Fart, meet church. She can give the most eloquent speech on the issue, and people will again dismiss sexism in relation to the campaign.

I thought it was telling how some in the MSM started talking about "getting beyond" race and gender.

For the rest of you who are quite angered by the grandmother comments, why don't you address whether her past naive actions be compared to Wright's current beliefs rather than admonishing me for "cherry picking?" This part of the speech was repeated throughout the day, so I don't consider it a minor point.

When I heard him do this I was very disappointed; I thought he could have, once and for all, "crossed the threshhold" but didn't. I also thought the comment "pandered" to Black voters and was designed to inflict more silent shame onto white people who may be uncomfortable but not know how to deal with it. Which begs the question: How are we really supposed to have an honest dialogue about "race relations" in this country when we still can't get beyond (to some extent) blaming whites?

I do think Obama's heart is in the right place, but Wright is quite deliberately hateful (Hillary may not have been called a n_____, but she has been called a bitch, cunt, etc). Dismissing this concern as one of a "Fox viewer" is rather shortsighted, since I'm on your side.

And I want to believe that Obama does understand, on some level how hurtful and divisive derogatory and hateful sexist language is to a large number of women from all races!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.

In an era when the "illusionists" in the whitehouse and around the beltway seek to assuage our fears and our dreams of a better America with pretty words, platitudes and ouright "beautiful lies" of false progress, a flase, picturesque America alongside the denial of whats truly happening in this nation of racial and cultural stew, it was so refreshing to hear one person offer us "a serving of truth". And using examples of our own foibles, racism and ability to forge a pluralism to move forward as a force of iimperfect change. For we are an imperfect nation made up of imperfect people. when M. Romney was asked what he disliked about America, he was such a coward, full of doublespeak, that he was unable to bring up one foible at a time when more problems have not only been extant, but are at the point that they are "up in our faces".

Sure, I love this country and believe it has set some great examples for others to follow. but to deny the bad or try to misdirect us away from the problems rife in our society is not only a road of terrible lies, it is the path to growing our divisions further instead of seeking to solve the problems that bedevil us all.

As the liars hold Jesus up to us as a hero to emulate, they tell us lies like "the surge" is working, there is no economic crisis, etc. They misdirect us by calling their nefarious deeds by musical or ironic names. Jesus was a teller of truth. And if the truth was ugly, it was ugly. And if there were two sides to the story, as there so often is, both sides would be explored.

Upon hearing this speech, it is the first time I walked away from something like this feeling I had just overheard a "real and human discussion" of the good and bad, both, that best describes our nation. For how can we create better, if there is no admitted "worse" on which to table the improvement? As FDR said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". In lieu of continuing to calling all our problems or bad deeds by errogneous, fallacious or deceiving monikers, and instead laying the truth out to be examined from all angles, it is then, and only then that we can begin the longterm task of fixing them.

This speech ROCKED! and will go down side by side with "The Gettysburg Address", another "piece of Beautiful Truth" served as a "Blue Plate Special".

Whether you like the subject of presidential leadership in a presidential campaign or not is not of my concern.

The point is that it is not a racial issue and that is how Obama used it. Now he wants to pretend that he is something else entirely.

The man has nothing to offer but empty rhetoric and a he has a two-faced approach to the subject of race. He uses his race when it helps and he begs for a new way when he thinks it may harm his chances.

I'm sure there were much better ways to show how Obama was a dreamer while Hillary was a doer without dragging LBJ and MLK into it.

But, if Obama compared his dreams and vision to that of MLK, why should it be out-of-bounds for Clinton to draw a realistic picture about how the Civil Rights Act became law?

To follow up on something KateTex has said about Obama and his campaign's use of race: The MLK/LBJ comments Clinton made are where race was initially injected by the Obama campaign and his followers. They yelled "racist" at Clinton for daring to point out the obvious. She might have been "tin-eared", but a racist? I took umbrage at that and I'm sure others did, as well!

What disappoints me so dearly about the Hillary supporters' pretzel logic in trying so desperately to find some flaw in this speech is that they're fellow democrats - they should know better.

I fully expect the ignorant republican smear machine to be in full gear once Obama gets the nomination. What I did not expect was the Hillary smear machine to start their work for them.

Part of what's so frustrating for many of us Obama supporters is that there actually are some intelligent, well-reasoned analyses out there about why Hillary should be president. They're just so few and far between. Look at this thread, for example. 95% of the pro-Hillary/anti-Obama arguments can't possibly be taken seriously by an objective reader. Most of the posters would fail freshman rhetoric. Assumptions, fanciful leaps in logic, innuendo, irrelevancies, and non-sequiturs dominate the pro-Hillary arguments. And that's not just here ... it's everywhere.

Sure, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But what if their opinion is that 2 + 2 = 6? Are they entitled to that opinion?