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.

Well, let's be more direct then. Hillary's candidacy is as caught up in myths and fables as any other politician, if not more so. That's why they hire all the consultants, image people, pollsters, etc. To Create Reality. Unfortunately Mark Penn hasn't been able to tell a good story this time around. I can see and accept this myth making in all the campaigns, and in deed in daily life, because it's part of human nature. You only want to focus on the crap coming from the Obama camp.

which significant and realistic concerns

Unfortunately, those significant and realistic concerns were packaged in a sour tasting wrapper. Why bring up LBJ and MKL and Hillary and Obama at all? Or let some snide reporter trap you into a comparision? Obama is no MLK. That's a long way off, if ever. And Hillary is no LBJ either, in terms of Senate or Executive experience. What Hubris! And who would want to be LBJ? The guy who told the senate no Vietnam war escalation was going on while he had already issued an order for an additional 250,000 troops to be sent to war?

None of this is my fault for pointing it out. If a candidate is clumsy, they are clumsy.

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.

Only in our current world that values celebrity over substance would it have any significance that some child in a bit of reusable film grows up to vote against someone who decides to use that film. In the real world, that is about as insignificant as one can get.

A world in which significant and realistic concerns are turned into racial slurs by hypersensitive misinterpretations sounds more like a nightmare scenario than an inspiring dream.

Our dreams don't have to lead to nightmare. They can also lead to hope and joy. But to be human is to dream.

So if I interpret your analysis correctly, I guess the bottom line is that we will continue to hold on to our fantasies and the misunderstandings they create. So much for Obama's words of hope. And I thought his supporters actually believed that stuff.

So if I interpret your analysis correctly, I guess the bottom line is that we will continue to hold on to our fantasies and the misunderstandings they create. So much for Obama's words of hope. And I thought his supporters actually believed that stuff.

Hillary does remind me of LBJ, in both good and bad ways.

Hillary took the cue from LBJ's daisy ad and the mushroom cloud. She did her own version of saving the angelic kids from more of an intruder than a 3am phone call. The irony is that one of those cherubs will be voting for Obama.

The speech is one for the ages. Just reading it moved me to tears. What joy it would be to hear the president speak without making me cringe. How long has it been since that has happened?

It is mischaracterizations such as yours that have led to this debacle of a primary, in which the Democratic Party has taken a big hit. There was a lot of anger, violence and fear when MLK was protesting and Lyndon Johnson was President. Hillary Clinton never diminished what MLK did. [...] you have to support fantasies in order to make people feel good about themselves.

Sorry, but I'm merely reporting the fact that people are living in fantasy worlds. That's why we have advertising. It's no more divisive than you trying to blame the Obama campaign for a mistake I believe was made by Hillary. It seems a tad more realistic than it's all somebody else's fault. Pick your poison. I'm calling them as I see them. I don't think either Obama or Hillary needs me to spin.

Try criticizing any of the founders for example, like George Washington and see what happens. Or any major sports figure. At first I agreed with you and thought what's the big deal, of course LBJ passed the civil rights act! But then I listened to the responses and I realized that something more complicated than mere history was going on. If Hillary can't deal with the existence of History intertwined with myths and fables, then she is in trouble.

Hillary was saying MLK was a dreamer while LBJ was a doer. She overlooks the politically sensitive fact that It wasn't possible for African Americans to be much of a doer in the 1960's. Then she implies that Obama is just a dreamer as well, and the country needs a doer. Some people think Obama can be a dreamer and a doer.

Personally, I like LBJ. He was an interesting dude with a lot of inner complexity, though he made a really bad call on 'Nam. Hillary does remind me of LBJ, in both good and bad ways.