Indeed, I often had the impression that the speech was aimed as much at the superdelegates as anyone else. These people are more conscious of what it might mean, later, to have been on the wrong side of history.

My thoughts on the speech:

1] It worked, in that it will keep Barak's faithful followers in the fold. [see above]

Will it work with non-followers? I don't know.

2] It was clever, it turned his questionable judgment into a discussion on race relations.
i.e. my person political problem is really manifest racism.

It takes a clever politician to paint himself as a martyr and get away with it, I think he succeeded here, but will it play well to non-followers? I don't know.

3] It's prophylactic, in that he laid a marker down saying:
"criticize my judgment and I'll paint you with the sins of racism"

The "high tech lynching" bit has always been a sure fire winner and it's here I'm sure he won, the press will be intimidated from further questioning.

In conclusion, I find a man who has suffered NONE of the traditional barriers[1] thrown up to block a black persons progress in America using the descendants of slaves[2] as foil somewhat distasteful, but overall I think the speech will cow the press and that is what it was really intended to do.

[1] Poor Education, Poor housing, dilapidated public infrastructure, inadequate neighborhood services, crime that is allowed to fester...ect.

[2] Unlike almost all African Americans, Barak's family lineage has never been put upon by the barbarity of slavery, but rather his family antecedents have always held the whip.

Is it possible (and I'm quite aware that this involves projecting Rovean/Machiavellian strategic-genius superpowers) that Obama's had this speech -- in fact, this entire strategic moment -- waiting in his hip pocket the whole time?

Andrew Sullivan has been puzzling over Obama's seeming unpreparedness (to the verge of unwillingness) to deal with the entire Wright matter.

But if your analysis is correct, Ezra (and I think it is), then Obama may have finessed the overall (not just racial) politics of this moment (with the bonus of reemphasizing his *Christian* faith) in a way that Clinton can't counter.

As precise as the rest of his campaign has been, I can't help but feel that he wasn't exactly backed into a corner before making this speech.

Wow, S. Brennan, you wrote that when the speech was announced but had not been even written, right?

I think you wrote that before you saw or read the speech because you show no evidence of having any familiarity with the speech as given.

Very clever of obama opponents to attempt to paint him as a racial huckster. I doubt it'll work but it worked in Ferraro's mind, so maybe it will.

I loved the part about his grandmother! I think we can all relate to that.

Hmmm. That's a thought, but you might be a pinning a little too much consequence to Obama's speech. The race ain't over till it's over, and you can bet that in two weeks his remarks will be all but forgotten.

Just the same, immediately after I read the speech, I wondered whether HRC could have made a similar speech re gender and/or race. The opportune time would have been the nexus of Matthews/tears/boys' club/Steinem op-ed after the NH primary. She could have spoken about the glass ceiling, perceptions of women in power, the government's continued neglect of issues related to women's health and welfare, the de facto cliques that keep women with children from advancing up the corporate ladder, the consistent wage differences between men and women. And as another theme, about how patriarchy also pressures men to conform to unrealistic standards of providence, forces them outside domestic sphere even though some would probably want a larger role, about how focusing on negative and accusatory statements prevents us from seeing the advantages of moving forward into a world where men and women share equal duties in the private and public sphere.

Or hell, she could have taken some time after Nevada and addressed the stuff in SC, or directly after Geraldine Ferraro's comment.

I wish she could have done so -- would have tempered a lot of damaging narratives for her campaign.

The Confidence Man:
While it would be impossible for Obama to have gamed it this way, I'll say what I have before: Obam is a pretty damn skilled politician. It's a shame he didn't use those talents more before. Hopefully he'll use them once in office.

When the Wright thing broke, I had a strong hunch that if it destroyed Obama's candidacy, it would destroy Clinton's too. I couldn't see how the party leaders could, if they were forced to abandon Obama because of racial controversy, hand the nomination to a candidate who had run the kind of campaign that Hillary has.

And I think Ezra's right, too. In the absence of an Obama implosion, a superdelegate surge to Clinton was never likely. In the shadow of this speech, it got much much less likely. And as I say, even if he implodes now, I'm having an increasingly difficult time imagining her getting the nod.

riffel,

You're accusation requires you to be both a mind reader and a time traveler...or a shred of evidence...you are neither and you have none.

