I read the transcript before I saw any clips of the speech. I can understand you saying you disagreed with what he said, I can understand you saying you didn't believe what was said or didn't believe that he meant what he said. I do not, however, believe that anyone can argue that 'nothing was said'.

I am undecided at this time, but that speech was the most concise appraisal of the current state of race relations in this country I have read in a while. It is fortunate that it is during an election, because it has received an audience that it would have lost if it had been given from a pulpit or on C-SPAN. After I read the speech, I saw a 10 second clip of Obama giving it. For all that he is considered a good speaker, I think his delivery did not live up to the words because the words were that good. It really is one of the better contemporary speeches I have read in a very long time.

I can understand your not liking it, but even many of his critics admit that it was a good speech. Consider where we are right now, the largest prison nation in the world. Our current president has done nothing to address this. Reading his speech, I can see that at least he articulates the issue instead of ignoring it like every other candidate.

If you didn't see anything, then you must have been keeping your eyes closed.

Bush is neither. He's also dishonest, smarmy, hypocritical, an asshole, and is guilty of several counts of high treason.

I'm no expert, nor thoroughly up to date in politics or blah blah blah write me off as a dumb college student, lack of real world experience as I have been written off before.

But it was an awesome speech.

I have to agree it looks much better in print than I sounded like on TV.
But even reading it, brings one question to mind.... What are you going to do about it?

Oh that's right, Change.

I'd like a little more detail.

don't forget the hope bruce. i hear he believes in it.

Just read the transcript. That's a great essay. For me, at least, it takes the issue of his paster being nuts off the table. Now if only he had the slightest bit of sense when it comes to economic issues.

That kind of thinking may satisfy you, but it comes far from satisfying me: actually trying to win a war, one started by whom, again? after how many tries and how many years, again? -- and carrying that war to the enemy abroad, does not and cannot rise to high treason. I cannot respect thinking of that kind: go suck a wet rock (sedimentary, igneous, or metamorphic, your call) and your thumb, in alternation. Meanwhile, let our self-made, pathologically aggrieved foes reap the whirlwind and be blown to Sheol where they won't bother democrats and other good people.

As for me, I prefer to avoid frothing and raving, especially in political matters.

Dishonest and smarmy -- goodness, no one currently in politics can pull any of that away from those Clintons. They take the entire cake -- frosting, plate, and server. They had to be shamed into returning $28,000 in White House furniture in '01, remember. Those two have a disconnect in their brains that way.

Hypocritical would actually require, I think, to do something very much at variance with what one says. Looking at what Bush says and what he does -- they mesh pretty well, and perhaps rather better than in the usual run of national politician, no? Looks to me like what you see is what you get. That sort of thing set the cat among the Beltway pigeons with Reagan, too.

OK, rich, I'll put it another way: I didn't like it because he does not resonate sincerity with me. Though that may be on my end, he may be the most sincere person out there, I'm not feeling it.

He is a great speaker, he is smart. I think we could do a lot worse. Smart counts for much with me. It was a beautiful speech. Now, what is he planning to do?

Bush, when he decided to invade without any justification? (answer: yes)
Well, he tried to find an excuse from his first day in office, so a couple at least...

I thought it was a pretty good speech.

I agree with Shawnee - it lacks sincerity. It was a good polished essay. At times it was close to inspired. But not sincere.

Of course, I read it, and only "heard" a few sound bites. It doesn't take the issue off the table for me of the Reverend. Why?
At one point he essentially says, we've all listened to our pastors say stuff we don't agree with. Well, no, not really, not on something this huge. And secondly, as a leader, if you disagree - you do something. Not just sit there for 20 years, and never have a conversation with him that you disagree with his statements. He's his ADVISOR, but Obama states that he is divisive and stuck in the past. And he knew this. Seriously, if you really don't agree with him, why have him as your advisor? If you are all about not being divisive, why have someone that divisive in your life? If you are about change, why keep someone stuck in the 1970s?

I do believe on a lot of the race issues, Obama said things we all think. I think he articulated things we all know. Some blacks feel this way because of this. Some whites feel this way because of this. And he hit the nail on the head. He said it for all to hear, and for all to go - you know, that's what I've been thinking. And its a good thing. But he didn't address the way I feel. Affirmitive Action didn't hurt me. I didn't like it because I knew it hurt others, but I understood the reason why. I saw both sides as a viewer, not a participant. For me, my core states (and I've put this in other posts) - anyone can become anything if you try. Get out and work - at MacDonalds if you have to. I didn't see this feeling addressed. Maybe its that I'm a minority in this issue. I am also in line with Bill Cosby - the black community is its own worst enemy. If you want your local schools to be better - do something! Don't just complain that its a racial thing and do nothing. But I digress. The speech didn't 'speak' to me. It didn't clear the air. Although he definitiely didn't justify the Reverend's comments, he didn't tell me why he sat there for 20 years and did nothing. He can't answer that truthfully and still win. Agent of change my arse.

Started solely by America and America's puppet the UN. The United States has a DEFENSIVE military that may be used legitimately (legally) only when America is attacked, and then only against the NATION that attacked us, and then only when a formal declaration of war is made by Congress (Not an authorization for the use of force in support of UN resolutions) The United States had no legitimate justification to invade Iraq in 1991, in 2003 or at any time before or since. The first gulf war was illegal and blatantly unconstitutional, bombing Iraq for 12 straight years was illegal, the cease-fire agreement was illegal, the no fly zones were illegal, the embargos were illegal, etc.

Aside from starting an unconstitutional war and murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and getting thousands of Americans killed unnecessarily, Bush also deserted from the military during war time (high treason), and he openly admits and actually champions another act of high treason (spying on Americans)

Yes, you prefer to avoid anything remotely resembling the truth, facts, logic, reason, or plain old common sense.

The Clinton's didn't knowingly lie to the American people to start an unprovoked, unwarranted, unreasonable, and unconstitutional war of aggression against a nation that posed no harm to America at any point during America's history as Bush did. They also don't address the United States with a smirk, while looking like a chimp the way Bush does. They also didn't violate habeas corpus, the 4th amendment, etc. the way Bush did.

Bush is a hypocrite in many ways. He claims to be a Christian, yet he practices murder. He claims to want to protect American freedoms, yet he attacks them every chance he gets. He claims to want to balance the budget, yet his deficit spending has sent the dollar into a tail spin, he was a drunken college flunky who got into Yale only because of his father, who barely made it through college, and who used cocaine but supports a drug war. He says he wants to use cleaner energy and help America to stop being dependent on Arab oil, yet he's seen holding hands with members of the Saudi Royal family and his unconstitutional war has tripled the price of gas during his administration and given oil companies record profits year after year.

I think he made a nice speech. The guy connects with me probably because he's about my age and shows a willingness to understand the entire picture. As smooth said he'll screw up when it comes to the economy, but so has every president from Hoover on.

For me, the White woman versus the Black Man thing plays out this way. Obama is a Black Man who can be elected. He is not Al Sharpton. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is Al Sharpton. She's always been a divider. Getting women to the point of national prominence has been a problem, but the right woman will eventually do it. My State Rep is one, she comes out of the resturant business so she knows something about keeping books and people happy. Anyway, it seems to be about who we believe, which is pretty dangerous territory when we're talking politicians.

Hillary is Al? Srsly?

Does that make Bush Spitzerian or Spitzer Bushian?