Whether Barack likes it or not he has created the perfect setup for the election: Is America ready for an honest, reasonable, leader who will speak to us like adults? We know the far right fades out when the discourse rises above junior high school level, but what about the other 75% of America? Are there enough Americans out there who will give him a chance and not take the low road? That's what it's about in 2008....

Perhaps bringing that conservative id to the foreground can be a good thing. We don't like to look in the mirror and see our own ugliness; maybe this will at least lead large segments of the country toward a kind of spiritual plastic surgery (sorry). It's not going to be pretty, and surely it won't be fun. But maybe it's a way forward, at least if the bulk of the country confronts that id and rejects it.

Or, I suppose, we could have a Klan revival.

I don't know about America, but I am ready for adult discourse. The redstaters can go suck eggs.

If Ward Connerly is there idea of an ideal black person, to hell with these guys.

Klan never went away the just changed their name to republicans.

sorry, their ideal black person

For some really scary stuff go read Malkin's crazy-ass rambling blog comments. Ho-ly smokes! Those comments are tame compared to the KKK communiques being put forth over there.

Whether it was a homer or foul ball, there is no doubt that he hit the ball out of the park. That's gotta scare the other two.

well I don't belong to any 'conservative id' and yet I essentially agree with them: it was a good speech that was entirely beside the point, in short, a very cynical attempt to change the subject. He may get away with it as far as Hillary is concerned since if she attempts to point out his ploy she'll be accused of being racially insensitive - McMcain and the right wing attack dogs will not feel so encumbered. You're dreaming if you think this issue is going away.

Kevin is typically unfair in his selective cite of comments at The Corner - below is some nice praise. Reactions to speeeches are inherently subjective. I thought it was okay, but overall a missed opportunity to actually do something good for the county, instead of just trying to do something good for himself. It was too much a campaign speech.

Hemmingway:
...it was in many respects excellent. I thought the first third of the speech was not so good in that that he offered up too much stark racial context before he got to the part about addressing Wright. But once he got wound up, he spoke about as candidly and eloquently about race as one could hope of a politician.

Goldberg:
It was a much better speech than I thought it would be. It had some lovely moments and he came across as a remarkably classy and decent guy. But I think there were some serious logical, philosophical, and political flaws to it. Anyway, I've got to write a column on it fast, so I'll be bowing out for a bit.

Was it just me, or did anyone else note that for the first half of the speech, Sen. Obama seemed annoyed, put out by having to give the speech in the first place?

This actually touches on something that I noticed; to wit, Obama sometimes has mannerisms that allow people to project 'smugness' on him. I'm not saying he's smug, but it would be very easy to get clips of, say, him pausing for applause during one of his rallies and looking around with that kind of pursed-lip look that can be seen, to those with low self-esteem, as preening.

It could be as annoying to some as Al Gore's condescending 'now, children' tone of voice.

I'm just saying. He needs to watch himself on tape.

The Prairie Angel

Now the question becomes: Is America ready for an adult to run for President?

Up until Wright's comments Obama was transcending race as an issue, but now race is front and center and this will not help Obama. Wright's comments will follow Obama throughout his campaign and they could damage his campaign just like the swift boat issue damaged Kerry. I thought Obama speech as good but it was too nuanced for ordinary americans and I don't think it will go over well in middle america or the south.

Also, I think Hillary's playing this smart by keeping her mouth shut and letting the media focus on Obama and the race issue. This could get worse....

Kevin is typically unfair in his selective cite of comments at The Corner - below is some nice praise

don't be a fool. the praise, such as it was, is utterly overwhelmed by the loathsome bile the rest of the crew spat out.

Kevin, also notice that a good half of the Corner dwellers didn't listen to the whole speech. "I've heard enough," one writes.

Oh, really? Unlike most of us who hold day jobs doing other things, they hold day jobs about politics. That's their job. It's intellectual laziness, and knee-jerk reaction on their part.

I read it, didn't watch/listen. It's a good speech and especially towards the end provides some challenges for all of us. The right wing noise machine will try to drown it it, but I think his message will get through.

brian, don't you get nauseous when Goldberg criticizes a speech on logical, philosophical and political grounds? I mean, such expertise as he has is not in any of those fields.

Jonah the liberal fascist hunter says there are logical, philosophical flaws in Obama speech? The same Jonah was on MSNBC telling the world that Obama was in 2 places at one time on July 22, 2007.

Serious candidates like Obama need to talk and act without regard to what the Neanderthal wing of the Republican party is going to do.

If Jesus Christ came back today, they would accuse him of being a socialist who hangs out with lowlifes. And won't take the "No Taxes" pledge to boot.

I'm outraged I tell ya - Obama didn't specifically denounce what Assistant Pastor Jerome Smith said about white people at the 3rd Baptists Church of Oshkosh on June 15th, 2003, at the 10:00 AM* Service - or so Newsmax is reporting.

* Might have been the 8:00 AM Service - Or sometime in 2003... or 2002.

I am a Barack supporter. To me, it was an intelligent speech where he truly understood those who disagreed with him and was a real discussion on important matters.

I don't, however, know whether enough Americans will see it that way. Already, many are just focused on the gotcha aspect. What exactly did he hear when he sat in the pews and what did he do about it? To them, anything else he says is just puffery.

