That'll preach

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union. ...

It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.

Comments

[Geds]

I watched a clip of this during the five o'clock news. All I could think of was, "I love Barack Obama."

He's doing something special. I'm proud to be a part of it, even in a small way.

[rm]

A politician has spoken about a divisive, complex issue with real thoughtfulness, integrity, accuracy, and honesty.

I'm 41. It may be the first time since I was about one year old, the year the last two such speakers were gunned down.

I pray that the nation doesn't do a "Gore invented the internet" on this speech. Every time I think I'm cynical enough to be safe, someone gets my hopes up again. I hope this speech makes a damn difference.

[rm]

I should have said, a politician with a good chance of winning has spoken etc. etc.

I think John Edwards did this for poverty issues, but that's why he couldn't win. Lots of losers have spoken as honest, good men or women. It's just amazing to see a winner speaking like that.

The good man speaking well, indeed.

[hapax]

Geds, go watch the whole thing. I wanted to post a snippet in my previous comment on the t'other thread, but I couldn't find a good place to cut. Like all thoughtful, compassionate, wise speeches, it doesn't lend itself well to soundbites.

I had my two teenaged children watch this video. My daughter summed it up well: "Wow. A politician who isn't an a$$hole!"

I deplore her language, but echo her sentiments.

[Eric B.]

I think what really worked here is that he quit running for President about 5 minutes in, and just started adressing the issue. And you know this was an effective speeech, because it didn't take the FRC long at all to get their panicked "response" out. The title was "eloquent speech, troubling ideas." At least they didn't say "articulate."

It is, indeed, amazing stuff. I'm curious to see if this becomes one of those "historical" speeches that people talk about 50 years later.

[John]

Brck bm hsn't th jdgmnt t b lctd dg ctchr. H lt hs chldrn st ndr th tchng f rcst htr, nd h drws mrl qvlnc btwn hs grndmthr nd mn wh tchs thrs t ht nd spw vnm. My ! Th cnddt wh wnts t trnscnd rc cn't brng hmslf t brk wth rcst. Th cnddt wh sd ms fd th strtyps hs chldrn hv t dl wth vr d hs n prblm wth ths chldrn bng tght tht DS s th nvntn f th Wht Mn fr kllng th Blck Mn. hv n s fr sch dmn hpcrt wh tks n ngry rcst s hs sprtl dvsr nd hs fml's sprtl dvsr.

[Ebonmuse]

So, John, I take it you'll be supporting Sen. McCain, whose close personal friend and spiritual advisor John Hagee believes that the Catholic church is the Whore of Babylon, that Hurricane Katrina was a punishment for gays, and the Jews deserved the Holocaust because they didn't all convert to Christianity? I sure am glad we have nice, safe, mainstream pastors like that instead of those scary black men.

[John]

Yh, yh, yh. McCn hs scrtl bn lstnng t Hg's tps fr dcds. nd McCn pt hs chldrn n Hg's chrch fr 20 yrs t lrn bgtr, nd h's gnn tll s hw hs rsh grndmthr ws frd f lstr Prdds, s ts K t pt sm Ht n th Pp, nd bsds, Hg hs ths hddn chrmng sd f nl y knw hm bttr. h hh. Whtvr y sy.

'll vt fr Clntn r McCn bcs 'v rld lmr Gntr-mn t. nd t s sch shm, bcs bm n ccsn dspls sm lft rhtrc, bt h lcks ntgrt r jdgmnt, tk yr pck.

[Tyro]

John, I get the impression you aren't that religious and haven't met too many people. Truth is, lots of our spiritual mentors have held beliefs that, quite frankly, wouldn't get them elected to office. And that's a damn good thing, too, because I would hate it if the American people were limited to believing only that which is acceptable to a mass media market. I expect the spiritual mentors in my life to occasionally have beliefs that are much more extreme than my own. At least Barack isn't begging and pleading for the endorsements of people openly calling for policies to bring about Armageddon.

Barack Obama spoke today and made me realize that it will finally be good to have a president who speaks to me like an adult. You see something like that and realize that McCain (and certainly Bush) just can't compete.

[Ian]

See, this is what happens when you try to run a negative campaign against Obama.