Obama's supporters do him no favors. The fact is Ezra is saying essentially the same thing couched in a more attractive poise.

riffel..just attack anybody who does not think Barak is a God.

"Wow, S. Brennan, you wrote that when the speech was announced but had not been even written, right? I think you wrote that before you saw or read the speech because you show no evidence of having any familiarity with the speech as given.Very clever of obama opponents to attempt to paint him as a racial huckster. I doubt it'll work but it worked in Ferraro's mind, so maybe it will." Posted by: riffle | March 18, 2008 1:48 PM

Or hell, even John Edwards would have had an opportunity to answer his constant barrage of "how does it feel to be a white male in this race" by making a similar comment in the debates, if not a full speech.

Something to the effect of how he could never understand what it would be like to be a man of color or a woman, but that he didn't believe you had to be either one to understand and address the causes important to feminists and people of color. He could ask people to look at his policy and how it specifically addressed the needs to poor people across the spectrum, including poor women and poor minorities. He already had that one talking point about how proud he was that it was his party making history.

There were many teaching moments to be had in this Dem primary. Too bad very few people outside the realm of the academy spoke about race, ethnicity, class, and gender in such nuanced terms. The "surprise" over Obama's remarks can probably attest to that sad dearth of truly challenging and enlightening commentary.

Of course, the dearth of consistently complex discourse means that if you're a die-hard partisan supporter of either Obama or Clinton, all you're going to hear is some gasbag making self-aggrandizing accusations of racism or sexism.

That last part should read:

Of course, the dearth of consistently complex discourse means that if you're a die-hard partisan supporter of either Obama or Clinton confronting nuanced discourse for the first time, all you're going to hear is some gasbag making self-aggrandizing accusations of racism or sexism.

Obama didn't blame anyone, neither his pastor, not Ferraro, nor Reagan Democrats, nor poor people of color. He accepted their contradictions without judgment other than "time change, people change". People who've never thought about the intersections of identity and class may have a tough time trying to parse out what he's actually proposing with this speech. And so they might stop thinking about it and either become "offended" or try to ignore Obama's quite real consciousness of race and class back into his safer campaign stump about "unity".

But maybe they'll understand Obama's argument on some level that the reason why he of all people can speak convincingly about unity is that he's actually had to hold some pretty contradictory ideas about himself and this country together as part of his everyday life.

I thought it was a great speech but the talk about distractions may come back if/when his campaign continues to take the low road regarding Clinton's campaign, as threatened.

After today, it's Obama, and his movement, and also the party's comfort with the realities of race. How this all plays out in the general election is anyone's guess, but the more the primary becomes about race, the worse off Clinton is. A break with African-Americans would be devastating to the party"

If Obama gets the nomination, it will be very interesting to see how this plays in the general election. Obama is no longer the "transracial" or "post racial" candidate - he is clearly a black candidate.
While Dems would now be considered racists if they do not support him in the general election, is that a relevant motivator for
Independents or moderate GOP voters?

Indeed, the most important thing is the "party". Since when did the netroots become "the democratic party". And if you think Obamas speech was aimed at the superdelegates, he's in more trouble than you think. I thought he was talking to me. If in fact I wasn't his audience his entire campaign is based on a lie, that he isn't a "pol", that he represents "change".

The flipside is this: in order to get the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, in essence, has to end Obama's political career, and claim the next decade for the continuation of Boomer politics.

The stakes are higher here than in the general election. The idea that Obama's time can come later -- floated as recently as yesterday by Clive Crook in the FT -- is deceptive.

Obama has been using race all along, and now that the race issue is no longer benefiting him , but hurting him, he decides to change the focus and make it seem like anyone who is upset that he presented himself as one thing for political reasons, while in fact presenting a different face in other realms like his community and church, is a racist if they question his integrity. He has lied his way to the lead he has right now, is willing to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan to run out the clock now that his lies have been exposed, and somehow it will break up the party if he doesn't win. Obama has been manipualting the race issue since SC. People wouldn't believe it because he was seen as too honest and good to do such a thing. This incident and the NAFTA incident, as well as many others prove what a typical, manipulative pol he is. This sheds a whole new light on his malicious use of the race card in South Carolina and it is too late now to do anything about that. This speech just proves he will go to any lenghts to manipulate the race issue to get himself elected. What he said may be totally right, but he is only saying it now for his political purposes, not out of conviction. That is the issue, not race. Lots of people will speak the truth when it helps them. Those same people will speak lies when it aids them as well. Obama needed to give this speeach a long time ago. This race will not be turned for him because when he got called in his deceptions he played the race card.

