Yes, it is refreshing to not go through this chain with controversy:

- Something is said or done.
- There is a negative response.
- Person claims that they didn't actually say or do it.
- It is shown that they really
- Person claims that even if they did say or do it obviously you misunderstood their intent or action.
- It is shown that there really isn't any other reasonable reading.
- Person claims well even if they did say or or do it, and even if it looks like that means something in particular, they didn't really mean it.
- The press and public gets bored and lets it slide into oblivion.
- Bill Schneider awards person the Political Power Play of the Week for having played politics so masterfully and having weathered the storm without actually admitting to anything.
- Lather, rinse, repeat.

Admittedly, I have no idea if this will result in anything good but it is a nice difference.

Whereas I never felt that Clinton's communication was sincere. Slick, yes. Sincere, no.

Oh, well, sorry but I don't find Obama's any more sincere. Forthright does not equal sincere in my book.

I think he was masterful at saving his skin. Where was this speech before he needed it politically???

If he had made the speech with no provocation, he would have been accused of "playing the race card".

One can't be 100% candid, nor can one not take political expediency into account at all and still expect to be President. But at the minimum, it's nice to see someone who is candid while making political moves.

Well, he wouldn't have been so accused by me. And for all I know, in all honesty, he may have said such things before now. I do not hear all of his speeches. In fact, this is perhaps the 2nd or 3rd I've heard all the way thru.


But it doesn't seem "sincere" to me what it's in reaction to the strongest (albeit bullsh!t) criticism he's had in the entire campaign. It was much more skillfull skin-saving than the rinse-repeat formula Alex detailed above, but it was skin-saving nonetheless. I don't see what can possibly be considered sincere in that.

Oh, I'm not saying the talk itself was pablum. It was really good stuff. As Jon Stewart said, so pleasantly rare to have race problems addressed in an adult manner.


He gets major talking props, yessiree.


But I think it's easy to forget, after 8 years of the man, how inspiring and seemingly forthright, and hope-enthused Bill Clinton was in his first campaign for president.


Like I said, I'll be happy to see Obama as pres. But I'm not falling over myself because he gives good talk. Fool me once, and all that.


So maybe I'm not giving Obama a fair shake because of my experience with Clinton. So what? If he's more than just talk as president, I'll be first in line to suck his dick under the oval office desk, ok?

Do you own a blue dress?

It's more of a frock really.

The thing that speech made me realize is why I'm attracted to him as a candidate. (Which I've wondered, given that I am not exactly the most liberal person on this board)

Part of the reason I was so for Giuliani was because I'd seen a speech he gave on C-Span (yes, people actually watch that channel... sometimes). It wasn't a historically significant speech, just one of many on the campaign trail for the then-running candidate. But in it, he'd addressed some issues head on, rather than sidestepping as so many candidates do. He'd been asked if his actions as mayor of NY (something related to offering health and education services to children of illegals) were inconsistent with his stance against illegal immigration. He basically took it head on and explained there was no inconsistency at all, that immigration is a federal issue, for the feds to handle, and his job as mayor of NYC was to see to the health, safety, and general welfare of the city's residents. That everyone was affected by sick people walking the streets (diseases are just as contagious to citizens), and that if there were children of illegals in the city anyway (the Feds failing to curtail the population), would it be better for those kids to be in school, learning how to be productive members of society, or to be left alone all day to hang out in the streets and committing crimes.

Apparently I dig a candidate who takes this stuff head on. More importantly, I look to be impressed with the substance of their response. I had that in Rudy, and we seem to have that in Barack.

Okay, I've seen it. For an adult discussion about race, I prefer Lisa Lampanelli: vulgar remarks about other groups that are all sort of grounded in truth.

But seriously: What struck me most about his speech was that his bow to the anger and frustrations of white Americans was straight Michael Moorer: your anger is understandable, but you're picking the wrong targets: You shouldn't be upset at the "lower classes," job loss, black crime, etc. You should be upset at the federal government and big corporations because there's no safety net.

Mind you, I agree with Michael Moorer. I just doubt that anybody will call Obama a crank and a hothead over these observations.

Whoops. Make that Michael Moore.

Michael Moorer? Well, I wouldn't call him names either.