The Meanings of Obama's Speech
I watched Barack Obama's speech yesterday morning intently. The "pre-game show" of cable commentators predicted a somewhat grim outcome. What could Obama say that could possibly overcome his association with the words of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Would he throw his pastor on the train tracks? And even if he did, would he still suffer from guilt by association?
But then, for 45 minutes, I saw a man who for days had appeared somewhat at sea, buffeted by waves that relentlessly pushed him off course, seem to find his compass and chart a course directly into the eye of the storm. I saw a man with the inner confidence, and the steadiness of a captain who knew he was sailing on uncharted waters but needed to go there anyway, take the nation with him and land them safely on the shore.
The pundits were clearly stunned. They knew they had witnessed something extraordinary, a moment when time seemed to stand still and a politician in the midst of a withering electoral storm did the unspeakable: he spoke the truth. The unspoken, unspeakable truth. He told the nation that he understood what was happening in white barber shops and black barber shops, around white water coolers and black water coolers, and that we are neither free from our prejudices nor merely prejudiced in our respective grievances, and that in both our prejudices and our grievances, we have more in common than we know.
With the exception of commentators who pride themselves on their bigotry, the speech drew immediate, nearly universal acclaim, and I suspect that its lasting impact will mirror its initial impact. But as the great French sociologist Emil Durkheim described it, we live our lives in the realm of the profane, punctuated by moments of sanctity, only to return again to everyday life. And by nightfall, as I listened to reports of the speech on television, many of the talking heads had returned to the realm of the literal, the crass, and the profane: Did he distance himself enough from Reverend Wright? Did he condemn his former pastor enough to reassure white voters?
But the speech wasn't about Reverend Wright, even though the controversy surrounding pieces of his sermons was the impetus for it. Obama delivered a message that spoke to the conflicts and contradictions around race that have existed since the earliest days of this nation, and he delivered it in a personal way that spoke to his own history and his own complex response to his pastor's messages over many years. The speech brought to mind a passage written by the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson a half century ago in his psychobiography of Martin Luther, which could just as easily have been written last night. Erikson was describing that ineffable quality we call charisma, and the way an individual life history sometimes converges with the historical moment: "Now and again," Erikson wrote, "an individual is called upon (called upon by whom, only theologians claim to know, and by what only bad psychologists)," to lift his personal conflicts to the level of cultural conflicts, "and to try to solve for all what he could not solve for himself alone."
Obama clearly hadn't wanted to make this election about race. But the events of the last week led him to do what the nation has long needed to do: to have the kind of open conversation about race that Republicans have avoided because they've preferred to exploit it and Democrats have avoided because they've tended to fear it. We can't solve problems we can't talk about, and our better angels on race tend to be our conscious values. As numerous commentators described it, Obama led us to our better angels.
But from a political standpoint, at least as important as the primary message of his speech was a series of meta-messages he conveyed as much through his actions as his words. Obama's speech was in many respects a rejoinder to a number of questions raised about him over the last few weeks that contributed to defeats in Ohio and Texas.
Is he a moving orator who speaks pretty lines but lacks substance? No one can seriously ask that question today, after Obama offered the most eloquent, intellectually penetrating, and most moving description of the complexities of race in America of any politician in recent history. But he did more than talk about race. He began to build a progressive narrative that Democrats, and the progressive movement more broadly, have had difficulty developing. He offered a progressive vision of patriotism, integrating a more traditional view -- referring to his grandfather's service under General Patton, and the military service of Reverend Wright -- with the notion that love of country is not blind love, that forming a more perfect union -- the essence of progressivism -- is part of what it means to love one's country.
Does he have the courage, capacity, and cojones to lead? Yesterday, he led us as a nation, and he showed a firm, steady, and unflinching hand. Not only did he utter words most Democratic politicians don't speak in polite company but should have spoken years ago, but he refused to take the low road -- to denounce and cast aside someone who clearly matters dearly to him simply because he had become a political liability -- displaying both courage and conviction.
Is he really a Muslim, not just foreign but an "Islamo-fascist" in sheep's clothing? No one listening to his speech could come away with anything but the message that he is not only a Christian but a person who takes his faith seriously. He spoke of how Reverend Wright had "helped introduce me to my Christian faith" and baptized his children, and how he had preached about the importance of "doing God's work here on earth." Yet he condemned his former pastor for seeing "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."