i wish edwards would junp on a plane to penssylvania,, in a call to personal action, and start campaigning for barack obama tomorrow.
there are many sons and grandsons of steel workers there.
there is still time for edwards, and others, to make a profound difference.
now is the time for anyone who can make a difference to get off the fence and start working to help the campaign.
perhaps even the clintons will see the light and come work for the obama campaign.
"imagine"

jacqueline,

Luv 'ya but...after Baraks statements against Hill, particularly the past 3 weeks, even JC would have a hard time turning the other cheek...and

Hill's not pretending to be a saint...that's Barack job and Barak has ruled out ANY COOPERATION.

That's a very smart observation.I just don't see how the supers could give the nomination now to Clinton without alienating the black voters and creating a major crisis of identity for the party. At the same time, I don't think the speech somehow turned him to a black candidate: to the contrary, now I understand his unity speech better than just one day ago: this is not about splitting the difference but about understanding that "your dream don't have to come true at the expense of my dream" (or something). Until now I was a supporter without being a true believer, but this may change. If he can turn such a crisis to his advantage, and all this with an incredibly complex and nuanced speech on the most explosive of all subjects, then he really has to be real good.

How does a speech in which he addresses white anger and connects it to the immigrant experience make him the black candidate? Because he spoke about race?

How this all plays out in the general election is anyone's guess, but the more the primary becomes about race, the worse off Clinton is.

This is wrong. Clinton's already lost the black vote, but Obama is still pulling some middle class whites. As race continues to come to the forefront and as Wright's angry sermons continue to play, he will lose that block of middle class white votes that he does have and they will move to Clinton.

The longer the race stuff plays, along with Wright, I could see Clinton getting up to 70% of the white vote, which would mean Obama will lose every state remaining in the primary, even if he has 100% of the black vote. Obama cannot sustain a 40 point differential in the white vote, no matter how many blacks he has on his side.

S Brennan, of course we all recognize that we can implicitly trust the racial musings of a commenter who doesn't even know how to spell "Barack." (And has misspelled it five times on this thread.)

Then, of course, there's this:
[H]is family antecedents have always held the whip.

Wrong.

I mentioned at the Unity Breakfast that a lot of people been asking, well, you know, your father was from Africa, your mother, she's a white woman from Kansas. I’m not sure that you have the same experience.

And I tried to explain, you don't understand. You see, my Grandfather was a cook to the British in Kenya. Grew up in a small village and all his life, that's all he was -- a cook and a house boy. And that's what they called him, even when he was 60 years old. They called him a house boy. They wouldn't call him by his last name.

Sound familiar?

He had to carry a passbook around because Africans in their own land, in their own country, at that time, because it was a British colony, could not move about freely. They could only go where they were told to go. They could only work where they were told to work.

Yet something happened back here in Selma, Alabama.

Predictably, you have no idea what you're talking about.

The posting software appears to have cut off the boldface tag in my previous comment too early. All text through "something happened back here in Selma, Alabama" should have been boldfaced, as it is a quotation from Obama's on March 4, 2007.

According to CNN on Monday, Obama was leading among registered Democrats. That was before this speech, which should put some fears to rest.

Rieux,

Quoting Barak's speeches to me is hardly a rebuttal.

Calling me a racists because I won't fall onto my knees and worship Obama..well that's pathetic.

As for the usual person attack & mud slinging by Barak adorers...long story short, drink some more Kool Aid, because I'm not going stoop down to you.

S Brennan,
Once again you respond without seeming to actually have read the content that you are supposedly responding to.

You made the following egregiously wrong claim,
"[H]is family antecedents have always held the whip.", and Rieux very adeptly responded using as direct a source as one can get.

It is you who pigheadedly cannot see beyond the blinders. Please refrain posting until you've fully removed your lips from your condescending, bigoted brew of "kool-aid".

And to clarify, I'm not calling you a racist due to the target of your misinformed criticism but rather the language and attitudes presented in that criticsm.

[2] Unlike almost all African Americans, Barak's family lineage has never been put upon by the barbarity of slavery, but rather his family antecedents have always held the whip.

Posted by: S Brennan

"Always held the whip."

