Why? Because, for over two years, I've read Glenn Greenwald. He always seemed to have faith (when few did, including me) that the American public could get beyond sound bytes and understand and do the right thing. For some damned reason, that kept me going. Then, slowly, came the evidence. Just look through these pages to see it – the netroots having a measurable effect, House Democrats (even many Blue Dogs) rejecting telecom immunity, a Democrat winning in Hastert's district. That's only a few recent examples. The list goes on and none of it happened without a lot of Americans understanding more than sound bytes.

I now believe that enough of the American public are capable and willing to “step up and receive the speech in the same spirit in which it was given.” I'll even go further – I believe that Obama's speech will have a positive effect on and will help hearten many Democrats in Congress. We're getting somewhere, after all.

Obviously, Obama has some sympathy for what that preacher says.

But that doesn't mean Obama will throw whites into slavery or sell America to the highest bidder.

And being angry at the situation many blacks are in, is not as significant as Bush starting a war and McCain promoting more war.

As a package deal, Obama is huge and good. This preacher issue will teach him to be even more politically and socially astute.

Thanks for the "warning" (I think I find the thought of living to 99 a little scary - but I ain't close yet, either - folks have been known to think differently the closer they get), and the recommendation. Tullamore Dew? Heck, I'm game. Worst that can happen is I go blind, right?

EJ: Good point. I hadn't looked at it that way, but you're right!

I crunched the numbers. Similar results can be seen elsewhere. Click my sig for the sanguinary details.

Cheers,

[odog11] ”Oh no, another news agency doesn't understand "nuance"

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4480868&page=1

Lol...”

Thanks again for a link; it allows us to see the mistaken logic used to come to the conclusions you like to spout.

Here is the section of the article that concludes that “Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons.”

[Brian Ross (ABC)] Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.

"I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," Obama said at a community meeting in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month.

"He has said some things that are considered controversial because he's considered that part of his social gospel; so he was one of the leaders in calling for divestment from South Africa and some other issues like that," Obama said on March 2.

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

Let us break this down.

1) In the past Obama listed several categories of controversial things that he knew Wright had spoken about (without a direct quote).

2) Earlier in the month (March 2??) Obama said he doesn’t think the church is particularly controversial (with a quote).

3) On March 2 Obama talked about why some things Wright has said are considered controversial (with a quote).

4) Obama (later?) said he had not heard Wright make anti-US comments (without a direct quote).

Ross then concludes: ”But yesterday, he told a different story.”

Because...

5) Yesterday Obama said that he heard Wright make controversial remarks (with a quote).

Note that Ross’s conclusion does not follow from his own reported facts.

It is amazing what you can be “proven” by asserting a conclusion, mentioning a few marginally related facts, and reporting it on the web. Then others (like you, odog11) can provide links to these so-called "proven facts”, and then proceed to generate yet more elaborate conclusions such as your own from a previous post that Obama is a blatant liar because he told a different story on two different occasions.

This isn't nuance, it is fabrication.

I nervously waited for the speech to begin, watching the moniker on MSNBC say that Obama’s speech would begin “in a few minutes”, then after 15 minutes had passed, the screen legend said that his speech “would begin shortly”.

While waiting, I remembered the idealists that had gone before, only to be chewed up and devoured by the cynical media and opposing political machines, never to recover. I admittedly had butterflies before he began speaking, wondering if the great dream he had voiced was essentially at an end.

Once he began speaking, I waited for the politically incorrect statement that everyone from Hillary Clinton to Rush Limbaugh would pounce on and use to bludgeon him. He was speaking from a position of weakness. His was a defensive posture, with the best that he could hope to do being that he could undo some of the damage of the last week’s media cycle focusing on race.

However, Obama did not see it that way. He saw it as an opportunity to instruct us about not only who he is, but about who we are as Americans.

Barack Obama continued to give an inspiring message that was nothing less than historic. At its conclusion, the commentators and pundits sat stunned. Their inflammatory rhetoric somehow felt out of place, and they proceeded to speak in reverent, hushed tones.

When I turned on Stephanie Miller’s radio show after the speech, many callers were in tears. I was choked up as well, and felt that I had witnessed a marvel. I had seen a man who had decided to face an issue head on, without being evasive or clever, or parsing what the meaning of “is” is.

Instead, he addressed the issues of race, politics, and religion and asked us to believe that success in America does not have to be a zero-sum game, where one group’s achievements come at the expense of another.

Yes, cynics will recover and find their voice. Shrill invective will be once again be spewed to vapid listeners who wrap themselves in their warm cocoon of insensitivity and self-interest.

However, for a few hours, we as Americans felt good about ourselves, and who we could become as a nation. In a moment where Barack Obama was supposed to try to rescue his campaign, he decided to make it not his moment, but our moment, and left us all better for having listened.