The conventional wisdom falls in line again. On Friday, one commentator after another in the mainstream media, from Brian Williams to Mark Shields, repeated the line: Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama helped a bit after a very bad week for Obama. Say what? A week in which the candidate delivered what was probably one of the 10 greatest speeches in American history -- a speech in which he addressed the wrenching issue that has most stained our nation's history and did so in a moving and deeply intelligent way and one that brought tears to the eyes of people whose tear ducts had previously seemed to be useless, vestigial organs -- a speech that called Americans to the highest ideals and values that the meaning of this nation holds -- was a very bad week for him?
I watched the speech on Tuesday morning in a packed room of journalists (albeit mostly progressive journalists) at the Take Back America conference in Washington. Applause broke out several times and was widespread when Sen. Obama finished. I have heard from friends who haven't voted Democratic in three decades who were so moved by the speech that they say they will vote for Obama in November. A bad week?
And then there is the pack journalistic response to Sen. Obama's comment on his speech in a Philadelphia radio interview. Here is what he said:
"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know there's a reaction that's been been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it."
One mainstream media outlet after another classified the comment as a terrible mistake that will be harmful to the Obama candidacy. Obama was suggesting that whites are typically racists, they said. Many of them quoted only the part saying "she is a typical white person," omitting what preceded it, which explicitly said that this "typical white person" does not "harbor any racial animosity" and so is not a racist.
It seems that the Clinton campaign and Saturday Night Live have gotten under the skin of the mainstream political commentators, who are overcompensating for their putative soft treatment of Obama earlier in the campaign.
If last week was a bad week, Barack Obama could use many more bad weeks -- except that the public's perception may be more shaped by the media comments than the reality of what the candidate said, which demonstrated more forcefully than anything he had said or done before that Barack Obama is, as Gov. Richardson said in his endorsement, "a once-in-a-lifetime leader" who "will be a president who brings this nation together."
Far from reversing a bad week for Obama, Richardson's endorsement was based upon the very good week the Democratic frontrunner had and crowned that week.
Robert S. McElvaine teaches history at Millsaps College. His book, Grand Theft Jesus: The Hijacking of Religion in America, will be published by Crown next week.
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
Can we please get MORE Osanna for Obama!
Have you ever thought about how dittoheads and their friends decide things? Why do you think Fox puts stuff out that any clever six tear old could see through? Here's how Fox might report my first question: The Plowboy asked "Have you ever thought?' and followed that by saying, "Dittoheads and their friends decide."
Looks like Obama lost the middle. Anyboody with kids and mortgages are less apt to vote for Obama after the Wright faux pas. They probably don't want another preacher in the White House.
So....Obama is a preacher now? I must say, I'm in the middle class, I've got three kids, and a mortgage. I'm actually MORE apt to vote for Obama. Further, how can we have ANOTHER preacher in the white house? We haven't had one, and we certainly won't with Obama....
I suppose they would prefer a thief? After Fox gets through instructing them, that is possible.
"... and did so in a moving and deeply intelligent way and one that brought tears to the eyes of people whose tear ducts had previously seemed to be useless, vestigial organs." You hit the nail on the head. I teared up at Obama's speech - first, because it made me sad that we haven't progressed more than we have; and second, because it made me hopeful that we can become better people and evolve under an Obama presidency. The journalists have no influence on my opinion of Obama and Clinton. I listen to what comes out of their mouths and watch their actions to form my opinions. Just a couple of questions out of Wolf Blitzer's mouth is enough to make me turn a deaf ear to journalists. Blitzer, like so many other journalists, is of average intelligence, just like the audience to which they all pander. Clinton will not step aside because she is not doing what's best for the party or her country - she's doing what is best for Hillary.
Governor Bill Richardson came out to finally endorse Barrack Obama. Richardson said that Obama"s' speech on race was his deciding factor. The speech showed the leadership qualities Richardson was looking for. I have to agree with Richardson, as he said that, it's time for Clinton to step down, and the Democrats to come together.
After not following the news for the holiday weekend I've just heard that now Obama is comparing Clinton to Joseph McCarthy. I don't know what the rationale can be for this claim, but it's certainly a new low point for the Dems and on a par with those who compare him to Jim Jones. At the very least it is not something one would expect to hear from a candidate who has had a good week; not the words of a unifier. I suspect as soon as McCain's people can make it back to their chairs after the impromptu celebration they're no doubt having over Obama's remarks, I suspect we'll be hearing from them about this.
Thanks for correcting me on this. I hope the rhetoric will be toned down as we approach Denver. Too much a stake.
