Obama's Philadelphia Speech

[magerette]

I just finished watching and reading this speech from US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, made in part in response to the latest media circus about his former pastor's inflammatory sermons, but perhaps destined to emerge as one of the historic speeches of our time, and certainly as the first serious example in this squabbling and embarrassing Democratic primary contest of a candidate deliberately broaching and discussing a real issue: racism in America.

I'd be interested in hearing others responses to this speech. If you haven't had the opportunity to hear it, the MSNBC link gives both a complete written transcript and a video of the full address.


Obama's Speech (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23690567/)


It's long. I was going to quote parts of it, but really it would be a shame to take them out of context, and I'm sure most will hear them on the news tonight anyway.

[Squeek]

Not since Martin Luther King Jr. has anyone articulated racism in America with such eloquence and authenticity.

It was startling to hear such controversial subjects discussed so directly and openly. After hearing it, I feel as if I have a measure of insight into his life and the experience of many other black Americans.

As to the real purpose of the speech, to counter the potentially crippling effects of his close relationship with his minister, I have to say his explanation didn't quite add up for me. How could anyone who rejects racism and anti-Americanism attend church services where it was being preached?

He was too close to it and for too long. How easy to simply claim you were inspired the whole time by what was good while rejecting what wasn't. That position just seems a little too convenient for someone who's running for national office.

Personal responsibility -- the kind Barak Obama talked about -- begins with taking personal responsibility. He didn't, and that's what was missing from his speech.

[txa1265]

I only wish it would be true that we could only focus on these real issues and get rid of the crap.

He is really trying, but it is hard to be honorable when you have the 'kill your own mama to win' Clinton machine at work against you and a media and public that lives for sound bytes and controversy.

As for the speech itself, I agree with squeek - everybody involved has ownership of the issues and needs to take ownership of the solutions.

[magerette]

This isn't taking personal responsibility?

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother

I thought he made it plain he accepted the good with the bad in his minister, and recognized his anger--and the reasons underlying his anger-- without participating in it.

[dteowner]

I'm not a big fan of his politics, but I'll admit that I wish the Republicans had a speaker with that much charisma.

I was hoping for another paragraph after the 25:00 mark where he told the white community what they need to change. After such a balanced and reasoned presentation, it would have made sense to tell the black community what they need to change as well. He might have been worried about backlash ala Bill Cosby. It will be interesting to see what the black community has to say about the speech. He said a lot of things I've been wishing to hear out of the black community for a long time, and he seemed to have a remarkable understanding of the feelings of your average white guy. Quite a bit of stuff that, as he said, doesn't get discussed in polite conversation.

[txa1265]

This isn't taking personal responsibility?

Actually what I was saying was that I applauded Obama for calling out white & black (and all others as well) for pointing fingers and blaming others. He did a great job of explaining things in a way that makes you appreciate the gray area we all really live in.

[Squeek]

This isn't taking personal responsibility? Maybe and maybe not, depending on what happens to be the whole truth (and you can't know that any more than I can). If we were to assume he's a saint, then definitely, because that's how a saint would take responsibility in this situation.

Barak Obama may or may not be the kind of person who could be associated with that kind of ugliness without being tainted by it. I really don't know. What I do know is he's running for President, and I understand the position he's taken.

There's a premise in Buddhism that things tend to be found in their proper place in this world. You'll find things in an outhouse that you won't find in a jewelry store, and vice-versa.

Barak Obama could be found attending services in that church for over twenty years. Now when he's running for President he denies being receptive to any of what was preached there that might interfere with his campaign. Call me a cynic, but that makes me suspicious.

[magerette]

Actually what I was saying was that I applauded Obama for calling out white & black (and all others as well) for pointing fingers and blaming others. He did a great job of explaining things in a way that makes you appreciate the gray area we all really live in.

Sorry, Mike. I was responding to Squeek. I agree about the ownership idea, but not with the 'tarred with the same brush' argument.

Again responding to Squeek:
Obviously, first and foremost, the guy is a politician, so we know up front he's not a saint. ;)

I don't understand any of this 'tainted' concept though. First, Obama's actions and writings through his career are all about building coalitions and bridges, not dividing and conquering. Second, if you take the emotion out of the Rev. Wright's speech, what has he said that's an actual lie? America IS run by rich white men AFAIK. Our actions abroad *have* been a major factor in what happened on 9-11. Hillary *is* as much of a child of privilege as anyone could be, and being called the b word *is* a lot different than being called the n word.

