From your comments I can't believe you were ever 'leaning Obama' as you claim.

a) Other than the comments he made that have circulated You-tube, please define extremist and why his pastor is so?

b)How is stating a fact throwing his grandma under the bus?

c) Geez, you really think that race is helping him? I seriously doubt that Hillary is winning the people who admit to voting because of race because it's 'helping him.' And I'm sure singing "I'm black and I'm proud will do him good as well."

d) And the fact that these people did some good in there lives and turn around and make racist or race insensative comments constitutes a witch-hunt? Then what to you call the continued persecution of Wright? Justifyable media lynching?

The issues involved are obviously far too complicated, nuanced, with way too many points of view for you.

You're a joke. But I'm sure you don't realize it yet.

Yada, yada, yada. So what do you do in your day to day life to bridge the racial divide? Or, are you of the mindset that it's someone else's problem? Hating is easy, being part of a solution is not. Open up your heart and mind, and LISTEN to Barack's message. We are all in this together.
You just said you have no solutions, so why do you criticize what he had to say?

a) What denomination and church do you attend so that we can judge wether you have grounds for this complaint.

b)He did not throw her under the bus. He pointed out that he just like most of us have elders that we love and respect that ocasionaly say things that we and our peirs find ofensive.

c)What do you feel that the ratio of people who vote for him because of his race to the ones who vote against him for the same reason is? I think net it has been a small negative so far. But with his oponents being the ones who keep bringing up race they must think it plays to their advantage.

d)Neither he nor his campaign went on the witch hunts you mention. Most recently he did not go after Ferraro. He laughed her asertions off as rediculous on the face of it. Pundits and people on the internet like me that he has no controll over did go after her (you may read my reaction here http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/tattooed-white-trash-for-obama.php ). It is amazin how suposedly bright Clinton supporters cannot distinguish between the behavior his campaign and actions of others.

I was a Clinton supporter until shortly before Super Tuesday. Obama won me over, and I'm still with him despite my chagrin over the Wright controversy. Here's what I hope you'll consider regarding your argument:

(a) Obama's taken the perfect stance advocated by the Christian injunction to "condemn the sin, but love the sinner". Everything about Wright's extremism there is to condemn, he has condemned. But he continues to love Wright as a man who has done much good in the world despite his loopy views. Can you not consider embracing Obama, even if you may disagree with his choice of pastor?

(b) Do you really feel Obama has equated his pastor with his grandmother? Or has he simply given a speech which made a point that racial hatred is real, and illustrated it with examples close to his life? You might consider a more charitable stance. Following Sean Hannity or Brit Hume's talking points is not wise unless you really feel they are admirable journalists

(c) Obama himself never said he thought Ferraro was a racist; in fact, he has previously said that he feels he has gained some votes because of his race, just as Clinton has gained some votes because of her gender. Even if he didn't play the Ferraro controversy very well by having his surrogates go overboard, consider that most Democrats agree with them that her views were poorly worded, at least.

(d) Hasn't Obama done much better at avoiding charges of race baiting than many of his overzealous supporters? His speech condemned his supporters, in fact, for being too quick to pounce on gaffes by the Clinton campaign and calling them racist. He is doing a great deal to calm down the zealots and cool the tempers of everyone confronting the prospect of the first black president. And he's doing a pretty good job for it, on the whole.

Race is a minefield. Give Obama some credit for wading into these difficult waters and giving some wisdom and guidance that will help the nation to heal its divisions. What other politician has stepped so boldly into the racial traps set by US politics, and succeeded half as well?

Obama is virtually certain to be the Democratic nominee. Even if you're not an Obama supporter now, you might consider giving credit where it's due, or at least avoid blaming Obama for the mistakes of others.

For the nay-sayers, tell me of any other speech in the last 20 years from a President or Presidential candidate of the caliber of Obama's yesterday in both substance and depth. Please. Just tell me what you're comparing to ass you diss it.

"Back in January, I was leaning Obama. But he misplayed the race
card back then, and it turned me off. Well, yesterday's speech made it worse."

I am not going to personally attack you or call you a troll. I just want you to tell me how Obama misplayed the race card in January and what it means to misplay the race card, in general.