His playbook:
- no initial reply
- he lets the "scandal" of the smear build for a week or more
- then he explains not only by the smear is groundless, but how the smearing is indicative of specific larger problems in American society

This man will destroy the Republican party. I don't mean win by a large margin, I mean force them to change the way they do business.

Speaking as a highly skeptical foreigner, I'm starting to think he can make America more like the dream of America than America has ever been.

[Robb]

Speaking as a highly skeptical foreigner, I'm starting to think he can make America more like the dream of America than America has ever been.

Speaking as an even more skeptical American, I completely agree - if anyone has had a chance to change, it's Obama.

I'm curious to see if this becomes one of those "historical" speeches that people talk about 50 years later.

It will be, I completely believe it will be.

I can't wait for my county caucus, just because I want another chance to vote for this amazing man.

@Fred - was your intention to Cthulhu-ize John's statements? They were ludicrous enough before, but now I can't look at them without imagining unnamable horrors & non-Euclidean geometry.

[Geds]

Geds, go watch the whole thing.

I plan on getting around to it. But even with what little I've heard so far I'm massively impressed. I simply knew what he was doing and that was more than enough for me.

@Fred - was your intention to Cthulhu-ize John's statements?

It's called disemvowelling. It's a favored tactic of certain internet moderators. I tend to like trying to re-parse them.

[Robb]

It's called disemvowelling.

I've seen it done before, I've just never seen it come out so Lovecraftian. All the more appropriate given what he said.

[Brandi]

Was somebody being woeful?

[Spalanzani]

Robb: "@Fred - was your intention to Cthulhu-ize John's statements? They were ludicrous enough before, but now I can't look at them without imagining unnamable horrors & non-Euclidean geometry."

It's not generally well known today, but most of the sacred chants of the Cthulhu cult originated as disemvowelled versions of the comments Abdul Al-hazerd left on the Vatican's blog, back in the early days of the internet. Of course, back then to make a disenvowelled post even harder to read, you could leave some vowels in and take out a consonant in their place. So for instance:

Disenvowelled:"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"

Original (High Middle Internet English):"Eph’ng luifty! Moa gouu lau w’n apefh Cthulhu! R’ly, exahii waa gouu agh’nias az aa u a u gial fihtiin, u ao? Gn!"

Direct Translation: "F-ing lefty! More gov law won't apease Cthulhu! Really, exactly what gov agency's ass are you and your girl fisting, you a-hole? GN!"

Colloquial Translation: "Fucking liberal! More government laws won't appease Cthulhu! Really, exactly what government agency's ass are you and your girlfriend fisting, you asshole? Get knotted!"

Of course, when you say the whole thing out in modern Internet, it somewhat loses its mystique.

[Nenya]

I'd say Spalanzani won the Internets, except that I think Barack Obama has now won the next twenty Internets to be awarded....

Seriously, though. WOW. I am touched at this speech, glad that someone is speaking up on race issues so clearly (both truthfully and inclusively), and proud, proud, proud that it's my candidate that's doing it.

Mr. Obama, thank you.

[Spalanzani]

OK, so I've listened to his whole speech twice now and have to agree that it's very really quite good. And now I'm even more upset that I missed out on the oppurtunity to attend one of his speeches. Oh well...

[bad Jim]

Second Nenya's motion concerning Spalanzani. Bravo! Explains why nobody seems to know how to pronounce Cthulhu.

John Stewart's take on Obama's speech tonight was actually rather respectful. There may be hope for us.

[Caravelle]

His playbook:
- no initial reply
- he lets the "scandal" of the smear build for a week or more
- then he explains not only by the smear is groundless, but how the smearing is indicative of specific larger problems in American society

On the other hand, didn't the Kerry campaign try to do this with the swiftboating incident ? Well, they did step one and two at least, by the time they got around to step 3 it was too late. I'm not sure Kerry tried to show the smearing was indicative of larger problems in American society, but for some reason I don't think he would have been listened to if he had...

[Jesurgislac]

*nods*

At the time Kerry was the Democratic candidate.

At the moment, the opposition won't want to launch fullscale attacks against either Obama or Clinton until one of them is officially the candidate - because fullscale attacks expended against the one who ends up going back to being a Senator, are a waste of resources. Safer to let the supporters of either attack each other's candidate, and foment the hostility with comments about how Clinton is "race-baiting" or Obama is really a Muslim.

As soon as either one wins the nomination, then the fullscale Swiftboating will start.

