home

Obama Continues to Stress Accountability to Black Voters

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:01:56 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Addressing the NAACP last night, Sen. Barack Obama said he will continue to stress his theme that black voters must take accountability for bettering their own lives.

Obama got a standing ovation at the annual NAACP convention here, presenting himself as a symbol of the political power that earlier black leaders had won. Touting the sacrifice of these activists, Obama said their courage had allowed him to "stand before you tonight as the Democratic nominee for president of the United States of America."

But Obama, in diagnosing conditions in the black community, made it clear that he was prepared to break with the generation of black leadership represented by Jackson. He said that government and business alone couldn't be blamed for the pain suffusing some black neighborhoods, but that black parents needed to show more maturity and demand more from their children.

Obama's advice to parents: [More...]

He advised "turning off the TV set; putting away the video games; attending those parent-teacher conferences; helping our children with their homework; setting a good example."

He continued that parents needed to teach "our sons to treat women with respect and to realize responsibility does not end at conception. That what makes a man a man is not the ability to have a child but to raise one."

The largely black crowd roared its approval.

Obama also stressed this theme in his father's day speech. It does not seem to hurt his standing among African-American voters and some posit it may help him with white voters:

In his implicit criticism that some black men neglect their children, Obama showed he was prepared to endure a breach with his political base. The move could have an upside: White voters might see it as an example of courage.

It's a theme Obama has no intention of abandoning:

In his address to the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, Obama made a veiled reference to the flare-up with Jackson. "I know there are some who've been saying I've been too tough talking about responsibility," he said. "But NAACP, I'm here to report I'm not going to stop talking about it."

< The Commander In Chief Test | Omar Khadr Video of Gitmo Questioning Released >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Continues to Stress Accountability to Black Voters | 198 comments (198 topical)
    Hmmm... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by dws3665 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:17:20 AM EST
    Is this considered a bold stance? I'm afraid I don't get it. Most of these viewpoints have been around, and coming from the mouths of some prominent African Americans, for, oh, decades.

    Well they are (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by mg7505 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:18:32 AM EST
    just words, after all.

    [ Parent ]
    Jesse Jackson said all this long ago. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:38:29 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You are absolutely correct Hairspray... (none / 0) (#189)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:03:16 PM EST
    I'll bet even MLK had a thing or two to say about it.

    [ Parent ]
    how about just (3.50 / 2) (#25)
    by tben on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:59:58 AM EST
    a good stance?

    Would it really pain you that much to acknowledge that?

    [ Parent ]

    I think you need to look (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:00:44 AM EST
    at yourself on why this speech is considered a "good" speech and why you think an AA candidate needs to talk to a race about 'personal responsibility'.

    Why was it necessary that he do this? And do it now?

    [ Parent ]

    Michael....think pandering....he wants (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:00:40 PM EST
    blacks to act more responsibly, yet he continues to not be accountable for any of his actions...always blaming it on an aide, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    he has always done this (1.50 / 2) (#146)
    by tben on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:10:46 AM EST
    its part of who he is, and how he sees himself and his responsibilites in his community.

    I suspect he actually really does care about doing what he can to help people accomplish all that they can in life, especially black people - the community he decided to serve instead of going after the big bucks. As a political leader there is much he can do when his hands are on the levers of power, and he lays those things out.

    But there is also the roles he inevitibly plays as role model, which he does an excellent job at, and as someone who stands up with no hestiation and articulates those values and behaviors that are so important to creating a positive social and familial environment for the next generation.

    I think there would be something seriously missing if he didnt do things like this.

    [ Parent ]

    spare me (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by dws3665 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:30:07 AM EST
    "It's part of who he is."

    You have NO IDEA who he "is." You know only what he says. You may believe what you like about his character, but please don't pretend to "know" it. This is true of all politicians and celebrities. The mark of the true fan-boy is to think that they "know" their idol.

    Barack Obama is not your friend.

    He may not be your enemy, but you don't know him at all. (substitute the name of any politician that you don't actually know in that sentence, and it's just as valid)

    [ Parent ]

    Would it pain you (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by dws3665 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:27:01 AM EST
    to stop being so defensive?

    This was not an attack.

    Furthermore, I don't consider it to be such a good stance. I don't think it's a bad stance, either - just rather substance-less and sound-bite-y.

    I would prefer to see some, oh, I don't know, proposals that would help realize some of these goals.

    Blandishments from politicians tend to motivate very little behavior change.

