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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute 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."

    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.

    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.:-)


    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. . . .


    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.

    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).

    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.


    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."


    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.


    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.  

    Obama long way away from nomination (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:42:52 AM EST
    At least he'll always have "the Math"

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

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

    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
    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.

    it's still a flip flop from earlier position (3.50 / 2) (#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.

    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.


    Speaking for myself (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.

    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."


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

    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.  

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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...

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Inspirational, absolutely! (5.00 / 3) (#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. (2.33 / 3) (#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.

    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?

    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.

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

    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.

    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!

    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 / 2) (#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.

    Speeches used to define narrative (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    He did say he's an imperfect candidate. (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:54:57 AM EST
    I guess I am (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:06:55 AM EST
    the imperfect Democratic voter.  

    You mixed it up (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by DodgeIND on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:49:49 AM EST
    He didn't equate Ferraro and Wright.  He never said they were equal.  He basically said Ferraro was commenting on affirmative action which is a race issue.  

    So if you give in to racial stereotypes you're automatically a racist through and through? C'mon now, use common sense.

    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.


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

    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.

    Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#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 / 2) (#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.

    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!


    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.

    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.

    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.


    Here you go (5.00 / 3) (#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 / 3) (#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.  


    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.


    only in America (5.00 / 0) (#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.

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

    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.

    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?

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    oh please (5.00 / 3) (#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...

    There's no comparison.
    At all.

    He did mention the comments regarding HRC (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Deadalus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:14:10 AM EST
    He denounced them, said they were offensive, disgusting, etc.

    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 / 3) (#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 / 2) (#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 he need a better example of how to overcome racism?  Look at your mom Barack if you want to see a color blind American.

    Just as expected (4.78 / 14) (#151)
    by ricosuave on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:00:25 AM EST
    Here is the summary:
    • Despite what my campaign said, I have personally heard incendiary stuff, and I have done nothing about it

    • I condemn it all, but I am OK with it as well

    • We have to avoid distractions like this because they are distracting

    • I have strong black roots and no matter what criticisms come down I will not try to separate myself from the black community. (Note: I actually admire him for this one)

    • Ferraro is just as bad for Clinton as Wright is for me.  Her being a woman who supports Hillary and has raised money and made a few comments that echo my own is clearly the same as my 20 year relationship with the guy I have called my political sounding board

    • White people have it tough, too

    • Wright is a community leader and I willfully overlook his offensive and hateful remarks because he does good work in the community

    What was missing:

    • Here is what I have done in the past to fight this kind of racism in my own church and my own community

    • Here is what I will do as president to heal the racial divide in America

    • I am sorry that I have not denounced these attacks (particularly the vicious personal attacks on my opponent and her husband) sooner

    • Here is why millions of Americans, after seeing these remarks replayed in ads in October, will still vote for me in November

    Is there anyone out there who thinks, following this speech, that the republicans can no longer run the "Damn America" ads and easily convince the vast majority of americans to vote for McCain over Obama?  Does anyone truly believe that he has now neutralized this problem?

    Yet another example of giving a speech and thinking it is the same as actually doing something.

    Perfect (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:27:27 AM EST
    I still think it would have been better to have given this speech in his church years ago.

    perfect summary n/t (none / 0) (#179)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:09:54 AM EST
    ditto - perfect summary (none / 0) (#221)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:20:50 AM EST
    Nice (none / 0) (#226)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:22:11 AM EST
    I would love to have heard the second part of that speech.  Maybe you should go write for him.

    It's a problem for him in the GE, I think. We have a habit of nominating people who tend more to the intellectual side. I'm as overeducated an an intellectual as there is, but recognize that this often doesn't work out well in November.  The first Pres. Clinton (yes I'm an optimist) was a brilliant man who came across as kind of a bubba. And it worked.


    Hoodwinked (4.50 / 6) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:27:46 AM EST
    Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country.

    So why the hoodwinked and okie doked speeches to black audiences?  Why?  Who are you implying hoodwinked the black community?  White people?  Hillary?  Bush?  The Republicans?  Never says, leaves it open.  Creates the racial divide himself.   I just don't buy it.  The political manipulation of the race issue is catching  up with him.  

    I cannot believe (4.25 / 4) (#50)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:39:41 AM EST
    he is trying to equate what Ferraro said with the 20+ years of hateful, spiteful crap coming out of Wright's mouth. That is absolutely ridiculous.

    you don't (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Jgarza on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:00:28 AM EST
    know anything about wright, you have heard 30 second sound bites and you are judging years of a mans life.

    20 years of hate? (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Deadalus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:12:19 AM EST
    What a load of crap.  Those soundbytes were taken from 700,000 hours of sermons over 20 years, the vast majority of which, as EVERYONE agrees, were about love and self-reliance, i.e., the social gospe.

    And of course, you think Ferraro's anger (5.00 / 1) (#267)
    by tree on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:35:19 AM EST
    at the system can't be justified, despite the fact that the main thrust of her argument was pointing out the sexism displayed against Clinton.

    As for Wright's speech being in a closed forum, you forget that the reason his speeches came to light is because they were videotaped for sale to the public.

    Obama did attack Clinton in the only way he could without repercussion. He compared Wright and Ferraro  and then went on to defend Wright but not Ferrraro. And then he threw his grandmother under the bus as well. Another shot at an older woman in an attempt to rehabilitate his male mentor.


    He left out the Aids and Clinton vile too (2.00 / 1) (#174)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:07:49 AM EST
    I do not believe Geri was making sexual movements while talking to a reporter. All he is talking about concerns race. Geri did not condemn the race with hatred, she was making a statement. So if Obama says what the Pastor was saying had truth behind it and comparing Geri, then he is saying the same for her remarks.

