home

Obama's Speech

Here's the text of Barack Obama's speech on Rev. Jeremiah Wright and race.

Our last thread is filled. Here'a a new one for more of your thoughts.

Update: I only caught the last 5 minutes live and will wait until the re-run to write more. I will say I was impressed by his calmness and his tone. I was expecting a sermon, and the portion I heard was not.

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux says there were teleprompter problems for a while.

Update: I just watched the clip of him saying say he would not renounce Rev. Wright, and I thought he did that well. Here's the quotes:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

....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 - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Politically, he had to defend Rev. Wright or he would have lost a chunk of his African-American base. I think his liberal base will be more than satisfied. I suspect the only people who won't be persuaded are those that wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

Update: Comments at 250, this thread is closing. A new and final thread on Obama's speech is here.

< Late Night: Under Pressure | Final Thread: Obama's Speech >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Where was this speech... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kredwyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    ages ago?

    JUST WORDS........... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:27:42 AM EST
    We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
    We can do that.

    But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

    Wasn't he and his camping the ones to pounce on the so called Hillary's gaffe.!!!

    While he gives his speach ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:32:08 AM EST

    Obama camp: HRC is taking the low road
    "They would do anything to win, and that means anything," David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, told me Monday. "There is a frenetic energy around them to commandeer this election in any way they can."


    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:38:42 AM EST
    Instead of" we can" it should be "we did". Seems like he doesn't want distractions used against him but he sure likes to use them against her.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeh, his minister is a "distraction"? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    So putting the Word of Obama ahead of the Word of God is how that came out, rather muddled.

    Or is it the Word of Deval Patrick?  Watch for it.:-)

    [ Parent ]

    I read the text (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:30:26 AM EST
    but haven't watched the speech.

    I think that, overall, it's about as good as could have been expected, at least within the context of the Unity Shtick, to which Obama is wedded.

    I doubt it will be enough, though it's possible that the adoring media might carry him the rest of the way. We had all better hope that it does, frankly.

    CNN, Wolfie, GloryBe Borger, et al. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    are just gushy about the speech.  So is an AA guy on staff -- "terrific, terrific, terrific" is not objectivity being practiced for the American public.

    I had to switch to Fox, once again, to try to find something fair and balanced.  I keep thinking I have awakened into some sci-fi parallel universe where everything is reversed. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    no kidding (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:49:32 AM EST
    all that was also completely predictable.
    as is the fact that this story will lede every Fox show today, and tomorrow and etc.
    Wolfie and Gloria Borger are not the people he needed to win over.

    [ Parent ]
    Here comes (none / 0) (#167)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:05:54 AM EST
    Donna Brazile.  Obama brought the issues all together (terrorism, economy, etc).

    [ Parent ]
    Expectations are the key to happiness (none / 0) (#116)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:51:33 AM EST
    The sooner you learn to expect the media to disappoint you beyond your wildest imagination, the faster you will find your path to happiness.

    Sit back, relax, and enjoy the Twilight Zone. The media is corrupt and will remain corrupt.  There is not much hope for our so-called Democracy under this dynamic.

    [ Parent ]

    How could it be as good as expected? (3.50 / 2) (#19)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:31:43 AM EST
    When he failed to disavow Jeremiah Wright in his speech?

    Furthermore he flip-floped on having heard the nasty stuff from the pews:

    "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

    [ Parent ]

    He has asserted (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:35:54 AM EST
    that he can't throw Wright under the bus. That will hurt him, but this speech, as written, ameliorates the problem.

    I'd say this speech will be good enough for older white liberals, which means that it will be just enough to send Obama into the buzz saw of the general election.

    [ Parent ]

    Buzz saw (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:41:12 AM EST
    that's awesome!  Yes, sadly the speech will be used against him in parts by the R's.  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama long way away from nomination (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:42:52 AM EST
    At least he'll always have "the Math"

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:38:23 AM EST
    I dont think this is going away.
    this is what the supers were conceived for.

    [ Parent ]
    We'll see (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:42:11 AM EST
    I think he's patched just enough holes with this.

    Axelrod is pretty good at these things, and he knows just how to deal with racial politics.

    [ Parent ]

    I Think He Has Patched Up Enough Holes (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:59:33 AM EST
    to get him the nomination. I, also, think that this issue will not go away and other related videos etc will suddenly be discovered once he is the Democratic candidate.

    Actually had he left out any "Hillary Is Just As Bad If Not Worse" references he might have actually garnered more base support for the GE. The speech was pretty impressive and that IMO was counter productive.

    [ Parent ]

    Dealing with racial politics (none / 0) (#70)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:43:23 AM EST
    Yep, I guess you could call it that.

    [ Parent ]
    You've jumped on the BTD-mobile? (none / 0) (#57)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:40:43 AM EST
    That Obama is already the nominee and we are no longer waiting for the results in Pennsylvania?

