it's hard to admit my love of this country, with all the travesties and grossness of which it's involved. but i think for many obama is bringing back that wholesome feeling, and i don't see that as a bad thing at all.

Oh man, I need to go watch that speech.

The prospect of having a great orator -- someone who can inspire and who we can admire -- to lead our country... well, that would be wonderful.

You can watch the whole thing at his website.

Just got home from school and watched the whole thing on CSPAN.

Wow. I mean, this speech was incredible, not only because it spoke so ernestly and honestly about a very sensitive issue, but because when he delivered it, I could tell that it wasn't as a person running for president, it was as someone who really and truely cared about these issues and about the people of the US.

What kind of country would deny themselves this chance to have a leader like that?

I notice that the google ads are all about Obama now :P

God, how can you hear Obama speak and not be inspired? Seriously, he gets to me in ways that virtually no other politician ever has. I'm starting to understand that starry-eyed look my parents still get when they talk about JFK.

Kiku @ 4: on the Rufus Wainwright review, all of the Google ads are about Rufus Wainwright. Right now I see a link to a story called "Barack Obama Exposed" from the horribly right-wing Human Events magazine.

Yes, Obama is an inspirational speaker but when I see him, I see the candidate who killed any chance of universal health care and brought back Harry and Louise and ran deliberately misleading ads on NAFTA (and then assuring Canada it was all just rhetoric - which, to be honest, I hope is true). I'm also not convinced he's 100% committed to a greener future and protecting reproductive rights.

Well, without the delegates from Florida and Michigan being counted (way to support disenfranchising voters Senator!), the nomination is all but over so I might as well get on board too.

Can someone pass the Kool Aid please? I hear it's delicious.

If we all talked about Hillary like this would that be Kool Aid too? Or does she "deserve it"?

I just watched that speech and dammit, I want to feel inspired and excited about our president!! I really really really hope he wins.

Chris, you know you are my dear friend, so the following is not me speaking, it's my inner, passionate politico:

How can you say Obama killed the chance for universal health care when he hasn't even been elected yet?

As for NAFTA, I researched this issue heavily for newspaper, and the current understanding based on Canadian reports is that the quote from Obama's economic advisor was severly out of context. And I should think the NAFTA issue should be over now anyway since Clinton was also falsely accused of the same thing (not by Obama of course).

And how is Obama responsible for the SNAFU in Michigan and Florida?

I'm not saying you have to love Obama, or that he is perfect (he himself said so this morning), but the speech he gave was one of vital importence for the US, not just for this election.

Kiku @ 9: I'll let my inner, passionate politico respond to your post as well. :] I was going to respond to your latest e-mail at length but I'll do that tomorrow when I get the chance. This is going to get wonky, so I apologize in advance. You know that you're also one of my dearest friends, so I'm going to make every effort to make sure this is not personal.

1. The reason Obama killed universal health care is because his campaign demagogued the issue and mocked the most substantive and feasible plan. He ran mailers saying that Sen. Clinton wants to force people to buy health insurance whether they can afford it or not (which is true, btw, because how else can you achieve universal coverage without mandating it?) but her plan includes many subsidies for low income and lower middle class people to lower the cost substantially. He also rhetorically asked how she would pay for such a plan even though he knows full well that her plan includes a payroll tax increase and the rolling back of the Bush taxcuts from 2001.

As Paul Krugman explained in the NY Times, with Clinton we have a chance of acheiving universal coverage, we don't know what that chance is but still a chance. With Obama or McCain we have no chance.

The New Republic wrote, "even if the mailer wasn't literally dishonest, it was intellectually dishonest, since it overstates the downside of Hillary's mandate provision, something that may be needed to achieve universal coverage. The Obama mailer... will almost certainly come back to haunt a Democrat who tries to enact healthcare reform (and that includes Obama, who, as many have pointed out, relies on a mandate to get children covered)."

