Obama's speech on race

[Faneros]

You don't write speech, you speak it. Then it gets "transcribed", or written, so that people who didn't hear the speech can read the transcript.

The speech was originally composed by Sen. Obama and his staff.

It was apparently transcribed by Matt Drudge.

yeah sure

 

[Wok]

I don't believe it is "just as crappy". Obama had a pre-existing relationship with Wright before he stated his offensive views. McCain sought to establish a relationship with people whose opinions were already well known. In addition, Obama has denounced Wright's remarks, McCain refuses to address the bigotry of his supporters, merely stating that he doesn't always agree with them.

I am not saying that you are wrong to be troubled by the Obama-Wright situation, but I believe that McCain's ties to bigoted religious leaders is a much more egregious situation.

I believe both Obama's and McCain's endorsements are equally damaging. Obama distances himself from Wright. Good for him. It still does not make it go away. Does that mean others will not support them despite who they support? Nope. People can support for whomever they want.

 

[busybody..]

Michelle Obama and the audacity of whining

Last night, C-SPAN presented a campaign speech by Michelle Obama. The theme of the speech was how “they” are always raising the bar. And you can certainly understand why Ms. Obama feels this way. No sooner has she paid for music lessons for her kids than it’s summer and she has to pay for special camps. No sooner has she adjusted to being a Senator's wife (on only $1 million per year), than she’s got to help her husband campaign for president.

In fairness, though, Ms. Obama is a pretty good orator, and her "raising the bar" meme, while ultimately incoherent, is fairly potent stuff. She started from the idea that “they” have constantly raised the bar on her husband’s campaign. After he won Iowa, he had to prove he could win primaries; when he won primaries in one type of state, he had to prove he could win primaries in another type of state, etc.

Similarly, Ms. Obama contended, “they” are constantly raising the bar on the American people. Thus, folks keep reaching the bar only to find that it’s been set higher, just out of their reach. It is this diabolical reality that causes people to be fearful and isolated, and keeps us from coming together.

The notion of the moving bar lies, of course, at the core of the victim mentality. You hear it, for example, in employment discrimination case where the plaintiff claims to have done everything he or she was asked to do, only to be discriminatorily denied a promotion because the bar kept moving.

Most of the time, this reasoning is fallacious. In a dynamic society, the bar typically is not set by reference to pre-established standards; it’s set by reference to the performance and qualifications of the people one is competing with. Ironically, however, a presidential nomination race is an exception. For Obama (as for all other candidates) the bar is stationary – win more than half of the delegates and you’re the nominee.

Ms. Obama’s message resonates nonetheless. The bar may not moving in any way that is improper or unfair (except, I would argue, when it is lowered for minority groups pursuant to affirmative action). Still, having constantly to meet fluctuating standards set by competition, and having to worry about your employer’s ability to compete as well, is a recipe for significant anxiety.

However, the answer to coping does not lie in whining, much less in seeking artificially to restrict competition. Indeed, it is quite irresponsible for a politician to pretend that he or she can insulate people from this sort of anxiety. If anything will “keep us from coming together," it is Ms. Obama’s combination of fear-mongering and over-promising.

The answer to coping lies in developing the skills and the mind-set that will maximize one’s ability to compete. By peddling a mind-set of victimization and by failing to support meaningful education reform out of deference to teachers’ unions, the Obamas, like nearly all modern-day liberals, represent the problem, not the solution.

 

[busybody..]

what OTHER religious leaders that Mc has sought

said EQUALLY OFFENSIVE shit?

Ask the DISEASED DICK DANGLER

as a DDD, I dont believe a word he says

You didnt ask the DISEASED DICK DANGLER

 

[Queersetti]

I believe both Obama's and McCain's endorsements are equally damaging. Obama distances himself from Wright. Good for him. It still does not make it go away. Does that mean others will not support them despite who they support? Nope. People can support for whomever they want.

Well, actually, I think that this will damage Obama much more than Hagee/Parsley/Dobson will damage McCain, because the press is going to hold Obama to a higher standard and give McCain a free pass.

 

[Wok]

Well, actually, I think that this will damage Obama much more than Hagee/Parsley/Dobson will damage McCain, because the press is going to hold Obama to a higher standard and give McCain a free pass.

Sigh, that's politics for you. I have not heard a lot about McCain's edorsements because the Obama/Wright controversy eclipsed it.

 

[Faneros]

Well, actually, I think that this will damage Obama much more than Hagee/Parsley/Dobson will damage McCain, because the press is going to hold Obama to a higher standard and give McCain a free pass.

If McCain has to run against O'bama in the general election, thats not a given....

 

[Queersetti]

Sigh, that's politics for you. I have not heard a lot about McCain's edorsements because the Obama/Wright controversy eclipsed it.