And time will tell if he answered one last question: Can he win the respect, and ultimately the votes, of white males, and particularly working class males, in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania? I suspect his speech may have reopened a dialog with, if not the minds of, the kinds of voters he had won over in states like Wisconsin but began to lose for a number of reasons: Hillary Clinton's obvious command of economic issues in a time of increasing economic desperation, the fact that voters associate the Clinton name with eight years of economic growth between two disastrous Bushes, and Obama's resistance to swinging back when his opponent was throwing punches, which voters (particularly male voters) tend to take as a sign of weakness. But the meaning of Obama's loyalty to his pastor in the face of enormous pressure to cast him aside is not likely to be lost on white males who value strength, courage, honor, and loyalty. Nor is an aspect of his life story many Americans may not have known, about the role played by his two white working-class grandparents in his upbringing; or his criticism of the failures of fatherhood in the inner cities; or his willingness to speak openly about the seething resentments of the millions of white men who punch a time card every day, feel increasingly unable to provide for their families as the price of gas skyrockets and heath care moves beyond their reach, and who don't view themselves as all that privileged.
Drew Westen professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University and founder of Westen Strategies. He is the author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There are several issues that are floating in this election, one of the recent being Mr. Wright's fulminations on the pulpit. (I deliberately use the salutation Mr. instead of Rev. in my opinion there is no one out there whom I do not know deserves any veneration just because (s)he is person of cloth, if any thing they are the ones who deserve the least reverence.
1) Competence of the candidates (given).
2) Anticipated policies the candidates would pursue if elected.
3) Extent of pandering they are engaging in.
4) Ethnic identification
5) How did Mr. Obama handle the Wright incident.
Here are my thoughts on the above:
1) I personally feel that as far as competence goes Mr. Obama has burst into the national scene mere 4 years ago. He had just one state wide run when he got elected to the US senate. Since his coming there his performance has best be termed as above mediocre, nothing stellar like Feingold and others. Even his stance against war has not been as strident as Mr Feingold's or Mr. Murtha's. Does he have potential? Definitely does. Has faced lot of political adversity and come up on the top or just faced adversity, not really. Is he charismatic? Definitely yes, but would do well to learn the ropes. On the other hand Ms. Clinton has faced lot of political adversity - did not always come up on the top. Her career, albeit brief in senate, shows that she is capable of engaging with the opposition, not always stridently as before but can get things done. She has hardened battle scarred subs that will be there when going gets rough.
2) Anticipated policies between Clinton, & Obama will be six of one half a dozen of the other. But I am confident that she will be able to get it done better than him. She is willing to fight and also shown that she has learnt the lessons of 1993 fiasco too. I am not sure of Obama, he comes across as too much of conciliator, rather than a fighter. It is not enough to say I opposed the war from the beginning. What has he done in practice when he could do something about it. Nothing different from Clinton. Why did he not speak out as eloquently about it during the 2004 convention speech?
3) The extent of pandering being engaged here. I think both are about the same in most respects, and it is a necessary part of polity. However, Mr. Obama does not miss an opportunity to remind he populace that he has indeed come to Jesus. My question to him is "Why should I care?". In what way does his coming to Jesus qualify him to be the president. Why is any candidate's belief in bronze age myths be qualification to be the president. This is nothing but pandering additionally his going on a tour with homophobic minister was nothing but to appeal to the subliminal bigotry that prevails amongst some of these religious folks.
4) On this front the Clintons have misplayed the cards badly. Not withstanding the fact that Clintons do not have a prejudicial bone in them the African-Am
5) Now coming to the last issue, how did Mr. Obama handle the Wright situation. I think his speech was well thought out and well delivered. It was a speech long in coming, from any quarter. That being said, it fell far short of the mark. In fact I would venture to say the speech did not address the underlying reasons for the speech, in my view. The speech was necessary because people were wanting to know more about the actions/inactions of Mr. Obama and the rationale behind them. This essential issue was woefully neglected completely by him in his speech. While it was long overdue that the body politics of USA needed to hear it, that was not his imperative task on Tuesday. I wanted to hear the reasoning behind his apparent inaction in correcting Mr. Wright's flamboyant bluster and or his attempts to correct Wright's fulminations. His rationale for staying with the congregation for 20 years, His rationale for appointing Wright to his so call spiritual advisory committee, his rationale for dis-inviting Mr. Wright to his announcement ceremony. Lastly his claim to be the leader of the nation, when he apparently had not taken any leadership to moderate Mr. Wright's rhetoric. This is where Mr. Obama has failed the country and also his staunchest supporters.