At least one open minded post from The Corner:
*********
Obama in Philly [Drew Cline]

What first strikes me in Barack Obama's speech today is the image of a black American standing across the street from where the Constitution was negotiated in part by slave owners — and not condemning the Founders, but praising them.

When we hear sentences like this: "Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787," we often hear in response America's black leaders condemn those men as racists who don't represent black Americans. They remind us of the slaves who suffered and died crammed into the cargo holds of some of those ships. They hold slavery to be THE defining mark of early America and discount the remarkable achievement in Philadelphia as something insincere, fraudulent, and unworthy of reverence.

But here was Obama praising the Founders for their ideals. Here he was noting the stain of slavery, but not letting it become THE story of the Founders, but only a part of the story, not letting it press out the reverence the Founders are due.

That might be the lasting legacy of this speech. The Jeremiah Wright controversy will eventually become a footnote in American political history. But the moment of the first serious black contender for the Oval Office speaking with reverence and admiration for slave-owning Founding Fathers, and dismissing explicitly the idea that the United States is, by virtue of the nation's Original Sin of slavery, a fundamentally racist nation, has the potential to become a turning point.

03/18 11:24 AM
*****

In an ideal world, I agree it would have been best if this whole issue could have been swept under the rug.

But, with the Clintons' subtle racial jabs during the campaign, and Faux Spews running the Rev. Wright loop constantly for the next 8 months it had to be addressed.

It was a brilliant speech, and conveyed the right message.

If America isn't ready for Barrack after this, then we get what we deserve. Also, if the Democratic party isn't ready for this speech it will continue to become increasingly irrelevant as well.

the longer that race stays front and center in the campaign, the more time the real conservative id will have to ooze into the forefront. Obama can't be looking forward to that.

Oh, but I am. The whole 'white flight' base of the Republican party, frothing in pure Willie Horton hysteria for the next several months.

I love the smell of fear.
.

I've had a pet theory about how race, or more specifically racism, would play in Obama's favor in the general election. It was based on the idea that conservatives reflexively respond in the most callous way possible when attacking their opponents, and that those attacks would be cringe-inducing for your average independent/republican living outside of the echo chamber.

I think what the Wright story does is significantly cut into that advantage by giving republicans fodder they can throw at the democratic nominee without the need to make it up out of whole cloth. Obama's response today, I think, puts us back at square one. When things get really ugly on the right, he can return to this subject as evidence that he is willing to engage this country on an entirely different level.

So I think he helped himself, and that any disadvantages he earns because of Wright, may very well be negated by the insanity that he will inevitably face in the general.

Awesome, awesome speech. Mr. Obama will be a major force on the political scene, win or lose, for years to come.

Kevin writes: "... the longer that race stays front and center in the campaign, the more time the real conservative id will have to ooze into the forefront. Obama can't be looking forward to that."

Obama had damned well better understand that if he wins the Democratic nomination, he will be subjected to an onslaught of character assassination -- not just from the so-called "conservative" media, but far more importantly from the corporate-owned media from which most Americans get most of their information -- that will make the goring of Al Gore and the swiftboating of John Kerry, let alone the relatively mild negative campaigning of Hillary Clinton, pale into insignificance.

The corporate media is the Krell amplifier that transforms the "conservative id" into a monster.

I don't think it is bad to expose the conservative id. Most Independents don't pay much attention and the few times they have seen this id they have been repulsed. The Schiavo affair is a great example of Repubs playing to these wingnuts and turning off centrists in droves.

Kevin, also notice that a good half of the Corner dwellers didn't listen to the whole speech. "I've heard enough," one writes.

Oh, really? Unlike most of us who hold day jobs doing other things, they hold day jobs about politics. That's their job. It's intellectual laziness, and knee-jerk reaction on their part.

Yes, and if Obama had been bombing with the speech, they'd have hung, slavering, on every word. "I've heard enough" = "Damn it, he's kicking ass with this. I have to look away."

Kevin writes: "... the longer that race stays front and center in the campaign, the more time the real conservative id will have to ooze into the forefront. Obama can't be looking forward to that."

I don't know about that. You're assuming that the "real conservative id ... ooozing to the forefornt" would be a good thing for conservatives. I'm not so sure. I think the more that average people see this ooze the more they will reject it. Yah sure, there will always be those that respond to coded racial language, but I think the vast majority of Americans will be less sympathetic to this message the more they hear it.

As a (white, male, 40ish) Democrat, and JRE convert to BO, I was very happy with this. I agree that anything longer than a beer commercial will not be an overwhelming success. He was editing right up to the delivery I've heard. I'm sure this was a horribly difficult and uncomfortable thing to do. His mannerisms we under control given the task. This was not sugar coated. For all the 'tough talk' we get on news commentary, this was the real deal.

There is so much here to study for weeks to come. When is the last time a self identified and media identified black man delivered a reasoned and compassionate description of the white middle class voter? Amazing effort here.

Win or lose, BO has made a great contribution to our country.

But as a BO supporter, I think the speech will act as a boost for two major groups of supporters: First, among folks who have lots of race relations in their lives and those lives didn't crumble for it. Also among those who have virtually none of these relations, but who can reason this through since zero relations means no negative relations for them. I hope that this will bring Philly, Pitt, and latte sippers back into the fold and reverse the feeling that this race is sliding out of control.

It's isn't just on The Corner I'm afraid. From Corrente:

Obama speech live blogging
Submitted by vastleft on Tue, 2008-03-18 10:55.

