Great Speech.

But that *is* his strong suit, isn't it?

The speech seems a little too long. It's hard to maintain energy when there is no crowd. He doesn't seem as energetic as he sometimes does.

I just read it and I must say, I thought it was phenomenal.

I only have been able to read the speech since I'm at work but I found it very impressive and I was very happy to see him not throwing Rev. Wright and his church entirely under the bus which would have been the politically convenient thing to do. I'm satisfied that Obama doesn't subscribe to the incendiary views Wright expressed in the various Youtube clips. I'm not sure what else his critics would want of him and I hope he just gets back to the real campaign.

Once the rawness of the clips fades people will remember that Obama is the candidate not Wright and Obama is a uniter. Or at least that's the hope. We'll see.

Give credit to a politician whose political life is hanging by a thread (according to the media) and who uses that to be subtle and nuanced.

If that's not considered Presidential material, then I am going to start despairing for my country

barack obama is a hero.
he courageously embodies the absolute best qualities of leadership and humanity.
i hope he will have a hedge of protection and blessing around him always.

I think it is very very good. Whether it will pierce the public consciousness is unclear at this time. He probably ought to repeat the best parts on the stump from now on.

Question: what percentage of this speech was written in, I don't know, 2002, when he started running for Senate?

I've read through the speech and have been listening to it live (he's not quite finished yet). I thought it was a very well crafted and poignant speech, but I can't help but feel that the contingent of America that most needs to be moved by this speech will be unmoved. So many Americans are obstinate in their prejudices...it just seems futile to affect them. I do hope, however, that many of those who have been swayed or made to feel uneasy by the clips of Wright's remarks are comforted and reassured by Obama's own words.

So he's "back on his heels" and he takes the opportunity to call the country--both whites and blacks--to face its own racism?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

What the hell's the matter with the video feed? Did they hire the production team from Cloverfield? If only UCC had the same foresight, nobody would have watched those clips of Rev. Wright.

A response to Nicholas Beaudrot's question:

"what percentage of this speech was written in, I don't know, 2002, when he started running for Senate?"

Was this question meant to undermine the authenticity of Obama's speech? Even if large sections of this speech are simply cut and paste from past speeches or if it has been a few years in the making, it seems like that sort of consistency should, if anything, reinforce his message. It should also further speak to the fact that his views are not Rev. Wright's views. One of his main appeals is his worldliness --his ability to unify many individual Americans' struggles under the mantle of a greater American struggle is unparalleled by any other politician.

I suppose one could argue that this speech is simply an extension of the same rhetoric he's been using for his whole political career. So, I suppose they could be manipulative, disingenuous --simply a platform. We could suspect him of that (frankly, I wish he wouldn't use such idealized terms --it cheapens his message for me). But what's important is that much of the country seems to be moved by his words, whether he *means* them or not. That means that if Obama is elected president, the office of the presidency will be restored for many Americans, which I think is perhaps the most important outcome of this election. The office has been stained for too long by various debacles, and it needs to be rehabilitated before meaningful and effective domestic and foreign policy changes can be enacted.

So, back to my original point: if this speech has been building since 2002, I think that's great.

for the sake of this country, i wish that edwards, gore, biden, dodd, bradley and ANYONE that can help, would do whatever they can for barack obama's campaign.
it seems to me that we all have an obligation.

Woops...I just reread my above post now that the speech is finished and found that some of it is incoherent (multitasking isn't a strong suit of mine). Hopefully my main points still come across...

So Barack Obama made a speech. Big deal! Hillary Clinton will end up winning the popular vote once Michigan is counted, you know, because she is the candidate of the people, unlike Barack Obamron!

Just words? No way in hell. I fucking cried.

Speaking of Petey, I always wonder what's going to happen once Edwards finally gets around to endorsing Obama. Will his head explode, like those robots on Star Trek who've been given two incompatible commands?

So he's "back on his heels" and he takes the opportunity to call the country--both whites and blacks--to face its own racism?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

He frequently challenges the black community, specifically black churches, to face their own prejudices. In his MLK speech this year, most notably.

Politicians can't control what the MSM is going to obsess about. I'm sure Edwards would've preferred they talk about his stands on issues rather than his big house, and I'm sure McCain (or at least his handlers) is thrilled that the Beast has collectively agreed his week-end estate in Sedona is a "rustic cabin".

Great speech!
I feel better about Obama than I have in a long time.