    In as much as he did not mention the other two vile remarks and movements in question, I am assuming he is pulling the race card all the way out of his pocket and this is not a good thing. And just last night at the Irish Society of Women he announced he had just found out he was Irish also.


    You're right (none / 0) (#238)
    by commonscribe on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:26:11 AM EST

    one's a preacher, the other's a politician

    He kicked Ferraro while she's down (4.50 / 6) (#29)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:35:32 AM EST
    Apparently only the total destruction of her character will suffice for Obama because he threw her under the bus yet again and put her on the same level as his pastor.

    Ferraro Down (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:59:24 AM EST
    Well somebody should tell her, because she doesn't seem to be aware of it.

    Wow, (4.40 / 5) (#27)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:34:16 AM EST
    he had the unmitigated gall to put Ferraro in the mix of his speech?  She never used the n word nor did she call for the damnation of our country.

    So much for the 'new' politic.  Jeralyn, I lauded your comments when you were on television.  I want to rally behind the Dem nom.  But I don't know how I could convince someone to vote for Barack considering this speech (the Ferraro refernce) and the words of his pastor, if he does win the nomination.

    I'm a sales rep, I have to believe in the product I sell. He's lost me. I would never disparage Barack nor his supporters.  But the speech didn't convince me of his supposed offense to Wright's statements.  

    Thanks for letting me state my views on your blog.

    Ferraro = Wright--that's their defense. (4.25 / 4) (#40)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:37:38 AM EST
    As I read the text (4.00 / 3) (#56)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:40:28 AM EST
    that is exactly what he is trying to do.

    Not To Me (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:58:33 AM EST
    His mention of Ferraro was limited to one comment, while his praise and condemnation of Wright was broad.

    Entirely different kettles of fish, imo.


    Did anyone notice this little bombshell? (4.33 / 3) (#17)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:31:22 AM EST
    "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."

    I am not trying to play gotcha, but isn't this in direct conflict with what he said on Friday?

    Yes, yes it is. But he's been walking away from (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:35:31 AM EST
    his early Friday night comments since he bagan the next show and was told he couldn't say he'd never heard of those controversial things.

    Now, he can parse and say he didn't hear the exact things from the video clips when he was in the pew. Whatever.


    Did you.... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:35:55 AM EST
    go to the church in your early political career to get traction in your community?  Yes.  

    Never mind (none / 0) (#25)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:33:02 AM EST
    I missed the post above, please ignore or delete.

    Sounds (none / 0) (#36)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:36:41 AM EST
    like it to me.  

    His granny and his pastor (4.25 / 4) (#138)
    by hopeyfix on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:57:01 AM EST
    He compared Mr. Wright to his Grandma... The thing is, you don't choose family, but you do choose religion, church, and influences. Shoot in the foot, in my opinion.

    Yeah, Obama's grandmother's (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by learningcurve on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:00:29 AM EST
    bigotry doesn't represent any white perspective. It was wrong for Obama to express knowledge of white any racism so close to him. We all know only blacks hate whites, never the reverse.

    This is not what I implied (3.50 / 2) (#180)
    by hopeyfix on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:09:57 AM EST
    ... at all. What I am implying is that he cannot deny he could have gone to another church, but he couldn't choose another grandma. Therefor the comparison is bizarre to say the least, especially for a man who constantly talks about his great judgement capacity. If you are a political, you just can't associate with such beliefs, and if you do, embrace them, not say they are good when they are ok for you, and bad when people say "Hey, this is not cool".

    So true (none / 0) (#218)
    by learningcurve on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:20:03 AM EST
    the world should be compartmentalized. One should only love people with whom they are in absolute agreement, unless they are family. Lasting relationships, commitment, duty don't matter when companion holds contraversial views. There are no gray areas.

    You missed the point entirely ... (none / 0) (#232)
    by plf1953 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:23:36 AM EST
    That point being that you don't choose your family but you do choose your religion and your church and your favorite minister.

    So, its what and who you choose to influence your life that's formative and informative (i.e., Rev. Wright) not who you don't (your Grandmother).


    Didn't he admit in the speech that he lied (4.00 / 3) (#4)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:23:42 AM EST
    about not hearing Wright's hate speech before?
    Beyond that, equating Ferraro and Wright doesn't seem like the proper response---isn't it a way to duck responsibility?

    I suspect that depends greatly... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by sweetthings on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:28:26 AM EST
    On one's personal biases.

    Personally, I'm cool with it. In fact, I thought it was a near perfect comparison - I don't believe Ferraro is a racist, but she was certainly making some outlandish comments even after being called on them. Is the same true of Wright? I don't know, but I believe it's possible.

    I imagine it will play differently to the most devoted of the Clinton faithful, but then, there's very little Obama could realistically do to make them happy.


    Ferraro said things that Obama himself (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:31:19 AM EST
    has said, and got crucified for it. There is no comparison at all. Wright is obviously very close to Obama, while Ferraro is not any kind of mentor to Clinton, that I have heard of.

    Perfectly put; thanks (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:40:25 AM EST
    and I am all too accustomed to pols lying to me and telling themselves that they're honest, but this guy just goes too far -- over and over and over.  He can only lie about others in trying to exonerate himself.  How much more of this for many more months ahead?  And no thanks to four or more years of this ahead.

    I am at a lose to understand how this is anything (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Salt on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    A run of the mill good political speech prepared by excellent speech writers, it has every appearance of a speech well delivered and intended to counter a political problem while sliming the opponent, it did not render any truths nor neutralized the hate preaching, in fact comparing it to Geraldine Ferraro comments made it totally political.

    Obama said the same things about himself (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by OxyCon on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:49:17 AM EST
    "Mr. Obama has pointedly acknowledged that he benefits from his race, noting last year that a new white senator from Illinois would hardly have stirred comparable interest or intrigue. So Mr. Obama has embraced his role, but he has strived to be defined by more than color alone."