* Barack Obama

Update: Dang, he went 0 for 3. I thought he’d at least put in a good word for non-Christians. Nope.

He started by saying “thank you� several times.

That’s the difference between him and Hillary. She always thanks herself, but Obama’s campaign is about you.

* * *

He calls slavery our original sin. I thought the original sin was the quest for knowledge.

* * *

Racial tensions “bubbled to the surface� before the South Carolina primary. Gee, how did that happen?

* * *

Played the Ferraro card. Had he previously sounded an all clear on that?

Chutzpah on race from Mr. Hopey
Submitted by lambert on Tue, 2008-03-18 10:22.

* Barack Obama

The One opines:

“[OBAMA] We’ve got a tragic history when it comes to race in this country. We’ve got a lot of pent-up anger and bitterness and misunderstanding. … This country wants to move beyond these kinds of things.�

Well sir, if you want what the country wants, then you wouldn’t be smearing the Clintons as racist, you mealy-mouthed moralizing toxic fraudster. Sean Wilentz has the timeline and the exhaustive details:

Just as an aside, I would say the Corner is treating Obama with far more fairness than he's receiving from the good folks at MYDD. Take one look at the recommended diaries and you'd think you were looking at LGF or Michelle Malkin.

And Jerome Armstrong has completely, and utterly, jumped the shark.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/18/103159/649

Brian at 12:35, are your excerpts representative of most of the commenters there, or are you just showing us the fig-leaves? Because then it's you who's got it backwards, not Kevin.

I thought it was a superb speech. It is what Obama does (not much) that worries me, and what his supporters do and say (Axelrod and his ilk are chronic liars and street trash and Obama picked them) that makes me very very worried.

"It was, as usual for him, a helluva good address: intelligent, sane".

Whoa! Intelligent AND sane?

This will not go over well with the anyone, let alone the media.

An extraordinary speech. As someone else said, if America isn't ready for Obama, the loss is all hers.

It would also be nice to have a President who can actually think, and can actually write their own speeches.

I also just listened to a Wright sermon off the politico:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Longer_Wright.html

It just shows how important context is when reacting to a TV clip. Not something Talk Show Morons are particularly attuned to.

That was the best speech about race in several decades because it was engaging, honest, and forward looking. He had to give the speech because race will be part of this campaign, just as it has been part of most campaigns on some level - usually both dishonestly and serving to divide our nation from its better self. By defining how he will treat it now, he sets the terms of the debate. If this speech is not good enough for everyone of good will, God help us all.

Focusing on the Corner's reaction is as utterly irrelevant as focusing on people who were already supporting Obama. In both cases, the response is entirely predictable and says little about the speech.

The target of the speech was neither of those groups, it was independants, swing voters, Hillary supporters who might vote for Obama but could be concerned by Rev. Wright's comments or Obama's race.

Great post (and very funny) by Tbogg on conservative reaction to Obama and Wright: http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/03/17/tar-baby/

En he didn't hatter wait long, nudder, kaze bimeby de crackabloggahs deys stats ter hollah "niggah, niggah, niggah" at de top o dey lungs.

You're right, Kevin. Nothing will be satisfactory to these pundits. They're snobs.

The target of the speech was neither of those groups, it was independants, swing voters, Hillary supporters who might vote for Obama but could be concerned by Rev. Wright's comments or Obama's race.

Bingo.

Any hopes anyone had that Barack Obama would be a gift to civil rights in America — that he would shake hands with Ward Connerly and really be a change died today, I think.

I had to go see who wrote this, and it was K-Lo. That woman is as clueless about race as she is about, well, everything else.

a very cynical attempt to change the subject

"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.
***
"As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems ...."

Changing the subject? Cynical? I don't see it.

Check out this reaction, from Charles Murray:

Have I missed the competition? [Charles Murray]

I read the various posts here on "The Corner," mostly pretty ho-hum or critical about Obama's speech. Then I figured I'd better read the text (I tried to find a video of it, but couldn't). I've just finished. Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant�rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols.... But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie.

If Obama can continue to respond as a well reasoned and responsible candidate, while the right exposes it's true self, this could be a very cleansing election. Given the economic meltdown, a lot of people who were formerly unsympathetic towards the downtrodden will be receptive to this sort of message. Nothing like becoming downtrodden yourself, to change ones outlook on the downtrodden.

Is that the best conservatism has to offer?

As I noted in my URL (click my name!), The Corner appears set to spend the day using the speech as a bludgeon on issues dishonestly unrelated to the Wright Problem, which is, namely, whether Obama can truly lead on isssues of race in contemporary America.

There's just no intellectual good faith over there. Goldberg's "rushing to get a column done" on a speech whose last words were just uttered, Hays can't read the difference between "offering excuse" and "offering context," Derbyshire doesn't know what "red flag socialism" is, while Lopez highlighted an email that said Obama "is a con-artist" who "never offers specifics."

Where's the honesty?

The target of the speech was neither of those groups, it was independents, swing voters, Hillary supporters who might vote for Obama but could be concerned by Rev. Wright's comments or Obama's race.

It would be nice if Clinton would pull a John Edwards here. It would be nice if she would call on Democrats in the remaining primaries not to vote against Obama because of what his pastor said.

Don't hold your breath though.