Personally, I think the speech was quite effective and though he perhaps intended some damage control [and why wouldn't he?] I think he also intended to clarify his views on his own racial identity as well as race in general. I do not think he threw his grandmother under the bus, I think it was clear he was making a point about prejudice and bigotry and each of our own proximity to it and how we deal with that in human relationships with loved ones.

As a man of mixed race [white mother, black father] I was personally moved by the speech in that it so perfectly--or as perfect as is possible-- characterized the inner struggle of what it is like to be biracial. It was quintessentially biracial. I certainly could identify with it. Sure there were political aims, but I am not so cynical to believe that it was simply purely politically driven or calculated. [In fact, Obama strikes me as far less calculated as his Democratic opponent, which is one of the reasons that I would prefer he answer the phone at 3 am].

Further, the only one who would be in a position to make that judgment [that he was somehow unfair in his treatment of his grandmother] is his grandmother. I am going to assume that she was ok with it until she says otherwise.

Another facet of this Wright "controversy" that has bothered me--in fact it is the main facet that bothers me-- is the mischaracterization of both Trinity UCC and Jeremiah Wright. He is not an extremist. Snippets of a few sermons in which he was passionate and critical of US foreign policy or in which he crudely compared Clinton and Obama's life experiences--or in which he was arguably insensitive to 9-11 victims does not in my view make him an extremist. It makes him unafraid to share unpopular opinions. It might make him as I said insensitive. It might make him ballsy. It might make him crude. It might make him angry at that moment, perhaps justifiably. But it doesn't make him an extremist in my view. It takes far more than that. I'd really like someone to explain to me what the "extreme" view is. That this country has racism? That this country's foreign policy has at times not always been kind to others in other places? That Hillary may not know what it is like to have experienced racism first hand?

And whether his race is helping him is a matter of some debate. I suspect that there are far more people in this country who would not support him due to his race, whether consciously or subconsciously, than would support him due to his race.

And can you clarify for me what exactly you meant by this:
"(d) Don't go on witch hunts against well-established human rights advocates such as Bob
Kerrey, Geraldine Ferraro, and Bill Clinton. Instead, reach out to them with words of wisdom, not a sharp tongue. Besides, shouldn't a unifier be identifying other fighters for the cause and working with them to fight injustice in America?"

First of all, what did he say about Bill that would be characterized as a witch hunt? And Bob Kerrey? And should he have simply ignored Ferraro's racially insensitive at worst and ill conceived at best comments? Comments which she made 20 years ago about another black candidate?

I was extremely impressed with his speech and it has turned the tide for me. I considered it INCREDIBLE grace under pressure and I did not BEGIN listening as a FAN!
Give credit where it is due. I personally consider it one of the finest speeches I've heard in my lifetime.

Love the people (including a few editorialists today and the above poster) who are so offended on behalf of Obama's grandmother. Are you all sure she hasn't authorized him to talk about awkward racial issues in their family that make him cringe? You must have superior knowledge to mine, because you've formed a conclusion that entails that she did not permit it.

Or is it mean for a black boy, after he grows up, to acknowledge somewhat euphemistically that his white grandma said things that made him ashamed of who he is -- one of those scary black folks she'd cross the street to avoid? I've never been black (I'm just a white guy whose uncle and grandpa taught him that black nuts are called N-----toes), but it's great to know that it's fair to form conclusions like that about his experiences in race.

But he shouldn't use them in public. What illogic.

Denn:

We know that Unity is the goal (and not just with race). But we are rearing to move on to Step 2: Devise a Plan.

And that is why I ask Obama "HOW?" and why I point out what I feel are non-Plans.

I don't see this as a failing of Obama's. On issues that require a federal government PLAN, he has offered quite detailed plans. Health care and immigration, for example.

But on the issue of taking the country forward in race relations, no federal government PLAN is needed. Obama's position, as I see it, is that unity is not merely a "goal" that has to be forwarded according to a "plan", but that unity is our condition, in fact, as an American people. Therefore the problems like race that seem to divide us are illusory when our true national identity is understood. The solution, therefore, is a proper understanding of our unity. Understanding that we are united helps us to realize who we are as a people, and therefore the role of our leaders is to remind us of who we are, and our potential for unity, and inspire us to understand our role properly. It's a cognitive issue -- raising the collective consciousness -- and he's doing it, by virtue of who he is, what he says, and the campaign that he's running.