What a remarkably presumptuous statement. I have no idea how you know this, but perhaps you are a historian of Senator Obama's family line (on both sides) and are an expert on the niceties of colonial Kenya where his father is from.

Breathtaking. I am sorry you are so cynical. Clearly you did not hear the wider message.

"This is wrong. Clinton's already lost the black vote, but Obama is still pulling some middle class whites. As race continues to come to the forefront and as Wright's angry sermons continue to play, he will lose that block of middle class white votes that he does have and they will move to Clinton."

I don't know about this. It seems to me Senator Obama laid down a pretty clear challenge to the media today. We can keep seeing those sermons played around the clock or we can actually have a dialogue about what is happening in this country.

He challenged the media pretty boldly and if the speech gains traction, which it seems to already be doing, it will be pretty difficult to keep running those sermons around the clock except, of course, on Fox News.

But Fox News does not represent the majority of the viewing public. I, for one, believe people really are looking for leadership and are open to something more than peddling division.

I couldn't help but smirk at the similarity between Obama's attack the everpresent "wedge issues" that never merit real discussion with Jon Stewart's diatribe on Crossfire.

I am totally speechless at your post. Obama's speech hurts Clinton???? Yeah, right!

Sometimes I think blogs are just totally out of touch with mainstream America, and you have just underlined that point. In talking to real people, I find just the opposite. I'm hearing outrage that Obama threw his grandmother under the bus. Outrage that he dared equate what Geraldine Ferraro said with the hateful bile that Jeremiah Wright has been spewing for 20 years. That he spent umpteem minutes lecturing people about racism and not addressing the racism in his own closet. That he has been lying for days about not hearing any of Wright's hate speech, but admits it in this speech. That he didn't even address the lies told about giving black AIDS, or calling the country the US of KKK.

You might be right that the so-called latte liberals will now all feel warm and fuzzy again. But sad to say, those people aren't going to get him elected in November. He has done nothing that will keep the wingnuts from running 527's up the ying-yang for months with this preacher speaking his bile and Obama denying he ever heard it.

This speech, plain and simple, was meant to be a distraction, to throw the fawning media some new soundbites to play for awhile. But few outside the blogosphere, or Chris Matthews, seem to be drinking the kool aid anymore.

CognitiveDissonance ,
You could not have picked a better name.

Cognitive, it's over. You lost this round. Go in search of the next kerfluffle and see if you can retake control of the media narrative.

Incidentally, ever conserative and hillary-supporting Obama-hater is using the "throw under the bus" phrase with respect to his grandmother. Care to let us know who fed you that line specifically? We're trying to trace it to the source. Was it right-wing chain-emails?

Obama's speech has shown his true color and it's an old shade from the 60s and 70s. He had the chance to take us forward and, instead, has taken us backwards to a battleground that does not solve problems. He is a divider not a uniter. He does not transcend race.

I'm sorry, where does Clinton come in?

Thanks for the talking points, "George, NC." Unfortunately, they have no cohesive content. They're a set of sentences that don't actually make any point; they're only a group of cliches. You unwittingly show Obama's appeal-- instead of stringing together a bunch of empty phrases, he talks to americans like adults. George, I'm picking the guy who speaks to me like an adult, not someone like you.

Note how CognitiveDissonance artfully claims the majority position. See, people who don't think Obama "threw his grandmother under the bus" (my god, man, get a grip) aren't real people. That Obama was telling the truth about not having been present for the speech in question becomes a lie because obviously Jeremiah Wright spends every single sermon ranting about Whitey. And finally, the suggestion that we're all as stupid as Chris Matthews for thinking it was a good speech.

Good work, Coggy!

So how does Obama feel when a white guys says something outrageous? Like how would Obama react to a Don Imus?

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=64554

Gee, guess its just the white guys that has to go....

I think it's too soon to know what effect the speech has, especially in Pennsylvania, which is the big question mark right now. As much as I think the nice, well educated, fairly well off people on the web found it to be just what they wanted to hear, I'm not sure it was satisfying in quite the same way elsewhere. (I think, BTW, it was a great speech, for what it was.) It's the sense that Obama is still likely to lose PA, I think, that's led to the renewed cries of "get out now", "it's over" and "Clinton's been hurt," yet again. Since Clinton basically said the speech was great and needed, I'm not sure there's actually an issue here; the issue, still, is how Obama can appeal to voters he's not attracting, and I don't think this speech solved that.

