In his speech on race yesterday, Obama further perfected his rhetorical diversionary skills, serving America another helping of his standard fare: a big exertion to inspire with little of substance therein. The most notable feature of the speech itself was his conspicuously failure to explain how he was able to tolerate his pastor's hateful views over the past twenty years or why, for his highly-qualified, far-too-late disavowal of those views, we should accept him as our nation's self-appointed arbiter on matters of race. He is clearly hoping America won’t notice his profound cynicism, and it seems most media critics have not.

Once again Obama has covered-up his own manipulative use of race with a speech on what a contentious issue race is in America. What an interesting moment to have such a revelation. Did this just occur to Obama over this past weekend? And if he isn't actually that naïve or disingenuous, why did he stay with the racist minister for two decades? On the contrary, it seems that Obama would like to make race an issue, as demonstrated by his deflections, which serve as a subterfuge to divert the attention of voters from the fact that he has no substantive policy positions and lacks adequate experience for the Presidency. In fact, he has deftly employed the issue of race since January, when he condemned Clinton's innocuous LBJ/MLK comments (the insidious subtext of which, if you recall, was that Hillary was casting aspersions on the achievements and legacy of MLK). Yesterday's speech constituted yet another in a series of carefully orchestrated and brilliantly executed acts conceived to subtly pander to multiple, diverse demographics through disparate discourses of race, even as he asserts that the campaign shouldn't be about race, per se.

It should surprise no one then that Obama's identity is still questioned. It is so precisely because the racial distinctions on which it relies are patently specious. He expects us to accept that in America today you're "black" if you have one white parent, as opposed to "white" for having just one black parent. If Obama were more imaginative he would have avoided "black" and "white" distinctions, and become the post-racial candidate he claimed to be thereby. Instead, he demeans every American through his campaign's continuous deflections of valid criticisms via the issue of race.

Obama consistently refers--as he did in detail in yesterday's speech--to his family background, as if to suggest that it imbued him with an intrinsic comprehension of contemporary issues that having just one more white parent would have inhibited. This implicitly insults anyone who doesn't think people should be defined by the accident of their race. We understand you better than you think, Barack, and though many of us yawn at your rhetorical I'm-the-multi-cultural-candida­te-who-personifies-"diversity"­-in-America ploy, we also recognize that it is a powerful wedge tool with certain demographics in this campaign. Obama’s frequent use of that tool expose his true motives as well as the fact that he is not the conciliator he advertises himself to be.

Let us remember by way of underscoring this point that his speech on race was a gambit by Obama's campaign to "contain" the damage from the revelation that Obama's minister and spiritual adviser of the past twenty years is a vile racist, in addition to a radical black nationalist and anti-American hothead. In this setting what tactics could better demonstrate the hypocrisy of Obama himself and his campaign?

Yet for all his comic posturing and alleged disagreement with the minister whose views he now claims to disavow--but which just last week were acceptable--a minister who he still says he cannot disown anymore than he can disown his grandmother..., Obama continues to take advice from a shamelessly homophobic misogynist named Donnie McClurkin, another fact that should disgust his ostensibly "progressive" supporters. It seems that the better we get to know the freshman Senator from Illinois, the harder it is to believe that he is a transformational figure of any sort. Rather, he has proven that he is just another conventional politician whose judgment appears increasingly dubious. He opposes bigotry only selectively, and so clearly does not represent "change we can believe in." That arrogant claim now surely rings hollow to all but the dullest ears.

It has been obvious for some time to all but his most ardent supporters that if elected the neophyte Obama will not be able to govern effectively. That would be a disaster for our nation. Charisma won't win the war on terror. Inspiring rhetoric will not improve our faltering economy. And a divisive debate on race matters can only be counter-productive to the reconciliation our nation deserves. It should be obvious to all that Obama is no leader. Let us hope then that Democrats resoundingly declare: "no, we can't" have someone as untrustworthy as Obama in the White House.

Impressive! I haven't heard such haughty language put in the service of such a shoddy argument since William F. Buckley died.

Obama 08!

Your efforts at turning Black people into racists are as astonishing as has been your incompetence in Iraq! La la land Cons at it again.

