home

Obama's Speech: Did It Save Him?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:54:00 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Tim Hames of the TimesOnLine examines Obama's speech and assesses its impact. He thought the speech was outstanding and moving. He thinks it will be remembered in a positive, ground-breaking way for years to come.

That said, what effect will it have on the presidential race?

Was the speech a turning point? No. Will the issue of the Rev Jeremiah Wright and his views on race be a burden to Barack Obama all the way to election day? Yes.

The Illinois senator demonstrated yet again his eloquence in his address in Philadelphia on Tuesday. The fundamental question about his candidacy, however, is whether a man who would be the least experienced president of the United States since Jimmy Carter has the judgment to serve in the Oval Office. That is the doubt that Hillary Clinton exploited in the Ohio and Texas primaries and it is the theme that SenatorJohn McCain will hammer home if Obama is his opponent for the White House.

More...

So Obama cannot win if race is a predominant issue in this election. Wright was a special embarrassment because he had been so close to the Obama family and what he said had been captured by television and could be replayed endlessly to a less than impressed white audience.

....It has long been clear that the senator can be the first black president only if he is not seen as a black candidate.....Obama has to be above race, not enmeshed in it. His implicit argument that by electing him Americans would somehow have cleansed themselves of past distrust will not wash. That is why the chances are that this is not the last time that the senator will find himself having to confront the matter of race in this election.

Hames says this worries the Democratic party establishment:

This is a year when it should be relatively easy for them to reclaim the Oval Office, yet there are nagging doubts about whether Obama, if nominated, could carry states such as Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which will determine the outcome of this battle. Obama's words will undoubtedly impress those who take the trouble to listen to him. Whether they will work with those who are watching rather than listening is far more debatable.

Update: Comments over 200, this thread is now closed.

< SUSA Polls on Electability | Obama Is The Obstacle To A MI Revote >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Speech: Did It Save Him? | 194 comments (194 topical)
    the speech itself (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:21:13 AM EST
    isn't going to have any effect because anyone who is bothered by Reverend Wright isn't going to change his mind based upon anything that Barack Obama has said.

    At best, it might diminish the amount of play Wright's sermons gets on main stream media which might be a benefit but it's possibly too late.

    The 'nagging doubts' of course is the issue and I suppose that the upcoming races have to somehow provide a gauge of the impact because it's abundantly clear what the ads of the various 527's will be come the general election if Obama is the candidate.

    Obama bothers me, not Wright (5.00 / 9) (#41)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:45:44 AM EST
    What does bother me is Obama's failure to live up to  the principles he himself espouses in the speech in his campaign tactics. There's a curious, or maybe not so curious, passivity that creeps into his language when he gets down to cases in the campaign.

    The press is scouring the exit polls to divide us?
    Well, "the press" was Obama surrogates like Sullivan and Eugene Robinson who rushed to blame the Bradley Effect (i.e., racism) on Obama's loss in NH, and without evidence.

    "We" "can dismiss" Geraldine Ferraro as harboring "some deep-seated racial bias"? Yeah, except it turns out that "we" is Axelrod, Obama's own campaign manager.

    "We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card"? Yeah, like Obama himself did, when he blamed the Hillary campaign for the photograph of him in "Muslim" garb (when Kevin Drum admits he got suckered by Drudge on it).

    And let's not even get into the orchestrated charges of the racism that the Obama campaign used to take down Clinton (here Million Man March).

    I think Ashley deserves a President whose words and actions match. You can't decry racism on the one hand, no matter how eloquently, and then use charges of racism of smear your political opponents on the other. (Though maybe Obama can, given the lack of scrutiny he gets from our famously free press.) No doubt one effect of "The Speech" will be to draw a decorous veil over how the Obama campaign has been having it both ways on this issue.

    Parent

    Exactly correct. Obama has (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:47:56 AM EST
    run a very underhanded campaign, pitching the most hateful attacks on Hillary while being seen as the "above the fray" candidate.

    Parent
    Again, I (none / 0) (#169)
    by zfran on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:57:23 AM EST
    believe this goes to judgement. He has shown his is not the best. He's a politician first it seems and plays the game (the race card when necessary). If he wants the public to be adults about race, then he should take responsibility, like an adult, for his troubling judgement. Quit blaming everyone else!!!

    Parent
    The speech...the speech...sigh... (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:36:01 AM EST
    I maintain my position that it was the equivalent of the person who started the fire showing up with the fire truck and the hose and wanting credit for trying to put it out.

    It was as political a speech as any I have heard, delivered via teleprompter and re-using material from older speeches.  He goes to the brink of the cliff with Wright and then pulls back on the theory that Wright is just as important to him as his family.  He uses his grandmother - taking a scenario he wrote about in his book and enlarging it to fit what he wanted to say - as an equalizer.  He says, in effect, that what Wright said - repeatedly - was no worse than his grandmother being afraid because a beggar, who happened to be black - approached her for money at the bus stop, wasn't satisfied with what she gave him, and she thought he might have attacked her if the bus had not arrived in the nick of time.  Yes, that was the genesis of the remarks he made about his grandmother, although to hear him tell it, the woman was just as bad as Wright.  I wonder, if his grandmother had been black, would she have been just as afraid of the black man begging for money?  Yes, audacity is the word that comes to mind, but not in a good way.

    He does the same thing with Ferraro - he wants us to think that what she said was on the same level with Wright's sermons.  And he want us to think that the race-baiting of the Clinton campaign was just as bad as what Wright said - even thought it was his campaign that conjured up the race-baiting to begin with.  More audacity.

    The disconnect continues...he wants to talk about the economic conditions that keep the black community down, but doesn't want us to see that when he had an opportunity to stand up for his constituents who were living in Tony Rezko housing developments, with no heat in the middle of a Chicago winter, he failed.  

    The speech made me wonder, how many Barack Obamas are there?  Which one of them is the real one?  

    As the old expression goes: don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.  Enough.


    Parent

    The very defintion of chutzpah (none / 0) (#193)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:21:25 AM EST
    Anne, your fire metaphor makes me think of it:

    Chutzpah is when a man murders his parents, and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan....

    Parent

    I doubt the speech will change many minds. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by nashville on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:34:44 AM EST
    I stated earlier that I thought it was inspirational. He is a gifted speaker.  When he came to this part, "We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias," however, I decided it was nothing more than just politics.  I felt this was a back-handed slap at Clinton for dismissing Ferraro when the whole issue had been fanned by his campaign.

    A less serious point :)  Did anyone elso get reminded of the Daily Show skit of "my father's a goat-ball licker" when he said "I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas?" Whenever anyone starts talking about the adverse/different circumstances from which they have arisen that skit just always comes to my mind.  No matter their political preference or if their my favorite candidate, I just think that skit was hilarious and I alwys think of it!

    Also many people have mentioned 527 and the Wright issue.  If the Republicans have enough money, they will send a DVD of it to every household in America!  The speech will not put that issue to rest because he is still a money-giving member to that church and has now refulsed publicly to disavow the Rev.  That may be laudable in the real world, but this is after all politics.

    Parent

    Effect of the speech (none / 0) (#15)
    by PennProgressive on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:47:42 AM EST
    Although much of MSM is praising the speech as Groundbreaking or exceptional, it is doubtful whether it will change the minds of the voters. Obama told Anderson Cooper that those who were not pllannning to vote for him, will not but those who support him will continue to do so. It will be impportant to see what happens in the  remaining 10 states--particularly in NC, KY and IN. I don't think that here in PA the wright  issue  or the speech will be that  important. Here in PA " It  is the economy stupid."

    Parent
    The polls are showing the effect of (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:27:15 AM EST
    Wright on Obama support.  All the hoopla about the Indpendents and Republicans Obama was pulling to his camp and adding to his numbers, now seem to be jumping ship.  These voters are the ones he was banking on for his nomination and now they seem not so inclined after all. I hope the superdelegates are watching this carefully.

    Parent
    Obama's speech and the pledged delegates (none / 0) (#130)
    by suskin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:17:44 AM EST
    Obama had the opportunity to be the leader he says he is; the unifier.  He could have and should have gotten up before the American people and said - this has to stop.  The Clintons are not racists.  Ferraro is not racist.  They are friends of the AA community.  We need to come together as a party and stop pointing fingers at each other.  But Obama didn't do that.  Instead he repeated his unfounded racist charges.  He solidified the racial divide and then had the audacity to say that because of his race he was uniquely able to heal it.

    It's time to investigate the caucus abuses.  With Pelosi and others disingenuously arguing that the super delegates should follow the pledge delegates, the legitimacy of the pledge delegates should be carefully considered. Anyone who has information regarding caucus irregularities, contact us at the below email addresses.  We will keep your names and personal information confidential if you request us to do so.  

    For Iowa: IowaCaucusIrregularities@gmail.com
    For Washington: WashingtonCaucusIrregularities@gmail.com
    For all other caucuses: DemocraticCaucusIrregularities@gmail.com

    Thank you

    Parent

    Jeralyn, please no, don't validate this, please (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jcsf on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:32:44 AM EST
    This is what the MSM does every time - EVERY TIME to our candidates -

    Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Gore, Dean, Kerry, Edwards, the smear artists every time, find something to "play" again and again, to come back to, that poisons the democratic candidate.

    This isn't an accident, this isn't happenstance.  It wasn't the fault of Dukakis, or Gore, or Clinton, or Kerry, or Edwards.  

    It's this sensationalistic narrative driven media, working in conjunction with smear.  

    Obama's had an easier time of it that Hillary Clinton, because he doesn't have the history, and he is a more "charismatic" candidate, like Bill Clinton.  And again, that is favored by the narrative press.

    But it's up to us, when we can, to push back against these narratives, and help our candidates, Hillary or Obama, or Edwards, or Gore.  

    This 24/7 focus cannot stand, and we have to stop it, if possible, not agree, or stand passive, or implicitly validate it.

    When Barack Obama (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:14:09 AM EST
    Was asked about the kinds of attacks that you describe above and how Clinton has been the recipient of those attacks in the past he said they were "unfair", but he also said they were there, and that because of those attacks Clinton would be incapable of uniting the country the way he can.

