when he began to spoke, and given the incontrovertible fact that he has the delegates to be our nominee, however anyone might dispute he got there, I was open to him in a way I have not been.  Several things moved me:

1.  That a major party was going to nominate an African American for the presidency.  The enormity of it did hit me when he came out on the stage;

2.  That he seemed so much more poised and interesting than John McCain; and

3.  How gracious he was to Hillary.  

I hear that he is fascinated by the book, Team of Rivals.  He hears history calling.  Now we shall see how he responds.

I was talking about Hillary v. Barack.

You mistyped.

I said there were many reasons to oppose Obama.  I was referring to the primary which appears to be over.  

No, it was perfect the first time, "there are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama". We have opposed him for many months, for excellent reasons, that remain entirely unaffected by a speech. We judge people by their actions, not their words, a main difference between Clinton and Obama supporters.

At this stage I think we all are but perhaps for different reasons.

though for a slightly different reason that you I think.  I was glad because of the significance of that specific flag pin (if it was the one I am thinking of).  It was given to him by a disabled veteran and wearing it shows that he remembers that veteran and the importance of those who have served this country.

It's not just the literal versions (as I interpret it) that make us want to vomit.  Please do spell out exactly what you mean.

Glad you saw it. There was real appreciation there I think. And the way he framed the choice between himself should give everyone confidence about his strength as a GE candidate.

I'm hoping you're not the 'Lori' quoted in today's NYT Caucus?  If you are congratulations for the notice but, really?

you sound way cynical.

That's a tough nut to crack when you're talking about  20 years.

Seriously, if you believe Obama decided upon his church in 1986 because it would help with his presidential ambitions 20 years later, then he must be both the most blatantly ambitious (as well as the most short-sighted), politician in history.

Actually, I am generally a pretty cynical person. But it is hard to deny that Obama's rise has been quite atypical and was built pretty solidly on what has become a bona-fide movement. He may be a politician by trade, and in fact has proven to be a very skillful maneuverer, but what has made him so successful is that he possesses those rare and elusive qualities of a born leader: vision, charisma and, yes, rhetorical skill.

Incidentally, I also happen to believe that the honesty and integrity he projects are pretty real. I'm not saying he is perfect - far from it. But many of his choices and actions seem to have been grounded in principle rather than expediency. Unlike you, I've found the situation with Rev. Wright and his Church to be a great example of his strong character. Had he wanted to separate himself from the Church for political gain, he would have done so as soon as controversy started to stir late last year - or even earlier (I'm sure he could have found numerous excuses, going to DC being one of many). When those awful videos went viral, he could have "rejected and denounced" Rev. Wright. Instead, he went against his advisors and took a huge risk by making a speech (which he wrote himself, as he did with both his books) on the ultra-sensitive issue of race. That took courage. That was leadership. One of the thorniest issues for any politician - addressed head-on with honesty and complexity (in a time when politicians poll-test and focus-group virtually every word). Remember that the ultimate break between the two man came only after Rev. Wright came out and threw OBAMA under the bus.

But anyway. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter whether Obama is indeed a different kind of politician. To me and most others who "bought into" his candidacy, it is sufficient that he:

a) has a broad reform agenda based on transparency that is backed by his record (passed ethics reform and "google for government"; effectively built a parallel public finance system for his presidential bid, relying on small donors and refusing contributions from lobbyists and PACs; was the only candidate to fully disclose all his earmark requests; was first to provide personal income tax returns; made available all documentation regarding previous campaigns fundraising/home purchase documents etc and was cleared from any wrongdoing re: Rezko by the Chicago Tribune); and

b) has been effective in at least appearing to be different enough as to inspire millions of people to become involved in his campaign and - perhaps more importantly - in politics and civic life.

Whether or not you believe his authenticity, the fact is that the movement he built is REAL. That isn't about belief; it is fait accompli. He HAS over 1.5 million donors. He HAS a 50-state strategy which has ALREADY laid down a huge infrastructure based on both staff and a broad volunteer base. He HAS gotten people actively following political developments - thousands chatter every day on his official (unmoderated) blogs. So, no, you don't have to be gullible or naive to believe in his vision - you just have to look around.

I saw the comment, but I saw it as little but lip-service.
Really, I was desperate to see something that allieviated my frustration and anger over these past months.
Maybe it was high expectations. I honestly believed that she would recognize this historic moment and claim a place in it.

Instead, I heard the same stump speech that she's been giving for the past two months.

I am more than willing to be proved wrong. Was there something I missed?

Well, I disagree on a fundamental level. MOST voters only know the candidates by their words and through the MSM.
Then, other people know the candidates through their volunteers (and Obama's volunteers have been the most considerate group around.)
On the blogs, things get a bit out of control. And I agree, Obama's supporters have been nuts, as have Clinton supporters (but I have yet to see an Obama equivalent to hillaryis44.com).

But Obama has set a standard of respect that we NEED to all live up to. Yes, his campaign sometimes fell into the pit of back-and-forth politicking, but the fact that he has done his damnedest to avoid that says something.

As an Obama supporter, I have been dismayed each time he has gone the traditional 'politics' route. But the fact that he not only admits this, but apologizes for it, says a lot about his character and his desire to truly change the way business is done in Washington.

are trolls and shills

anyone who is not engaging in actual real dialogue is pretty much a troll

I definately wouldn't judge a candidate by the trolls that try to use their candidacy for their own games.