Liveblogging Obama's speech
Obama is scheduled to speak on race starting in a few minutes -- a running summary and some commentary below the fold. What's your reaction?
CNN says the speech might get started a bit later than 10:15. That seems reasonable considering it is now 10:15 and the speech hasn't started yet.
My guesses as to Obama's stance: (1) He clearly condemns the specific controversial statements of Wright (2) He explains the broader context -- ie, race is still a genuine issue for many Americans (3) He states that addressing current concerns over poverty, incarceration, etc are important for all Americans and transcend race (4) He makes a case for people of all races trying to see things from all perspectives and for working together. We shall see...
Other reaction threads from dueling political perspectives: Daily Kos and Redstate
.
CNN has gone back to their guests. Wonder why the speech is delayed?
Apparently there are some technical difficulties with the audio... still waiting. Meanwhile, Charles was kind enough to point to the transcript up on Drudge.
Obama is up! Transcript appears accurate, so I will skip ahead and post some quotes:
On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
[...] Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
[...] The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races. ...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.
Huge applause for this: The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American. Overall, he's delivering the speech in a firm but muted manner -- deliberately avoiding rhetorical flourishes, I guess.
The speech seems to hit all the right notes. It acknowledges legitimate concerns on all sides while seeking to unite people of all races in working for common goals.
Heh... applause also for 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.
And more for: Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy The audience seems to be warming to his somewhat nuanced theme.
I particularly liked this line, which to me describes the motivations (if not always the results) underlying liberalism: In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
Comments :
Obama's Speech is Up...
You can read it here.
Hopefully this can be put behind us.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Thanks Charles!
Reading it now...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
How did it leak
to Drudge first? Thanks, Charles.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Damn our Human Nature
for putting it in front of us in the first place.
I find the captivation with this story by our media and most voters to be very telling.
It says a lot (not good) about how we view the office of the president as well as the real vetting process most use when evaluating the candidates. And this process looks all the worse when we really stop and consider the true tasks of the president.
In short, the relevant factors and information are so complicated and boring for most people that it simply comes down to garbage like this to hold our collective attention and influence our choices. Sad.
I just scanned the speech
It's not bad but I cannot excuse Obama's association with that kind of a "pastor". It's not enough. It would be like me going to church with David Duke as pastor, him marry me and baptize my children, and inspire me and my book, yet when the association is raised, me condemning it. It would not be enough and it should not be enough.
God knows what else has been said in that church and what Obama has cheered on over the full 20 years, if this is just a tiny preview of what's been going on there. Racism and anti-american sentiment is too much there.
I was mostly neutral towards Obama (while preferring Hillary as a known quantity). Now I move to the strongly anti-Obama camp. This kind of stuff is scary and disappointing and all the flowery condemnations will not excuse it. Obama has to revoke and condemn the whole decades long association before I would consider him "changed".
[update] From MSNBC:
So every single member of the black community is representative of the black community as a whole and cannot be disowned for that reason? WTF is that supposed mean??? Sorry Obama but no. In this case it's guilt by full known association.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What would it all mean?
Think about it.
you tell me... n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
hard to say, Ender
Politically in terms of voting, it wouldnt tell me very much.
This part pertains
to your comment:
"Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough."
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
sounds like bullsh*t
yes, his politics were already a nice whammy for me (if he was a pro-Israel Republican Conservative I would support him). But this really takes the prize. His condemnation cannot be enough unless he apologizes for his own part of being there, being inspired by that un-American racist, and disowns that past.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Nothing major
I've never paid any attention to what any preacher says. It's all BS as far as I'm concerned. All religious figures from the Billy Grahams down to your local pastor are either ignorant or con men. Of course, the more popular the figure, the more likely he is to be the latter.
In terms of how much this changes my opinion of Obama, it'd be somewhere near nothing. He's still the least worst candidate of just about all the candidates who are running, major party or otherwise.
In terms of Obama's support for his church, apparently people can compartmentalize their faith in a way I don't understand. If a preacher ever said something on a moral issue I didn't agree with, I'd stand up and walk out. That isn't a standard response as I understand it. There still exist pro-choice Catholics and many are for the death penalty and believe torture is morally permissible.
Church isn't anything more than a get-out-of-jail-free card for most Americans. Give an hour of your week to the Man in the Sky and you can be forgiven for all the crap you pulled since the last time you were in church.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
this
If I was an aspiring politician and was in a church and my preacher said even once that Wright said on a regular basis, I would've walked out and slammed the door on the whole enterprise. The fact that Obama did not, and in fact praised him as inspiration, really stains the man to no end. Maybe if he can show that he slept through every single sermon...
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Meh
I think anyone who believes that they speak to a supernatural being to be very close to being insane. As Maher said, organized religion is sanity by consensus.
I could care less what Mr. Wright said because all of it is bull. I already have to vote for people who in my opinion are borderline crazy, the fact that Obama listens to one who is slightly crazier than the rest doesn't change much.
To be honest, if the worst you can say about Obama is that the preacher at his church is a racist (which isn't something about him -- it's something about the company he keeps), that makes him about as good a person as I've seen running for President in recent memory.
People will use this to confirm their suspicions about Obama. No one who was solidly in his corner is going to turn on him over this. Only people who were looking for a reason to dislike him will let this non-story convince them of what they already felt.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Religion is about society, not god
As an athiest, I've long viewed religion as being about society -- all that talk about "God" is just rhetoric that people use to identify their own group. This is why you can have sects that nominally practice the same religion (i.e. Christianity, Islam, etc) yet hold fundamentally different theologies--each sect defines the religious words to fit their own world view.
