A Thinking Man's Speech - Peggy Noonan

I even agree, at least partially, with Noonan's one caveat about the speech. Well worth reading in full. Key quote:

"it was a good speech, and a serious one. I don't know if it will help him. We're in uncharted territory. We've never had a major-party presidential front-runner who is black, or rather black and white, who has given such an address. We don't know if more voters will be alienated by Mr. Wright than will be impressed by the speech about Mr. Wright. We don't know if voters will welcome a meditation on race. My sense: The speech will be labeled by history as the speech that saved a candidacy or the speech that helped do it in. I hope the former."

E. J. Dionne Jr. - Another Angry Black Preacher

EJ Dionne's column is simply the smartest, most insightful and fair analysis I've seen on this whole affair:

"One of the least remarked upon passages in Obama's speech is also one of the most important -- and the part most relevant to the Wright controversy. There is, Obama said, a powerful anger in the black community rooted in "memories of humiliation and doubt" that "may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends" but "does find voice in the barbershop or the beauty shop or around the kitchen table. . . . And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews."

Yes, black people say things about our country and its injustices to each other that they don't say to those of us who are white. Whites also say things about blacks privately that they don't say in front of their black friends and associates.

..........I'm a liberal, and I loathe the anti-American things Wright said precisely because I believe that the genius of our country is its capacity for self-correction. Progressivism and, yes, hope itself depend on a belief that personal conversion and social change are possible, that flawed human beings are capable of transcending their pasts and their failings.

Obama understands the anger of whites as well as the anger of blacks, but he's placed a bet on the other side of King's legacy that converted rage into the search for a beloved community. This does not prove that Obama deserves to be president. It does mean that he deserves to be judged on his own terms and not by the ravings of an angry preacher."

Zbigniew on Morning Joe: Iraq through the eyes of a psychic

Former National Security Advisor Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski was prescient in his concerns on the eve of the United States-Coalition forces'invasion of Iraq. Five years later, on MSNBC's Morning Joe, he characterizes America as "bogged down" and "part of the problem" and explains why Barack Obama is the best leader to help us find a way out.

Chris Matthews Does Some Hardball Dancing with Ellen

When talk show hosts collide. It's not pretty. Chris Matthews starts off solid in his little intro dance on the Ellen Degeneres show, but then he gets creative and things go terribly, terribly wrong. Gotta love him. And I do.

Barack Obama: A More Perfect Union

Historic. Honest. Insightful. Is it enough?

Hope lives in bereft dad

As the News Observer reports, "Hope lives in bereft dad" of Eve Carson:

"In a church packed with mourners, Carson's remarks echoed many of the themes his daughter did, in word and action. They are words to remember as our community confronts the violence that ended Eve Carson's life.
Bob Carson noted that the roots of crime, and the pain of violence, are dilemmas that have been shuffled from one generation to the next -- until now.
'... I must tell you -- even with an aching heart, and yet with such hope and love -- that the friends of Eve, and their generation, will not be denied. They've got miles to go, and missions to keep, and we will be so much better for their undaunted perseverance.'"

Keith Olbermann on Ferraro

Keith Olbermann on the politically cannibalistic Geraldine Ferraro uproar:
"Senator Clinton: This is not a campaign strategy. This is a suicide pact."

As much as I want this absurd, offensive Ferraro discussion to be over and fear its backlash may hurt Obama's chances, I am grateful for Keith Olbermann's contribution tonight on Countdown. This editorial comment says everything I've been feeling about this issue and much more and I thought it deserved to be shared.

A Card-Carrying Civil Libertarian - New York Times

A Card-Carrying Civil Libertarian - New York Times: "IF Barack Obama wins in November, we could have not only our first president who is an African-American, but also our first president who is a civil libertarian."

Hillary Mocks Obama

Nothing to add here.

Glenn Greenwald - Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms

With the presidential election taking up all the oxygen and attention in the political sphere, legal expert and progressive blogger Glenn Greenwald keeps a critical eye on pivotal developments in the Bush administration's battle to legalize warrantless spying on the telephone calls and emails of Americans and provide full retroactive amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms:

"Chris Dodd went to the Senate floor last night and gave another eloquent and impassioned speech, warning of the consequences for our country from telecom amnesty. He specifically focused on the permanently and comprehensively suppressive effect it will have on efforts to investigate what the Bush administration did in illegally spying on Americans.

....The Dodd/Feingold amendment to remove telecom immunity from the bill just failed by a whopping vote of 31-67 -- 20 votes shy of the 50 needed for a passage. A total of 18 Democrats joined all Republicans in voting for immunity: Bayh, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Feinstein, Kohl, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Carper, Mikulski, Conrad, Webb, and Lincoln. Obama voted against immunity, and Hillary Clinton was the only Senator not voting."

So, how could this have happened? Glenn Greenwald makes an important observation:

"There's a temptation, particularly on days like today, to talk about what motivates Democrats" -- as though they're a monolith acting collectively with the same drives. They're not. Some do what they do because their only concern is a craven desire to be re-elected. Others believe in one thing but are afraid to vote that way (because they'll be called Soft on Terror, Liberal, etc.), while others still are influenced by Beltway money and other cultural pressures. Some are motivated by a combination of those motives. But a large number of elected Democrats vote in favor of the radical Bush agenda for a very simple reason: they believe in it.

....The fault lines in the Beltway aren't primarily between Republican and Democrat but between those who support the core values of our political establishment (as reflected by the Bush administration) and those who don't."

While Senator Clinton's domestic agenda is progressive, on this issue of privacy and on so many other critical foreign policy and national security issues, it seems clear that Senator's Clinton's values are not mine. So when I hear that there is little policy difference between Obama and Clinton it's frustrating. There are very serious differences as so many analysts have attested - on authorizing the war in Iraq, on the Iran censure resolution, on the telecomm amnesty (skipping the vote in this case), on Cuba. These issues matter, and it is time for Democrats who care about such isssues to take note and take a stand.