Kevin,

I'm a bit confused about why you think Obama is interested in waving away the race issue. Didn't he say:
"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. 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.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality. "

"the more time the real conservative id will have to ooze into the forefront."

I think it will be a very good thing to have that ugly dark id out in the open air. A lot of decent people will be disgusted by what they see. It isn't going to be pretty though.

For the past 50 years, Americans have been stuck with the same-old, same-old on race. Turning to a behavioral psychology reference, we may be in for an extinction burst, an increase in undesirable behavior, when deeply ingrained behaviors no longer deliver the expected reward. Rats start crapping in their cages during an extinction burst. We can anticipate that Conservatives will be spewing racist words and attitudes on the internet and airwaves. Eventually they will learn that it doesn't work that way anymore.

I only read the speech - I'm a details person myself and like to exclude pre-crafted body/oratory language.

I'm still mulling the potential impact. It is clear that Obama has addressed race issues in a very mature and sensible way and hopefully will allow us as a nation to address them, in a mature fashion (hopefully alleviating some of Thersite's concerns). But I am not sure that he just didn't switch the race issue to one of a class issue, by implying that we need to attack corporate america.

I still need to mull. And there was some dirty political jabbing that I didn't really like.

Obama's weapon here is "sweet reason". The more reasonable he continues to be the more these guys (and their elk) will simply appear to be schmucks and creeps. (No surprise there.)

One good thing that the Democrats should take from the Karl Rove playbook is this: There will always be a sizable number of people who will hate you no matter what you do, and those people should be ignored. The Corner doesn't hate Obama because of something his pastor said, or because they think he hates America, or anything like that. They hate him because he's a Democrat. Since Obama is not going to stop being a Democrat, they will always hate him. So who cares?

At the end of the day, the Sean Hannitys of the world are either going to hate Obama a lot or they're going to hate him a little. But they're still going to hate him, and it's counterproductive to try to get them to stop.

" Is America ready for an honest, reasonable, leader who will speak to us like adults? "

If recent US history is any guide, hopefully you are not holding your breath.

What Bill Gardner said. Kind of what you expect from the rest of the Cornerites (though it always bears pointing out as Kevin does here). But that's an amazing reaction from Charles Murray of all people.

"Swoon" he says. This is a man who is too concerned about the other side, too tied to polls and failure to see the necessity of inspiration. He does not understand the fight going on today.

It is not between conservatives and liberals, it is between content and the superficial. Obama, using the crucible of racial politics, has laid the foundation for adult discussion, and has identified quite accurately a host of very real problems in this country, ranging from media superficiality to exploitation of fear, to the ordinary suspects of the war in Iraq, global warming and the economy. There is no question that the right wing press will continue the wars of the past. They always do. Obama has dropped the gauntlet. Are we to be taken in again?

That is the issue today. That the Washington Monthly misses it, is sad indeed. I, like many others who have commented here are ready for the fight. Fight back as often as possible with "not this time." There is no other response to government by hysteria.

"Swoon" is a word charged with condescension. Spare me your worldly insights. We have an opportunity of historical proportions before us.

"the more these guys (and their elk)" - Jeffrey Davis

What? I didn't see these folks wearing a rack.

I think you mean ilk?

But I am not sure that he just didn't switch the race issue to one of a class issue, by implying that we need to attack corporate america.

LOLOLOL. optical weenie, have you ever considered leaving the Republican party and its talking points?

Well, if they're all against it, he must be onto something. I mean, when have they ever been right before?

For one thing, I found this speech to be the biggest step backwards in racial relations in a long time. Apparently one of Wright's (Cone's / Black Liberation Theology's) foundational principles is indelibly ingrained into Obama:
In Obama's world we're not Americans, he has us pigeonholed by racial, socioeconomic class, and gender.

Obama's 'viewpoint' is politically convenient, because when one splits the public into groups one can pander to their grievances (real or perceived) and make vague promises ("hope") to fix to each group's problems (often at the expense of some other group). We all should know from the past that the promises of politicians to the various groups are usually conflicting, and rarely carried out, but typically a well-articulated promise is believed long enough to pull in the votes. A savvy politician can always find someone to blame later when the voters begin to notice that the fine speeches were just hot air.

The thing that saddened me most was how Obama threw his grandmother under the bus. It came across to me as really, really cold to compare his grandmother to a "preacher" who has made a career of whipping up emotional crowds a race-hate, hate-America speeches.

Finally, I accept the explanation that Wright was formed by his experiences in the 50's and 60's... BUT I know of many good persons who rose above their past. Too bad Wright, as a "spiritual leader", couldn't rise above his past, but instead used his pulpit to pull down another generation.

From a Christian standpoint Obama's excuse was pathetic on two levels - that a "preacher" of the gospel of Christ was bound up by his grudge-filled past and not transformed by Christ, and that Obama would accept that one's past is more powerful than the transforming power of Christ. But hate is a powerful emotion, and one bound up in hate will never fully love. Clearly, the preaching about forgiveness by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount was lost on both Wright and Obama.

I'd like to amend my post of 2:10, which was unfair to optical weenie. I realize that she is not a Republican. Why she wants to further Republican talking points remains a mystery, however.

JohnDoe: because when one splits the public into groups one can pander to their grievances

No, you have it wrong. When you try and pretend the public isn't already split you're being dishonest. When you acknowledge that split, and that each side has legitimate grievances, and then say "that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds" you're not pandering -- you're urging us to overcome the split.

