You have really gone over the deep end. That was about as cynical a ploy by a politician as I can remember.

Here is how I see the Obama strategy. Race worked for me in South Carolina, Mississippi, and other Democratic primaries but now we are headed into Pennsylvania and the general election, and my radical reverend friend is causing problems, so it's time to change the narrative.

Courage? Nuance? Give me a break.

One could see this speech as a gamble, and I heard several talking heads tonight tsk tsking Obama for not throwing Wright under the bus like any normal, sane, politician. But I think for Obama, there was no choice. He decided to stay on message and defend his ground. Now voters will judge him in that light.

It will be harder, but not impossible for people to turn away and mutter it's just politics as usual. The hyper partisan will not have a problem dismissing Obama, but the vast majority may find themselves thinking about it, if only for a short while. That may be enough

Arne sez:

BTW, any news person...

... or talking head that says anything like, "Did Obama do enough to distance himself from Wright?" probably didn't understand a single word Obama said, and should henceforth and for life be shunned from any and all Beltway cocktail parties.

Joan Walsh:

Was Obama's speech enough?

He spoke eloquently and bravely about race but his remarks about his pastor Jeremiah Wright leave many tough questions unanswered.

By Joan Walsh

Read letters

-----

DC, couldn't agree more with your assessment--Obama has a gear (or two) that the other candidates simply don't have.

[Obama, rejecting Wright's comments] "A view the sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical islam"

I wasn't pleased either. However, treating Israel as a ally and friend, one who is in the wrong sometimes and who needs to be helped, nudged, urged, and sometimes seriously manhandled, into doing the right thing, may be better than our role as slavish enablers and sycophants to their every demand.

They can be our "friend" and "ally", but we don't have to give them cluster bombs. We actually have a lot more pull with them once we stop acting like codependents and more like parents with the car keys in our pocket....

And we need to engage the Palestinian side as well ... on similar terms.

Cheers,

it was just waiting for an excuse to be against Obama anyway.

There is rarely, if ever, a 70% political majority in American politics. Luckily, the system is not designed to require it.

Let the mindless howl in the wilderness. That's what AM radio is for.

The left isn't about policy disagreements anymore. It is about the criminalization of its opponents.

No one is passing new laws to "criminalize" what the maladministration's been doing. They've been breaking the laws that are already on the books.

If there's anyone "criminalizing" them, it's themselves. Just tell them to "STOP BREAKING THE LAW!", please.

Cheers,

I too was in the crowd of "those who didn't need convincing" that the Wright matter was overwrought.

However, it did actually spur a series of thoughtful and reasonable discussions on the news programs I saw. Even the usual suspects didn't seem to have much to go on here, and were dragged kicking and screaming into praising aspects of the speech while trying to focus on things they didn't like. I watched Tucker Carlson flail around ineffectively about that.

Those it didn't convince were largely those for whom Obama could physically stab Reverend Wright in the heart on live TV and they would still mutter about the sincerity of his denunciation of Wright's preachings. The disingenuous skeptics.

I also think, considering the alternatives Obama could have attempted, he has done the strategically best thing he could have. The usual political tricks wouldn't have worked in the long run. They might have kept him on the nomination track, but the Republicans would have brought it all back up.

Now, he might just have defused this and any other similar extremists anyone might try to tie to him.

It had to be tried anyway. I don't think anyone has done this since maybe Adlai Stevenson. It didn't work for Adlai, but maybe Obama is a tad more charismatic.

Excellent assessment of the speech Mr. Greenwald. I fear that you may be right and I suspect that several factors will ultimately contribute to the overall reception Sen. Obama's speech.

Ironically, the most important factor will be the tone and focus of the new services in the coverage of the speech. Like I'm sure many other people I heard the soundbytes and read the headline before listening to the entire speech. Of course the speech is much more powerful and moving when in it's entirety. The nuance and theme that Obama conveys and builds cannot be appreciated via a news ticker. There are obviously two ways that all of the "most ultimate political teams in America" will spin this.

The first is to play it as it is. An eloquent, inspired, and comprehensive about a controversial topic in America both as part of a specific campaign issue as well as part of a bigger reflection of our national identity. It seems that it would be easy to draw up on the stark difference that Obama brings in comparison with any politician in recent memory.

The second will be the one that I fear is more likely and supports your hypothesis. This is the "let us insider reporters translate what he said because you're too stupid to understand what politician's say" response. Blitzer, Dobbs, King, Hume, Sheperd, et al. will try to act as interpreters of the Senator's "political strategy" ignoring completely the message, truth, or conviction behind the rhetoric. Instead they will choose to take the easier road and predict if it will work on every demographic group under the sun.

I seriously hope that you are wrong and that the average American does see the opportunity we have to elect a leader who will truly lead us to participate in our country and look at our own lives differently.