Oh, it's the same trolls who have swarmed other sites with the same dull, old bullshit.

You do have to wonder whether they're just self-motivated dittoheads or paid operatives.

Coolest thing about it was it wasn't written for the United States of Junior High School.
Rove, a dork in junior high, has been refighting his JHS demons in public, and he won, because he turned the whole country into USJHS. And the media, a shrinking biz, is lorded over by JHS mean girls like Tweety. Obama's asking us all to graduate.

Oh the righteous outrage of Obama supporters decrying the use of talking points. Might want to email your friends in the left blogosphere, especially at Kos, who issued calls today to hit the blogs and MSM with pro-Obama 'best speech ever' talking points.

Wow, I skipped down to comment on S Brennan's staggering comments to the effect that Obama hasn't had to deal with the blocks thrown in front of other African Americans. That is a profoundly delusional statement and tells me flat out S Brennan cannot be black.
The color of your skin is enough to subject you to those road blocks. My coloring and features have led people to pin my origins around the world and I'm definitely upper-middle class, but I've had the experience of being refused service when I was the only customer in the store and I'm under forty.

I think it silences valuable conversation on race to insist that only people who are the direct recipients of white racism can speak about it, but I have to admit I'm getting damn sick and tired of people who aren't black telling me what is and isn't racism or race baiting. In the blogosphere, there has been among both Clinton apologists, generous Obama supporters and apparent neutrals a litany of comments essentially telling black people that they are imagining things or being overly sensitive. As I've said before, I think the hideous level of sexism that is acceptable in our culture also makes it easier for sexism against HRC to be recognized and condemned. Since it's okay to be a sexist, but not a racist the result is pundits bending over backwards to appear to avoid calling HRC and her surrogates racist. What I don't think these people of good faith realize is that many black people find this dismissal of their judgment and experience pretty damn condescending. I think the way Clinton has been able to conduct her campaign (artlessly disclaiming surrogates, while whining about how unfair life is because people want to talk about her record) underscores the bromide that we live in a time where calling someone a racist is a bigger crime that being one (or playing one on t.v.).

cxs nee idabw,

I'm not going to roll in the dirt with you, but I know some folks don't check so I pulled my comment down to yours.

My thoughts on the speech:

1] It worked, in that it will keep Barak's faithful followers in the fold. [see above]

Will it work with non-followers? I don't know.

2] It was clever, it turned his questionable judgment into a discussion on race relations.
i.e. my person political problem is really manifest racism.

It takes a clever politician to paint himself as a martyr and get away with it, I think he succeeded here, but will it play well to non-followers? I don't know.

3] It's prophylactic, in that he laid a marker down saying:
"criticize my judgment and I'll paint you with the sins of racism"

The "high tech lynching" bit has always been a sure fire winner and it's here I'm sure he won, the press will be intimidated from further questioning.

In conclusion, I find a man who has suffered NONE of the traditional barriers[1] thrown up to block a black persons progress in America using the descendants of slaves[2] as foil somewhat distasteful, but overall I think the speech will cow the press and that is what it was really intended to do.

[1] Poor Education, Poor housing, dilapidated public infrastructure, inadequate neighborhood services, crime that is allowed to fester...ect.

[2] Unlike almost all African Americans, Barak's family lineage has never been put upon by the barbarity of slavery, but rather his family antecedents have always held the whip.

Posted by: S Brennan | March 18, 2008 1:44 PM

cxs nee idabw,

I'm not going to roll in the dirt with you, but I know some folks don't check so I pulled my comment down to yours.

My thoughts on the speech:

1] It worked, in that it will keep Barak's faithful followers in the fold. [see above]

Will it work with non-followers? I don't know.

2] It was clever, it turned his questionable judgment into a discussion on race relations.
i.e. my person political problem is really manifest racism.

It takes a clever politician to paint himself as a martyr and get away with it, I think he succeeded here, but will it play well to non-followers? I don't know.

3] It's prophylactic, in that he laid a marker down saying:
"criticize my judgment and I'll paint you with the sins of racism"

The "high tech lynching" bit has always been a sure fire winner and it's here I'm sure he won, the press will be intimidated from further questioning.

