Brazzil

We're analyzing in the piece the history of speeches in America as though this is just another presidential race. Although Mr. Obama is undoubedly a very well educated man, the point is missed that people from different backgrounds THINK differently.

You're quoting speeches from Anglo-Saxons (minus Dr. MLK) and assuming the title of President (if he arrives at that) will somehow transform a life-time of experience as NOT being Anglo-Saxon into such.

So many people fail to understand that "you are different from us" causes one to ponder "who am I like?". Mr. Obama knows the then-and-now of Germany and Europe. Those speeches were perceived to be relevant in their time. His speech is perceived to be relevant in our time. History is important for comparison's sake and can't be ignored. However, being stuck in making the past the present and future by assuming Mr. Obama has an agenda like those so vastly "different" is sheer confusion.

That's one of the core confusions of leaders in America and the world. One minute "you're not like us" (as the status quo has drilled in people who "look" like Mr. Obama for 250 years ), the next minute we're making comparisons of speeches as though he were one of the old-boys all along.

There are people who genuinely want problems to be addressed and solved, and there are those who use Democracy, Politics and Speeches as stall tactics and they had NO INTENTION of carrying out what they said when they said it. A smoke-screen masking the ACTUAL implementation (wink-and-a-nod).

Mr. Obama is from a different time and a different background from most of those you included in your piece. Who will help him help others and who will scheme against him, attempt to set him up for failure, propogate their code words. DELIBERATELY seek to infuse confusion and all the other status quo bag of tricks to get BACKward to the agenda of the past.

That's the real question ...