So if these words were said in a calm tone in a blog somewhere written by a white person, I don't think they'd be getting the same emotional overload among the white mostly right establishment. Deplored, yes, perhaps; but to me it's still a toss-up how this has become such a litmus test for Obama.

Anyway, I accept your take, Squeek, and I like your outhouse analogy, (but I think probably church on Sunday is only one of many places where you could find Obama over the years; i.e. this really also is another mudslinging non-issue.)

People are so cranked about this incident, on both sides--and most of the stuff to come out of it all is just more journalist fodder. Some of it is entertaining though--
I kind of like this blog post at the leftie Huffington Post myself:

Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html)
When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of imminent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton...

[Corwin]

Hallelujah brother!! :)

[JemyM]

Quite a speech.

[blatantninja]

I wrote this on another message board concerning the speech:

Obama was most likely aware of these specific tirades, even if he wasn't there. He also likely at least heard summations of them and had ample opportunity to ask his trusted adviser about them. Additionally, while a few of these have made it to YouTube, it's highly likely that many more did not.

So Obama did what a good politician does, he claimed that he had not been present or heard the specific sermons in question. When that didn't calm the storm, he then came out, didn't admit to anything that would contradict his earlier statement, but then admitted to something similar and rejected the message to placicate the masses.

---

That being said, the text (I didn't hear it since I was at work) was impressive. If there are truth in his words, then he could be the best President in a long time, but the question of what he truly believes is still a legitimate one.

I also wrote this before hand:

But since it took him until yesterday (a few days ago now) to finally say something against the 9/11 comments, and until today (now yesterday) to disavow indirectly any of the other racist rhetoric, there is a right to be concerned. Especially given the attitude of his wife.

I simply do not see how any sane man could attend a church for 20 years that spews hate and misinformation, marry a woman that obviously believes it, make a commitment of faith to said church, bring their CHILDREN to said church and NOT believe it.

--

So that is what I wrote. I'll say, I'm glad he came out with that speech and it has a lot of historical potential. He's a little too left in general for my taste, based on his senate record, but so far his record does not show representation of Wrights racist rhetoric.

Of course, that leaves the question of is he a Manchurian candidate? That scares me some, but I'm still staying open enough to see what the end message is.

Regardless, even with that speech, this will continue to be an issue, and you know the Republicans will roast him with the issue in the fall.

[elkston]

I wrote this on another message board concerning the speech:

Obama was most likely aware of these specific tirades, even if he wasn't there. He also likely at least heard summations of them and had ample opportunity to ask his trusted adviser about them. Additionally, while a few of these have made it to YouTube, it's highly likely that many more did not.
.
.
.

But since it took him until yesterday (a few days ago now) to finally say something against the 9/11 comments, and until today (now yesterday) to disavow indirectly any of the other racist rhetoric, there is a right to be concerned. Especially given the attitude of his wife.

I simply do not see how any sane man could attend a church for 20 years that spews hate and misinformation, marry a woman that obviously believes it, make a commitment of faith to said church, bring their CHILDREN to said church and NOT believe it.



Obama said straight up that he rejected his Pastor's more controversial statements. Overall, however, he respected the man for his deeds and his commitment to faith and works. So if you can't take him [Obama] at his word, then you never would have voted for him in the first place.

[magerette]

Obama said straight up that he rejected his Pastor's more controversial statements. Overall, however, he respected the man for his deeds and his commitment to faith and works. So if you can't take him [Obama] at his word, then you never would have voted for him in the first place.

I think that the damage of this incident isn't to Obama's core base, but to the undecided middle class voters that he was doing well with before this fiasco.

Frankly, I agree that if something a politician's aide, relative, barber or minister says is what makes up your mind to withhold your support, you probably weren't committed in any way to begin with, and in this case, I think it also serves as an ironclad excuse for those who may have other, less noble reasons to not support Obama. (Not directed at anyone in this thread, speaking generally.)

I've been trolling around the net reading, not the journalistic pieces on this so much as the reader comments, and everyone seems to be echoing Pat Buchanan et al with this sort of thing: "What does this say about Obama? What kind of person listens to this for twenty years?" and so forth.

