Rare, I agree with you that speeches alone don't make a great politician, but they do give you a sense of how he thinks.  I wasn't sure, but I don't think that he used a teleprompter or notes.  I watched for that and didn't see him glancing down or at a fixed spot near the camera, as he often does when he delivers a written speech.  That alone is a rare talent--being able to give extended extemporaneous speeches.  It speaks well of his ability to think clearly under pressure.

But you are right that his policies probably do not resonate with yours.  I think that politics matters, and I probably would not vote for a Republican who had great rhetorical skills running against a Democrat that spoke as poorly as the younger and elder Bushes.  I will say this for Obama.  I think that rhetorical skills will make him a much more effective president, because he will be able to rally large numbers of people to support the policies he does care about.  I don't think that you'll find him devoting most of his time to gay marriage, abortion rights, or gun control.  He seldom brings up those issues, and he often shows that he understands both sides of those issues when he does.  I think that he will be too busy struggling with the economy, the environment, education issues, public healthcare, and a host of other issues that we all really need to concentrate on.  He does seem to be able to focus on what is important, and that is why I find myself so enamored of him.  I can see him developing into a great leader.  He isn't there yet, but he has that potential.

I consider Clinton's chances of getting the nomination to be nil at this point.  She has become unacceptable to too many Democrats, not to mention Independents and Republicans.  The only question at this point is how bad she can damage her party and Obama's all-but-certain nomination.

I wanted something more from the Obama speech.  I heard it advertised as the speech in which he would address the controversial statements of his minister.  What I heard was a thorough lesson on the history of black/white race relations and a plea to understand that some blacks have valid complaints against a society that, in the past, discriminated against blacks in horrendous ways.  All of that is well and good, but in speaking of his pastor, my senator said that, although his pastor's comments were wrong and divisive, he continued and continues to support his pastor because he "led a church that serves the community" and "he has been like family to me...I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

First off, I'm glad he noted that his pastor was "wrong."  Yet he fails to explain why sometime during his 20+ years at the church he never mentioned this to his pastor, someone who "has been like family to me."  He fails to note why, knowing that his pastor was prone to make controversial statements from the pulpit, he assigned him a position within his campaign.  To me, both those actions show poor judgment, and my senator has failed to explain to me why they don't.

What he should have said is something similar to the following (apologies to Mr. Hanson):
"Allegations that America helped to cause, and thus deserved, 9/11 and that the US government engineered the AIDS epidemic, as well as the pastor's slurs against 'white people' and Secretary of State Rice, are not reflective of the views of mainstream black America and they have no place in any house of Christian worship.  We are taught to love our neighbors, and the hatred implicated through such statements is unacceptable."

I wanted to hear a plea to understand the anger of some in the black community coupled with some expression of absolute rejection of those who preach racial hate.  I wanted to hear Sen. Obama say that he would be a President that would stand up for truth no matter the consequences, not one who asked us to understand and accept people who tell lies.  I wanted to hear that we can't have a conversation about race until both sides stop shouting accusations at the other, and that no one who practices race baiting need apply to be part of the conversation (this applies to both Rev. Wright and those who equate affirmative action and immigration with Jim Crow).  Instead I got a history lesson and some rhetoric about how I should understand why people like Rev. Wright race bait and tell lies from the pulpit (b/c of this complex history, you know). 

More than anything, I wanted Sen. Obama to take ownership of his failure to directly address this issue to his pastor and assurance that he has done so or would do so.  People can change, and Christianity teaches to hate the sin and love the sinner.  Rev. Wright doesn't need to be disowned, but he does need to be rebuked.  This isn't academic or theoretical.  It doesn't involve constitutional law or public policy: it's about correcting someone the Senator clearly holds dear.  If the Senator can't confront racial tension in his own church, how can we expect him to address it as President of the United States?  Is that too much to ask for?