    "Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
    If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?"



    urls must be html format or they (none / 0) (#208)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:18:07 AM EST
    skew the site and comments with them will be deleted. Use the link button at the top of the comment box.

    Test (none / 0) (#251)
    by OxyCon on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:29:36 AM EST
    NO he didnt (3.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Jgarza on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:53:34 AM EST
    she boiled down his entire candidacy to his race. stop making that false claim.

    She did not (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:10:31 AM EST
    If you read what she said in context, she was talking about the media treatment of BOTH candidates.

    "I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

    "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

    She didn't say he was lucky to be black any more than she said he was lucky to be a man (which I don't think anyone would have a problem with). She said that in this campaign neither a woman or a white man would be able to exploit the media bias against Hillary the way he has.

    And she is right.


    Nope, she addressed other assets (nt) (none / 0) (#155)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:02:06 AM EST
    And, don't (none / 0) (#186)
    by 0 politico on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:11:16 AM EST
    forget that he was preaching from a pulpit as a leader of a church - a place where people expect to get spiritual and/or moral guidance.  Ferraro was answering a question at a paid speech, with no direct religious or moral connotations.

    There is a "big" difference.


    It was not a speech, it was an interview (none / 0) (#269)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:36:07 AM EST
    With a small (60,000 circ) CA daily paper.


    It was buried on Page 6.

    It never even came to light until DKos picked it up days after it was published and misconstrued it as racist.

    Many other people have said that Obama's greatest asset is being black. That is not, however, what Ferraro said. See my post above.


    That wasn't what Obama supporters... (none / 0) (#242)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:26:57 AM EST
    ...heard. I think I've finally figured out what the Ferraro controversy was about. When I heard her words, I intepreted it as "Obama has benefitted from his race". He and many others have admitted as much, so it doens't seem particularly controversial. It didn't ever occur to me that Ferraro was dismissing his many accomplishments and talents. I still don't think she was. But Obama supporter's heard "Obama is only a candidate because he is black", which is not only not true, but is racist and quite insulting to an accomplished man.

    Obama supporters hardly listen (5.00 / 1) (#248)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    and make up things to suit their talking point... I don't blame them.

    I don't think it's that simple (none / 0) (#262)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:33:29 AM EST
    People interpret other's words based on their own biases. Many Obama supporter's have been "set up" to exepect racism from Clinton's campaing, so that is what they hear. A variation of the old statement: When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Racism isn't the "only" tool that the Obama campaign has, but it has played a significant and painful role in their campaign. Their supporter's are only reflecting this.

    Yes, Obama could agree to be the VP. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by hairspray on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:41:27 AM EST
    I'm so sick of "the Clinton faithful" (5.00 / 0) (#253)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:29:49 AM EST

    Any other Democratic candidate with a Wright in their spiritual-adviser-of-twenty-years closet would be lynched.

    Any other Democratic candidate with a pastor who said what Wright did about another major Democrat about "Bill Clinton did us, uhhh, uhhhh" or "Hillary Clinton ain't never been called a n---" would be eviscerated.

    I've never seen such a double standard!


    he didn't say he lied (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:41:19 AM EST
    He said he heard Wright make controversial remarks before and disagreed with them, just like many of you have disagreed with your pastors.

    Let's not personally attack Obama.


    Not true, Jeralyn (3.50 / 2) (#168)
    by plf1953 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:05:55 AM EST
    He publicly stated last week that he had never heard these vile statements spewed by his mentor as he "sat in the pews" at Trinity.

    Don't be silly (none / 0) (#177)
    by Deadalus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM EST
    He said today that he had heard "controversial remarks".  Last week he said he had never heard THOSE "controversial remarks."  

    Clearly he didn't hear the soundbyte clips on Fox, but he had heard controversial statements at some point in time.


    So much clearer! (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by ricosuave on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:22:23 AM EST
    All we have to do is parse his words down to the syllable, and they are true!  Why would anyone think his statements from last week meant he had never heard this stuff before?  He just meant THIS PARTICULAR STUFF!

    Why is Obama trying to have it both ways on this?  Because without strong African American support, he can't hold on to North Carolina.  He is trying to walk a tightrope of allowing these remarks as ok, while still condemning them somehow.

    If only we had some real deeds on his part to back up his words, we could all decide whether he is just spewing rhetoric or if he actually means one or the other of the contradictory stuff he says.  The only thing I can point to is that he never left the church or openly criticized it in any way until he was pushed on it.  He was quick to lecture Geraldine Ferraro on using insensitive comments, but has been pretty slow at addressing someone he has a 20 year relationship with.  Looks like the "I'm OK with it" side of his mouth is the true side and the "I condemn it" side is the campaign rhetoric.


    But This Begs The Question: (none / 0) (#230)
    by flashman on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:23:32 AM EST
    Were the remarks he heard equivalent or similar to the controversial statement we've been hearing.  I think he left the door wide open.

    I was talking about what (none / 0) (#212)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:19:00 AM EST
    he said today.

    Equating Ferraro and Wright (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:44:24 AM EST
    infuriates me.

    You know how a doctor asks you, on a scale of 1 to 10, what is the pain like?

    On a scale of 1 to 10, Ferraro's comments are in the very low numbers.  Wright's are pushing the limit.


    Are you listening to him?? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by tsteels2 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:52:16 AM EST
    He actually helped the whole Democratic Party.  He didn't beat up Senator Clinton.  He addressed grievances from white and black America.

    Nowhere did he denigrate Geraldine Ferraro.


    Funny Comment (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:55:25 AM EST
    I suspect that you know little about Wright, except for the recent soundbites and little about Ferraro as well. And it not honest, imo, to make believe that he was in fact, comparing the life work of the two people.

    You speak as if you are an expert on Wright and Ferraro, although not very convincingly.  


