But you don't need to tell us, you need to expand your range and seek other venues, where thes facts aren't already known and accepted.

And you know that I do not already do that how?

I would suggest that you try educating people as to the facts of the drug war.

Then you will see just how hard it is to get the message across.

transcendent charisma. That's how I might best describe this speech, Glenn.(& almost as insightful as his 'pre-war' speech. Refer to it, if you haven't already.)

And like 'the speech' (pre-war one) let there be no mistake: It's purpose was 'no mere outburst of ignorant emotionalism or an expression of vague and pious hope.' It's appeal is not merely to foster a kumbahya moment of brotherly love and good-will among individual peoples, 'races' (or Appalachians). Rather, it implies a structual re-organization and change in the way which we view ourselves as Americans - and by extension, the world. In short, it was inclusive at the expense of exclusion - Poets might put it this way;

"I celebrate myself, and sing myself,

And what I assume you shall assume,

For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you." (*Walt Whitman)

I don't want to bug you, but Freud* (in his 'Civilization and It's Discontents') says the purpose of Mankind has ever been an inextricable evolution toward it's own collective identity. From family life to tribal solidarity, leading to the formation of city-states and, finally, in the formation of sovereign nations. Ultimately then, this logic suggests the well-being and peace of the world is, as evolution requires, inevitable, and based on an unshakeable faith and understanding of its realization.

(*don't ask me how Freud arrived at these conslusions. Ask William, he may know.)

kumbahya'all,

bah.

http://patterico.com/2008/03/19/jeremiah-wright-is-not-the-gop-pathway-to-victory

Oh, so you're a white elderly retiree living in Arizona--how CONVENIENT for your point.

I would suggest that you try educating people as to the facts of the drug war.

OK. I'll consider it for a post on my blog. Maybe also an LTTE for the Cronk. But in CA, we're talking quite a bit to the already-converted (although, granted, statewide, we still have issues).

Then you will see just how hard it is to get the message across.

Oh, I know. I've been at it for well over a quarter century.

Cheers,

I hated the war. I was drafted. My grandfather was West Point Officer and a Uncle was West Point graduate who died at Andrews Air Field on Thanksgiving Day, 1948. I was there at the accident, and held by my father. A innocent one month old chubby baby and my dad's brother... Poor dad.

I was DRAFTED, and opposed to the war before the draft.

`

I mentioned the war-experience before. Thanks William T. etc., I made it "home" somehow to speak! To eat dry peanut butter and WW 2 stale crackers?

W.T. Etc.,

You were my backup? Yup. Thank you very much. Honest.

You applied the arterial tourniquet to both lower legs. The grunt never, in our Mobile First Cav. Unit, ever burned a straw hootch, or participated in war crimes. We evacuated the DEAD. We went into Hot L.Z's .... Landing Zones ... and were fired at often... I loved the Asians, identified with them, and was SHOCKED how easily we naive youth were deceived (Tricked by lies) by LIES.

The architects and planners of the fiasco were the war criminal then, and also, NOW!

`

I've written about the Fear, hurt, and great dismay .... BETRAYAL....

Maybe for an attempt at Understanding: see * Chris Floyd's sister site.

I've "spoke" @ The Atlantic Free Press.

Thanks, O Hospitality. GO to the V.A. today.

P.S.

I never aimed my gun at another, but one time

That was a sad, 3-on-one, self-defense day.

I hear the screams every day. War hurts. Gads.

Sincerely,

Art James.

Obviously, going to a Republican campaign event is an endorsement of Duke's overt racism.

Nah, all those Republicans that voted for him just thought he was a nice fella with a disturbing message (The Obama defense)...As for Glenn, as long as the Republicans are supported by nutty racists it's o.k. to have ours too.

*It feels even more like a beautiful speech.

*Ultimately, the tactical campaign considerations will seem incidental and transient.

*Subtle in rhetorical structure and heartfelt, it was like an eloquent summation to a jury.

*Obama jumped on the opportunity to deliver something that has been on his mind and in his heart constantly?

*The insistent hysterical hand-wringers fretting about scary Pastor Wright were never really going to end up on Obama's side anyway (who here compared Jeremiah to a rapper? That's a good insight into the pastor as a performer, and about his audience).

*It is too facile to read much into the pandering components of the speech. Good faith demands that any who think certain remarks require explication must make inquiry to the utterer.

*I don't think the speech either won or lost the election for Obama. He did win something else though, some kind of personal ephemeral victory.

*Why's everybody gotta be so got-dam serious all the time?

*Why'd I always got ta be so wrong about everything all the time?

Glenn's comments reflect a troubling aspect of the Obama phenomenon: the implicit assumption that the Clintons are part of all the problems that Obama inspires us to tackle.

There are good reasons to support Obama over Hillary, and yesterday's speech is the best one yet. But the main argument that supporters put forth--We Need Change--has begun to carry an unstated message that I simply hate to hear Democrats making: the Clintons are part of the mess we need to change.

As long as Obama's need-to-change message stayed focused on Bush and Cheney, I was all ears. It lacked potency for me, because I figured Hillary would provide plenty of change for the better. Now that he has broadened his critique in a way that implicates the political culture as a whole and anyone involved in politics over the past 20 years, I see it as an attack on fellow Democrats, perhaps unintentional but potent nonetheless.

Glenn's statement perfectly encapsulates this self-destructive ploy: "...there hasn't been a serious national campaign in a very long time that has attempted to elevate itself above the Drudgian muck by relying (not entirely, but mostly) upon reasoned discourse and substantive discussions -- at least not with the potency that Obama generates."

I grant him the saving caveat at the end, but I read that statement as an indictment of Kerry, Gore, and the Clintons. Glenn does not say that candidates weren't able to take the high road because the political environment was ruled by Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, and Chris Matthews. He said that our Democratic nominees did not even "attempt..reasoned discourse" or "substantive discussions."

Don't get me wrong, I love Obama, but he is channeling a key Repubulican talking point: "If we've been bad, it's no worse than the other side." This subliminal message is resonating with a good chunk of Democrats who don't like the Clintons. They have very good reasons to not like the Clintons and to want something different. The problem comes when these Democrats move beyond substantive disagreement about issues and, intentionally or not, contribute to what the Republicans and the media have done to the Clintons and their successors. It adds to the friendly fire we take from supposed allies in the media who contribute directly to Clinton bashing or hide under their desks whenever it erupts.

Please tell me all the ways that Clinton has failed us substantively, but don't paint her with the same brush you use for Atwater. For all their faults, do we Democrats really see the Clintons as part of the mess we need to get beyond? Sure, they screwed up in big ways and small. But Drudgian? Glenn's statement that Clinton and Gore were Drudgian is music to Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd, Joe Klein, Frank Rich, and the heavenly host of Clinton-haters who have ruled our discourse for too long.