    [ Parent ]

    Jesse Jackson said all this long ago. (none / 0) (#167)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:37:52 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Plenty of people. . . (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:19:09 AM EST
    in the black community will be receptive to Obama's message of personal responsibility combined with societal responsibility.  In a very few years Bill Cosby has gone from getting booed to getting standing ovations for talking about the same issue.

    Obama has advertised himself as someone who tells people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.  While he sometimes disappoints (eg "undivided Jerusalem"), sometimes he does better.

    Some division (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:14:19 PM EST
    I expect there may be some division at the 'class' level.  I believe there are differing experiences depending on income level and where people live.  For me, his message is directed more towards the upper income levels (which is who I expect is at a NAACP event), those that have been able to overcome the challenges of our culture and those against affirmative action.  Is his message consistent when he speaks in poor communities and is the response the same?  I don't think the response would be the same in a high school gym in an impoverished area.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps Obama (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:32:03 AM EST
    should talk about doing something about better education and jobs, instead of pointing fingers and telling people they should be accountable.  How about life in Chicago's South Side, Obama territory.  Are conditions and opportunities  improving for its residents?

    Words.  Pffffft.

    Sure hope he spends more time following up (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:43:40 AM EST
    on his programs than he did his recommendations for who should get money to provide poor people with housing. The people freezing in his good friend Rezko's building weren't rich white people.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't worry, pie. (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:00:03 AM EST
    If you care to check out the full text of the speech, you'll find that he covers the responsibilities of government as well.

    But hey, don't let that get in the way of your talking points.

    [ Parent ]

    I read the speech... (5.00 / 7) (#99)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:08:58 AM EST
    ... and he did talk about the responsibilities of government.  But I didn't see anything specific about what government can do (or that he would propose be done) about the unique problems that are still faced by minority communities in the USA ca. 2008.

    Here are three samples:

    "We'll guarantee health care for anyone who needs it"

    "we'll make sure that every child in this country gets a world-class education from the day they're born until the day they graduate from college"

    and

    "I'll expand the Earned Income Tax Credit - because it's one of the most successful anti-poverty measures we have."

    These are nice generic promises that will sound nice to most people.  These promises apply almost equally to anyone who's white, black or grey, from Maine to Ohio to California.  But there was nothing that I saw in the speech that indicated that Obama had any specific ideas to offer as to what his government would do to fight the sorts of subtle everyday discrimination that folks in AA community and others still have to face.  You'd think that he might have added at least a mention of one plan - for a specific new program or a policy change - so that people will think that he cares enough to be at least thinking about them, and their unique and specific problems, at least a little bit.

    [ Parent ]

    The other thing is that (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by dk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:16:31 AM EST
    those promises are SO generic, that anyone, even John McCain, could say them.

    We know that on health care alone, Obama is being downright disingenuous.  And the education claim is just silly.  We have just about the worst educational system in the developed world.  How is he going to make sure it is world class? I'm not buying.

    [ Parent ]

    hmmm, and if obama would now stand up (4.33 / 6) (#40)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:13:59 AM EST
    for women and apologize to them for his insufferable conduct during the primaries and in that last fund raiser, then we might sorta believe he isn't being arrogant and talking down to people and some folks have implied. but that isn't going to happen. instead of being a role model in how to respect women, a good lecture works for him instead. color me not impressed.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh huh. Like I said... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:16:11 AM EST
    ...don't let anything get in the way of those talking points.  Quick, somebody say "under the bus"!

    [ Parent ]
    excuse you are confused. it is obama's (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:18:37 AM EST
    talking points we are discussing. but hey you just come on under the bus with us. the sun will be hot today with all the hot air up there.

    [ Parent ]
    What's with the attitude? You're arguing with ... (4.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:01:03 AM EST
    ... a voice in your head rather than what someone ctually said.

    [ Parent ]
    Whose talking points? (none / 0) (#33)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:08:17 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hm (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:32:30 AM EST
    Who is characterizing Jesse Jackson's generation of black leadership as believing "government and business alone can be blamed for the pain suffusing some black neighborhoods"?  I suspect the good Rev. Jackson might not agree that that has been his message all these years.

    Sounds more like another (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:34:36 AM EST
    reverend...

    Wright.

    [ Parent ]

    I think Jackson. . . (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:56:37 AM EST
    already made clear what he thinks of Obama's position.  And frankly, Obama couldn't get such favorable coverage if he paid for it.  It's like Sister Souljah getting up and denouncing herself.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:04:40 AM EST
    My point is that it's not a particularly even-handed characterization of the debate to say that it's between Obama's "personal responsibility" position and Jackson's "it's entirely the fault of government and business" position.