Obama didn't compare anyone to McCarthy. A general who supports him said that he was tired of people attacking other peoples' patriotism because he grew up under McCarthy, and the Clinton campaign blew it completely out of proportion. Nothing surprising there.
Obama didn't, General McPeak did, a retired general who supports Obama. It followed a town hall style meeting where Bill Clinton said it would be good to have Hillary and McCain running, so that there would be two patriotic Americans in the race (implying that Obama is not patriotic, hence McPeak's McCarthy comparison.)
It really wasn't a big deal...you didn't miss much. Just more "silly season" stuff.
I meet people on the street quite frequently and have not noticed a reaction and living in Washington DC a great number of them are from different races. Perhaps I am not typical. The republicans are great for saying "what I meant was" when they are trying to recover from a gaffe.
I have to agree with robXdion, the press is loving this because many whites are terrified of having a black person become president. Hillary Clinton will really be no different than McCain if she become President. If the press covers Obama than it is more often negative whereas the press is forever trying to figure out a way for Hillary to win. The mainstream media has completely given McCain and Hillary a pass on everything they have said or done before and during this campaign.
First, I do not think giving a speech that is, in essence, trying to defend a church pastor that preaches racism, hate, anti-semitism, and anti-Americanism from the pulpit is a "great speech." Some of Barack Obama's words were "inspirational" in that they were sermon-like, but I do not think it was a "great" speech by any standard. Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream Speech" - now, that's a great speech.
I cannot believe that any person with any sense at all can allow this man to get away with what he has gotten away with. He is a detriment to our country, in my opinion. He was the Senator over an area in Illinois in which his friend, Tony Rezko, reportedly ran "slums" and was supposed to have been protecting the people there, but apparently did not. Not only that, but he then took what appears to be "favors" from this man, Tony Rezko, in $250,000 worth of campaign contributions, a "sweetheart deal" on a beautiful home on land adjoining Rezko's whereby Barack Obama received this home for $300,000 UNDER Fair Market Value - something Barack Obama called "boneheaded." I call it cheating The People. Barack Obama may soon be testifying in the Rezko Corruption trial that is currently underway. Barack Obama's name was reportedly brought up in the very first day of testimony in that trial and Barack Obama reportedly asked that the trial be postponed until AFTER the presidential election. Why would he have done that?
Then, we have the other concerns: Barack Obama's Chief Economic Adviser tells Canada not to worry about what Barack Obama is promising the American people on the campaign trail about NAFTA - even though many Americans are suffering as a result of some things about NAFTA that have not worked and need to be changed - and, Obama's adviser held what was supposed to be a "secret" meeting with Canadian officials and denied that the meeting ever took place, but then is forced to admit there was a meeting when presented with the evidence of the meeting. On top of that, Barack Obama promises the American people that he will bring our troops home and end the Iraq war within a certain time frame, but then his Top Foreign Policy Adviser admitted to the Foreign Press that this was unlikely, casting serious doubt on Barack Obama's truthfulness to the American People, in my opinion.
Now, we have Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a man who preaches racism, hate, and intolerance from the pulpit and a man who said that Louis Farakkhan "epitomizes greatness." If you don't know who Louis Farakkhan is, look him up. There is plenty about him on the internet. Louis Farakkhan gave Barack Obama his endorsement for President. Hmmmmm... So, we learn of Barack Obama's 20 year relationship with this man, Jeremiah Wright, a man Obama has called his "mentor" and "friend" and a man Barack Obama put on his campaign as "African-American Spiritual Adviser." A man who makes racist, hateful, and anti-American rants from the pulpit in a church where Barack Obama has been a congregant for 20 years was then DEFENDED in this speech Barack Obama gave that was billed as a speech on race issues that was supposed to open the eyes of America, but that mostly served to put us on notice that Barack Obama will not end his relationship with this man or his church.
I do not think this speech was "great" in any way, shape, or form. I think its contents were a detriment to many of the people in this country that I do not think will be well-served by a person who is not only inexperienced in politics, foreign policy, economics, or in any high level capacity in our government, but who also fails to cast aside the racist, hateful, and anti-American views of Jeremiah Wright.
Are you the same one going on and on on the oprah site? I left that site just because of you and now here you are.
Look at Rev. Wrights sermons IN CONTEXT and stop listening to FoxNews and other idiots. If you have an open mind, IF you are self reflective, IF you are not a lemming you will have to admit that the MSMs took Wrights words WAY OUT OF CONTEXT.