    I would have appreciated it if he could have mustered the conviction to say "Those attacks were wrong," and refrain from trying to twist that situation into a reason why I should vote for him.

    Do you see what I am saying?

    Parent

    I see what Obama was saying. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:26:23 AM EST
    It's clearer now.

    "It's unfair." shows sympathy with Hillary.

    But he deliberately did NOT take any sides which means that he avoided defending Clinton(reaching out to the ABC folks) and and implying that she was damaged goods.

    Of course, he also set himself up to be less than a sympathetic figure if the media decided to do the same to him.  I admit that I am not feeling all that much sympathy for Obama right now.  Politics on the national stage is a different game than regional politics.  Welcome to the big league!

    Parent

    He could have won me over (none / 0) (#163)
    by Coral on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:50:31 AM EST
    way back, by defending Hillary in a way that seemed gracious. Instead he seemed petulant, aloof, and begrudging.

    I'd be much more eager to leap to his defense if he had show a similar generosity of spirit in the months leading up to this moment. If he had, I'd be much less eager to see Clinton holding on.

    Parent

    I hear you, I think (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:19:53 AM EST

    Its like two wrongs don't make a right.

    Those who live by the sword die by it.
    (Perhaps in hindsight, playing the race card was a double-edged sword that cut both ways?)
    You reap what you sow,
    what goes around, comes around
    poetic justice,
    lots of similar axioms on that theme.

    a Fox news piece I heard earlier on some viewer feedback sort of touched on this. Forgotten who said it, along the lines that many people fear mentioning race because "...if they make a mistake, they will be labelled racist". The response from O'Reilly was "Yes, just ask Gerry Ferraro".  


    Parent

    Thinking about your comment... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by TN Dem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:21:20 AM EST
    I truly fail to see how not looking at what are extremely likely attacks from Republicans in the GE, and considering them when a race is still ongoing in our search for a nominee is divisive to our party.

    Pretending that these attacks will not happen, or that all will be forgotten will not help us elect a Democratic president in November. We have seen the results of that strategy and it does not stand. Discussing it is the only way to find a solution and combat it, whether that be to continue to defend on candidate based upon what we see, or to take pause and reflect on what will be best for our party and therefore our nation.

    Parent

    Discuss it, fine... (none / 0) (#33)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:26:19 AM EST
    But discuss how to push back against it.  Discuss how to destroy it.   Promoting it in order to slightly increase your chances of winning the primary doesn't help us at all in November.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by TN Dem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:33:44 AM EST
    I think that if you believe, as I happen to, that there is no way to push back against this successfully. There is no way that I can see to essentially remove Rev. Wright's statements from the minds of everyday American's who will in all probability, be subjected to a litany of 527 ads pounding the most negative and divisive of his statements through their TV sets for months on end.
    Therefore to take pause and consider who is the most likely to be elected of our candidates is something we as Democrats need to do if we truly believe that our party's leadership is important to our country.

    Parent
    now you want us to push back? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by english teacher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:50:01 AM EST
    when all you and your candidate did after new hampshire was accuse the clintons of racism?  it's a good thing this site disallows profanity, because there is a place i would like to tell you to go.  you were all warned about this in real time.  there will be no "pushing back" coming from this clinton supporter to aid obama.  i won't vote for him either, in large part because of his accusations of racism against the clintons and his complicity with the media in furthering that meme.  

    Parent
    Find one qoute (none / 0) (#62)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:16:39 AM EST
    from Obama accusing anyone of racism.

    Parent
    Tit for tat. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:02:18 AM EST
    Give me an equivalent Hillary meme that you'll push back against and I'll do the same for Obama.

    They are both Democrats, right?  We should get their backs because either one could be our nominee, right?

    Parent

    At this moment... (none / 0) (#87)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:58 AM EST
    ...I'm currently pushing back against the fact that anyone should care in the slightest where Ms Clinton was on the night of the Monica silliness.  If Whitewater or Travelgate or anything like that comes up, I will push back against it.  

    Parent
    Headline in Tennessean (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by nashville on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:43:06 AM EST
    on political page- "Hillary Clinton was Home while Bill had affair."  Give me a break!!!!! They, including the Obama campaign have been screaming for these records and because they can't find any "gotch," this is what they lead with.  This makes me sick!

    Parent
    we should love this (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:45:57 AM EST
    this is the kind of crap that is helping Hillary.


    Parent
    Who is "we"? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:52:22 AM EST
    I wouldn't say that it is helping Hillary.  But it does point out the media's obsession with ess-ee-ex.

    Parent
    Maybe you're right. (none / 0) (#104)
    by nashville on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:52:34 AM EST
    We can only hope.  After all Tweety did say sympathy is what got her where she is today.  

    Parent
    I thought it was "The economy, stupid!" (none / 0) (#94)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:45:32 AM EST
    This election is really about Monica?

    Someone better call Rassmussen and SUSA!

    Parent

    Okay. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:43:14 AM EST
    If anyone implies that the good Reverend and Obama were "more than friends", I will push back against that.

    ;-)  Fair enough?

    Parent

    HA (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    so many jokes . . .

    Parent
    I didn't even mention (none / 0) (#132)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    McClurkin.

    Jesus' General would have a field day!

    Parent

    What If This Is A Genie That Won't (none / 0) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:51:54 AM EST
    be put back into the bottle?

    Also, what exactly are we to defend?

    That Obama showed good judgement by attending Wright's church for 20 years when Wright is known for the type of rhetoric shown in the videos. I do not believe he did.

    Should the defense be that this type of rhetoric is standard fair and is not only the norm in black churches but it somehow improves relations between the races. I do not believe that.

    Should the defense be that Obama made a speech and that somehow eliminated the fact that Obama supported Wright for 20 years by choosing his church and by his contributions. That defense does not wash with me and I don't think it will wash with others.

     

    Parent

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#52)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:57:49 AM EST
    Promoting it in order to slightly increase your chances of winning the primary...

    There's been a lot of that going around...

    Parent

    Maybe you should tell Barack that. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:01:07 AM EST
    He seems to bring it up pretty regularly. I guess we, the little people, need to be held to a higher standard than the candidate.

    Parent
    Re: Jeralyn, please no, don't validate this, pleas (1.00 / 2) (#14)
    by wwinfrey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:45:11 AM EST
    Don't count on it. TL has turned from one of my favorite blogs to a clearinghouse for anti-Obama stories. A couple months ago, when Big Tent Democrat started really getting out of hand, I unsubbed from the RSS feed. Then I started hearing the same comments everywhere: "When did TalkLeft turn from a thoughtful blog about politics and crime into a rabidly pro-Clinton/anti-Obama blog?" I finally came to the site today and it's stunning. I want to say that I cannot believe how short-sighted Hillary's supporters are being, but unfortunately, I can. They take their cues from the top, and Hillary is too concerned with reversing the race to stick up for a fellow Democrat. It's sickening to see fellow Democrats embracing these divisive tactics, and Big Tent Democrat is the worst of the bunch. Ugh.

    Parent
    Too funny! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:57:37 AM EST
    I just read this comment, reversed the bias, changed the name of BTD and talkleft to another blogger and another blog....

    And it read just the same.

    My bias is for facts and some semblance of objectivity, that's why I like this place.

    Parent

    the suggestion (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by facta non verba on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:14:19 AM EST
    that we have to line up behind Obama is laughable.

    BTD actually supports Obama and Jeralyn has stated on national TV that she will vote support the Democratic candidate. I won't, I will vote for Clinton but not Obama. And I was an Edwards supporter to begin with. I could have gone either way. But I didn't because I think Obama a fraud, disingenuous, and divisive. I don't think him a progressive. Cues from the top? What does that mean?

    And while you have been gone, this blog has grown by leaps and bounds. Wonder why?  

    Parent

    Everyone has to line up (none / 0) (#73)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:25:59 AM EST
    behind Obama because Obama supporters keep telling us so.

    Meanwhile, Obama supporters are free to trash Hillary Clinton in the most Republican ways imaginable.

    Parent

    Oh Gawd (none / 0) (#156)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:46:16 AM EST
    HuffPo is nothing more than super-market tabloid trash these days.

    Parent
    How is this, (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by TN Dem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:26:58 AM EST
    Hillary's response to Obama's speech, helpful in your argument that she is not concerned enough to 'stick up for a fellow democrat'?

    "I did not have a chance to see or to read yet Sen. Obama's speech. But I'm very glad that he gave it. It's an important topic. Issues of race and gender in America have been complicated throughout our history, and they are complicated in this primary campaign.

    "There have been detours and pitfalls along the way. But we should remember that this is an historic moment for the Democratic Party, and for our country. We will be nominating the first African-American or woman for the Presidency of the United States, and that is something that all Americans can and should celebrate."



    Parent
    Hillary did try to defend Obama (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:43:54 AM EST
    on 60 Minutes, and look what it got her. The Obama people have made their bed with this one, sorry. Instead of meeting her half way, they chose to use the opportunity to rip her even more. They've turned "As far as I know" into a catch phrase to describe Hillary's duplicitousness, so it's a little late for them to worry about who's defending who. Add to that Obama himself perpetuating the Drudge smear against Hillary, and I wouldn't blame her if she's taking some satisfaction in the whole Wright controversy.

    Parent
    BTD's (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:50:18 AM EST
    An Obama supporter.

    Albeit self-described "tepid Obama supporter".


    Parent

    A critical Obama supporter. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:04:08 AM EST
    As opposed to an uncritical supporter.

    I can find uncritical supporters of every candidate elsewhere.  If that's what I wanted, I wouldn't be here.

    Parent

    With friends like BTD (none / 0) (#22)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:22:16 AM EST
    Obama doesn't need enemies.  BTD posts far more attack posts than support posts of Obama.  Even though he claims to be a supporter of Obama, his words are often more pro-Clinton than Jeralyn's, imo.

    Parent
    If you want (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:24:30 AM EST
    unquestioning and uncritical support of Obama,
    I can recommend some blogs to you.
    However, I don't think that will help get Obama elected.

    Parent
    I was just thinking (none / 0) (#24)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:29:07 AM EST
    that a "supporter" would tend to post more support than criticism.  Armando is more than free to have his own opinions, but they seem to line up more with Jerome Armongstrong than kos.

