The question is, how much does that help a guy who’s known for giving good speeches, when the real question is whether he means what he says?

There are a lot of writers who have great things to say about the speech, and communicate it in a way I don’t need to replicate. However, three big things jumped out at me as I listened to this speech:

Quote #1:

Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

I addressed this yesterday, so I won’t repeat myself. I do find it fascinating that the left is allowed the unchecked privilege of publicly flogging white Christian pastors such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson while we’re made to feel that we’ve breached some racial no-no by latching on to Rev. Wright’s comments. President Bush received a media scalping when he spoke at Bob Jones University, but I’m supposed to feel like some backwoods bigot for suggesting that Rev. Wright is is Rev. Wrong. Problem is that I’m not the bigot here.

Quote #2:

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.

Obama will sell whoever necessary down the river to become president … even his own grandmother. And we thought Hillary was cold-blooded.

Quote #3

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons.

I have to hand it to Sen. Obama. This was a masterclass in propagandizing a negative into a positive. In this one casual remark he turns Rev. Wright’s comments and evil rhetoric into the Republican/Conservative talking points. In just this one sound bite he manages to, in his mind, turn all conservatives into America-hating racists with a chip on their shoulders.

I could tear the speech apart line by line and critique, but honestly who has the time for something like that? If you read the full text (get a cup of coffee) you’ll see that it’s nothing more than a rambling argument with himself, each paragraph offering counterclaims to the previous.

I suppose this is just proof that if you ramble on long enough, you’re bound to be right about something somewhere along the way.

*Taken from Hillary Clinton’s famous 1998 Today show interview.

Now, surprise-surprise, a lot of people are going all kinds of crazy over former Dem VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro’s comments:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

This is absolutely, blatantly, and flagrantly…true. If you take a look at the charismatic, youthful (some), and energetic freshman senators that ran for the presidency recently (Even Bayh, Chuck Hagel, John Edwards…) they all fell by the wayside mostly due to the age and experience issues. Yet Obama escapes unscathed. Is it only because he’s black? Probably not. Is that a contributing factor? Absolutely.

This post is attached to a comic that I drew right after Super Tuesday when Hillary got slammed and Obama looked to be even further ahead than he is now. To be perfectly honest, I was afraid to post it because I didn’t want to be viewed as racist (ironically). I’m certainly not, and this thought occurs to me: if Obama can deflect criticism now simply by playing the race card, what happens when/if he becomes president?

The idea that someone can get special treatment because of their skin color certainly isn’t a new one. In fact, many people want it to be law. But to have that idea extend to the highest office in the country, and to the most powerful station on the planet is something that I’m not willing to idly watch happen. The color and gender of our president doesn’t matter in the slightest to me. What matters is that they’re right on the issues.

It isn’t about unequal treatment or racism or any other buzz word you want to throw at me. This whole thing has been made into an issue of special treatment. If we’re talking about equality — judging everyone by the same standard — then Obama shouldn’t have a snowball’s chance against Hillary and McCain. It’s time that we start talking about the issues where Obama fails, and there are plenty, without worrying about a Limbaugh/ESPN/McNabb debacle every time we do so.

But at least he’s hawkish when it comes to defense.

And that’s really all that matters, right? I mean, we’re Republicans, which apparently in 2007 means that we don’t have a moral compass, think government is at its best when it’s large and in charge, and like to blow things up. Right?

Of course that’s not right, but that’s the message we’ll be sending if we elect Rudy in this primary and in the 2008 election. How far have we strayed from the vision of our founding fathers when we choose someone like Giuliani to represent the party that has traditionally been seen as being for family values and moral fortitude?

Sean Hannity is trying his best to convince people that Giuliani is the go-to guy for 2008. He had Rudy on his radio program yesterday and said the following (paraphrased):

Hannity: Welcome, Rudy. Man, you’re great. I love you. Everyone who doesn’t make kissy-kissy with you is an idiot. (slightly exaggerated)

Rudy: I agree, Sean.

