He's not perfect, he's human, he's like us.

An average Joe? The type of guy you'd like to kick back and have a beer with at the bar?

Just like George Bush, the Blueblooded Bonesman that was also perceived as quite the regular Joe, "one of us normal folk".

Turned out pretty well for him.

No, it's the exact same thing.

As Al Pacino said in the Devils Advocate - "Vanity is my favorite sin."

So you're part of a "people's" movement to change the way we are governed by voting for a Senate Democratic politician for POTUS. Okay.

He takes risks and is whiling to be honest about real issues. Read his books. This is why he is some unique.

I do think he took what could have been and historical speech and made it a political speech when he inserted the talking points.

He could have said what needed to be said and added the talking points tomorrow.

But I don't think that rest should be discarded because he used a political speech to ask for people votes.

It would have been slightly better if he had left that baggage off and said. "This is why I am running and I am asking for your vote" Which he did but he added a few very subtle... pokes.

It will be a crying shame if this man does not become our next president.

Yes, i agree. The funny thing is the tendency for "reversal" in the human mind. We get what we expect. So people who are constantly cynical- to the point of making it an "ism"- will then seek out cynical leaders. All to prove to themselves that their cynicism was warranted.

So Obama- merely for wanting to aspire to a higher ideal is held to an impossible standard, yet another pol, like HRC or MCCain, has the bar held much lower. And so ANY imperfection is used against Obama, while every flaw is overlooked in another pol.

Yet, when one just compares one to the other, its obvious that one is much closer to the ideals people are seeking.

A good example is the Rezko BS. Much has been amde of nothing in that case by HRC supporters- or McCain supporters. Yet looking at HRC and BIll, or McCain, much more glaring and suspicious dealings have taken place. In a side by side comparison, there is no question who comes out cleaner. Yet, merely by trying to live up to a higher standard, the bar for Obama is then held impossibly high.

So in the end, due to fear and cynicism, the person who is actually closer to the right position is rejected, while the person who is actually farther from it is defended.

It is human nature i guess. Since Nixon we have all been burned time and again by pols. So its easier for some people to not not want to take a chance at all and avoid the possible disapointment. Yet in the end, they get exactly what they feared in the end- the only difference is they never expected more anyway.

truly sad.

do they have the courage??

I just read the whole Obama speech. It made me cry.

I have not previously been an Obama fan (ooof, some of my prior posts are a little harsh...), but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. It is an absolutely beautiful speech. Very passionate, very heartfelt, very personal, and very much about rising above.

The passages about his relationship with his minister help me, at least, to understand a little better his message about rejecting the message but not the messenger. We are all imperfect people connected to other imperfect people. You can't reject everyone.

We always call for deeds, deeds. But I also believe there are moments when words are important themselves. This was one of them.

Why are so many people getting hung up about the part where Obama truthfully admitted that his white grandmother (who grew up in a very, VERY different world than must of us younger people have) often expressed some racist attitudes?

Because grandmothers (or grandfathers, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, etc) shouldn't have to live in fear that everything they have ever said to a family member will be scrutinized in a public forum. Pastors are prepared for this.

I may be the only one, but I actually hope that Barrack Obama heard the anger and rage expressed from pulpits and homes in his Chicago district. Hearing his voice of reconciliation and hope now is even more meaningful knowing that he has had to transcend the rage of many in the inner city, and rise above it, to articulate a gospel of hope rather than hate. The Geraldine Farraros of the world could never represent a classic angry “archie bunker” district without hearing tirades of racism and victimization. No one representing the inner city portion of Obama’s state senate district could escape and avoid the expressions of anger and rage found in the inner cities of America. What matters most is not what one hears, it is what one preaches. Jesus himself didn’t walk away from the crowd calling for the stoning of a woman. He listened and heard what they said and then spoke the most memorable words, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” What saddens me about Ferraro is not what she heard from her constituents, but how she continues to mimic their pain with their rhetoric and their fear. What inspires me about Obama is not what he heard from his angry constituents, but how he transcends that in an appeal for genuine tolerance, understanding, and hope that can help heal the pain and traumas of the past. It is far more than a fairy tale. It is the knowledge that one “good Samaritan” can do far more than help one injured stranger. He can change the way we think about Samaritans. Most of us have forgotten that Samaritans were a hated minority. When Jesus spoke of him, he sought not only to redirect our actions toward the injured stranger, but to recast our thinking about the Samaritan.

All of this brings me to thoughts about experience—about how it shapes us, empowers us, and traps us. Obama, Clinton, and McCain all bring a great deal of experience to this race. What we have to examine is not, “who has had ‘experience’ and who hasn’t”, but rather how has their personal experience shaped their lives, their decision making process, and their sense of the possible. I remember my experience as a freshman member of the Oklahoma legislature in 1980 sponsoring and winning a major fight for nursing home reform. After we won, I remember a senior member turning to me and saying, “You could never have done that if you had been here for a long time, because you would have known that it was impossible.” Too often, we respond to our experience by learning what cannot be done rather than learning how to do it. All three of the remaining candidates have lived fascinating and challenging lives. They have all experienced losses and pain. I would not want to have a leader who had lived such a protected life that he or she had never suffered—now there would be someone who would be truly dangerous. The more important question for each of these three is how have they responded to their experience. I suppose what I think our country needs is someone who is strong and yet calm and thoughtful. We certainly don’t need any frantic bullies. I especially think we desperately need a leader with enough humility to seek out and listen to others with intelligence and experience and not have the hubris to believe that one person can contain within themselves all the experience and knowledge necessary to respond to the incredibly complex and challenging realities in today’s world. We need someone whose knees don’t jerk in any direction. The real problem with McCain and Clinton is that they want us to feel comfortable that they have all the answers. They don’t. No one does. Somehow I feel really glad that John Kennedy answered the phone in the Cuban missile crisis rather than those two.