If i can say, as a certified expert on pwnage, that speech pwned.

You know what else pwns? Hillary releasing her First Lady schedules. Can someone say trump card?

Good job to both today.

Yes, indeed. But I think it's important not just to go in for Obama's pretty words (pretty though they were). When most Democrats with as much campaign apparatus as Barack would have gone into a corner and wet themselves when a key ally and old friend was attacked by Rush and co., this man went and grabbed the nettle itself.

None of this happy-sappy "America's a great country and it always will be" jazz. We have struggles with our consciences and our history as we should. But that doesn't mean we're bad people - we're only bad people if we declare that the current state of affairs is indeed right and just when it is not so.

Put that speech up next to anything that has been studied by folks like Dr. Drew and it will certainly measure up.

There's a difference between pretty and empty words, and a monologue that displays a deep understanding and long study of a given problem. Barack just reminded me yet again of what it was like to have a President that had a mind capable of running this country and seeing a way to the future.

In four years, no Democrat should be allowed to open their mouth without being schooled by this brilliant fellow.

even better...John Murtha endorsed Hillary.

http://www.tribune-democrat.com/local/local_story_078184832.html?keyword=topstory

Oh yeah ... what the hell ever happened to that guy, anyways?

I haven't heard a peep from him since the middle of last year.

he went back to being a blue dog or in otherwords unimportant.

not too unimportant to lots of veteran folks.

im just commenting on the high regard held for blue dogs.

here is another thing, just to compare 08 with 04, do we think Kerry would have responded to a similar situation with anything other than pansy ass elitist bull shit? the correct answer is no he didn't and wouldn't

At least Murtha has admitted his war vote was wrong.

Murtha's been busy getting more earmarks. It's funny how a blue dog became the progressive darling when he started to question the war. He got pounded by some of the same people as the biggest supporter of the military industrial complex. Which he still is, btw.

On the Obama speech.... It took real stones for him to do it the way he did.

He looked, shall we say, Presidential up there. I've never wavered in my support of him and this just reaffirmed my commitment.

Huckabee seems to get it...

HUCKABEE: [Obama] made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can't. Whether it's me, whether it's Obama...anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements.

And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.

Yeah - I really can't see any of the Democratic candidates since perhaps Bill Clinton actually charging into an area where they are being slandered.

If every Democrat learns how to fight the "It's okay if you're a Republican" crowd in this way, we'll be alright.

After all, how many times have the hateful comments of Falwell, Robertson, Haggee or others been so thoroughly analyzed?

Falwell blamed 9/11 on the US because of gays. Wright blamed it on the US because we fucked with the world and it finally wanted to fuck back. It's hard to dismiss that out of hand unless you're a wealthy Alpharetta prick that hasn't looked outside your own SUV for years. It might be possible to argue with it logically.

Meanwhile, Falwells comments - a connection between gays, God's wrath and a terrorist strike shouldn't even be entertained.

But, I think Obama got it right. Wright's anger and bitterness has a real basis and that shouldn't be dismissed. It also shouldn't entirely be dismissed when some random country boy (who never was a racist) looks at him funny and asks "what the hell does this have to do with me?"

Yeah, he kicked Kerry's ass on that one.

Having spent the better part of this news cycle on a morphine drip, the closest I can come to intelligent commentary on this is to point you to this link: http://gawker.com/369639/media-still-baffled-by-non+pandering-race-speech

Good speech. I would guess that some black people might not equate their struggles with the feelings of white people who think "urban" neighborhoods are dangerous being accused of racism or not being able to get into the school they want to because of their perception that their child's spot went to a minority.

It's equating of black anger to white anger makes both the same, a white candidate could not do that without a secondary problem that he/she would then have to apologize for.

Of course, we, and the media, and the people who really pay attention love this speech. Its a good speech that throws enough medicine in with the sugar that we feel we are hearing truth. Just like "the jobs aren't coming back" speech, which still paints a rosy picture for the working future of Ohio.

Its is a great election speech, but what policies can we divine from it?

Yeah, people are classicist and racist. Agreed, but policy?

Based on this speech, would you say Obama supports affirmative action? He mentions the anger of blacks based on past discrimination (which is the technical, legal justification for affirmative action programs for university admissions), and also spoke of the legitimate feelings of whites when their child is passed over for admission to college in favor of a minority.

So what position? Of course both sides have at least semi-legitimate views, which is why policy making is hard. But by embracing both, he gives himself no room to move. Great election speech, though.