Post Speech
Mar 18th, 2008 at 11:12 am by Susie
From the part I caught, it sounded good but not great. (And there were parts I just didn’t like, but I think that had more to do with his low-key delivery.) But it actually reads much stronger than it sounded.
The question now is, will the people he needs to win back actually listen?
I can no more disown him [Wright] 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. 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 fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
UPDATE: Reviews as I spot them. Here’s one. Two. Three. Four. Five.
Good. Maybe we can talk about it now.
I didn’t hear it, but I read it. Fantastic speech. I’ve been on the fence for the primary (primarily because Hillary’s health care plan is better). This may be what pushes me towards Obama.
What pushes me to Obama is things like the last sentence quoted here. I was for Edwards, because he was talking about that stuff all the time. Neither remaining candidate emphasizes it strongly enough for my tastes– but, for all his studied vagueness about bread and butter issues, Obama is more on the ball than Clinton.
He had to give this speech. His pastor’s words are affecting the polls, and not in a good way. It would have been nice if he called the dogs off the sexist rants aimed at Clinton. He could have shown real leadership in his speech and changed (he loves this word) everything. But, no, he didn’t and won’t.
What finally pissed me off about BO and the blog boyz - and it took a while to get there (it just kept building) - was that not one of them (BO included) stood up and defended Clinton when they attacked her daughter for campaigning for her, the “pimping” her out issue. After all no one’s family ever, ever has campaigned for a family member before. Between the weak-knee dems in congress and the senate and now this primary season I’m actually disgusted. What a bunch of hacks.
Leave it to the dems to snatch defeat from the hands of victory.
I agree. It was a good speech. Hillary’s health care plan is marginally better than Obama’s. And Edwards’s plan was even better and it’s too bad he’s not in the race to push it forward.
In my view, there isn’t much difference between Clinton’s and Obama’s policies. I have decided for Obama because he has accepted the 50-state doctrine for campaigning, and I think that is better for the party and the down-ticket candidates that we’ll need in Congress.
That’s a great speech. Hope it gets the play it merits.
We knew it was going to be a good speech, because Obama is a good speaker.
The rhetoric is interesting: “This time we want to talk about ….” is characteristic of Obama’s rhetoric for two reasons: 1. The use of anaphora; and 2. it’s totally meta.
A third element of Obama’s rhetoric, which I find troubling, is a lack of agency at key points. 3:
Well, how exactly did they bubble? Spontaneously? Well, not exactly. Sean Wilentz gives a detailed history of the racial subtext in this campaign, and the “tensions” did not “bubble”* from the Hillary campaign.
NOTE * Can a tension, indeed, bubble? If Obama did indeed write the speech, he needs to learn something about mixed metaphors.
me thinks if HRC gave a speech on race/sexism/discrimination this site would be falling over itself in giving praise and adulations (courageous, timely, historic, et al). But, the wrong candidate gave it so it is a “good” speech - not “great”.
One pundits view of racial tension origins does not mean it is correct. I could cherry-pick another pundit who lays the blame on hrc and billy…
I’m sure somehow hrc will claim victim-hood for something soon…it’s been awhile sice we were all accussed of being “mean” to her…
Suzie, ********************************************************?
(redacted to keep from starting a flame war.)
Not every day William Faulkner, zero sum game and the Golden Rule are referenced in a political speech.
I sat there and was left empty. It just didn’t resonate anything that I
didn’t already feel myself and was simply left that nothing within the
speech changed how I felt.
First, the reference to Ferraro was worse than bad…Ferraro simply was
correct, the media covered the woman and the black man. The white male
candidates got no fair coverage and were quickly pushed aside. Obama was
lucky he was the black candidate, Clinton was lucky that she was the
woman candidate with the added plus of being the wife of a popular
ex-president. To equate some of the things that Wright said to Ferraro
is simply not comparable.
Second, I sense that this is his attempt to designate a new Obama rule,
only he can make racial statements and news media, surrogates, etc. are
not empowered to do so.
Third, I really wasn’t worked up about Wrights sermons in the first
place but of course, it was the potential impact of that on white
America that motivated this speech. Damage control…the premise was
awkward from the beginning. Wright wasn’t the problem and it simply
wasn’t reasonable to think that he could get through a presidential
primary without a discussion about race but suddenly now, he wants to
discuss race…damage control.
Lastly, it is almost as though blacks are the only segment of this
country that is suffered upon…as if the fact that women make 73% on
the dollar for doing the same job isn’t an issue. In fact, he doesn’t
even recognize that the gender issue is out there at all. He doesn’t
seem to see the forest for the trees.
That said, he wins, he still gets my vote.