Obama's speech on race

[busybody..]

BTW, Horny Babe.....why does it matter who wrote it? Cause its already been shown, MOST of the speeches BAM has given were lifted from Deval Patrick, so what HE says is meaningless, they aint his words

 

[HB1965]

For YEARS

BAM looked at Wright as his leader, Pastor, spiritual guide etc etc

NOW he says BAM says he disagrees with so much of what Wright said

Maybe in days ahead

BAM will disagree withe the "speech" as well?

After all, if HE didn't write it, its not HIS words or feelings

if his "staff" wrote it, then its the words of the staff not his!

If they aren't his feelings then why did he give the speech.

Lets play the game

I BLAME CLINTON!

K?


What does THIS have to do with Mc?

Because until it became clear that Obama had a chance to whip this Election out you focused the majority of your spleen on Hilliary. Now you all of a sudden start whacking on him full force. Well I have news for you. Your "hero" Mr. McCain isn't perfect either.

Its not eloquent at all. It was rambling and contradictory and as always with this guy didn't actually give specifics or say anything concrete. What stood out in my mind was his slobbering on himself to attack Reverend Wright's views on Israel as the root of the problems in the Middle East (which is absolutely true by the way).

Sorry but I did feel that he spoke in specifics. I felt he was very firm on what he believed and it's consistent with other things he has said.

 

[HB1965]

BTW, Horny Babe.....why does it matter who wrote it? Cause its already been shown, MOST of the speeches BAM has given were lifted from Deval Patrick, so what HE says is meaningless, they aint his words

Gee how interesting Deval and Barack have similar philosophies.

 

[busybody..]

Gee how interesting Deval and Barack have similar philosophies.

No

IDENTICAL WORDS

 

[HB1965]

No

IDENTICAL WORDS

Links please

 

[busybody..]

Im not gonna do your work for you

if you want links they TRULY are all over the net

BAM hasnt denied it either

You were here in 04,

I showed ENTIRE passages of Kerry's speeches to be the same as all of Shrum's past speeches he wrote for the OTHER 7 losing Dumoh candidates

Read this

Barack Obama's eloquence


If you have been impressed with Barack Obama's golden-tongued eloquence, you should spare a moment to read Andrew Ferguson's article, "The Wit and Wisdom of Barack Obama." While I have found Obama's rhetoric to be empty platitudes, I was amazed to find out the extent to which those platitudes have been used by other politicians. And it goes much further than borrowing a comeback from Deval Patrick who was fed the line by the common campaign manager in the Patrick and Obama campaigns. It turns out that all these platitudes have been used before and that Obama's speeches are basically a cut-and-paste job of the same sorts of things that politicians have been promising and asserting for decades.


When he does filch--notwithstanding the "just words" affair--hardly anyone notices. He lives in an era when the public memory has shrunk to a length of days or weeks. Especially in American politics, policed by a posse of commentators and reporters who crave novelty above all, the past is a blank; every day is Groundhog Day, bringing shocking discoveries of things that have happened over and over again. No politician has benefited from this amnesia as much as Obama. He is credited with revelatory eloquence for using phrases that have been in circulation for years. "Politics is broken," he says in his stump speech, and his audience of starry-eyed college students swoons and the thirtysomething reporters jot excitedly in their notebooks. The rest of us are left to wonder if he's tipping his hat to Bill Bradley, who left the Senate in 1996 because, Bradley said, "politics is broken," or if he's stealing from George W. Bush, who announced in his own stump speech in 2000 that "politics is broken." Obama could be flattering us or snowing us.

Or perhaps he's just guilty of a lack of originality. On the page, deprived of his baritone, without the prop of his steely jaw, his speeches limp from one shopworn phrase to another. When he tells his audiences they need "a president who will tell you what you need to know, not what you want to hear," he might be quoting, gulp, Geraldine Ferraro, who as a vice presidential candidate in 1984 liked to tell audiences that "Leadership is not just telling people what they want to hear, it's telling them what they need to know." It's a timeless principle that can be found in dozens of pop business books, too--the kind read in his formative years by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who used it when he ran for governor in 2003.

Timelessness may be the key here: You begin to wonder, listening to Obama's rhetoric, whether anything has changed in 20 years. "This is a defining moment in our history," Obama likes to say; but that's what Elizabeth Dole said when her husband ran for president in 1996. (They're both wrong.) In 1992, Bill Clinton was complaining that "Washington" was a place "people came to just to score political points." Eight years later Bush was complaining that "Washington is obsessed with scoring political points, not solving problems." Now, in 2008, "Washington has become a place," Obama says, "where politicians spend too much time trying to score political points."

