The Obama speech was what it was, a piece of rhetorical craftsmanship. A speech like that one is usually designed, deliberatley, to be uplifing, inspiring.

And it was.

It is not meant to cover every simmering issue that may be out there, or rebut every angle in the last 24-hour news cycle. So, it can't carry more than the writer meant for it to carry.

It was a great speech on its own terms, and, within the context of exceptionally dreary American oratory over the last generation especially, it stands with some great historical speeches.

It would be better if people listened to it whole, to engage in its rhythms, themes, and visions, as it, through Obama's voice and presence, attempted to deal with the issue of race in this country, and the specific problem of Jeremiah Wright's words.

This was a rare event.

It would be better to listen to the whole speech instead of listening to someone like Dick Morris interpret it for everyone. He made much of contradictions, apparently. Well, Dick, a speech is designed to have some comtradiction, some antithesis. But, Dick, you deal in soundbites, verbal slice and dice, and you think that's signficant analysis.

Dick and Brit serve a purpose in our soundbite news culture, but is doesn't do much more than cast pure speechmaking into a perjorative light, as if a great speech is a hustle.

A speech is performance, but sometimes, like yesterday, it is much more than that.

Once again, neither John McCain nor Hillary Clinton will be able to match the oratorical skill of Barack Obama. He may not win the nomination or the election based on speeches, but they can't keep up on the level he displayed yesterday.

And as far as McCain goes in Soundbite World, he's having trouble even with that, given his inability to say, accurateley, in 15 seconds, just what evidoers Iran is training these days.

Hillary's better at bites and speeches, but she ain't no Cicero.

Where would we be without them? Mine was a mother of invention. Played the piano, slipped me books to read, loved puns. She'd be amused at the idea that omooex was channeling her, and pleased. She pretty much liked everybody, or at least found them interesting -- and she listened. I guess I was blessed. I sorta knew it at the time, but in retrospect, especially, I begin to realize what I owe.

I haven't read any of the comments, thus far, but I think it was a perfect analytical response to Obama's speech. Obama's speech challenges the listener. It is so far removed from political talking points it is almost shocking that a politician gave the speech. It is a challenge. One I'm not sure America is ready to handle. But at the end of the day, win or lose, I am so thankful he is running. Because in the future, the near future, I can expect better from my candidates. We can all expect a higher level of discourse. And we don't need to feel ashamed for asking for it.

I meant to take the quotations out of "rugged patriots" - that was Glenn summarizing previously how Gingrich described them.

Now that Obama has addressed this issue, I would hope that he confronts the underlying problem: that our political discourse is dominated by authoritarian, amoral, unprincipled partisan firebreathing ideological cretins.

This is what the GOP noise machine does and it is what it will do every moment that there either is or a chance that someone other than a Republican they consider sufficiently zealous enough (they're perfectly happy to go "RINO hunting") is in the White HOuse. They will create some "scandal" over some issue that they will manage to be oh so indignat about despite probably having done the same or worse themselves. They will circle and attack in a frenzy like a pack of piranhas.

And the Democrat or target of their latest Two Minutes Hate will be expected to do what Obama just did: to defend himself.

As a culture: shouldn't we be sick of this? Should we be tired of having our political discourse dominated by the Druge-Hannity-Limbaugh propaganda axis? It's transparent that they care not about facts or reason - they are the political equivalent of creationists - they attack because they are 100 percenters who can not stand the idea that the American people might vote against them.

Why can these disgusting creatures continue to monopolize the national debate despite their sickening racism and bigotry: the way they with a wink make sure to say Barack HUSSEIN Obama so that they can play on the vile prejudice of the public, echoing the same sort of attacks that white supremacists who plan to kill Obama partake in on a daily basis.

Enough! It's time for responsible figures in the public eye to stop pretending these people merit anymore significance than any other group of ideologues who hate democracy do.

We turn on Fox News and see Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich lecturing us about "America haters." That's the same Karl Rove who made pandering to the biggest America hating extremist religious figures in the country a core GOP strategy. The same Newt Gingrich who expressed sympathy for the survivalists and milita men who prepared to overthrow the US government "rugged patriots."

Sean Hannity is oh so outraged about Obama's association with Wright. What about the GOPs association with Rush Limbaugh? What, no outrage there? That's the same Rush Limbaugh who previously expressed sympathy for a potential American revolution to overthrow the Clinton gov't:

"The second violent American revolution is just about - I got my fingers about a fourth of an inch apart - is just about that far away. Because these people are sick and tired of a bunch of beuracrats in Washington driving into town and telling them what they can and can't do."

The same Rush Limbaugh who said:

LIMBAUGH: There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur?

CALLER: Uh, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble.

CALLER: Yes. Yes. The black population.

LIMBAUGH: Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela -- who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.

Republicans routinely describe the EPA or OSHA or the IRS as gestapo, fascists, or Nazis. No outrage from the oh so outraged.

Republicans can appear at a conference with religious extremists who cite a Stalin quote about assasinating his political enemies as a solution to federal judges who don't decide cases they way they want them decided.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38308-2005Apr8.html

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary.

Again, where's the national crisis when that happens? Why doesn't everything stop and revolve around the Outrage brigade's 24/7 performance of histrionic indignance?

This happens over and over and over again and yet the press at large continues to just cover their bullshit and not point out that these folks don't actually give a shit about whatever it is they are outraged about - they're just attempting to smear a target however they can since they can't win out in the course of normal democratic politics.

These people are making Richard Hofstadter's hunch a reality.

"[I]n a populistic culture like ours, which seems to lack a responsible elite with political and moral autonomy, and in which it is possible to exploit the wildest currents of public sentiment for private purposes, it is at least conceivable that a highly organized, vocal, active and well-financed minority could create a political climate in which the rational pursuit of our well-being and safety would become impossible"