Exactly, it's an argument all about context and nuance on an issue that demands it, in a political world that has never heard of it.<br><br>I've read a few columns and it appears as though someone sent out the note to every opposite partisan columnist at every daily paper: "You need to show some respect for the rhetoric of the speech, but make sure that you act as though you don't understand parts of it or that you are personally unsatisfied with it. Say 'fell short' or begin a sentence with 'what he needed to accomplish.'"<br><br>The columns are all different, with different little angles, but there is one particular fact that unites all of them. They all completely ignore the nuance and most importantly the forgiveness and reconciliation that Sen. Obama argued for. And it makes sense. For most partisans approaching any speech by Sen. Obama with a preconceived notion, those people coming to it who already decided about Sen. Obama before they ever knew the name Wright, and most importantly those newspaper columnists, talk show hosts, and bloggers whose audiences expect them to dislike Sen. Obama, there is no such thing as nuance. There is no such thing as context.<br><br>Some of these people have made whole careers out of ignoring nuance and acting obtuse. This speech did not only address the specifics of Sen. Obama's vision of race, it talked about how people should address it... together. Amongst the most bile-filled corners of the political world, together is impossible.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
-- Cee Bee Double-U