    I think many will agree (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:46:22 AM EST
    I dont think this speech does much of anything.

    That will depend (none / 0) (#216)
    by BernieO on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:19:50 AM EST
    on how the media spins it. Most people will not hear the whole speech, just selected clips and commentary. If the MSM does its usual swoon, a lot of people will probably buy it.

    i'm still watching (none / 0) (#9)
    by TheRefugee on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:27:52 AM EST
    guess i'm catching a rerun but sounds like he's trying to defuse the GOP's ability to use Wright against him and establish a new meme, not this time, to add to, yes we can.

    About lying, I thought (none / 0) (#10)
    by zfran on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:28:05 AM EST
    the same thing when I read his speech. I wonder who else might pick up on that. We'll see.

    It's carefully parsed. He claimed (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    that he never heard the particular nuggets of Wright's speeches that were aired in the last week.
    If those were representative, however, that's not much of a defense.
    Also, the total silence about Wright's sexist, nasty attack on Hillary is telling.

    His response was to raise the specter (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:31:01 AM EST
    of Ferraro.

    We'll see how that plays... (3.50 / 2) (#23)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:32:35 AM EST
    it could work, but the speech becomes a political hit job with the insertion of the remarks about Ferraro.

    He was sympathizing with Ferraro (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:39:21 AM EST
    He was saying we shouldn't dismiss Wright as a caricature, just as we shouldn't dismiss Ferraro as a racist.  "We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias."

    Obama can do no right in your eyes.  Even when he defends Ferraro you are angry about it.


    You're fooling yourself (4.40 / 5) (#60)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:41:12 AM EST
    as that was no defense of Ferraro.

    Conclusory statements (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:43:25 AM EST
    of your pre-formed opinion are no match for arguments based on the text of the speech.

    oh, puh-leeze! (none / 0) (#249)
    by magisterludi on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:29:28 AM EST
    It's just a sneaky way to equate both people (2.00 / 1) (#78)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    It is a good speech (none / 0) (#217)
    by felizarte on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:19:52 AM EST
    He always makes good speeches.  But what we are trying to do is choose the person who will be able to juggle skillfuly, all the responsibilities of the presidency, knowing fully well, that that one person has to rely on all the  other people around him.

    What kind of people will he keep around him as president?  What kind of input?  Does he only act when someone becomes a political liability?  As he is doing now and with Rezko?

    Sorry, but in my life, I have read and heard many words.  Words are important if it is an honest indicator of what one will do or if they are consistent with actions, current or past.  After all, the whole creation came to be with just a word from the Creator.

    But that is God: ". . 'let there be light!' and there was light."
    With us humans, when we have to do what we say we would do, or not do.  "different kind of politics" "politics of unity, not divisiveness."  Who could disagree with those slogans?


    This isn't aimed at people (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    who think he needs to apologize for every single negative thing ever said about Hillary Cliinton.  This is aimed at people who are persuadable.

    I'm not asking for apologies about every (none / 0) (#26)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:33:36 AM EST
    single thing. Nice try though.
    Wright's comments about Clinton were definitely something he SHOULD have brought up.

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:36:07 AM EST
    This speech was about large themes and Wright's anti-American statements.  Not everything is about  Hillary Clinton.

    He's in the middle of a primary fight... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kredwyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:39:35 AM EST
    speaking in Philly (aka home of the next primary).

    There are multiple facets to the speech...including his primary opponent.


    Except (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Andy08 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:39:52 AM EST
    all thos ecalculating and disingeneous comments about Hillary Clinton and equating Ferraro to Wright: simply outrageous. Who buys that? only those who blindly support him. Noone else does;
    noone else I know including some of my friends that voted for him in our primary here.

    Speak For Yourself (3.00 / 2) (#105)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:49:16 AM EST
    Because the speech made sense to me and I am a supporter of HRC.

    Who buys that? only those who blindly support him. Noone else does; noone else I know including some of my friends that voted for him in our primary here.

    I would suggest widening your circle of friends.


    Comparing Ferraro to Wright (none / 0) (#87)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:45:08 AM EST
    I think that will only make the women contingent of Hillary's base much more driven to see her get into office.

    No one is defending what (1.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Jgarza on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:56:33 AM EST
    Wright said, I don't think people should attack call him a racist.  He said racist things.
    No one should call Ferraro a racist, but what she said is racist and in my opinion is not defensible.  

    Not defensible does not (5.00 / 0) (#258)
    by Andy08 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:31:04 AM EST
    jutify Obama equating both. Ferraro is no Wright.
    So why did he mention both on the same breath as if
    here we have one here we have the other one?

    It is calculationg and it is wrong for it is a clear attempt to water down Wright.

    Pretty disingeneous of him.


    The speech (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:44:11 AM EST
    Seemed to be about race, hatred, history, etc.

    So why doesn't it seem appropriate to comment on denigrating comments about a woman? Is sexism not important in this idea of unity? So its a unity for all men?


    He mentioned women briefly (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by learningcurve on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:50:28 AM EST
    at the start of the speech.

    But your right, not bringing sex into it wasn't fair to Clinton.


    I do not feel (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:59:30 AM EST
    that Obama has any great respect for women.

    Obivously. (none / 0) (#170)
    by learningcurve on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:05:59 AM EST
    Just look at what he says.

    I expected (none / 0) (#34)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:36:24 AM EST
    him to address that he had heard language in church on other occasions because I expected other tapes to be presented where he was in the congregation.

    If and when that happens (none / 0) (#46)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:39:10 AM EST
    you will be vindicated. Right now it is speculation.

    Getting out in front (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:20:38 AM EST
    One of the criticisms of the situation was that he did not get out in front of the situation.  Many of the sermons are taped.  I was thinking that this may be viewed as getting out in front of any additional attention paid to other tapes.