    Ok then I expect there should also be no more discussions on the Florida or Michigan situation because it doesn't matter anymore.  Hillary will be announcing her departure tommorrow to satisfy.

    [ Parent ]

    Look, I vote in PA (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:43:44 AM EST
    but frankly I think the only thing that will save HIllary is if, in PA, she breaks 65%. That's not about the delegates, that's about the racial politics narrative pushing the supers to her.

    [ Parent ]
    The only thing that will save Hillary, episode # (none / 0) (#102)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:48:45 AM EST
    She has to win New Hampshire.  Only thing that will save her.

    She has to win California.  Only thing that will save her.

    She has to win Ohio and Texas.  Only thing that will save her.

    Ok, so she has to win Pennsylvania with 65%.
    Only thing that will save her.

    Let's continue this story on April 23rd.

    [ Parent ]

    If she wins PA huge (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:51:42 AM EST
    and then goes on to win IN and NC with reasonable margins, I think she'll probably be the nominee. Otherwise, I just don't see it.

    And at this point, I think Obama is a terrible candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    Clearly Hillary is the superior candidate (1.00 / 1) (#136)
    by learningcurve on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:56:23 AM EST
    The super delegates should decide this thing. Primaries suck, voters shouldn't select the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    pretty transparent trolling (none / 0) (#192)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:12:33 AM EST
    good try though.

    [ Parent ]
    I sincerely hope that's sarcasm n/t (none / 0) (#223)
    by independent voter on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:21:34 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Actually, that last line rang quite true for me... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by sweetthings on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:37:02 AM EST
    But then, I'm a Democratic American Catholic. Perhaps not very representative of America as a whole.

    [ Parent ]
    it's still a flip flop from earlier position (4.00 / 3) (#48)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:39:34 AM EST
    He basically lied quite a bit throughout his interviews on Friday.  It is indisuptable.  The media won't call him on it though, except for FOX.

    [ Parent ]
    He DID disavow Wright (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ItsGreg on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:42:51 AM EST
    But he also acknowledged that there's a LOT of race-based anger out there, on the part of white folks and black folks alike.

    How many of us have, when we hear about the US using torture or the Bush administration dismantling the Constitution haven't damned our own country. How can we look at the US health care system and not damn our government? We don't do it because we hate America; we do it because we love it.

    I think the best part of the speech involved the acknowledgment that anger is out there and the only way we can ever begin to deal with it is to admit that it exists.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking for myself (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:56:07 AM EST
    I d*mn Bush, but I do not d*mn the United States of America as a whole.  It's what Europeans give us crap for all the time: when someone bashes America, America takes it personally.  This is one of our greatest strengths, that we, for the most part, feel a deeply personal connection to the ground beneath our feet.

    And you know what?  None of the whites I know had race-based anger until the Clintons got smeared in SC and Ferraro was set upon like jackals on a limping antelope.  Now, we feel blindsided, and when clips from Wright show up, it is shocking and very, very hurtful.

    This sort of talk is doing more damage than anyone realizes.

    [ Parent ]

    FIne (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:08:46 AM EST
    WHat does that have to do with Obama. And BTW- damning white america, as much as you may think it is, is not damning all of america.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's look at the words, "just words": (none / 0) (#90)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:46:11 AM EST
    "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 - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

    These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

    Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork."


    [ Parent ]

    All the pundits on CNN are fawning. (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:44:48 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Of course they are (none / 0) (#101)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:48:44 AM EST
    BTD's Obama theory comes through again.

    [ Parent ]
    And they aren't showing (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:52:02 AM EST
    the clips of Wright.  

    [ Parent ]
    Turn on MSNBC (none / 0) (#140)
    by learningcurve on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:57:33 AM EST
    Pat Buchanan isn't falling for this One Amreica crap, he's keeping the hate alive.

    [ Parent ]
    Why do I hate it... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by smott on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    When his response to his own campaign blunder is to talk about racism?

    Conflating Ferraro and Wright made me laugh out loud.

    Not "funny" laugh, but "cynical give me a f-ckin' break" kinda laugh.

    Y'know?

    I know. After 8 years of not being able (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:49:20 AM EST
    to believe a single d**n thing said to us, I really can't take 4 or more years of it.  But I already had to see, from so many previous things said, that Obama lies quite easily and oh-so-sincerely.  Ugh.

    [ Parent ]
    The reason he brings up Ferraro is that he (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM EST
    hopes the Clinton camp will respond, so that he can draw them into the fight and make it look like she is pushing the Wright story. I hope the Clinton people don't fall for it.

    Even if this speech were to stop the story today, it will come back up and beat the heck out of him in the GE. There's no way to douse this issue.

    excellent point (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:04:43 AM EST
    I think you've got something there. The whole speech was really to say my guy is no better than her gal, now the ball is in your court Hillary, I dare you to respond... please, please, please...

