I also was moved by Os' speech to appeal to the belief in Americas better angels.

Optimistic? Delusional thinking?

I don't think so....

I think that's why this moment in time is so critical for a leader like Sen Obama to seize upon.

He knows his strengths,his faith,his mind, his heart...and is not willing to compromise to play the silly rhetoric games that the msm tries to frame political discourse on.

He rises above it...and pundits don't know what or how to confound it-which is pretty amusing..

It's the msm that's behind the 8-ball on htis-and they have O's back..

Because it's been a very long time when anyone-much less a politician--is willing to place his faith in Americans and believe in Americas' goodness--over taking the msms' view that

we NEED govt to make dreams come true or have hope about the future..

He doesn't want to feed and prey on peoples' fears---and thus divide people to keep them enabled to higher powers (govt./corporate America)like the mssm does---he challenges people to take a look at thier own fears and face them head on,to rid ourselves of all the past baggage of battles fought ,prejudices, longstanding emotional scars--as a unified force to move forward and tackle the REAL problems of a nation--rather than divided, or preyed upon by the distractions of egoistic/intellectual debate..

Seen my share of humans. I prefer to be whatever it is you're calling me.

Thanks for providing quotes from Obama that illustrate the point you are trying to make. I did find the interview in question, for anyone interested in seeing the quote in context.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/844597,transcript031508.article

Joan Walsh did not say that Obama is getting away ”with blatant fibs (LIES)” (that was you). What she did say was ”Clearly his account of how much he knew has evolved some.” Her conclusion was “slippery sleight-of-mouth” (implying more than it says), but yours is simply inaccurate.

Both you and Joan seem to think it is obvious that Obama was saying he never heard anything objectionable in church, but it seems more likely to me that he was talking about ”the statements that have caused controversy”. Or are you arguing that Obama did hear these same things on days other than July 22? If so, please provide your source of information.

As pointed out by others, you also conflate the terms “objectionable” and “controversial”. It is more than a bit of a stretch to say that using different words to mean completely different things is a “blatant fib”. It is you who implicitly assert that Obama meant the same thing by these two words. What is your evidence for this? Or are you saying that every example of controversy that you can think of is also objectionable?

Cheney: Obama Speech on Race 'Important'

Mar 19th, 2008 | WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney said he disagrees with Sen. Barack Obama's pastor on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and called the Democratic presidential candidate's speech on race important.

Cheney, who was in Oman as part of a Middle East trip, declined to say whether he believes Obama was correct to stop short of completely distancing himself from his spiritual mentor when he denounced the pastor's remarks in a speech Tuesday. Cheney made the remarks in an interview with ABC News.

"It was an important speech, but I will let the Democrats wrestle with their own issues and problems," Cheney said, according to a transcript released by the White House.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, formerly of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, suggested in one sermon that the United States brought the Sept. 11 attacks on itself and in another said blacks should damn America for continuing to mistreat them.

Asked if he had problems with Wright's comments, particularly his 9/11 remarks, Cheney said: "I do. ... I obviously don't agree with him."

Cheney said he plans to "do everything I can to help" Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting.

Asked if he would campaign for McCain, Cheney replied: "I don't have any idea at this stage."

Seen my share of humans. I prefer to be whatever it is you're calling me.

-- omooex

You were just there while it happened -- with your eyes closed. I'm sure you heard some of it.

issue of controversialness, I think every reasonable person can agree to the following:

1. The controversy is a construct, for many reasons. The video has been out there for years, and as many, many have pointed out, these comments are quite bland compared to the Sodom and Gomorra allusions of Republican-backing preachers. This is just a silly contrivance, "drudgian" politics as Glenn observed.

2. Obama gave his speech for damage control purposes. He is a politician, he was patching the leaks. Remarkably, Obama used the speech to address issues rarely discussed in presidential elections, and he deserves accolades for that alone. But had the Wright 'controversy'not come up, when would he have talked about these issues? Certainly, I was gratified to hear him speak on a national stage about being the product of such great diversity, but it has rarely entered his discourse before.

3. He was comfortable with Wright before this. He has never repudiated him before, not even mildly, and it seems unlikely that he didn't know about this rhetoric. Wright and his church are a political tool, just as preachers and religeous affiliation are for Republicans. As a politician, you have to reach out to diverse constituencies, especially locally.

He and his speech writers have crafted a fine speech that should be considered by people of all ethnicity, race, and religion, in spite of the circumstances under which it was delivered. In my mind, this is one of the greatest problems our nation faces, and it is one that legislation and regulation can not fix (cf., war, poverty, corruption, imperialism, economy, lack of health care, global warming, torture, etc.).

But, it fails as an explanation or excuse for his inaction and subsequent equivocations. On the other hand, it probably succeeded in calming his political waters.

For over a year, Barack Obama pretended to be absent during and, to some degree, ignorant of the vitriol being spewed in his church. The main objective of his speech was to quash the growing realization of his denials among his supporters and his detractors. I doubt that he discussed this with any members of his church's clergy or congregation contemporaneous with the sermons.

For over a year, Barack Obama has hidden behind equivocation, pretense, excuse, and denial when confronted on many other personal and political issues. No pretty speeches will distract the audience from these.

I, a Hillary Clinton supporter, will vote for either of our nominated candidates.