    Parent
    hmmm (none / 0) (#26)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:37:14 AM EST
    I prefer BTD's willingness to see problems and faults in his chosen candidate than Kos' fervent, barely critical support.

    Kos's declared mission is To Get Democrats Elected, so it should be expected that he'll go all cheerleaderish.  

    BTD hasn't made such a mission statement to my knowledge, so I have no such expectations of him.

    Parent

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:53:38 AM EST
    BTD has criticized both candidates and he is not a "fan" of either one. If kos has had one single non derisive thing to say about Hillary Clinton in the last couple of months, I've missed it.

    Parent
    Yeah this is the place (none / 0) (#98)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:47:25 AM EST
    for unquestioning and uncritical support of Clinton, which likewise won't help her get elected.

      I don't think there is anyplace where open and honest dialogue about the strengths and weaknesses of both is welcome.

    Parent

    i think critical discussion upsets you. (none / 0) (#29)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:09:21 AM EST
    well there are places where there is no criticism, but here it is balanced. you know like the real world or more like it.

    Parent
    Your screen name is a dig (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:59:08 AM EST
    so expecting to find any unbiased content in your posts or responses is laughable. Now you are trying to tell the moderator what opinion he should have and how he should write about it.

    Perhaps you need to put the effort into starting your own site where you can control how people think about things rather than criticize the people who spend many hours taking care of this one so we all have a place to go.

    The topic was about the speech.  I haven't seen much "topic" in your conversation. Just criticism of this site. There are many other places to hear what you want to hear.  This one is for facts and truth.

    Thanks for the 1 rating. I hope you at least read what I wrote rather than just rating it a 1.  But, I highly doubt it.

    Parent

    You may just be disappointed (none / 0) (#25)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:34:18 AM EST
    to find out that the whole blogosphere has not gone ga-ga over Ob ama.  I am voting for Clinton but not Obama.  

    Parent
    i respectfully disagree with (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:52:11 AM EST
    his assessment of "groundbreaking," or "positive".

    I would have agreed if he had said it was a fair assessment of the state of race relations in the US but its most important function is that it changes the media slant on his relation to Jeremiah Wright.

    Everyone should READ the speech, not listen to it.  The speech doesn't read nearly as well as it plays.
    I had a great time listening to the speech as he is a brilliant speaker.  I had even more fun breaking the speech down and comparing to other speeches.

    Ranking three speeches...

    1.  "I Have a Dream
    2.  "What to the slave is Fourth of July"
    3.  "I Have Been on the Mountaintop"

    "A More Perfect Union" is not in the top 10 of speeches concerning racial issues.

    The speech reads weakly. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:58:34 AM EST
    I didn't listen.  I read it instead.  It's too much a patchwork - as if he wanted to defend himself and Wright, try to explain the racial/cultural divides, make some attempt to address the divides and then attempt to wrap the whole thing up in a stump speech.

    In a year or two, I wonder what we will think of that speech.  Will it hold up?

    Parent

    interesting (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:18:42 AM EST
    I thought it read better than he delivered it when I finally listened to it.

    Parent
    I only read the speech (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:26:50 AM EST
    I'm in China, and my connection is not so great. Plus the Chinese govt. is blocking YouTube, gee I wonder why. I realized reading it that it was a patchwork of sorts; I had heard the Ashley story before (I think?).

    I found it extremely moving, very thoughtful, and quite direct. I don't quite have the same reaction that many have expressed regarding the unfairness of the "equivalence" drawn between his grandmother and Wright, or Wright and Ferraro. I simply took that as  his covering parts of the spectrum of ways in which people react to race and the race issue in our society.

    Of course it is a historic speech, if only because of context. Obama's speech is not in the same league as MLK's speeches you mention - but it was trying to accomplish something very different (and nothing wrong with that, it was appropriate to its context). This was not a time for soaring biblical allegory, but for the direct and prosaic.

    This whole episode has me feeling sick. I am a Hillary supporter through and through. But I don't want this to be nail in the coffin of Obama's candidacy. It's tragic, and the consequences are potentially dire. What a kick in the teeth to the African American community in this country. At the same time I fully agree with the notion that Obama is still too inexperienced, and this episode underscores that. But ultimately, I fear that a rejection of Obama on these grounds will (rightly) be read as White America showing its color.

    For the record, I'd place MLK's "I have been to the Mountaintop" in first place. Gives me chills.

    Parent

    I appreciate your thoughts (none / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:40:39 AM EST
    and share some of them.  
    but
    we should not forget that just because 80% of the AA community is voting for Obama it does not mean they hate Hillary of would not vote for her.
    the Clinton have generations of history with the AA community.
    the split is being overblown.  the world (or the democratic party) will not end if Obama is not the nominee.
    in spite of what you read at the Dreary Kos.


    Parent
    I truly hope you are right (none / 0) (#166)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    and I completely agree with your assessment of AA support for Hillary (and Bill). By "kick in the teeth" I was thinking more of how a rejection of Obama on these grounds would be felt as a rejection of Black culture, the Black church, and even of the right of African Americans to even feel angry about historical atrocities committed by White America against them, and of the USA's unjust, malevolent policies towards other parts of the world.

    Parent
    sadly I think (none / 0) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:00:57 AM EST
    you are right.
    I wish he could have been defeated based on his views on healthcare and several other areas where I strongly disagree with him.
    this is unfortunate.  this is ugly.
    it is not our doing.  as my mother used to say "he buttered his bread now he has to sleep in it"
    ironicly, for the record, I dont think he feel this way at all.  I think he joined that church for political reasons and may go down, as some journo said, for things he only pretended to be.

    Parent
    buttered bread (none / 0) (#185)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:12:02 AM EST
    I think you're right re: joining the church for political reasons. I don't have a problem with that,  generally speaking, though in this instance it's a problem.

    LOL you're mom. I had an aunt who always would say things like "If your grandfather was alive he'd be spinning in his grave!" or "We'll burn that bridge when we come to it."

    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#192)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:20:41 AM EST
    some of the time it was even intentional

    Parent
    ok (none / 0) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:19:59 AM EST
    lets talk about pragmatism.
    the AA vote is important.  all votes are important but the states with the largest populations are southern states we will not win.  even if Obama is the candidate.
    and contrary to what the MSM tells you many in the AA community will vote for Hillary.  many already are.
    as far as this statement:

    If he wins they will come out in force sufficient to overcome any whites who were turned against Obama over this.

    the last time I looked they were about 12% of the population.
    I am now prepared for hateful racebaiting indignant flames for saying this but you wanted pragmatism and there it is.

    Parent

    Am I the only one (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:05:21 AM EST
    who found his speech blah and repetitive, particularly how he ended it?  He ended it the same way, when he repeated the "Ashley" story verbatim from his MLK Day speech in Atlanta. :\

    I would have given it higher marks. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:14:24 AM EST
    If he had left the "Ashley" story off.

    That just seemed like blatant pandering to me AND he had already used it in another well publicized speech.

    Parent

    I Would Have Given It Higher Remarks (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:59:42 AM EST
    if he had left Grandma and Gerry out of it. If my grandson ever went out in public and aired any of my statements in a negative light for his own personal gain, he would never hear the last of it.

    Parent
    Definitely agree MO Blue (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by nashville on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:18 AM EST
    Surely in his lifetime he could have found a different example without disparaging his grandmother

    Parent
    re: his grandmother (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:44:01 AM EST
    I think what Obama was trying to do was get his listeners to think of people in their own families, people they love and view as complex individuals, who at times harbor sentiments that reflect and aggravate racial divisions.

    While reading the speech I was reminded of the many Christmas dinners, year after year after year, with my eldest brother inevitably making some snide racist remark or joke about blacks, or Jews, or Mexicans, etc. I've called him out on it before, numerous times, but I don't denounce him right then and there and threaten to end all ties with him forever, or until he repents. Partly that's because I don't want to humiliate him in front of his kids. But also I know my brother to be a very complex person, generally a good person, and with his own wounds and resentments. Again, it's not that I don't  chide him or speak my mind; I just try to find ways to do it that don't completely end our relationship (and we've gone months without speaking at times).

    I buy Obama's explanation regarding why he never abandoned his church, or Wright. I think that we've only seen snippets of Wright, and not the whole person. And I believe that he knows Wright to be more than the sum of the few minutes I managed to catch on the web.

    So, I think Obama has shown poor political judgment in this instance, but not necessarily poor interpersonal or ethical judgment.

    Parent

    Worse, he conflated his own history (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:32:01 AM EST
    if the anecdote he related in his book is considered the genesis of the "grandmother" remarks.

    In Dreams of My Father, he relates an incident where his grandmother, who took the bus to her job, was confronted by a man begging for money.  He was a black man.  She gave him a dollar, but he wanted more.  He got in her face - it scared her.  The bus came, but she related to her husband and grandson that she was afraid that if the bus had not come just then, the man might have hit her.  She doesn't tell "Barry" that the man was black, but his grandfather does.  They were embarrassed and angry about all of the implications, and Barry later gets some counseling on it from a family friend - who says his grandmother is right to be afraid, because she knows that black people have a reason to hate.

    If Wright is Obama's "crazy uncle," then I suppose we're supposed to think the woman who cared for him for many years is his "crazy grandmother," which is just so cruel.

    Who is this man?  Can we believe anything he has written, anything he relates about his life?

    Parent

    Yeah. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:29:14 AM EST
    If he wanted to talk about his relationship with Rev Wright, great.  I think it would have been more effective if he had left out the distractions.

    Personally, I think Obama is showing a blind spot for black religious leaders.  

    Something like:  These are good men who have done a lot for their communities.  Sure they have some flaws, but shouldn't the good they do more than make up for a few failures?

    When you get up on the national stage and enter the full glare of the media scrutiny, you drag everyone else up there with you.  It's probably not fair, as Obama said about the way the media treated Clinton, but that's the way it is.

    Parent

    It was so long I did not read the whole thing (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:50:03 AM EST
    but I thought it was much better than many of his speeches; in particular, much better than his policy speeches, where the litany of platitudes is soporific.