Hannity: Now, mainstream media is reporting that you say you support abortion, citing your recent speech where you said you support abortion and your history on the subject — which is entirely misleading, I might add — because you’ve said recently that you would appoint justices like Alito and Roberts. Case closed for me, man. You can trust Rudy despite the evidence, I say. (seriously, this is only barely exaggerated)

Rudy: God bless America, Sean.

Hannity: And what about the kooks who are trying to paint you as some kind of philandering ne’er do well just because you’re on your third wife, who happened to be your mistress during your second marriage?

Rudy: 9/11, Sean.

Hannity: I couldn’t have said it better myself. Thank you, Mr. President.

I can understand why people are drawn to Rudy. He’s a charismatic guy. He’s real. People appreciate his candor and how up front he is. And in his defense, he’s not necessarily misrepresenting himself. He’s come out and said abortion needs to be legal, guns need to be controlled, etc. It’s the conservatives who are trying to shove that stuff under the rug and make him stand tall on the pile like he’s the next Reagan.

Hopefully Republicans will be wiser than the hype, and will send someone into the 2008 race that actually represents their core beliefs.

The key to the whole thing is this: I fully expect that a representative is going to go to the legislature and put up bills that are important to the voters of their district. That’s what Campfield did by offering up this bill — it represents the citizens in Knox who are pro-life. Nothing shocking about it as far as I’m concerned.

So you can imagine my surprise as I’m looking through the legislation offered up by my representative, Jim Hackworth (D), which included a bill for, well… limiting llama liability lawsuits:

HB1857: Limits tort liability for certain activities involving llamas and animals in the llama family. - Amends TCA Title 44, Chapter 20, Part 1.

I don’t know if the law bothers me as a whole, or just the creepy sounding “certain activities involving llamas” part.

Attack Stacey Campfield all you want, but at least his bill has some meaning and substance to it and he’s not wasting his time creating laws for the sake of creating laws. As for Jim Hackworth, I’ll be addressing his legislation further in a post over on the blog side later on.

Sen. Obama was asked a simple question, “Are you an evangelical?” and his response was simply jaw dropping. While I can certainly understand, and even appreciate, some amount of transparency with public officials, his answer crossed the translucency line and dove over the edge into involuntary rambling.

Even more troubling than the Senator’s palaver was the cream he was using to fill the Twinkie, so to speak. It was some of the most substantive “fluff” I’ve seen in a while, and offers up some important ideas and criticisms about the man’s abilities as our next potential Commander-in-Chief. A few examples:

“Gosh, I’m not sure if labels are helpful here because the definition of an evangelical is so loose and subject to so many different interpretations.”

Actually the definition of evangelical is “Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament” according to the American Heritage Dictionary. Not a very “loose” definition to me. Of course, Sen. Obama knew what the questioner wanted to know of him, but was afraid to answer so he had to try and question the basis of the question.

“I came to Christianity through the black church tradition where the line between evangelical and non-evangelical is completely blurred. Nobody knows exactly what it means.”

This begs a few questions, and really should raise some eyebrows. What exactly does he mean by “black church”? Also, when he talks about the “black church tradition” being where the line between evangelical and non-evangelical is completely blurred — what is he referring to? Actually, this is one of the few statements he makes that rings true. I’ve often wondered why “black church”-goers tend to be liberals. There are definitive answers, but for the sake of brevity I’ll just say “agree” and move on. He continues:

“Does it mean you’re born-again in a classic sense, with all the accoutrements that go along with that, as it’s understood by some other tradition? I’m not sure.”

OF COURSE it means that. Come on. What “other tradition” are you talking about in Christianity??? Let’s not try to redefine what being a Christian means. You either accept the Bible as truth, or you don’t. You either rely on Jesus Christ to save you, or you don’t. You’re either “born again of the water and of the spirit” as Jesus said you must be before you see heaven, or you’re not. If you don’t, fine — your decision to make. But don’t try to redefine what you refuse to accept.