(I think this is similar to how social scientists study religion)
Anyway, with that perspective, the words of preachers are very important, because these are words that are used to inspire and organize others.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Religion did used to answer the questions that science
couldn't. In ancient times, it was the local cleric who was most highly educated in the villagers eyes at least. They just wanted to have an answer. They didn't really care so much about how it all started or why. Most folk were more involved in survival. But when times were good, they pondered. Then, they took comfort in what they were led to believe.
In that sense....preachers were about society. They just mixed it with religion to make it more potent. Preachers are still doing that today as we see all the time.
Speech started
and CNN is running it live.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
"Scoured the polls for racial polarization"
Sounds like Ender's favorite hobby. :-)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
are you implying that I am hoping
for racial polarization because I don't like Obama?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Notice the happy face
But you are the first to mention (that I've seen) these statistics shortly after a primary. Don't go making me search through comments. ;-)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
was I happy that
80-90% of African Americans voted for Obama clearly mostly on the basis of his race? Did I search for those stats excitedly?
It's annoying no matter who does it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
How do you draw that conclusion
considering that earlier Hillary had a majority of AA support?
Did Obama suddenly turn black?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
once it was obvious that Obama was a viable
candidate and could beat Hillary the whole thing changed. Since South Carolina Obama drew 80-90% on a constant basis. Did his issues suddenly won every black voter over?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Maybe some of the former supporters of Hillary
saw something in her campaign that changed their mind about backing her over Obama.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The point is who cares?
Why look at those statistics in the first place? Why put the lens over those figures? Are black American votes different than white votes? I am just saying, you (and the media as he mentioned) seem to focus on those issues while many others do not see it as relevant.
Should I focus on how many white males voted for McCain during the primaries as evidence that he is just a product of racial and gender preference (because I am sure that the results would suggest that)? I don't. Why? Because I don't care and it doesn't prove anything.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I look at all the statistics
and some are disappointing. When you look at teen pregnancy stats, those are disappointing. When you see many people vote on the basis of race, it is also disappointing. Nothing wrong with looking and analyzing stats - it's valid. When most white Dems voted against Obama in MS, it was an issue, but many more blacks have voted for Obama in state after state since SC and it's just glanced over because it's on the issues?
All stats are fair game and open to interpretation. I wish people were colorblind but almost no one is.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
No you don't
Because that is impossible.
I've never seen you focus on age or income to the extent that I've seen you focus on race. And again, you only focus on those things for the Dem race, not the Republican race. Why is that, searcher of all statistics?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
when race is the main factor
in the battle between Hillary and Obama (and it is) then why should I focus on age or income? The Republican race does not break down on race, age, or income but on the ideology.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You set the lens my friend.
How you want to frame it is how it will be framed. If you focus on race, then race will be the major attraction in your view. That's all I have to say about this as it is now becoming repetitive.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Re: Black People Voting for Black Candidate
Umm, regarding this:
We've had black people running before against white candidates, and white candidates generally receive an overwhelmingly large percentage (80-90%) of the white vote (up until this election season). Can we then assert that white people are voting for the white candidate because they are white? Or is it considered "normal" for white people to vote this way? Perhaps they are voting for him because they think he is better suited to the presidency on issues they value most.
Latinos vote for overwhelmingly Clinton. So do Catholics. I think we should give people more credit for their voting decisions than color-matching.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
In some cases yes and in some cases no
Of course in some cases it is whites voting based on race. And in others they are not. As I said to Brendan above - when you are first a bit more for Clinton when Barack is at 20% in the polls, and then suddenly 90% for Barack when he pulls even, it ain't the issues that suddenly swayed ya. That's blatant.
And we are only talking about Democrats here, not general electorate.
Latinos are voting based on race as well, apparently even more than whites in this case. Are they blameless? No and I did not try to absolve anyone else who votes based on race.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Three things here:
The first is you're making a causal claim (from statistical evidence) that is almost impossible to prove, i.e. that blacks voted for Obama only because of his skin color (which I find extra funny because he is half white). How could you prove that? Just saying that blacks voted for him in larger numbers does not prove they voted for him only due to his race.
Secondly, you are still ignoring my point below: Should I focus on how many white males voted for McCain during the primaries as evidence that he is just a product of racial and gender preference (because I am sure that the results would suggest that)? Why don't you focus on the percentage of whites that voted for McCain? Why do you have a double-standard when it comes to Obama? (Oh yeah, that implication from above.)
Lastly, even if it were true (which I don't think it is, since Obama may be just representing their views as a candidate more than the other candidates), don't you think a historically down-trodden people would like to see one of their members become a representative within the halls of power? You are completely dismissing the racial past of this country just as he stated.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I am not interested in looking
at America's past as an excuse for the bigoted rants. I guess 2,000 years of anti-jew violence, oppression, and racism should make anything I say equally excusable.
The AA switch from Clinton to Obama happened when his numbers went up (his stances on the issues were the same) and when the media blew up the MLK thing.
Most whites vote Republican because most whites are middle and upper class and GOP is the best answer to those interested in self-reliance and against big taxes and government interference. It's understandable.
I don't feel for the ideology of people who vote for Democrats at all. Sorry. I don't view it as rational. In the context of General Election I can understand most whites vote Republican (not for someone who is white but simply republican, and they do). In the context of the Democratic party that already has 90% of black voters aligned with it, I do not understand 90% of that 90% voting for a candidate that has pretty much the same views as the other candidate with more experience. The only explanation is not some bogus audacity of hope or change.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'm not interested in digging through garbage
So I will let someone else respond to this if they wish.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I know plenty of Jews who hold a grudge against Germans
I know plenty of Jewish-Americans who hold a grudge against Germans--and this is even after the Germans have profusely apologized for their actions and fully repudiated Nazi-ism.