    Parent
    "Da Speech" (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:07:55 AM EST
    Obama's speech did a great job convincing the already convinced Obama fans what a great candidate their favorite candidate is. For everyone else "the speech" only highlights that he has a problem.

    It is actually getting worse (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by facta non verba on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:10:42 AM EST
    because it is still getting played. Only 2 in 3 have have yet heard of the Wright comments. When the other 33% do, it has to be devastating to Obama. The polls taken yesterday show Hillary gaining even more steam nationally. 49 to 42 edge for Hillary now in Rasmussen.

    Obama will likely keep his "base" but conservative-minded independents, blue collar Democrats, Catholics, Hispanics are gone. He has not a prayer with these.

    Can you just imagine the republicans (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:28:48 AM EST
    coming out with an ad--a split screen showing Pastor Wright saying , "God Bless America? No, no, no:  God Damn America!" Then just the Obama clip saying, "I can no more disown him than disowning the black community . . . "

    I agree:  this will be a growing problem for him.  

    Parent

    Those Types Of 527 Ads Will Be (none / 0) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:30:58 AM EST
    running non stop in the GE. Clips of the 9/11 video will be played in NY and Wright's views on Israel will be played in areas where they will do the most damage also.

    Parent
    And another 527 can (none / 0) (#37)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:35:53 AM EST
    run clips of Hagee ad nauseum. And we can spend the whole time focusing on what nutty thing the SUPPORTERS of the candidates said, rather than the issues that are important to this country.

    Parent
    To my knowledge (none / 0) (#39)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:40:14 AM EST
    McCain is not a member of Hagee's church, so your example doesn't work.


    Parent
    To my knowledge McCain (none / 0) (#75)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:28:25 AM EST
    hasn't repudiated Hagee either. Further, he once stated Falwell and Robertson were agents of intolerance, recently he flip flopped on that.

    If we are going to have a de facto religious test for office, lets apply the pernicious standard evenly.

    Parent

    If McCain had been a member (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:11 AM EST
    of any of their churches for 20 years, and given them over 20 thousand dollars, I would agree with you, Molly.

    As it is, I respectfully disagree.

    Parent

    I understand your point (none / 0) (#92)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:43:22 AM EST
    but you should at least factor in the flip flop. A hit video could be done in this sequence. McCain- agent of intolerance- Falwell and Robertson on 9/11 and Katrina- McCain no they are not agent's of intolerance. What changed the straight talk? The desire for the GOP nomination. McCain, more of the same.

    You could do it under 3 minutes.

    Parent

    Good suggestion for a 527 (none / 0) (#118)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:05:56 AM EST
    no matter which Dem gets the nom.
    I bow to your talent, Miss Molly.  :)

    Parent
    I wish I had the skills or the time to do it (none / 0) (#122)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:10:27 AM EST
    but I don't. If you think it a good idea, steal the idea and give it to someone with the skills.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#123)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:11:56 AM EST
    But moderates and independents already know that Republicans are in bed with crazy evangelicals.  It's a little more shocking when a Democrat has his personal pastor making such outrageous statements. A 527 with this info will be much more effective against Obama than against McCain.

    Parent
    race speech only made it worse for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:50:51 AM EST
    responding to "the Wright situation" with a speech about race instead of complete disavowal only conveys that Obama is sympathetic to what Wright has said and done. It looks as if Obama is justifying Wright's behavior only making it worse for Obama.

    Wright may be justified; Obama's speech may be intellectually terrific, but none of that matters - perceptions do and the speech only hurts Obama in perceptions of those not already convinced of Obama's magnificence.

    Rock and a hard place. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:01:59 AM EST
    A disavowal would have hurt Obama's chances with African Americans AND made it look like he would cave every time he was attacked.  (losing the black vote)

    Refusing to distance himself would have hurt his Unity theme.  (losing the white and independent vote)

    Obama needs all of those voters to pull this off.  

    Parent

    This is what I suspect. If you ask: (none / 0) (#49)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:53:37 AM EST
    did Obama defend Wright or condemn him, the answer is the former. That is what matters, politically.

    Parent
    I have increasingly been unimpressed (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:25:54 AM EST
    with speeches by all politicians because they are written by many people, discussed to death prior to being made, and altered to cover the most people so we get perplexingly mixed messages.

    Barack is eloquent and charismatic but I am seeing more of a screenwriter than a speech writer. "I walked up a hill" becomes "while I was atop Mt. Everest".

    "My white grandmother" hit me between the eyes.  If her color matters to him than why would it not matter to others? It's no different than her saying a "black guy tried to mug her".  When the color of the person matters as much to the story as the story does itself we have evidently not slipped into a comfortable world of racial harmony. I have black nieces and nephews but short of this line I have always just referred to them as my nieces and nephews. I don't use their color to make my point.

    I take huge exception to the criticism of BTD and his support of Barack.  Why can you not be critical of someone you support?  I am constantly.  I fight with myself over issues pertaining to my own candidate as does BTD.  

    It's called honest evaluation of character and if anything he is guilty of that. Is it wrong to take the blinders off? I thought the entire issue with Barack was that he doesn't step back and look at what his supporters espouse.

    This forum is about truth.  If it looks like the "Hillary show" it's because somebody has to get the truth out.

    I just watched another story about Hillary's White Hiouse schedule and the story was about what it isn't saying.  "Some 11,000 redactions have been made. What is she hiding'?  When the newscasters deliberately mislead somebody has to step up to the plate and correct the record.  That is TalkLeft.

    If others get too overzealous in the criticisms of either candidate both Jeralyn and BTD rightfully delete and warn.  You will not find that any other place. The flames are fanned because these bloghosters are more about hits and visits than about truth.  They want disharmony and controversy because it builds revenue for them.

    This is not a revenue based institution. It is a location of fact and truth.

    I will never vote for Barack.  I believe my vote should reflect my opinions and not just be a vote to keep the other one out. I have seen too many things I cannot get my heart and head around in regards to Barack.

    If I saw the same things in the candidate I support I would simply change my affiliations rather than justify things for the sake of winning. Nothing thus far has chipped away at my regard and esteem of the person I have opted to support.  But if stuff, ugly stuff came out I would just have fewer reasons to vote.  I wouldn't slam him in support of her alone. If I slam him is is because of his record and character.  Not just to support her.

    Let's not forget that his BLACK (none / 0) (#45)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:51:17 AM EST
    grandparents were virulent racists. They sent a letter to his white grandmother complaining that their black blood would be sullied by their son's marriage to a white woman.
    Funny how he didn't mention that in the speech.

    Parent
    I'd say its still too early to tell (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:38:57 AM EST
    but no-one wants to hear that. Not Obama supporters who want it over with, not Clinton supporters who want to say Obama is damaged goods.

    We will know in a few more days.

    My take is, if Obama manages to get elected it will go down as one of the great speeches. If he doesn't it will just be another in a long line of good political speeches. Long time readers of this site may remember early on I  wondered if Obama was the 2nd coming of Adlai, as opposed to Lincoln.

    Adlai could give a good speech too. No-one much remembers them today. Every thinking person voted for Adlai. Unfortunately it takes a majority to get elected.


    I think you're right (none / 0) (#89)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:42:02 AM EST
    Far too early to tell.  There's a lot of time until the next votes are taken, and the Wright videos may have an immediate but only short-lived impact.

    Obama's speech was very good I thought. I liked it more after hearing it a second time. I'm a Clinton supporter, but I don't want him to be damaged goods. I want him to be VP.

    Parent

    that ticket works for you, me and BTD. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:44:21 AM EST
    not sure about everyone else.

    Parent
    it takes a majority to get elected (none / 0) (#99)
    by sancho on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:48:27 AM EST
    a point that many of the self-declared "thinking people" don't seem to get.

    Parent
    Adlai (none / 0) (#157)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:46:24 AM EST
    great comparison. "Every thinking person voted for Adlai."

    Did they have lattes in those days? I suppose they were "Ovaltine Democrats," or some such.

    Parent

    the problem with this idea (none / 0) (#158)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:46:30 AM EST
    is that it sounds really good but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

    Suggesting Every thinking person voted for Adlai is saying that the majority of voters, who in the end voted not once but twice for Dwight D. Eisenhower were not thinking.

    Not only are you dissing Eisenhower's voters, you are casting a notion that Eisenhower was less worthy.

    While I assume that were I eligible to vote back then that I would have voted for Stevenson, Eisenhower proved to be a most reasonable steward on many things including enforcing school integration in Little Rock and his prescient warnings about the military industrial complex.

    Eisenhower was a respected war hero and perhaps some of the 1950's election is ultimately to be replayed here in 2008. As for intellectual comparisons...America doesn't necessarily prize intellect, how else can you account for GWB's votes?

    Indeed we may know more in a few days but we may not. It may take a barrage of 527 ads during the general election to frame the issue in ways that the main stream media won't allow because their desire to see HRC eliminated trumps everything else...witness ABC's first examination of HRC's White House logs. The 24 hour news cycle is just one Brittany melt down away from complete distraction.

    Parent

    Irony (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:04:39 AM EST
    Perhaps you are not familiar with this:

    During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai E Stevenson 'Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!'

    Stevenson called back 'That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!'




    Parent
    I think Molly was being ironic (none / 0) (#172)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:59:12 AM EST
    Like, Obama's support draws hugely from the creative class, and the only people supporting Clinton are low-information blue collar white ethnics with little education. And post-menopausal women, who as we all know don't think, they just react to hot flashes.

    Parent
    How did Obama not distance himself from Wright? (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:52:44 AM EST
    He called him a crazy uncle, said he comletely disagrees with what Wright said, said his remarks came from bitterness, said if he knew what Wright was saying he would have left the church (when he was still peddling the story that he didn't know about Wright's views), and had him leave the campaign. And now I see people praising him for not throwing Wright underr the bus. The only thing he didn't do was physically throw the man under a bus.

    Saying he won't turn his back on Wright is diingenuous. No one demanded that he never speak to him again. He made the same moves that both campaigns have made in these situations. I don't recall Hillary saying she'll never have anything to do with Ferraro or Billy Shaheen ever again.

    But I suppose I should just get used to people heaping praise on Obama for getting up in the morning. I'd be able to appreciate the speech a lot more if his followers didn't try to make it so much more than it is. I didn't realize courage is defined as being dragged kicking and screaming to a podium to address an issue that you've been forced to confront.