    [ Parent ]
    Well that "dog (none / 0) (#207)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:18:02 AM EST
    don't hunt" in the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    It is also (none / 0) (#222)
    by BernieO on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:21:00 AM EST
    to play the victim card. His campaign has consistently whined about being treated badly by big bad Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Will the media give coverage to Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    Next time Clinton decides to give a major speech or policy address, will the media give her equal time to speak uninterrupted to a national audience?

    Wait for it....

    wait for it...

    and keep waiting for it because it's never gonna happen.

    if she was in doodoo (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:39:49 AM EST
    this deep they would.
    trust me.

    [ Parent ]
    Has Hillary ever had a complete speech carried (none / 0) (#67)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:42:50 AM EST
    on any of the cables?

    [ Parent ]
    I couldnt say (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:45:01 AM EST
    Im just sayin that if Hillary was in this position giving THIS speech, they would air it.


    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. I hope she announces (none / 0) (#72)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:43:31 AM EST
    a major policy speech on gender issues. Seems fair and I'd love to hear it. And she could use lots of flags so she already looks like the Prez like he always does. Though won't get coverage as you say.

    [ Parent ]
    That'd be a mistake (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:48:35 AM EST
    She and Obama would be compared primarily as orators. That's a comparison she doesn't want.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    Sally Quinn saying speech lays issues out and (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:40:02 AM EST
    now we can have the discussion.

    Also said it was  courageous of Obama to stick with Wright.

    Seemed Authentic.

    When the MCMers pronounce one "authentic" they are on his side.

    Quinn (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:56:06 AM EST
    Sally Quinn is a rabid Clinton hater.  Interesting that she suddenly appeared on the panel.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry if this is obnoxious (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:41:19 AM EST
    but since I posted the last coomment on the previous thread, I figured I'd repost it here. Please don't hate me.

    It was a very good speech, but no one ever accused Obama of not being able to deliver great speeches. The fact is, he dissembled and dodged when he had to address the issue off the cuff, but when he's had time to write some oratory on the issue and address a friendly crowd, now he's ready to go.

    His defense of Rev Wright was very nice, but how does it square with the "crazy uncle" comments? Likewise, he goes from "I wasn't at church that day" to "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

    I realize that his supporters will eat this up, because many of them have demonstrated a willingness to go with style over substance. I can only imagine how many blog postings we'll see about the tears that were shed while listening to the speech.

    His talk about the issues around race were very well put. But it's interesting that he has waited until this late in the campaign to address the issue in depth. I understand why: he has been doing everything he can to avoid talk of race, because it doesn't help him in the election. But to my mind, that only underscores the difficulty he faces from these remarks, and the problerm isn't going to go away.

    I have no doubt that Olbermann and Matthews will be wetting themsleves over this speech. Unfortunately, this isn't one of those things that can be dismissed at the whim of the media.

    I just went to TPM for a minute to look at the text, and it reminded me why I hate moments like this. Reading the weepy comments of his followers is stomach turning. He's being given credit for saying things people don't want to hear, as if he's speaking truth to power. The fact is, he gave this speech today because he needed to quell a potential political disaster, not because he woke up and decided that America needed to hear a message of hope and reconciliation, and the consequences be damned. He's trying to save his political career.

    What a lot (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Andy08 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:43:36 AM EST
    of words.... some nicely written by his speech writer (historical context, etc etc). Some other ones, very calculating and clearly supervised by Axelrod... Teleprompters: what a great technology.

    The Obama Rules (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:43:38 AM EST
    While I disagree with Wright, I am not the least bit offended, respect his right to voice his opinions, and believe that it is important to have some "fringe" opinions in a healthy democracy. Nor am I personally concerned about Obama's association with this man.

    Here is my problem. Obama's willingness to overlook the more unsavory elements of those close to him while calling out others for engaging in "old politics" certainly suggests that the necessity of a "new politics" is strongly predicated on Obama's degrees-of-separation from said individual. Those close to Obama have the benefit of nuance while others do not.  If convenient, the use of old politics can be justified, which is an attitude suspiciously similar to the "old politics" with which we are all familiar. Central to this old politics is application of one set of rules for those that are with us and another set of rules for those against us, which is far from the united and transcendent campaign Obama purports to run.


    Inspirational, absolutely! (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by nashville on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:43:54 AM EST
    I also remember crying during his announcement speech in Springfield. Unfortunately I am now of the opinion about him, "words just words."  

    I won't bore you with my description of who I supported and when...Obama, tepid :), Edwards, Clinton. However, when became apparent to me that this politician who proclaimed to be a "different kind of politician" was exactly the same as all other pliticians, he lost my support.  Then when he and his campaign 1)played the race card against the Clintons, of all people, and 2) did not defend Clinton against scurilous media attacks,he lost my respect.

    Beautiful speeches are one thing, but let's see some actions to go along with the words.  The problems with actions is that they are politically risky and right now he is just running out the clock.  