I just don't see it as anything that simple, or that defining. I think it's possible that Obama's presence in that church reflects the efforts of a man of mixed blood who is perceived by whites as black but who was raised primarily in a white family and a white suburban environment, to understand and experience that part of himself which doesn't reside in suburbia. Perhaps that white background forces him to overcompensate by picking a more politically radical minister. Or maybe there's more to Rev Wright than hate and You Tube. I'm not a psychologist and I'm not religious, but it makes sense to me. What better place is there to see what it means to be black in America?

I may be totally wrong, but I can understand how Obama might have been drawn to the anger, the feelings negative and positive, and the community of that church.

From looking at the man's life and career though, I think it would be simplistic to say that that experience is his limit, or that it hides a racist agenda. And I really can't imagine what devastating effect it's supposed to have on what kind of president he'd make.:S

[Benedict]

I thought it was an absolutely superb speech, even reading the text I got little shivers.

And total credit for him for sticking to his guns and sticking to his loyalties. He could easily have acted shocked and disowned the minister but he hasn't, he's set out an overwhelmingly reasonable and balanced discussion of what he feels and why and I admire him for that. It might not have been the most politically expedient thing he could have done, and clinton & mccain will use it to try and damage his chances, but he's stuck to what he believes in and tackled the issue head on and that's a rare trait these days.

Or failing that he doesn't believe in it but has a vision of what a president should be that resonates more strongly with me than I can remember a politician resonating, and seems to be doing a pretty good job of pretending to be it, which is a lot better than the alternatives.

I'd be utterly gutted if he didn't become president, his promise to get rid of lobbyists alone could be the most powerful change in politics for years.

[blatantninja]

Obama said straight up that he rejected his Pastor's more controversial statements. Overall, however, he respected the man for his deeds and his commitment to faith and works. So if you can't take him [Obama] at his word, then you never would have voted for him in the first place.

If he had said this when the preacher initially made the remarks, or when the controversy came out, I would have had an easier time believing him. As for whether or not I would have voted for him, I worked on a campaign to get Republican and Independent voters in Texas to vote in the Democratic primary for him.

[blatantninja]

I'd be utterly gutted if he didn't become president, his promise to get rid of lobbyists alone could be the most powerful change in politics for years.

I'd love to see that, but doesn't he have some history himself with lobbyists? Edwards roasted all the other candidates about that, and I thought he included Obama.

[Squeek]

...everyone seems to be echoing Pat Buchanan et al with this sort of thing: "What does this say about Obama?Isn't that the discussion Obama encouraged? Didn't he invite everyone to go ahead and take a close look? And isn't lumping everyone who's asking it together with Pat Buchanan exactly the kind of thinking Obama discouraged?

What I admired about Obama's speech were all the shades of grey.

[blatantninja]

I just don't see it as anything that simple, or that defining. I think it's possible that Obama's presence in that church reflects the efforts of a man of mixed blood who is perceived by whites as black but who was raised primarily in a white family and a white suburban environment, to understand and experience that part of himself which doesn't reside in suburbia. Perhaps that white background forces him to overcompensate by picking a more politically radical minister. Or maybe there's more to Rev Wright than hate and You Tube. I'm not a psychologist and I'm not religious, but it makes sense to me. What better place is there to see what it means to be black in America?

I agree it's not the simple. Personally, I'm leaning to him attending that church for the main purpose of getting 'street cred' within the black community. To his credit, his politics so far have not reflected the attitudes of that congregation.

[Benedict]

I'd love to see that, but doesn't he have some history himself with lobbyists? Edwards roasted all the other candidates about that, and I thought he included Obama.

No idea, personally I don't care if he's a steaming hypocrite in terms of past actions so long as he goes through with his promised future actions.

[Arhu]

If he had said this when the preacher initially made the remarks, or when the controversy came out, I would have had an easier time believing him.

I'm not into politics at all and didn't follow the controversy, but I did watch the entire speech. To me it felt like he had no choice but to carefully think through what to say because it was a controversy, one that needed to be fully understood by everyone, as otherwise they'd be talking to, but not with each other. Like those stereotypical man/woman conversations that turn into endless arguing because nobody listens or tries to understand what the other is saying:
Woman: What would you do if I died? Would you get married again?
Man: Definitely not!
Woman: Why not-don’t you like being married?
Man: Of course I do.
Woman: Then why wouldn’t you remarry?
Man: Okay, I’d get married again.
Woman: You would? (with a hurtful look on her face)
. . .