In conclusion, I find a man who has suffered NONE of the traditional barriers[1] thrown up to block a black persons progress in America using the descendants of slaves[2] as foil somewhat distasteful, but overall I think the speech will cow the press and that is what it was really intended to do.

[1] Poor Education, Poor housing, dilapidated public infrastructure, inadequate neighborhood services, crime that is allowed to fester...ect.

[2] Unlike almost all African Americans, Barak's family lineage has never been put upon by the barbarity of slavery, but rather his family antecedents have always held the whip.

Posted by: S Brennan | March 18, 2008 1:44 PM

re the don imus comments:

Actually those comments fall within the parameters that he set forth in this speech, even though he was speaking all those monthes ago.

You'll note in the clip that Barack specifically avoids calling for Imus to be fired. He does point out that the broadcasters should 'not have carried the comments'. Those comments had no purpose other then to deride a population. As such he was calling for editorial leadership by those broadcasters.

He admits tobeing a guest on the show, and that he was treated 'fine', but that he would not do so again. Had a show host insulted a group of which I was part, I would not provide them content either. Who would?

He didnt personally insult the man, he didnt call for his immediate dismissal as many were doing at the time.

All in all, balanced statements that reinforce his message from today.

..sorry, not a good example.

S Brennan @ 11:29 PM: "I'm not going to roll in the dirt with you..."

What exactly do you mean, "roll in the dirt"? That a person of color who calmly and clearly describes the everyday racism which permeates our society is somehow engaging in low behavior? That discussing one's experiences as a recipient of racist attitudes is, by your definition, a kind of unrefined brawling? That your already proven false lies (see previous comments) about Obama aren’t, in fact, delusional? Nice try, junior, at marginalizing by projection yet another truly thoughtful and intelligent take on this issue and its deeper implications (cxs nee idabw @ 10:32 PM). At this point, considering that your baseless accusations and mind reading of Obama’s speech and motivations, It’s pretty clear that you’re either a Southern Strategy-style professional operative or a dismissive, covert racist. Probably both.

As far as your delusional attempt at reframing Obama’s speech goes:
“2] It was clever, it turned his questionable judgment into a discussion on race relations.
i.e. my person political problem is really manifest racism.
It takes a clever politician to paint himself as a martyr and get away with it, I think he succeeded here, but will it play well to non-followers? I don't know.”
How, exactly, did Obama do this? That is, “turn[]...[his] personal political problem” into manifest racism”? Being someone with extensive training in reading texts, I see exactly the opposite: he turned the charges of racism around and contextualized them, extremely gingerly, in real world terms rather than the dissociated bleating of crass opinion manipulation such as yours. Oh, and how you used “clever” twice? Nice touch: the ‘shucking and jiving’ politician, right? Too clever by half yourself, junior. And how does Obama “paint himself a martyr,” exactly? More to the point, why do you insist on dismissing and devaluing through strawman personalization the very real, very clearly elucidated, and incredibly important points on race and its role in this country as discussed by Mr. Obama? Your intent is obvious. You use subtle, dog whistle name calling (“clever”), intentional misrepresentation of the text, guilt by accusation (“martyr”), the always useful ‘irresponsible, blame throwing black man’ tag (“my person political problem is really manifest racism”), and repeated attempts at marginalization (“will it play well to non-followers”) to try and trivialize what will go down in American political history as a ground breaking turn away from your squalid tactics to a more human, more evolved political discourse. Jesus, I will be so glad when your type goes back to kicking dogs and taking candy from babies. But in the meantime, by all means, keep pointing out how badly this country needs a person of Obama’s character and abilities to set our ship of state aright.

David B,

The point being, Obama says he would boycott Imus, yet he would not boucott Wright.

Proving Obama is not post-racial, but that he is very much racial.

He would abandon and boycott the white guy for far less incidious remarks then the black guy. Clearly he is deciding in favor of Wright simply because the man is black.

he's a post-racial fraud...

umm 1 guy is a 20 year on familt friend who said some stupif crap. The other is a stranger to him who he knows only in a professional capacity.

If you wouldnt treat 1 differently vs the ther then you have some very strange social values. This is a more real statement of values and reality then we scould really expect from a politician.

EXTRA, EXTRA: Obama Rats Out Racist Granny to Save Career.

EXTRA, EXTRA: Newsie Thinks Up Clever Granny Headline Himself while Listening to Speech! No Talking Points Received!