    But the speech (none / 0) (#85)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    Says he heard it in church. Whether there are tapes or not doesn't change that, does it?

    I did not catch that in my brief (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:52:33 AM EST
    reading of the speech. I was unable to hear it. I will study it more carefully as soon as I can. Forgive me for now, if I trust not what Obama partisans say about Obama; nor what HRC partisans say about Obama, nor what HRC partisans say about HRC, nor what Obama partisans say about HRC.

    Now what Democrats say about McCain is gospel (except for the doomsayers "woe is me, if X is the nominee McCain will be President")


    He was saying that those weren't representative. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ramo on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    I think that's the point.

    Careful Pasing Is Wearing Thin (none / 0) (#252)
    by flashman on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    I wasn't so happy when he so much as praised Reagan as the transformative figure of the 20th Century, then parsed his own words to defend the comments.  It's called double-talk, and not the sort of thing I want to hear from a presidential candidate.

    I think its pretty obvious (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:32:32 AM EST
    that they think someone will come up with proof this  was not true pretty soon.  

    It is more and more about just words (4.00 / 0) (#146)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:59:10 AM EST
    and speeches...

    No ground breaking speech.. a pathetic victim card at play.. we AA have been victimized 3-4 decades ago.. and you white have more to do.. don't fault us if we say something stupid... but you all watch what you say... and media just loves a person speaking on teleprompter words that are not his.. what a sham.

    clap.. clap .. clap

    That is without a doubt (3.66 / 6) (#58)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:40:52 AM EST
     one of the best speeches an American politician has delivered in a long time.

      Any analysis that chooses to ignore that is suspect before it goes 2 words.

      Anaylses which show such close-minded bias as to  attack, literally, a single sentence or even a couple of words without acknowledging the whole of the speech-- its purpose, its ideas, its aspiratiopns and yes its power and eloquence just show a stubborn refusal to show even a modicum of balance.

      Sure, in the end it's just a speech, but words are not just words. words do express, ideas, hopes, goals, wishes, frustrations animosities, angers, and many other things that could not be more real or more importaant.

      I'm not an Obama partisan, but I can certainly give him a lot of credit for that.

    No offense (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:49:05 AM EST
    But I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic. Usually not a good sign.

    Me too (none / 0) (#142)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:57:46 AM EST
    The first sentence got me.

    I Agree (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:03:10 AM EST
    100% withDeconstructionist which is a rare thing indeed. I was touched and to focus on the leaves of trees and ignore the forest in this case seems more about deep denial than partisan gaming.

    It was a great speech... (3.00 / 2) (#2)
    by sweetthings on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:23:38 AM EST
    But it's hard for any speech, no matter how good, to counter a soundbyte. I'm not sure it will work, but damn, he sounded good giving it.

    I had no doubt (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:26:31 AM EST
    that it would be hailed as the greatest speech in the 12 billion year history of the universe.
    the more interesting question is, will he be able to talk his way out of this one?

    Look after Bush (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:29:18 AM EST
    any speech and speaker are brilliant.  

    This phrase was for you: (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:43:42 AM EST
    "building code enforcement."

    Also, its pretty clear Barack Obama doesn't pay close attention in church.  It wasn't Christians in the lions' den!



    Dunno. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by sweetthings on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:33:01 AM EST
    In all fairness, Howdy, it was a great speech, and very well delivered. Obama is not without talent.

    Will it work? I don't know. Like I said, it's hard to counter a soundbyte. But if any speech has a chance of working, it's probably this one.


    It was a good speech... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kredwyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:37:06 AM EST
    not a great speech.

    I was serious (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    I has no doubt it would be.  he is an impressive speaker.  but you know what, we knew that.
    we have heard the speeches.

    It's hard for any speech (none / 0) (#95)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    to counter twenty years of a behavior.

    Speech (1.00 / 1) (#237)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM EST
    Listening to the speech, reading it and skipping through blogs while gauging the media reaction; there seems to be a strong and definite tilt toward Obama. Texas Dems rejected the Clinton effort to delay caucuses there. Florida Dems will not have a revote. What next? The party's activists are busting their butts for Obama, while Clinton's campaign is counting on low-information voters selecting Clinton based on her name ID. Provoctative speech that moved racism, ethnic clustering, and more out of the shadows. The speech made history and is already being compared to the MLK speech, "I have a dream..." The only path for victory for Clinton is via a coup by super delegates which will create a civil war within the Democratic party. Clinton knows this and is willing to split the party apart anyway. Say hello to the next president, John McCain. I'm going to read the speech again.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#250)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:29:30 AM EST
    for calling me and others low-information voters. Why don't you go troll elsewhere?

    Greetings (none / 0) (#260)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:33:01 AM EST
    From a loe -eenfoe voter.

    MLK's speech was a brilliant piece (none / 0) (#273)
    by kredwyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:41:11 AM EST
    of oratory.

    This was a good speech addressing some things that many of us have been calling for over the past several months--a focus on the issues...not on the distractions.

    It was not a great speech...nor was it an historic speech.


    was he far far away from the crowd? (none / 0) (#1)
    by TheRefugee on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:22:33 AM EST
    the applause sounds muted.  Not a typical Obama crowd.

    Other than that, he again proves that he is a gifted orator.

    I'll reserve critique until reading the transcript later today.

    Speech writers and Axelrod (none / 0) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    Wonder how many words he wrote?  

    I read he wrote it (none / 0) (#41)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:38:19 AM EST
    Up until 3 am finishing it. But I'm wondering what you're trying to imply with your question.

    I don't believe it (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:40:01 AM EST
    he is marketed, packaged and delivered.  

    Up 'til 3 a.m., ready to answer (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:55:50 AM EST
    the red phone.