Here's the only problems I have with your analysis --
*is there ANYTHING Obama could have said or done that would have met with your approval, or lead you to support him?
*when you say Clinton is more competent, you, like almost all Clinton supporters I've talked to, aren't able to give a single concrete example of Hillary *successfully* fighting for a difficult cause or initiative. Obama, in his admittedly short time, has achieved bipartisan success on ethics reform and nuke proliferation. S-CHIP is sometimes trotted out for Clinton, but the record shows it questionable whether she actually had a "leadership" role -- and I'm still in doubt that "expanded health care for children" was such a controversial and difficult subject that it shows she's a "fighter."
Yes I have listed out what was called for in the speech he made. The content of his speech was while, eloquent and long overdue probably, was only tangential to the subject on hand. He needed to address his relationship with Mr. Wright. Why and how he tried to modulate Mr. Wright's view of the world. I am not looking for a rationale for Mr. Wright's world view, although it is tangentially related.
daveny....
To lift a line from George H.W. Bush, what Hillary lacks is "the vision thing", something Obama has repeatedly and persuasively demonstrated.
Obama was my third choice going in. After Iowa, I predicted on my blog that he will be the next elected president of these United States. After his speech Tuesday, I am convinced his presidency will in retrospect tower with the greatest leaders this nation has ever produced.
H. Clinton's political seasoning - and even the mention of this chafes most feminists - came largely at the feet of her husband. She's claiming all this presidential-level experience, but frankly, her foreign policy experience consists primarily of tea and crumpets with other First Ladies.
How can it not also bother feminists that H. Clinton rode a wave of sympathy over her husband's philandering into the United States Senate from the (liberal) state of New York??? This is not to say she is without intelligence or talent, it is to say that at every step of the way in her political career, she has exploited her husband's political success to make her own.
Also noteworthy is that on the occasions she has been in a position to effect the kind of change we know this entire nation needs, she's been either silent or wrongheaded. She was silent on the issues of workers' rights during her SIX YEARS on the board of Wal-Mart. She did not stand up for workers' rights to organize unions, let alone the rights of female or non-caucasian workers. She voted for the Iraq war. She voted to condemn a foreign government's military force as a terrorist organization (Iran's Revolutionary Guard, whatever you think of Iran or its policies, is funded by Iranian taxpayers), laying the legal and political groundwork for George W. Bush to use our tired and overstretched army to attack the nation of Iran.
Further, as a presidential candidate H. Clinton has been by turns smug, whiny, crassly manipulative (playing the race and gender cards in Rovian fashion), passive-aggressive, scattershot in terms of her message, and unable to keep her own husband (and, let's face it, primary political benefactor) in check. She has run a traditional top-down campaign that has assumed stupidity of, and shown contempt for, the very Democratic voters she is asking to support her. If the manner in which she has run her campaign is any indication whatsoever of a Clinton administration, I would sooner vote for the Green candidate in November and if enough progressives do that and the election goes to McCain, the Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves.
Thankfully, H. Clinton will not catch Obama in pledged delegates before the convention. Even before, but especially after Tuesday's speech, the folly of going against the expressed will of the majority of pledged delegates and the majority of Democratic voters will be abundantly clear to the superdelegates (whine all you want about Michigan and Florida; they fucked themselves - and H. Clinton agreed that they fucked themselves when she pledged, like every other Democrat, not to campaign in those two states - and now they don't like the clucking of the chickens that have come home to roost).
The silver lining in this cloud for feminists who so long for a female president is that there are other quite capable and actually self-made female politicians on the rise. It may take two, three, or four more election cycles, but you'll have your woman in the White House.
The issue with Rev. Wright was about Obama's judgement in attending that church for 20 years. Obama distracted from that issue by making race an issue. Most white working class folks know that when liberals, black and white talk about having a dialogue about race mean, in fact, a lecture on race since liberals don't consider themselves racist, like to call others racist and like to dictate how white America is supposed to think about race. There is no dialogue, only Poltically Correct rules coming from 'above' that if you don't follow you will be called a racist.