Is there a major issue on which McCain has not changed his position? And yet the press still refers to him as a "straight talker". When he made the crack about the media being his base, he was only half joking.

 

[spacekowboy]

I'd just like to say thank you for posting that. That is one of the most inspiring speeches I've ever read/seen/heard. Say what you will about the man I'm not here to argue. That however was powerful.

 

[Queersetti]

If McCain has to run against O'bama in the general election, thats not a given....

I'm willing to bet that between now and the election, we hear the name "Rezko" far more times than we do "Keating" or "Iseman".

 

[Wok]

Is there a major issue on which McCain has not changed his position? And yet the press still refers to him as a "straight talker". When he made the crack about the media being his base, he was only half joking.

Heh...

 

[busybody..]

Nominating Al


As I've been telling you for nearly a year now (why won't you LISTEN?) the 44th POTUS will be Al Gore. It merely remains to work out the nomination details. A reader gives it a try.

Obama will go into the convention with a pledged delegate lead sizable enough that the superdelegates won't dare give the nomination to Hillary. The Pastor Wright scandal will make them equally unwilling to give it to Obama. So they'll deadlock the convention and then Al steps in: he'll convince both Hillary and Obama to throw their support behind him in exchange for SCOTUS nods for both of them when Ginsburg and Stevens retire (which they'll certainly be confirmed for, given Senate comity and somewhere between 55 and 60 Senate Democrats). He'll give Edwards AG in exchange for his handful of delegates and take it all. Max Baucus will be his running mate so that, with a Gore-Baucus ticket, Rush Limbaugh will not be able to resist playing the Gorbasm/Empire Strikes Back theme from back in the 80s when Gorbachev was still around — which will make Gore cool for the first time in his life

 

[Wok]

Nominating Al


As I've been telling you for nearly a year now (why won't you LISTEN?) the 44th POTUS will be Al Gore. It merely remains to work out the nomination details. A reader gives it a try.

Obama will go into the convention with a pledged delegate lead sizable enough that the superdelegates won't dare give the nomination to Hillary. The Pastor Wright scandal will make them equally unwilling to give it to Obama. So they'll deadlock the convention and then Al steps in: he'll convince both Hillary and Obama to throw their support behind him in exchange for SCOTUS nods for both of them when Ginsburg and Stevens retire (which they'll certainly be confirmed for, given Senate comity and somewhere between 55 and 60 Senate Democrats). He'll give Edwards AG in exchange for his handful of delegates and take it all. Max Baucus will be his running mate so that, with a Gore-Baucus ticket, Rush Limbaugh will not be able to resist playing the Gorbasm/Empire Strikes Back theme from back in the 80s when Gorbachev was still around — which will make Gore cool for the first time in his life

That would be nice. He invented the Interwebs after all.

 

[busybody..]

I NO LONGER LOVE WOK

 

[Wok]

I NO LONGER LOVE WOK (less then) KEEN

fyp.

 

[busybody..]

well, you have become more interesting lately

so you are no longer

WOK (less then ) KEEN





































for now

 

[Saint Boner]

I'd like to see Bush even read that speech let alone sound believable. If nothing else Obama Sounds like a person I'd want to vote for. Way better than that Village Idiot, dubya.

Neither Party deserves to be rewarded with a President in office. Vote Libertarian.

 

[busybody..]

Bush isnt running

 

[busybody..]

Not so much lies as a sort of slippery sleight-of-mouth. I'm starting to really dislike Obama.

"Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation … came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land."


Segregation was not "the law of the land" in the 1950s. It was the law in a minority of states.

"For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger … occasionally … finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews."


If, as Obama seems to be claiming, those are the sentiments only of Wright's generation, how come those whooping and clapping their approval in those sermon clips include lots of young people?

"Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends."
Fear of crime is not a legitimate emotion? Or is it just not legitimate for politicians to appeal to it? If, oh, say, some liberal Democratic governor of some state gives weekend furloughs to the perpetrator of a hideously callous murder who then, while on furlough, commits armed robbery and rape, why should criticism of that governor for that act be out of bounds in a political contest? Or should it only be out of bounds if the murderer is black?

"But 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 whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family."


Well, I'm an immigrant, and I try hard to feed my family. And yes, I have grievances. For instance, I think I pay far too much tax in support of far too many public sector workers, most of whom do nothing useful. So … how will you bind your "particular grievances" to mine, Senator? Or am I somehow unrepresentative of immigrants?

"This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care …"


The lines in the Emergency Room at far too many U.S. hospitals are filled with illegal immigrants, preventing citizens from getting timely emergency help. What's your line on illegal immigration, Senator? Oh, right — you're fine with it, as is the rest of your party.

"Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students."