You are like a tub of guts, sloshing here and there, slippery and slimey, but we know what to do with you.

I am not an Obama supporter. However, I felt that his speech was more than double-talk rhetoric wrapped up in that inspiring baritone that causes his supporters to go week in the knees; like JFK and FDR had a baby (and it somehow came out a little blacker then one would expect from a multigenerational homosexual white couple).

The fact is the same thing to do would have been to act shocked, denounce the pastor vehemently and take the small hit that someone like Obama could easily glide over. Instead he took a more nuanced stand, one that opened him up to countless attacks from people aghast that a person running for president could be associated with America bashers (does anyone else notice that the phrase, 'you hate America' has replaced, 'you're a communist'). Yet he chose to explain that the world isn't black and white (pardon the pun). We don't know the reverend. Perhaps he's very good in the community, organizing food drives and what not. Perhaps he has many admirable qualities. All I know about him is from a 15 second clip where he makes a jackass out of himself by spouting paranoid hate speech.

Can anyone honestly say that Obama believes in or agrees with what the reverend says? His speech brought a modicum of sense to a discourse constantly fueled by radicals and slow news days. If there is any critique to it, it is this. Obama's campaign has relied on the greatness of his orations, his willingness to discuss topics without relying on buzzwords or campaign cliche's, or pandering; and also on the eloquence with which he can deliver. This has allowed him to avoid taking many stands on actual issues, or coming up with novel proposals (every proposal he's made has been after another candidate and somewhat similar). Once again, Obama's speech allowed him to highlight his skills, without him going in depth about his plans to help the economy.

But don't knock the speech itself.

And candoxx, shut up. I've known plenty of black racists. Let's not go personal so here's a news example...There was an article last year in the Boston Globe on youth tennis organization being set up in the city. One of the biggest hinderences to it, kids were getting mercilessly picked on (sometimes in downright despicable ways) by their classmates for playing, "a white sport."

Or how about Isiah Thomas saying it's more acceptable for a black guy to call a black woman a bitch then a white guy. I wonder how he'd feel if an asian guy did it?

Charisma can be a huge advantage for a president. How do you think Reagan survived Iran-Contra and numerous other flaps? People liked and trusted him in part because he connected with them in a humble and genuine manner.

America has a whole dump full of great ideas that were never put into action. The ability to rally the public around a cause is the president's greatest tool... the bully pulpit can be formidable. FDR's fireside chats. Kennedy's call to go to the moon. Reagan's "tear down this wall".

But, if you prefer another Michael "we need competence" Dukakis back, someone "ready on day one, whee!".

Maybe one thing wrong with America these days is simple FEAR. People of are AFRAID of all those terrorists so they give up their civil rights. People are AFRAID of all those "homos" who want civil union. People are AFRAID of drug users and wage war on their own people. People are AFRAID science might threaten their religious tenets or beliefs. And, some people are AFRAID to vote for someone who's just different than they are.

Yeah yeah yeah yeah fear we get it. I too am disgusted with the whole evolution is a theory thing and our willingness to torture and give up our civil rights boo hoo. Even the Republican party denounced Mitt Romney (who played every fear card) and laughed Duncan Hunter off the stage (fear the brown people). McCain's more about integraty than fear, and the #2 guy from Hope was the antithesis of a fearmonger. Besides, if primary turnouts are any indication the democrats will have to really try to eff this one up. Fear is a powerful tool, one that's evolutionarily honed to be powerful and quick (how's that for a tie in). But this election isn't about fear, it's about disgust. If there's a fear, it's a fear about the economy, about people losing their jobs while politicians try in vain to find a gay mexican muslim burning our flag. In a primary pitting a woman against a black guy pulling out fear of difference as a major motivation for people is just silly.

Charisma won't win the war on terror. Inspiring rhetoric will not improve our faltering economy. And a divisive debate on race matters can only be counter-productive to the reconciliation our nation deserves.

Charisma alone can't do all these things, but it sure would help!

So tell me, what does it take to solve these important issues? Is it that magic, rhetorical word "experience"?