Likewise, I know Irish-Americans who hold a grudge against the English--and this is even after they won their independence.
Compare these examples to the way that many Americans grudgengly let go of racism and basically told black Americans "you should feel lucky we're not still holding you as slaves".
Holding a grudge isn't healthy, but I'm not shocked when people do it.
It would be nice if black and white Americans trusted each other, but that lack of trust has very little to do with people like Reverend Wright--in fact, I suspect that one of the biggest obstacles to establishing trust is from white Americans who blithely dismiss the grievances of black Americans.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Growing up several of my tight friends are jewish.
While they despised the Nazi's, they didn't hate the Germans as they were german themselves often times. But one of the things that frequently got thrown about for illicit fun was derogatory comments about arabs. Illicit because we were good little products of a liberal Westchester upbringing. They weren't Mizrahi Jews, they were Ashkenazi. But they did believe that they, particularly their Middle Eastern offshoots were cousins with the arabs. As such, I guess part of the fun was being derogatory in a round about way to themselves. Good freinds though. Now days, most of them are comfortably republican. Full circle.
20 years of listening to that un-American a**hole...
Wow. Is this the man we'll elect president? Is this the new hope that will unite America?
I am sorry but I am incensed.
And of course it's all excused because of America's past. Let's go back and revisit slavery and then absolve every racist and anti-American utterance into the future in perpetuity.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That is nothing like what he's saying
I'm not sure you're really looking at this objectively.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
of course he is not putting it like that
It was me saying that Obama sat there and listened and no doubt cheered this a-hole for 20 years. You can't excuse that.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Let him stew
Obama never said anything un-American. He is a model American, and Ender and those like him must grasp at straws instead of listening to and understanding the man in order to try to stain him. Will it work? Perhaps, but I hope there are more moderates out there like John who can see through the BS instead of jumping to ridiculous association connections. Time will tell.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
if I was a member of KKK
for 20 years yet spouted nice unifying platitudes like Obama, would I be a model American as well?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ok, let's play this game
Who belonged to the equivalent of the KKK for twenty years? Yes, I am calling you on a false analogy and hyperbole.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I am calling that church
a racist organization. It ain't hyperbole. Anti-American and racist. When everyone stands up and cheers for this:
it is wrong. I don't go for the double standard of it's only wrong when a white guy does it. Democrats apparently do.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
If you gave similar weight and coverage to right wing preachers
rants, then maybe what you say might actually count for something.
You don't.
Like Hagee calling all catholics cultists belonging to a whore religion. McCain still hugged the guy publicly and actively sought his support.
Like Robertson. He said the US is doomed, hurricanes and tidal waves will be leashed against the US by God because Disney allows homosexuals to openly visit their parks. McCain still covets his continued support.
Get a grip Ender. You rail against a black preacher but say not a word about the white evangelical nut cases out there. Maybe that is why your argument doesn't have much weight.
Hagee and Robertson are morons
and if McCain got Hagee's support and then said that he strongly disagreed and condemned the statement about catholics, it would be a lot more believable than saying that after listening and supporting Hagee for 20 years. Frankly same with Robertson, and the fact that McCain cares for their support is unfortunate but not on the same level as claiming to being inspired by those blowhards.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
After further review...
I missed the part where he's a racist. His critique was pretty bland, but I can't see where he's a racist unless you're using a very liberal definition of racism. At no point does he urge those in attendance to discriminate against whites in any way. At no point does he even hint that whites are inferior to blacks.
His thesis was that white people don't understand what it's like to grow up as a poor black man. I don't. I do know what it's like to grow up poor white man, though, so I've got 50% of it right there.
He also mentioned that the country is run by rich white men, which is also true. I feel that culture is a more amorphous phenomenon and isn't run by any particular group, but does have it's trend setters. I'd be so bold as to say that black people affect popular culture disproportionate to their numbers. So on that, I think he's wrong.
I'll withdraw my comment that he was a racist preacher until I'm confronted with better evidence.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
here are some nice choice quotes
From here
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'm still waiting
His comments on the Israeli-Palestinian situation could have been worded better (it has little to do with racism), but otherwise I don't have a problem with them. Even the ADL has said it can't find anything he said to be anti-semitic. That's saying a lot since if you don't support the policies of the Israeli government, you're branded an anti-semite by them.
His charge that racism is how the country is still run is a stretch.
I don't see how any of this is racist, though.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
yeah I guess this
meaning 9/11 was a noble non-white strike against evil White America so they will remember that non-whites are still there does not show him as racist anti-America ass that he is...
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Not by my definition
He says nothing about it being noble. He didn't even say that whites were evil. He simply said that "White America" got a wake-up call that other people are still there and still have their problems no matter if "White America" caters to them or not. I don't agree with the whole of his sentiment, but it isn't a racist quotation any more than Trent Lott's infamous words about Strom Thurmond were.
You're being uncharacteristically unreasonable regarding this guy. You're reading context into his speeches that isn't there. I think that says more about you than what it says about him.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I generally dislike those
who dislike me and have a pretty good radar on who falls into that category. I despise people like this Wright person.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Who is more stuck in their ideology
You or Pastor Wright.
It could be a toss up, but the fierce disgust you have against Pastor Wright, sounds like it is coming from the same place.
Both of you want to hold onto your prejudices and what you perceive as injustice, from your side as a Jew with a long history of suffering and prejudice, from Wrights side as a black with a history of suffering and prejudice..!