What the heck is an Obamron?

i also have to say, that i think one of the better things i have done with my life, has been to work, even in my own small way, for the obama campaign.

Is there a video of it up anywhere yet? YouTube seemed to have one, but when I clicked on it, it said "unavailable."

What the heck is an Obamron?

I think it's the world's most expensive seasoning.

This is the way forward - together.
Thank you Barack.
This is so important and you addressed this so eloquently - so moving.
When he spoke about his family and having bits and pieces of all the world inside of him, that was amazing for me.
Lets work together to put this country back on track.
I have met so many wonderful people volunteering in this campaign, and I can't wait to meet so many more throughout this year - thank you all so much.
Yes we can!

I read the speech and I was underwhelmed. My take on the situation - people are wondering what does Obama mean by “we need to move past race”? Is he for eliminating all raced-based affirmative action? As far as I can tell, his website’s only discussion of affirmative action is to say, “Obama will reverse the politicization that has occurred in the Bush Administration’s Department of Justice. He will put an end to the ideological litmus tests used to fill positions within the Civil Rights Division.” and “Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that curtails racial minorities’ and women’s ability to challenge pay discrimination. Obama will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.“.

Now, my feeling is that the Wright view of the world calls for much more raced-based affirmative action to address past discrimination. That America has been constructed by Whites for the benefits of Whites and it needs to be radically reconstructed to serve all Americans. Does Obama agree with this or not? Obama’s speech to me tries to fudge whether he does or not. Here is the pertinent part of his speech:

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
What does that mean in terms of economic policy and race? How does clamping down on corporate corruption help black kids in poor neighborhoods? After his “major speech on race”, we still don’t know what he thinks should be the government’s policies in terms of race.

I don't know if it matters if the American people (or, to be more accurate, sundry white people) are swayed so much as the pundits. If Chris Matthews and everyone else agrees Obama nailed it, that's the narrative. I don't think that's a good thing, and I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

I admire the way he handled white anger over affirmative action and tethered it to black anger over iniquity. It was a nifty move and made a lot of sense to me.

The three obvious ways to judge this speech are as A) a political speech, B) as oratory, an C) as a historic speech.

A) Politically it was a yeoman effort and as pragmatic as possible without being unprincipled. Obama isn't throwing his pastor of 20 years overboard to satisfy the Pat Buchanans of the world.

B) I've seen some concerns about length (too long) and delivery (too flat). I thing for as broad and inflammatory a topic as race Obama was comprehensive and measured. I think the length and delivery concerns have more to do with the political and are misplaced. The speech is going to be cut into soundbites where length and delivery are irrelevant.

C) The speech is a home run. It lays out the history of race and racial relations in Americ and plots a way forward for people of all colors. King's "I have a dream" speech was a dream. Obama was doesn't dream of a boat where we're all in it together, he's drawing plans and cutting lumber. That's amazing.

I expressed concern the speech would be disingenuous flag-waving, and I'm very happy I was wrong! It was excellent, and I'm especially glad he hit at the professional racists on the right.

From a the point of view of the content of the philosophy he was espousing, I have to be a little conservative and say he didn't give enough credit (or blame) to individuals' acting morally (or not). He pointed out that it was misguided for whites to blame blacks for misfortunes, but it's not just misguided--it's sinful. Likewise for Reverend Wright in his most strident moments.

However, I don't think it's the best strategy for a politician to point out the moral deficiencies of the electorate!

It was agreat speech on the topic. He convinced me that he would have been a great professor to have in university, the speech did nothing to convince me that he should get my vote at this time.

The speech was complete window dressing to cover ONE SINGLE statement. His admission that he was, in fact, in the audience for these diatribes. This was a complete 180 from his prior position. This was meant to call off the press dogs from digging further into his connections to the Rev....

Would we be saying the same if this was Hillary and the Rev David Duke?

Suck it up Anonymouses, the anti-Obamans have been pwned for today, it seems.

Keep a stiff upper lip and tell yourself you'll find a new kerfluffle for another day.

It was a decent speech, but the damage is done and nothing Obama says or does now can change anything about the Wright situation. His 20 years of close ties with that idiot speaks volumes and cant be undone in a speech or two (no matter how eloquent) or a last minute throwing under the bus for political expediency.

I was going to vote for Obama until I found out he had been affiliated with this hate preacher for 20+ years and then lied about not knowing what he was preaching.