You see, in Obama's political philosophy, overcoming differences (e.g., racial divides) is essential because it empowers us to move beyond the false issues to truly important issues -- Obama's social and economic progressive agenda. Moving past race is valuable because it allows us to enact health care reform, cut the deficit, save US jobs, etc.

I've read a lot of criticism of Obama for bringing up his grandmother, even, some say, conflating her with Wright. But look at it this way - Wright may have said some inflammatory stuff about whites (US of KKKA) and surely, if Obama heard it, he grimaced, because he was raised by a white mother and grandparents and knew them to be good people. He obviously shows know signs of hostility or aggression towards white, and I believe much of it has to do with his upbringing.

But in America, Obama is not white, he is black. That is how our country defines itself. So when he is a teenager, and is coming to grips with how the country has chosen and will continue to define him, he sees the world a little differently. And to hear his own grandmother express racist fears of black men - and Obama is a black man! - must be an incredibly painful feeling. To our ears it might not conflate with Wright, but to his ears, to hear his own grandmother, who raised him, express that she fears black men, men like Barack Obama, I mean, cut the guy some slack. Have any of us felt that kind of pain from a family member?

What I was most struck by in this speech was that it seemed incredibly honest. I agree that he did not offer solutions but sometimes just the airing of grievances is a solution in itself.

good post with lots of great points. well done.

As the mother of a biracial child, I was filling in automatically, what was left unsaid in the speech, whilst the speech was made.

American needs to claim responsibility for all of its children. We cannot afford to deny any of them. Part of African American anger is the knowledge that most of them are the descendents of both white and black Americans and that their white grandparents abandoned, abused, and enslaved their own children.

More subtext; One does not abandon those one loves, family is esbalished more than just by blood, and that his family, whatever its failures, did not include the abandonment of it's African American child. Abandonment is a profoundly destructive action. It can only be ameliorated when we embrace all of our children, our family, no matter how much we would like to throttle them occasionally.

Obama has had several very successful careers. One of them was as a teacher at the University of Chicago. A good teacher provides guidance and information but s/he does not tell students all the answers, Learning happens best when students find their own way to the right answers. This lesson Obama started, is not finished. It's a full on course of study.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2008/03/is-rev-jeremiah.html#more

Theologians add that much of the recent tension stems from two quite different vocabularies. When Wright proposed "God Damn America" as an alternative to the song "God Bless America," religion professor Sandy Martin at the University of Georgia did not hear any anti-American sentiment.

"What came to mind was somebody who sees himself as God’s servant, one who is duty bound to give God’s word and sometimes that word is chastising," said Martin, an ordained Baptist minister. "Every nation including the U.S. is under the judgment of God and I think it’s easy for that to be misunderstood by people who are not used to that mode of addressing the issue. Sometimes the literal words are not exactly what is being conveyed."

Just as Obama suggested in his speech, those who heard Wright’s sermons in their entirety agree the snippets taken out of context would make anyone cringe. For many, a crash course in vocabulary and history is needed to interpret Wright’s statements.

Rev. Linda Thomas, an ordained United Methodist minister and seminary professor, has worshiped at Trinity for many years.

"If one heard the entire sermon as I did, one would know that the title of the sermon was ‘The Day Jerusalem Fell,’ she said. "When he was saying ‘God Damn America,’ he was just saying God was going to hold America accountable for its actions. That’s what damn means—accountability."