    Ugly ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:36:41 AM EST
    This is pretty ugly and unfair though of Obama, to equate statements by Ferraro with Wright. Obama goes on and on about how great a person Wright is, without a single kind word about Ferraro, just rubbing it in further. I believe the campaign has reached a new low.

    Are you white, by any chance? (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:47:38 AM EST
    How the statements compare probably depends largely on the color of your skin and the history of your life.

    I'm white. I'm 50. I'm a lawyer. But I don't find anything offensive about anything Jeremiah Wright said. The United States probably should be damned, or at least put in purgatory for a good long while.


    You agree with Wright re AIDS and 9/11? (nt) (none / 0) (#110)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:50:03 AM EST
    I have said for a long time (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:58:28 AM EST
    that I find it completely believable that someone, governmental or not, created aids for population controll. I still believe it.
    I even worked on a novel about it for years until I put it aside because everyone I allowed to read it said it was just to painful a subject to contemplate.
    as far as 9/11 I dont think a serious person could deny that our policies/or the policies of our government brought what happened on us.
    there are more delicate ways of saying it but it is a fact.
    I am not running for office and I do not advise anyone who does so I can say this.

    No, I don't agree about AIDS (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:05:37 AM EST
    I don't find it offensive. I understand where the suspicion comes from -- the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.

    About 9/11, and america's chickens coming home to roost, it's a harsh statement, but we have done more than our share of dirty work around the world for decades. We installed Saddam Hussein. We gave him nerve gas. He used it on the Kurds. How many Kurds died?

    Our nation is an enormous polluter, an enormous consumer, and we tend to view the rest of the world primarily as a resource area for our rapacious appetites. At least, that's how most of the rest of the world views us.


    btw (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:15:35 AM EST
    there are a lot of reasons to wonder about AIDS besides Tuskegee.
    plenty of reasons.

    I'd be interested to hear what (none / 0) (#257)
    by digdugboy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:30:43 AM EST
    you have to say about that.

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    and I keep saying, the conversation here should not be the truth or lack of truth in the comments.
    the POINT is that a very very large part of the electorate is going to be completely flipped out by these comments. to the point that nothing is going to bring them back. and not just whites.  religious latinos and others are just as likely to be turned off.

    Great Speech. (none / 0) (#64)
    by DodgeIND on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:41:53 AM EST

    Mentioning Ferraro (none / 0) (#66)
    by NJDem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:42:29 AM EST
    three times was totally unnecessary.  And OJ?  And throwing his white grandma 'under the bus'?

    Yeah, he gives a good speech, but I can't see how this is enough.  He did seem to contradict his statements Friday--I can't believe the MSM, or at least Fox, won't bring that up.  

    I don't know, time will tell...    

    Really? (none / 0) (#81)
    by DodgeIND on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:44:39 AM EST
    OJ wasn't a racial spectacle?  He didn't throw his grandmother under the bus either.

    The Repub 527's will bring them up-- (none / 0) (#97)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:48:22 AM EST
    Bet on it. And they will run on radio and cable, but will be aimed at those "Reagan Democrats" and other non-blacks.

    And if Clinton is the nominee, the Repub 527's will run spots of Obama saying she was race-baiting or whatever label can be applied to the things that have been said about her and her campaign.

    Not to win votes for McCain, but to suppress black votes for Hillary.


    Watching the reviews (none / 0) (#89)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:46:04 AM EST
    CNN's Roland Martin... Catholics.  Gloria Borger, he did really well.  It was a GREAT opportunity to present something he has been writing for a long time.  Take the moment.  He didn't go there with Geraldine Ferraro.  He spoke from his heart.  It was a teachable moment.

    Fox's ??? not sure who she is.. Nation heard exactly what it needed to hear.

    MSNBC Scarborough... white father, talking to white mother about having to drive to other schools because of quotas and subsidized programs for AAs.  

    All in all, media says - great job.

    But he doesn't. (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Arbitrarity on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:57:17 AM EST
    So your criticism is invalid and petty.

    He gave a strong speech about race in America.  That doesn't ignore the problem, as the vast, vast majority would not only prefer to do, but has been taught to do.

    We're constantly told that race is off-limits, and that even bringing it up is going to get you painted as a racist.  And he said "yes, race is an issue.  But if you're going to make it the only issues, then we're going to be exactly where we were before in regards to it, and we'll never move past it."

    If you have nothing to say about his speech or the impact it may or may not have upon the electorate, then why say anything?


    I think sexism is very important. (none / 0) (#259)
    by Arbitrarity on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:31:49 AM EST
    But, I think it would have hurt him to talk about the overarching problem of sexism.  Much as many Whites fear to talk about racism because of being branded racists, I think he's in the same camp were he to try to bring up sexism.

    I can say with almost certainty that a number of women would have been rightfully outraged if he tried to speak of sexism because he doesn't understand it the same way a women does.


    Yeah, but his campaign (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:24:41 AM EST
    already 'went there' with Geraldine Ferraro.  Not that she hasn't happily helped digging, but Obama's campaign had a prominent role in the Ferraro business.  I thought it was a very good speech but it's coming out of a campaign that has shown it can be nasty and divisive.  

    Sally Quinn called Obama "authentic" (none / 0) (#169)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:05:57 AM EST
    on MSNBC after the speech, so I knew the MCM (mainstream corpoate media) was going to support him.

    Now, sometimes the MCMers change and, like a school of fish, swarm en masse in a different direction, but I think he met their criteria to avoid additional criticism about Wright.

    The soundbite will be his initial "strongly disagree" with Wright's remarks, and the more nuanced defenses will not be brought up by many.


    people like (none / 0) (#188)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:11:56 AM EST
    Sally Quinn have next to nothing to do with the people Obama needed to speak to.
    most would not know who she was.
    the elitist media have very little control over this story.
    it has been circulating for months without them and it will continue to circulate. with or without them.