Most Americans will not enter into this dialogue. It is only an exercise for liberals on college campuses and wherever they gather to make themselves feel good and important. Americans want to know how Obama really thinks and to assess his judgement. So far most Americans feel they have better judgement than Obama in terms of selecting a church to attend, one that is not anti-American and racist against whites with an open and declared black liberation theology.
One other point. Obama wants to be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth and yet he was a silent follower for 20 years at Rev. Wright's church. Here he is a Harvard educated man and yet he doesn't take a leadership role in his church and challenge Rev. Wright and his anti-American, racist views. Why not? Why the silently sitting in the pews all these years.
Finally I want Obama to specifically address how he proposes to get black men to be fathers to their children and not abandon them, how to reduce black on black crime especially among the youth and how he prosposes to reduce young black women having so many babies out of wedlock. Those are the issues most white Americans want answers to and to see real results come November.
So sad that your ears hear, but your mind doesn't.
Obama's speech on race was done because of Jeremiah Wright and the fact that he was guilty by participation in this hateful, racist bigots church for 20 years. Though race was part of his speech he through in the need for more taxes and instead of throwing his spiritual advisor, friend and confidant under the bus he chose to throw his grandmother under it. I found it laughable that Obama tried to equate Geraldine Ferraro's comments with that of a racist bigot in Wright. For that matter, Ferraro may have been right, what makes Obama good Presidential material? He makes pretty speeches but what is his experience? He has two years as a Senator in Washington and spent 6 years in the IIlinois State Senate and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. Other than that what appeal does Obama have that would make him the political Jesus of the Democratic Party? As far as good judgment he has not shown it being party of Reverend Wrights flock for 20 years. Other than that what is known of Obama? His wife wrote a paper in 1985 while attending Princeton regarding the need for blacks to stay segregated from white society, other than that what do we know of her. Mr. Westen said with regard to discussions of race "Republicans have avoided because they've preferred to exploit it and Democrats have avoided because they've tended to fear it." I think he has that flip-flopped, Republicans do not discuss race because when they do they are labeled as racist and black Republicans are called Uncle Toms. Democrats do not discuss race because they make money off it, racism on the Democrats side is big business. If people of color would look at those that succeed in this country and follow that model, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP and the New Black Panther Party would be out of business. These are the people that call their fellow blacks who succeed in American society Uncle Toms, these are the people more than any others that need racism to live and flourish because that is where they make the money. To Obama's credit he did slap away the hand of Louis Farrakhan and Malik Zulu Shabazz leader of the anti-semitic racist New Black Panther Party. I wonder if Obama will make it after all, since he did not disavow himself from Wright you wonder if the Super Delegates, the same people Wright spoke of that supposedly created the AIDS virus to infect the black community, will these delegates allow Obama to win inspite of the popular vote. Maybe Obama could be President but he has a long way to go to distance himself from Wright and convince voters of America not to fear him, to stand with him, that they have a place regardless of color with him. If not the Demcorats will be better off with Hillary. Either way it is going to be a struggle.
You're hopeless, aren't you? Did you even bother to listen to the full sermon by wright? To put it in context?
Did you ever bother to ask if everyone, every politician who's attended a religious service where things were said that they didn't agree with left, and publicly chastized the preacher, no matter what else they may have done?
Heck, did you even bother to ask any questions about Hillary's association with a secretive, fascist religious organization that she goes to retreats with? Or her endorsment and support of anti-gay and anti-abortion preachers? Probably not.
This is just another case where people will simply see what they want to see. If you already disliked Obama, you'll keep finding reasons to dislike him. If you already liked him, you'll keep finding reasons to like him!
You show that you are so full of blue mud I am sorry I took the time to answer an earlier post from you. Right! Hillary is a facist! You are just proving what the everyday guy thinks about liberals.
And what's wrong with Hillary? She's a great candidate. It is turning out that Obama is no "phenomenon", but only a front man for Ted Kennedy. Why else do people think that Obama has emerged from "nowhere" to become the front runner for the nomination? "Nowhere" is the same Chicago political machine that put JFK into the Presidency (incidentally, I have always been quite happy w JFK regardless of the politics it took for him to beat Nixon, but that's another story).