What's to be done about all this Washington point-scoring? Bob Dole's solution, 12 years ago, was to strongly favor "the things that lift this country up instead of dragging it down"; today Obama opposes "the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up." Because Howard Dean failed in his promise in 2004--"we're going to take this country back"--Obama revives the pledge, word for word, today. But like Gerald Ford, running against Jimmy Carter in 1976, he believes "we can disagree without being disagreeable."

Onward they plod, these old warhorse phrases, until Obama climbs to the climax of his stump speech. Head bowed, brow furrowed, eyes flashing, he announces that we "will choose unity over division [Jesse Jackson, 1992]. We will choose hope over fear [Bill Clinton and John Kerry, 2004]. And we will choose the future over the past [Al Gore, 1992]." In so doing, we will overcome our "moral deficit [Bush, 2000; Gore, 2000; Newt Gingrich,1994]" by "bringing people beyond the divisions of race and class [Clinton 1992]" because the "story of our country [Ross Perot, 1992]" or the "genius of our country [Bush 2000]" or the "wonder of our country [George H.W. Bush, 1988]" is, as Obama says in 2008, "ordinary people doing extraordinary things [Perot, Bush, Bush, and Ronald Reagan, 1984]."

Talk like this is the elevator music of politics, soothing and inoffensive and unavoidable. Obama has had the unbelievable luck to attract listeners who seem to think he's minted it fresh.
That's a perfect description of Obama's rhetoric - he is the Muzak of politics. He just delivers the lines better.

Read the rest of Ferguson's article as he points out that Obama's America is a very dark place where people are suffering from evils that have been perpetrated by rather vague, unnamed sources because Obama realizes that, if he started naming names, he'd no longer be able to portray himself as the post-partisan bridge between the parties.

 

[breakwall]

Very eloquent indeed, but the controversy still has legs. In addition, he ought to forget the platitudes and come up with some details on his proposals for change.

This speech was specifically given to address racial concerns in the campaign. He announced it Pennsylvania that he was giving it.

I really REALLY hope he'll do a policy speech soon, because he needs to start cementing some of his nebulous ideas into workable proposals.

 

[HB1965]

You were here in 04,

Out of everything, that comment right there is enough to make me wonder if I should value anything you are saying.

No I wasn't here in '04

Which makes me wonder if you see what you want to see or have an understanding of things that fits what you want to believe.

 

[breakwall]

Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America

"There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America."

ohmigod he's a plagiarizer!

 

[busybody..]

Out of everything, that comment right there is enough to make me wonder if I should value anything you are saying.

No I wasn't here in '04

Which makes me wonder if you see what you want to see or have an understanding of things that fits what you want to believe.

I actully meant to write you werent here

You gotta gimme some slack LIB/TERRORIST!

I sit by my desk with 14 computers, trading stocks and markets and conducting other business

and I still manage time to entertain the LOONS of LIT

so what if I miswrite or mis-spell

 

[HB1965]

I actully meant to write you werent here

You gotta gimme some slack LIB/TERRORIST!

I sit by my desk with 14 computers, trading stocks and markets and conducting other business

and I still manage time to entertain the LOONS of LIT

so what if I miswrite or mis-spell

Nice save NeoconFreak, but I ain't buying it

 

[MeeMie]

Very eloquent indeed, but the controversy still has legs. In addition, he ought to forget the platitudes and come up with some details on his proposals for change.

There was some mention of it:
"by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."

To the tune of 17 trillion dollars, or so.

In fact, many of these affirmative actions and economic assistance have been in place for decades. Yet, white America continues to be blamed for the demise of black society. It becomes resented when all of these efforts are overlooked.

My feeling is that white America does want to see success for the black community and minimization of the racial divide, which is quite evident by the support that Sen. Obama has received from white America.

What has been the issue this past week about Wright's sermons has not been so much about race/black pride. The issue was more focused on his divisive level of hate, anti-Americanism, crazy conspiracy claims, paranoia, and the politics of victimization and grievance that never resolve through history.

Those comments can be interpred more than one way.

Odd that you don't see a contradiction between "yes" and "not". It's already been well established, prior to Obama's speech, that he in fact sat in a pew nodding in agreement during Wright's diatribe about white supremacy.

 

[busybody..]

Hey HB

Im goin out on a limb and assume you can read

READ!