The point of Obama's speech is, yeah we have all suffered at one another's hands, but how does whining about that suffering, no matter how justified, help rebuild crumbling schools.
You have a choice to move on, but you chose to hold onto your grudges.
I'm only half stupid
How dare Rev. Wright utter that ugly statement
....about a True Democrat like Bill Clinton! "Riding dirty"??
I mean I can forgive the racism, anti-semitism, and the "we derserved 9/11" nonsense, but when you start badmouthing Democratic icons, I get a little hot under the collar!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
It would depend. Check with
It would depend. Check with Sen. Byrd.
I fail to see the parallel though. Obama was never a member of a racist organization.
The proper parallel to draw would be if you associated yourself with a known KKK member, would you be a model American? I'll point out that David Duke is a Republican, and last I checked, you are too. I'll also point out that Byron "Low Tax" Looper won office as a Republican as well.
I'm not low enough to play the guilt by association card.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
you do know that
GOP condemned Duke when he ran as he Republican, and that anyone can register and run as a Republican? Neither Republicans nor I drew our inspiration from that racist ass. You don't see a difference? Just because Duke was a republican doesn't mean we all cheered him on for 20 years.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Re:
How your party decides to run it's membership is up to your party, but if you're going to play guilt by association, it's only fair that it runs both ways.
All I see is a racist preacher preaching a lot of nonsense. While not every preacher is a racist, all of them preach nonsense. The fact that Barack Obama sat in front of him and listened to him doesn't make a bit of difference to me because I know Barack Obama isn't a racist. It'd be pretty hard for him to hate white people since he's just as white as he is black.
Wright doesn't speak for Obama and could not reasonably be assumed to do so absent any sort of denunciation from Obama. You can't know what Obama agreed with and disagreed with. You don't know what he cheered for and didn't cheer for. Until you find me a clip with Obama explicitly endorsing these remarks, I'll take his rejection at face value.
I'd be interested in hearing what you'd expect our leaders to do if any of their spiritual advisors said in church/temple/mosque/etc. that they disagreed with. Catholic priests regularly denounce the death penalty, the Iraqi war, and abortion as being part of a culture of death. Would you expect any politician in attendance to walk out the door if those comments offended them?
I don't know how often you've went to temple (or church). I'm not expert on church only having been to Mass a few dozen times in my life, but preachers say outrageous things quite regularly, things that their "flock" don't necessarily agree with.
I'm not surprised at what Mr. Wright said nor did I expect Obama to stop going to his church because those remarks. A simple "I don't agree with his views" does it for me.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
As an unenlightened insane Church Attendee..
..I would say this is par for the course in many of the churches I've attended, and I'm a regular church-goer. I've been to mostly black churches, but I've also attended many mixed-race churches (by the way, Obama's church is mixed race as well). Preachers often venture into politics and race because its heavily intertwined into our culture and our past and to ignore it would be to ignore reality--like those who say they "don't see race." (I've often noted that this phrase is mostly mentioned when a minority is present, lol).
Anyway, I disagree with what the pastor says on certain issues and suggestions. however, ultimately, he gets it right. He criticizes white people for ignoring racial issues and for police brutality, but at the same time he criticizes black folks for not being on time and looking for handouts. You're not going to agree with the language all the time, but its the spirit of the message that counts, and not the letter.
I think Obama has addressed this issue far more than McCain had to. The transitive property may work well in math class, but it cannot work in politics (or shouldn't).
Obama denounced his old pastor's words. The pastor has retired. He has left Obama's campaign. I don't think there is much more that has to be done. Any other demands I think is just conservative anger looking for some way to slime the candidate. Hagee hung in the news for a few minutes--this story is being blasted on CNN and Fox every hour at least once.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Bubbles
Thanks for the reality check, Charles.
This type of talk does happen frequently, in churches, community centers, bars, and break rooms. There are unhappy people in this nation. There are unreasonable people in this nation. There are racists and misogynists and idiots. To avoid all association with such people is to live in isolation from community. Sure you can pick your friends and avoid these things, but community is a larger thing and, kinda like family, we do not always get to choose its exact makeup.
A church with sinners in it. Who would have ever thought? ;}
Having said that, it's also Ender's (and others') prerogative to have higher expectations of Obama's associations. Might be a tad unrealistic and partisan at heart, though.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
consider the context
Wright is an old man -- he retired this year. His opinions were shaped by his experience. The further we move from the injustices that shaped Rev. Wright, the more absurd that his opinions will seem.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
here is a good comment from RedState
Exactly.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
For those that don't want to give Drudge the traffic, here's the
speech from TPM.
Good speech. Do I really care that some don't/won't buy it? No. I don't.
+1
I think of him more highly than I previously did. He made the same points that I did independent of me. :-)
It's exactly what he needed to say and exactly what needs to be said to convince anyone who was having doubts about the matter. Those who don't see this for what it is fail themselves by buying into the idea that attending a church demands complete and utter submission to the man at the lectern. Unless you're Catholic and are listening to the Pope, that man is not infallible.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
But we all understand that this was the perfect Rovian spot
to drag Barack through the mud for something he never did or said. I gotta give Karl credit. He's still the same guy who got McCain to lose South Carolina because he fathered an black baby out of wedlock. (note - he and his wife ADOPTED an asian baby, he didn't father a baby out of wedlock)
Not everyone loved today's speech.
SadlyNo says:
"I was rather disappointed. For instance, I thought that Hussein X could have spent far more time detailing his plans to truck all white people off to reparations camps where we’ll be forced to do lawn work for Mexican Reconquistadores and global caliphate. But alas, he’s still trying to trick white people into thinking he’s not conspiring with the Mexicans and the Muslims to destroy us all. I guess this will have to wait until after he’s elected..."