JonDoe: This isn't really aimed at you. I've been away from this blog for a while and haven't kept track of regular commentors. But I have to say, between here and MYDD, it's really hard to tell Republicans from Clinton supporters when it comes to this issue.

Not really meant to be an attack, just an observation.

Those aren't genuine reactions or analyses -- they are political reactions. What NRO and the other conservative commentators are doing now is TELLING people how to interpret what Obama actually said -- and encouraging them to shut down their brains and not listen. Like a parasite invading the body of its host, they want to gouge into Obama's speech and consume it from the inside out.

So -- they would have us believe that Obama isn't telling us to get over race, but that he is actually playing the race card and being a victim. Obama is criticising America. Obama is making excuses. It is the usual alternative reality, where things are 180 degrees from what they seem.

-- Bokonon

Weenie: But I am not sure that he just didn't switch the race issue to one of a class issue,

I suspect that for the last hundred years or so, the race issue has been used as a smokescreen to keep Americans from noticing the existence of class issues.

Seriously, Kevin, this cannot come as a surprise to you. For months now I've been predicting that by the time we get to November, they'll be running ads that say "don't vote for the n***er."

They're Republicans, man. It's what they do. Race baiting has been their most reliable crutch for 40 years now. They've never bothered to develop an alternate to "fear of brown people" because they've never had to. The chances that they will fail to try to draw from that same well where they have found succor lo these many years? Approximately zero.

It wouldn't be a historic event if there were no blood... I hope he (and we) are prepared for the bloodletting that will come if he's nominated.

How often does a campaign speech rise to this level of analysis and acknowledge so many unpleasant truths, while maintaining an uplifting and unifying message? I think it was brilliant.

Jondoe, you should read it sometime.

Oh, and I predict that McCain won't make this an issue in the general election. He's got too many incendiary pastors in his own closet.

Look for a 527 to devote itself full-time to Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan. That's gonna get ugly.

America was founded on slavery, and no nation can escape its founding. America partially righted the wrong by liberating the slaves, but it has yet to make reparations for the stolen lives and profits that it made from slavery. Race relations will continue to be strained until reparations are made in full.

I can't see how race could trump youth, eloquence, intelligence, and optimism. Running against the legacy of the Bush administration is no small advantage either. The presidency is his for the taking.

As a Clinton supporter, I resent his characterization of those who support his opponent (Clinton) as bigots. Where did he do that? Listen to the anecdote about the young girl who came to his campaign because of her mother's illness. He says she could have been raised differently, to think that her mother's problems were the fault of immigrants etc., and she might have gone a different way. That clearly implies that the bigoted teachings are those that drive people toward other candidates, not real differences in belief about who might be the best president. I doubt Obama supporters would have noticed that kind of thing, however.

I believe the entire anecdote was manufactured, and the wise, elderly black man who said he joined the campaign because of the girl was a convenient way to neutralize the angry elderly black man who is Wright. If the black person in that story had been a young male it would have sounded lewd, not touching. If it had been a woman, it would have suggested empathy based on gender and been countrary to Obama's goals. So how lucky it was that it was an elderly black man! And how manipulative and Reaganesque to concoct such a convenient story for this speech.

Obama's going to win because he's had a simple, strong message from the start, and he almost never seems to be out of position vis-a-vis that message:

"WE are going to change this country. I am not going to do it for you. WE are going to do it together."

As he sat with his family and advisors, the man simply had to know there would be a Big Racial Moment in this campaign. Probably more than one. Do you think he failed to plan for it? I don't. Look how it fits into his overall narrative:

"What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time."

See? "Americans...willing to do their part."

Fits the overall narrative: "WE will change this country together" like a glove. Obama is still who he is. The message does not change. Because it's not made-up. It wasn't born in a focus group.
It's eminently practical.

"For the African-American community...it also means binding our particular grievances...to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives..."

Again, fits the narrative like a glove. "WE have to do this together."
Is this a rhetorical trick?
Those who have already made their minds up will undoubtedly say yes.
I do not believe that to be the case.
I believe it's an honest attempt to fix the damnable mess this country is in the only practical way we can - together.
It sounds honest because...gasp...it IS.

That's what I think, anyway.

JonDoe @ 2:17:

The speech had to be, and was, a recognition of the deeply different viewpoints on America held by different groups based largely on race. Seeing such deep divisions, normally sequestered beneath the surface of public discourse, is disturbing to voters. Obama shone a light on that.

The question of whether it was politically expedient to do so is a very complex one. He had to do it given the Wright issue, yet going there has been exactly what he has seemingly avoided so far, for the reason that placing the campaign in a racial context would drive away non-Black voters.

As for your comments equating the speech with a divide-and-pander strategy based upon hope, that's just an undifferentiated kitchen-sink smear soup. You think preaching about forgiveness to blacks regarding slavery and Jim Crow is a winning or even coherent religious OR political message, you go right ahead. I suspect you would be a pioneer in that approach.

Mary, get a life.

Mary, get a life.

Mary is an Obama supporter trying to make Clinton supporters look teh crazy. Nice try Axelrod!!!

Yeah, Mary's never been Axelrod's finest moment.

JonDoe:"or one thing, I found this speech to be the biggest step backwards in racial relations in a long time. "

Bokonon: "What NRO and the other conservative commentators ... would have us believe that Obama isn't telling us to get over race, but that he is actually playing the race card and being a victim. ... It is the usual alternative reality, where things are 180 degrees from what they seem.

