Had Obama actually taken a stand on any of the myriad civil rights concerns now before the nation and promised to address these...even as he addressed the parallel fears in the white community...this would have been a major speech.

I think this was at least peripherally my own point.

You said it better than I can, thanks.

Other words cannot describe how much I hate that one.

However, though you've written many disgusting things, Buckoooh, I choose to let most of them pass without my comments, since they would add nothing. But...

I do not know what the vegetable did as his gibberish is not worth reading most of the time.

You know nothing, and yet you feel "free" to call someone a vegetable?

So don't feel too bad, William.

I understand your reluctance in taking too much 'comfort' in the Obama speech, too. A few posts ago I mentioned that I 'trusted' Obama, but forgot to add the 'as far as I can throw him'.

as far as it goes,

bah.

I've been known to comment that "Anybody who would NOT vote for Obama simply on the basis of his race, would never vote Democratic in any case."

Should I be rethinking that postulate?

As one of those older white guys, I wish Obama would go after them in full force in Pennsylvania, especially the so-called Reagan Democrats in the heart of the state. As someone who grew up in the southern part of the country, I've seen how sometimes it takes years and years for change to happen and sometimes people's views and emotions can change in the space of a moment. If Obama visits the blue-collar voters (maybe on a whistle-stop tour) in the middle of Pennsylvania and talks and listens to them face-to-face he will make converts. Maybe not enough to win but, along with this speech, it will help to turn things around with these voters, at least some of whom he will need in the general election. I know they don't like hearing they are racist, so talk to them and show them what kind of man he is and, maybe not publicly, some of them will end up voting for him because, in the end, they are not that different from other Obama voters who know we have to change the way things are done in this country.

From Joan's article: Clearly his account of how much he knew has evolved some. Where a few days ago Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times, "I had not heard [Wright] make such what I consider to be objectionable remarks from the pulpit. Had I heard them while I was in church, I would have objected," on Tuesday his story seemed different: "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

Why does he always get a free pass on remarks like this...

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"