Obama sounded to me like he was trying to make everyone understand and explained it to them in a full speech rather than giving in to endless, pointless debates about semantics, or trying to convince everyone that they were wrong. And it's not easy to explain something to someone who has a prejudiced attitude or is tenacious in their opinions about certain things.


As for the controversy.. Imagine you had a brother whom you dearly loved like, well, a brother. Now he did something bad. Would or should you stop loving him for that?

[zahratustra]

As for the controversy.. Imagine you had a brother whom you dearly loved like, well, a brother. Now he did something bad. Would or should you stop loving him for that? I consider myself as Obama's supporter but to answer this particular question: Loving? No. Likeing? I might.

[Squeek]

Until recently Barack Obama seemed like what might be described as the ideal black candidate for President. Not that it's in any way ideal for a presidential candidate to be anything but white, but his ascension in popularity seemed almost like the arrival of a knight in shining armor.

But a chink in that armor has now been discovered and exposed, a small one to be sure, but one his political enemies can exploit. In his own defense he emphasized his virtue and described how the kingdom he would build would be a better place for everyone.

But that didn’t put this issue to bed. Critics are still critical, and now Obama's begun to emphasize his underdog status as a black candidate.

When I was a kid, another black man, a comedian, burst on the scene with enormous popularity, Flip Wilson. He was famous for saying, “What you see is what you get!” He took that bold position in response to everything. He even said it while wearing a dress (and a provocative one at that!). He was well respected and became the first black American to ever direct for TV.

In hindsight, Obama probably should have taken a position more like Flip Wilson’s. He should have revealed more and denied less.

[magerette]

I consider myself as Obama's supporter but to answer this particular question: Loving? No. Likeing? I might.

For me it would be the opposite. There's someone in my family who's put himself outside the pale of everything I consider right and wrong and I've lost all respect and liking for him on lots of levels, but I don't seem to be able to stop loving him. It would be a lot easier for me if I could, believe me. :)

I guess all this really is part of very complex and personal issues, and whatever the outcome for Obama as a politician, I have to admire his ability to engage America in this dialogue.

[zahratustra]

Lol magerette, since the question was: "Would or should you stop loving..." we are actually in complete agreement :p

[magerette]

Lol magerette, I think that you haven't read my post carefully enough since we actually are in complete agreement :p

Again? ;) Sorry if I got you wrong, but I'm glad you know what I mean even if I didn't know what you meant...as it were. :)

[Arhu]

Hehe, well, the point is that apparently the critics are asking Obama to denounce someone for what that person did, but who played an important part in his life and was / is like family. How could he?
Disagree with the reverend? Sure. Stop all association with him just for his opinion? Hardly.

But as I said, I've only seen the speech and nothing that had happened before, so it's pure speculation on my part.

[Corwin]

Christians are told to hate the sin, but love the sinner; what else could he do!!

[JemyM]

What's the American election about really? Is it about how the country should be lead in the next few years, or is it about picking the next American Idol?

[Squeek]

Is it me, or did JemyM just make sense?

[magerette]

@Squeek--Not you-very sensible and to the point remark.

It's about how the next American Idol will lead the country. :)

At least Obama in his last few speeches is trying to get some issues into the news--though of course there are various reasons why he has to do that to regain ground, etc. I keep coming to his defense, but I probably need to say that I haven't drunk the Kool Aid and I see him also as a politician. It's just the other choices are so negative, he appears in a better light to me with his emphasis on unity, moving forward, etc.

I once supported McCain, but it's plain he's running under the Bush/Cheney aegis, and also that he's old, perhaps ill and certainly confused--and while I can relate to that, I'd prefer to have a President who doesn't reflect my own aging memory problems, and who doesn't embrace perpetual military intervention and nation building married with oil company-dictated agendas as an obvious necessity in the MidEast.

The other option, Hillary, is almost impossible for me. I read a blog entry the other day that states my feelings pretty well, about how everyone(on the left) knew about the Clinton's corruption, being in bed with Wal-Mart and various other huge lobby groups, etc, but they felt that a) Clinton's administration was competent, and B) the corruption was tinged with compassion in the early years for the non-rich and non-advantaged, but that those elements are past history. Anyway, for whatever reason, I may have to accept Hillary as the only viable option against 4 more years of disastrous foreign and domestic policy, but nothing will ever convince me that she will be that much better for the country than Obama or that she's in it for anything or anyone but HRC.