[John]

John, I get the impression you aren't that religious and haven't met too many people. Truth is, lots of our spiritual mentors have held beliefs that, quite frankly, wouldn't get them elected to office.

You are right about A and wrong about B. I'm not religious because lots of spiritual mentors hold beliefs decent people should not hold (e.g., Hagee and Wright). Why should I believe some religious program that doesn't significantly change those who are expositors of the beliefs?

And since it appears that free thought and discussion aren't welcome here, and are actively suppressed, I'll leave you to your reliably progressive echo chamber views. I'd hate to disturb the monoculture here at Miskatonic U any more than I already have.

[Vince]

When I first saw John's posts above I was pissed. I thought it was a gimmick to mock some sort of accent, but it made his comments unreadable to me. The disemboweling explanation cleared that up. Now I'm still pissed, but at Fred. OK, it's your blog, you can do what you want with it, but censorship? For shame.

If John's ideas are that ludicrous, let them out in the open so anyone can read them and mock him, instead of obfuscating them and making him look like a victim. Don't you believe in freedom of speech (the right of any person to state anything they want, no matter how stupid or offensive, so long as they sincerely believe it true)? Or was John a troll and you didn't want to feed him? But then, why not simply delete his posts? I am disappointed, I have come to expect better from you.

[Robb]

And since it appears that free thought and discussion aren't welcome here, and are actively suppressed

Um... Not quite - what you said was beyond disrespectful of Obama himself, not Wright. That kind of rudeness should always be regulated. Don't even begin to get sanctimonious.

[Jesurgislac]

Was somebody being woeful?

Yep: they're even doing a "Dan, I WON'T be ignored!"

[mike timonin]

I'm inclined to agree with Vince re: censorship. I read John's original post and it didn't seem any more woeful than things we've put up with before without taking drastic steps. However, I'm willing to offer Fred the benefit of the doubt - perhaps there's more going on behind the scenes than is initially obvious.

There is, of course, the fact that someone like John has made essentially the same wrong and wrong-headed comment in every single forum discussing this speech that I've looked at since yesterday. It's getting a little repetitive, and it feels as though someone (or a group of someones) have Googled key phrases from the speech and set out to make John-like comments across teh Internets. Which would, of course, make them trolls.

[BC]

Ohboyohboyohboy - I'm just waiting for 9 a.m. MDT when Montana Democrats put 2400 tickets online to see Clinton and Obama in Butte in April. These are going to be such hot tickets and I hope to score two. Wheee!!

[Rachel Jayne]

Vince: Don't you believe in freedom of speech (the right of any person to state anything they want, no matter how stupid or offensive, so long as they sincerely believe it true)?

The freedom of speech relates to freedom from government regulation and prosecution (and even then, only in a limited sense). It doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want in my house. This is Freds house. We're his guests. He does get to decide what is and isn't acceptable behaviour.

I agree that the post shouldn't have been touched - althought I have no idea what it actually said. This is a comment section where debate is actively encouraged by the site owner. In my mind that action undermines all future discussions. Arguing that it goes against Freedom of Speech however is ludicrious. It doesn't. John can say whatever he likes without fearing government reprisal. He just can't say it here.

[zzyzx]

I get to vote for Obama again in a few weeks myself at the district caucus. I can't wait.

Going into this year, there were two things that terrified me about Obama's chances - Rezko could blow up or there could be issues about his church. Both of these were known. Rezko is turning out to be a bust and Wright has been pretty effectively defused. Unless something else came up, I really think he's going to do it.

Please America, prove me right just this once.

[Vendor Xeno]

Up until now, Obama was still the 'default' candidate for me, as in the best we had left after people ignored Richardson or Kusinich. But yeah, with that speech, that level of mental coherency, and as importantly that ability to respond that powerfully to a 'crisis' has made Obama the candidate I now support actively. I've daydreamed of a candidate that can respond that forcefully and gracefully to the perpetual tantrums and idiocy of the media and the masses.

[alsafi]

Vince (et alia)--the point of disemvowelling is not "censorship" (not that that's a meaningful term when you're talking about comment moderation)--you can still go back and work out what it was that John was saying, if you want to expend the effort*. Disemvowelling leaves the post up where anyone who cares enough can figure out what was said, while at the same time giving anyone who doesn't a visual cue that it was arrant trollery and can safely be ignored. Wholly deleting such things only makes the thread confusing if people did reply at any point, and really comes closer to the notion of censorship than disemvowelling does.