Heh, Bokonon gets it totally right just four posts later. Right on cue, we see the 180º degree conservative talking points emerge. Did JonDoe actually read or see the speech? It is hard to believe that he/she did, given the clueless response.

...and then the super-sensitive HRC supporters start their sniffling, such as Mary, "And how manipulative and Reaganesque to concoct such a convenient story for this speech."

The thing is, Mary, the story of the young woman and the old black man emerged at the time of the SC convention. So you are simply wrong about this. Please get past the paranoia.

And why is it that "race" has stayed front and center!

Oh! now I remember...

100 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON

John Derbyshire just had up a vicious post on the Corer in which he admitted that he and his wife didn't want their kids to go to school with too many black kids. He challenged Obama to say there was something wrong with that.

But ten minutes after being posted, it's mysteriously been removed.

The ability to have a civil discussion about race requires us to not just transcend politics but our own prejudicial predilections as well.

The reason so many people "hate" others is the inability to talk with others, not just talking to others.

We need a world where everyone is given the chance to say "hello, how's it going.?"

What we have is .... , well that's what Obama was talking about.

Pop Quiz:

When was the first formal protest against slavery in the New World? Where was it?

Stumped?

Try Germantown/Philadelphia. 1688.

The original document has been lovingly preserved and awaits further recognition of it's existence!

I believe the entire anecdote was manufactured . . . . And how manipulative and Reaganesque to concoct such a convenient story for this speech.

Hey, Mary, that looks like fun! So I'm going to try it.

I'll bet Hillary Clinton doesn't really intend to withdraw troops from Iraq. How cynical of her, to campaign on withdrawing troops from Iraq when she doesn't really intend to do it. This is just more evidence that Hillary Clinton is a cynical politician who'll do anything to win, because I'll also bet she killed Vince Foster. How horrible of her, to kill Vince Foster like that. And you know, I'm guessing she also would start a war in Iran. Isn't that terrible? Just think of all the lying and killing Hillary Clinton is willing to do, just to be President.

You can try this at home! Just substitute your favorite politican, add wild speculation and a dash of unwarranted certainty, shake into a jumbled mess, and serve!

"I only read the speech - I'm a details person myself and like to exclude pre-crafted body/oratory language."

so pre-crafted words are ok, but not gestures? How do you get more details by ignoring details relevant to the message? Just curious. I mean, in a way i think i see a point here, that you want the meaning of the text and not the meaning of the text as supplemented by the delivery, but i disagree with the idea that the delivery is somehow a separate message form the words. anyway, I didn't mean to make too much of this, but it struck me as semantically odd.

Anyway, i'm getting ready to go read the speech myself, & only read the text since i have a shitty internet connection. Before i do though, i want to note how pathetic it is that Wright's anger even needs to be explained to people. America has systematically failed on the promises inherent in the country's founding documents & racial difference has shaped those institutionalized, systematic failures. Calling our attention to this, critiquing our country by its own standards is an act of patriotism even if it's delivered as a denunciation, even if it's delivered with curses and anger. I mean, i'm pissed off and disapointed by it and i'm white. I can't imagine how i might feel if i was black. Anyone who doesn't get this should read two texts: "If I Had a Country I Would Be a Patriot" by Frederick Douglass and "As Regards Patrotism" by Mark Twain.

"I suspect that for the last hundred years or so, the race issue has been used as a smokescreen to keep Americans from noticing the existence of class issues."

-Bingo, but a little longer than a hundred years. since "whiteness" solidified as a way of binding up immigrants from disparate backgrounds, around the middle of the 1800s.

What is surprising is that the pundits haven't yet tried to make Obama reject and repudiate extra-marital affairs by black politicians and their wives now that the Paterson issues have surfaced.

it was a good speech that was entirely beside the point, in short, a very cynical attempt to change the subject.

Pffff....what point?? The righties were all in a tizzy because they thought they had something they can bludgeon Obama with till November. They wanted Obama to be on the defensive and disown Wright or even attempt to defend Wright's words. Instead Obama delivers a speech which provides the proper framing for why people like Wright say such things, and Obama did so in a way that doesn't demean Wright or defend him. And even better he managed to turn a speech that was supposed to be defensive into an inspirational speech about how far we've come in this country.

I'm sure the boys at Fox News were shaking their heads trying to pigeon hole him with "he didn't disavow Wright", and maybe that type of cynical score-keeping works for their audience, but the goal of the speech wasn't to win Fox News viewers over (if they're watching Fox News, they're unwinnable anyway). The goal of the speech was to assure the rest of the country that Obama has a clear understanding of where race-relations are in this country and that despite what people may hear from Fox News, right-wing radio, etc., he is not Louis Farrakhan, and desires for people from all sides to get over whatever racial divisions are still being harbored.

Most Provocative Comment at NRO on Obama Speech:

Have I missed the competition? [Charles Murray]
I read the various posts here on "The Corner," mostly pretty ho-hum or critical about Obama's speech. Then I figured I'd better read the text (I tried to find a video of it, but couldn't). I've just finished. Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols.... But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie.

