When Bill Clinton was being accused of race-baiting, when the media hounded him and then cherry-picked his phrases, then hung them out to dry for examination as to their appropriateness given Obama's being black, I asked everybody I knew:

The question to ask is this: "Is Bill Clinton a racist? Do you think that he thinks that blacks are inferior to whites?" To me what mattered was that Bill Clinton was obviously not a racist. Nobody really thought so (although that was a few weeks ago, an eternity in political terms and in the new divisive Democratic paradigm. Things have gotten much nastier. At the time of that SC primary, everybody I asked acknowledged that Bill Clinton was of course not actually a racist.) I encouraged everyone I know to try like heck to ignore the media's bait.

So I ask everybody this: Does anyone doubt Obama's rhetorical strength? Is there anybody out there who honestly thinks that b/c he borrowed words that were obviously called for--content-wise--to combat the recent charges against him (that his rhetorical strength itself is somehow evidence of superficiality), his superior communication skills are somehow a sham? Does anybody think he's got a transmitter attached via wires to his back, getting messages from the pros?

The fact is that he's being attacked on the issue of his charisma and speaking ability. I'm not saying that's an unfair charge, or at least one that shouldn't be vetted, but it's obvious that he needed to respond. What better message than the notion that words matter? Obviously, sitting around with his friend, they must have talked about how that very "words" speech directly addressed the charges coming from Clinton that he is "all words, no action" or something along that line. They seem to be partners, and it is really no different than paying a speech writer.

Again, the substance of the charges against him called precisely for this kind of speech. I wrote a letter to the editor of the Plain Dealer last week answering the charges in my own way. I posited that if beautiful language was itself proof of insubstantial content, as the Clinton campaign has been asserting, then Abraham Lincoln must have been a shallow man, and Thomas Jefferson a puny thinker, and so on.

My point is that campaigns hit opponents with charges and the opponents answer them. The "just words" speech was in direct response to Hillary's charges, and it's hard to imagine Obama passing that up when it was so timely to use. It probably never occurred to him to credit it to his friend b/c they borrow from each other (as many do) all the time. The relevant question is whether Obama is truly a gifted speaker in his own right. I think we all know the answer to that.

even though I don't agree.

(The Irish sure can write. I'd think you'd be one to appreciate a good turn of phrase, like Obama gives.)

about "just deserts." Cool.

(For everyone else, "deserts" is spelled this way b/c it means "that which is deserved," and is not related to the later meaning attached to the word, "dry, arid place." So, when one receives and appropriate consequence, whether good or bad, one gets his/her "just deserts.")

PS Sorry to lecture if you all knew this already. Congrats, X, my friends rarely get a new one past me :)

It somehow feels relevant. Like, if the Clinton camp wants to play this plagiarism game, it's going to come back to bite them.

Jesus, I'm starting to feel really, really bad about this whole election. My son, a soon-to-be-18-year-old told me the other day, "Mom, I have a feeling it's going to be President McCain." This kid is psyched about voting for the first time and really likes Obama, but the cynicism is beginning to sink in. He has watched me stump for losers all his life and I think he's beginning to get the picture: Whoever Mom wants doesn't win.

Go back and give it another listen. It sounds good on both of them.