<:p
Has it been established yet that Barack
is a Christian?
I'm only half stupid
How the speech went over at RedState:
Just for fun (boy am I twisted) I thought I'd see what our conservative bretheren of the blog thought about Barack's speech. Here's what they have up so far today:
Erick wrote 4,881 words of Bull
. It has 5 comments.
Confederate Yankee wrote Wright is Wrong and so is Obama
. It has zero comments (way to go CY.)
Kevin Holtsberry(?) wrote Why I want to believe Obama-and why it would be foolish to do so
. It has 3 comments.
My real observation on all this? RedState has now become the Bear Stearns
of the rightwing internet.
well now
there is also this
with 124 comments :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Are you trying to say that your site
is therefore worse than Bear Stearns?
jesus, I can't make you happy no matter what.
hehe
it's just redstate is not that bad :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Here's a "double standard"
Here's a "double standard" question I haven't seen raised. Why is it that Obama simply "rejected and denounced" not only statements by Farrakhan, but rejected and denounced the man himself, and offered no excuses or pleas for understanding, nor cited his positive contributions to the black community as something to be weighed against HIS outrageous statements, yet has done the opposite of each for Wright? Is it because Farrakhan showed bigotry and hatred not only toward whites, but also toward Jews and the Jewish religion, whereas Wright's statements (as far as I know) attacked only whites? Is it because there are more Christian black voters than voters who belong to the Nation of Islam? Why? And why haven't I seen this question asked in the media, let alone asked of Obama by the media?
Because he knows Wright and not Farrakhan
I don't mind a man speaking up for a friend who has done wrong but has also done good. I would think badly of a man who threw a longtime friend under the bus for his own personal gain. Obama owes Wright something that he does not owe Farrakhan. Let Farrakhan's own friends speak to his good side.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
So it is appropriate to
So it is appropriate to categorically "reject and denounce" a person who isn't a friend but to ask for understanding and point out compensating goodness for another person who has done the same/similar things (good and bad) but is a friend? How is that fair to the former?
Waste of time
One would think that the compensating goodness is more readily obvious when the person is a friend. Do you honestly expect all politicians to develop nuanced speeches about everyone who has ever said anything bad? I'd hope they have more important things to focus on.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Your argument (one I thought
Your argument (one I thought someone was likely to make) rests largely on the assumption that the friend's compensating goodness is known to the speaker and the non-friend's is not. I do not believe that Obama is unaware that (to the best of my knowledge) Farrakhan has positively influenced the lives of those in his community in some ways (e.g., economic self-reliance; being a responsible father). So, with this knowledge, why is it fair, appropriate and decent to categorically, purely "reject and denounce" the non-friend as a PERSON (not just his statements) while asking for understanding and touting the compensating goodness of the friend, who has done essentially the same things, good & bad?
Not really.
No, my argument is primarily contained in the title and second sentence of my post, not the first sentence, to which you have replied. If you think Obama should defend Farrakhan's goodness, then you must also expect every politician to defend each and every person that endorses them. Ron Paul must defend the 9/11 truthers, McCain must defend Hagee, Bush must defend Falwell, and so on, ad infinitum. Do you really think all that is necessary? Productive? If so, why are you only bringing it up now concerning Obama?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You're conveniently ignoring
You're conveniently ignoring my point and erected a straw man of sorts via non-sequitur. Obama categorically, emphatically, purely "rejected and denounced" A PERSON, not just that person's objectionable statements, yet for another person -- who, I would argue, has committed similar good & bad deeds -- he rejects the statements while asking for understanding and citing compensating goodness. Why the huge double standard? If one thinks it appropriate to reject statements rather than the person, and to ask people for understanding and to note compensating goodness, why is this appropriate only for a friend, while a non-friend is subjected to condemnation?
This all seems rather pointless
Politicians and non-politicians reject and denounce people all the time for their views. The fact that Obama went the extra mile for a friend, to try to explain why he is a friend, is not in the least bit surprising. If you want to call this a "double standard" then fine. But it is a double standard shared by all of humanity.
And anyway, what exact quote are you referring to where Obama rejected and renounced Farrakhan as a person? I've heard him reject his statements and positions.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Obama at Cleveland debate:
Obama at Cleveland debate: "I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?_r=1&pa...
And no, politicians don't "denounce people all the time" as OPPOSED to their views. And again, I think fairness and decency call for a very public person to either denounce both as persons, or denounce only the statements in both cases, or explain why each deserves different treatment, or simply say that one won't denounce the friend as a person (despite his having committed the same bad and good stuff) simply because he's a friend and leave it at that (rather than asking for understanding of his perspective and noting his compensating goodness). Otherwise, it is simply either grossly unfair to the non-friend or inappropriately favorable to the friend.
Maybe you can make a list of names
for us.
Folks that you think should be denounced and rejected so that no one is treated unfairly.
I'm only half stupid
Meh
Semantics. He initially said "You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable
and reprehensible."
Which should have been good enough. It was only after Russert kept pressing the issue that the next quote comes in. And if you really want to argue the semantics of a single word uttered on the spot in a debate, and whether or not this means he is denouncing him as a PERSON, just to make some silly (in my view, sorry) point about fairness, then you can continue on without me.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
With the nation watching,
With the nation watching, there's more than just semantical difference between "I have been very clear in my denunciations of his past statements" and "I have been very clear in my denunciations OF HIM and his past statements" (emphasis added). Big difference. If you want to brush that off as just semantics, well I think THAT is silly.