Most of what you said has nothing to do with this article. Just say that you didn't think the speech you have many times already was great -- as you already have many times -- and spare us your cut-and-paste Clinton propaganda. Do you have any new (preferentially constructive) 'thoughts' to bring to the discussion?
Many people didn't think the speech was great. Many people did. The important question isn't how avid Obama haters like yourself spin the speech to their partisan advantage. The question is what the majority of Americans thought, and whether it will help improve race relations in America.
Before launching such stupid, ignorance comments, did you listen to the actual sermon of Wright? The whole sermon, not just bits and pieces? Until you do that. Shut up!!
Do you feel that Obama is such a strong candidate that you must use lies and distortions to attack him? You said:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then, we have the other concerns: Barack Obama's Chief Economic Adviser tells Canada not to worry about what Barack Obama is promising the American people on the campaign trail about NAFTA - even though many Americans are suffering as a result of some things about NAFTA that have not worked and need to be changed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Those reports and the phony memo from Canada were fake. The Canadian government has apologized from the and said that nothing the Obama campaign said was inconsistent with his message to the American people.
Did Clinton Win Ohio on a Lie?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html
But you don't need the facts and the Canadian apology in order to realize that story was nonsense. You just need one ounce of common sense. Obama's stand on Nafta has consistently been that we need to reform it so it can't be used as a loophole around labor and environmental protections. Obama has never advocated scrapping Nafta entirely, he has always said we need to make sure it doesn't continue to gut labor and environmental protections. Well, guess what? Canada has better labor and environmental protections than we do. Therefore the fact that Canada has nothing to worry about regarding Obama's Nafta proposals is 100% consistent with the message he has been telling the American people. So even if the faked meeting took place and even if the faked memo was real, Obama's message was still entirely consistent.
If you are a Republican in disguise trying to make Clinton supporters look like dirty, nasty, liars then I must say you are doing a great job. But since Clinton herself continues to repeat the totally discredited Nafta lie, I can't tell if you are for real or not.
These are not "lies and distortions" as some might want to characterize them. They are based on valid news reports and on Barack Obama's own words.
Why would anyone consider the memo to be a "fake" when the Obama campaign denied the meeting ever took place and then Barack Obama himself, after being shown the memo, admitted that a meeting had taken place?
The "Canadian apology" merely said that talking about NAFTA was not the "intended" point of the meeting. It did not say that NAFTA was not discussed.
I agree that Obama has not indicated that he wants to "scrap NAFTA." After Hillary Clinton said she thought it needed to be renegotiated in one of the debates, he agreed with her that it needed to be renegotiated. But, then the reports about the Canadian meeting and his campaign's denials about the meeting ever having taken place and then his admission that it had logically leaves questions in one's mind, I think.
I am a Democrat, not a Republican. I do not have anything against Barack Obama other than what I have seen from him and what I have seen and heard leaves serious questions in my mind about his ability to get this country back in good standing here at home and in the world. I am very worried for my children and my grandchildren. I just do not think that Barack Obama has the experience or skills honed enough to run this country. I do not think he is ready. I also think he has a few things to clean up in his own life and campaign such as the Rezko situation, the Jeremiah Wright situation, etc.. I think we need a President who can get straight to work and start straightening things out for us.
That is just my opinion about it. But, I appreciate your post and debate. Thank you.
Here is a person who expresses their abject hatred for Obama based upon a Canadian memo. Seems fair and balanced. Not.
If you had heard the entire sermons you would understand that first of all the clip of "God D*** America" was from a sermon based on Amos talking to a people that God would Damn their nation because they didn't follow God's Law and the Quote about the "Chickens coming home to roost" he was quoting Amb. Peek from an interview he gave after 9/11 on Fox News. Here is the link to both sermons I hope you take the 15-20 mins. to watch and listen before you pass judgement based on what the MSM tells you to believe.
So instead you'll go with a disingenuous liar, who's lies are being exposed with greater frequency by the day, who won't disclose her tax returns, who's run a slanderous, pandering campaign, who takes the American public for fools vs. someone who has consistently met every accusation head on and with forthright openness. Your ears must be plugged or you just don't want to hear what had to be said. Open your eyes......
To all Net Boomers:
Please keep up your grassroots movement and give these commentators something to scratch their heads with on April 23 -- a landslide Obama victory!!
The Baby Boomers had their time. This is YOUR moment in history. Let your votes speak loud and clear. It's time to turn the page to a new chapter...
The baby boomers cost us one election and their children may very well make it two.
As a woman and a babyboomer, I would love to see a woman president!
