Does it heighten your attraction to Obama to know that Lincoln is his hero?

YES!!

And indeed – being a lanky phenom from Illinois, who beat the prohibitive favorite from the great state of New York (as was Seward) – (and indeed, HRC probably would also try and be the Prime Minister in the Obama administration) is also fascinating!

And it will be a sublime moment and the coming to pass of a genuine milestone in the history of the United States of America, if Barack Obama is inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States January 20, 2009; and then three weeks later on February 12, we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth.

I cannot think of any other moment of idealistic triumph (a real historic culmination) – in my lifetime – that would compare….other than maybe the moon landings

edit – really, I only have maybe 4 dozen Lincoln books….and I just read Kaufmann’s (unrelentingly dark!) Booth book… (American Brutus) – which I will NOT place anywhere near the Lincoln books!!!

Does it heighten your attraction to Obama to know that Lincoln is his hero? I don’t know if he’s read as many books about him as you have though.

True enough! Or in George Bush’s case, he simply crashes forward and makes a new word (like strategory or misunderestimate….a funny article is at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/revealed-script-for-bushs-mangled-words-403580.html

‘Obama unplugged’ is good stuff, although I can see the wisdom of prepared remarks. Certainly, Lincoln never strayed far from prepared remarks (and carefully prepared they were!); the famous series of debates with Judge Douglass were really reprises of the same stump speeches from both candidates, again and again – with late additions for responses to questions posed)

Lincoln’s big piece of advice, when he sent a “public letter” to James Conkling to be read at a rally in Springfield, was to deliver it slowly!!

Yes, I think he can be great in more low-key situations, but he also has an unfortunate tendency, which I share, to say “um” incessantly. This dysfluency may be the result of a writerly approach to language. That is, the effort to find the right word that results in the elegant written sentence results in sometimes unbecoming hesitation in speech.

I honestly don’t understand why McCain spoke at all last night. Why didn’t he just let the Democrats have their night? There was nothing about the evening that called for a speech from him and nothing about his speech that needed to be said last night. Juxtaposing his speech and Obama’s just called attention to the awfulness of his, not that that’s going to be easy to hide.

I noticed that, too; it struck me that he was not just speechifying (which he does marvelously), but was indeed affected by the historic moment – and indeed by his opponent’s non-concession.

I heard Rush Limbaugh actually using the word “stupid” to describe Obama; he could read a teleprompter, and deliver a speech, but he doesn’t know anything (etc etc).

But honestly, while I enjoy Obama’s set-piece speeches immensley, it greatly appeals to me when we see the slower, directly engaged mode he displays in debates, and during press-plane talks and so on. (I suppose it would worry me a little, if he was always turned up to “11″)