I went to this site looking for something else, but this is worth reading on a strong stomach.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,542245,00.html

The conclusion I draw from your rationale is that in any conflict of opposing ideas there are only two outcomes- A wins and B loses or visa versa. Obama is saying that there are two other outcomes- both A and B can lose or win. Obama is asking adults to find ways for both sides to recognize that with the current approaches, when one side loses the other side loses and asks why by communicating and working together we can't find a ways for both to win.

1. It doesn't explain why he stayed in the church.

Huh? Go to http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords/ and search for "Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?" You may not like his answer, but he sure addressed this question head-on.

2a. You almost got this, but again, go back to the speech. The line Obama used was It's that he spoke as if our society was static. Note the "he spoke as if" part. Rhetoric. So you and Obama agree!

2b. You ramble a bit here, but I think you missed the point with it just falls into ridiculous post-racial naivete. No. I don't know how this speech could be considered post-racial; it addressed racial issues head-on in a way that just isn't done very often. If wanting to move past the "racial stalemate" and then starting to frame up some rhetoric about what that might look like (complete with almost-too-poignant story) is naive, then yes, I suppose he's naive.

I read and listened to this speech again tonight; I continue to think it's a great speech.

That's a mighty fine and voluminous work of pseudologic you have going there. I admire your tenacity in working to maintain the entire concept of this preacher being a serious issue to begin with. It takes a lot of work and a complete commitment to suspending any moral qualms to keep up that appearance.

Judging from the volume of work you have produced here, and its rather consistent agenda-driven nature, I assume you must be paid for this, or just independently wealthy / idly rich. My question would be: Who signs the checks?

... it's just too bad you aren't 40 years older. We could be reading your work in the history books.

JFK: "Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home."

Steinberg: "JFK's speech was eloquent and moving, but he did not address the real problem, which is how he is going to stop the Commies from polluting our precious bodily fluids!"

While what you say is true, it doesn't change the definition of pander. And while I can agree that most political pandering is insincere, my only point is that it is not necessarily so. I probably wouldn't have objected but for the fact that Glenn said "it's only pandering if he doesn't believe what he said". One can pander without being insincere. Pandering and hypocrisy are not synonyms.

I'm going to belabor this minor point because I think it may be worth the trouble. We are both correct but perhaps there should be two distinct types of political pandering. This wasn't pandering in my mind: "Read my lips, No New Taxes." Yet we all know how that turned out. You are relying on a quick and easy dictionary definiton to pander which is synonymous with to cater, "To attend to the wants or needs of.". I would argue that Lieberman caters to AIPAC, not really panders. I always like to check etymologies and the more encyclopedic dictionaries. Very illuminating. This is a different sense of pander, more like the media engages in:

His latest speech simply panders to the worst instincts of the electorate

Or caters?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pander

Political pandering is a more complex concept, actually a combination of of hypocrisy and related to demagogism.

The practices and principles of a demagogue; a pandering to the multitude for selfish ends.

This could actually use some editing, terrible sentence construction. If anyone wants to fix it up, have at it:

In politics, pandering is to portray one's views to fit in line with a certain crowd of voters the candidate is attempting to impress, when often, these are not the candidate's true beliefs. A candidate may engage in pandering out of desperation if s/he is already losing a race, or if polls taken prior to an election show others as being in the lead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandering

This started as a result of Glenn's comment in response to omooex about Obama's seemingly incongruous FoPo remark RE: Israel.

I basically agree with you and others that this passage was conspicuous in its inclusion, as though it really didn't belong with the rest of the speech. At the same time, I'm not sure that it's cynical -- it very well might be reflective of what Obama thinks.

There is, in one sense, some bad dog whistles in that paragraph -- but if you look at what he really said, he said that most of the conflict in the Middle East originates with radical Muslims, not with Israel. Disagreeing with that view isn't the same as proving that Obama doesn't really believe that. He might very well believe it.

Obama has a history of pretty aggressively disputing smears against him by emphasizing the reverse. I criticized him for that flier he circulated in South Carolina emphasizing what a "Committed Christian" he was, but many Obama supporters and others here defended it as necessary to combat the "Obama-is-a-Muslim" whispering campaign.

More than anything, that's how I saw the Israel/Islam paragraph -- as a means of combating the patently false (and potentially devastating) smear that Obama is anti-Semitic or at least hostile towards Israel. It's only "pandering" if he doesn't believe what he said.

-- GlennGreenwald

Obama has to make these declarations. His middle name is Hussein, after all. Israel can remain a staunch ally that we apply serious economic and political pressure on to cause them deal with problems in the region in a less heavy handed manner and encourage them to deal with the Palestinians in a more even handed manner. Carter did it and so did Clinton. This will never be enough for some people, who may want to see us flat out abandon the state of Israel. That's probably not going to happen just because Obama's middle name is Hussein. If he said that or even did that, he'd be pandering to another group.

Sysprog,

Since the pachyderm has invoked Taranto, I thought you might like to post this for us. It's a recent offering from Neiman Watchdog that requires the formatting skills that I lack and you possess. It targets that hack Taranto specifically, and I'm running out of space here.

Newspaper Web sites and White House disinformation

COMMENTARY | February 22, 2008

The Wall Street Journal print edition didn’t mention a recent report that cited more than 935 false statements by top Administration officials. The Journal’s Web site, however, not only mentioned the report—it attacked it. (Second of two parts.)

By Morton Mintz

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00231