It is already clear that Obama's Tuesday speech could not have been better. It is being justly compared, by knowledgeable people, to some of the great political speeches in American history. Whether it will register on the public consciousness in that way is another question.
Because there's this problem: there may not be a place in this culture for a history-making speech anymore -- I mean literally, no room in the flood of imagery and commentary for something of lasting value to sit there and be itself, to sink in and define the moment. Ask yourself: what would FDR's "fear itself" speech or MLK's "I have a dream" speech actually have been, as a cultural phenomenon, in the context of 24/7 news cycles, talk radio, cable, YouTube -- and, yes, blogs like this?
At a minimum, the answer to that question is: diluted. This has to be faced, especially by those of us who support Barack, because our job is to deconstruct and counteract this inevitable effect of postmodern media. One good thing, sometimes, about the old top-down mass media was that everyone paid attention to the same thing at the same time and for a long time and in more or less the same way. Of course, that was also a bad thing. But, like it or not, this is the situation within which Obama's great speech must find a way to last.
There is however an unanticipated upside: as the right wing platforms play and replay the loop of sound bites from Rev. Wright's sermons -- it gets trickier for them to sustain the rumor that he's a Muslim! Ah, the little ironies...
This is the major question for all of us ~ the media could play a valuable role if they balance the political implications of the speech with a continuing and meaningful discussion of "where do we go from here ~ how can we, as a society benefit from this message so long awaited.
At the moment the ongoing concentration of the media on the "why didn't he leave" question while replaying the dreadful images of Rev Wright at his worst. Those replays simply keep the fires of hatred burning and prevent the real discussion so needed by this nation.
If Rev Wright's words bring about better understanding and tolerance (CHANGE) in the minds and hearts of this nation, then Obama's candidacy will have not been in vain regardless of the primary outcome.
If we can ALSO get back to discussion of the important issues that face this nation in a meaningful way as Obama suggested, then we will have accomplished significant CHANGE!
Can we as a society think and chew gum at the same time???? We'll see I guess.
Now she is 23, and she joined Barack's campaign so that she could help the millions of other children who want and need to help their parents (Barack's words). I'm not sure what that really means. She joined Barack's campaign to help children eat muster and relish sandwiches? Why didn't her mother receive SS benefits and food stamps? There seems to be a lot more to story since it seems very hokey and phony. I'm unsure why this story isn't being investigated by the media. Barack then said that Ashley could have blamed her mother's problems on blacks who are on welfare or illegals but she didn't. How could Ashley blame anyone for her mother's medical problems? Barack's story is totally illogical.
Why would Barack think the voters would swallow this story? Why didn't his advisors step in and advise him not to tell the voters this story? The story is full of holes and why did the media give him a free pass on the story? The press and media are to be the fourth branch of government but allow political candidates to tell obvious feel good, phony unchallenged stories to support their campaigns.
It's funny. This primary campaign is starting to make me feel like I did in 2004. I feel like an absolute stranger in my own country. I just can't relate to all of these people who are so offended by a few comments like these. George W. Bush offends me. Hillary Clinton even offends me. Rev. Wright? I could really care less. At least he's honest. That's more than you can say for most of the people leading our country.
But still, Obama marches on. The speech was flat out brilliant, as expected. The guy is just awesome. Whatever is in front of him, he just deals with it in the same straightforward, common-sense way. Unflappable. He is still winning, but something is different. The wind seems to be out of the sails.
Obama reminds me of all my favorite rock bands. Plenty of critical acclaim, but somehow not palatable enough for mass consumption.
The media is just such a sickening, festering shitswamp. All they know how to talk about is petty crap. They drag us all down. It's getting to be too much to take.
Obama/ Richardson 08
white america is not about to put a black man in the white house. will look for any excuse to find a way not to vote for this guy.
and who is leading in penn state and won ohio. and how many white males votes did he get in mississippi?
we are a racist war mongering country. capitalism has turned us into that. best kept secret in american politics.
watch hillary steal this one in sept and the convention. then lose to mc war. she has more negatives in america then hitler with the white males.
