I know I did (but then, I quickly came back to the Hillary fold).

I thought his speech was brilliant, and it upped the ante on intellectual discourse by emphasizing the extraordinary complexities of race relations in this country. I was impressed that he spoke so bluntly on the nature of anger. To tell the American public that black anger is the legacy of a racist country, to say that anger is neither criminal nor unacceptable, was exceedingly powerful. The call to examine the why of that anger is a call I can't remember a major politician every making.

The length of the speech was a necessitate because of the material with which he dealt, and I think it shall be remembered for many generations.

1. Clinton was behind the tapes.

2. defending the Trinity Church on both tone and substance.

3. criticizing the tone but defending the substance.

4. thank you Barack Obama for sharing your deep faith and that we know you will bring us together somehow even as others attack you.

5. going off-topic and criticizing McCain, Romney, Huckabee or Clinton for their faiths.

6. noting that this might actual help Obama because what does not kill him makes him stronger.  

7. calling the whole thing nonsense and pretending it is not an issue because we live in a post-racial post-partisan world now though the rest of us are just too stupid to realize that yet but the die is cast and we will all be singing Kumbaya at the Inaugural nine months from now.

8. ignoring the whole thing because the race is over and it's too late to make a difference, Pennsylvania, Florida & Michigan don't matter because the voters have already spoken.  

9. arguing that this is a good thing because it clearly shows that Obama is not a Muslim.

10. not seeing the link between Obama and Wright. It does not matter because either Obama renounced the statements or because Obama wasn't present when Wright made those statements so how could he know or even if it he was it doesn't matter because who agrees with the Pastor on everything anyway.

All we have are two Democrats to choose from, and if, at this moment, you feel that she is the candidate who would be a better president, then I think your "other hand" is irrelevant.

For me, rather than gaining insight into what makes Obama tick, I was left feeling even less sure of who he is.  I have less confidence in his ability to lead when, time and again, he is making these inspiring speeches as a way of distracting people from his own actions.  I can't be the only one who thinks that a major speech on race relations came a little late in the game for the first black candidate with the kind of chance he has to be president.  And worse, it came on the heels of weeks of strategic games with race that have been played by his campaign to a fare-thee-well, and days of spinning and obfuscating on his relationship with Reverend Wright.  It reminds me of how, in the debate, he characterized his relationship with Tony Rezko as "this individual" for whom he had only done about 5 hours of work - and we all know now that there was a great deal more to that relationship than what Obama presented to a national audience.

I don't doubt that he can make a contribution, the question in my mind is whether he has what it takes to be in front of contentious and difficult issues, or slightly behind them, always taking the less risky path - his performance to date has done nothing to assure me that he is ready to do that - and I happen to think that the number and kinds of issues that await the next president are going to require a willingness to really lead.

If he loses to Clinton, it won't be any different than the football team that leads for 55 minutes of a 60-minute game and then loses in the last 5 minutes.  Or any different than Kerry and Gore, who had opportunities throughout their campaigns to do it better, so that it didn't have to come down to Florida or Ohio.

I think it's always painful to see someone with such promise fail for a seemingly minor reason - but if you peel away the layers, you see that Wright is not so much a cause, but a symptom of something a lot bigger.

We Democrats lost in '04 with a better candidate because of what?

We lost in 2000 because of what?

Which is why - now that casualties are down in Iraq sentiment on the war is shifting. Being anti-war is not a winning policy. For now.

McCain has the advantage here. He said we needed more troops to win. More troops seems to have turned the tide. Advantage McCain.

"We win, they lose" is going to be more popular than  abandon those who trusted us. We did that in 'Nam and there is still a lot of bitterness over that. It cost Kerry the election. The head of the Swiftboaters - O'Neil - is a Democrat.

You would think the Democrats, being much smarter than Republicans, would have done the proper analysis and come to the correct conclusion. Instead it was all blamed on the Rs. Rather than looking at where the American people are coming from.

Winter Soldier killed Kerry. Wright will kill Obama. All avoidable if the party had a better sense of where the American people are. Hating Republicans is not a winning strategy. It blinds you to their appeal.

A Democrat plan for Democracy in Iraq would be a winner. So why do Democrats, presumably the champions of democracy, not have such a plan?

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. - John F. Kennedy