I think you have gone straight to the heart of the issue. I'm not sure if it is a matter of the American public's intelligence though, I think it has more to do with our cultural norms. We live in the tv age after all, and we learn when we are very young to react emotionally to products in television commercials. That is their purpose, a passive emotional appeal. And over the years politicians have increasingly uses the same techniques that ad agencies use to sell products, even using the same agencies.

My greatest hope is that Obama's appeals to rational discussion can overcome our collective learned behavior of emotional reactionarism, but sadly I think he has a steep hill to climb.

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

-- odog11

So I don't have to.

William was saying that to me just the other day, about slapping the wrong people sometimes. If I though William needed a good slap upside the head, well -- with William, I'd just cuff his ears a little. And I have.

;-)

Same goes for Ms. Walsh, anyone. Left or right. I'm like that.

I'm sure I have the occasional bias or blind spot. Don't we all?

Every political strategist worth his/her salt knows that the only reason Barack Obama was standing up there trying to discuss race is because HE WAS FORCED TO!

He could have used the opportunity back in South Carolina, or anyplace along the campaign trail, couldn't he? What? Did he think we didn't notice he was black although he and his campaign refused to acknowledge it?

If the tapes of Wright has not surfaced when they did, do you really think Obama would have made that speech? HELL NO!

It started off okay, then lapsed into yet another Obama-Rama lecture. Maybe we should create a new Department of Homeland Lecture and appoint Obama to it.

The number one problem in this country is our ability to live, eat, breathe, and drink clean water with a roof over our heads - not race.

The TV talking heads couldn't help put piss their pants over this mess. Where were THEY two months ago when a black man was running for President of the United States? Oh yeah, waiting for Hillary Clinton to drop so they could get up his butt completely. I forgot.

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..."

This statement tells me all I need to know. These words are not mine but from Obama's mouth. He did not find the words he heard from Pastor Wrights to be objectionable. Please spin the "nuance" part of this...

You sure do ramble.

You figured it out! Good boy!

odog

You figured it out! Good boy!

-- Baldie McEagle

Maybe he should get out the dogtionary.

I don't find 9/11 troofers "objectionable". Just laughable.

That's funny. I thought the number one problem was our insistence on the right to deprive others of their abilty to live, eat, breathe, and drink clean water with a roof over their heads by force of arms if necesary.

And irrational hatred for anyone outside however the local tribe is defined is a related close second.

But I'm not hungry so I suppose I have different priorities.

This is objectionable.

http://www.halturnershow.com/

But it's still legal.

It's not a double standard. Only a racist would see it that way. The victims of racism and oppression have every right to be angry. White men who claim they are being oppressed by this government have every right to kicked in the ass down the street.

Sorry, LWM I'll be "Wright" back...I have a batch of "Metaphorical Aids" to cook up on consignment for the C.I.A...

re: me and http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com - did you have a brain fart or something? All I wrote is that even if it is predestined to be a failure, it is worth a try to raise the political discourse. How does that give me a major malfunction or turn me into a wingnut?

odog,

i think its fairly obvious. this issue is not a a matter of character as much as you wish it could be. this is a person very close to the winning the democratic nomination and eventually the white house. he like anyone, wants to keep those odds on his side. he tried to do damage control by downplaying the issue and when it blew up, it ended up that he needed to do alot more. yes his hand was forced but it didnt make the speech any less compelling. people of your mindset after all forced him to play this hand.

now you are splitting hairs and acting like this is an integrity issue. he said this yesterday then this today. in the end he is not guilty of saying any of these things, and there is 2 years worth of press footage to show as evidence that everything he has said from the conception of his bid for president embodies an entirely different tone.

Suck the bone dude.

only an idiot or maybe just someone who has a vested interest to see him lose would think he shares the reverands sentiments.

L.W.M.

Sorry, LWM I'll be "Wright" back...I have a batch of "Metaphorical Aids" to cook up on consignment for the C.I.A...

-- odog11

Some mobile biological weapons labs in Iraq while your at it.

macgupta,

You read Lindsey Beyerstein and post the drivel from HWNSNBM here. I find that a disconnect. You are young, unsophistucated and confused.

only an idiot or maybe just someone who has a vested interest to see him lose would think he shares the reverands sentiments.

I would suppose only an idiot or someone with a vested interest in seeing him win would excuse or deny every one of his seemingly growing list of denials and fibs and outright lies...