i see you're all too familiar with the latin maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which means the expression of one thing excludes all others. it is helpful in some contexts, but not applicable here. you're not alone - so many posters here make the same logical misstep.

if you look at what he said in the speech, he is not running solely on the issue of healing the racial divide. rather, he "chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together -- unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction -- towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren."

bringing people together, including people of different races, is the only way we're going to solve the problems you detailed.

and just because race has become an issue does not mean it's the ONLY issue.

you raise a valid concern, but again i don't think it's applicable. the president is the ceo of the country, not its file clerk. ceos often have big ideas that they rely on others to implement - i don't think steve jobs is in the trenches writing code for the new ipod.

a good leader needs vision, judgment, and the ability to inspire others to get the job done. they do not need administrative skills. hillary tried to spin his admission about losing papers in an early debate, and it fell flat precisely because that's not what the president does.

i can understand your frustration with your "idea" minded boss, but that's the whole point - you need "idea" people as leaders, but they have to also possess the judgment to make the ideas good ones!

hillary would make an excellent cabinet member. she is a very worthy public servant. but she is not a leader. she inspires as much contempt as she does admiration, if not more. and mccain does not have anywhere near the ability to get a nation mobilized and inspired to act that obama does.

so i just have to ask, between the three of them, who's the right person?

i guess we'll have to agree to disagree. i didn't think hillary had portrayed herself as a "wheeler and dealer" - the tenor of her campaign has been more that she's a fighter, who's gonna fight, fight, fight the republicans on everything. and given the fact that half of the country actively despises her, i find it hard to believe that she's going to be the agent of compromise. in fact, it's been obama who has been conceding that in order to make progress, we can't automatically assume everything the GOP says and does is evil and wrong, and we actually have to find new ideas that solve our problems instead of the trench warfare-style politics to which we've all become accustomed. hillary is more trench warfare. obama is a negotiator who gets to the root of problems instead of just telling people what they want to hear.

but i very much appreciate the points you've made, and i especially appreciate the calm manner in which you've made them.

I couldn't agree more. I tried to find another word to describe "stupid people" but I couldn't. I can't put into words how frustrating it is having conversations with people about this stuff who just don't get it.

They're perfectly nice and decent and good people. But they lack the fundamental reasoning tools it takes to understand the interplay between complex forces and influences. I'm afraid that Obama's speech will go flying over their heads, or worse, they'll pick up on one isolated aspect of it and hammer away at that (like the grandmother comment). Or they'll stick to the Hillary line that he's "all talk and no action" or whatever other irrelevant and misguided way they've been trained to dismiss Obama.

That said, anyone who is capable of understanding the full extent of what he said today--which was essentially the most candid, brave, introspective, nuanced and intelligent speech on race ever given by someone in his position--and still finds fault with it, is one cold hearted son of a bitch.

i guess you need to read what i wrote again.

i never said anyone who doesn't support obama is an imbecile.

i said anyone who is capable of understanding the entire speech and still finds fault with it is a cold hearted son of a bitch. and i don't mean hair-splitting fault, i mean fundamental fault.

the sad reality is that a lot of the people who obama needs to win over lack the fundamental thinking skills it takes to fully appreciate the man, what he stands for, and what he said today. does that mean everyone who doesn't support obama is an idiot? of course not.

if hillary had gotten up and made a speech about feminism that was 1/10 as good as obama's, i would have applauded her. and i can't friggin' stand her. but i can admit when she does something well.

so for hillary supporters to come on here and try to find fault with what he said today, i can confidently say that they are either idiots or have some very deep-seated problems.