*Freedom of speech guarantees the right to say (more or less) what you like. It carries no guarantee that you can force people to either give you a platform or to listen.

[Kayte]

When the world at large recovered from its empathy for us, the victims of 9/11 -- when that strutting buffoon in flight suit and codpiece declared that our mission was accomplished -- I despaired of my nation ever again being the kind of place I was proud to say I was from.

Egad, the mangled syntax in my first paragraph, but on to the point:

The things Obama is saying, and the style with which he is saying it, gives me more hope than I have felt in years. He can reduce me to tears, because I have had that hope so often, and it has been trashed so thoroughly.

I hate getting my hopes up that someone is the real deal, just to get a Monday morning smackdown and back to the same-old-same-old. I'm old now, a bewildered Republican-sort-of senior cit, and I'm afraid to bet everything I have on Barack Obama. I've been disappointed so many times ...

But, yeah. Here I go again ...

[Caravelle]

I agree with Rachel Wayne; I will add though that "the right to say whatever you want as long as you sincerely believe it to be true" seems an exotic definition of free speech to me. I always thought of it as "the right to say anything you want" period, and if I had to add conditions the first would be "as long as nobody gets hurt" (needless to say this can be more or less restrictive depending on how you interpret "getting hurt"...).

[Sebastian]

Wow. That speech is ... it's like an artifact from a different time. Something people don't do when they're running for president. I wish I could vote for him.

ObDisemvowelling: The advantage of disemvowelment over just straight up deletion is that if you're so inclined, you can go back and piece together what John (in this case) had to say. If you *don't* want to read it, though, it's easier this way to ignore and get on with having a proper discussion. If Fred doesn't have one of these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pnh/464048175/ hanging on his wall, he should...

[Sebastian]

And alsafi beat me to the point on disemvoweling. Rats.

[McJulie]

I sorta like the disemvowelling, if only because the word makes me laugh. (And because Spalanzani's explanation made me laugh even harder.)

What Fred did to the troll-posts is not censorship. Mr. Troll is perfectly free to start his own blog and you are perfectly free to go read it. Censorship is what the Chinese government does, where if you try to go to sites that they don't approve of, they will actually not let you go there.

Or, actually, what Fred did *is* censorship, it's just not the kind the First Amendment is against. As has been pointed out before, this is Fred's place, and if he thinks you're being rude, he can humiliate you in the hope he can get you to stop, or kick you out if he thinks you're going too far.

Also, to Mr. Troll and all other Trolls out there in Troll-land, what is wrong with expecting you to be a little civilized in your arguments? If you can't make your point in a way that avoids things like personal insults, profanity, etc., then I'm inclined to think you don't actually *have* a point to make.

[Caravelle]

I also cast my vote to award Spalanzani an Internet by the way.
Sadly I can't vote for Obama, so I'll have to be content with seeing Sarkozy dive in the polls. (I don't follow French politics at the moment so I don't know why he's diving in the polls; I hope it's for reasons I'd approve of).

[not_scottbot]

censorship - 'not that that's a meaningful term when you're talking about comment moderation'

Except, at least in one sense, it is. Obviously, a forum host has no obligation to simply tolerate anything posted in a forum - for a trivial example, no one complains about comment spam deletion. And banning someone also remains a host's privilege, obviously.

But there is a flip side to this, one which was far too easily used by racists objecting to the fact that they had to allow 'them' into what was considered private property - who gets to decide what is correct, and what isn't?

A restaurant owner is most certainly not allowed to decide what customers are served or not, based on the criteria of the restaurant owner. That is, at least in the eyes of the law, simply saying I don't serve 'them' is illegal behavior.

Which is why the point of censorship seems so flawed as currently constructed in America. When I was growing up, the FCC actually forced broadcast outlets to allow diverse opinions to be broadcast -
'The Fairness Doctrine from 1949 until 1987, when it was discontinued by the Federal Communications Commission, required broadcasters, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, to cover controversial issues in their community, and to do so by offering some balancing views. It did not require equal time for opposing views. It merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views.'
http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html

However, America's media is now essentially in a few private hands, and has no obligation to broadcast anything except what it wishes. Starting to see the parallel to the restuarant owner demanding the right to be left free of any government burden in deciding who to serve or not?