The American Prospect wrote of his plan (oh and click on the link to see exactly what I mean by resurrecting "Harry and Louise"), "In the end, his plan is not universal, does not attempt to be, and is probably less generous in its affordability provisions than Clinton's. And even so, I wouldn't really care, as it's still a pretty good plan, except that he's decided to respond to the inadequacies of his own policy by fear-mongering against not only better policy, but the type of policy he's probably going to have to eventually adopt. It's very, very short-sighted."

Obama has been accused of "fear-mongering" and being "intellectually dishonest" by the American Prospect, The New Republic and the New York Times. Only in bizarro world would those be conservative or fringe publications (although TNR can be hawkish at times).

2. On NAFTA (which I support, by the way). Obama's campaign sent out mailers saying that Hillary said NAFTA was a "boon" to the economy and attributed the source to NY Newsday. Newsday admitted that she didn't use that word and that it was their own phrasing. They added, "Obama's use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading. The quote marks make it look as if Hillary said 'boon,' not us. It's an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office."

I'm sure that the memo that the Canadian official who met with Obama's economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, drafted and circulated about the meeting is far more accurate than the word of a presidential campaign who has already been accused of being "misleading" on the issue of NAFTA.

Also, it has been reported that Canadian officials only met with members of Obama's campaign, not Clinton's.

3. DNC chair Howard Dean has said that the only way that there would be re-votes (and the chance to seat their delegates) in Florida and Michigan would be if both campaigns agreed to it. Of course, only one campaign opposes doing so. Guess which one? So now millions of voters in two states are not going to have a say in who their party elects as president to no fault of the voters. All Democrats should support allowing more people to vote, not fewer. And especially disenfranchising people because it won't help their campaign. I was in favor of allowing the at-large caucuses in Las Vegas, for example, because it made it even easier for more people to vote.

I'm not saying that I won't vote for Obama should he be the nominee (although I've just explained why I have serious reservations about his candidacy). I'm also not saying Hillary doesn't have her flaws either. I'm just saying that Senator Obama is not my new bicycle.

Phew. That was long. Let's get back to talking about pop music. OK?

I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to the FL and MI thing, but the bottom line is that those states' Democratic parties *willingly and knowingly* broke Dem party rules when they held their conventions so early. You can complain about the Obama campaign for not wanting a redo on those (I haven't heard anything about that, but it does make sense), but you're really finding a scapegoat. Those states wanted to make waves politically, and to do so, violated party protocol. The real reason those states' primaries are in contention is because of choices made by state party leadership, and not by decisions made by either campaign.

ChrisB@10: I like your use of "hawkish" :)

ChrisB -- you know I heart you, but we're gonna have to agree to disagree here. :)

On Healthcare, from Obama's website:

"We now face an opportunity — and an obligation — to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates… My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness."

As for 'mandating' that everyone pay, how is that even realistic? What if you don't want to or honestly can't afford to? The word 'mandate' is gonna scare off loads of folks (kinda like the word Hillary already does ;).

What names different publications may have called him... sheesh - I'm not even going to touch that as 1) the media sucks eggs and 2) are we even gonna start talking about terms lobbed at Hillary?

I want a president who can inspire and unite our tragically divided nation and attempt to heal the wounds inflicted on our worldwide reputation over the past eight years. I want an effective negotiator who can bring ideas through to fruition. Time and time again, I see Obama demonstrate how he can be that leader (and recent years have shown that Hillary, who has been so despised by conservatives and liberals alike, cannot).

This blog entry on Daily Kos offers the best, most non-biased side-by-side comparison of what bills Clinton and Obama have each introduced/ voted on/ gotten through Congress in the past year. The results are remarkably pro-Obama for his ability to cross party lines and be effective on issues I care about such as healthcare, education, the environment, fair lending practices, etc etc. And of course, he didn't support the war, unlike Hillary, which is a HUGE differentiator from McCain that Hillary lacks. The writer also points out how often the two vote together as Senators. Despite the nastiness of their campaigns, they support one another's bills with great regularity -- not too surprising, really.