03/18 01:06 PM

That Charles Murray loves this speech while the rest of the circle-jerking Righties snark proves just how beyond reason and racist that crew truly are. They're too stupid to even know how stupid they are. I can't stand Charles Murray, but I give him credit for having more intellect, balls and honesty than the garden-variety clowns at NRO.

I have been an Obama supporter since he entered the race, and I did not swoon.

I am sickened that purely political circumstances required him to make such a speech, thanks to the Clinton campaign. It is to McCain's credit that he waved his campaign off of the matter. The fact Obama had to make the speech illuminates a disgusting double standard and the racism which continues to permeate USA society.

When was the last time a Caucasian candidates was required to answer for the comments of their pastor or the lunacy of their clerical supporters.

Each campaign season republican candidates make the obligatory pilgrimage to swing on Robertson's and, until recently, Fallwell's meat. Of course, their lunacy never extends to challenging the Caucasian economic and political power elite.

What Rev. Wright said is true. What Obama said today in his speech was true and I salute him for having the guts to tell USA voters that racism continues to exist in the USA, even if a bit more latent.

Very intereresting to read the comments here. I think the generally muted reaction to the speech means that Obama missed an opportunity. If he had given a good speech, this site mostly would be going wild about it. The media and everyone else will largely lose interest over the next several days, but I think the damage has been done is costing him about a 5% swing in the general election, probably enough to make his chance of being elected president very small.

ps It also is interesting to see the discussion of The Corner. There are some hard liners there unlikely to give Obama a break, but there are also smart and honest people. I know many here despise conservatives, but it is a very interesting site. Goldberg seems to be the subject of special venom here, and I know his book is a touchy subject, but in person and in most of his writing he is a fair, open and honest guy.

Sorry, but a guy who uses the catch phrase "Yes we can!" from Bob The Builder can't lay claim to "Speaking to use like adults". LOL!

Goldberg is a bad joke as a "pundit" - his book isn't a "touchy subject". It's an insult to any honest reader's intelligence, whether one is conservative or liberal. Lopez is simply a very stupid person - she's at the level of high school journalism, at best. And Derbyshire is a garden variety reactionary, comfortable with his racism. These guys had William F. Buckley turning over in his grave - even a couple of years ago when he was still breathing. (Read the very funny piece on the National Review cruise published in TNR a while back, with Norman Podhoretz screaming at Bill like the crazy man he is.)

brian, do your hands hurt from wringing them so much?

Just read the speech. profoundly important and beautiful. I've been a (mostly) converted JRE supporter, and that speech has helped me put aside the "mostly."

Clearly, the preaching about forgiveness by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount was lost on both Wright and Obama.

Posted by: JonDoe

But not on you, right?

Rush Limpbag:

" You know, he's half white and half black. ."

But in America Rush... he's considered black, white genes or not.

This speech by Obama in the birth place of America, puts all of Rush's divisive blather in perspective.

Chris Brown: sickened that purely political circumstances required him to make such a speech

You're right. He shouldn't have had to make a speech like that. But he sure rose to the occasion, didn't he? Some people make me proud to be a member of the human race.

As the Obama circle jerk continues it is certainly worthy to note that 1) Obama and his campaign continue to use race to deflect any criticism (inexperienced you say? You racist!); today's speech was just further immunization; 2) Obama dismisses virulent condemnations of America as mere "political views" which can be "disagreed" with (FWIW if a so-called religious leader asks God to damn a nation, one would think this would provide more cause for concern about their beliefs than the like sentiment expressed by the non-religious). I assume he would greet "We will bury you" as just another political opinion; and 3) as a parent I have to question the judgement and fitness for leadership of a person who exposed their young children, Sunday after Sunday, to racist anti-white bile and vicious denunications of the country of their birth (just as I condemn so-called Christian Identity parents who drag their children to religious services that attack blacks and Jews). When did racism become acceptable if it has a black face? How can one support the anti-Amercian views of a pastor while saying, "for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible"?

Now let the cries of troll and Republican go forth- I am neither, but a liberal Democrat. My version of liberalism decries every form of racism, not just the ones that are socially unacceptable.

How can one support the anti-Amercian views of a pastor while saying, "for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible"?

Platypus,

Obama DOESN'T support the anti-American comments of Reverend Wright. That was made quite clear in his speech today.

I'm not sure what "racist anti-White bile" you're talking about, and how you know it occurred "Sunday after Sunday." Have you been attending Obama's church? Or are you generalizing from one section of one sermon you saw on YouTube?

Thought so.

Toad

Sorry, but a guy who uses the catch phrase "Yes we can!" from Bob The Builder

Quiet, honey, the adults are talking.

Here, go read this.
.

Let's play poker. I reject your claims of racism, and raise you one fascist. Nyaaah.

So there. Are we having a constructive dialogue about the speech yet? :-)

Any comment that linked Obama with Ward Connerly was composed by a seriously confused propagandist. Obama was gonna link arms with the #1 self-hating GOoPer token black? No, I don't think anyone beyond The Corner was puffing on THAT hookah.

Platypus, SWING AND A MISS. Reading comprehension not one of your strong suits huh?

Here's what I love about National Review.

I was reading along and thought of a point I wanted to make in rebuttal. So I clicked on the "comments" section to get access to an uninhibited and freewheeling discussion of the subject. It's so refreshing to get away from the lockstep groupthink found here on these liberal websites.

This has been a dispatch from the alternate universe.