He most certainly won't win if everyone we allow ourselves to be manipulated by the media and the angry, fearful, hateful people who want to retain their hold on power and superiority.
If nothing else, my vote for Obama will be a reflection of my desire to stay in the arena for as long as it takes to get us back to the important work of fixing the problems that will be our society's undoing if neglected ~ they are the problems Obama has been talking about and in fact listed at the end of his speech this week.
If only for our grandchildren's sake, we must not surrender to politics as usual!
Whether or not it turns into a political homerun for the Senator, I think it was historical, especially at this time. The art of speechwriting and speech-giving has not been lost, although we probably haven't seen one this good since the late 60s.
It actually reminded me of some of the content in the Lincoln-Douglas debates that you have to study in school, where that 'other' Illinois congressman we know about continued to respectfully receive Douglas' attacks, even acknowledge and understand them, then point out where they missed the mark or misled the voters, in his opinion, while fervently appealling to to a larger discussion, the saving of the union as envisioned by the country's founders.
Obama's approach to all the attacks and invective coming his way is strikingly similar, while Lincoln's historic theme of saving the union I find stongly echoed in Obama's call for building bridges to heal and unify the country at a critically divisive time.
(although who today would be Douglas to Obama's Lincoln? hmmm....)
Also, like that other guy from Illinois, with Obama there was no disrespect for anyone, not his former pastor, not his opponents or enemies even. It reminded me that and the ability to inspire and persuade can be used to open the hearts and minds of others, instead of stratifying and closing them off. A much-needed antidote for the cynicism that we've all got in droves these days.
Frankly, I fault his speech-writer.
For a 24/7 long-time commenter like AnninCA, I'm impressed that she, a staunch Clinton supporter, displays such unrelenting dedication to the propagation of lies and insinuations. She must have a great conscience, and individuals who are fortunate to have met her in real life must feel truly blessed. God bless AnninCA, for lies from Clinton supporters are what America truly needs right now to save itself from the lies of a Bush presidency.
Watch this in its entirety and share it. What Fox is doing is criminal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
And, for goodness sake, can we not agree here that context is everything? Anyone's statements taken out of context and reduced to a 30 sec looped clip of the most outrageous things said in a 30 year span on the pulpit produced, no less, by that arbiter of truth, Fox News, might not be the wisest means by which to choose our next President of the United States? Just sayin'.
You know, it a post-modern society where every disjointed bit has meaning only as it relates to ME, there is something comforting in the presence of a person like Barack Obama who has the ability not only to see and understand the pieces, but to relate them as an intricate, but patterned whole. We may need Obama's vision for more reasons than we can yet fathom. History marches on.
Nothing more. You needn't be reminded that there was another Republican candidate at the time. Now while I was not a Huckabee supporter, he deserved to have this story run. The American people deserved to have this story run then. It has been extremely frustrating to me - especially during the past 1 1/2 weeks of seeing Obama "vetted" and not seeing this story take on steam. Hagee is a frightening man. What little the press did say lead us to believe that he is simply anti-Catholic. He is so much more than that. He is a man whose endorsement McCain is "proud to accept" - stood on the stage with him - will receive large amounts of money from him. But he's anti-Catholic, ultimately anti-Jew (although he manipulates those to think he supports Israel for only the right reasons). The link to a documentary is below. It is not a nasty clip - rather an informative one. We all deserve to learn about this man and about Preacher Parsley as well who has also endorsed McCain. Reverand Wright's comments were deplorable, shameful and they have been painful to watch over and over. Senator McCain, during the past week or so, has taken the high road and has defended Obama when others wanted to tear him apart. And while I certainly appreciate that - and I try not to be a skeptic - I have to believe that he did so - not quite out of the goodness of his heart - but rather gearing up for what he will now have to face. But he's also not here in America now is he? There should be total transparency for all three candidates. Hillary needs to come forth with her taxes, contributors & talk about the fact that she and Bill are facing a 17 million dollar law suit - accused of campaign fraud. How she manages to always make sure her stories are under the radar is nothing less than shameful. But for now, the link to Hagee's Motivation is below. You decide if you agree with me that he's not supporting Israel for the right reasons. Rather, because that is where Jesus will come home in the end times and he will save all of us. ALL? Well, maybe not the Catholics and Maybe not the Jews and Maybe not main-stream Christians and certainly not homosexuals. However - when we all CHOOSE to be born again - then we will all ascend into Heaven. The rest of us??? We burn in hell! What a charming Preacher Man who endorses John McCain.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/rapture-ready-the-unauth_b_57826.html
Xmas 2007, Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdfbWSJINhg
Xmas 2007, Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVeK0JDPm8Y
Xmas 2007, Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o36KBeDXJ8
Xmas 2007, Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFQAQVcn89A
What I saw is a very wise, joyful and intelligent man who loves Jesus and knows how to share that love with his congregation. Gave me a whole different context on IMs too!
