If you really want to be a unifying leader, you do not distort someone's comments about presidential leadership into a racial slur because it helps you to win a primary. And if someone else does it, you do not feed the frenzy with condemnations, however understated.

If Barack Obama would have spoken out at that time to defend Hillary Clinton that would have impressed me as leadership, and would have shown a meaningful understanding of the ravages of racism.

Making a speech months later when your onions are in the fire, is not leadership. It is opportunism. It spells phony to anyone who has been paying attention.

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. She just pointed out that we are a country of laws. Without a President of stature, intelligence and ability, the laws would not have supported true civil rights reform. MLK more than anyone would appreciate that, and if you think her comments were a mistake then you are in essence supporting a mindset that says you have to support fantasies in order to make people feel good about themselves. It is that failure to face reality, those lies that we tell each other in order to avoid the truth, that leads to racial misunderstandings and mistrust. We should not act like children. Adult perspective and honesty are important ingredients to racial (or any other kind of) harmony. This democratic exercise is to choose the best president we can find. It is not a game.

This speech was written from his heart. Can anyone doubt that the man is gifted? Is grandma gate now over and done with? I sincerely hope so. That part of his speech now appears to be the most celebrated in the MSM.

This opens up the debate on race. This speech does not end it. What would be even spectacular is Hillary takes the opportunity and give a seminal speech on inequities of gender. I know she can do it. She must take the high road and quit this bickering. Race does not trump gender and vice versa.

This was due in no small part to the mischaracterization of Hillary Clinton’s remark that it took a strong president, LBJ [...]

I don't agree with that all. Hillary diminished the role of a mythical Hero by saying LBJ had to do the real work. Of course the followers of the hero are going to be pissed. If you tell a bunch of republican Regan admirerers that the cold war was really won due to an arms build up started by the Carter Administration, you're not going to get their vote.

It's that simple. It doesn't matter if its true or not. Don't mess with the Icons. Hillary should be enough of a politician to know this. Take any american hero and criticize him or her in front of their supporters. See what kind of happy faces you get.

OK, now I finally get what you mean with this "Noble Lie" business. Seriously, dude, if you're going to cross-post, don't assume we're all following you around...

Yes, I think Obama was full of crap about that. And I have no excuse to make for it. I have not, personally, been making the argument that Barack Obama shits gold and every word out of him mouth is pure wisdom. I just don't think Jeremiah Wright is Hitler, either...

Barack Obama's speech on race today was among the most powerful and poignant speeches ever. Also today, the Wall Street Journal carried an article by Shelby Steele called "The Obama Bargain" in which he suggests that Obama has used his race as a "bargain." As a bargainer, Obama makes "the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain - and feel affection for the bargainer - because it gives them innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity (in italics) for whites to experience racial innocence."

This is a consipracy theory of the most subtle type. Mr. Steele should read Obama's speech in full and recognize that his thesis is not merely untenable, it is downright disingenuous. Obama is not bargaining for anything. His sights are set on a much higher plane. He is telling us that together, we are more than the sum of our creeds and color. He is calling for a reconciliation grounded in our common hopes and aspirations. This is how we strive to end racism in our country as we march toward a more perfect Union.

Obama pulled it off well, but it is simply a wonderful, self-serving message from a man who trusts his oratory skills. Barack Obama took a very opportune time to rewrite the history of this campaign. It had the same level of courage that it takes to rob a bank. He had to be asking himself, “Can I get away with it?” But then again, with the adoring media and his incredibly faithful supporters, where is the risk?

The speech was a mixture of platitudes and self-serving remarks that presented the Obama camp spin on race in this campaign. It was filled with the bittersweet pastry of lament about problems that anyone with a heart or a brain can recite, and granted, he said it well. Never mind that he has no real plan.

However, the primary message of this speech was to immunize Obama against any mention of his radical pastor, and any charges that he and his surrogates have injected race into this campaign. Of course race is only important when it serves his purposes.

I especially enjoyed the part where he gives his spin to the South Carolina primary. He bragged about how he had won very white states, and then in South Carolina he put together a “coalition of blacks and whites.” Actually, South Carolina was the place where African-Americans started to give him upward of 70% of their votes. This was due in no small part to the mischaracterization of Hillary Clinton’s remark that it took a strong president, LBJ, to make sure that historic civil rights legislation was passed. I thought that Hillary's analysis was both accurate and appropriate, since they are after all running for – that’s right boys and girls – the presidency. Well, if you listened to the Obama surrogates, you would have thought that she was the reincarnation of George Wallace (famous segregationist). The right wing media gladly supported Obama then, because they hate the Clintons (I suspect that it is because the Clintons are too good at beating the Republicans).

So now the message is that it is time to “move beyond some of our old racial wounds,” and the best way to move beyond race is to vote for Barack Obama for president. Once again, he found a clever way to have it both ways. We have to move beyond race, but vote for me because of my race.

The timing to switch the message is also perfect. The Democratic Party is moving the race into Pennsylvania. The nation is beginning to pay attention. His radical ministerial friend is being exposed. And we have to get ready for the general election. It just seems like the right time to switch back to the pre-South Carolina message of hope, change and unity.

This race should not be about race. It should be about who can get us out of the unholy mess that has been created by George Bush and the Republicans. Barack Obama's speech has brought us no closer to that. Hillary Clinton gave us a thoughtful speech yesterday on Iraq that highlighted her talents and her leadership. But I guess we will not be hearing about that.