I side with those who think this is semantics
I think youd have a strong point, B Rational, if Obama was constantly hammering Farrakhan on the campaign trail and using those denunciations to try to score political points in his campaign. But that's not what happened-- Obama was asked about Farrakhan, and, in the context of one off the cuff response to a question, said that he denounced the man. In that context, I would say that there's really not much of a distinction between that and denouncing past statements of the man-- it was a dununciation of the man in name only, and the only ones who maybe should not be satisfied are those who think his statement on Farrakhan was not strong enough. I do not believe that this is an example of significant hypocrisy on Obama's part, and if he was asked about this, I think he could easily clarify his views on Farrakhan with respect to the Wright issue.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Obama, a well-spoken person
Obama, a well-spoken person who I think chooses his words more carefully than most even in his profession, said he had been clear about his denunciation of "him and" his statements. Why say "him and" if you just mean his statements? I think it's a significant distinction, and no accident.
Re: "if he was asked about this, I think he could easily clarify his views on Farrakhan with respect to the Wright issue."
And what do you think he'd say if presented with that quote and asked if he meant to denounce Farrakhan or just his statements?
It is no whether it is known or not
it is the personal investment one makes in a 'friend.' Usually our concerns work in a way that dissipate as we get further away from those we are emotionally connected to in a concentric way (maybe something lost on those who claim only to be 'rational' since it is an inherent 'emotion' of humanity). Since we experience their joys and are empathetic when they suffer, we feel an emotional connection to them that we don't with strangers (the fact that I have to explain this is ridiculous).
For example, I care about my immediate family first (mother, father, sister, brother, wife, and kids). Then my cares reach out to my extended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, etc.) and friends (perhaps moved up in the scale depending on how close they are). Then my neighbors, then city, state, nation (flexible in the scale also), world, solar system, galaxy, universe . . .*
Perhaps we will reach a day when we care about everyone the same (something to strive for), but I don't think that is a reality at the moment.
The fact that you want him to renounce (or ask for understanding of) a stranger at the same level of a friend is absurd and not a double-standard in the least. It has nothing to do with knowledge of the goodness of the person so much as emotional attachment. It would be silly for Obama to throw his friend under the bus for political convenience as it would ring false and inauthentic.
If you ask me, this whole issue is overblown. Obama did not say anything himself advocating those beliefs, and he answered the critics in his speech. Race issues are complex, and no speech is bound to satisfy all of the problems and concerns, but I think Obama made a lot of headway in addressing the broad issues (race relations in this country in general--even hitting on white resentment and black anger which is a rarity to hear in the same speech) and the localized issues pertaining to his relationship with his pastor. If that did not satisfy you, then perhaps there are other reasons you dislike him (which is fine), but making this issue pivotal to paint him (Obama) as a racist as some are trying to do is a stretch.
*Edit: I suppose I should throw the 'helpless' or 'innocent' in there for some of us also.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Boy, where do I start? Re:
Boy, where do I start?
Re: "Since we experience their joys and are empathetic when they suffer, we feel an emotional connection to them that we don't with strangers (the fact that I have to explain this is ridiculous)."
No, the fact that you THINK you have to explain it, while missing my point, is ridiculous.
Re: "The fact that you want him to renounce (or ask for understanding of) a stranger at the same level of a friend is absurd and not a double-standard in the least. It has nothing to do with knowledge of the goodness of the person so much as emotional attachment."
First, you mean "denounce", not "renounce". And yes, it is indeed a double standard as I've explained clearly. What you are talking about is WHY people sometimes apply double standards despite the unfairness.
Re: "It would be silly for Obama to throw his friend under the bus for political convenience as it would ring false and inauthentic."
I'm not suggesting he do one or the other, just that he should not "denounce" one AS A PERSON and not the other unless he believes one is more deserving of denunciation, or unless he wants to say "I'm friends with this person, so I'm not going to denounce him as a person" and leave it at that, without seeking understanding for his perspective and talking up his compensating goodness, something he didn't do for the non-friend who was simply denounced.
Re: "If that did not satisfy you, then perhaps there are other reasons you dislike him"
Who said I dislike him? I think he's inexperienced and I disagree with him on economics and Iraq, but I like him as a person relative to other politicians (he seems less phony, more contemplative, and interested in both/all sides of issues).
Re: "making this issue pivotal to paint him (Obama) as a racist as some are trying to do is a stretch."
Perhaps "some" are trying to do that, but I am certainly not trying to paint Obama as a racist and I do not think the matter should be "pivotal" or even deserves much more attention at all.
No, I mean 'renounce' his friendship
as in to disown or reject
since I am framing it in terms of 'friendship' and not 'comments.' We are misunderstanding each others' frames here which results in confusion of definitions. I understand 'denounce' to refer to 'condemning' as one would with comments and 'renounce' as in 'reject' as one would with friendships/relationships.
Again, if you do not understand the difference between friends and strangers, then we have fundamental differences in our understanding of human relationships. It is the same motivation that drives a mother of a convicted serial killer to appeal for clemency. Would you call the same lady a hypocrite for not attending every murderers' sentencing?