I showed ENTIRE passages of Kerry's speeches to be the same as all of Shrum's past speeches he wrote for the OTHER 7 losing Dumoh candidates

Read this

Barack Obama's eloquence


If you have been impressed with Barack Obama's golden-tongued eloquence, you should spare a moment to read Andrew Ferguson's article, "The Wit and Wisdom of Barack Obama." While I have found Obama's rhetoric to be empty platitudes, I was amazed to find out the extent to which those platitudes have been used by other politicians. And it goes much further than borrowing a comeback from Deval Patrick who was fed the line by the common campaign manager in the Patrick and Obama campaigns. It turns out that all these platitudes have been used before and that Obama's speeches are basically a cut-and-paste job of the same sorts of things that politicians have been promising and asserting for decades.


When he does filch--notwithstanding the "just words" affair--hardly anyone notices. He lives in an era when the public memory has shrunk to a length of days or weeks. Especially in American politics, policed by a posse of commentators and reporters who crave novelty above all, the past is a blank; every day is Groundhog Day, bringing shocking discoveries of things that have happened over and over again. No politician has benefited from this amnesia as much as Obama. He is credited with revelatory eloquence for using phrases that have been in circulation for years. "Politics is broken," he says in his stump speech, and his audience of starry-eyed college students swoons and the thirtysomething reporters jot excitedly in their notebooks. The rest of us are left to wonder if he's tipping his hat to Bill Bradley, who left the Senate in 1996 because, Bradley said, "politics is broken," or if he's stealing from George W. Bush, who announced in his own stump speech in 2000 that "politics is broken." Obama could be flattering us or snowing us.

Or perhaps he's just guilty of a lack of originality. On the page, deprived of his baritone, without the prop of his steely jaw, his speeches limp from one shopworn phrase to another. When he tells his audiences they need "a president who will tell you what you need to know, not what you want to hear," he might be quoting, gulp, Geraldine Ferraro, who as a vice presidential candidate in 1984 liked to tell audiences that "Leadership is not just telling people what they want to hear, it's telling them what they need to know." It's a timeless principle that can be found in dozens of pop business books, too--the kind read in his formative years by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who used it when he ran for governor in 2003.

Timelessness may be the key here: You begin to wonder, listening to Obama's rhetoric, whether anything has changed in 20 years. "This is a defining moment in our history," Obama likes to say; but that's what Elizabeth Dole said when her husband ran for president in 1996. (They're both wrong.) In 1992, Bill Clinton was complaining that "Washington" was a place "people came to just to score political points." Eight years later Bush was complaining that "Washington is obsessed with scoring political points, not solving problems." Now, in 2008, "Washington has become a place," Obama says, "where politicians spend too much time trying to score political points."

What's to be done about all this Washington point-scoring? Bob Dole's solution, 12 years ago, was to strongly favor "the things that lift this country up instead of dragging it down"; today Obama opposes "the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up." Because Howard Dean failed in his promise in 2004--"we're going to take this country back"--Obama revives the pledge, word for word, today. But like Gerald Ford, running against Jimmy Carter in 1976, he believes "we can disagree without being disagreeable."

Onward they plod, these old warhorse phrases, until Obama climbs to the climax of his stump speech. Head bowed, brow furrowed, eyes flashing, he announces that we "will choose unity over division [Jesse Jackson, 1992]. We will choose hope over fear [Bill Clinton and John Kerry, 2004]. And we will choose the future over the past [Al Gore, 1992]." In so doing, we will overcome our "moral deficit [Bush, 2000; Gore, 2000; Newt Gingrich,1994]" by "bringing people beyond the divisions of race and class [Clinton 1992]" because the "story of our country [Ross Perot, 1992]" or the "genius of our country [Bush 2000]" or the "wonder of our country [George H.W. Bush, 1988]" is, as Obama says in 2008, "ordinary people doing extraordinary things [Perot, Bush, Bush, and Ronald Reagan, 1984]."

Talk like this is the elevator music of politics, soothing and inoffensive and unavoidable. Obama has had the unbelievable luck to attract listeners who seem to think he's minted it fresh.
That's a perfect description of Obama's rhetoric - he is the Muzak of politics. He just delivers the lines better.

Read the rest of Ferguson's article as he points out that Obama's America is a very dark place where people are suffering from evils that have been perpetrated by rather vague, unnamed sources because Obama realizes that, if he started naming names, he'd no longer be able to portray himself as the post-partisan bridge between the parties.
__________________

 

[HB1965]

Odd that you don't see a contradiction between "yes" and "not". It's already been well established, prior to Obama's speech, that he in fact sat in a pew nodding in agreement during Wright's diatribe about white supremacy.

Well established where? Never heard of it. Links please to this well established info

 

[Wok]

Ron Paul!

