I appreciate this article. I think it resonates with people who have had to capitulate at some point and receive help. I know of your situation and appreciate your putting it to words. We don't hear about these times and these places because the denizens of charity are usually not able to articulate the experience.

Chloe had a hard time with this experience. She will benefit in the long run. You can't have a political position on the poor if you haven't experienced it. You can't have compassion for the underclass unless you have experienced it. She has. Her life will be richer for it.

They had motive and means. Just because they were incompetent? I'd guess they'd be up on bigger charges if the target had been the current sitting president, or John McCain.

Obama has already been defined by the opposition, and the opposition is generally untouched at this point. All this "above the fray," crap is indicative of a weak and ineffective party in general. Screw bipartisanship. We don't want a change from the "old" nasty politics, we just want to win for once. Drop to a knee and sucker punch them in the balls. Cut the crap because you are running out of time, and they haven't even begun to hit. I, for one, am tired of everything being framed by the Republicans. They not only own all the issue, they create all the issues. Why in the hell aren't the Republicans completely on the defensive, and on the floor for the count? This shouldn't even be a close race. WTF? These pussy Democrats don't deserve our support.

Instead of hitting on every friggin policy issue a president would face, he should have stayed on a more focused message. It was necessary to address things like gun control. If you spend 75% of your time addressing issues framed by your opponents, then you are working on their time and their agenda. I for one would like to see the Democrats throw so many balls in the oppo court that they need to spend forever defending themselves. He also lacked repetition of the message. Every paragraph should have ended with the same attack on the opposition and the value proposition of his candidacy. I also was a little disheartened by the lack of control of the media shots of the candidate. Put all the network cameras on the same platform, so you can look squarely into the camera 80% of the time. Your audience is America, not the left and right of you in the stadium. Also don't allow the network cameras to be looking up at you. We spent half our time looking up his nose (partly because of the camera position and partly because he has a terrible habit of sticking his chin up and looking down his nose at us.) That is not the body posture you want for a candidate that has an image problem of being elitist.

My analysis is harsh. So be it. I called the debates in favor of Bush over Kerry for these similar reasons, and most people assumed that Kerry won his debates. This isn't a great speech, it is only a competent speech (as it was meant to be.) Our standards have lowered since the likes of great orators like Kennedy and King. They all thought they had it in the bag on Bush presidency 1, and Bush presidency 2. The democrats are going to have to and bring a tougher fight. They think they deserve the government because they are "right" and the opposition is "wrong." The opposition doesn't care who is right and wrong, they just want to be in power at the end of the day.

Thank you for your considered rebuttal. Statements like "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power," are platitudes and don't really connect with people on a personal emotional level. Truths have a much more important impact. Politicians rarely express truths. People the world over are generally not impressed with America, or Americans so I'd suggest it is you and Clinton riding the high horse. Our politics have been universally reviled for half a century by most of the rest of the world. The only time we are taken seriously is when we do flex our empirical muscle, and it is this force that we have to keep reverting to because our example is that of empire. So Clinton expresses a platitudinous lie, and because it is lyrical, that makes for good speech? That hick would say just about anything to get into your proverbial pants, don't play so coy with the good ol' boy and give him what he wants.

Partisanship, responsibility, mortgage crisis, economy, taxes, health care, gun control, abortion, gay marriage, illegal aliens, social security, safety nets, Iraq war, Afghanistan, osama bin laden, vets, hard work, environment, oil, drilling... I'm still not done on what he touched on in his speech. That is my point exactly. This shouldn't be an exercise in cerebral communications, this should be an exercise in persuasion and lizard brain communications. You should be able to turn the sound off on the television, and a connection and impression still made on a fundamental level. All I am saying is this: They can do a lot better, and will have to if they want the white house.

I concede that a lot of stuff said this week was "pretty heady stuff,"... my point exactly.