GG,

It is a wonderful effort to try to rise above the Drudgian muck, and I don't see any option other than to try, even if it is predestined to fail.

And remember, it is not as though Feingold or Holt or Dodd or so many others have not tried addressing complex issues in other than sound-bites; if the response to Obama opens up even a little more space for them, it will be wonderful.

But to me, as a political speech, the speech was a failure. Addressing race as an issue is one thing. Addressing race a public problem that he could help to solve as President quite another. 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.

To me, you missed the point. He was addressing the dialog itself, attempting to raise the bar on political discussion in general. As sad as it may be, that needs to be done to clear the air before any speech of the type you are calling for will get a fair hearing. And, as I said before, this really isn't his fight. The media is the organization that is responsible for the low quality of discourse, the media is responsible for why a substantive dialog on the 'myriad civil rights concerns' will get A17'd.

Whether or not he gets the candidacy or the presidency, it was high time someone chucked their media advisers, stayed up late, and wrote and delivered an indictment on the notion that the electorate is a bunch of dumb children that should have things decided for them by big momma media, and candidates are a bunch of dumb cardboard cutouts that should have their issues and speeches chosen by big daddy media. That he spoke on race, and spoke well, is due to the slurs aimed at him. We may yet hear something similar out of Hillary Clinton on gender and on hating the wives of men sexually exposed by the right wing. And it will take a whole lot more of these speeches to get the media corporations to give up, but at least they know their agenda to permanently usurp the political power of the voting public is under attack. Coverage of this speech is a first indicator of who is a real journalist, and who is a corporate media hack playing power games and denying the people their rights.

I hope you're buying those talking points in bulk... if you're paying retail for each one you're definitely getting screwed.

So please refute them...BTW they're so transparently obvious I picked up most of them from a 99 cent bin...

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.

-- odog11

I "can't look at both statements and see that he was obviously lying." Language and nuance are not your forte.

I can look at both statements and see how an "occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy" could make "remarks that could be considered controversial" as I sat in the pews and strongly disagreed with both, i.e., some or all of the criticisms of American foreign and domestic policy or remarks I considered to be controversial and still not contradict myself when I said: "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..."

Thank you for your comments here. They are a big help in my continuing education.

You don't look like a wingnut. What is your major malfunction?

The key word is "objectionable."

Set that against "fierce," "controversial," and "disgreed."

I think your problem is that you don't see you want Obama to object to what YOU find objectionable. Good luck.

Language and nuance are not your forte.

Guess (Language and nuance are not your forte) are not Joan Walsh's or the writers at the Chicago Tribune forte either...

Odog is representative of the low context information voters that weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

We have arrived at the moment in our history where the dirty tricks of the politically ambitious and the media henchmen who have manipulated our senses will have played our social anxieties against each other one too many times. I fear that this time we have embarked on a voyage across the racial tipping point and the consequences will be dire.

As I have sadly witnessed over the past 24 hours, the noise machine refuses to acknowledge the unifying prose of Obama's speech as anything but genuine. Instead, these vultures have been on a tireless campaign of creating desperate new ratings generating material out of splitting hairs, mincing words, and in general reopening a very sensitive, polarizing wound. Yet for all their bravery to cover this very sensitive story, I don’t quite think the media has realized the shit storm that is about to rain down all over their pretty, make up clad faces.

The foot soldiers of the fair and balanced brigade aren’t just perpetuating a social narrative which only critiques the often distorted commentaries discussed in the black community. In addition, they aren’t just using this critique in repetitive fashion to play to the fears of a certain demographic and change their minds and votes. No, these intrepid morons have also decided to ensnare Americans in a critique of a far greater taboo: attacking the religious dogma of the inner city. Very smart.

Now there is a very slippery slope to point out here. You know the slope. It’s loosely tied to that whole "melting pot" experiment which has narrowly escaped utter chaos over the last 400 years. Some call it the founding principle of our country, others call it religious tolerance. The rules of this game are fairly simple and goes like this.

YOU CAN NOT DRAW NATION WIDE ATTENTION TO AN IMPICATION WHICH INSINUATES THAT0 THE RELIGIOUS THOUGHTS AND BELIEFS SHARED BY A LARGE SECT OF OUR SOCIETY ARE HATEFUL, MISGUIDED OR INCORRECT AND NOT EXPECT A MAJOR BACKLASH. So yeah, using a 24 hour news cycle as a place to call attention to how insane someone’s religious beliefs are, not the smartest of ideas.

Now compound this with the fact that the black community is eventually going to take notice that the media circus and agents of opportunity have used their faith and religious beliefs to derail the first real African American candidate. A man who has made it to the head of the pack, despite the stonewalling of many who marginalize his lead with superficialities. A man representative not only of dark skin color, but also representative of greater sea change inclusive of, and sensitive to the ideals and principles of all Americans.

Yeah, wait until Black America wakes up on the morning that their candidate has been disenfranchised by the association of a fiery preacher who, in their minds calls it like they see it. Wait until Black America cites the hypocrisy of White ministers who teach that homosexuality is an abomination, that mothers who have abortions are murderers, yet preach unconditional love. Wait till they get you tube footage of white preachers stating that racism is bad but that God condemns mixing "bloodlines." You don’t fuck with someone’s religious beliefs. It is that simple.

When that day comes, and I pretty sure it will… I will be thinking to myself, "God Damn, America."