Obama is no "phenomenon" that toppled Hillary's front runner status on the backs of a "grass roots uprising". This whole "uprising" was carefully orchestrated by Obama's campaign team, which not coincidentally did a dry run of the Obama campaign with the Deval Patrick campaign, which "coincidentally" again is a Kennedy bastion of strength. And Patrick, himself was foisted on Massachusetts by activist Kennedy liberals. And Patrick right now appears to be total hot air balloon failure, whose big economic plan was to steal the Wampanoag Indians rights to a Casino in Massachusetts and transformed it into the MA State govt building 3 casinos. Patrick wants to build the mass economy on the backs of poor people too desperate to build careers and have all their hopes exploited by slot machines.
The point is though, that this is the team that is now working for Obama. Kennedy is all over the Obama campaign. It is now obvious why Kennedy was so transparently deceptive when he said he was so "outraged" by Hillary's remarks in NH about MLK/LBJ. It was all part of the campaign to destroy Hillary by imputing her as an insensitive racist. Obama has just been the front man stooge in all this saying something different each day to keep the program runnning.
The wheels are flying off the wagon now.
I, too, am saddened as I watch what I fear will be the end Obama's run for the Presidency. Not long ago, even though I am a Barack supporter, I felt either candidate would do well for our country. Now I believe that with Obama's demise, our country will continue to spiral steadily downward. Hillary Clinton has shown her true colors over the past weeks, and the majority of Americans are not enlightened enough to see it. Go figure - 30 some % still support Bush. Did we really believe that America would respond to truth? Integrity? and most of all - true leadership? It will be more of the same. I am saddened for my son who finally began to believe that perhaps his choice to be a young Republican was not a path he wished to continue walking? Who took interest in someone because they COULD rally people to believe once again that change was possible? That we might actually have a part in our democracy? Hope springs eternal - maybe 2012.
Someone of Obama's caliber comes along too infrequently. If he doesn't make it, we will be in the wilderness for another generation. Michelle Obama already said that this is a one time thing.
The world needs the qualities that he brings to the table.
THE WORLD IS WATCHING US!!!!!!!!!
KitChandler:
Thank God this is a 'one time thing'. I don't think anyone could stand a repeat of another Obama fiasco. As for the speech, it was good... but certainly not Lincolnesque. He said a lot of stuff a lot of us have discussed before... and he gave examples of racial unity a lot of us have been living for many decades. The sad part is he gave that speech because he 'had to'. The question about his 'judgment' was answered. He's a follower not a leader.
Only a fool would deny that injustices have been brought on African-Americans and I truly believe no thoughtful , truthful white person would say otherwise. It is only that there is nothing any of us can do to change past injustices. We cannot change the past but we can talk about it and we can teach about it in our schools, churches, and homes.
What NONE of us can do -black, white, brown, Jew or Gentile- is to continue to give screaming rants like the reverend gave ragarding the US KKof A, and expect for things to get better. I understand it is the custom of some preachers to get emotional but the issue of racial injsutice too is too important to be left to emotional harrangues.
In education there is what is called "the teachable moment" and it refers to the time when a student is ready and able to learn a new fact, behavior, or change in attitude. I think the United States is now at a "teaching moment" for race. The senator began this moment, I
think we need to keep all persons like his reverend restricted in their teaching roles and allow cooler heads to conduct the lesson. In a discussion we discuss, we don't call each other names and we allow the other to respond to our points. Our pundits on television do not follow this rule so it is left to us out here in the blogoshpere to conduct this discussion. I hope we will do the subject justice and change the way WE ALL think about each other.
"I saw a man with the inner confidence, and the steadiness of a captain who knew he was sailing on uncharted waters but needed to go there anyway, take the nation with him and land them safely on the shore.
The pundits were clearly stunned. They knew they had witnessed something extraordinary, a moment when time seemed to stand still and a politician in the midst of a withering electoral storm did the unspeakable: he spoke the truth. The unspoken, unspeakable truth.
We live our lives in the realm of the profane, punctuated by moments of sanctity, only to return again to everyday life.
We can't solve problems we can't talk about, and our better angels on race tend to be our conscious values.
Obama led us to our better angels.
Is he a moving orator who speaks pretty lines but lacks substance? No one can seriously ask that question today, after Obama offered the most eloquent, intellectually penetrating, and most moving description of the complexities of race in America of any politician in recent history.
The meaning of Obama's loyalty to his pastor in the face of enormous pressure to cast him aside is not likely to be lost on white males who value strength, courage, honor, and loyalty."