‘We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are a Germanic people, and remain "true to the motherland.” We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO GERMANY.’
It suddenly took on a different light. As a progressive for almost 30 years I felt ashamed. Are we willing to overlook this obvious departure from our core beliefs? If this was a church that a republican candidate belonged to for 19 years what would we (progressives) be saying? If the republican candidate last night said “Typical Black People”, what would Al Sharpton’s response be? I am a progressive because I believe that all people should be treated equally, with respect and dignity. I believe that we cannot tolerate exclusionism in America. We as progressives must stand firm in the fight against Hate Speech. How far do we bend our beliefs before they break? If America is truly going to come together as one, we need to be true in our resolve and hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Thank you,
Robert Sorce
I applaud your commitment to really consider this issue, and I appreciate the trouble and concern that you're devoting to it.
What I would like to contribute to your thoughts is my view of the difficulty of your strategy for rethinking this racial issue.
It has been the tactic of Bill O'Reilly to say, much like you have done, "substitute 'white' for 'black' in what Wright has said..." If we simply go along with this line of thinking, I believe we do ourselves a disservice. It overlooks the complexity of the racial issue, and particularly the history of race in this country.
The black self-identity is one that has been historically imposed upon African Americans; they have been defined not by themselves, but by colonialist European powers (primarily the Dutch, Belgian, Spanish, etc.) as 'others' - and thus, this term 'black' and the cultural baggage that goes with it, is not the same kind of self-identification that whites have traditionally used. I believe that we should be troubled by any church that would espouse 'white' principles, because of the notion of superiority attached to 'whiteness' historically. Whenever 'whites' have come together as such in a self-consciously racial way, it has most often been for the sake of dominating other racial groups.
On the other hand, the identity of 'blackness' has been a result not of active aggression on the part of African Americans, but rather of a long history of being aggressed against, primarily by whites. 'Black' has often carried with it the sense of a common struggle of people whose rights had been denied for centuries, and whose status in this country, despite the advances in the civil rights movements over the past 50 years, continues to lag far behind what we consider to be just.
Traditionally in this country, the discourse of race has had this unevenness built into it. I do not wish to attempt to recount the complicated history of racial identity formation in this country, but I do believe that it is worthwhile to look into this history when you are considering, for example, the Trinity church, the Reverend Wright, Obama's comment about his grandmother, and the various movements of the civil rights in general.
That said, I hope you can see how it might be problematic to simply switch terms in order to level an unbiased judgment on this issue, or to consider the case closed on this basis. As Obama implied in his speech on Tuesday, this conversation about the complexities of race in this country is really just beginning.
Rob,
I applaud your commitment to really consider this issue, and I appreciate the trouble and concern that you're devoting to it.
What I would like to contribute to your thoughts is my view of the difficulty of your strategy for rethinking this racial issue.
It has been the tactic of Bill O'Reilly to say, much like you have done, "substitute 'white' for 'black' in what Wright has said..." If we simply go along with this line of thinking, I believe we do ourselves a disservice. It overlooks the complexity of the racial issue, and particularly the history of race in this country.