Dear Denn:
See my comments in caps in your text.
Obama's call for unity yesterday was not courageous. YOU DON’T ARGUE THIS POINT, SO IT’S DIFFICULT TO RESPOND DIRECTLY TO YOU, BUT ALMOST ALL COMMENTATORS ARGUE THAT IT WAS COURAGEOUS RELATIVE TO SAYING NOTHING, ALLOWING THE PROBLEM TO DISSIPATE. MOREOVER, IT WAS COURAGEOUS INASMUCH AS RACE IS A THIRD RAIL OF POLITICS IT'S SO RISKY TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE THERE IS SUCH HEATED CONTROVERSY ABOUT EVERY SUBISSUE. ANYTHING ONE MIGHT SAY CAN CREATE A NEW REASON TO ATTACK AND DAMAGE. It was damage control. THIS IDEA MISSES THE POINT THAT THIS WAS A ONCE IN HISTORY KIND OF SPEECH, AS ALMOST ALL COMMENTATORS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CLINTON/OBAMA FENCE HAVE SAID. HE DIDN’T JUST EXPLAIN HIS RELATIONSHIP TO WRIGHT, WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED THE DAMAGE CONTROL IN THE SPEECH, ALTHOUGH I’D RATHER SAY THAT IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO DEEPEN OUR NATION’S UNDERSTANDING OF RACIAL STRIFE, TO ENABLE US TO LOOK BEYOND THE LEVEL OF RACIALLY LOADED ANGER ON BOTH SIDES, TO SEE THE CAUSES OF THE ANGER RATHER THAN JUST BRANDING PEOPLE AS TOO RADICAL OR THREATENING. Besides, we ALL want unity. NO, WE DON’T ALL REALLY WANT UNITY; WE AREN’T GOING FOR IT, TRYING TO CREATE IT AS HE IS; HILLARY WANTS TO FIGHT; THAT’S HER STATED METHOD FOR LEADING THOSE OF US ON THE LEFT TO ACCOMPLISH OUR ENDS. LIKE SO MANY OLD STYLE LIBERALS, SHE IS SO DEMORALIZED ABOUT ACTUALLY GETTING THROUGH TO PEOPLE WITH WHOM SHE DISAGREES, THAT SHE DOESN'T CULTIVATE CONTEMPORARY METHODS FOR CREATING UNITY. SHE'S OLD SCHOOL, WHICH WILL LEAD US BACK TO WHERE WE ARE, MIRED IN 51-49 PERCENT POLITICS AND MORE OF THE KIND OF STALEMATING VITRIOL THAT PERVADED HER HUSBAND'S STAY IN OFFICE. The question is "HOW?" Obama didn't answer that with action items because he doesn't know how. HIS FAILURE IN THE SPEECH WAS HIS FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY FLAG OR HIGHLIGHT HIS PROPOSAL, HIS ACTION ITEM. HIS ACTION ITEM IS TO PROMOTE AND USE A METHOD FOR SOLVING PROBLEMS, ONE THAT DEPENDS EXCLUSIVELY ON PROFOUND LEVELS OF RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE WITH WHOM ONE DISAGREES. THIS METHOD IS AT THE HEART OF THE METHOD ADVOCATED BY SOME OF THE MOST SOPHISTICATED INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS EXPERTS IN THE WORLD. FOR INSTANCE, JAMES BLIGHT AT BROWN U. ADVOCATES “DEPLOYING REALISTIC EMPATHY,” WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA DID IN THIS SPEECH AND WHAT HE INTENDS TO DO IN SYRIA AND IRAN. IF YOU DON’T CAREFULLY AND RESPECTFULLY UNDERSTAND THE OTHER GUY’S POSITION, YOU CANNOT FIGURE OUT HOW TO REACH HIM. THAT’S FUNDAMENTAL, AND CLINTON DOESN’T SEE IT. SHE’S A FIGHTER.

I don't know the solution either. I am not arrogant enough to think I can "change" the country. But I sure do know ways that will NOT unify the country across racial divides. HERE IS THE DEMORALIZATION I SPOKE OF ABOVE, AND YOU ONLY ARE STUCK IN IT BECAUSE YOU JUST HAVEN'T BEEN PRIVY TO THE KIND OF PROBLEM-SOLVING METHOD OBAMA HAS IN MIND. Here are Obama's NON-solutions:

(a) Don't get "spiritual guidance" from an extremist pastor. It's horrible judgement, repeated over and over for 20 years. And don't defend that choice as if it weren't a choice. I THINK YOU’RE MISSING THE POINT HE MADE ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS PASTOR. HE SAID THAT THE MAN IS COMPLEX AND CAN’T BE REDUCED TO THE LABEL, “EXTREMIST.” HE EXPLAINED THAT THE PASTOR DOESN’T HATE WHITE PEOPLE AND HAS MANY TENDER-HEARTED RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM. YOU’RE OVERSIMPLIFYING HIS PASTOR, SPEAKING OF HIM PREJUDCIALLY AS IF HER HAD NO HUMANITY, NOTHING TO RECOMMEND HIM. BUT THIS GUY HAS RESCUED MANY LOST SOULS, GIVEN THEM DIGNITY AND A HAND UP. IT SEEMS CRUEL TO REDUCE HIM TO THIS UGLY LABEL.

(b) Don't throw your 86 year-old grandmother under the bus of prejudice in order to draw parallels that (don't even) justify your bad choice of pastor. IT SEEMED TO ME THAT HE DID NOT AT ALL DEGRADE HIS GRANDMOTHER. HE USED HER AS AN EXAMPLE OF HIS BASIC POINT, THAT MANY OF US ARE PREJUDICED IN THE SENSE THAT WE’RE RACIALLY INSENSITIVE. WE’RE NOT RACISTS IN THE SENSE THAT WE WANT TO BRUTALIZE AND OPPRESS MINORITIES. BUT WE HAVE SOME PREJUDICIAL IDEAS THAT HURT PEOPLE’S FEELINGS. HE’S TRYING TO GET US TO UNDERSTAND THOSE PEOPLE RATHER THAN CONDEMN THEM FOR BEING RACIST OR RADICAL OR WHATEVER. HE WANTS US TO DEVELOP THIS DEEPER KIND OF RESPECT THAT TOLERATES THEIR INSENSITIVITY AND ANGER, AND THE EXAMPLE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP TO HIS GRANDMOTHER IS UNUSUALLY APT. SHE OBVIOUSLY LOVES HIM DEEPLY, CARES ABOUT HIM—IS NOT ABOUT TO START A RACIST ORGANIZATION, BUT SHE HAS RACIALLY INSENSITIVE IDEAS. AND HIS REACTION IS TO CRINGE, NOT TO PUT HER DOWN AND CREATE DIVISION. HE CONTINUES TO LVOE AND RESPECT HER AND TAKE THE GOOD WITH THE BAD. THAT’S HIS MESSAGE AND HIS METHOD. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER A LITTLE DEEPER AND NOT GET HUNG UP ON SOME OF THE INFLAMMATORY THINGS WE SAY, NOT MAKE THOSE THINGS THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF EACH OTHER.

(c) Don't respond to claims that your race is helping you succeed in the campaign by lying and saying it is not. Celebrate it, man! Shout to the highest mountains that you are proud that your heritage helps you attract more voters. I THINK THE CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE BUT NOT WIDELY CIRCULATED THAT HIS RACE IS NOT HELPING HIM. IT ONLY APPEARS TO HELP HIM BECAUSE A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS VOTE FOR HIM. BUT THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN FOR JESSE JACKSON. THE POINT HERE IS THAT THEY’RE NOT VOTING FOR HIM BECAUSE HE’S BLACK BUT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE, AS PROMINENT BLACK FRIENDS OF MINE HAVE SAID, HE IS THE REAL DEAL. HE MEANS WHAT HE SAYS AND REPRESENTS THEIR VIEWS. THEY LOVE HIS BOOKS, AS MANY OF US WHITE FOLKS DO. MOREOVER, ALTHOUGH A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF BLACK VOTERS VOTE FOR HIM, THERE AREN’T A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF BLACK VOTERS IN MOST STATES. THE ENTIRE COUNTRY HAS UNDER 20 PERCENT OF BLACK PEOPLE, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS IS SMALLER THAN THAT. MOREOVER, FERARRO DIDN’T SAY THAT HIS WAS RACE WAS, AS YOU PUT IT, HELPING HIM SUCCEED. SHE SAID THAT HE WOULD NOT BE IN THE LEAD OR CLOSE TO IT IF IT WERE NOT FOR HIS RACE. SHE IMPLIED THAT, IF HE WERE NOT BLACK, HE WOULDN'T HAVE GALVANIZED THE SUPPORT THAT'S PUT HIM IN THE LEAD. THAT’S PREPOSTEROUS. BELIEVE ME, I COULD CARE LEESS WHETHER HE'S BLACK, AND MY BLACK FRIENDS FEEL THE SAME WAY. OF COURSE, SOME BLACK FOLKS MAY HAVE THE IDEA THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THEM TO HAVE A BLACK PRESIDENT AND WOULD VOTE FOR HIM JUST BECAUSE HE'S BLACK. BUT THAT LOGIC IS BALANCED BY THE SAME LOGIC ON THE PART OF WOMEN WHO VOTE FOR HILLARY; INDEED, MANY OF HER SUPPORTERS ARE QUITE EXPLICIT IN ARGUING THAT THEY'RE VOTING FOR BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN, AND ALTHROUGH THEY LIKE OBAMA, THEY WANT A WOMAN.