I could not have said it better myself.
The messages contained in Senator Obama's speech to address Rev. Wright and his sermons spiritually, intellectually, religiously and politically transcends organized religion. It was uplifting, humanitarian and patriotic on all accounts. I'd take a chance on Obama to lead the US of technicolor America at 3AM this morning and get the lying sons of bitches out that should have been impeached already for their heinous crimes on the welfare of the American people. That being said, his speech hit the spot.
John Keehan:
I have a hard time admiring a man who is loyal to anyone who preaches anger, racism and anti-Americanism.
There's trouble in Obamaland folks. Gallup poll out today shows Billary leading nationwide . Also shows Billary with double digit lead in Pennsylvania. Old Johnny must be licking his chops. Is that a train whistle I hear in the distance?
Thank you Mr. Westen for a beautifully written essay. I had to stop reading the comments early on,not only because I disagree with so many of them, but also because it seems that some of your readers missed the point entirely. The speech was transformational and has already enabled a number of people in my small profane world to begin the national conversation on race. I cannot deny that I am a fervent Obama supporter, but not until now did I really glimpse the full potential of this man. No matter what happens with the nomination and the election, I believe that this address, if read or heard in its entirety, will most certainly go down in history. Thanks again for your intelligent and well-worded remarks.
Thank you and God bless you brother.
I am for OBAMA 08, let me make that clear. I didn't come on this post to question
The Speech because I GOT IT.
OBAMA 08
Unfortuately, Obama's speech has raised more issues than it resolved. My problem with Obama has never been his race or religion, but the character of his campaign and how he has exploited our racial and religous divisions to advance his candidacy while contemptuously dismissing those who disagree with him on anything as out of touch.
In yesterday's Boston Globe there is an interesting contrast of the Editorial staff vs right winger Jeff Jacoby, who I have no particular regard for, but on some issues he can occasionally strike a chord. The Obama and a lot of others won't like to face this other reality, which, in many ways is the mirror of Obama's Pastor.
Globe editorial:
http://www
Jacoby:
http://www
While the Jacoby article is extremely harsh and it is coming from a known nasty person, the fact remains that Obama really is not ready to run for President. What we are seeing is while Obama is an attractive candidate, that there are many things that he has to come to terms with. This business of every time we catch him in something that he says "Oh, wasn't aware of it, let's fix it and move on" simply is not going to fly.
Bottom line imo from the start is that Obama is being foisted on us by others with an agenda. They will keep him in front of us no matter what. However, the American people need to look really closely at this guy and not judge him on race or religion, but on general maturity and experience and suitability to be the leader of our country given the responsibility that entails. Yes, you can say, well he's no worse than Bush, but I don't think that's a reasonable baseline from which to work.
"Bottom line imo from the start is that Obama is being foisted on us by others with an agenda."
72% of progressive activists--those who think, speak and act for progressive change--choose Obama.
90% of AA's choose Obama (grown from >50% due to racially charged Clinton camp comments and the growing realization that he can win)
Some massive % of young voters.
These are the people foisting Obama on you. They have all turned away from HRC because she has become part of the problem and thus cannot be the solution. (How can she fight special interests when she's one herself?) These are the people the party is disillusioning with its continuing support of the Back to the Future candidate.
If Hillary were a progressive leader, she would have jumped on the opportunity of Obama's speech to pick up the torch offered by the most important speech on race since the 60s. But she's not that kind of leader.
She is not that kind of leader who exploits the divisions in our society. She is the kind of leader who respects working people and will represent their interests on the world stage.
When the Clintons came to power in 1992-2000, they did it on the slogan "It's the economy, Stupid! ". And they delivered. Half trillion Repubican deficit turned into half trillion Clinton surplus. Best economic growth in history of USA. 22.7 MILLION NEW JOBS. That's what's called EXPERIENCE.
That's the kind of leader that the world respected. Civil rights is one of many issues. The Clintons have been progressives there their whole lives.
Obama is a Kennedy stooge that Kennedy wants to foist on us to restore his lost legacy. Bill Clinton's greatest personal inspiration was JFK as I understand it and he is pictured with JFK when he was in Peace Corps as I recall. Clinton was and is the real JFK legacy. That's not good enough for Ted. That, in fact, is becoming more apparent is what this whole damn thing is about. Obama didn't arise from nowhere. He is the front man of the Kennedy political machine.
