First of all we know why Obama gave his speech:  Damage Control.

While I believe that Obama was sincere about everything in his speech, and it is clear that the Jr. Senator from Illinois is trying to achieve great things in his life, and aspires to move racial relations along the path of reconciliation in his own way, this speech would clearly not exist at this point in time had it not become Politically -- not socially -- but Politically imperative to make such a speech.

In contrast, MLK made speeches because it became Socially imperative to do so.  No political career was at stake.

With that in mind, I was asked yesterday if the speech transcended Political Expedience, and I've read it three times.  It is truly eloquent and heartfelt, inspirational in depth breadth of understanding, it does transcend Political Expedience.   Yes, the speech itself did transcend the circumstance within which it was given.

So now we've heard about the Clinton Campaign "planting questions."

It's great.  I like it.  I'm serious!

It would suck if it was planted questions about how Social Security is in a state of crisis.  (It's not).

It would suck if it was a planted question about how Kyl/Lieberman was an Authorization vote.  (It's not).

It would suck if it was a planted question designed to exploit nuance as indecision.  Bush.  Cheney.  Rove.  They all did that too.

*****    Debate History Quiz.  ******

Match each Quote Below with the Candidate who said each Quote.

Another Fine Author has already Chronicled Sen. Clinton wowing Scientists in San Francisco.

What I want to Focus on here in this short piece is the Endorsement of Senator Clinton by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Here is the quote from last week:

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?fil e=/2007/8/2/worldupdates/2007-08-02T0231 02Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-287732-2&sec =worldupdates

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Here is what Barack Obama said tonight in the Debate during the heated exchange between Sen. Obama and Sen. Dodd:

"You obviously didn't read my speach.   Because what I said ...

If we have actionable intelligence on Al-Qaeda Operatives including Bin Laden and President Musharraff can not act, then we should."

It is good to know that Sen. Obama thought twice about his speach from last week and now realizes that President Musharraff might not be in a position to act on the actionable intelligence we receive on Al-Qaeda Operatives and Bin Laden.  That to expect Musharraff to be able to act on such actionable intel would put Mussharraff in an untenable situation with his people who are still, for the most part, unfortunately still very Pro-Taliban.  Musharraff can be an ally with America, but Musharraff can not be a traitor to Al-Qaida.  That is the fine line he is walking and it is a line that the U.S. must give him room to walk unless we do want him overthrown.

I read Obama's speach.  It was poured over in great detail on Blogs and by Pundits.  And I do suspect with stong confidence that these things, a change in this kind of language is not by accident.  Media Advisor to the Obama Campaign Axelrod also said "can not" during the Spin Session with Chris Mathews after the debate.

It's a revision.  Not a minor revision at that because it establishes a completely different set of expectations on the part of President Musharraff.  

It shows Obama is thinking.  That's a good thing.  Because he has a very good chance of being the Democratic Party Nominee I'm just glad he understands the issue.

All this talk about Donations and Lobbyists has prompted me to become well acquainted with one of the best tools out there for tracking Money in Politics.

www.OpenSecrets.org