    Well. (2.00 / 4) (#88)
    by DodgeIND on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    It looks like the Clinton campaign's message worked on you.

    [ Parent ]
    And (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:48:36 AM EST
    for those who support Sen. Obama, the Obama campaign's message worked on them. What's your point? Isn't that the purpose of campaigns? To pursuade people and gather votes?

    [ Parent ]
    Sure. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by DodgeIND on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:51:08 AM EST
    I agree and disagree with Obama statements.  But I found it interesting that this person ticked off every single major point against Obama that Clinton's campaign gave off.  Especially being an Obama supporter prior.

    [ Parent ]
    S/he was just being thorough (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:52:53 AM EST
    :-)

    [ Parent ]
    We low information voters (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:12:31 AM EST
    are particularly susceptible to adoption of campaign rhetoric.  

    [ Parent ]
    Or (none / 0) (#113)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:50:49 AM EST
    People make up their own minds, not all people agree, and different people see different things. Not all of us assume we have a corner on truth and reality.

    [ Parent ]
    FYI (none / 0) (#120)
    by nashville on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:52:24 AM EST
    I tend not to fall for campaign messages.  I tend not to be swayed by salesmen and I make up my own mind about issues :)  If my conclusion happens to match a particular campaign then guess what...a match is made!

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by KevinMc on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    I'm not impressed.  I thought he said everything that anyone could have predicted he would say.  The media of course is saying "how great the speech is" but Average Joe White Guy in rural Pennsylvania is saying "He defended Wright?"  I'm sorry but to win the General Election he would have to seperate himself from Reverand Wright and he didn't do that.  There is no way he beats McCain.

    Maybe, I should have ran out to Starbucks and had a latte before the speech?  

    He didn't menion sexism, right? (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by NJDem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:46:58 AM EST
    Unless I missed it.  That really bothers me--it's one of the reasons I found Wright's rant about HRC so unnerving!  

    Guess You Missed It (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:04:31 AM EST
    He did.

    [ Parent ]
    Speeches used to define narrative (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:49:06 AM EST
    Obama's campaign uses the contrived art of speech writing to define the narrative.  They package the story in a tidy well structured package and they want you to buy the package.  The candidate himself, when he says something, like from the interviews, does not close the story, does not make it.  It has to be done with the marketing team, the speech writers and the pollsters.  To me it's like football.  All the gear, all the coaching all the equipment, all the strategy.  Baseball, you either hit the ball or you don't.  I prefer baseball, you are there, with the pitcher and your bat.  

    I still don't find the man's soul and that scares me.  Frankly, I retract my position that I will vote for him anyway.  I can't.  Being in Calfiornia, it will not matter according to him.

    Read the speech in as open-minded (5.00 / 1) (#268)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:35:24 AM EST
    a fashion as I could.  All by itself, it's not bad, but placing it in the context of the campaign, which I think you have to do, it loses something.  Well, for me, anyway - I think we can expect that people like Chris Matthews and his ilk may have to be calling their doctors about the erections that are lasting for more than 4 hours, but they probably have a speed-dial for that.

    Anyway...I think he tries - once again - to make any tensions about race the fault of others, and seems to once again place himself above the fray, but that ends up painting himself into another corner, doesn't it?  How do you have unity without discussion?  How do you have change if people have to flyspeck every word that comes out of their mouths lest something be considered racially charged?  And how do you reconcile expecting others to watch what they say while excusing the comments of someone like Wright?  And how do you reconcile that with the Harvard-educated man from Chicago adopting a southern accent and speaking in code to predominantly black audiences?  These are the kinds of things that build racial tension - not ameliorate it.

    The Obama campaign made a concerted effort to consign all others to silence, leaving him and his campaign as the sole arbiters of what was offensive and coded and what was not.  Obama has become "the black candidate" because he has set himself up as the only one who has any authority to speak to the black community - and in becoming "the black candidate" he has failed to unite, failed to change, failed to heal - and yet in his remarks today, I got a sense that he doesn't see it that way at all.  No, it's everyone else's fault for not doing their part.

    What he has consistently failed to see is that the problems we face today are less racial than they are economic - I think John Edwards understood this, and I think Hillary understands it.  I still do not know who Obama is, and I'm beginning to think that he doesn't either.


    [ Parent ]

    He did say he's an imperfect candidate. (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:54:57 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I guess I am (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:06:55 AM EST
    the imperfect Democratic voter.  

    [ Parent ]
    The point (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:50:53 AM EST
    is he is trying to establish he can win without repudiating the man,  that he thinks it would be wrong to repudiate the man because of bad things the man said and that he believes that the bad things someone says should not blind us to to either the truth of other things the man says or what motivates him to say the bad things. The promise is to apply  the same ethos to his entire approach.

      Whether or not it succeeds on those terms remains to be seen. He might be wrong about the nation being willing to engage on that level.