I also do not buy into your initial frame that Farrakhan's statements and Wright's are equivalent. One regularly preaches black supremacy and segregation while the other (clumsily admittedly) attempts to address racial inequality in our nation and world. I saw a video last night (can't find it on you-tube at the moment) which had him preaching that we are one people, the human species, not separate races which is much different than the 30 second sound bites we've seen on the news. I am not excusing his more inflammatory remarks, but you must see the logical problems here:
1. Wright is a blatant racist/un-American (hard to prove even from the statements given, but an understandable interpretation)
2. This racism is on the same level as Farrakhan. Harder to prove, which leads to a false analogy fallacy.
3. Obama is a hypocrite if he does not make the connection in #2, and then does not 'renounce' his friendship (he already 'denounced' the comments) in due course (I think is your point)--Even a further stretch. Purely an ad hominem by association nevertheless.
4. Human relationships do not come into consideration when renunciation of an individual come into play. (We really disagree here).
Edited to take out some unnecessary jabs. Sorry for my tone. I appreciate your participation here. :-)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
My edits
don't show up as new comments, so I just wanted to bring my edits to attention with a new comment here. Sorry again, B Rational.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
No need for me to purchase a
No need for me to purchase a dictionary, but you might want to pay attention to what you wrote. You wrote: "you want him to renounce (or ask for understanding of) a stranger at the same level of a friend". How does one "renounce" a stranger? One can, however, denounce a stranger or a friend. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denounce
Re: "It is the same motivation that drives a mother of a convicted serial killer to appeal for clemency. Would you call the same lady a hypocrite for not attending every murderers' sentencing?"
I would not expect that mother to then emphatically call for a death sentence for another murderer whose case is essentially the same and who she knows to be just as good and bad as her son, with no mention of the other murderer's bad environment, good deeds, etc., things she argued for her son. If she did apply such a double standard, would not the mother of the other murderer rightly feel that the first mother was applying a terribly unfair double standard?
Re: your points re: Wright vs. Farrakhan, I am an expert on neither. I only know what I've heard over the years from Farrakhan (including interviews, and listing to the entire Million Man March speech, in which he said some good things), and the recent videos of Write, and I see rough equivalency in terms of anti-Americanism and anti-white bigotry and suspicion. I'm open to correction, but in any case I think we have a separate philisophical disageement on what is appropriate if, just arguendo, the two men and their statements are equivalent.
Re: your #4, "Human relationships do not come into consideration when renunciation of an individual come into play. (We really disagree here)."
Obviously human relationships affect what people DO, but I'm focusing on what is RIGHT, what is fair and decent and appropriate, what people SHOULD do or not do, particularly with the whole nation watching.
Re: "Edited to take out some unnecessary jabs. Sorry for my tone. I appreciate your participation here. :-)"
no problem. Same here :-)
That's my point
One can't renounce a stranger, but can denounce the comments (nor can one denounce a stranger, only their comments). That what was done, wasn't it. (My whole point--we seem to agree here.)
Ok, gotta run. Off to the mountains.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
See the definition for
See the definition for "denounce" at my link. One CAN denounce a person, whether a stranger or friend. One cannot, however, renounce a stranger, as you implied in your initial statement (you said "renounce a stranger"). So only "denounce" could have applied to stranger, and to both stranger and friend. Hence, your use of "renounce" was incorrect.
"Off to the mountains" ?! No friggin' fair. I gotta walk around in drizzly Manhattan. Only mountains we have here are high-rises. Not nearly as much fun. This is unfair. I denounce you : p
Nobody cares what is fair....
Fairness is an illusion.
What most people care about is exploiting whatever they decide is fair to their advantage.
I believe the question asked, and the challenge is will we ever get beyond this duplicitious rationale that everything that is not white is black.
It is this fairness doctrine that insists that windsurfing is somehow a crime. We must all reject windsurfing, because it is unpatriotic and divisive.
I'm only half stupid
It's a double standard that I can live with
I'm comfortable with politicians showing loyalty to their friends that they don't extend to strangers, as long as such loyalty doesn't corrupt their ethical standards. I think that's how people generally work, and I think there are elements of strength to the (conservative?) argument that you take care of those closest to you before you worry about everyone else.
If a friend of Farrakhan wants to try to put his remarks in context that's fine. Maybe Obama "should have" but given their non-relationship I don't fault him for simply noting the disagreement and moving on. I also have the impression that Farrakhan has made remarks that are more controversial than are Wright's, but I'd have to go back and check if that's accurate or not.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Re: "I don't fault him for
Re: "I don't fault him for simply noting the disagreement and moving on"
But he didn't just note disagreement or just denounce Farrakhan's statements, he denounced the man, and I believe he did so knowing that Farrakhan probably has a historical/life perspective of injustice that is comparable to Wright's, which Obama asks us to understand as context for Wright's statements, and knowing that Farrakhan has (or may have) done comparable good for his community. Yet Obama denounces one man -- again, the person -- categorically, with no qualifiers, while suggesting all that perspective for his friend.
Obama's
nomination is over, done cooked, dead.
I was naive. I hoped. I should have known better.
Obviously the Wright issue will never go away. No answer Obama can give will ever erase the tape and I fully expect the right to never shut up about it. Congratulations.
I'm only half stupid
Nonsense!
He's fine. His thoughtful speech should play well with uncommitted moderates. The general election will turn on more substantial issues.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Really?
LOL. We'll see.
:)
I see this as an American nightmare.
It is so ridiculous and off point and irrelevant...... but that's the discourse.
It's like trying to resolve the Israeli Palestinian conflict. One person, in the mind of the Israeli's, has the capacity with one act or word to derail peace and reconciliation. :) Reconciliation is a dirty word.
I'm only half stupid
You must remember, MissL
As fun as it may be at times, politics truly sucks and brings out the worst and most irrational in human nature in that it gets people to believe or take note of things in others that would never matter or amount to anything relevant in private life and associations. And why? for power over and fear of others.
Remember Thomas Paine:
""Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil.""