(d) Don't go on witch hunts against well-established human rights advocates such as Bob
Kerrey, Geraldine Ferraro, and Bill Clinton. Instead, reach out to them with words of wisdom, not a sharp tongue. Besides, shouldn't a unifier be identifying other fighters for the cause and working with them to fight injustice in America? THESE POLITICIANS HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO UNDERMINE OBAMA’S CANDIDACY, OFTEN SAYING THINGS THAT WERE INFLAMMATORY AND GAVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE REPUBLICANS. BESIDES, OBAMA HASN'T GONE ON A WITHC HUNT. WHAT DID OBAMA SAY ABOUT FERRARO. HE SAID, “I DON’T THINK SHE’S A RACIST.” EVERYTHING HE SAID ABOUT HER UNDERMINING COMMENT WAS UNIFYING, UNDERSTANDING. HE DIDN’T PUT HER DOWN ONE IOTA. HE DID AS HE LEADS US TO DO. HE DISAGREED WITHOUT BEING DISAGREEABLE.

Back in January, I was leaning Obama. But he misplayed the race
card back then, and it turned me off. Well, yesterday's speech made it worse. Obama is a Pied Piper, playing a beautiful song that he hopes will lure voters. Ultimately, though, his arrogance and personal ambition prevent him from generating actionable, effective solutions to America's issues of race. YOU’RE NOT ARGUING ANY OF THESE POINTS. YOU’RE JUST STATING THEM. I KNOW PEOPLE WHO KNOW HIM, AND THEY CONSISTANTLY SAY THAT HE IS WHAT HE APPEARS TO BE. HE’S GENIUNE. YOU SHOULD READ SOME OF THE COMMENTS HIS FORMER STUDENTS MAKE. HE WAS THE MOST POPULAR LAW PROFESSOR AT ONE OF THE TOP LAW SCHOOLS IN THE COUNTRY. HE LISTENS TO PEOPLE AND RESPONDS RESPECTFULLY. HE DOESN’T SEEM ARROGANT TO ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE RELATED TO HIM IN THE ILLINOIS SENATE. QUITE THE CONTRARY, HE UPLIFTS PEOPLE, CELEBRATES THEM, REGARDLESS HOW POOR OR DISADVANTAGED THEY ARE. I SUSPECT YOU THINK HE'S ARROGANT BECAUSE HE IS ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT AND HAS WELL-FORMED RESPECTABLE IDEAS; AS PEOPLE SAID OF HIS SPEECH, HE'S VERY PRESIDENTIAL. THAT CAN SEEM ARROGANT BECAUSE HE'S RISEN SO HIGH SO FAST; PEOPLE THINK, WHO DOES HE THING HE IS? BUT HE IS WHAT HE IS, A BRILLIANT, PROFOUND PERSON. I THINK IT'S JUST DIFFICULT FOR MANY PEOPLE TO CATCH ON TO THAT REALIZATION. BUT IF I WERE HILLARY AND WAS COMPLETELY HONEST AND DEVOTED TO THE COUNTRY, I'D GIVE UP, SAYING, "I COLD NEVER HAVE CONCEIVED A SPEECH LIKE THAT NOR COULD MY HUSBAND. YOU'RE THE MAN. YOU'RE LINCOLNESQUE AND WE DESPERATELY NEED YOU.