    The only thing. (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Arbitrarity on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:52:35 AM EST
    That would have made a number of people in this thread happy was if it was a concession speech.

    He addressed Wright, and race, and history, and present.  Not good enough for most of you, I understand.  Much as he is not good enough for you.    

    But he's trying to bridge the gap.  He's trying to reach out.  If more of our politicians would do this, then I think we'd be in a very different place right now.

    Speaking for me only (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:57:57 AM EST
    I resent the statement that "he is not good enough for you." My issues are not with the person, but his campaign and candidacy. To me he is trying to have it both ways on a lot of issues. He is purposefully vague and is building almost a cult of personality and yet tells his followers it is about "them." He attacks and goes negative and accuses his opponent of doing it.

    To me some of the speech is good speechwriting. No questions there. But to me it reads like he is trying to have it both ways again.

    But the partisan opinions do not matter. We'll have to see how the non-partisans see it. I doubt any speech, no matter how brilliant, will erase the images of the Rev (and believe me there is no one right now I could imagine who could deliver the speech better than Sen Obama). But I concede I may very well be wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's the problem. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Arbitrarity on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:00:55 AM EST
    I don't know how many times I have to hear this, but many people choose him because they like his policy or his politics.  There are more to voters than 'the cult of personality.'  

    And until you can recognise this, I don't think it's fair to label millions upon millions of people who are voting for him because of a 'cult of personality.'

    Can we talk about the issues instead of blanket criticisms of supporters against each other?  It is possible for people to like him based upon more than his personality.

    [ Parent ]

    I apologize (none / 0) (#157)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:03:07 AM EST
    Let me clarify, I was NOT saying that is all he has going for him. I recognize and acknowledge his talents, brains, accomplishments, etc.

    I was only trying to list some of the stuff that is a deal breaker for me.

    Can you acknowledge that there is a portion of his supporters who are drawn into a cult of personality of an ideal? Who aren't really very aware of his history and accomplishments?

    [ Parent ]

    Of course. (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Arbitrarity on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:10:14 AM EST
    There are a number of people who only know charisma and charm.  As has been the case of every president.  

    I remember being a very young man and hearing my teacher talk about a Kennedy/Nixon debate.  She had listened to it on the radio, and thought that Nixon had trounced Kennedy.  But when she read the newspapers, and heard other people give their take, they all thought Kennedy had absolutely smoked Nixon.

    And it boils down to personality.  If policy was the only thing to define a president, I agree, Hillary Clinton would have won this primary long ago.  But she'd be coming on the heels of Al Gore, not of George Bush.  And Al Gore might not have been VP, because Bill Clinton may not have won.  

    I understand that a lot of voters are drawn to his personality rather than his policy.  But unfortunately historically, and fortunately for him, that's not the only thing that draws people to politics.  One of the biggest reasons I like him is because he can draw people into politics.  If they are drawn in by his personality, and get interested in the policy, then it's a victory of voters and for the democratic party.  

    However, the opposite almost never rings true.  People aren't attracted by policy.  People don't hear a soundbyte of a piece of policy that could help the US 13 years down the line with careful planning.  It's a sad state of American culture, I agree.  But to deny it and call it a bad thing that personality can be an additional draw to him as a candidate doesn't make sense to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Not saying that (none / 0) (#211)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:18:40 AM EST
    I don't think its a bad thing to have personality and to draw people in. Specially young people. That is great. But I have a lot of concern when people are drawn in and DO NOT pay any attention to what is behind the charisma. My personal example of this is with the current President. Remember "uniter, not a divider?" How many people bought that? Was it based on anything? No.

    I am not saying that is the case with Sen Obama (not equating the two people BY ANY MEANS). But I do not think he has the substance to back up the charisma. And I know this is MY opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sure you're going to disagree. (none / 0) (#240)
    by Arbitrarity on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    But I thought this speech delivered more substantively meaty than many speeches given on 'race' that I've heard.  

    I know the commenters on this site are going to speak more of failures than of successes, and more of attacks than of conciliations, but I wish that were not the case.

    Much as I wish places like Kos wouldn't use this speech to denounce Hillary as the inferior candidate because of the issues addressed in this speech.

    Mostly, I wish that so many people hadn't drawn their lines in the sand, and now refuse to vote for the other candidate no matter what.  Sadly, I think this thread is a good example of such.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree. (none / 0) (#125)
    by DodgeIND on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    Good way of putting it politely.

    [ Parent ]
    Some good (none / 0) (#156)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:03:03 AM EST
    some parts OK. No, I don't think this speech will make much of a difference in the primary.  This was a speech he had been working on for a while.  It would have had great effect if it was something he had given in his church a couple of years ago though.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah... (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:57:36 AM EST
    personally I do not like him.  I tried, but can't find the love and at this age, I trust my judgement.  I was against the war from the beginning, so that qualifies me as having judgement, therefore I use it.  