    Yep (none / 0) (#193)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:12:34 AM EST
    Yes, he could.  CNN is still discussing it.  Unity.  He is trying to move us past a stagnant society. hmm.

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#132)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:55:42 AM EST
    He stated......I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork.

    No.  He couldn't.

    Untill the media calls his words for words.. (none / 0) (#173)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:07:37 AM EST
    he will get a pass and may well have accomplished what he wanted to do: Hey guys I am an above board person/politician. Vote for me.

    Punditry and I agree (none / 0) (#176)
    by Salt on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:09:43 AM EST
    He failed to take responsibility for his support of the church his sitting in a pew for 20 years, so again to his judgment and like Rezko poor judgment on his two main Patrons Spiritual and Political who acted out in the extreme and he failed to notice.  Look my offense is not, white resentment so I disagree with Obama charge and his attempt to slime me with his behavior is unacceptable, I believe hate from the pulpit begets inflamed violence and endangers civic responsibility...

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#184)
    by Foxx on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:11:15 AM EST
    a very good speech, which will probably do what he needs, which is to get those videos off the air.

    It said nothing to me, as he has already shown me who he is.

    Nah (none / 0) (#201)
    by smott on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    I sincerely doubt the GOP will slap their foreheads, and go "What an awesome speech! Let's kill those nasty 527s now!"

    Ain't gonna happen. We are going to be listening to a lot of Crazy Uncle this fall.


    I disagree (none / 0) (#197)
    by Andy08 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:14:46 AM EST
    many people in the middle (I know many who voted for him here in MA) and others  who voted  HRC and would have voted for him in Nov. that will not vote for him after this. The speech had nicely written portions and others, very calculating and infurating ones: Ferraro is no Wright.
    The words of in that speech and his calculated demeanor
    (this was a planned event, not a spontaneous one or a news conference) are irrelevant, imho. I know history, I don't need a history lesson to justify
    Wright sermons.

    His embracing Wright and profound relationship with him is a huge huge problem for Dems. in Nov. should he be the nominee. Very serious ones.

    There is nothing that he said that answers the question : will Jeremiah Wright, his pastor be
    a frequent guest in an Obama's WH ?


    Red lights are blinking (none / 0) (#200)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:15:44 AM EST
    Bells are ringing.  Alarms are going off.

    Obama always delivers a good speech and finally this one has substance. Not exactly what I wanted to hear though.....I think he left a few things out of it. Like Wright's Hillary bashing and a personal apology for the AIDS comment.

    On the funnier side, I was reading the comments and my phone rang at work. I answered it Hillary. Then garbled over the error with laughing. Luckily the woman was laughing too.

    google this (none / 0) (#234)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:23:59 AM EST
    [aids "man made"]

    it could be an eye opening experience.


    Slime's her grandmother ........... (none / 0) (#202)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:17:21 AM EST
    that was the lowest in politics I have seen.

    That tells your character.

    Whose grandmother? (none / 0) (#256)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:30:37 AM EST
    I haven't seen the speech,  si I'm not sure what you mean?

    I had a nightmare last night (none / 0) (#203)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:17:40 AM EST
    A black woman was living in my home, and I apologized that I didn't have more antique furniture, because my grandparents lost all their belongings in a fire. Then I realized that her grandparents were probably slaves, or at least recent descendents of slaves, and I felt bad for being so insensitive. I think that past racial abuses are always with us. My ancestor's weren't even in the U.S. when slavery ended, and they weren't in a position to look down on anybody when they arrived in the nation around the turn of the century (eastern Europeans weren't considered much "better" than blacks). But I live with constant awareness of the wrongs that minorities of all stripes have experienced in teh distant and recent past, and even now. This election is bringing out a lot of conflicting feelings. I feel as if I'm walking on eggshells when I write about Obama. I don't want to come off as a racist. I don't want to be a racist. I don't even want to be "racially insensitive". But I don't see a lot of what has been called "racist" in this campaign as such, and I have to wonder if I'm right and this is a combination of race baiting, oversensitivity, and political correctness, or if I have some deep-seated racism and I'm simply not willing to see what others are seeing. Part of me would really like to support Obama. He is charismatic, energetic, and smart. And the idea of racial healing is appealing. But I can't support him because he is black any more than I can not support him because he is black. And when it comes right down to it, I don't think he is as qualified as Clinton. I just can't get past that. I've always thought that he'd be Presidential material someday, but not now, not when he is so inexperiened.

    Anyway, the only way past doubt and fear is through it, so I'm writing this. Time will tell. I still believe that Obama will be the Democratic Candidate. I still don't think he'll win. I don't know if that is latent racism or simply a doubt that such an inexperienced candidate can fight the right-wing machine. I hope his speech today works, because if he can't neutralize the Wright issue, then we are toast in the general election. And I hope that if he somehow wins the Presidency, that he shows that he can move beyond platitudes and govern with intellect and judgement. Unity and hope won't solve the problems currently facing America.  Our next President is going to have to do things that will make a lot of people angry. I hope he can do that.

    Actually (none / 0) (#210)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:18:19 AM EST
    I think it kind of hurts him to give another great speech.  

    He gives good speeches, that's his thing . . . he also writes extremely well, imo, but the question is whether he brings anything else to the table.

    If he wins the nomination, how easy will it be for the other side to paint him as a mere talker?  I seem to remember that Bush gave a magnificent speech on the floor of the house right after 911, and look what happened next.

    Once more for the record:  I want competence in the practice of governing the country.  I don't need to be inspired by rhetoric.  I need to know that the people in control of our resources are well-informed, motivated, progressive, hard-working, and fair.

    We can hope that this speech stems the bleeding for his campaign, I suppose . . . if he's going to be our nominee it had better.  If he's going down because of Wright's "sermons" it will be better if it happens now than next fall.