But Hillary is not the one. Just being power hungry seem to be the only credentials that she brings to the table that I can see. Sure she has all the pet answers memorized after thirty-five years, it doesn't seem to be any new answers that can change outcome on certain situations.
Same answers, same out come. It's time for a CHANGE!
'Obama 08'
As far as I'm concerned, I've just hit my stride in life. Finally, I have both experience as well as zip and drive.
So, no........sorry. But I'm not going away because of age. *haha
(You silly whippersnapper, you.)
"As far as I'm concerned, I've just hit my stride in life.
*cough*
Denial ain't a river in Egypt."
That's what it looks like when your words are taken out of context and used against you. And that's exactly what's happening with Rev. Wright and Senator Obama. Many people have short attention spans, and the media aren't doing their jobs, as evidenced by the Rev. Wright and "typical white person" stories that have dominated the airwaves for a week. I'm all for doing away with "politics as usual," but it looks like we need to do with "news coverage as usual" as well.
Thanks for the post. I love how journalists feel the need to tell us that the candidate - any candidate - had a bad week, rather than just reporting what happened and let us decide for ourselves.
McCain is happy enough. *sigh*
Great Bad Week???
Polls don't reflect it ... nice try..
There are lies, damned lies and Pastor Wright's comments, and Obama's misleading attempt to justify them.
"Don"t tell me words don"t matter," Obama said, "to sing 'God Bless America. No, no, no, God damn America" .
Just words?
"We started the AIDS virus". . . We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians."
Just words?
"America's chickens are coming home to roost,"
"Just words?
Just speeches?"
Who said that ...
Just imagine McCain having a moral and spititual guide who said this hateful cr-p? All you have to do is change White to Black in his ranting speeches ... then tell me if he can "explain" it away.
Perhaps we could use .... "Just a preacher who speaks out to poor white congregants. It's a Southern cultural thing .... non-Southerners don't understand.
Princeton Junction
Let"s talk about a different bird, the Ostrich. I say got your head out of the sand or what ever it is you have had it shoved into. I have sat and listened to Rev. Wrights speeches and as a white middleclass man in Kentucky, I must say that some are a little disturbing. On the other hand with the exception of the U.S. inventing AIDS he makes some very valid point. If we look at the record, it was the Reagan administration that had to be dragged kicking and screaming to address the AIDS outbreak saying it was a gay disease and with their abstinence only policies which by any account is responsible for the preventable deaths of hundreds of millions around the world. The continuing toll it is take on the African American is an American tragedy.
As far as America foreign policy being responsible for 9/11. I ask but one question. Who train and financed Osama bin Laden and sent him to Afghanistan?
As I searched through the clips on YouTube I kept coming across clips from Fox and the talk radio of the right I kept hearing this not so very subtle underlying message ( the code speak) of "Who does that uppity N***** think he is?" and if that remains the message we all loss. This kill the messenger kill the message strategy has worked for them before and will continue to work for them until we are willing to have a really national conversation about race and class warfare in this country.
This has so many errors and "damn lies", I hardly know where to begin...
"Polls don't reflect it ... nice try.."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/poll.democrats/index.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105589/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Clinton-Back-Tie.aspx
This line --- "Don"t tell me words don"t matter," Obama said, "to sing 'God Bless America. No, no, no, God damn America" --- has you attributing everything to Obama. Instead, the second half is Reverend Wright. Idiotic and despicable of you.
You need to read these two articles, rather than continuing your uninformed and ignorant diatribes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erikka-yancy/more-fox-lies-jeremiah-w_b_92850.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/meet-the-white-man-who-_n_92793.html
It's called Satire ... Read some Swift to get a sense of it.
I thought the juxtaposition of Wright's words in Obama's passionate defense of the importance of Words would stike home.
Thanks for proving me correct and inducing you to personal attacks.
"Irony is wasted on the Obamites "
S: (n) sarcasm, irony, satire, caustic remark (witty language used to convey insults or scorn) "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Jonathan Swift
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=satire
The juxtaposition portion of your comment can be taken as satirical, but not the portions that I cited i.e. the libelous quote and the inaccurate statement about polling.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just imagine McCain having a moral and [spiritual] guide who said this hateful cr-p?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I guess you never heard of John Hagee or Rod Parsley. You don't have to imagine a thing. McCain's got two of them. But their hateful remarks aren't being aired 24/7 on cable "news" so maybe that's why you missed them. Why do you post such ignorant drivel? Are you a Republican in disguise trying to make Clinton supporters look foolish?
I'm a Conservative. I don't fly under false flags.
Posted March 24, 2008 | 10:27 AM (EST)