    Did he accomplish what he needed to? (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Chimster on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:03:29 AM EST
    He was passive-aggressive in his message, taking the high road while dropping little Ferraro bombs along the way. Fair enough. But for the audience that matters (not us), he admitted to being in the room when the Wright spoke divisively. That and his support of him is what he needed to separate himself from. I do not think he succeeded in doing that. I'm guessing folks in South Carolina were won over. Pennsylvania, not so much.

    I am a little mystified (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:05:18 AM EST
    as to what they THOUGHT this would accomplish.
    other than making the story have one more day of huge coverage.

    [ Parent ]
    It's getting him nonstop coverage on cable (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:12:18 AM EST
    On local public radio, WNYC in NYC, a whole two hour show was on Obama, the black church, and how he handled Wright's comments.

    He'll make the evening news with the soundbites tailored to the media--which I think will be the early he disagrees totally. Don't know if the nuanced support for Wright will make it onto the broadcasts.

    And, his speech is getting MCM adulation. Can't wait to find out how Tweety's leg reacted!

    [ Parent ]

    again (none / 0) (#206)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:17:50 AM EST
    the MSM did not start this story and they can not end it.

    [ Parent ]
    I imagine (none / 0) (#236)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:25:09 AM EST
    he will have been so moved he not only got a tingle but may actually piddle himself a little.

    [ Parent ]
    I think he probably... (none / 0) (#187)
    by smott on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:11:29 AM EST
    ...did the best he could out of a bad political situation. Given a couple days to come up with a speech and go with his strengths as an orator.

    Sow's ear, silk purse. His supporters will be happy. The media will fawn.

    Everybody else, not so much.

    [ Parent ]

    Here you go (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:03:56 AM EST
    Whether it was a "personal" attack on Sen. Clinton, it was certainly an attempt to call a pox on all houses. That's part of the unity theme, and I don't buy it.

    I don't particularly care whether he personally heard Wright's remarks. It would be beyond belief that he could know the man for that long and not know his views. But whether he was sitting in the pew or not does not matter to me, unless he is shown to have been lying, and I see no evidence of that.

    I have chastised people, in public, for offensive remarks.

    I dislike Sen. Obama, and believe Sen. Clinton would make a better President for the problems that currently face our country.

    Honest enough for you?

    Obama Speech formula (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:05:11 AM EST
    My daughter put together an analysis of the speech that makes liberals/Obama supporters go gaga.  She is 23 and gets it.  This is formulaic.  Tell me how Obama's speech does not fit this formula?   I censored some of her language.  

    <blockquote>

    1) Begin on a personal note. Talk about family roots, a mixed/poor/immigrant/working class family that was somehow able to achieve that good old American dream. End this section with the generic, unproved, self perpetuating assumption that this phenomenon (success from nothing) is only possible in America.

    2) Insert: Praise of fore fathers (extension of the "Only in America" idea), quote Declaration of Independence, or Constitution here: "All men are created equal...liberty and the pursuit of happiness" etc.

    3) Message about needing good politics and there being hard work ahead (IMPORTANT: make sure this message is bipartisan).

    4) Give random specific examples of hardships suffered by "Average Americans" due to poor government.* This proves you have talked to the working Joe.**
    * Do not forget to mention that it does take some "pulling yourself up from your own boot straps" type hard work to get things done, emphasize personal responsibility (appeals to moderates and swing voters).
    ** Make sure this part is really "homey" and "feel good" mention Americana things like diners, and car factory workers.

    6) Encourage the American people to be empathetic of others (this can be a good chance to mention religion, "I am my brother's keeper", but do not forget to mention you are the keeper of sisters too).

    7) Now bring it up, you've been holding it back waiting for this, but you can say it, "We are ONE America", this brings back the idea of bipartisanism. Make sure to defend that idealistic notion of "one America" after the fact by decrying cynicism and praising hope and faith (again brings back in the good ole Christians).

    8) Finally end speech with sentences that are structured likewise: I believe.....I believe....or try, I have faith....I have faith....or maybe even...I hope....I hope....Any way you cut it makes appropriate, safe, and lovely allusions to the ever praised never criticized, unobjectionable Dr. MLK Jr.

    </blockquote>


    only in America (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Nasarius on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:11:16 AM EST
    That's something that has always bothered me about Obama and countless other Democratic politicians. Acting as if America is the only civilized place in the world only breeds ignorance.

    [ Parent ]
    Like there is no democracy (none / 0) (#195)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM EST
    anywhere else.

    [ Parent ]
    Is your daughter's last name (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:17:44 AM EST
    Sorenson?  I thought the "sisters' keepers part was akin to HRC's words you can xerox throwaway at the debate.

    [ Parent ]
    She gets it (none / 0) (#198)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:15:19 AM EST
    but is she still voting for Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    NOPE (none / 0) (#209)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:18:16 AM EST
    She never fell for it.  She is was for Hillary from the beginning, I was for Edwards.  She got me to go for Hillary by directing me to the Obama flaws.  