EXTRA, EXTRA: Obamamaniacs Can't Explain Away Candidates' Equation of Granny with Bigoted Hatemonger!

EXTRA, EXTRA: Racist Granny Brutalizes Harmless Gangbangers in Dark Alley! Hate Crime Charges Pending! Judge Denies Bail for Vicious Octogenarian!

..as I think about it to I think a further amazing thing is.. he didnt have to do this. There are any number of easier speeches he could have chosen. ..he could have gone down the politically easy road as some of you have suggested.

Many of us including myself hope he wouldnt, but hardly saw a path that could be taken . He threaded the needle so closely that it truly deserves respect.

This is a meaningful and healing speech, that he risked the whole election in giving. In that hes already started delivering on a campaign promise in working to bring people together.

Beyond that it struck me that this isnt just electioneering either. This could quite easily have been a speech given post nomination, or even post inauguration.

Clinton and McCain arent giving any speeches addressing deep issues like this. That is showing leadership..

CognitiveDissonance, I really don't understand the reaction you attribute to most people:

How can anyone claim he "threw his granny under the bus"? As I read the speech, he said his grandmother was somewhat racist but he could never disown her for that because she had been a wonderful grandmother and he loved her.
He didn't throw her under the bus. On the contrary, he brought her up as an example of someone he would never throw under the bus.

Also, as far as I can tell he is (in this speech, at least) criticizing the impulse to attack and essentialize Ferraro, not Ferraro herself. He calls her comments a "gaffe"--it's hard to see anyone taking offense at that. One might argue that this is inconsistent with the earlier objections raised to her by his campaign, but that's a different complaint--in this speech, he seemed almost defensive of her.

Finally, Obama draws a pretty clear distinction between the "controversial" criticisms of America he says he heard Wright make "occasionally" over the years in sermons, and the particular material being circulated right now, which he says is more than controversial--but wrong. As I understand it, this distinction enables him to remain consistent about his earlier assertion of ignorance about the most incendiary of Wright's remarks.
Admittedly, he didn't provide a clear criterion for distinguishing "controversial" statements from "wrong" ones. Nevertheless, as it's likely that the clips we've heard in the last week represent a careful selection of the worst things Wright has ever said, it seems not unlikely that Obama had indeed never heard these particular statements, and that the "controversial" ones he had heard before were not as bad. It doesn't seem implausible to me that Obama would have been shocked to hear these statements, even given familiarity with his pastor.

"How can anyone claim he "threw his granny under the bus"? As I read the speech, he said his grandmother was somewhat racist but he could never disown her for that because she had been a wonderful grandmother and he loved her."

He "threw her under the bus" because, presumably, no one knew his grandmother was racist until he said so yesterday.

But the real point of the mention was to misdirect, taking attention from Obama's difficult connection to Wright and putting it on an old racist white woman instead, and if some in his hearing connect that racist old woman to Clinton, Ferraro or other Clinton supporters, even better.

As divisive a speech as they come.

"throw granny under the bus" is a repeated talking point that's popped up all over the internet. It's a talking point that's been fed to everyone.

indie, of course, only shows that he wasn't paying attention to the speech at all. Seriously, saying that the speech was "taking attentioon from Obama's difficult connection to Write and putting it on an old racist white women"? The only people who think that the speech was an attempt to focus on his grandmother is THE RIGHT WING TROLLS who are saying "it's all about throwing her under the bus!"

The only thing offensive going on is the offensive insults to our intelligence that the anti-Obama faction is making to the rest of us. Seriously, indie, your statements are insulting to the readers here and they are personally offensive to those of us who read the speech and know that your statements are false and only intended to manipulate those who were not paying attention. It is your behavior which is divisive and offensive to others and is responsible for the "distractions" in elections that Obama condemned.

sorry, Tyro...not buying

indie, it's not my fault you're either (a) wilfully misinterpreting the speech or (b) attempting to mislead everyone about the speech. Either way, the behavior is insulting and "divisive."

Obama spoke like an adult to other adults, and that's a big reason why it's been so well-received, attempts at spreading "granny under the bus" by the haters notwithstanding.

I listened to the speech when he initially gave it and am not attempting to misrepresent it as you allege (more misdirection, perhaps?)

Did Obamaa or did he not compare Wright to his white grandmother, who often made him cringe w/her racist comments? I swear I heard that. Did he say he could no more refute Wright than he could she? I swear I heard that.