    It seems to me that Obama's people were VERY successful at interjecting their narrative into this news story.  But it seems a bit much to suggest that personal responsibility was a foreign concept to the previous generation of black leadership.

    [ Parent ]

    I want to be careful. . . (none / 0) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:27:12 AM EST
    because this is an area in which I don't have any personal standing to speak, and you may (translation: I'm not black and I don't know whether you are).

    However, I think it's fair to say that Obama's message, or at least his emphasis, is something that hasn't been heard that much from mainstream black leaders in the last few decades.  As evidence, I offer the response Bill Cosby got when he brought the issue up publicly for what seemed like the first time several years ago.  Also, if this were part of Jackson's message why would he react so negatively to Obama saying it?

    Oddly enough, the idea of personal responsibility plays a somewhat larger role in non-mainstream movements.  It's an important element, for instance, of the philosophy of the Nation of Islam.

    [ Parent ]

    Jackson reacted the way he did (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:51:57 AM EST
    because he always paired the message of peroanal responsibilty with societies responsibilities.

    For how many years has Jackson been talking about the importance of education and taking the "personal responsibility" to stay in school and guide your children toward achievement in school?

    In Obama's first speech he didn't address the govt or societal portion.  This time he did.

    So you could read this speech as addressing Jesse Jackson's concerns.

    [ Parent ]

    Jackson (2.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:30:49 AM EST
    reacted they way he did because he is a race baiter, who makes his headlines, his living, his money by ensuring the races remain separate.  He will be the most disappointed man in America if Obama is elected president.  

    [ Parent ]
    Let me try again (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:06:32 AM EST
    We don't really know what Jackson's actual issue is with Obama's message because he basically made an intemperate remark and then apologized without explaining himself further.

    It is to Obama's message to frame the disagreement as "I'm talking about personal responsibility and Jesse doesn't like that."  This article certainly buys into that frame.  But I question whether Jesse Jackson, if we asked him, would describe the disagreement in quite that way.

    I think it is a question of degree, and in some respects a question of tone.  Everyone agrees that personal responsibility is important.  It strikes me as sort of dismissive to suggest that Jesse Jackson and the "prior generation of black leadership" didn't emphasize the importance of personal responsibility.

    Obama's message here is sort of a subset of something he likes to say that I've complained about in non-racial contexts: the argument that he's not one of the people who believes government is the solution for everything, as if such people actually exist.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you saying. . . (none / 0) (#124)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM EST
    that you think Jackson's reaction may have been to something other than what he perceived as Obama's lecturing tone on personal responsibility?  I've heard the tape once, on the radio, and I couldn't make out even one word.  But I thought it was established that he was objecting to that particular issue.

    I doubt Jackson would describe the disagreement as his rejection of personal responsibility, since who's really against responsibility anyway -- especially when it's receiving such a positive response?  But it's hard to see this contretemps as being, at least proximally, about anything else.

    I don't say that Jackson denies the importance of  personal responsibility, but I do think it's fair to say that he's never particularly emphasized it.  On the issue of personal responsibility he's been rather more cautious than Cassius.

    As for the argument about whether there really are people who believe government is the solution to everything, the problem is that the perception that this is so is broad enough to affect voting.  While I believe it's probably worthwhile to try to eliminate that meme in society I don't think it's particularly productive for a particular candidate to being trying parse things down to that level during an important campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    JJ gave an interview heard on NPR (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:59:49 AM EST
    the other day where he did in fact say he had a problem with degree, tone and overall balance of Obama's remarks on personal responsibility.

    Agree too that JJ, while he has spoken to black groups about being better people and citizens (drug taking, crime, leaving school too early, not registering to vote, etc), the areas he has most stressed are gov't/societal racism and malignant indifference to blacks.

    Obviously too we probably see some personal issues JJ has in giving up his de facto Leader of the Black Community to the new charismatic and well-spoken kid on the block, someone far less controversial than he is, and someone unlike him who was successful in winning the Dem nomination and who stands poised to win it all.

    The latter has to be taken into account in the fuller understanding of the matter given the very aggressive remarks he made when he thought the mic was off.  A disagreement on the margins about things like tone, degree and balance would not seem the stuff from which vulgarly violent comments would spring.

    [ Parent ]

    Your 3rd paragraph (5.00 / 0) (#179)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:50:54 AM EST
    Obviously too we probably see some personal issues JJ has in giving up his de facto Leader of the Black Community to the new charismatic and well-spoken kid on the block, someone far less controversial than he is,  
    is quite apt.  It is probably galling to JJ as well that Obama never suffered some of the really damaging episodes the older generation had to deal with.