Thats a deal breaker. If Hillary had gone to a church for 20 years run by a loony hate-filled preacher then I would cross her off my list too.

I have to disagree with your assessment Ezra.

It should have been focused more on hope than pain ?
Hell no ! He has run his whole campaign around hope and has gotten a lot of flak from it. The very core of this controversy is that it made his talk of hope sound hollow compared to the aggressiveness of his pastor.
Talking honestly about what is wrong with is is a way to purge a wound so that we can build that hope on it.

I hear different assessments of his delivery. I tend to believe a fiery reading would have been too reminiscent of the infamous videos and that quiet and statesman-like was a better take on it.

The length ? Well it is not like anybody but political geeks are going to listen to the whole thing. The more material, the more rich content and nuance and the more for pundits to think about.

More than honest, this speech was courageous. As stated earlier, a presidential candidate chose to day to speak bluntly, honestly and intelligently (with nuance and balance) about one of the toughest topics of American life.
He could have been more politically efficient. He chose instead to be presidential.

Would we be saying the same if this was Hillary and the Rev David Duke?

Likewise, if my uncle were a Franciscan nun, would he wear a bra?

He did not soar, nor adopt the confident preacher's cadence he uses to involve and feed off an audience.

I've not heard or read the speech yet, but if I were in Obama's position the one thing I would not do at this juncture is use "the confident preacher's cadence" and thus remind people of exactly the sort of preaching style that is making certain people uncomfortable, shall we say.

I suspect whatever "flat" nature existed in Obama's speech was quite deliberate and a sign of deftness on Obama's part.

The fact that a presidential candidate is within the same speech calling on the black community to show more personal responsibility while at the same time calling on whites to acknowledge the history of prejudice and institutionalized racism.....that is surely a historical first. Its what I've been saying for years, that to solve this problem work has to be done on both sides. I never thought I'd hear a politician say it, but the fact that Obama is that brave says a lot for him.

My criticism is that I don't know if there was a soundbite in the speech that encapsulates that message. And my fear is that is why Obama may not end up being president. He's charting new territory, and if this country isn't smart enough to realize the character of the man, I'm not sure that this country deserves a decent president.

Following up on joejoejoe @ 12:08, this was undoubtedly a historic speech, one that will likely be remembered and studied decades from now, especially if Obama becomes president. It was a sophisticated and relevant discussion.

Politically, I fear the speech, however long and complex it was, will not help him. Yes, circumstances made this speech necessary, but having the so-called "post-racial candidate" devote so much time talking about race is counter-productive. Obama, of course, would never be able to escape race, but he personally never wanted to be defined by it, and he wasn't defined by it, despite the best efforts of the Republicans, and Bill and Hillary.

While I don't think the content of the speech changes anything about Obama, I fear the ensuing discussion among the talking heads will morph Obama into the black candidate who explains black America to the rest of the country. I fear this, because I don't think that will ultimately help Obama. Time will tell, I suppose. Hopefully Obama is helped, not hurt, by the speech. His candidacy is bigger than race, and I'd rather he weren't limited to that singular, albeit important, issue. Most voters will not watch or read the speech, so his fate is in the hands of media at this point.

Many of our uncles, great uncles and grandparents held views not that far astray from David Duke.
My Grandmother (98) is a democrat, taught me not to use the n word, but she uses it herself. She likes Obamba (voted for Hillary) but doesn't want that black woman to be the first lady because she is simply too black.

JoeBlow, preachers are loony, it's what they do. They also tend to be filled with righteous indignation. It's what they do.

The fact that it's mostly rich white people who run this country IS racist, sexist and classist. Pointing it out is not.

Preachers can say offensive things. It's their job to say uncomfortable truths, or what they believe to be uncomfortable truths. If your preacher only ever makes you feel better about yourself, he or she is a damned failure. You're not so perfect that you can't be better.

I just peeked over at The Corner, and I see that Charles Murray just described the speech as "just plain flat out brilliant."

Not sure if that's a testament to the actual brilliance of the speech, of if I should doubt my own impressions of the speech.

The tactical criteria of this speech is if it kills this narrative. Let's hope!

He's getting better treatment on Drudge ("A More Perfect Union") than on HuffPost (""Race Is An Issue That I Believe This Nation Cannot Afford To Ignore...") or the NYT: "Assessing Race in America, Obama Calls Pastor Divisive", CNN: "Obama: We can move beyond some of our racial wounds".