America is awash in censorship, if the active restriction of information is used as the definition.

And this active restriction is one of the things that people outside of the U.S. (including Americans) see clearly, while people within the U.S. have a hard time imagining a broader framework that the one found through the mass media.

Unfortunately, as the Internet, especially in its Web 2.0 form, is becoming increasingly a source of revenue for various media interests, the same shutting down of rude, obnoxious, vile, incorrect, and most especially undesired is becoming common.

There is no answer, just troubling questions. You should read about those who set up a forum so that the banned poster sees a specially created page, without any other reader knowing what was written. As a matter of fact, this continues a certain trust theme, and not only relates to censorship.

Why people are so trusting of what they see on their screen is beyond me.

[Jesurgislac]

If you run a restaurant, you are under a legal and a moral obligation to admit, seat, and serve anyone without discrimination on grounds of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability - or even if you walk in with a big message on your sweatshirt saying "I voted for Dubya twice and I'd do it again!" and tell the waiter you hate gay marriage, think Bush did a great job, and support the war in Iraq. Nevertheless: the waiter's job is to bring you what you ordered and serve it to you politely, even if you are a scumsucking Republican.

The owner of a restaurant is, however, fully entitled to promptly evict a customer who walks in and says to the waiter "Hy, cnt, gt m fckng br nd dnt wst m tm, cn't y s m rnld Schwrznggr."

And that is the mistake the troll just made.

[Rosina]

A restaurant owner is most certainly not allowed to decide what customers are served or not, based on the criteria of the restaurant owner. That is, at least in the eyes of the law, simply saying I don't serve 'them' is illegal behavior.

Surely it can impose criteria such as 'Must be wearing a shirt', or refuse to serve drunks, or abusive persons. A restaurant can choose its menu, too, and no one may insist that it serve a vegetarian (or carnivorian) option. Certain criteria might be disallowed, but I see no sign that Fred is picking anyone because of their race, gender, religion or sexuality.

Since I couldn't read the last part of Jhn's post, I'm not sure quite what was objectionable about it, but I will give Fred the benefit of the doubt. I have no doubt that there are trolls fly-posting abusive comments in places where this speech is being discussed. They are as inimical to real discussion as is 'censorship by host'.

[Jesurgislac]

In fact, in UK employment law, a restaurant owner has a duty of care towards their employees, and has not merely a right but an obligation to deny admission to customers who are abusive towards the staff - and also a right to deny admission to customers who are abusive to other customers. The notion that "free speech" applies where a member of the public is being abusive to either staff or customers is a defense I expect to hear from drunk bigots retching out their prejudice, sure they "got a right" - not advanced seriously by sober adults.

Part of how the unlamented Sctt was allowed to comment here so long was that, for the most part, and especially once the rest of us took to ignoring him, he was abusive only to Fred - and therefore, I suspect, Fred felt it incumbent on him to forgive up to seventy times seven.

[Froborr]

I've been meaning to watch this speech. After reading this excerpt... yeah, as soon as I get home I'm kicking my roomies off the Wii and pulling it up on YouTube.

[Lauren]

First I read the speech, beginning to end, then I got home and watched it on Youtube (linked from Obama's website, if you are interested). And then I read through the "highlights" again (ie, most of it). It brought a little tear to my eye all three times.

I especially liked the part about reading to your children.

[mike timonin]

Jesu said, "Part of how the unlamented Sctt was allowed to comment here so long was that, for the most part, and especially once the rest of us took to ignoring him, he was abusive only to Fred - and therefore, I suspect, Fred felt it incumbent on him to forgive up to seventy times seven."

Ahhh. That's the dynamic I was missing here. My concern re: disenvowling was that Fred's never done it before, and that Jhn's comment didn't strike me as being any further out of line than Sctt's had been. But, as you point out, the direction of the comments were different, and that does make a difference. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Sheila]

Frankly, I've said the same thing for ages--if the Angry Black Man and the Angry White Man got together and compared notes, they'd realize they were being screwed over by the same people. THEN we'd have a revolution on our hands.