Thersites,
Well if the folks commenting at National Review think that we libs have "lockstep groupthink" then I suspect that our battle in the general election will be easier than we fear it will be!

The ex-slave owners, ex-lynch mob members and present day Palestinian mass murderers at the extreme right wing propaganda org of the National Review dislike having their behaviors and the behaviors they advocate their nation commit condemned. What racist Americans like them fear the most is that race will finally be overcome in our society. Without bigotry, racist Americans will starve as a political power. They must deeply fear Sen. Obama will end their reason for being.

All right, Bokonon. I reject your "reject" and raise you a "denounce." So THERE.

thersites is cracking me up today.

Shortstop,
Sure doesn't take much to crack you up then. What, were you born with a weak spot already?

Um, Weenie.
Go over to National Review and look for their "comments" link. There ain't one.

I suppose it was too much to expect that Obama would stay away from the political arguments and games in his speech, but I thought his bringing in Ferarro was off key (he should have defended her as a good person) and that his slap at supposed bogeymen talk radio and conservative pundits was also at least unnecessary:

“Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism,�

First of all, who is he actually talking about? I bet he could not name one. But even if there are some who legitimately fit within the description, what take a shot at them in this speech? The mindset that this needs to be said in this type of speech is a weakness.

Why is no one talking about the announcement that Ted Turner's TCM and TBS networks will be playing "Blazing Saddles" 24/7 until the election?

As the Obama circle jerk continues ... My version of liberalism decries every form of racism, not just the ones that are socially unacceptable.

Posted by: Platypus

You missed one, Puss.

brian,

You mean to tell me a candidate for political office dared to inject politics into a campaign speech?

Heaven forfend!

First of all, who is he actually talking about? I bet he could not name one.

Fortunately, neither Obama nor anyone else on this thread is as ignorant as you.
.

The original speech given in 1995 by President Bill Clinton before the Million Man March

http://www.afn.org/~dks/race/clinton-e6.html

But even if there are some who legitimately fit within the description, what take a shot at them in this speech? The mindset that this needs to be said in this type of speech is a weakness.

Yeah. Why would a person addressing the complex tangle of history, fear, & resentment that contribute to racial tension take issue with opportunistic hacks who dismiss legitimate discussions of racial injustice & inequality?

God, you're a fucking idiot.

"As a Clinton supporter, I resent his characterization of those who support his opponent (Clinton) as bigots."

Since he did not do any such thing, I'm afraid your "resentment" is entirely made up.

"Where did he do that?"

He didn't.

"Listen to the anecdote about the young girl"

I did. He didn't. Next bit of stupidity?

"That clearly implies..."

That you're a moron.

"I doubt Obama supporters would have noticed that kind of thing, however."

Mostly because it's manifestly untrue.

"I believe the entire anecdote was manufactured"

And your evidence that it was "manufactured" is, what, exactly? Yeah, we thought so.

"And how manipulative and Reaganesque to concoct such a convenient story for this speech."

LOL... So it's made up because you say so. And you get to throw a hissy fit even if you have no idea whether the anecdote was true or not. And this is on top of an "analysis" of the anecdote that is so absurdly stupid I'm not even going to bother to repeat it or refute it.

Grow up and get a life.

"Obama DOESN'T support the anti-American comments of Reverend Wright."

Toad, he supported the views by attending the church from whose pulpit they were espoused. To a certain extent he still supports them by relegating them to political differences of opinion. And no, Toad, I don't get my news from whacking off to YouTube videos as Obamabots do.

You might want to read something about Rev. Wright, whose statements even Obama said today denigrate our nation, were racially divisive, and are offensive to both white and black. Do you think Obama learned what he knows about his pastor from YouTube? Or do you too believe that the evil white government invented AIDS to kill people of color? Do you disagree with the Savior, when he told you that Wright's belief that white racism is endemic is wrong? Pick a side and argue it, and stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Francis, thanks for contributing nothing. If you can't read well enough to actually comment on what is written, perhaps throwing stones isn't advisable?

Bok, Godwin's law declares you to be the loser. However, since one of the hallmarks of fascism is "Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc." I'd agree that anyone, such as Rev. Wright. who declares enemies on the basis of race, has facist tendencies.

thersites, my point was that it would have been more effective if he did not make it a political speech and, even if the crack about talk show hosts and conservative commentators could be backed up with some examples, the speech would have been better without the crack.

As to the guys here popping me without identifying who supposedly is such a host or commentator that built his "entire career" on it, who are those persons? Of is Obama pulling an okey doke?

"As the Obama circle jerk continues it is certainly worthy to note that"

Yes, by all means, let's examine what you think is "worthy to note." I'm sure we'll all be fascinated.

"1) Obama and his campaign continue to use race to deflect any criticism (inexperienced you say? You racist!)"

Untrue, of course, which is why you couldn't find a single example to support this bit of stupidity and had to basically make shit up. Strike 1.

"2) Obama dismisses virulent condemnations of America as mere 'political views' which can be 'disagreed' with"

"Virulent"? I don't think you know the meaning of the word. And, dear heart, of course an opinion, virulent or not, can be disagreed with. On what planet do you live that this is not the case?

"(FWIW if a so-called religious leader asks God to damn a nation, one would think this would provide more cause for concern about their beliefs than the like sentiment expressed by the non-religious)."

Well, sure, if you're a moron.

"3) as a parent I have to question the judgement and fitness