I watched Hannity and Colmes, shortly after I read Joan's column. Interestingly, Hannity (or more accurately his bagpipe, Newt Gingrich) said something similar, going a little further; how offensive it was to Obama's granny to compare her to Wright. Yes, Wright is evil because he made his rants in public, while white racists prefer to whisper them in the privacy of their own home-- and the voting booth. Thank god both Joan and Hannity are here to protect the dignity of Obama's grandma!

On another level I think the H&C unfortunately backed up the thesis of Glenn's post. Not that Americans aren't savvy enough to get what Obama was talking about, but that most Americans won't bother to listen to the whole speech, and will instead get Hannity to spoon-feed it to them. Hannity, Gingrich and all the other pundits on the program, filtered the speech to only the things they could easily critique. Listening to them, one would think it was indeed a hackneyed speech by a calculating political android....

Its funny you bring up cluster bombs...

"I don't think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched. I support Israel's response to take some action in protecting themselves." (Barack Obama, August 22, 2006)

This was after Israel had dropped, by its own admission, over 1 million cluster bomblets in Lebanon.

This is only worth responding to because you took up so much damn space. You could have fit that crap in a paragraph.

Obama said THIS AFTER the cease fire, after a thousand Lebanese had been killed by Israeli bombings. You're analysis is a stretch.

not you're

"The other, though, was the "only in America" could someone like me exist.

That's absurd.

America is not the only place in the world where multi-racialism exists."

Yeah, I caught that one too and it made me wince. If anything, it may be more common, proportionately in some European countries where a presidential candidate wouldn't have to defend himself because his preacher pointed out that slavery and its aftermaths were f&^^%^! up. It struck me as a very Romnian comment.

Oh, so you're a white elderly retiree living in Arizona--how CONVENIENT for your point.

The media is the message.

Your mama's.

And so obviously, I'm supposed to believe that you're a dog that also happens to be Yellow?

Arf!

Sorry, L.W.M, I had no intention of dengirating white, retirees of Arizona. Sorry if you were offended. There are not three Americas--a white America, a black america, and an old, white America. There's just one America. Old folks are people too!

Seen my share of humans. I prefer to be whatever it is you're calling me.

issue of controversialness, I think every reasonable person can agree to the following:

1. The controversy is a construct, for many reasons. The video has been out there for years, and as many, many have pointed out, these comments are quite bland compared to the Sodom and Gomorra allusions of Republican-backing preachers. This is just a silly contrivance, "drudgian" politics as Glenn observed.

2. Obama gave his speech for damage control purposes. He is a politician, he was patching the leaks. Remarkably, Obama used the speech to address issues rarely discussed in presidential elections, and he deserves accolades for that alone. But had the Wright 'controversy'not come up, when would he have talked about these issues? Certainly, I was gratified to hear him speak on a national stage about being the product of such great diversity, but it has rarely entered his discourse before.

3. He was comfortable with Wright before this. He has never repudiated him before, not even mildly, and it seems unlikely that he didn't know about this rhetoric. Wright and his church are a political tool, just as preachers and religeous affiliation are for Republicans. As a politician, you have to reach out to diverse constituencies, especially locally.

Have you all no sense of humor? The comment was the most absurd thing I could think to write, but obviously it found its home here.

That was my point. Well played.

Well, it all turned out ok in the end, thanks to your brilliant detective work.

I don't really mind your opinion. Say whatever it is you like about me. I wrote some things in jest today; I definitely think that people here mistake serious issues for taking themselves too seriously. I was really surprised that they were taken seriously, especially when compared to the tone I take when I'm approaching an issue I think is important.

But mischaracterizing my viewpoints and those of others lowers the discourse here and gets people talking in circles, accusing each other of all kinds of loony ideas. The logical outcome of that is that people tune in here and think that we're all quacks.

"...he does not suffer fools gladly."

Oh, thanks; that's been my problem with him.

A dof of my hat to you sir.

Taking people's comments out of context to imply that they are lying, stupid, hypocritical or whatever is something of an art around here. Good work.

My point was that misrepresenting someone's viewpoints gets everyone talking about stupid things. And what's the point? So you can please yourself with games of gotcha, ala Tim Russert?

But having said that, I will now distance myself from this thread. And bid everyone adieu.

Sigh.

That's why his cheeks are so puffed out like that. Holding back the brain farts. Too many breakfast burritos. That's why he wants to kick out all the Mesicans. And Jebbie is an idiot.

Idiot, senile. Not mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately, I don't think most Americans would get any of it, viz, why its a slip of the tongue or wrong. Fall on deaf ears, though the brain be fartless. Ain't they all ay-rabs? This worked for the invasion of Iraq in the first place. McCain brain-farts, but he brain-farts like a fox.

an alternate theory for the bulgings...