The black self-identity is one that has been historically imposed upon African Americans; they have been defined not by themselves, but by colonialist European powers (primarily the Dutch, Belgian, Spanish, etc.) as 'others' - and thus, this term 'black' and the cultural baggage that goes with it, is not the same kind of self-identification that whites have traditionally used. I believe that we should be troubled by any church that would espouse 'white' principles, because of the notion of superiority attached to 'whiteness' historically. Whenever 'whites' have come together as such in a self-consciously racial way, it has most often been for the sake of dominating other racial groups.
On the other hand, the identity of 'blackness' has been a result not of active aggression on the part of African Americans, but rather of a long history of being aggressed against, primarily by whites. 'Black' has often carried with it the sense of a common struggle of people whose rights had been denied for centuries, and whose status in this country, despite the advances in the civil rights movements over the past 50 years, continues to lag far behind what we consider to be just.
Traditionally in this country, the discourse of race has had this unevenness built into it. I do not wish to attempt to recount the complicated history of racial identity formation in this country, but I do believe that it is worthwhile to look into this history when you are considering, for example, the Trinity church, the Reverend Wright, Obama's comment about his grandmother, and the various movements of the civil rights in general.
That said, I hope you can see how it might be problematic to simply switch terms in order to level an unbiased judgment on this issue, or to consider the cased closed on this basis. As Obama implied in his speech on Tuesday, this conversation about the complexities of race in this country is really just beginning.
Like Olbermann said, .."when you have to start using Newmax as a source for content, you're in big trouble".
Well HuffPo -it looks like you're winning. Obama is sinking quickly in the polls, and every hack out there is quoting now , not Newsmax or Fox -but YOU. So in your glee to crown Clinton -the hated, you've likely contributed to the destruction of Obama- the loved.
But look at what you've wrought - the polls show Clinton dropping faster than Obama , the Super D's will never now throw him under HER bus - for fear of the end days of the Democratic party.
And you've lost me. Because I don't play dirty pool -with anyone. I will remove myself from your lists.
Humans being what we are, there is likely just as much space for serious thought and elaborated argument as there ever was in our culture. We now tune in to youtube in stead of Cronkite, and those who have paid attention to Barack Obama's speech no doubt got via a dozen or more vectors--from youtube to email--rather seeing it on the network news and/or reading it in the afternoon newspaper.
in this, McLuhan was wrong: it's the message that mattered, not the media.
TV sux
On the other hand, I remind myself that the pundits fell over themselves praising Edward Everett's 3-hour oration and not even mentioning the greatest political document in American history, the Gettysburg Address, and I remember that the radio "fireside" of Roosevelt's great speeches was the YouTube of its day. So I'm confident that the world will note and remember Obama's great speech. Whether his contemporaries have the intellectual maturity to do that is a barely open question.
I am taking an American Presidency course at my local university. Yesterday, our professor decided that the Obama speech would dovetail perfectly with our current discussion on the role of religion in presidential politics. So he set up a computer and attempted to access the speech online. Due to our inadequate internet infrastructure at the school, he was unable to access the speech BUT he learned that half the class had already seen the speech in whole at least once, with about a third of the class having seen it multiple times. The others all planned on watching it when they could get home where they had real internet connectivity.
Don't be so pessimistic. There's a sea change happening in this country, and abandoning TV and newspapers aren't necessarily a bad thing. Concensus in our class was that the Obama speech was excellent, certainly on par with the other great speeches given in America over the past hundred years or so. The next generation is SAVVY, dude.
Anyways, Rev. Wright will be speaking at a church here in Tampa early next week, & I'm gonna go down and hear what the man has to say for myself. There is a chance I'll be the only white guy there not waving a protest sign, but somehow I doubt it....
Obama 08
From: White, Age 50, College Educated, Professional, Texan
--
I recommend that fence voters read 'The Audacity of Hope.' If the
only thing you learn about candidates and issues is from the sound bites and
other media snippets you hear and see, you will be missing out on the breadth
and depth of the conversation that is available to you. Television and
blog postings do not convey the depth of Senator Obama that you will find
in his book.
