Comments on: Post Speech

By: white_n_az

white_n_az — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:15:01 +0000

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.

By: YY

YY — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:47:46 +0000

Not every day William Faulkner, zero sum game and the Golden Rule are referenced in a political speech.

By: k

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:51:58 +0000

Suzie, ********************************************************?
(redacted to keep from starting a flame war.)

By: joe

joe — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:03:49 +0000

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…

By: Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA

Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:54:14 +0000

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:

We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary.

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.

By: Macjazz

Macjazz — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:27:11 +0000

That’s a great speech. Hope it gets the play it merits.

By: Foraker

Foraker — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:38:37 +0000

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.

By: LH

LH — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:36:06 +0000

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.

By: Michael Bloom

Michael Bloom — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:11:31 +0000

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.

By: Lionel

Lionel — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:53:16 +0000

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.

By: k

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:24:27 +0000

Good. Maybe we can talk about it now.