    [ Parent ]
    I love the message (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:40:13 AM EST
    It is great that we have a new black leader who can move the black community forward.  Of course the rest of the speech did focus on jobs and that kind of stuff.  

    P.S.
    No one through anyone under a bus, this has nothing to do with Rev. Wright (Pie where do you get this stuff?).

    I said it (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:47:07 AM EST
    sounded like him.  Or have you forgotten some of his statements?

    [ Parent ]
    The reason why it is offensive (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Exeter on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:49:26 AM EST
    is because he is using race in a very inappropriate way. By lecturing Blacks on white stereotypes of Blacks, he is sending a message to Whites: "See, I agree with you, Blacks are XYZ, but I'm obviously different from those people as evidenced by my lecturing"

    [ Parent ]
    Listen to the Spech First (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:01:12 AM EST
    It was a great speech, that got a great response.

    [ Parent ]
    The LA Times was left with the impression (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Exeter on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:18:04 AM EST
    that Obama was saying that Black parents were not "mature".  Perhaps this is bad reporting, but to call an entire race immature is pretty offensive -- especially since it plays into the common black stereotype that Blacks are childlike.

    [ Parent ]
    Read or listen to the speech (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:20:24 AM EST
    That was not the focus.  For a good review check out Salon.

    [ Parent ]
    I understand your point (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Exeter on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:34:25 AM EST
    and have listened to the speech. The point is that the headlines of yesterdays speech and the part of the speech that most of MSM focused on was Obama's comments aimed at Black parents.

    Most of what I have seen has been headlines like these:
    LA Times: Obama Re-Admonishes Blacks
    AP: Obama Says Blacks Must Take Responsibility
    ReuterS: Obama tells blacks they must take responsibility

    [ Parent ]

    Just because a speech (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:24:00 AM EST
    gets a great response does not automatically make the speech itself great or the talking points perfect. Some of the people who heard the speech may not even have paid attention to the words.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:49:39 AM EST
    Do you really think it's true that the prior generation of black leadership (Jesse Jackson et al.) never talked about responsibility?

    [ Parent ]
    no, it isn't true at all... (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:54:52 AM EST
    Jesse has talked about personal responsibility for many years.  Jesse's complaint last week was that Obama talked about personal responsibility without including societal responsibility at the same time.  To Jesse it sounded like Obama was giving society and the government a pass and telling blacks it was all up to them

    [ Parent ]
    No I think they have been talking about (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:16:05 AM EST
    Personal responsibility.  But that was never his focus.  His generation fought and in a large part won the fight, so that personal responsibility could mean reaching new heights for people like Obama, myself, my brother, etc.  If we didn't have him and his generation, I would not have had the chance to have my actions drive me towards the success every American dreams about.  However, I think now their needs to be shift of focus to personal responsiblity (while not forgetting the other half of the fight).  Bill Cosby, Obama, they are shifting that focus, while not discounting or diminishing the huge weight of racism that still exists in this country (vs. the Shelby Steele's of this world that discount the latter)

    As a side note Jackson is a hero of mine.  I remeber when my dad took me to see him in San Francisco when the anti affirmative action stuff was going on, real powerful- he could get the KKK standing and chearing for him (if only we could have fit the rest of Ca into Glide that night).  I think what makes the right hate him so much is that he has been succesful. Sure he has said some dumb things, but who hasn't in 40 years worth of surface (and has actually done somethng).  I am guessing Obama doesn't take what he said that seriously, all these people talk "sh#$#$t" about each other, its part of the game.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:09:50 AM EST
    I respect where you are coming from on this.

    I'm glad you didn't see the framing of this article as dismissive of Jesse Jackson and the arguments of the "prior generation."  Particularly in the context of civil rights, it's important that we respect the things people did in their time, even if we decide we want to do something different in our time.

    [ Parent ]

    Jesse Jackson, if he had wanted to (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:57:53 AM EST
    go that way, could have built a huge left movement of working class whites and blacks.  I understand why he's remained resolutely focused on the AA community, but have always regretted he didn't take that opportunity to broaden out his movement.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 5) (#141)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:01:42 AM EST
    If only he had worked more on building a coalition.  Perhaps one that had room for all colors of the rainbow...