Bottom line for me: Obama motivates, he inspires, and excites and unites people. Hillary does the opposite. When I hear Obama speak, I feel hope and potential that I've NEVER felt before when watching a politician. He speaks in ideas, as an intellectual, and yet in a way that can be understood and appreciated by all (unlike Kerry, who always came off a bit pompous).

After watching that speech last night, I was literally elated. I can't believe our media immediately started talking about how the speech might have damaged him; if it does, I'd say 99% of it is because the media immediately started commenting on how the Republicans think he didn't denounce Wright strongly enough. This notion is simplistic and ludicrous to anyone who actually listened.

I remember this from the last election, the asinine simplification of everything. Obama didn't just denounce Wright's words, he placed them in context so brilliantly. Tell me these words didn't give you goosebumps:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

I love that he didn't cower and simplify, but instead used the controversy to make what was the greatest speech on race I've ever heard given in our lifetimes. I think soooooo many of us are ready to hear issues discussed instead of moronic soundbites. Give us a leader who's also a thinker!

Obama has rejuvenated the disenfranchised 18-30 year old voters, breathed new life into the Democratic party. I believe most Hillary supporters are classic, older Democrats who will vote for whichever candidate gets the nomination. I'm not sure this can be said about the Obama youth, who might just choose to not participate if he fails to get the nomination. My sincere hope is we won't let the future of the party down.

There's no Koolaid involved here. It's just hope, after such a profoundly dark eight years!!

As in, I hope our country is smart enough to get out of the way and let this man lead.

Besides, Hillary is Mom Jeans. Barack Obama is your new bicycle.

PS -- @The Grim is right about the elections. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and the candidates didn't campaign.

Yeah Dana! That was another thing about Obama's speech yesterday: he mentioned the next generation. He sincerely stated what hope he has for the kids in America who are essential in creating positive changes. I think it's so important that a president understand that, and reach out to people who aren't even old enough to vote in order to improve the country.

It just demonstrates again how the speech was not made as someone running for president, it was made as someone who loves his country and wants to seriously address an issue. I haven't heard Hillary's response yet, but I hope that she can see the value of Obama's speech in terms of healing riffs in America, not as a political obsticle she has to get over.

But Dana's right, they are very similar on many key issues. All that differentiates them is Obama's ability to inspire hope. And Clinton mocking his optimism and calling him a "hope-monger" (far from a fear monger, and I don't know who would say he was).

(Besides, "Barack Obama made you a mix tape", hahaha that site is great :D)

Hillary pretended she never got your text message.

Barack Obama called your dad to tell him how cool you are.

O Dana @ 13.

Nice try. Really.

You went on and on about how inspirational he is (which I already said) but didn't challenge a single point I made. Well, maybe a little bit on health care with the quote that basically says "nuh unh" and then you concede that his plan isn't universal after all.

Not one thing I wrote in my two previous comments (or this one) is untrue or wrong or inaccurate. Even what I said about MI and FL.

Except that he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan... ;)

I'm sure those sources said those things about Obama, and yes, all votes should count (I sooo can't even keep up with delegates and superdelegates and which state votes when. Our elections in the US are so bobo.) I do know my effing homestate of Florida and Michigan broke the rules, as The Grim stated above. {After 2000, Florida can suck it.}

My bigger point is: Hillary is an uninspiring leader -- no, more than that, she's a divisive one. SO many people just don't like her, conservatives and liberals alike, and my link off to Kos gives examples of how infrequently her bills go through, how rare she gains support across party lines, and how much more effective Obama is, across many of the issues you name and others.

I think if she's the nominee, she will lose. If she manages to win, she'll be ineffective at passing much -- especially mandated universal healthcare, something I don't think our country will be ready to accept in the next four years, no matter who our leader is. I think Obama's healthcare plan -- of keeping rates more affordable and making it available to all, but not mandated -- is the smarter path to follow, and his track record shows he's someone who can get it done.