    A couple of problems. He said he understands (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:56:18 AM EST
    why Wright is crazy (to paraphrase).
    So why did he stay at the church? There's no good answer for that.
    Also, not mentioning Wright's dangerous delusion on AIDS, or his extremely nasty attack on Hillary---that's no good.
    The problem with Wright is NOT race. That's only what Obama wants you to think.

    Parent
    The Hillary comment (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:19:59 AM EST
    was beyond the pale. How does that have anything to do with preaching? But it was the same comment made by Michelle Obama in a speech "How can you run a country when you can't even run your family" Absolutely unconscionable. But Hillary is supposed to defend these fine fellow Democrats?

    Parent
    I think she will defend him (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:52:45 AM EST
    She's more of a party faithful than he is. The fact that he didn't defend her (and that Wright trashed her in one of his sermons) won't affect her willingness to defend him.

    Saying anything right now about the Wright issue would be very difficult however. When asked, she tried to defend him against the Muslim "charge" and the reaction was horrible. This is an even more incendiary issue.

    Parent

    She continues to prove she is (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:00:11 AM EST
    more party faithful.  I have doubts that if the situation was reversed Obama would ever intimate that there is the possibility of electing a female president this year, the way that she did in responding to his speech. As much as people want to tear her down she has repeatedly said she will support the nominee.  And she will.

    Parent
    The Speech Won't Work ... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:08:41 AM EST
    because it was on the wrong subject.

    He was facing a problem of personal judgment, and he gave a speech about race in America.

    Huh?

    Before he gave the speech, I compared his problem to the one Nixon faced in 1952 which he overcame with the "Checkers Speech."

    Nixon's speech was maudlin and theatrical.  But it worked.  Because he faced the key issue in a clear and direct way.  Obama did not.

    I'm not sure the speech worked; I guess we'll (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:30:51 AM EST
    have to wait and see what the polls say and then the voters in PA.  But I read in the NYTimes this morning about BO's 2004 convention speech "there is no black America, there is no white America."  If he really believed that at the time then why is he now claiming the opposite?  He has painted himself into a corner.  His judgment is lacking,  in my opinion, and this makes him unqualified to be president.  Couple the Rev Wright thing with the Rezko thing and it says a lot about his judgment and inexperience.  I also think he will say whatever is convenient for the moment.  I suggest everyone go to Jerome's post last night called The Bigger Loss, read it and then click on the links to Victor David Hanson.  He posted two articles on the speech and I think his take is worth reading.  Maybe you'll agree, maybe not.  But read it and give it a thought.

     

    Parent

    To be or not to be (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:03:21 AM EST
    ""there is no black America, there is no white America."  If he really believed that at the time then why is he now claiming the opposite?"

    Um, depends on what the meaning of "is" is. :-)

    Seriously.

    Parent

    I agree with this: (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:17:13 AM EST
    His implicit argument that by electing him Americans would somehow have cleansed themselves of past distrust will not wash.

    I am already really sick of hearing this.

    Pardon me (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:19:09 AM EST
    But that is your opinion.
    I disagree with the good Reverend, and I disagree with the way Obama is handling the situation.
    That does not make me a bad person, or a bad Democrat.

    Skex (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:28:44 AM EST
    I choose not to respond to you, because your post above is offensive.

    Parent
    Skex, a question, to be clear: (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:24:30 AM EST
    You are calling those who comment here ignorant, racist and petty?

    I would say (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:34:08 AM EST
    yes

    Parent
    which (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:34:57 AM EST
    as pointed out in the post is a spreading Obama argument.
    an extremely annoying argument.

    Parent
    that was certainly my impression of (none / 0) (#95)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:45:50 AM EST
    his naive rant. apparently, if someone disagrees with sen. obama they are, in skex's words, racist

    sorry, i don't buy into the sophomoric drivelings peppering your post. i'm not even offended or insulted; i have to give someone credit for a reasonably high intellect, before they can offend or insult me. otherwise, i just assume they're an idiot. why waste valuable time, time i'll never recover, on an idiot?

    the issue is one of electability. at this juncture, sen. obama's is dropping like a stone. i want a democrat in the white house next jan. were sen. clinton self-destructing, i'd throw my support behind sen. obama. she isn't. she's been at this so long, there really isn't anything more to tell.

    this doesn't make me racist, it makes me pragramtic.

    Parent

    I had hoped that the speech saved us (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:26:53 AM EST
    from more charges of racism being flung about with abandon.  Maybe not so here -- but I do think that the speech will save us from seeing more of that from the Obama campaign.

    And so, no, the speech didn't save Obama -- because what has won for him since SC on is to label Clinton supporters as racists.

    Obama cannot do that anymore, not after excusing real racism from his own longtime advisor.  So now, in addition to the effect of Wright himself on the voters, Obama has lost the trick of distracting voters by pointing the finger at others.

    And that is a good thing for this country, if not for Obama, as there is enough real racism to battle -- and we need our best warriors to do so, rather than have them cut off at the knees by Obama.

    Parent

    I Wish I Could Agree (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:03:06 AM EST
    but I do not. How can it save us from charges against being racists from Obama when Obama referenced those same charges in the very speech we have been discussing. He was still pointing his finger at Gerry and by inference the Clinton campaign.

    What it will do is save the Republicans from charges of racism that may be real in the GE.

    Parent

    you need to read a little more closely (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:33:37 AM EST
    many of us are not condemning the pastors remarks.
    we are acknowledging the effect they are having and will have on the people who will elect the next president.
    this morning I saw Obamas numbers among independents have dropped more than 20 points in the last few days against McCain and we are not at the bottom yet.
    I bow to no one in my support of civil rights.  I was marching and fighting for them before many people reading this were born.
    that said,
    I am not prepared to lose this election, the most important election of my life, for the sake of political correctness.
    its time for some political reality to sink in.
    Some of you aren't (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by CST on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:03:34 AM EST
    You, in particular aren't, but most here are.  That is a shame.  I agree this has hurt his electability, but I think people need a little more forgiveness and understanding when it comes to Wright.  I think, in this case, I actually agree with Mike Huckabee on something.  You can't judge someone unless you've walked in their shoes.

    From slate.com - Mike Huckabee

    On Obama's speech:

    ....I think that, you know, Obama has handled this about as well as anybody could. And I agree, it's a very historic speech.... And I thought he handled it very, very well.

    And on Rev. Wright:

    ....One other thing I think we've got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, "That's a terrible statement," I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you: We've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, "You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me."

    Parent

    Good for Huckabee (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:12:41 AM EST
      Obviously, I have profound disagreements with him on almost every issue, but I will give him credit for  a  degree of open-mindendness rare among candidates or their partisan supporters.

    Parent
    My feelings entirely. [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:31:09 AM EST


    Parent
    Good Lord (none / 0) (#124)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:12:06 AM EST
    Who's judging Wright, or Obama, for that matter?
    I disagree with them both, that's all.
    I've marched for civil rights, gay rights, and women's rights.
    I've earned my right to my opinion. ;)

    Parent
    it is possible (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:17:20 AM EST
    to believe that what is happening to Obama right now is wrong and to also believe that he will lose the election because of it.
    just because I believe what is happening to him is wrong does not mean I want to give him the democratic nomination to play with to make him feel better.
    about himself or about me.
    life sucks.  politics is not beanbag.
    we have to win the election in November.  we simply have to.  that is going to require some clear eyed unemotional decision making between now and then.

    Parent
    That's fine (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by CST on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:30:31 AM EST
    I respect that opinion, and I can certainly see where you are coming from.  I do have a problem with attacking his character over this, and saying, if he did win, this is their reason not to support him.  There is a difference between supporting Hillary and hating Obama.  I can respect supporting Hillary.  Especially people who are so offended about Wright that they will vote for McCain, because Republicans don't associate with FAR WORSE???  And because John McCain will help this country HOW?  Bottom line, we need bills signed, and put into law that are good for this country.  Presidents don't write bills, they sign them.  We need someone who will sign the right bills.

    Parent
    Understanding Does Not IMO Equal (none / 0) (#195)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    approval. I can understand basis of certain feelings and still not believe that a certain approach is either correct or even a successful way to deal with a real problem. Hatred and resentment only breed more hatred and resentmen no matter who preaches it.

    The beauty of MLK was that he stressed that the very real problems of racial hatred and racial and class inequities affect us all and all good people regardless of color or creed needed to come together to fight these battles and right these wrongs. That is why he was successful in obtaining his goals.

    Also, I can't reconcile the fact that Obama is stating that his ideology is that of MLK at the same time he supported by his 20 year attendence and contributions the ideology of Rev. Wright.

    Parent

    Obama's Great Speech (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by dem08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:48:29 AM EST
    will become a part of our permanent culture.

    This speech does not mean he is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton or that people cannot question his judgment.

    But I think failure to acknowledge how great this speech is, how much it brings the conversation about race and poverty and the collapse of Middle Class Optimism into the present is foolish.

    We live in a society where the majority of people are apathetic about Politics, Culture, The Economy, and even Religion. Then we have people like us, who care about issues, but too often practice picking apart everything from people who we oppose and excusing everything from people we support.

    There is even Brain Research that shows that people who have deep political beliefs activate their sympathetic brain areas when exposed to pro-belief information and activate their debate brain areas when exposed to information that challenges their passionately held beliefs.

    It would be sad if supporting Hillary meant that you so many liberals/progressives could not at least acknowledge the greatness of that speech. You can still and should if that is your analysis, critique Obama the man and candiadte and his judgment. But this speech will be studied in Composition classes because it is a great piece of writing and thinking.

    Sorry I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:53:14 AM EST
    But I do.

    In my opinion, a great speech has a single idea, or message, and delivers it eloquently and simply.
    My favorite: The Gettysburg Address.

    Obama's speech had two different agendas:
    Self-defense and changing the subject.

    In my opinion, it did not accomplish those goals.


    Parent

    No, not a great speech, nor one (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:37:35 AM EST
    can be used in classrooms, as some are saying.  Not with Obama's references to his grandmother -- and others, and political references.  Too much context, and problematic context, for teachers to use it.