    [ Parent ]
    Reading the majority of the comments posted (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Joike on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:06:40 AM EST
    at this thread thoroughly underscores Obama's basic message.

    You guys can't let of the littlest thing.  You're so eager to throw dirt at the other person that you can't see how dirty you've become.

    Your reactions and attitudes are dominated by some real or perceived slight.  You can't move forward because you are too angry about the past.

    Everyone is so eager to be a victim that they can't see their own culpability.

    This was supposed to be a progressive blog that focuses on crime and politics, but it has devolved into the same tit-for-tat b.s. that goes on everywhere else.

    Frankly, I'm a bit embarrassed at the low level of discourse that passes for discussion here.

    I have higher expectations for sites like this than to constantly have threads break down into "Clinton's mean" and "Obama's a phony" drivel.

    It's too bad because I really enjoyed this site until it became TalkBad About The Other Person:  The Crime of being either Clinton or Obama

    Good bye and good luck.

    Perhaps you can lead (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by ricosuave on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    instead of just whining about it.  Give us an example of some high-minded posts and the rest of us will join you.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm Sure You Would Find A Higher Level (none / 0) (#215)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:19:27 AM EST
    of discussion over at the Big Orange.

    [ Parent ]
    oh please (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by smott on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:09:53 AM EST
    Ferraro did not preach to HRC for 20 years, or marry her, or baptise her kids, or inspire the title of her book, or be a personal mentor...or...

    Jeebus.  
    There's no comparison.
    At all.

    Aping Lincoln Won't Cut It (5.00 / 2) (#231)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:23:32 AM EST
    I would like to chime in with those here who still feel the comments made by Wright about Clinton have gone unaddressed.  Those above say "It's all about Clinton for you folks."

    No.  It's about a Political Strategy that's been now interwoven with a Spiritual strategy.  And that spiritual strategy, black liberation theology, equates healing with damnation of the other.  Which is not really healing in my book.

    What was Wright saying about Clinton back in 1998 when 7 million were being raised out of Poverty?  Was Clinton "riding" black people like he rode Lewinsky back then?

    This is not going to digest for me.


    Sadly, not enough. Obama just (5.00 / 4) (#233)
    by BlueMerlin on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:23:44 AM EST
    repackaged a lot of things he's said before.  "E pluribus unum" (quoting the U.S. penny "from the many, one") is my favorite.   His goal may have been to outline the complexities of race in America, but it seemed to me that instead he rather over-simplified them.

    He talked about historical injustice, justifiable black anger, and white backlash.   We all know that stuff.  Kids learn it in school now, and many of us lived it for decades.  

    He said nothing about the long tradition of blacks and whites working TOGETHER to end racism, poverty, and injustice.  Just ask Andrew Young what the Clintons have done for the AA community.  

    Obama wants everyone to believe that he has invented the concept of racial harmony?    As though before he burst onto the scene, whites and blacks had never done anything together?    That is an insult to at least two generations of civil rights activists.     And it bespeaks both ignorance and arrogance.  

    Leadership v. Desperation (5.00 / 4) (#247)
    by davnee on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:29:05 AM EST
    My problem with this speech is that it is borne of desperation not inspiration.  Obama tackled some toxic topics in this speech, and tried to move us past our present.  But there was no courage in this speech.  This was making lemonade out of the lemons he was being pelted with.  Where was this challenging speech when he was singing about our post-racial future?  He has made his campaign money off the message that the future is now and he is the future.  But the real truth is that in the present we may have glimpsed the future, but we are still rooted firmly in our past.  We have many miles to walk, and I want a leader to guide us, not an eager volunteer to be our poster boy of the future.

    A real leader would have the guts to challenge his followers even when he didn't have to.  Where was his courage to take responsibility for voluntarily choosing to stay in a church that looks to the past for inspiration rather than the future?  Why wasn't he telling us about all the times he challenged his pastor and his fellow congregants to resist the past and embrace the future, to love their neighbor even when their neighbor has turned their back on them at times?  Maybe because he never did.  Maybe because it wasn't politically expedient for him to do so when he needed their vote to get in the state senate.

    Did Obama ever counsel his reverend or his grandma he was so eager to display as his equivalent white badge of dishonor to leave the past behind?  I wanted him to take personal responsibility for his own failure to display leadership.  Not tell me about how he can and has loved and understood both sinners because he shares the blood of both sinners, but tell me how he has been a constant, and not convenient, warrior against the sin of racial ignorance and racial demagoguery.

    asdf (5.00 / 2) (#254)
    by cdo on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    this is not going away. imo, nothing he said today goes to answer criticisms he suffered yesterday. he now says he heard controversial remarks by wright, but that does not answer why, if he is so concerned about racial unity, does he raise his children with this type of rhetoric?