    I thought it was a very good speech. (none / 0) (#213)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:19:00 AM EST
    It was serious about bringing race issues and concrete disparities into the mainstream.  It was a far cry from "I'm no perfect vessel," hearing him say "this isn't about me."  His explanation of Wright was much better than the ones he has been giving that are along the lines of, "well, all of our friends say things we don't agree with from time to time..."

    However, relying upon the dumbest interpretation of what Ferraro said in your speech, and acting as though it has been some unknown force that makes us feel bad about race and gender, instead of both of these campaigns, is not responsible.

    That he has the capacity to make this speech is definitely to his credit.  I'm proud of him.  We can argue over the substance of his speeches as Dems, and that's a good thing.

    Don't just watch (none / 0) (#220)
    by Andy08 on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:20:39 AM EST
    him. Take a break and calmly read the speech. Analyize the speech itself and think about the whole picture of Wright.

    We know he is a skilled, learned and practice orator.

    What makes me sick (none / 0) (#229)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:22:48 AM EST
    they justify Rev Wright by telling he had more than 2000 minutes of good talk..

    Then why do you go and attack Ferraro. She fought against discrimination. Did she have a track record of being called racist?

    I think they have gone to far of scapegoating Ferraro for their political expediency.

    How many times have you diagreed with your pastor (none / 0) (#241)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:26:29 AM EST
    I don't know where the Senator Obama is going with this but even if I have dis-agreed with my pastor.. I am not running for President Of USA on "A different kind of Politician" tag.

    You're point being what? (none / 0) (#264)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    That if you are a politician you should throw your pastor under the bus every time they say something you disagree with?

    You would be changing churches very frequently with that formula.


    MSHBN just compared this speech to MLK's (none / 0) (#243)
    by vicsan on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:27:03 AM EST
    "I've Got A Dream Speech!" Can you believe that?!@#$% Sally Quinn had the nerve to compare the 2 speeches. Of course the other talking heads had to agree with her.

    ROTFLMAO! They are shameless. That speech was not even close to being as inspirational as MLK's GREAT speech. How pathetic.

    I know (5.00 / 0) (#255)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:30:35 AM EST
    I watch the reviews and can't help laughing.  I just don't get it.  I feel like I must have defective genes.

    Commenter on CNN (William (none / 0) (#245)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:27:48 AM EST
    Scneider) sd. it was The speech on race in America.  Poor MLK.  

    thank you (none / 0) (#246)
    by vivicajane on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    Thank you Jeralyn for reminding me in your update that I read this site for you and not the divisive comments.

    It was a good speech (none / 0) (#261)
    by vj on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:33:13 AM EST
    well delivered,  and well received by the MSM.  I'd say Obama accomplished what he wanted to accomplish.

    Comments closing, new thread (none / 0) (#263)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:33:37 AM EST
    A third and final thread on the speech is here.

    Comments here are over 250 and closing.

    Did he mean old whites are racist? (none / 0) (#266)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:35:18 AM EST
    by sliming her grandmother.

    It was a good speech (none / 0) (#271)
    by Manuel on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:37:27 AM EST
    He said most of what needed to be said.  One thing he left out there, however, was the bit about politicians exploiting race (whom could he have in mind?). Is he being cynical or does he really believe the Clinton campaign has been underhanded in its handling of race issues?

    If this election is about race relations, then Obama is clearly the best candidate.  His conciliatory (understand where everyone comes from approach) works well when dealing with racial issues.  As a central issue in our nation's history race relations is a powerful factor in making a choice.  Personally, I rank the economy, health care, and security ahead of race relations.

    Did you notice? (none / 0) (#272)
    by demfromphilly on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:40:02 AM EST
    Contrary to claims made by Obama and his minions, he now admits that he was, in fact, in attendance during some of Rev Wright's controversial(hate-filled) sermons.  This was no doubt a pre-emptive move on Obama's part.  Surely he knows that photographic evidence is in existence and he must be on record correcting previous claims(lies). The MSM however will ignore this admission.  We will be treated to endless blathering's about how moving this speech was.  How he has been heaven sent to help us rise above.  Other then the above I have to say on of the more interesting moments of this speech was when he tossed granny under the bus. Very loving. Very classy. Ought to play real well in South Philly.

    It's Obama's 'Checkers' speech (none / 0) (#275)
    by badger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:05:02 PM EST
    In the 1952 election, Nixon got caught up in accusations of accepting illegal campaign funds and was facing being dropped from the ticket by Ike. He got TV time to deliver a speech defending himself, and basically said the only gift he ever took from a supporter was a cocker spaniel his kids named 'Checkers', and they weren't giving it back.

    It appears the Obama campaign is of the opinion that the Wright quotes might lose them enough superdelegates to cost him the nomination, and just like 'Checkers', Rev Wright is a liability in this case, but Obama isn't going to give him up - for somewhat the same emotional reasons.

    I thought it was a beautifully written speech and actually laid out the issue of race pretty nicely. I also think it leans more on the vision of the Obama campaign than on the reality of what Obama's positions on the issues are capable of delivering - for example on health care, jobs and education. In other words, a pretty typical political speech designed to keep the Obama campaign from going down in flames.

    Terrible speach. Obama throws his Grandmother (none / 0) (#277)
    by DemBillC on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    Grandmother under the bus, and compares her to Rev Wright. He then compares Ferraro's statements with Rev Wright's. He then blames the white man for Rev Wrights attitude forgetting that no one living had anything to do with Jim Crow or slavery. He admits he did hear Rev Wright hateful sermons when before he said he did not. He did not address his church's or Wright's relationship to Farrakhan. He should have brought up his relationship with big donor slumlord Rezco. He should have brought up his very priveledged childhood. Would we all not like a free ride to Harvard. Like George Bush he loves to give flowery speeches but take no questions.