The truth is that if Hillary had made a moving speech about race in America she would have been deemed a racist. There is a double standard that his well and living in American media.
I used to be from the far left, until they voted for Nader and put Bush in office, after we begged them not to. I learned then that they live in a self righteous dream world, and they don't care what damage they do to others. As for Obama's speach, it was more rhtorical tricks. But ya'll beleived nader's proportional representation, just as you beleive in Obama the uniter, as his supporters spit venom at everything that moves. The hypocrisy is off the scale.
"If Hillary were a progressive leader, she would have jumped on the opportunity of Obama's speech to pick up the torch offered by the most important speech on race since the 60s. But she's not that kind of leader."
I disagree. Ms. Clinton did not respond to Mr. Obama's speech, other that to say that it was "a good speech", because it was not politcally advantageous to her, for her to respond. if Ms. Clinton knows anything, it is how to identify and exploit politically advantageous moments or events. This is a skill that most successful politicians hone to a fine edge.
"Bottom line imo from the start is that Obama is being foisted on us by others with an agenda."
Obama's grass roots organization is foisting him on the public. Oh, wait, that means the public is foisting Obama on the public.
Clinton's DLC bosses are foisting her on the public. How many DLC bosses are there in the public?
A stunning article brilliantly written! Thank you. richard
Obama spoke the "truth" only because he was in a jam. Caught in a corner of his own making, he had to come up with something extraordinary. It was a good speech - but good grief - it wasn't the holy grail many are making it out to be. And it did NOT answer the question of: why did he have Wright as a mentor and spiritual adviser for the last 20 years. And - given his speech - it makes even less sense that he valued Wrights anti white anti American rhetoric so much.
The result is given his speech, his actions are even more of a contradiction. And the crazy uncle.. excuse does not fly. You can't pick your relatives.
Did you listen to the speech? Have you listened to more than two 30 second sound bites of Rev. Wright? Try it and then you may be able to understand why Sen. Obama had Rev. Wright as a mentor. I find it really interesting that no one is willing to play one of the 30 second sound bite sermons in its entirety. Could it be that we would get more of an understanding of the sermon. Hmmmm!
"And it did NOT answer the question of: why did he have Wright as a mentor and spiritual adviser for the last 20 years. "
This was explicitly addressed in the speech. The answer was that Obama looked at his pastor's actions rather than merely his words to determine his character. If the answer did not satisfy you, that's different, but there was an answer. It sounds like a good answer to me, since Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruit.
The first thing we need to do is elect a Congress that remembers that it is comprised of public servants who are supposed to serve the will of the people not Presidential servants serving a tyrant and corporate interests. Americans have made it very clear that they want an end put to illegal immigration. Congress and the Senate continue to try to find an end around to their constituents' demands on this issue.
The Labor Department reports job losses in the thousands and the economy continues to slow, yet the U.S. House of Representatives, while we are distracted by sermons and sex scandals, is considering legislation to import more foreign workers, flooding the labor pool.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz) has introduced the Innovation Employment Act (H.R. 5630), which would DOUBLE the current H-1B visa cap to 130,000 per fiscal year. H.R. 5630 would further raise the cap to 180,000 beginning in 2010 if the 130,000 cap is reached during the 2009 fiscal year.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has introduced the Strengthening United States Technology and Innovation Act (H.R. 5642), which would TRIPLE the current H-1B visa cap to 195,000 in 2008 and 2009.
These workers will serve corporate greed by working for less money and force more Americans into the unemployment lines. In other words, they will accomplish the same thing that failing to enforce immigration laws has.
Please write, call, email, fax your Congressman and let them know that we do not want this to happen.
There is no way the Dems can win this election, Hillary wins and the blacks stay away in droves, along with O's main corp. Obama wins and the drum beat of AmeriKKKa will bury the poor bastard. Obama and Hillary are toast. Get out the checkbook for Mac.
You're wrong. The press has laid off McCain for the past three weeks, so he has risen like a hot air balloon. Let him answer questions about the young men and women - of all colors - sent without body armour to fight Halliburton's pointless war. Our grandchildren - of all colors - will be paying for the tragedies of Iraq and Afghanistan in their own dotage. He's promised judges to the right of us, tax cuts to what's left of us - admitted he knows nothing of the economy and now confuses Halloween with Purim, Suni with Shia -- it is the charge of the light brigade on a walker.
