Words are not enough. They are however the most potent weapon he has at the moment.

No one Senator can bring our troops home. And arguing that he should have voted against funding is a bogus argument. We all knew that the war was going to be funded and we know we can't really stop funding it.

What Obama shows, with his words, is that he understands the situation, has the right judgment regarding it, and knows, "from day one," how to deal with it.

He is currently a candidate for the Presidency. Candidates give speeches, it is how they define their candidacy and what type of President they will be.

Also, based on your comment, I would assume you didn't even bother reading the speech; would should be considered a must read for anyone who is actually against the war.

One of the most important powers of the presidency is the bully pulpit.  Say you're going to make a speech and every network will cover it.  If he needs pressure on Congress to get a bill passed, being able to make a persuasive speech goes a long way towards that.

Being able to convince people is important.  It's easy to forget that because Bush doesn't have the ability to sell air conditioners in Las Vegas.

Hillary gave a speech on Iraq on Monday

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speec h/view/?id=6553

What's your point?  The candidates are giving speeches?

On Iraq, he gave a beautiful speech in 2002 against war.

Obama had the opportunity to use his brilliant oratory to become a leading opponent of the war once he actually got elected to Congress.

Obama is a wonderful speaker.

What has he actually done, in terms of deeds and actions, to tackle race relations?

If you want to argue based on the reality of his policies and his record, fine. But all you did was repeat as many anti-Obama talking points as you could fit into one post.

This is still a speech. Unlike the Clinton campaign he has not come up with any printed plan. Unlike the Clinton campaign his healthcare reform falls far short (in fact he now uses Republican talking points to criticize the Clinton plan). He has no plan for the economy or the foreclosure mess. It is all one bombastic speech meant for gullible people. I am frankly sick and tried of intellectually dishonest posts like this. Show me a policy paper not a speech which he can disavow at a moment's notice.

What actions against the war has he demonstrated since then?

Since the speech in 2002, he has:

*Publicly opposed the war while campaigning in both 2003 and 2004.

*Called for a phased withdrawl of troops in 2005.

*In 2006 he called for policital reconcilliation in Iraq, again called for withdrawl, and advocated for agressive diplomacy in the region.

*In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.

*In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

Now, what has HRC done to end the war in Iraq (apart from authorizing it)?

Well, she made these strong anti-war statements:

"I can support the President, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security." (NBC's Meet The Press, 9/15/02)

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."  (Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002)

I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States." (Hillary Clinton - January 22, 2003)

This speech is unfortunately more an attack on Hillary Clinton, classifying her with Bush and McCain, than much of a substantive policy speech. I think his earlier foreign policy speeches, which cover the same ground with more substance, are much better:
August 2007, the war we need to win
April 2007, Chicago Council on Global Affairs

But most of what he has to say was anticipated, in much more depth, by Hillary Clinton in October 2006 at the CFR.

Am I the only who just saw confirmation on CNN of the story that's been going around for a while: the reason that the surge is "working" is that were paying militias like $10 mil a week? Seriously, it like claiming a War on the Mob is working bwecause your paying for protection. I'm getting a bit owrried McCain's going to win because of the surge, this will be his framing strategy and frankly I don't see a hugely credible counter for either Canidate (if US casualites remain low):
McCain- Risked his political career to call for the unpopular surge, that saved Iraq and gave us Peace with Honor

HRC- Supported the War until it became politically inconveniet to do so (ties into her metanarrative-- will do anything to win, has no integrity)

Obama- Against the War from the start... because he's too naive to realize Saddam's links to 9-11 (remember 2004 showed facts don't matter ) fits into his metanarrative, weak, naive, not proud of America)

At this point other than a Joint ticket win with sheer demographics (also accomplished by taking Richardson for either of them), or possibly a counter with a general as VP (Zinni for Obama, for CENTCOM commander-- in cahrge of Mid East Operations just prior to invasion, opposed all the way, Zinni's downside is sadly that he is a I believe of Arab descent, and despite his service will thus be called unpatriotic) (Clark for Clinton- Allied Commander Europe, led in Kosovo- though this could be a detractor depending on spin).