    Compare it with MLK's "Dream" speech, even Bill Clinton's "Million Man" speech, and you'll see that those speeches have no such pitfalls -- because they were really about race, not about covering a candidate's butt.

    Parent

    I nver thought it would do anything for him (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by tarheel74 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:59:53 AM EST
    right now he is preaching to the choir and after the initial euphoria of a god speech people would start scratching the surface in earnest and ask ok what do you propose to do? if you consider yourself post-racial what did you do? The problem for Obama is that he has very cynically played both sides of the race issue as and when it suited him. He used race to smear people for political expediency and now he denounces race for the same reason. John Lewis went so far as to say on PBS that it was his campaign that introduced race into the primaries in the first place (remember "fairytale", "Katrina", "LBJ-MLK" flaps).
    Even in this speech he did not stop from playing politics. He compared the frankly anti-American comments of Wright to Geraldine Ferraro and now Mark Halperin finds this nugget from the speech: "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." Well it was more than fierce criticism and controversial remarks. Which then begs the question what did you do then? You were a state senator who likes to give speeches, you could have said something at the church in front of everyone why didn't you? You like to write why did you not write an op-ed decrying this?

    The speech was fine but... (none / 0) (#151)
    by smott on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:41:44 AM EST
    BO was naive to think this would not be an issue.

    Now he's trying to un-ring a bell.

    Parent

    lets not forget (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    the speech has raised as many questions as it answered.
    for example,
    why did the lie for days about not hearing these comments personally.  what else has he lied about?
    these are questions people are, finally as the dust settles, starting to ask.
    He didn't lie (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:15:36 AM EST
    He did not hear the comments that were broadcast all over you tube and played on the news.  He did know his general views.  That is not a lie.

    Parent
    he contradicted what he (none / 0) (#133)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:19:29 AM EST
    had said previously in his speech.
    this has been widely reported and will continue to be.
    spinning like a dervish will not change this.

    Parent
    Widely reported? (none / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:34:25 AM EST
    In Blogs??  Can you quote a direct lie in the speech?  If not, you are just spinning.

    Parent
    Im busy (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:47:54 AM EST
    I am not going to use the google for you.
    he said for days he never ever heard these controversial statements in person and then said in the speech he had heard them.
    spin that however you want.
    and yes "widely reported".  I heard it twice last night on the Obama network, MSNBC.
    so
    if you really dont know what I am talking about, stay tuned it will get to you eventually.


    Parent
    Like I said (none / 0) (#190)
    by CST on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:17:46 AM EST
    HE NEVER HEARD THOSE PARTICUALAR COMMENTS IN PERSON.  How is this a lie????  He said he knew the man's point of view.  NOT THE SAME THING.

    Parent
    You still don't get it pal... ?? (none / 0) (#196)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:28:41 AM EST
    checkit out for yourself : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31qfOMG62ZI

    GARRETT: Sir, would you have -- would you have quit the church had you heard them personally?

    OBAMA: You know, I guess -- ...

    GARRETT: So, quick yes or no. If had you heard them in person you would have quit?

    OBAMA: If I had heard them repeated, I would have quit...If I thought that that was the repeated tenor of the church, then I wouldn't feel comfortable there.

    Obama:

    But the sermons I've always hear[d] were no different than the sermons you hear in many African-American churches. I had not heard him make such, what I consider to be objectionable remarks from the pulpit. Had I heard them while I was in church, I would have objected.

    That was yesterday. Today Obama said:

    "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

    "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," Obama said at a community meeting in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month.

    Parent

    New Type of politician... (none / 0) (#198)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:31:38 AM EST
    I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church. This is a church that I have been a member of for 20 years. This is a well-established, typical, historically African-American church in the South Side of Chicago, with a wonderful set of ministries.

    And what I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor...

    new type .. or ... chicago type.

    Parent

    what part of this: (none / 0) (#204)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:42:21 AM EST
    "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

    do you not understand?
    or are we playing what he really meant?


    Parent

    It's not Black and White (none / 0) (#206)
    by CST on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:45:46 AM EST
    You don't allow for nuance at all.  E.G. you can hear contreversial statements in church without thinking your church is particularly controversial.  Likewise, he would have quit if he heard these repeated and thought it was the tenor of the church.  The tenor of a church is not based on a clips of sermons shown on youtube.  He didn't hear those statements there, and he would've objected to them if he had.  That doesn't mean he NEVER HEARD controversial statements.

    Parent
    And echoing freeper talking points (none / 0) (#150)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:41:04 AM EST
    won't change the facts that he did not lie.

    Parent
    and echoing Dreary Kos (none / 0) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:51:07 AM EST
    talking points will not change the fact that he did.

    Parent
    I presume (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:49:27 AM EST
    I presume that Hillary supporters will either convince themselves why they should vote for Obama after he wins the nomination, or they'll lick their wounds and stay home.

    What I find curious is that there is little actual discussion on what Reverend Wright said and why it's so offensive to them. That he used "Goddamn America" to describe the cycle of drugs/prisons/crime in America and laying it at the feet of the government? Granted, government is a vague candidate when looking for a source of a social ill, but we've certainly gotten plenty of discussion here by Jeralyn about this subject. There are books like McCoy's THE POLITICS OF HEROIN IN SOUTHEAST ASIA and Henrik Kruger's THE GREAT HEROIN COUP that discuss political deals surrounding the drug trade. Countless books have discussed various CIA officials and operations connected with drug importation. So are people upset about Wright because of what he said (because polite people don't talk about government involvement with drug importation) or because he was so rude as to say there is a political reason for that drug importation?

    Likewise, how much of a leap is it from the Tuskegee Experiments to Wright's suspicions about AIDS?

    Anyway, if you can't get your head around why some blacks may not trust their government, then you are probably unfit to be President. Wright's problem, as Obama said so well, is his view of race relations as a zero sum game. But then a lot of posters here see the world through the same lenses.

    I will try to answer (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by BigB on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:07:15 AM EST
    Bob,

    I will try to tell you what offended me and I am a liberal.

    Obviously, his saying 'god damn America' is quite offensive. More importantly, his claim that the U.S. injected HIV/AIDS into the AA community was outright factually wrong and crazy. How can a man as well educated as Rev. Wright (not some uneducated, uninformed person) say something that ridiculous? He had to know that this was factually wrong. Yet, he chose to say this from the pulpit of his church misinforming thousands of his listeners. Is it a good thing to convince AAs that their government is committing bio-terrorism on them?

    He is from a different generation, a generation in which he must have faced far more prejudice than what AAs face now. But, he is not preaching to his generation, he is preaching to a younger generation. Why would he try to poison these young minds with all the race-based rhetoric? The people who were applauding in the pews were young people not all people of his generation.

    When he talked about Bill Clinton and Lewinsky, did you notice his body language? Would you want your children to be in Church when that happened?

    His blaming 9/11 on our foreign policy plays right into the hands of what Osama Bin Laden has been saying about us for years. Finally, his claim that the government knew about Pearl Harbor, where did that come from?

    When you ask why did people get offended, where do I start?

    Parent

    Don't forget "Blowback" (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    by Chalmers Johnson, Professor Emeritus at UC San Diego and previously Berkeley, on how US policies generated the blowback that brought us 9/11.

    I'm in the odd position of finding a lot of what Wright had to say completely inoffensive - and true.  And since when is it anti-American to criticize America?  

    Argh, I think I'm going to go burn off some steam by burning a flag. (j/k)

    Parent

    Please continue to suggest that Wright (none / 0) (#175)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:01:27 AM EST
    was right. In fact, I would like you to become and official Obama spokesman.

    Parent
    I don't see it that way at all. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by magisterludi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:54:26 AM EST
    To me, this was an acknowledgment by his grandmother that she was human and not immune to the "boogie-man" narrative that was so prevalent among many powerful and influential bigots of her time. I certainly didn't get the impression she still held these feelings or she was proud of ever having held them, and I certainly don't think BHO was accusing her of anything but honesty.

    BTW- I'm a HRC voter.

    History will record Obama hurt our chances (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by BigB on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:56:53 AM EST
    While I was quite impressed by Obama when he gave his convention speech in 2004, I never thought he would run this year. I always, sincerely, believed it was too early for him to run this year. I felt he needed to build his resume, foreign policy credentials, experience, and then run in 4 or 8 years. It would have also given him an opportunity to put more distance and time between himself and some of the baggage we are seeing now.

    In my view, those who advised him to run this year gave him very bad advice. His supposed strengths in attracting independents and republicans was always illusory based on fawning media coverage and the republican cross-over voting in early contests, especially caucuses, aimed at hurting Hillary Clinton.

    Once the vetting started and people came to know more about his background a lot of the early enthusiasm and support had to evaporate. It is easy to support a candidate who sounds interesting when you don't know much about him.

    Obama's delegate lead is mostly based on outsized wins in red-state caucuses. Even if he wins the nomination based on this lead, he will be a very weak candidate in the GE against McCain. Now, with this Jwright matter he simply won't win. Meanwhile, by running the campaign he ran, he has also damaged Hillary Clinton who was always the stronger candidate against McCain. She has her weaknesses but they are known and she is far tougher in taking republican attacks than Obama. For Obama to say that he was 'shaken up' by this controversy to Anderson Cooper suggests a certain amount of naivete on his part about presidential politics. The right-wing is just starting with him. It will only get worse for him.

    An ideal ticket this year would have been Clinton-Obama. And, we could have achieved that without all this bitterness. Now, the party is split, we have a huge nominating mess in our hands and whoever gets nominated starts from a weak position. Obama simply cannot win and it is an uphill battle for Hillary.

    Thanks to Obama and David Axelrod!

    The Two R's: Race and Religion (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    I completely agree with Lambert's contention that the Obama campaign started the race controversy.  Also, I was looking for a speech that would explain his judgement and got a lecture about why we are all a bunch of racists, even grandma.  Look, someone who can find racism in a Ferraro quote in the Torrance newspaper and did not see it for twenty years in his church, that takes a leap of faith.  