Speech was a little long and I'd like to see a little more of his angry side sometimes, but Obama has shown time and time again he's way better at this game than pundits and blog commenters are.

Historic moment aside, the tactical brilliance of the speech lay with the decision to go on the offense against social divisions instead of trying to defend his association with Wright; something he should've been doing on all along, and not just on racial issues.

As Chris M notes above, the success of that move will be judged by whether the media drops the Wright story. This wasn't a speech designed to directly to win votes, it was a speech to gain some much needed positive publicity for a news cycle or two.

Too long? A speech billed as a major address on racism? The protection of which was for decades enshrined in our beloved Constitution? And only brought to anything remotely like equality within the lifetime of your own parents?

Jeez, you kids need to get out more. This 24/7 political fixation might be dulling your sense of the historical moment.

I enjoyed the speech, and I think that in addition to being good, it was fairly savvy. On a slow news day, here we are all talking about it. The length just gives people more angles to discuss. It puts Obama back in the spotlight.

"rarity of the American Dream"!

Are you kidding? Home ownership is higher than it has ever been and the homes are bigger than they have ever been!

For one thing, I found this speech to be the biggest step backwards in racial relations in a long time. Apparently one of Wright's (Cone's / Black Liberation Theology's) foundational principles is indelibly ingrained into Obama:
In Obama's world we're not Americans, he has us pigeonholed by race, socioeconomic class, and gender.

"Black church" -- think about that for a moment. Do you wonder why a huge "church" remains "black"?

Obama's 'viewpoint' is politically convenient, because when one splits the public into groups one can pander to their grievances (real or perceived) and make vague promises ("hope") to fix to each group's problems (often at the expense of some other group). We all should know from the past that the promises of politicians to the various groups are usually conflicting, and rarely carried out, but typically a well-articulated promise is believed long enough to pull in the votes. A savvy politician can always find someone to blame later when the voters begin to notice that the fine speeches were just hot air.

The thing that saddened me most was how Obama threw his grandmother under the bus. It came across to me as really, really cold to compare his grandmother to a "preacher" who has made a career of whipping up emotional crowds a race-hate, hate-America speeches.

Finally, I accept the explanation that Wright was formed by his experiences in the 50's and 60's... BUT I know of many good persons who rose above their past. Too bad Wright, as a "spiritual leader", couldn't rise above his past, but instead used his pulpit to pull down another generation.

From a Christian standpoint Obama's excuse was pathetic on two levels - that a "preacher" of the gospel of Christ was bound up by his grudge-filled past and not transformed by Christ, and that Obama would accept that one's past is more powerful than the transforming power of Christ. But hate is a powerful emotion, and one bound up in hate will never fully love. Clearly, the preaching about forgiveness by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount was lost on both Wright and Obama.

i'm not a obamabot.

IMO your post was too long and did not soar. start with:

This speech was something I didn't expect: Honest.

In other words, leave the meta BS until AFTER the main point. Sheesh.

I'm Petey--

you're hilarious.

Floccina, It's been a long time since most Americans ever had an honest shot at reaching their full potentiel. That's the American dream, not owning a home or a car.

How many people can honestly say their children have more opportunities than they did these days?

Obama might make a fine President... it's hard to say given he is such a new commodity. But what we don't need, I think, is a gorgeous orator... any more than what we needed in 2000 was someone with whom we would like to have a beer.

But I guess we get what we get. And at least oratory ability requires some level of intellectual capability (as opposed to beer drinking ability).

n Obama's world we're not Americans, he has us pigeonholed by race, socioeconomic class, and gender.

"Black church" -- think about that for a moment. Do you wonder why a huge "church" remains "black"? - JonDoe

As if there are not huge "churches", synagogues, etc., that remain white?

Jim G, one of the most consistent criticisms of Bush has been his utter inability to be a better than average orator. All the worse because for a few years there, we had the frequent reminder of Tony Blair's eloquent oratory as an example of what we were missing.

Indeed, instead of "we have nothing to fear but fear itself," we got "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job."

Honest Barack.

I think that is a theme he will need to build on.

Vis a vis some of the comments above, two things.

One, the anonymity of the internet is actually bad for some people who get lulled into thinking that sounding smart = being correct. There's a difference.

Two, at some point in any political contest, it isn't about the arguments partisans make against each other on either side. This is one of those moments.

