destroying a country like that doesn't help anyone?

That's a rhetorical question, btw. We already know you're genetically incapable of understanding a simple concept like that.

Because I find it incomprehensible, that an opportunity for freedom and self rule is less important than power for the TV's.

As has been pointed out, there is no less freedom than under Saddam. Plus the infrastructure has been destroyed, so most nobody has power or clean water or even marginally basic health care.

The "opportunity for freedom and self-rule" is only important and desirable if it comes from the population in question. Imposing it from the outside, at gunpoint, is just asking for a native insurgency to start attacking the so-called liberators. Simple common sense.

Back to the original point. Taking your statements to their logical end, YOU are in favor of mass murder, ethnic cleansing, institutionalized torture, political and social repression, and the wholesale destruction of another country...for NO discernable reason whatsoever.

Again, YOU are monumentally fucked in the head to think that's acceptable.