    I don't care what Wright said.  It was Wright's church.  Obama, if he disagreed, He did not have to stay--but he stayed.  He either believes in what Wright says, or it was politically convenient for him.  Either response to this question is problematic for the candidate who positioned himself as being above race.  We did not say to him "don't be black", he said that those issues of the past do not resonate with him, that there is no white or black America.  For Peet's sake, there are plenty of churches that preach that, he could have found one.  

    But Obama wants it both ways, he wants to be transcended but also have the AA community's allegiance.   I am sure he could have had it if he did not pander with all the "your old civil rights battles are below me", but yet evoke MLK for convenience.  

    So many of us broke away from the Churches that we grew up with cause we do not adhere to their values.  Why stay if you don't agree and why bring your children?  

    And if he wanted to be honest, he would (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:15:10 AM EST
    have admitted that people of ALL races can be racist---not just the example of Wright, but his own paternal grandparents.

    Madelyn and Stanley then moved to Hawaii (where Stanley found an even better furniture store opportunity). Ann attended the University of Hawaii and there met Senator Obama's father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, a graduate student from Kenya. Both Dunhams were upset when their daughter Ann married Barack Obama Senior, particularly after receiving a long, angry letter from the graduate student's father in Kenya who "didn't want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman."


    From
    link

    Parent
    Yea Talk Left! (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by abfabdem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:17 AM EST
    I just found your site this week after enduring months of seeing prior favorite places--Buzzflash, Daily Kos and Air America--turn into sites trashing Hillary with as much vitriolic force as the right wingers ever did. I'm from Illinois and have been terribly disappointed in Obama as my Senator, especially in regard to the war.  He did not stand up for what he says he believed in--he did not make speeches against the war on the floor of the Senate nor did he align with those who were against continuing to fund it.  So my view is if he did not show leadership in the Senate, how can we expect him to show leadership as President?  And his camp really did fire the first salvo with the ridiculous claim that the Clintons were racist.  So the poster who said he "started the fire and now wants credit for trying to put it out" is exactly what I have been feeling about that topic.  Gore was always my dream candidate this cycle, but since he did not run, I have based my decision of which of the remaining two to support based on who will fight for our party, and with actions, not just words.  That is why I am supporting Hillary.  I also think since her health care program failed the first go round, she has more to prove to actually get it done this time. It has been breathtaking to see what I feel is a reasoned preference be so trashed by Obama supporters who clearly are not applying his message of hope and unity to others who are still in the same party.  Sheesh!!

    ABCNews: Buried in Eloquence, Obama Contradictions (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:36:49 AM EST
    Buried in Eloquence, Obama Contradictions About Pastor

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4480868&page=1

    a new awakening ...

    This was not about race (1.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Sunshine on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:52:16 AM EST
    It was about hate and this speech was about changing the subject...  He did not denounce the Rev Wright, he made excuses for him... Sure, it was a great speech but it didn't help him with the problem...   This is no different than GWB protecting his cronies...   Think Katrina...

    Right. Someone at noquarter made an (none / 0) (#50)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:54:34 AM EST
    astute observation: Obama used white people's discomfort with talking about race to change the subject.

    Parent
    Obama 's speech (1.00 / 0) (#210)
    by USAsince1680 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:57:13 PM EST
    Obama is always skirting the issues and this was no exception.  He focused attention away from himself and onto Rev. Wright in an attempt to justify Rev. Wrights stance. Obama completely ignored the fact that he lied initially and he attempted to convince the nation that his admiration for Rev. Wright over the past twenty years was acceptable and should not be construed as racist or anti-American.  Well, I disagree.  Rev. Wright is not like any other preacher.  He urges his church members to be true to the African Homeland and to stand up against the white "captors". By his very attendance and acceptance of these sermons, Obama has joined hands with him.  A true American, a leader, would have stood up and left the congregation.  His inaction should not be tolerated by the American people.  Why are we glossing over the fact that he lied..again?  He has misled the people into thinking he is against the war while talking about increasing military numbers and deploying troops to Afganistan. He says he is for civil rights but joined forces with Republicans to pass the Class Action Fairness Act which in essense makes class actions for discrimination, consumer fraud, etc impossible. He  voted for the Patriot Act to permit eavesdropping on American citizens.  As a state Senator, he voted with the Republicans to cap damages on medical malpractice cases and sponsored the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005 thatlimited the patients' economic recovery if the hospital only apologized. Does this sound like someone who is for civil rights?

    He says he is against special interest yet voted against capping interest rates at 30 percent -  a beginning at setting predatory lending limits. But to vote in favor of the issue would have alienated corporate America and Obama can't do that.

    Obama voted against Mining Law reform. The current law allows mining companies to mine on public land without paying royalties. They make billions and this law would have charged 4% of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones plus it addressed several heal and safety issues. Why did he vote against it? One of his key advisors is a Nevada-based lobbyist hired by various mining companies.

    Obama lied about passing a bill regarding the reporting of leaks by nuclear plants when in fact he allowed the measure to be taken over by the Republicans and power industry.  It never passed but Exelon corporation, a nuclear plan operator contributed $300,000.00 to his campaigns and two of Exelon's top officials are among his largest fund-raisers.

    Obama's health care plan leaves health care industry administrative costs in place and doesn't cover millions of Americans. He wants the insurance companies to regulate themselves. Yea, right.

    The revelations about Rev. Wright will help sink his boat but once the revelations about his wife's thesis, "Princeton Blacks and the Black Community" hit the stands, he's dead.

    Tim Hames is correct (none / 0) (#4)
    by Universal on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:55:08 AM EST
    The speech was excellent, and it didn't take the Wright issue away in the least.

    The story is expanding, with new word out about one of Obama's delegates, a Rev. Meeks, I believe. More embarrassing statements.

    And BHO's feeling about Don Imus being fired, and his contrary position regarding Wright.

    There is much more, but the bottom line is this: the issue is growing, not shrinking, for Obama.

    Pandora's Box is open. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:12:18 AM EST
    I don't blame Obama for not talking about race before this happened.  It would have sunk his campaign to be branded by the media as being About Race, with the inevitable subtexts that would follow.

    Clinton wanted to avoid having her campaign branded as being about gender, Obama wanted to avoid having his campaign branded as being about race.  Obama now needs to try to keep the race issue from being the dominant media narrative.  Clinton now holds a slim advantage.

    I'm not happy, frankly.  I'd rather the race was won on issues other than race and gender.  

    Parent

    Obama is responsible for Meeks now? (none / 0) (#30)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:10:22 AM EST
    Wright, at least, has a real connection to Obama.  What exactly is Obama's connection to Meeks and why should Obama take responsibility for his statements?  Are we really reaching the point where we're going to hold Obama to blame for anything any African American says?

    Parent
    He shouldn't have to (none / 0) (#57)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:04:26 AM EST
    in the same way that Hillary shouldn't have had to answer for Geraldine Ferraro's comments. Sorry can't have it both ways.

    Parent
    Ferraro was at least working for Clinton (none / 0) (#88)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:39:38 AM EST
    and made her comments in the context of the Obama/Clinton election.  Obama is being held accountable for things that Meeks said that are completely unrelated to the election.

    Parent
    Do you really believe (none / 0) (#126)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:14:51 AM EST
    voters will be swayed by the phrase 'unrelated to the election'?

    I have no idea whether voters will care about Meeks. But I do know that they will not care that his words are 'unrelated to the election'.

    Parent

    i too was underwhelmed (none / 0) (#27)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:10:34 AM EST
    by sen. obama's speech. i hardly found it groundbreaking. frankly, it struck me as pretty thin gruel. unfortunately, that's kind of what he was stuck with; i'm not sure he could have done much better, without great risk of alienating more people in the process.

    it will have exactly zero affect on his prospects for election, should he be the dem. nominee come nov. were i part of the mccain campaign, i'd be rubbing my hands together in glee.

    my real concern is whether this, along with all the other "items" coming out, will permanently damage sen. obama. that would be a tragic waste of a rare talent.

    absent some extraordinary circumstance, sen. obama might be well advised to gracefully, for the good of the party and the country, concede to sen. clinton, who is looking more and more electable, by comparison, daily.

    Most PV +Most Pledge Delegates=No GE (none / 0) (#58)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:08:33 AM EST
    What do you think is more important in this election on the Democrats side.

    1. Nominee that gets both more pledge delegates and a slight edge on popular vote but cannot win GE

    or

    2. Nominee that gets more popular vote and less pledge delegates but has a greater chance of winning the GE.

    Another Murdoch Mouthpiece (none / 0) (#60)
    by AdrianLesher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:12:14 AM EST
    Why do you keep quoting these Murdoch-owned conservatives?

    "Four years ago, I was still rather proud that Polly Toynbee had once described me in print as a 'Conservative theorist.'"

    Tim Hames, quoted here:

    because the artcle is pro Hillary? (none / 0) (#141)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:28:56 AM EST
    Conveniently the polls that are quoted are also the ones that show the most pro Hillary movement.

    Parent
    For the sake of clarity (none / 0) (#68)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:20:46 AM EST
    my comment was directed at Skex.

    To me Christianity is all about love (none / 0) (#70)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:22:39 AM EST
    and I heard nothing of the sort from the good Reverand Wright. I don't know what religion he belongs to but it isnt any Christian religion I have ever heard of. If Reverand Wright is the one that "brought Christianity to Obama" then we have a problem. MLK, Jr. would have a problem with it too as he preached love and equality.

    Athyrio (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:44:12 AM EST
    Please read with an open heart and mind:

    Audacity to Hope

    Parent

    I would respectfully (none / 0) (#101)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:48:35 AM EST
    disagree that Christianity is all about love.  Democrats are in the position we are in because the Republicans have been able to speak to a very particular brand of Christians.  We cannot compete for that vote because they are votes based on intolerance for homosexuals, women and minorities.

    Parent
    those views dont represent the (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:56:38 AM EST
    views of all evangelicals any more than Wrights views are representative of the AA community.
    they have only shared media exposure.
    I am from a family of evanvelicals who also happen to be yellow dog democrats and for whom those issues are just as important as they are to you and me.
    let try to narrow our brush.

    Parent
    I never said those views (none / 0) (#117)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:04:43 AM EST
    were representative of all Christians. I was just replying to a comment that stated Christianity is about love.  I certainly  meant no offense to Christians who don't hold those opinions.