So, atm I'm hoping for Obama to pull himself out of this mess. Whether he has any answers or not, at least there is a quality of leadership and an emphasis on change that is more attractive to me than the other rhetoric at play here.

For that part of America that views the elections as another reality TV show, the race is never decided on who will lead on their true competence or stands on issues anyway--it's the taller, more commanding, better looking and more verbally adroit candidate that they will support. Or the one who most allays their fears and insecurities and panders to their prejudices. I don't know if that's particularly American, or just human nature, but I agree its extremely unfortunate, even dangerous in these times.

[skavenhorde]

Hi guys,

I know it's been awhile since I posted but I wanted to throw my two cents in on this subject.

I was a on the fence between Hillary and Obama, but after his frank and truthful remarks on "real" life problems dealing with race, well I considered myself in the Obama camp now.

There is still a lot of hate on both sides of the racial divide in America whether people want to admit it or not. What stood out for me in this speech was how he talked to us about the "real" America, instead of the usual censored and watered down canned speeches we get from any other poloticians. He had the balls to make this speech. What I find a little funny is that he was speaking to the American people like they were adults and the news media freaks out over it. I even heard some of them say that the pastor should apologize. HA, what will apolgies do? They're just words. It won't take away the hate and anger and the overwhelming truth in this issue. What Obama did is take away the superficial bs of apologies and get right to the matter and hopefully start some real discussions on this topic.

It wasn't too long ago that segregation was legal but look how far we have come in that time. I hope this is the beginning of a new era in America. One where the leader actually tells us the whole gritty truth of the matter and how we can start to mend these problems.

Anyways, thanks for listening. Had a long heated debate with my family on this and just needed somewhere where I could say all this without someone trying to shoot down my argument every three seconds with more of the usual FOX news brainwashing propeganda. They seriously need to stop watching that damn show, it's turning their brains to mush.

Your friendly neighborhood rat

[zahratustra]

Well, it is now well over a week since Rev. Wright controversy broke and 3 days since "Philadelphia Speech" and, with Richardson's endorsement, I think that the story has run out it's course as "news" for now.... Still I have no doubt that, IF Mr. Obama would become presidential candidate of Democratic Party, it will all get reheated and regurgicated. I am concerned however that, while both Hillary and Obama squabble, McCain iz zipping around the world looking "presidential"....
Before primaries started, it sounded like 2008 election was almost a done deal for Democrates but now it looks like they are hell bent on loosing it! Haven't years in the wilderness tought them anything? Do they have any political wit at all?

[Squeek]

Before primaries started, it sounded like 2008 election was almost a done deal for Democrates but now it looks like they are hell bent on loosing it! Haven't years in the wilderness tought them anything? Do they have any political wit at all?That's how I'm seeing it too. It's just going to get worse and worse for the Democrats, unfortunately.

Keep in mind that this whole superdelegate "problem" is actually the solution the Democratic Party designed for this circumstance, where there was no clear winner heading into its national convention.

And so was disenfranchising party members in Florida and Michigan. That was another solution crafted by Democratic Party leadership.

Obama's done, IMO. He might still win the nomination, but he'll never get elected now. Barring a major misstep on McCain's part, his wife's unfortunate comment, his pastor's eccentricity (or whatever you want to call it) and his recent "typical white person" characterization are all going to add up to prevent him from winning the general election.

Hilary Clinton is the Democratic Party’s best chance at winning the Presidency. They seem slow to realize that, and that may be their final mistake and the one that ultimately costs them.

[zahratustra]

Nevermind superdelegates Squeek, the whole Democratic primaries system is fucked up royally! This "proportional" system was adopted purely as a knee jerk reaction after Jesse Jackson 1984 candidacy and should have been ditched long ago!

Sadly, Obama campaing starts looking more and more like Jackson 1988 campaign. Even "Bradley effect" seems to be a factor once again!

[txa1265]

What's the American election about really? Is it about how the country should be lead in the next few years, or is it about picking the next American Idol?

I think that American Idol has a much better system relative to the goals of the producers - generating saleable manufactured-pop folks.

[GothicGothicness]

I will make a new show, American President.

If the auditions for american idol are hillarious imagine what that would be like.

Hi I am joe, I want to be president and give free beer and fat food to everybody YAY burp.