    [ Parent ]
    Me too. I met working class whites (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST
    during the '80's who really listened to JJ and were willing to follow his populist rethoric.  Unfortunately he didn't build the broader coalition which might have won the presidency for him, or at least the Democratic nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    JJ could well be (3.00 / 0) (#145)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:08:12 AM EST
    described, as to his 84 and 88 runs for the Dem nomination, as the Controversial Black Candidate for President, since his often sharp and critical message was or was always perceived as primarily in the context of black issues -- he was in effect the AA community's "representative" in those races.  (ditto for Al Sharpton in 2004).

    Contrast with Obama, who's much more in the category of Uncontroversial Young Candidate for President Who Happens to be Black.

    But then, looking at JJ's personal history, we see he was engaging in some self-aggrandizing behavior going way back , well before his presidential races.  As in the days immediately following the assassination of MLK, when he appeared to be making more of his role in King's CR movement than he actually had.  Some truly with more clout in that inner circle and who knew the truth have tended over the years to take a jaundiced view of Jesse for his grandstanding ways.

    So, he is who he is, and was probably always going to have a narrow appeal.

    I'm sorta glad though that we can now look forward to a new generation of black leaders, and hopefully the post-MLK era of Jackson and Sharpton is coming to a close.

    [ Parent ]

    It's a good message for white parents too (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:00:04 AM EST
    I wish he would deliver it to a wider audience.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree that it is a message (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:11:58 AM EST
    that all parents should hear. However, the last President who suggested that we should take responsibility for our own problems (I believe he used the word "malaise") didn't fair very well in his bid for re-election. While white people applaud Obama for chastising African-Americans, I am not so sure they would be as enthusiastic if the message were directed at them - no matter who is the messenger.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't that the whole point of why many people (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:18:50 AM EST
    including the editors of the Black Agenda Report are angry. Obama is using the very people who are supporting him the most.

    [ Parent ]
    But why should white people (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:39:47 AM EST
    applaud him chastising African-Americans, and why should African-Americans support being chastised for the sake of getting applause from white people?

    I agree with his message if it is applied to everyone. I don't support chastising one group to please another.

    Is he going to deliver a speach someplace to chastise whites for something?  Probably not, because he does not have the white vote locked up.

    I hear BTD in my head - pols are pols and they do what pols do.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, to be "fair," Obama (none / 0) (#75)
    by dk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:42:36 AM EST
    is kind of doing that with the faith-based stuff.  To be a good society, faith will be the "core" of his administatration with a department of faith and state funding for faith based charities...you know, bring back morality to policy because "some" pro-choicers don't recognize the moral implications of abortions, and "some" gays (not like his favorite ones, of course) proselytize, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I forgot that he does chastise white liberals (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    Another group he thinks he has locked up. Note that he has nothing but priase for the white conservatives, and throws them more faith-based dollars to prove it.

    [ Parent ]
    'Get this stuff?' From the public record perhaps? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:15:00 AM EST
    Stop pretending that BO's actual words and deeds are inventions attributed to him, characterizations, spin or whatever your Frame of the Day From On High to pretend away things Obama actually said or did (such as denounce Rev Wright.)

    Obama's handlers might find it expedient to run away from his public record but you can't erase what people saw him do.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you think the people he was (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    addressing are the people who need to hear the message?  Do you think that exhorting poor people to "take responsibility" has any effect?

    There's something pretty icky to me about white people enthusiastically approving a black guy for lecturing other black folks about "taking responsibility."

    I'm curious whether you think Obama's intended wider audience for this part of his speech is people who actually need and will respond to a pep talk or white voters.

    Serious questions.  I'm not particularly interested in the opinions of the other white people here.

    [ Parent ]

    This makes me very uncomfortable (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by kenosharick on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:05:48 AM EST
    playing off of the fears and prejudice of some middle-class whites for votes. I guess he really will do anything to win.

    Uh huh. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:09:41 AM EST
    And oddly enough, in reaction to Obama "playing off the fears of some middle-class whites"...

    The largely black crowd roared its approval.

    Gee.  It's almost like he's right or something.

    [ Parent ]

    Are they applauding the message (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:21:32 AM EST
    or the messenger? "A largely black audience" roars its approval for Reverend Wright, too, whose message is almost diametrically opposed to this one.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, you're probably right. (3.50 / 2) (#65)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:28:44 AM EST
    I bet they're clapping and cheering just because it's Barack Obama up there, not because they agree with what he's saying!  Why, they're probably not even listening to the words, those dopes!  Just clapping like good little robots!  Nobody would ever accuse the NAACP of being politically or socially aware or able to think critically, no sirree!

