Not sure if you responded to my previous post about you (I'm still slogging through the thread and addressing comments one by one without even having gotten to the end--and my own posts--what a grueling process!)...

But I just read this from you

But I would die before I would stand up in front of the world and slander the name of the woman who spent her life taking care of me and my siblings. She would be humiliated.

and I must say I appreciate your sensitivity. You are right, of course, that on some level, even with my own explanation that perhaps he asked his grandmother for permission, that he has used his grandmother for political purposes. That is a fact. I suppose I think he had to do it to make that counterpoint ("I have put up with white racists as well as black racists and I love them both") but I want you to know that I take your point and I agree with it.

Many Hillary supporters feel, if I may speak for them for a moment (and I get this from Reality Counts, whom I'm looking for, btw), that one of their biggest beefs is this notion that Obama is "above politics" in some way. The thoughtful ones among us recognize that he's got political advisers as well, that he's got political instincts as well, that he makes political decisions as well. I really "get" that criticism coming from you and want you to know that you've been heard. While I agree with (what I consider) your small point about his use of his grandmother, I guess I know on some level that absolutely anyone who's reached this far in the game has used some people. I'm hoping it remains a minimal part of his campaign.

Thanks, salon, for giving us the text. I wish more people would watch, listen, or read the original source of an event or speech. If anyone missed the original, it's being replayed on CSPAN at 7 p.m. (Eastern time).

For Kilroy, andrgyn, and others who criticize Obama's mere speechmaking and his "fawning" supporters:

There is nothing small about finding the words to express the history, the complexity, the nuance of an issue as polarizing as race. People criticized Bill Clinton for his "silver tongue," conflating his communication skills with duplicity. I say fine oratory is evidence of a fine mind.

Obama has tapped into what George Lakoff, the linguist who writes about political speech, calls the "issues" that most Americans care about. Judgment, and trust, and intelligence, and discernment--those are real, actual, honest-to-goodness issues. Those are the reasons many of us want Obama to be the next President.

Skepticism is a stimulant, not to be repressed. It is an antidote to smugness and the great glow of satisfaction one gains from being right. You know the self-righteous -- I've been one myself -- the little extra topspin they put on the truth, their ostentatious modesty, the pleasure they take in being beautifully modulated and cool and correct when others are falling apart.

especially that "topspin" business.

I thought this was an apt description of Wright's speech from the pulpit:

a surreal amalgam of legitimate social commentary, paranoid conspiracy theories and reflexive anti-white rhetoric

with the possible exception of the word "surreal."

Way back when my oldest child was tiny, a kind-hearted friend asked me if I'd like to volunteer with her in downtown Cleveland for a program called M.O.M. (Mothers Outreach to Mothers). We were both newbies to motherhood and to volunteering (having previously been full-time employed and now not). Anyway, the introductory meetings laid the groundwork for the pair-ups b/t volunteers and new, poor, teenage, single mothers. It was very business-like--how to get them welfare, how to take them shopping for diapers, how to convince them to get the father on record, etc. Not to mention, of course, how to be supportive emotionally at all hours, help with the babies, and all that.

Well, for a lot of logistical reasons we never participated in the program, but my friend later told me that she couldn't stop thinking about the complete absence of shame involved. It bothered her. When I protested that shame has no redeeming qualities, she said, yes, in fact, it did. It was a powerful deterrent. I have no idea if she was right or not but I couldn't really shake her idea. Keep in mind that we were in the throes of our own "baby love" and thought mostly of the babies involved, not the moms. But it sort of made sense to me, that complete societal acceptance probably made individual moms feel better (not to mention helped their babies) but in the long run promoted more poor babies without a real chance. And yet, encouraging shame? I can't really endorse that.