“There are aspects of Christian tradition that I’m comfortable with and aspects that I’m not. There are passages of the Bible that make perfect sense to me and others that I go, ‘Ya know, I’m not sure about that,’”

Unfortunately the Bible isn’t the local salad bar where you can pick and choose what you want to agree with. You either accept it as the infallible Word, wholesale fact, or you decry it as erroneous and questionable — wholesale bologna. The mindset this exposes is particularly troubling to me. It’s this kind of rationale that gives people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton the audacity to slap a “Rev.” in front of their name while directly contradicting the Word they pretend to preach with their politics.

While it’s reassuring to hear Sen. Obama giving honest answers, the answers themselves are not reassuring at all. In fact, they’re distressing. My fear is that the American people will remember the highlight reel speeches where he says firmly, “all of us together are going to roll up our sleeves and work,” or “every American deserves health care” while never taking the time to parse through the pages of text required to derive a “yes” or “no” from answers to simple questions like, “Are you an evangelical?”

The bill would provide enhanced legal protection over and above Tennessee’s current libel and defamation laws for public figures regarding material published by Web site operators, which include blogs and newspapers.

The measure would require web publishers to remove any supposedly defamatory statements within either 15 days or two days after being put on notice by the person in question.

Failure to remove the allegedly defamatory statements under the new bill would create a presumption of malice intent, a key legal element when a public figure has been defamed. Leading communications law experts in the state say the proposed law is deeply flawed. As drafted, the bill would be subject to substantial attack on constitutional grounds, said Robb Harvey, an attorney who works in intellectual property and media litigation for Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis.

As it turns out it’s all just a big misunderstanding >ahem<. From Terry Frank:

I contacted Senator Woodson about the bill. She graciously answered the questions I had as regards to the origin and possibility of introduction and passage of the bill. Sen. Woodson says that Rep. Briley inadvertently filed the bill and that she does not anticipate the bill being introduced in the Senate.

Of the bill’s origins, she states: “The bill that Chairman Briley inadvertently filed was a working draft of legislation proposed to me by a third year student at The University of Tennessee College of Law. I received the request in November 2006, prior to the convening of this legislative session. The student’s concerns related to encouraging web-site owners to remove knowingly defamatory statements against individuals from their web-site. This appeared like a reasonable subject of legislative discussion to me.”

We’ll see how it all washes out, but something doesn’t seem right. If it was just “sample legislation” from a student, why was it passed from her to Rep. Briley to sponsor? It’s not like it grew legs and walked over to his office.

Also her quote, “This appeared like a reasonable subject of legislative discussion to me” is troubling to me. Why would this be reasonable? It’s an attack on free speech — something that conservatives should rail against at every possible opportunity. Not only that, there are already laws in place for slander, libel, and defamation of character. Why would the Tennessee legislature need to address this issue? Do our representatives not have enough real issues to tackle?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Let’s be real, though. Kerry isn’t running because he already botched one really, really, really good shot at the presidency. President Bush wasn’t exactly in great shape going in (although time is showing us that was his mountain-top experience compared to now), but Kerry still managed to flip-flop his way right back into the rank and file of the Democratic Party. With superstars from the Democrats like Giuliani, McCain, and Romney Clinton, Obama, and Richardson, the truth is that Kerry recognized he’d be eaten alive by his own party long before the Republicans even got a shot at him.

At any rate, I was glad to hear that Sam Brownback announced. I’ll have some more thoughts and my breakdown on where we stand on the regular blog side of the site, but I can tell you that I’m not really impressed with Romney, Giuliani, or McCain as contenders for the GOP. They might make attractive candidates for the Dem side, but I’m not biting the hook yet. The only one that might possibly be able to turn my thoughts around would be Romney, but I doubt it. (Once you say, “I lied to get elected” it kind of makes me nervous. “Oh, but you can trust me now.” Sure we can, Mitt. Sure we can.