How did voters and Super Delegates hear Barack's speech? We'll find out.

Here's the strangest and, in some sense, most provocative comment on Barack's speech from, yes, National Review Online - in the midst of the usual juvenalia, snark, cluelessness and juvenalia that predominates at that site. A comment by none other than Charles "Bell Curve" Murray:

Have I missed the competition? [Charles Murray]
I read the various posts here on "The Corner," mostly pretty ho-hum or critical about Obama's speech. Then I figured I'd better read the text (I tried to find a video of it, but couldn't). I've just finished. Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols.... But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie.

03/18 01:06 PM

Did I mention the juvenalia over at NRO ?
Good...bears repeating.

The most important thing is that Andy Sullivan fainted after he heard the speech. He also reveled in its "deeply, deeply Christian" outlook. Good to know, but sucks if you're not Christian.

Hey, how about one of our so-called leaders saying SOMETHING ANYTHING about the Tibetan Protestors being shot in the streets? If Obama had pulled that in, then we could see his global mettle. But nada. And silence from Clinton Bush...and the blogosphere. Pathetic.

You have found the key: honesty, even when it led him to be more complex than is usual in public discourse, especially on so emotional an issue. He had much to lose, and yet he avoided cynicism and simplistic words and stuck to the core reason for his candidacy. For all our sakes, I hope he succeeds.

brucds, I find it intersting how you bash me for quoting Angela Davis, yet you turn around and quote a fawning review of Obama by the one person who has done more damage to race relations than anyone in recent memory. It's fine to quote a borderline Nazi when he praises Obama, but it's awful quoting an icon figure on the left when the criticism is not to your liking?

Intersting.

christian, here is a summary of Obama's statement on Tibet on Monday:

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/editorial/277469

Ezra: was surprised by your statement "He didn't have to dwell on the black community's frustration and the white community's bigotry."

Seems to me a completely inaccurate description of the speech.

Did he talk about black community's frustration--yes and about the historical sources on contemporary inequalities. But he also talked about black self-help. And he also talked about black divisiveness and "bigotry" if that's the word you want to use.

Did he talk about white people's bigotry. Maybe if you think he was calling his grandmother a bigot? His point is that in segments of white America there is real--and in his words, understandable--resentment and even fear.

In both black and white america there are feelings of resentment that have a basis in history and experience. He acknowledge and appeared to understand both, and then argue for moving beyond both. That hardly seems to be like "dwelling" on black frustration and white prejudice.

I am a 29 white woman who grew up in Idaho, incredibly naive about racial difference and the legacy of racism. After college, I spent 3 years in rural Mississippi teaching at an all black high school in one of the most impoverished parts of the nation.

I have lived and worked on both sides of the racial divide and have learned along the way how complicated issues of race, justice, & economic disparity intersect. I have seen fear, mistrust, and racism in the white community as well as fear, mistrust, & racism in the black community.

Obama presents some of the most honest & difficult truths I have ever heard from a politician with candor, humility, & grace.

He is not a perfect man — but he has enormous insight & wisdom. This was a courageous moment in American politics. I can’t conceive of voting for anyone else.

Even if his campaign should somehow fail, I consider myself lucky to have heard this speech today & to be part of the generation that has witnessed & worked for his campaign.

thanks for that, former deaniac. i'll get more behind him if he steps up on this. it can only be good for him to highlight religious persecution.

Shorter Floccina: "I'm shallower than a puddle in Arizona."

if this country isn't smart enough to realize the character of the man, I'm not sure that this country deserves a decent president.

Indeedy. It's another 'time to get past the 1960s speech', and even more than 2004, it feels as if 2008 will be about whether the US wants another decade of Boomer-defined politics.

I'd like to see Wright give a speech and see what he has to say. I would imagine that anyone Obama has considered a mentor will be at least a bit thoughtful. I'd be curious to see what his reaction to Obama's speech is.

He struck me as professorial in his direct summation of America's racial history and the overall scope of his speech. Not brilliantly delivered-- and it lacked a killer line to drive things home-- but on the merits, an excellent speech.

He struck me as professorial in his direct summation of America's racial history and the overall scope of his speech. Not brilliantly delivered-- and it lacked a killer line to drive things home-- but on the merits, an excellent speech.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani

Sorry, but it was a complete failure from where I sit. When he can't explain why he would expose his children to a racist, bigoted, homophobic spiritual leader that will influence his family and children - he has me lost. In fact all he did was blame the media for airing clips that in no way can be taken out of context. He's blaming the media for simply broadcasting the racism - how pathetic!