What on earth does this mean? It's true that there is widespread school segregation today. In my state, 60 percent of black students attend schools that are at least 90-percent black. From what I can see, the main reason for this is the great reluctance of nonblack parents to send their kids to schools with too many black students, which they assume are beset by all the problems associated with poorly run public schools. Do you think that they — actually we, as my wife and I share this reluctance — are wrong to think like this? How will you persuade us to think otherwise? Or will you depend on judicially-imposed forced integration of the schools?

 

[Wrong Element]

Not so much lies as a sort of slippery sleight-of-mouth. I'm starting to really dislike Obama.

"Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation … came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land."


Segregation was not "the law of the land" in the 1950s. It was the law in a minority of states.

There was still plenty of legal and informal segregation back then. There's a reason Martin Luther King went to Chicago right after Selma. That was 1965.

 

[busybody..]

There was still plenty of legal and informal segregation back then. There's a reason Martin Luther King went to Chicago right after Selma. That was 1965.

It wasnt law of the land, was it?

 

[busybody..]

The KNEE GROW throws his GranMA under the bus

Saves the HATE MINGERING Wright!


Obama and His 'White Grandmother'
By JAMES TARANTO
March 18, 2008

Barack Obama took the stage this morning to give what was billed as a "major speech on race." It was, of course, an attempt to rescue his campaign from the revelation that his so-called spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, espouses a virulently anti-American and antiwhite worldview called "black liberation theology."

Here is the part of the speech that bothered us most:

I can no more disown [Wright] 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.


Our first thought was that it was pretty low of Obama to exploit his (still living) grandmother in this way. Is it really necessary for the whole world to know about her private expressions of prejudice? Doesn't simple decency dictate that a public figure treat embarrassing facts about loved ones with discretion?

Obama was trying to accomplish something very specific by dragging his "white grandmother" into this political mess. He was trying to diminish Wright's hateful theology by implying that it too is a private matter. Said Obama:

For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.


That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.


And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Rev. Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.
Note how Obama elides the difference between a comment at the "kitchen table" and a sermon delivered to a congregation of thousands and recorded on DVD.

Obama rightly faulted his spiritual mentor for using "incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation." But he tried to treat Wright's most outrageous comments as if they were aberrations rather than the most extreme expressions of an extreme ideology:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. 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.


But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice.


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, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.


What Obama is evading is that this "profoundly distorted view" is not just some passing emotion. It is what Wright himself, in the "talking points" page of his congregation's Web site, describes as "systematized black liberation theology." As we noted yesterday, Wright credits James Cone of New York's Union Theological Seminary with having undertaken this systematization. Here again is Cone's description of black liberation theology:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.


So here we have, on the one hand, an old white woman who would be completely ordinary and anonymous but for her grandson's astonishing political success, and who harbors some regrettable prejudices; and, on the other, a leader in the black community who uses his pulpit to propagate an ideology of hate.

Obama said this morning, "I have asserted a firm conviction--a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people--that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union."

But if he cannot speak out unequivocally against the public, organized bigotry of his spiritual mentor, how can he possibly live up to this promise?

 

[MeeMie]

Here's some homework.

The original article citing that Obama attended the sermon in question was written by William Kristol in the NYT.

Please ensure that you read his retraction at the beginning of the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Hardly.

A retraction from William Kristol citing an article by Ronald Kessler (the actual author who attended the service) hardly trumps the clarification by Kessler standing by his statements.

Did you happen to notice that secret service agents were also there? They have attended each and every sermon that Obama was present for.

Not too hard to corroborate.

I repeat, why do you think Obama's answer was "yes" in today's speech.

HE LIED PREVIOUSLY.

 

[hogjack]

I'm starting to really dislike Obama.

Universal hatred is one of busybody's hallmarks.

For a few extra bucks busybody will toss in some genocide and misogyny.

The ignorance is free of charge.

 

[busybody..]

Obama: Fire Imus
Obama First White House Contender to Call for Imus’ Firing Over Racial Slur

By JAKE TAPPER

April 11, 2007—In an interview with ABC News Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called for the firing of talk radio host Don Imus. Obama said he would never again appear on Imus’ show, which is broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC television.

“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”

Obama said he appeared once on Imus’ show two years ago, and “I have no intention of returning.”

Last week, Imus referred to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team, most of whom are African-American, as “nappy-headed hos.” He has since apologized for his remarks, and CBS and MSNBC suspended his show for two weeks.

“He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women — who I hope will be athletes — that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It’s one that I’m not interested in supporting.”

Though every major presidential candidate has decried the racist remarks, Obama is the first one to say Imus should lose his job for them…

“What we’ve been seeing around this country is this constant ratcheting up of a coarsening of the culture that all of have to think about,” Obama said.

“Insults, humor that degrades women, humor that is based in racism and racial stereotypes isn’t fun,” the senator told ABC News.

“And the notion that somehow it’s cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids,” he concluded.

Isn’t irony ironic?