    The problem Obama can't get around (5.00 / 2) (#265)
    by frankly0 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:34:27 AM EST
    is captured here in his speech:

    Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

    This is exactly where most Americans will say, Whoa. I've never in my life heard from the mouth of my spiritual leader any thing remotely as revolting as what Jeremiah Wright has said. And if I had, I would walk out of that church/temple, and never come back.

    That's the thought experiment that Obama will always lose in the mind of the vast majority of Americans.

    I Hope That (5.00 / 1) (#270)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:36:26 AM EST
    The tinny quality of most of the comments here are not representative of most Americans feelings about being ready to look at racism in America. Because if the comments here are representative, Obama is wrong and Americans are not up to the task of facing a reconciliation.  Obama is right about one thing, American racism will never just go away by itself, it is alive even when it is swept under the rug. The only way we can possibly begin to end it is to put it out right front and center.

    Thoughts (5.00 / 3) (#274)
    by chrisvee on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    I think this speech is very Obama in the sense that it provides a little bit of everything and people can take away from it what they need to hear.  If someone needs Obama to condemn Wright's remarks, he does it. If someone needs Obama to defend Wright's life work, he does it.  If someone needs Obama to admit he knew about the remarks, he does it.  If someone needs Obama to distance himself from the remarks, he does it.

    Then he does something else by taking Wright and connecting him first to himself, then to the black community, then to his family (in particular his white grandmother which is of course quite a clever choice of an example), and then to all Americans.

    So now he's immunized against attack because there's unity.  He is once again the post-racial candidate.  Disowning Wright is like disowning America. We are all part of the big American conversation.  It's a cleverly crafted speech.  I wonder if it will work?  Clearly the media loves it although that is a predictable response.

    The Ferraro remark is a misstep IMHO; it will harden feelings against Obama in some quarters and it was unnecessary.

    So Grandama who raised him is a racist (5.00 / 4) (#276)
    by Dancing Bear on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    yet he had a hard time demonizing Wright?  He threw Mama (grandma) from the train (under the bus).

    Barack's father was not an African American.  He was African.  His people were not the victims of slavery in America. He came here to go to college and then left when he got what he wanted out of the situation. His family was not held back because of slavery in the USA.

    Did he face racism in his lifetime?  I am very certain he did. Does that justify it from another side? Absolutely not.

    He also indicates that "older Americans", both black and white are racists.  Including Wright because of when he grew up. My parents were from the same era and were not racists. It is about personal experience and not about age.

    The pundits are all orgasming over the dialogue we can all now have because of him making it possible for us to talk about this.  Who hasn't been talking about this.  I talk about it daily with people of other ancestral origins because I want to know what they feel and I want them to know that I do not feel what others may direct at them.

    I have literally gotten up and left family functions when inappropriate things have been said about gays, women and people of color.You can't chose your family but you can chose who you spend time with.

    It is the people who raised him that have helped him achieve his dreams.  They fed him, clothed him, and guided him.  Their nurturing and exposure to higher education are what has made him who he is. It is not the church in Chicago who gave him what he has achieved.  

    Anyone can stand before a crowd and deliver a written speech.  It's called a monologue.  Not a dialogue.  A dialogue is when you are forced to speak for yourself , without preparation, and only rely on your heart, mind and instincts. A person known for outstanding public speaking abilities should have no problem delivering a canned speech.

    This is being compared to the "I have a dream speech"?  Uhm, no.  It isn't even close.  It was not to further a cause.  It was damage control and orchestrated.  Yes. He delivered a pre-written speach eloquently. Whose words were they?  

    Did he believe throwing grandma in there was not every bit the cheap shot and just as racist. "My white grandma"? I don't ever recall using my grandma's name for gain. Especially by defaming her.

    If Wright took this church from 87 people to over 8,000 people you could assume that it was because of his ideas and the people he convinced of them. People go to a church because of the message they get from the person delivering that message.

    I am not encouraged by the hype surrounding a damage control speech. I cannot shake from my mind The Reverand gyrating and humping while discussing Bill and Hillary. Cursing on the alter?
    Parishoner's running onto the alter and "High fiving" the Pastor for making lewd comments and gestures?

    I will not invite David Duke over for dinner this evening. I won't invite Jeremiah Wright over either.

    Racism is in general taught.  A Pastor standing on the alter proclaiming hateful things for 30 plus years has probably done as much damage racially as the white geezer in the Klan robe. So now, a new generation of racists exists.  Racial divides perpetuated and all behind the mask of religion and self righeousness. Seemingly justified.

    This speech served to clear his conscience and to sway those who were swayable. It did nothing to address the issue of racism in the US.

    He talks as though he comes from a slavery ancestry and he absolutely does not.  he is using dramatic phrasing about tears, and blood, and history but none of it is his.  

    His white American mother and his black African father were not the bi-product of slavery in America.  His white mother was able to overcome racism by marrying a black man. Does