[zahratustra]

The scary thing is that he might win :roll: :)

[skavenhorde]

Obama's done, IMO. He might still win the nomination, but he'll never get elected now. Barring a major misstep on McCain's part, his wife's unfortunate comment, his pastor's eccentricity (or whatever you want to call it) and his recent "typical white person" characterization are all going to add up to prevent him from winning the general election.

Squeek, you seriously think that Americans will want the "100 years in the desert" president?

No, I think your wrong in this. Obama will crush McCain due to the fact that McCain is so closely tied to that war now. Not to mention that McCain has to deal with the resentment a lot of people feel towards the Republican party for the mess were in now with the economy and world opinion.

As for the American top President, well it's not just America that is like a game show. In any democratic state whether its America or not, you have to convince the majority of people to vote for you. That means it will be like any of the Idol or "top model" shows. There has been a controversy in the media over here in Taiwan. They had a field day with a picture of Ma Ying Jeou giving the peace sign and he had his little pinky up too. They had experts analyzing if this meant he was gay or femine. The news programs are the big part of the problem. I'm convinced now that the majority of them are just gasbags that like to hear themselves talk and get people excited about non-issues. America doesn't hold the patent on presidential elections seeming more like a game show. It's been like this pretty much since TV was invented. Look at Ronald Reagan, a movie star turned president or Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[JDR13]

Why is Barack Obama always refered to as a "Black" man?

Is it not common knowledge that he is 50\50 white-black? His father was Kenyan and his mother was Caucasian, yet everyone seems to think he's just "black".

[Corwin]

In one sense, it's racist. Why not just call him a 'man' and leave it at that!!

[curiously undead]

im not sure i'd call it racism. that's a touchy subject as the speech alluded to. everyone has a bit of racism or prejudice in them anyhow, its basically when it leads to actions is the problem.
i think it has more to do with ignorance (not in a condecending or demeaning but factual way) and isolated communities. my high school had a very high white population (as did where i spent the 2nd half of my childhood), my college experiences were much different. there's a lot of diversity within regions of metropolitin areas in many places. the greater sacramento area has many high white communites (not where i live) but at the same time its been voted as the most mixed/melting pot of ethnicities of all cities in the country. but yet if you go more rural within the state or head to southern california it gets much less diverse. granted southern california has a high latino population but orange county in particular has a ~1% african american population so its only natural to see bias in cases such as that where there is no real community or exposure/integration of peoples.

[dteowner]

As was mentioned earlier, this year was the Democrats' free pass. All they had to do was get behind any warm body and run a "We're Not Dubya" campaign right into the White House. With all their bickering, they're giving McCain time and ammo. We might have an election on our hands here rather than a defacto referendum.

Quite honestly, this whole situation should have been a non-issue. Obama spends a lot of time with an opinionated crackpot. So what. I would bet good money there isn't a single one of us here that doesn't have a friend/family member/associate that's just as silly. Heck, some of us here ARE the opinionated crackpot... Now, being a good Republican, I reserve the right to beat this dead horse to a pulp should we face Obama in the election, but for now, it really seems like a lot of yammering about nothing.

It's almost like the media is playing a game that's going to blow up in their face. They crowned the Ice Queen, and then starting cozying up to Obama to the point where he had been crowned, and now have manufactured an excuse to rip the crown off his head and get the fight going again. You'd think the liberal media would figure out that their quest for an exciting primary is going to make the election a legit competition. Or maybe that's the game they're playing. By weakening the Democratic candidates, an election that would have been a walkover suddenly becomes something to report about for 6 months. It would be pretty funny if the media's gaming cost their candidate of choice the election.

[zahratustra]

Well, that's seems to be main preocupation with mass media in the UK as well. Be it a soccer player, singer or a politician, they like nothing better than to build them up just to bring them them down again. Controversy ( even if only a fabricated one) helps to sell tabloids and 24 hour news networks are only too eager to conjure "news" from the thin air....

[Squeek]

Obama will crush McCain due to the fact that McCain is so closely tied to that war now. Not to mention that McCain has to deal with the resentment a lot of people feel towards the Republican party for the mess were in now with the economy and world opinion.The debate will change for Obama in the general election, because McCain matches up against him differently. His rhetoric and ambition will be compared against McCain's record of obvious heroism and long service to his country. Everyone hates the war, but McCain's support for it is understandable since most Americans supported it at one point themselves.