    Parent
    well (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:09:40 AM EST
    the fact is it is about love.
    to paraphrase Ghandi "I love your Christ but I do not love your Christians.  they are so unlike your Christ"
    look,
    I am not religious.  on any level.  but I do love my family and I know, personally know, that the Christianity the practice is about love.
    they (most of them) have not disowned me for gosh sakes.   that should speak for itself.

    Parent
    Christianity and love (none / 0) (#200)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:33:27 AM EST
    Christian love isn't fluffy puppy and kitten love, it's "speak truth to power" love. Yes, I totally agree that Wright is over the top in some of his statements. I also think some of his statements were a kind of showboating- deliberately, knowingly over the top, perhaps for entertainment value, or to drive home a point. It is a show. But the Christianity he's espousing is the Christianity of Jesus driving the money-changers from the temple; the Jesus who dares to touch lepers and eats with prostitutes and moneychangers, rather than the Republican elite (er, I mean, the Scribes and the Pharisees).

    At least the Christianity (Catholic) I absorbed growing up was like this. I always assumed Jesus was a Democrat.

    I think Skex raises some really important points. As I mention above, I'm a big Hillary supporter. And I find myself in a bind. On the one hand, hey, the is GREAT NEWS!!! for HILLARY!!! (sorry, TPM reference). And of course I want to push the meme that she's better, has a better plan, more experience. Yet how do I do that without simply taking advantage of and making worse this racial trap into which we've all fallen.

    Parent

    Are sexism (none / 0) (#71)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:24:05 AM EST
    and sexist attacks progressive values? Will you blame women for abandoning the party?

    I agree. That is why Obama must be rejected (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:49:02 AM EST
    He has used identity politics in an insidious, underhanded way, because he does not have the qualifications for office on his own.

    Parent
    Clinton (none / 0) (#155)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton was attacked, repeatedly, in purely gender-based terms by the Obama-supporting media.  Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd all went after her again and again based on her appearance, her demeanor, her cleavage and "cankles" for months.  Obama said nothing.  Howard Dean said nothing.  Donna Brazille said nothing.  And I haven't seen every comment ever posted, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the big boys of the blogosphere were silent as well.

    If the progressive community had shown leadership on that, I might be less cynical now.  But they didn't.  And, in fact, Obama probably benefitted from it.  So don't lecture me about what the progressive community should stand up for - they had their chance for the last five months and they sat back because they didn't want to "take sides" or because, you know, Hillary really is kind of annoying.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#199)
    by CST on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:31:47 AM EST
    Did not hire any of these people.  He does not befirend them.  He is not a part of them.  Does Hillary defend everything Rush Limbaugh says about Obama.  No, that's rediculous.  

    Parent
    The progressive community (none / 0) (#203)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:41:51 AM EST
    Did very little to stop it.  And since the post I was responding to was castigating the "progressive community" for not being sufficiently aggressive in defending Obama, I was pointing out that that should be a surprise to no one given the lack of outrage when Clinton was attacked.  And Obama is a member of that community.

    But, putting that aside, Obama has probably benefitted from that type of rhetoric.  I would respect him more if he acknowledged that it was wrong.

    As is, I have never heard him stand up for anyone who was not Barack Obama.  (Please note:  I would also be more impressed with his speech if he'd 1) given it when he wasn't trying to save himself and 2) didn't run a campaign that used just that sort of attack).

    Parent

    I Do Not Believe In What Wright (none / 0) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:34:29 AM EST
    is promoting in his sermons and I refuse to justify it for political expediency.

    Axelrod's story (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:13:11 AM EST
    Axelrod and whoever encouraged Obama to run, created this story of Obama.  They write it with the speeches, the books and the "awed supporters".  The problem I have with Obama is lack of authenticity.  He went to a black church cause it was politically convenient when he was in Illinois politics, now he sees it was not so smart.  There is nothing real here.  The speech will not persuade new voters, it will reinforce the story to keep the awed from jumping ship.  

    Axelrod says that the way to cut through all the noise is to see campaigns as an author might, to understand that you need not just ideas but also a credible and authentic character, a distinct politics rooted in personality...... This, Axelrod says, is what Karl Rove understood about George W. Bush. "One of the reasons Bush has succeeded in two elections," Axelrod says, "is that in his own rough-hewn way he has conveyed a sense of this is who I am, warts and all." For Obama, because of Senator Hillary Clinton's far-greater experience and establishment backing, this is a particularly essential project. "If we run a conventional campaign and look like a conventional candidacy, we lose," Axelrod says.

    Obama's narrator

    Parent
    OT New Hope For Florida Revote Primary MSNBC (none / 0) (#83)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:35:39 AM EST


    Those that (none / 0) (#97)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:46:34 AM EST
    questioned the words of Rev Wright may not have been convinced by sen Obama's speech.

    Sen Obama is the one that claims "words are not just words" and yet he waffled on these words.

    I still feel uneasy about the Rev.

    Even if that speech changed the mind (none / 0) (#102)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:48:48 AM EST
    of every single person who heard, it wouldn't matter. It's the 527's. This is worse then the Swiftboat attacks on Kerry, because these attacks will happen to be true. You only need to convince a few thousand voters spread across a few states to create an electoral landslide for McCain. If Obama performs in the GE the way he performs now in the polls, he will lose by nearly 100 electoral votes.

    oh those pesky realists (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:53:31 AM EST
    (like me)

    Clinton/Lieberman spinmeister Lanny Davis lays out the next attack on Obama

    UDPATE 10:46 PM: The fear factor/electability strategy was confirmed by the Clinton campaign in the New York Times:

        Mrs. Clinton's advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama's association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election.

        That argument could be Mrs. Clinton's last hope for winning this contest.

    So desperate.

    It might be desperate, but it's also the truth. (none / 0) (#108)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:54:31 AM EST


    Parent
    desperation (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:57:36 AM EST
    is in the eye of the beholder

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:58:58 AM EST
    if they did not think it would work they would not be worried about it would they.

    Parent
    Electability - how I hate it! (none / 0) (#136)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:21:54 AM EST
    Now it seems that's what will decide the nomination!

    I guess the joke is on me... :P

    Parent

    You don't even have your facts straight (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:34:13 AM EST
    Check on Hillary Clinton's church.  Then come on back to moan and groan about what Obama has done to himself, and repeatedly, with the charges of racism flung at others.  

    That is why his racist minister is a problem for Obama now.

    Obama's speech was tighter than your (none / 0) (#147)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:35:14 AM EST
    rant. What I believe is that Obama is an underqualified, untested, overhyped candidate who should not have run for election this year.
    I do not want the Democrats to drive off a cliff nominating someone as unready as Obama.
    The other stuff? Relatively trivial, but his problems with Wright are due to his lack of long enough career and public exposure: if people already had a set idea of Obama, he would not  be vulnerable over the Wright issue.

    I flipped over to AM radio (none / 0) (#170)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:58:00 AM EST
    to hear what was going on yesterday before class...and flipped right into a lengthy soundbyte of Wright.

    This won't be going away during the generals.

    He gyrated his hips too, or so I read.. (none / 0) (#173)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:00:42 AM EST
    and this was at the pulpit.
    Gross.

    I'll repeat Captain Howdy's point of view (none / 0) (#176)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:01:32 AM EST
    And I'm sure the Captain will correct me if I'm wrong.

    I'm not all that interested in the Rev's point of view, or Obama's defense of his friendship with the Rev.

    I'm interested in how this controversy will affect an election that I want the Democrats to win.

    And from what I can see, the controversy is having a negative affect on one of the candidates--the candidate we are very close to nominating.  The candidate, who if he gets the nomination, might well go on to lose in the GE because of this issue.

    That's what I care about.

    thats about it (none / 0) (#181)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:06:03 AM EST


    Parent
    The Bigger Picture (none / 0) (#180)
    by RK on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:05:07 AM EST
    Rev. Wright isn't running for president. Obama is running for president. They are two different people. Any church goer knows that a person doesn't agree with "everything" his or her pastor believe in. There is something that you may feel differently on. Obama clearly expressed that, the comments that Rev. Wright made in those youtube clips, he does not agree with them. Plus he wasn't in attendance when those comments in particular was made, but found out about them later when he started his campaign (in which at that point, Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement). Please don't let these negative comments sway us, the voters, from seeing the bigger picture. The issues that attracted us to Obama in the first place. His views on Health Care, the Economy, the War in Iraq, etc is what we still need to focus on. Don't let these negative comments distract us from these issues. It is so obvious that people are trying to distract us from the issues of importance (health care, economy, etc.). America is ready for change and we can't afford to go through another 4-8 years as is.

    RK, in my opinion, you (none / 0) (#194)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:24:28 AM EST
    are the one ignoring the bigger picture.

    And the bigger picture is the strong possibility that Obama cannot win the GE because of his willing, long term, financial and spiritual association with the Reverend.

    Parent

    Pastor Wright (none / 0) (#187)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:13:24 AM EST
    "But Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us.  No, he ain't!  Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky!  He was riding dirty."

    That crude enough for you?

    MUST SEE (none / 0) (#188)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:13:28 AM EST
    Is that too much to ask of a politician... Do others what you want to do to yourself..

    Saint Obama on Imus:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioYrNYsNUfY

    ( I have two daughters.. He had a pattern.. don't want to be an enable..!)

    Keith Olberman Special comments:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3v7ON5XdA

    (Reject and denounce... ! )
    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#205)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    And please remember to put urls in html format or your comment will be deleted as they skew the site.

    Its the core of why, Obama? (none / 0) (#209)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:43:57 AM EST
    that has been the damaged. He already had his political Patron on Trial for corruption millions of tax dollars involved, he says he is still supportive of him but if.., his other close Patron Rev Wright he calls family preaches irrational hate against mostly non blacks and country, and Obama for what ever reason turned his head for years while their extreme acts continued, through either his inability to asses or his inability to judge or his own ambition, his participation with both Patrons extended the creditability of his office to their bad acts and betrayed the public trust in doing so and Obama failed to accept responsibility and choose to point to everyone but himself.
    Obama's Speech: Did It Save Him? | 194 comments (194 topical)