What's also true is that HRC - whose theme is "It's My Party and I'll Try if I Want To!" - simply cannot win. North Carolina and Indiana might have universal health care now if HRC had worked with --rather than against - Congress when she had the bully pulpit as First Lady. West Virginia and Pennsylvania might have jobs if HRC had really opposed -- instead of promoted - NAFTA when she was - in her memory - our co-President. So, let the Wright issue play out - let the Blitzers and the Buchanans find a new story, let people who didn't plan to vote for Obama anyway use Wright as their excuse...a
Afraid you're right. Democrats manage to mess it up again.
And what about all those millitant women over 50?
The majority of liberals would not be as forgiving if Hillary found herself in the same situation. Could Hillary survive if her preacher for the last twenty years was a white supremist? What if her church gave a lifetime achievment award to the Grand Wizard of the KKK. I think Obama is getting off easy.
The KKK advocates murder. Your analogy is revolting
I'm sorry. Replace the Grand Wizard with Pat Robertson. Would she get off any easier?
1. The majority of liberals have forgiven Hillary far beyond the 70 X 7 already. And she has never acknowledged our grievances, asked forgiveness, nor tried to make amends.
2. Rev. Wright is not a Black supremist. He is (perhaps) overreacting to his perception of centuries of White supremism. If you strip away the extreme emotionality, he is right about many of the issues: I too see America undermined and corrupted by the unbelievably greedy corporate ruling class. Read this week's newspapers! Our government did support the oppression of South African Blacks, and the imprisonment of Mandela. We have supported the grossly unjust and violent treatment of the Palestinian people (not focused on true terrorists). Etc., Etc. If you don't know what he means, you need to look around. I am a 60+ white southern woman, and I know what he means. During the civil rights early days, I heard many more emotional and radical sermons with exactly the opposite themes in the Southern Appalachians. These are the same people Hillary is appealing to in Ohio and Pennsylvania. They will never in our lifetimes vote for a Black man. It's ok to let them vote for McCain.
3. I do not agree with much of the American Black Muslim movement, but they do have an undeniable positive influence in their communities. Also, it is my understanding that the controversial award was given by a magazine published by Rev. Wright's daughter, not by him. And there is no comparison by people of decency between Muslims and the KKK.
In my opinion, Obama is only trying to get the people to forgive him for listening to this pastor for over 20 years, believing what he preached. He is only trying to win over the people who do NOT agree with those sermons, never have and neve will. I do not accept his statements as to whether he heard those sermons, as there was someone there with him at the time those sermons were given, stating they were both there and Obama said nothing to go against the preachers words. He did lie about not being there for those sermons.
First of all senator Obama has to tell us what attracted him to his pastor. If he strongly disagreed with his sermons and with his political beliefs, why didn't he go to another church? It is something I would have done in a heartbeat. How can one listen to sermons like this for 20 years and not be affected by them in some way. People, you are forgetting a comment made by Michelle his wife, "THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN MY ENTIRE ADULT LIFE THAT I AM PROUD OF MY COUNTRY' She had to be affected by his sermons to make such a statement.
In November, if you do not think that the republicans will use tapes of the reverend and of Obama's wife, you are living in a dream world. It will be a continuous drumb beat for them. Add to that Obama's not having his hand over his heart during the pledge or the nation's song, some of the dumb comments he made out sitting with the enemies with not prior commitments, his remarks about bombing Pakistan with out permission. And you have another loss at the white house. He was suppossed to be the best choice, I don't think so. We had many great candidates trying, Biden, Edwards, Richardson and the press singled out two, but they really wanted to have Obama. Obama does have an ex journalist at the helm of his campaign. And so many of his friends write great article about him and negative on Hillary.Th
phony patriotism, don't cut it, get over. And you need listen better, and AA he have not had alot to be proud of in this country consider the way we have been treated. Our rights were taken away to make the southern colonies happy and we have spilled our blood just like whites have. So please don't tell me we have step and fetch because you say so. You need to be honest. Finally, you need to stay current, the Bush Admin bombed on the border Pakistan recently.
What exactly is your standing to announce what Obama "believed?" Also, please tell us more about the "someone" who was there with Obama and how you know that he did not lie, but you know Obama did lie.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