Again, you can't choose family; but Obama came to (and stayed in Wright's parish) as a fully formed adult.

Wright's remarks didn't bother me in the least, but what does bother is Obama's trying to score an extra point by bringing in "old white women" to the guilt-by-association problem. Don't suppose there were any racist white men hanging around in the time he's referencing, huh?

Of course, Olbermann, et al, jumped right in - "yeah I had a racist relative too!"

Once again, Wright was not an Obama relative. The metaphor fails.

Of course, Olbermann, et al, jumped right in - "yeah I had a racist relative too!"

Once again, Wright was not an Obama relative. The metaphor fails.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The metaphor isn't meant to imply everyone's a racist, it's intended to acknowledge the opposite. That people are more complex than a simple stereotype. I would think that as progressives, we would fundamentally reject this notion. That the full scope of a person can be summed up with a few sound bites.

I read somewhere that the approach of cable TV and talk radio is to "simplify and exaggerate." There's no doubt this is true. There’s also no doubt that the trend toward this kind of over-simplification has undercut the progressive movement for the past 30 years.

The point is, Jeremiah Wright - the real, three-dimensional person - is much more than the :45 seconds of video. And the Trinity UCC is much more than it's pastor. And Barack Obama is much more than his church.

Is it really that hard to understand?

indie,
The metaphor you provide does indeed fail, however it is quite different from what Obama actually said. He never once alluded that his grandmother was or is racist, that would require conceding that rev. Wright is racist as well, which he does not believe as stated. Instead he rather aptly illustrated the many "gaffes" and controversial remarks many people have said or heard in their lifetime in order to emphasize how he thinks we should react to them. His whole point was that we should NOT repeatedly debate them out of context and judge the speakers character solely on their word choice or phraseology, but rather on the substance of who they are which can only be understood through a relationship of substance. He further pointed out these things to highlight that racism exists in many forms in contemporary america, from out of date slang to institutionalized practices. He pointed all of this out so that he could bring it together and conclude that it will take REAL discussion and REAL reflection on self and society to work through these issues and that having arguements about who said what and how are simply distractions from a real discussion of the underlying causes of such resentments and ill feelings. He made his speech in a way that gave respect to his audience while still enabling him to subtly say "grow up and behave like adults".

If anything, ask yourself this. Who do you think would be better to talk to your children about racial tensions and history, the media or Obama?

ditto JLTTravis, in far fewer words than I

Obama should himself to be a fraud, he wants one standard for himself and a different standard for White people. He says he can't disown Wright because he is such a part of his life, yet he wants others to disown those that are such a part of their lives.

I am sure when Imus got thrown aside, there were people saying, gee, he was my close friend, my mentor, practically a member of the family, yet he expects those people to do what he won't ask himself to do.

Everyone has close frinds, mentors, etc. and I've never heard Bracak give an exemption due to close association to any white person.

In addition, Imus, Lott and others were off the cuff remarks, not intentionally written down speeches and thought out speeches like Rev Wright.

Bottom line: Obama is not the guy he was portraying himslef to be...he's a fake.

It is amazing how the members of the Obama club are deluding themselves regarding how average people are perceiving the problem Obama has because of Wright..this is a major crisis...

...and no amount of rationalizing amongst yourselves is going to make it go away...

...his poll numbers are collapsing and this is just the beginning...

...at this point he is probably regretting his comments about not wanting to be VP...

...this story has now taken on a life of its own...and the story is beyond his control and oratory skills...

...this is called 'vetting'...it is part of the rough and tumble of high stakes Presidential politics...

...it is going to get worse, not better...and all the speeches in the world are not going to put an end to the vetting...

...what will come next are a demand for press conferences and more and more questions that demand answers...

...but Obama does not like to take tough questions at press conferences...we saw that a few weeks ago when he got questioned about his mansion and Rezco...to quote him "Come on guys, I answered eight questions"

...Obama is now damaged goods...his image as a uniter is tarnished...he has only been on the national scene for a couple of years and he has already succeeded in dividing his own Democratic party...and pitting milleniums against boomers...I have never seen the Democratic Party so divided and pitted against each other...

...this race is not any where near over...

...if his polls numbers continue to collapse over the remaining primaries and he continues to lose positioning with McCain...Mr. Obama's race will be over for his 2008 run...