I'm sorry, but all I can say is I'm so glad that I voted for Hillary in the primaries, and I hope I'm not stuck with having to pull the lever for this man in November! He's a liar, a hypocrite and a bigot - and that's the reality of his personal racism in America!

There are plenty of black, and mixed churches that he could have attended that don't preach hate, racism and anger - yet Obama chose a church that did. This is a reflection of his own personal values in some unsettled and horrific way that makes me question his judgment and ability to lead our country! If this had been Hillary attending an all white church that derided the negative affects of non-whites on her community, the Obama Hopium addicts would be up in arms. As it is, they are expressing their double standard willingness to worship at the cult of Obama. How sad!

It may have inspired people, but one thing it didn't prove was Obama's honesty. Just a few days ago he stated that he hadn't ever heard Wright make those incendiary comments, but today he says he did hear them. So, was he lying the other day? Or did he lie today?

dk, read a transcript of the speech and figure it out for yourself.

Well Tyro, my point is that he lied. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me on which day he lied. So, honest is not a word that should be used in connection with the guy.

Filling in for Tyro here. In case you didn't notice, dk, Obama says that he heard statements that could be "considered controversial." He went on to say that the statements making the rounds now went beyond just being controversial and evinced an incorrect view of American life that Obama completely disagreed with etc etc. While he could have been more clear for people not attuned to oratorical structure, the point is that Obama wasn't in church when Wright made the statements at issue now, but he admits he has heard other ones that could be "considered controversial."

Do you really think the "dk" is making this tendentious and clueless assertion in good faith ?

brucds, I find it intersting how you bash me for quoting Angela Davis, yet you turn around and quote a fawning review of Obama by the one person who has done more damage to race relations than anyone in recent memory. It's fine to quote a borderline Nazi when he praises Obama, but it's awful quoting an icon figure on the left when the criticism is not to your liking?

Intersting.

Posted by: Preston | March 18, 2008 5:35 PM

Preston - develop a sense of irony. Your comment is just plain stupid.

Well Tyro, my point is that he lied.

My point is that you were making a "tendentious and clueless assertion" based on not having paid attention to what Obama said. I'm not hear to hold your hand. You are obviously literate and can read, I presume. I invite you to read the speech and correct the mistaken assertion for yourself. I'm not your babysitter. If you can't read carefully, then keep your ignorant thoughts to yourself. Otherwise, you are wasting our time.

for some, barack obama could turn sticks into serpents and hailstones into fire, and it still wouldnt be enough.

sometimes, miracles are as plain as day, and we cant see them, even if they pinch us on the nose.

"But that *is* his strong suit, isn't it?"

One of them. Another is being willing to step into a political minefield to deliver a message that needs to be heard. This isn't the first time he's done that. He's chided black congregations for the anti-gay rhetoric found in the black community. He's spoken (without provocation) about the importance of church and state when addressing religious audiences.

That's his real strong suit, IMO. Lots of politicians can speak well, but not many are willing to speak to things that really need to be said.

More depth concerning the controversy at AR:

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/barack-obama-condemns-reverend-jeremiah.html

Obama's speech was fresh, honest and sophisticated. It works on several levels.

While the talking heads try to figure out if he did what they spent the weekend saying he needed to do...

Obama pivited from distancing himself from Wright's inflamatory statements to providing America and the world with a thoughtful analysis of america's racial divide.

Did he solve race relations with one speech? Heck no--probably can't be done, but he provided the clearest, most balanced analysis of one of the hardest problems a politician can face, and then called on both sides to work together (with examples of what can be improved).

The pundits seemed to think Obama's primary audience as the primary voters of PA, and of course they were his immediate audience, but I think he was really talking to both the super-delegates and thinking Republicans. We already know that Hillary is likely to win PA--possibly by an OH margin--but even if she does it only narrows the gap. Ultimately the super-delegates will make their decision and tip the nomination one way or the other.

Barack used a moment of adversity in his campaign (several days of around the clock negativity about his pastor--is probably as close as any campaign comes to real adversity) to focus the countries attention on a real historical yet ongoing problem/failing in our country that is within our power to improve.

