...I just want to say that while parts of Obama's speech don't rub me quite the right way it is still pretty refreshing to hear a politician be able to talk about dissent and patriotism without self-righteous anger.

He is carving out a position where bringing home the troops is supporting them. Increasing their medical and educational benefits rather than McCain's reducing them which, imo is akin to spitting on them when they return.

We must remember, though, that true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.

I get that he was a child then. There is no disputing that Barack did not protest either for civil rights or against the war. He has, however, been a beneficiary of both of those struggles. Why the need to continually bash those times and the folks who were there?

How do we keep ourselves safe and secure while preserving our liberties? How do we restore trust in a government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests? How do we ensure that in an increasingly global economy, the winners maintain allegiance to the less fortunate? And how do we resolve our differences at a time of increasing diversity?

He gave a fine speech, but Obama won't thrill me ever again until he shows he can govern effectively and remain loyal to those principles he rightly includes in his definition of patriotism. I'm not sure that placing the financial well-being of the telecoms above the Constitution is a patriotic priority.

For a young man of mixed race, without firm anchor in any particular community, without even a father's steadying hand, it is this essential American idea - that we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will - that has defined my life, just as it has defined the life of so many other Americans.

I never heard Bill Clinton talk in quite that tone.

Being able to see other sides of issues, having a mind that is open to other views, are good qualities, but there comes a time when one must choose what it is one believes and act on it.

I see the professor in Obama, the teacher who wants to provide all possible points of view for his students to pore over and consider and chew on as they develop their own core beliefs.  I don't see someone who will excel at governing, at putting his beliefs into action, at standing firm for principles.

When Obama talked about changing the nature of the Democratic party, I thought he meant that we would work to make sure that our representatives would no longer capitulate to big business and that there would be a return to the basic values the party had in the time of FDR.  I thought he meant that we'd ditch the career consultants, party insiders and leaders who let the party infrastructure across the nation stagnate, who sell us out and who are responsible for not doing the things that help us win elections.

Instead, he's throwing long time party members and activists under the bus.  He's alienating large parts of the base.  I'm beginning to think that this is what he means by "change" -- a new party that brings in more independents and throws out more of the activists and working class.  Actually I've been thinking this for some months now.

Does he really have a vision of this change and this new party?  Or is he making it up as he goes along?  

Anyway, back to the subject:  What's the purpose of statements like today's on the Vietnam era?  Is he trying to make sure everyone knows he was not part of that era?  Is it because McCain is a Vietnam vet?  

Or is he trying to lecture the current anti-war movement?  Is he trying to further distance himself from the current progressive and anti-war movement?  

All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments - a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.

Speechs used to be cool, now actions and sound bites rule.

Obama seems to be treading water, eschewing the glory of our past political icons and at the same time attempting to enfuse the now...

Notice we don't see McCain making speeches to address his vulnerabilities. It's not his skill-set and so what, frankly though Obama's rhetorical skills are better, that in itself does not qualify him to be President.