 

[HB1965]

Onward they plod, these old warhorse phrases, until Obama climbs to the climax of his stump speech. Head bowed, brow furrowed, eyes flashing, he announces that we "will choose unity over division [Jesse Jackson, 1992]. We will choose hope over fear [Bill Clinton and John Kerry, 2004]. And we will choose the future over the past [Al Gore, 1992]." In so doing, we will overcome our "moral deficit [Bush, 2000; Gore, 2000; Newt Gingrich,1994]" by "bringing people beyond the divisions of race and class [Clinton 1992]" because the "story of our country [Ross Perot, 1992]" or the "genius of our country [Bush 2000]" or the "wonder of our country [George H.W. Bush, 1988]" is, as Obama says in 2008, "ordinary people doing extraordinary things [Perot, Bush, Bush, and Ronald Reagan, 1984]."

GUess what, I have news for you. Political Speech writers do this shit all time. Of the writer of this article really did his work he would find that a lot of political candidates speech writers have stolen from each other. How to right for effect is taught in Public Relations School. This passage write here shows that a lot of borrowing.

 

[busybody..]

1- Who wrote the speech?

2- Will he RESIGN from the "Church"?

3- Since he said NO, the speech is meaningless

 

[busybody..]

GUess what, I have news for you. Political Speech writers do this shit all time. Of the writer of this article really did his work he would find that a lot of political candidates speech writers have stolen from each other. How to right for effect is taught in Public Relations School. This passage write here shows that a lot of borrowing.

TRUE

thats why I ask

WHO WROTE THIS SPEECH?

If it wasnt BAM, then we cant BELIEVE one word of it!

 

[Wok]

1- Who wrote the speech?

2- Will he RESIGN from the "Church"?

3- Since he said NO, the speech is meaningless

Even if he resigned, the damage is done. So what good will that do?

 

[HB1965]

1- Who wrote the speech?

2- Will he RESIGN from the "Church"?

3- Since he said NO, the speech is meaningless

He refers to the man as his former pastor.

I think I need to start digging up shit on McCain.

 

[busybody..]

Whacky Won

It will show he sees WRIGHT and WRONG and will stand up against it!

 

[busybody..]

:

I think I need to start digging up shit on McCain.

there is plenty of it

after all

We all know he went CRAZY during his POW years

 

[breakwall]

Well established where? Never heard of it. Links please to this well established info

Oh, it's well established:

17 Mar 2008 07:11 am

Bill Kristol's New York Times column about Barack Obama this morning contains a major, prejudicial error.

Paragraph five:


But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That’s when Wright blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.

The error is in trusting the source without checking.

The truth is that Obama did not attend church on July 22.

He was on his way to campaign in Miami.

One of his correspondents allegedly attended a service last summer where Rev. Wright preached on the "United States of White America." Kessler writes that Obama "nodded" his head while Wright preached along these lines:


Addressing the Iraq war, Wright thundered, “Young African-American men” were “dying for nothing.” The “illegal war,” he shouted, was “based on Bush’s lies” and is being “fought for oil money.”

Now, a simple Google search suggests that Obama spent most of the day in Miami. But a simple e-mail or telephone call to Obama's campaign might have cleared things up.

er.

Oops.

 

[Wrong Element]

Well established where? Never heard of it. Links please to this well established info

Oh, they will believe what they want to believe. I'm convinced that all the Wright matter has done is provide new ammo for those who were never voting for him anyway. And the fact that it's a racial issue makes it perfect.

Anyone else see the irony that the GB's most notorious lifter of other people's words, and in many cases entire articles, is complaining about Obama being a plagiarist?

 

[busybody..]

Obama's Key to Speech Success
Get me a Souljah and make it snappy!
By Mickey Kaus
Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2008, at 5:40 AM ET
Early Souljah Is Like Yeast! In his Big Race Speech today, I hope Obama remembers the lesson of his breakthrough 2004 convention keynote address, which is a) say something conservative and anti-PC sounding; b) say it strongly and c) say it early. After that, you'll have the doubters on your side and you can more or less be as doctrinaire-left as you want. But the longer you waits to say something heterodox,i the more heterodox to have the same effect.

In Obama's 2004 speech, the Early Souljah moment that made it work came about a third of the way in:

... children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. [E.A.]

Voters, including but not limited to the crucial white males and independents, heard that hard, unhedged dis of dysfunctional ghetto-poor identity culture--it pretty clearly isn't whites doing the slandering Obama's rejecting--and decided they liked this guy. A good way to introduce yourself as a different kind of African-American politician! After that, Obama could even sell them John Kerry.

Why do I worry Obama's forgotten this lesson?

P.S.: There are plenty of potential Souljahs still around: Race preferences. Out-of-wedlock births. Three strike laws! But most of all the victim mentality that tells African Americans (in the fashion of Rev. Wright's most infamous sermons) that the important forces shaping their lives are the evil actions of others, of other races. ...