And she supported the war. That killed Kerry when he went up against GWB, the inability to call the war into question, and it will do the same to Clinton if she's up against McCain. Obama is in a far stronger position here because he voted against the war. And his ability to talk about difficult topics in understandable, inspiring terms will help keep the Iraq conversation on the topic on intelligent terms.

Having an inspirational president is no trivial thing. An eloquent, motivating president is so desperately needed, to get us extricated from the mess we've made in the Middle East, to improve our reputation with other nations worldwide, and to help us heal from within. We're a divided mess these days. That's what I'm hoping for in our next leader.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Hillary hater. I think she's very bright and has some great ideas, and Lordy knows a female president would be grand. I think she'd be a great VP. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing them both on the ticket... I'm just hoping to see Obama on top.

When do we get to get back to the pop music...? ;)

Right on Dana! I couldn't have said it any better.

All this bickering ... and meanwhile, McCain opens a big lead overall. *Sigh*.

I know, which seems insane to me with two such strong Demo candidates... McCain is just so hard to get excited about. I'm glad he's not a religious zealot (esp as I think that makes him less electable by his party)... but sheesh. He's old, he's had multiple melanomas, he was completely humiliated by Bush/Rove in the past and just took it, and now he's aligning himself to continue with the pro-war status quo. And he's just.... well, uninspiring.

Surely we can rally to at least get the current powers-that-be out?

I think once we settle on a candidate, we will. There are many months to go and the voters here are fickle. The advantage will change many times between now and November. I hope... cause as I said, Obama gives me hope!!

Not to extend this debate, but I firmly believe that the Democrats lost in 2004 because they (and the left-wing organizers) ran a campaign of "We Hate Bush" rather than trying to rally the nation around John Kerry. Now, being a Massachusetts native who had already voted for Kerry a few times, he was my candidate, but I would be the first to admit, he doesn't really inspire people too effectively. Now, if the Democrats, as disorganized and fractured as they are, have any hope to win back the White House in 2008, we need a candidate that the nation, whatever side of the political divide they reside, can rally around for positive reasons, not as the negation of the opposing candidate. Running a campaign of "vote for us because we're not them" never works. However, "vote for us because we believe in our candidate and you should, too" will be much more effective. Otherwise, we run the danger of just mimicking the Karl Rove-type tactics of attempting to garner the mere 50.1% you need to win (or less than that as the case might be). And as much as I think Hillary has experience and has ideas, she is not a candidate the nation can rally around - she is too decisive and carries all the hatred and baggage the right has for the Clinton administration. I believe that Barack Obama is that candidate that can reach to all ends of the spectrum and try to take the country back by uniting us, rather that playing the politics of the last 20 years. Sure, it is idealist, but that is exactly what this country needs right now.

BTW, I'm a registered independent, always have been, always will be. I don't believe in the two party system at all, so this whole primary mess makes me mad for a whole pile of other reasons as well.

We now return to our regularly schedule pop song.

Last thing from me, but where did I say Obama was on the ballot in Michigan?

I get it, I get it, I get it. I got it the first time. Obama: change, hope, inspiration. Hillary: divisive. Sure, conservative voters in New York state don't think she's that divisive and in 2006 she handily won some very, very conservative districts in her reelection race (only losing 4 counties altogether).

Iraq didn't kill John Kerry's campaign (and I'm still not sold that it's a losing issue for McCain or a winning one for Obama), what killed John Kerry's campaign is that he refused to respond to attacks against him until it was too late. John Kerry allowed George Bush to define him. When Kerry refused to respond to the Swift Boaters, the narrative was set and he couldn't change that.

I think what it boils down to is that you want an inspirational leader and I want a policy wonk, Dana. That explains why my points are policy driven (health care) and yours are about hope. It's that simple. Right now the economy is the most important issue there is. The Federal Reserve just orchestrated a bailout for Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch lost billions last year, the dollar is tanking and the cost of oil is driving inflation way up. And it's only getting worse. For some odd reason, I have a hunch that Hillary can assemble an economic team that would handle this better than Obama would. Yes she can.

John Kerry is a douche.