    ...Sheesh.  Maybe you should think this stuff through before you write it.  It was a good speech, and people liked it.  Get over it and move on to valid criticisms.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, who do they agree with? (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:36:02 AM EST
    Wright or Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    False choice. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:43:12 AM EST
    It's not either/or.  Both men are right about some things and wrong about others.  

    In this case, the attending members of the NAACP thought Obama was correct.  It's pretty uncomplicated.

    [ Parent ]

    So the NAACP will be joining Obama (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:00:41 AM EST
    in denouncing Reverend Wright? Since it is, according to you, Obama who they agree with? It seems like just last April Wright was a featured speaker at the NAACP and received lots and lots of applause.

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:06:11 AM EST
    Can you read???  Pegasus just said it's not either/or.  For example, I would cheer for a speech that lauded personal responsibility.  I would also cheer for a speech that admonished the government for lack of action by them.  Because they are BOTH right.

    We need more personal responsibility.  And the government has been terrible and needs to do more.  I don't get what is so hard to understand here.  P.S. Obama denounced Wright, he did not denounce everything the man ever said.  There are shades of gray here.

    [ Parent ]

    The GOP was very big on personal (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:07:44 PM EST
    responsibility.  I took that as code for "do it yourself" the government is not going to help.  So while I believe personal responsibility is always a good value, it really depends on who says it and to whom.  As a practical matter, we know that personal responsililty goes up and crime goes down when the economies of a country are booming. So the president has a responsibility too!!!

    [ Parent ]
    If there were some things that (none / 0) (#108)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:15:59 AM EST
    Obama said that did not generate wild applause from an NAACP audience or some things that Wright said that fell flat, I would agree with it's not an either or situation.  But both men receive applause for saying the opposite thing.  It's either a fan-type response or a severe case of cognitive dissonance. In the case of Obama, I think it's the former. I think he could read the phone book and get applause.

    [ Parent ]
    You say "saying the opposite thing." (none / 0) (#116)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:25:45 AM EST
    What did they say, exactly, that was so contradictory?  Quotes, please.  Because honestly, I think you're just making this up as you go along.

    [ Parent ]
    "Say the opposite thing" (none / 0) (#170)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:39:12 AM EST
    in the SAME public record excerpts that are run over and over again in such a way as to frame and define certain persons in specific ways.

    It's difficult to believe Wright has spent decades as a Christian minister without delving into the issue of personal conduct or that Obama never talks about societal/governmental responsibility.

    [ Parent ]

    What did he say there? (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:08:21 AM EST
    When he spoke at the NAACP, did Wright say that black parents should not have any personal responsibility toward their kids?  Did what he said contradict what Obama just said in any way?

    Because if not, you have no point whatsoever.

    [ Parent ]

    Have you listened to Wright's speech at the NAACP? (none / 0) (#119)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:28:55 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Have you? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:43:55 AM EST
    I read the text, and didn't see anything contradicting Obama's message from yesterday.  Maybe I'm missing something and you can point it out.

    I did see this, I guess.


    Many of us are committed to changing, number three, the way we treat each other. The way black men treat black women. The way black parents treat black children. The way black youth treat black elders and the way black elders treat black youth. We are committed to changing the way we treat each other.

    But that's substantially in agreement with Obama, so again: what's your point?

    [ Parent ]

    You should actually listen. (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:54:52 AM EST
    African American children are at a disadvantage in school because they are "right-brained" and European children are "left-brained". Our teachers don't know how to teach "right-brained" kids. The whole speech was full of a bunch of nonsense, and yet it got lots of applause. My point is that the fact that the NAACP crowd applauded Obama did not make his speech a good speech.  Obama is using his black supporters to curry favor with a group of voters that want to put the responsibility totally on the shoulders of parents who are working three jobs and don't have time to read to their kids. That way the rest of us don't have to bear any responsibility for educating them. If Obama believes that parents should take more responsibility for rearing their own children, then ALL parents should be admonished- not just the AA parents. The fact that he is only chastising AA parents and they are giving him applause for singling them out is sad - not something to use as praise for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    So you're saying that, (none / 0) (#139)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:00:46 AM EST
    as opposed to what you said above, there's nothing "diametrically opposed" in the two speeches?  Although there some junk science in Wright's, it's certainly not "contradicting" Obama.

    Good, I'm glad we agree.  Glad we had this talk.