Posted by: brucds | March 19, 2008 12:00 AM

Ah, yes, condescending and dismissive -- the two traits you can always find in Obama supporters. It's typical that you would reply in such a way. Your comment had nothing to do with irony, it had everything to do with this "Hey, if Charles Murray can be moved by and see the goodness of Obama so can others" mentality.

But, hey, I’ll develop a “sense of irony” when you develop a sense of reality on the current situation Obama is in. Deal?

you're welcome, christian. I agree.

I was troubled by the comparison of Wright to Obama's grandmother. We don't choose family; it wasn't until his late 20's that Obama chose Wright, and in Obama's 30's and 40's that he built upon that relationship.

The metaphor of the embarrassing relative fails.

Historic. Honest. Apolitical...

Or another distraction?

indie

i just would like to share how i experienced his discussion of his grandmother.

when he spoke about his grandmother, he expressed the love and gratitude that he has for her.
....but in sharing those private feelings, imagine, what it must have been like, as a young child, to have been cherished by a grandma, yet still be made to feel like a child of a lesser god, because of the color of your skin.

imagine what that message is like for a small child.

he was letting us glimpse into the pain that issues of race have caused him at the deepest levels of his life.
he shared that in a humble and loving way, in a teaching way.
i dont believe he was making a rude or manipulative comparison. i think he was trying to share what it feels like to be barack obama.
what i think he was trying to express..is .that even in places of deep hurt, there is still love and forgiveness.
we can be touched by his struggle and use it as a way to grow, or we can turn away and go back to the shallows.

i just wanted to express that i dont think he was making a comparison...he was trying to share the profound experiences that he has taken in, and used for the good.

what he was saying to my mind, is that he could embrace the frailty of his grandmother, to appreciate the humanness and love with forgiveness.
just as he can do the same with reverend wright.
he is trying to help us to become lotuses too. our roots are all in the mud, but we can rise up, keep growing and blossom into something beautiful!

we can let our painful experiences uplift us and use them creatively, or we can let them destroy us with bitterness. obama understands both walks,,,he was trying to share that with us.

"Your comment had nothing to do with irony"

Ahh, Preston - your deep insights into my thoughts and motivations strike again...

As for the "situation Obama's in", I like it fine. He's run a brilliant campaign, has a lock on the nomination and he just made the most honest, forthright speech on race ever from a politician. Nobody I'd rather see take on Honest John McCain in the fall.

You give your game away when you call Angela Davis a "left icon" - that would be the impotent, hare-brained "left" that masturbates on campuses across America. Angela Davis' great contribution to presidential politics was to run second on a ticket to a crazy old white man who thought Leonid Brezhnev was a great leader. And you have the nerve to lecture me about "reality." You may have zero sense of irony, but you're way ahead of me in the inadvertent humor department.

So, Obama uses a rhetorical trick to hide his lie from the other day, and this is what you point out to refute the charge that he's a liar? I'm not going to hold your hand either, Tyro. If you are fine that Obama publicly legitimizes hate and bigotry (so long as it comes from the mouths of black ministers, of course), then go for it. If Obama wants to legitimize hate and bigotry by calling them "controversial statements" instead of hate and bigotry, that may fool some, but it doesn't fool those at whom the hate and bigotry is directed. If Obama wants to support, defend, and honor those hatemongers (and no, I am not going to call them something else because they wear a minister's collar, that is no excuse), that's his decision. But that's what is going on here.

dk, you better hope you can find a remarkably tolerant princess, because that toad suit you are wearing sure don't suit you.

dk - "Obama publicly legitimizes hate and bigotry"

This guy "dk" has to be one of the dumbest people on the planet. Or he's getting paid a penny a word to post this crap.

"Obama is hoping that that which unites us is stronger than that which divides."

And Billary are hoping the exact opposite.

Luckily, today someone found a tape of a hate spewing pro Clinton black preacher, even worse sounding than Wright! This will help Obama. But still, he sat by and lent his prestige and presence to Wright's teaching that AIDS is spread by the government to people of color. There might have been people in that congregation ignorant enough to believe it. It's a dangerous deception, and Obama witnessed it and did nothing about it. He hasn't said a thing that justifies that. He needs to acknowledge that this was wrong, and that his failure to say so before now is wrong. Until he does this, his poll numbers will continue to drop, because after people get past his speech, and his always dazzling presentation, they will see that this is not fixed, that he has not laid this business to rest by acknowledging his own wrongdoing.