But be prepared. The book is not simple minded. It is dense. Reading it
will remind many of being in college. It, like the speech on race we've
recently witnessed, is not like other works from other politicians. It is
fearless and reasoned and complex. It doesn't try to reduce problems to
simple phrases.
Senator Obama gives every subject, every chapter in the book, considerable
context, and he leads the reader to understand his position on issue and his
suggestions and proposals to approach the problems he describes. He seems to
view problems and issues as opportunities, and this re-framing of the
discussion draws the reader in to be involved in the solution.
Senator Obama covers topics such as our values, our political system,
education, health care, globalization, race, and foreign policy with
considerable depth and, dare I say, compassion.
Whether or not you agree with the Senator on these topics, if you give
the book a fair reading, I believe you will be left with no doubt about the
Senator's sincerity and breadth of knowledge on these subjects and I believe it
will be clear that he is not just talk. The book is full of substance.
Whether or not you agree with the Senator on these topics, if you give
the book a fair reading, I believe you will be left with no doubt about the
Senator's sincerity and breadth of knowledge on these subjects and I believe it
will be clear that he is not just talk. The book is full of substance.
Whether or not you agree with the Senator on these topics, if you give
the book a fair reading, I believe you will be left with no doubt about the
Senator's sincerity and breadth of knowledge on these subjects and I believe it
will be clear that he is not just talk. The book is full of substance.
If, after your reading, you want to know why he does what he does, or if you
have doubts about the voice that you hear coming from 'The Audacity of Hope",
(I've seen multiple posts that suggest that Obama doesn't write his own
speeches), then go back and read 'Dreams From My Father.' While it
wes written many years ago after he graduated from Harvard Law, you will
recognize the voice. I recognized the voice that wrote the recent speech
on race from my readings of his books. It's the same voice. I'm learning
to trust it.
I believe trust is a serious issue to the current fence sitter. Americans
have become so cynical in our politics that many believe that
politicians can't afford to tell the truth because it will cost them elections.
These americans EXPECT their candidate to lie, and hope the lie will work,
so that they can win. Americans want to be on the winning team at the cost
of something as basic as trust.
I hope that the trustworthiness that I see will resonate as strongly with
other voters as it does with me, because I believe Obama is by far the
most trustworthy candidate. After reading his books and listening to
and reading his careful reasoning on a broad range of subjects, I believe
he is trying very hard to do the right thing, and I believe he is committed
to the causes that he covers in these speeches and books, and I believe he
cares for the people of America, whether or not they care for him.
For those that already support Senator Obama, I have renewed hope because I
see that you feel as I do. Senator Obama has given voice to people who have
not had a voice in the direction of our culture and politics for a long time.
To those Obama supports, my call to action here is that no matter what
happens in the elections to come, continue to adopt a new way to talk about
the issues. Continue to rise above politics as usual. I've seen it in
many of the posts here. Some of you are starting to change the way you
frame the discussions. It may be another generation before the hate
speech disappears, but I believe it starts with me and you.
Your remarks are offensive, not because you call Obama a liar, but primarily because you've made it your mission here to contribute to dogmatism, simplistic thinking, and knee-jerk reactionism. It appears to me that you're actively encouraging people to become dumber. I'm aware that you'll dismiss my remarks - they're not kind - but they are accurate. You refuse to really consider Obama, you refuse to read his books (either of them), and you spew puerile retorts at an increasing rate with the veneer of conviction that a six year old has about the infallibility of his parents. I'm glad so many people are taking a greater interest in politics these days, but you, sir, give not only Hillary supporters and democrats a bad name, you do the same to the free exchange of ideas.
What did Mr. Obama lie about? Have all politicians been 100% truthful all the time?
Obama is not the one bringing up race issues. He is not the one to use it for divisive purposes. That is being done by other campaigns. He is reacting in a very forward way to the overblown, nonsensical reaction that swept through FOX and carried away those who couldn't look into the details of what actually was said.