[Zonko]

I'm only 20 so I'm not terribly familiar with political speeches, but going from Bush's fumbling faux pas to this would be like going from night to day. I've been a supporter and fan of Obama for a while, and I've been impressed with his oratorical prowess (hee hee big words) but this speech still surprised me with how well-written and well delivered it was. Erudite and articulate!

Cthulu for president!

[Izzy]

In fact, in UK employment law, a restaurant owner has a duty of care towards their employees, and has not merely a right but an obligation to deny admission to customers who are abusive towards the staff - and also a right to deny admission to customers who are abusive to other customers.

My envy is unmeasurable by modern science. Not as much as it would have been a few years ago, when I was actually working the sucktacular retail jobs, but still. America's policy toward customer service seems to be that customers should be able to get whatever their wittle hearts desire by throwing tantrums, and that service employees should do everything but be a bukakke target for both customers and managers. Sometimes I hate this country.

As far as censorship goes...yeah, kicking people off of, or moderating comments on, personal blogs is not censorship in any meaningful way. Even beyond Jesu's analogy of the restaurant. A personal blog is like a conversation, or a party--and while not serving people in a public establishment because of their beliefs isn't, er, kosher, I'm certainly not going to be very open to conversing with a neocon or a fundamentalist. This isn't sixth grade; you don't have to invite everyone in the class to your party.

[Froborr]

Conversing with a neocon or a fundamentalist can be fun under the right circumstances. Neocons moreso, if it's a smart neocon able to keep their cool while you rip their arguments to shreds. Especially fun if they have Econ 101 and therefore believe they understand how economies work.

My single greatest achievement in sophistry remains the time, upon a new fundie coworker attempting to steal my soul for her cult, I managed to convince her that I was a fundie myself -- without telling a single lie.

[Andrew]

See, I totally buy the argument that we are guests in Fred's house and that he has the right to do whatever he pleases (more or less) with our comments. Thing is, I'd appreciate it if Fred wouldn't do that to the comments--yeah, they (were offensive? I really couldn't read them...), but I feel that we're all Big Kids here and can hopefully maintain a reasonable level of decorum even if the trolls don't, and I like being able to read everyone's opinion.

Yeah, it's Fred's house and he can destroy those comments if he wants, but if I'm visiting someone's house, I'm still going to ask them not to serve the food I'm allergic to or smoke around my asthmatic lungs. If they refuse, I won't try and force them, I'll leave, or if what they've done is a minor slight, I'll hold my tongue, smile, and deal. Same here. Hey Fred, would you mind not doing that to stupid trollposts? I prefer being able to read them and form my own opinions. If Fred doesn't, I'll shut up, sit back, and do my best to read the dsmvwlld psts, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for us to request that he leaves them alone. We just don't have the right to force him to do it.

[Jon]

Taking the restaurant/retail analogy regarding the disemvowelling/"censorship" and putting my own spin on it, I'm reminded of a time when I worked in an all-night grocery store back in Michigan. By law, the cut-off point for selling alcohol was 2 AM. By the store's policy, our cut-off point was midnight.
Invariably every night a few minutes after I'd put up the chains blocking off the alcohol section, there would be someone heading for a register, six-pack in hand, and I'd have to explain that we stopped selling alcohol at midnight, hence the chain with the sign saying "No alcohol sales after midnight" hanging from it. You know, the chains you had to duck under to get to the beer?
Most people were understanding about this, but there would occasionally be some outraged would-be drunk who would assert that we were "breaking the law" by not selling alcohol up until 2 AM.
I would point out that there was no requirement to sell until 2, and that, within the bounds of the law, we could sell alcohol at our discretion. I would then point out that if not selling up until 2 was a crime, then the rival grocery store up the street which also sold alcohol was in even grosser violation of the law, as they actually closed entirely at 11 PM.
What was my point? Oh, right, that Fred is under no obligation to allow comments in the first place, and is certainly free to eliminate any comments he sees fit.
Oh, and to be slightly more on-topic, when I watched the clip of the speech I found myself reminded of the "Prez" issue of The Sandman.
I tend not to follow the campaign beyond what I see on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, so I've never really had the opportunity to hear much beyond sound bites from Obama. Clearly I've been missing out. I think that, regardless of what happens in November, this is definitely one of those speeches that will be remembered for a long time to come.

[Axiomatic]

Well, in your analogy, the disemboweled post IS the asthma-inducing smoke that irritates the lungs, or possibly the eyes.