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

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.

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.

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.

Blacks scare you. That's the reason for the prejudice. Comparing David Duke to Wright doesn't quite work, does it? It's almost like comparing Manson to his victims.

Why does Obama get a way with blatant fibs (LIES)

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...

-- odog11

I don't see that this:

"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

As necessarily being in contradiction with this:

"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,"

That's the problem...you can't look at both statements and see that he was obviously lying...Just like the fact his memory was a bit off on the amount of money Tony Rezko raised for him. Or that his memory slipped when he "borrowed" a whole speech from his friend.

"Other words cannot describe how much I hate that one."

And why? A celery is a vegetable, and it is far less than what he has been calling me for over a year. And, the stuff he writes is gibberish most of the time.

But you think as you please.

I read the various posts here on "The Corner," mostly pretty ho-hum or critical about Obama's speech. Then I figured I'd better read the text (I tried to find a video of it, but couldn't). I've just finished. Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant--rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols.... But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjI3MWMyOGFkNmQ2MGFjNzRhYzYwMGVhZWJhMjcyOGM=

Quite an endorsement considering the source. Most of you know who Murray is. The rest can google.