    [ Parent ]

    Wright's speech (4.00 / 4) (#182)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57:39 AM EST
    as one example says that the failure of AA children in school is because they have different brains than white kids. No personal responsibility needed there.
    Are you so in the tank for Obama that you cannot see that he is using the AA community to pander to his rich white liberals?

    [ Parent ]
    According to Obama it is not (2.00 / 1) (#77)
    by dk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:46:28 AM EST
    a false choice.  Obama, if you recall, denounced, rejected, and repudiated Wright.

    That is, unless you think Obama was disingenuous in doing that.  Is disingnuous a leadership quality too, now?

    [ Parent ]

    Sigh... this is beyond belief. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:51:10 AM EST
    I'm sorry, do you folks have an example of Rev. Wright telling the NAACP something "diametrically opposed" to what Obama said yesterday, and them cheering wildly?  If not, the whole premise of this argument is inoperable.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:57:45 AM EST
    They probably have different audiences.  I am sure that all of trinity church didn't show up at Obama's speech for the NAACP.  Hello people, not all black people are the same.  They can have, gasp, different opinions.   And even agree with varying positions on the issues.

    [ Parent ]
    Just curious (none / 0) (#103)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:11:08 AM EST
    What are the things you believe Wright is correct about and Obama is wrong about?

    [ Parent ]
    You didn't ask me (none / 0) (#111)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:17:59 AM EST
    But I want to answer anyway.

    I think September 11th was caused by our "chickens coming home to roost" because of our horribly one-sided policy in the middle east.

    Also, the government administers Aids :) (not really, I just love that one)

    [ Parent ]

    Not relevant to the conversation. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM EST
    And FWIW, I'm not especially familiar with Jeremiah Wright's work, beyond the stuff that exploded through the media.  But from what I have read, he has pretty good things to say on racial equality (really, he does) and the role of community in impoverished urban areas, and pretty stupid things to say about geopolitics.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, and the Obama part. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:24:10 AM EST
    Sorry, missed that.

    He was way wrong on FISA, and I've never agreed with him on the HC mandate issue.

    Your turn.  You must agree with Obama about something, right?

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:30:00 AM EST
    I agree with Obama on tons of things.  I'm a Democrat, after all.

    I wasn't trying to play gotcha with you, but when you said "both men are right about some things and wrong about others," I assumed you were referring to matters on which the two of them disagree.

    [ Parent ]

    Understandable. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:50:50 AM EST
    That wasn't my meaning; I was just saying that samanthasmom's point (which seems to be that it is inherently contradictory for the same person to applaud any single thing Wright says while also cheering any single thing Obama says) is totally bankrupt.

    [ Parent ]
    My impression (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:54:36 AM EST
    is that people have this impression that Rev. Wright is the sort of guy who goes around blaming every problem on "white people's greed."  Suffice it to say that I think the guy is a little deeper than that.

    [ Parent ]
    as exeter notes above, (3.66 / 3) (#180)
    by sancho on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:56:14 AM EST
    all that matters are the headlines--how it is spun. the spin is, obama lectures blacks on their failings as parents. the goal is to communicate to white voters that obama wont hit them over the head with "black" issues if elected prez. as he's been telling us since south carolina, he's no jesse jackson (cue whatever bad associations one has of jj and then act relieved to learn this "one" is different.) it is an easy shot for obama and he made it again--just like on father's day. presumably, it is not the last time he will do the cosby thing.  the naacp audience understands his gambit too. and they were polite hosts. and they applauded. but they did not hear anything they have not heard before and wont hear again.

    but the speech itself is just pablum, as most speeches are. and the audience is hoping that obama does not really mean it (or that he will push for policies that help blacks), just as the intended whites are hoping obama is not "an angry black person pretending to be a nice black person."  

    my call: if obama came from a republican state, he'd be a republican. he wants to be elected. he wants to give pablum speeches where audiences cheer whether the words mean anything or not. he's exploiting all the advantages he thinks he has.  being perceived as a black leader (he's not of course, he's a leader, sort of, who is perceived as black) willing to lecture blacks before "white" news media is one of his easiest plays. having commenters of any race saying this is "brave" is good for his plan. if you want to believe that he believes what he says, that's great too. to each her/his own.  

    [ Parent ]

    Steve M (none / 0) (#123)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:31:01 AM EST
    Has good comments.  He's pretty fair, both pro- and con- Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, but. . . (none / 0) (#125)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:40:59 AM EST
    He was way wrong on FISA,

    He was right on it before he was wrong on it!  Right?