Personally, I'd love it if we could just turn and walk away from the war. Who wouldn't? That's exactly what Obama started off saying he would do. That and the fact that he opposed it from the beginning are what defined his candidacy.

But he eventually hedged on that, saying he would send troops back in if it became necessary. So now it's no longer a question of walking away. It's become a question of what's really necessary in Iraq, and that's the debate McCain wants.

Obama will keep playing up how he hasn't made many mistakes while downplaying how he hasn't actually had that many opportunities to make decisions either. That works a lot better against Hillary than it will against McCain. McCain can do what she can't. He'll talk about actual experience.

I'm a Republican who thinks the Republicans don't deserve another term in the White House. All the Democrats have to do is nominate a decent candidate, and I'll vote for her. ;)

[magerette]

dte wrote:
It's almost like the media is playing a game that's going to blow up in their face. They crowned the Ice Queen, and then starting cozying up to Obama to the point where he had been crowned, and now have manufactured an excuse to rip the crown off his head and get the fight going again. You'd think the liberal media would figure out that their quest for an exciting primary is going to make the election a legit competition.

Good points, dte. I heard some of the talking heads on MSNBC saying pretty much the same thing about the campaign situation being a reporter's dream as long as neither candidate is clearly in the lead. That is, the daily stories and distortions will bite the dust if even their favorite, Obama, shows a final dominance.

I've been saying all along the Rev Wright thing is a mudsling, and doesn't have anymore to do with Obama's political views than Mr. Hagee has to do with McCain's policies, and imo Hagee has some equally scary opinions:
In his book Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, Hagee interprets the Bible to predict Russia and the Islamic states will invade Israel and will be destroyed by God. This will cause the anti-Christ, the head of the European Union, to create a confrontation over Israel between China and the West. A final battle between East and West at Armageddon will then precipitate the Second Coming of Christ. These guys preach the bible for a living--they are melodramatic and full of hellfire and brimstone for the same reason that sex scandals sell papers and lawyers chase ambulances.

I have to agree with both you & Squeek (much as it pains me ;) )about all this confusion lying directly at the Democratic Party's door. I think the hideous end result may be a revival of a Hillary/Obama ticket, which would suit her down to the ground. :raincloud:

[elkston]

Why is Barack Obama always refered to as a "Black" man?

Is it not common knowledge that he is 50\50 white-black? His father was Kenyan and his mother was Caucasian, yet everyone seems to think he's just "black".

This is America, my friend. If you father was black, you are black!

[Squeek]

Personally, I've never known anyone whose race was decided for them. As far as I can tell, it's always been a matter of agreeing with whatever someone decides for themselves. So if someone says they're black or white (or whatever), then they're black or white (or whatever).

[Squeek]

Now that Reverend Wright has come out and responded to what he called attacks against the black church, the media's attention has once again been refocused on this issue and may be worth a revisit here.

I found Dr. Wright's comments to be intelligent, clever and entertaining and now wish I had had the opportunity to hear him preach. Not that I agree with everything he has to say -- I don't -- but what's the point of hearing a sermon that's limited to opinions you already share and information you already know?

From a public relations point of view, Wright is doing exactly the wrong thing, and that's bad news for the Obama campaign. If he was going to respond, he needed to have done that immediately. And it needed to be done in a way that communicated straightforward honesty. This wasn't the right time for clever retorts and rapier wit.

Reverend Wright was probably a fine preacher and is someone Obama has undoubtedly benefited from knowing, but I think it's safe to say that Wright won't be getting a Christmas card from the Obamas this year.

[magerette]

I agree, Squeek that this is a really bad time for Wright to cash in on his new brand-name quality, as it were, but I hope it does for a lot of intelligent people what it did for you--that is, get them to take a little closer look at what's behind the sound bytes and scare tactics. Probably too much to hope that it can counter the whole negative weight of all that, though.

Are you talking about the Bill Moyers interview (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/profile.html) or has he done something more while I wasn't looking? That one is supposed to be very good.

Edit : Yeesh--I googled him--he really has been whooping it up out there!

[elkston]

Squeek, I agree with you. I am black and I enjoyed Wright's NAACP speech.

However, I do disagree with the broad strokes he takes to distinguish the learning styles of black kids versus other groups (claiming we are more 'right' brained oriented). In my mind it seemed like he was trying to say we didn't have the proper wiring to learn analytical and objective subjects such as math & science. I mean, I know he is speaking in broad symbols and realizes there are exceptions, but its promoting negative ideas to those who already feel blacks don't have the tools to excel academically. Being a former software programmer, this is a subject dear to my heart.

