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.

I have no idea what any of this means and I suspect you don't either. How was this cynical? Or a ploy?

I'm going to hazard a guess that you weren't exactly a fan of obama prior to the Wright story, so I'm not sure what your skepticism of his attempt to address it is worth.

The speech was different from what politicians usually offer. If you can't see that it not Obama that is cynical, but you.

If you want to take issue with it, quote sections and tell us what is so manipulative about it.

This whole episode with the pastor -- as well as the crazy pastor who endorsed John McCain -- leaves me longing for a truly secular presidential candidate. There's just too much damn religion in politics. I know it's naive to think that a non-religious person will ever be a serious presidential nominee, but I still long for it.

"I fear you may be right about it, but nonetheless I found Obama's speech to be excellent. It did not pander to people; it did not dumb down the subject."

Such an objective analysis. It must have been tough to rationally analyze it through all of your tears.

"That's the kind of president the U.S. needs right now. But will the U.S. be smart enough to realize it?"

Yes, will the poor dumb masses in the US be smart enough to realize they need him? What a great question. Oh boy...

So I clicked on won'tgetfooledagain's other letters, clicked on a random link out of the 17 or so pages that popped up, and found one of him gleefully trying to carry water for that "Obama plagiarized Deval Patrick's speech" meme.

I fear you won't get anything but pre-digested talking points out of this one, if indeed it is capable of typing on its own.

...whether enough average voters will actually get to hear enough of the speech.

If they are only allowed sound bites, that will be a problem, but since Fox's star has begun to tarnish, I don't think that's likely.

Rhetorically, it was brilliant, and was one of the few (if not only) times any (American) politician has ever spoken so openly and even-handedly about race. How can the average voter not respond?

(Assuming of course that they, unlike the current occupant, can understand a few complex sentences...)

Don't waste your time. WGF wouldn't recognize courage and nuance if they climbed up on his desk and danced naked in front of his. Besides, they're both French words.

But how you play the game.

At least, that's what I'd like to believe. May Obama is right, maybe the electorate is smarter than FOX, CNN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek and other traditional media harbingers of conventional wisdom purport them to be.

Hopefully Obama is part of a new vanguard of politicians who can bring politics back to the people.

Joan Walsh:

Was Obama's speech enough? <yada-yada-yada...>

As I said, Oscar Mayer stocks would tank. Didn't even have to break a sweat to find that, didja? ;-)

Cheers,

It seems to be a naive thing to support someone like Barack Obama who appeals to hope and unity and the best that's in us. Yet I find this seeming surrender to cynicism unacceptable. Even more so after hearing this speech that was marvelous in its restrained tone and thoughtful meditation on this persistent issue of race in this country. Something we can never seem to articulate but only experience. It's a question we live but find hard to ask intelligently or with any kind of detachment. The speech for me said everything that I've always felt but never had words for. It connected the dots between past and present and laid out in stark terms some of the reasoning behind this misunderstanding and anger. He helped us see into each other's worlds and he somehow found a way to make us see that it's the same world, the same struggle, the same goal we're all reaching for. Still, to my dismay, the press and some people posting here are asking the wrong questions. Why not leave this church? Why did he not have the man drawn and quartered in public? Tarred and feathered at least. I think Obama anticipated those questions and answered them as honestly as he could. For the same reason that so many of us don't disown relatives or even friends when they say things that are out of line. And if we do, we don't do it easily. Bonds between loved ones are often very complex. They become frayed and strained but not easily broken. Everyone has these kinds of ties and understands the anguish of having to change a relationship that doesn't work the way it used to. This is so much the human story that to cheapen it in terms of mere "politics" is both insulting and cynical. The talking heads are so ready to dismiss this moment and measure the talk in terms of "momentum" for the campaign. These are the ones wondering how the "knuckleheads" will react. I submit that these are, in fact, the knuckleheads and Barack Obama wasn't talking to them. People like this were never going to vote for him or Hillary or any kind of meaningful change in the way we do our politics. This speech, this long needed meditation on race wasn't meant for them. This is not a conversation for stupid people. I agree with Mr. Greenwald. Adults only need participate, and thank God someone believes we're adult enough in this country to handle it.

I get the impression that Obama is not an easy choice for voters. That's too bad because I would hope that after the Bush presidency they would be ready to be more thoughtful about the kind of person who should be in the White House. Electing a president is a serious matter. Voting for someone who raises above the usual politics, who offers hope and reconciliation, who talks about ideals is an informed choice. Thank you for your speech Mr Obama. I was very moved.