    [ Parent ]

    Sure, although that's worth precisely nothing. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:44:59 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Gets him Kerry points! n/t (none / 0) (#143)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:03:54 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    How dare you suggest (none / 0) (#165)
    by dws3665 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    that Barack Obama was WRONG about something!

    /snark

    [ Parent ]

    Why, in your words, is he right? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:05:51 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Personally, I agree with his message. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:10:09 AM EST
    And it appears that members of the NAACP do as well.  And frankly, they're in a much better position to judge the message than I am.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't believe.... (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:17:53 AM EST
    some commenters would ridicule a message of "be better parents and do better by your children".

    Now I think Obama is as full of sh*t as the next politician, but I wholeheartedly agree with this message.  

    I'm just wondering if it is a president's job (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:26:33 AM EST
    to tell us how to raise our children and live our private lives.

    At what point does the message cross over to becoming him lecturing us on things that are really none of his business? We are not electing a father in chief.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think he's telling anybody... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    how to raise their kids, just that you need to raise them...the school system can't do it, a bueracrat can't do it...parents have to do it, no matter how limited their means.

    I don't think he's telling anybody how to live either...at least not in this instance.

    If he were, I'd criticize that for sure.  My father had an unconventional way of raising his kids that might make a square's head spin, but he raised us, taught us right from wrong, and the value of hard work.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm...I disagree with this (none / 0) (#115)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:25:34 AM EST
    just that you need to raise them...the school system can't do it, a bueracrat can't do it...parents have to do it, no matter how limited their means.

    This is exactly the message I disagree with. yes, parent's need to raise their children and no a pol can't do it. But I do believe that the school system, the government, neighbors and extended family are also responsible for raising our children. It takes a village...

    [ Parent ]

    the best schools and the best village (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:16:37 AM EST
    cannot overcome terrible parents.

    [ Parent ]
    A village helps.... (none / 0) (#129)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:46:48 AM EST
    no doubt...I just don't think you can always count on the village, yet you can always count on yourself.

    [ Parent ]
    Then perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:59:24 AM EST
    he should be lecturing the village...

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps.... (none / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    but I don't think that is as effective as stressing to parents that they are the most critical component. The village can be a helping hand, but it's the parents that must do the heavy lifting.

    It can be done without the village, or in spite of the village in some cases...it's practically impossible without the parents.

    [ Parent ]

    THANK YOU americancanadian (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by kelsweet on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:10:50 AM EST
    I have been wondering if I was the only 1 thinking the same thing.
     AND no one has mentioned that most likely the people cheering him on ARE the responsible ones! The irresponsible ones aren't listening to Obama or anyone else, and couldn't care less what he thinks about their lack of responsibility.
     

    [ Parent ]
    You guys are amazing (none / 0) (#147)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:15:18 AM EST
    You criticize him because he isn't a leader and then when he takes a leadership position you.... criticize him.

    I guess that JFK was getting all preachy when he said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for you country?"

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, Obama is Just Like JFK OMG! (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:59:18 AM EST
    Obama is lecturing AA's only, calling them "boys" and telling them how to raise their children.

    JFK was saying to all Americans that they should give back to their country. He was calling for national service and linking it to patriotism.

    The idea of national service as patriotism is very different from that of personal responsibility to one's family.

    But I suspect you know that.

    [ Parent ]

    Good comment. (none / 0) (#69)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:34:13 AM EST
    There's nothing really wrong with this message.  Sure it could turn sour, depending on wording and tone, but it doesn't seem like it did here.  

    [ Parent ]
    Here's why I don't like this line of reasoning (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:20:23 AM EST
    Personal responsibility is important. But to say or imply that black parents in particular need to turn off the tv and get rid of the video games misses the mark. White, middle and higher class individuals certainly don't lack for tvs and video games, but you know what? Their kids are going to do much better than on average than the kids of poor folks. Now, why is that? It's not because poor or black parents are inherently deficient. It's just not.

    I think the village is much richer (none / 0) (#197)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    in the middle and upper class homes. Indifferent parents in those neighborhoods usually have excellent schools, lots of activist parents around , organized activities and usually friends who have vigilant parents. Also the rich village has  no street crime, lots of jobs with good salaries to buy music lessons, sports, etc. The others in that village support that culture.

    [ Parent ]
    He's lecturing again, but I'm not sure (5.00 / 10) (#55)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:20:45 AM EST
    I know what his goal is.  Is he looking to be the new voice and de facto leader of black Americans, such that he feels not only comfortable, but responsible for, telling them what their goals and agenda should be?  

    Is he looking to reassure the white community by showing them he