Honestly I believe the ability to sit still in class and to respect your teacher and learning process is a question of NURTURE & environment, not something innate.
Your parents either instill in you the value of school, education, and learning OR they don't. True, there are still going to be cut-ups regardless (heh -- even I got in a trouble a bit in middle school), but I think that's more personality than race.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

[zahratustra]

As a slight aside from the main thread of Obama/Wright issue for a while, let me quote something from Jane Smiley's artice from todays The Huffington Post:
"But Obama wouldn't have this problem if Americans didn't have the idea that their president has to be a man of faith. If Americans thought that the president just had to be an intelligent and knowledgeable person, a competent policy wonk and an inspiring public speaker, Obama would be home free. But as an atheist, or an agnostic, or even someone who kept his beliefs to himself, Obama would have never had a chance. He could be ten times as smart and well-prepared as George W. Bush, but he would never get the votes."

I could not have put it any better myself!

[Squeek]

How does Jane Smiley know how important Obama's religion is or isn't to him and whether or not he would have promoted that aspect of himself under different circumstances? Isn't she only guessing?

John McCain has been keeping his beliefs pretty much to himself. He's responded to questions about his faith, but that's about all. That may have hurt him in the South where some voters seemed to have preferred the pro-life position of some of his opponents, but that's been the only impact so far.

[Corwin]

I strongly believe the concept of racial differences is nonsense. When I was a high school teacher, the school had a very high proportion of Asian students. There were however, 2 very distinct groups. One group were recent immigrants, the other was primarily students who had been born here. They were VERY different in attitude, ethos, etc. Your cultural environment while growing up makes FAR more difference than your racial heritage!! People are people, no matter how different they make look on the outside. Skin colour, race, ethnic origen shouldn't/doesn't make any difference IMO!!

[Squeek]

Well, Reverend Wright has officially been "kooked" by the media and everyone, and Obama stepped right up and severed ties with him. Kooks don't have to be taken seriously. So that solves that problem.

Wright wasn't worth losing the Presidency over, apparently. He wasn't part of the change Obama keeps asking all of us to buy into with our votes. He'll probably end up writing a book, doing a few speaking engagements and maybe a Larry King interview.

Wright is a smart, well educated veteran who served his country and his parish who blew it when he exorcised his right of freedom of speech at the wrong time. He became an inconvenience for a Presidential candidate, and now he's nothing but a kook.

Obama never knew about Wright's kooky side. Yeah, right.

[Corwin]

Isn't that an American tradition, Milk and Kookies!! :)

[magerette]

Well, nobody made him act like a kook. He did that on his own steam. And btw he is writing a book that goes on sale in November. I agree with you, Squeek that it always seems to be about selling a story with the media, though, never about substance.

Obama's in a no win situation imo. If you look at the video of his speech, you can see he's not just mouthing a convenient bunch of platitudes, he's deeply angered at what he feels is a betrayal on a personal level--which perhaps is a two way street, of course. But I really don't see what else he can do at this point. As a politician, he certainly is not able to accept this kind of vulnerability. I do give Hillary a few points for not jumping into the fray(yet) but she really doesn't have to--Wright made the choice to come out now with his message and doesn't seem to mind that he himself is throwing Obama's campaign under the bus and he doesn't need any help.

...who blew it when he exorcised his right of freedom of speech at the wrong time.

I bet the Obama camp wishes Wright's freedom of speech *had* somehow been "exorcized" instead of exercised. ;)

Anyway, while I have no quarrel with Wright and I find him charismatic, entertaining and intelligent--except maybe about the AIDS thing--and I'm sure he's been an excellent force in his community, my personal take is that Wright really isn't and shouldn't be worth losing the presidency over. Is he going to be sitting in at foreign policy sessions and figuring out how to withdraw troops from Iraq? Is he going to advise Obama on how to lower gas prices? Would he be greeting world leaders at political summits and negotiating global agreements? Naaa--he's what he's always been, a candidate's pastor and pretty irrelevant to running the country, and a non-factor in judging who is and isn't qualified to do it.

But then religion is pretty much a closed book to me and I freely admit I don't understand its importance to many people. Still--I don't think it mates well with politics. :)


@Corwin Milk and Kookies go great with guns for breakfast. :)