Thanks!
Although being an idealist, I always think things could be better.
I am a sap for 'In order to form a more perfect union' and the appeal to the better angels of ones nature.
Yet the cynics won't hear of it. It drives me nuts sometimes this 'you aren't a patriot' jargon.
I'm only half stupid
that's all fine and good
but just remember that the best of life happens independent of government.
not to be dark or gloomy but
if a bomb blew off in the capitol next feburary during the SOTU and everyone died, life would go on and then you'd see what Americans are capable of in helping eachother and cooperating. Remember Paine's words.
"THEY BLEW UP CONGRESS! HA
"THEY BLEW UP CONGRESS! HA HA HA HA!"
Obama had the correct attitude
Whether this crisis is contrived or not, Obama correctly recognized it as an opportunity to further define himself with that really sparkling speech he made yesterday. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, they say :-) If that's how he handles this type of issue every time, you have nothing to worry about.
Look at the polls in Pennsylvania and nationwide-- Obama's holding up just fine through this, even before yesterday's speech, which I think was good enough to win over a few people.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I agree. And the speech
I agree. And the speech doesn't have to be Obama's last words on the subject even if/when it comes up in the general. He can reiterate his denunciation of those statements by Wright. My suggested lines: "Those statements are deeply offensive to ME as an AMERICAN." "I find those remarks absolutely disgusting." Yes, people will ask why he chose that church and why he was so close to a guy like that, but he can talk his way through that as he has so far and explain more clearly what attracted him to that church and to Wright. I don't think that McCain or supporters of McCain will win many votes or boost turnout significantly by trying to get people to connect Obama to Wright's statements or general views. Obama's positioning (image) as transcending that stuff is too strong.
The only way he can win
is of hoards and scads of young voters turn out. I hope he challenges them to do so.
This is Swiftboating. It is unequal treatment by the media..... who can't stop playing the hate, where instead of saying Obama is black, they can say he hates the country.
My over-reactive point is to BRational. The ONLY reason he wants to discuss this along with scads of other righties is to take Obama down.
I'm only half stupid
But he's not like the scads of righties
you're worried about =)
Really, I know we have our lively disagreements here but SC is a haven of decorum compared to the food fights in some other corners of the internet. Also, some of the sharpest criticism of Obama is coming from the left these days, although that may change if he wins the primary.
The media sucks, I agree... but Obama is good at using them to his advantage. His campaign has a solid understanding of how to market his image, I would say.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
That's what I get for
listening to Joe Scarboro in the morning. It bugs the living hell of out me, that not two seconds after Obama's speech, they were berating him.
Folks are entrenched in their thinking, and those that claim that they can't see 'black' seem to be the ones screaming the loudest....... look how black he is.
Anywho, thanks for the pep talk. I was grumpy from the vast array of cynicism by some in the media.
I'm only half stupid
He is still more likely than
He is still more likely than not to win the nomination. He'll have a substantial pledged delegate lead, and the superdelegates probably won't want to hurt the party (and themselves) by overturning the "winner" and losing blacks and young voters.
Oh, and I think the speech
Oh, and I think the speech itself and the (mostly positive) commentary on it will be seen as very impressive by most primary voters.
Ok
I'm still fine with politicians showing more loyalty to their friends than to strangers.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Sure, that's not terrible in
Sure, that's not terrible in general. I just think when a major public figure, one who wants to be and could very well be our next president, with much of the nation watching, decides whether to denounce A PERSON or alternatively to explicitly decline to do so and, while denouncing the statements, to ask us to understand that person's perspective and the compensating good he has done, he owes it to the person in question, to those who have been rightly offended, and to the voters, to apply some kind of reasonably consistent standard in that choice. That's my point.
Just watched Obama's speech thru in its entirety
I hadn't gotten a chance to see it while I was working today.
Thoughts:
The man can hold a room, there is no doubt about that. No applause breaks until 16 minutes into the speech. I've spoken from time to time how high a value I place on image in evaluating a presidential candidate. Well, suffice it to say that Barack passes my image tests. He can "sell" what he's shoveling with the best of them, and I mean that in the most positive way possible.
I read a lot of talk in comments here about "honesty" and whether Barack Obama was honest today, but who really believes that complete honesty is what it's going to take for the next president to be effective politically? When has complete honesty ever been the key to being successful at much of anything in politics, for that matter? If you want to see the honest folks running for president, watch the Third Party debate when it rolls around-- it's always worthwhile to watch. You'll see the Libertarian guy and the Constitution guy and the Green guy and the Socialist guy and they're all much more honest that the Republican and the Democrat as far as being true to their own beliefs. They're actually very impressive usually, very thoughtful.
But honesty is not what makes a master politician. Honesty is easy; just say what you think you know at all times. You'll quickly find out that people don't really care what you think you know if it doesn't match what they think they know. It takes great sales skills, not honesty, to be successful at the highest level of politics. The honest person tells you you're fat, which you are, but it makes you feel so bad you go get a banana split. The master salesman sells you on imagery of a new thin you in a world come alive in brilliant colors, which makes you feel hopeful, and you go work out. Great sales skills are very rare. For someone to truly sell you something, they usually must be way smarter than you.
That was a great speech today. Barack Obama sold me on his poise and his timing and his delivery and his image today. He's a winner. Hillary can't touch him on image. He's in my ballpark politically, which I already knew. Honesty? He's honest enough, I think, or maybe I'm fooled-- the master salesman is the master of illusion...
Oh, and on a totally other subject, Obama totally ripped off my material on the black/white wealth gap at minute 17-18, but that's okay, plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!