O Drama
Earlier this afternoon, I wrote a quick reaction to Obama's amazing speech for The New Republic online. I haven't changed my mind that it was a grand political moment and a grand national one, a sober, serious, cool and bracing challenge to the country, the likes of which I've never heard in a presidential campaign.
I haven't been near the tube since, so can only fear that the media maul squad is nibbling the talk to death. (I did hear Pat Buchanan on MSNBC, in the course of what some people thought was a respectful statement, manage to drag Farrakhan in.) I'm glad Hillary Clinton had the presence of mind to applaud him for giving it.
You don't have to agree that the speech was as exalted as I think it was to wonder whether the country is ready to excavate its ruins and take its future in its hands and...overcome.
I don't think Hillary's "presence of mind" is at issue. I know the primary's been heated but we've lost sight of the fact that Hillary and Bill were and are part of the civil rights movement. Maybe you didn't mean "presence of mind" as a pejorative. I think it was her honest reaction. She knows this should be part of the debate and she's glad to hear it.
This speech didn't change my opinion about who should win, but it is an important speech. That's why I'm not picking it to death, despite naturally disagreeing with bits of it.
March 18, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Characteristically, she said the least that could be said in the circumstance without saying something overtly aimed at tactical campaign advantage. But of course, that's why she is so inspiring to many Democratic primary voters...
March 19, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never used "presence of mind" as a pejorative and I didn't start today. Are we so cynical as to presume that Clinton and Hillary are at every single moment engrossed in a zero-sum game?
March 18, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. And yes. But I'm working on it.
March 18, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ole hard-hearted me who tears up very seldom, actually teared up with this speech. The first time I heard Obama speak was at the 2004 Convention when I heard him talk about how Americans were not so divided.
That theme has been there throughout this campaign. And it showed up in this speech.
It's really a question we have to answer--do we remain in our neat little buckets or not? I simply don't know the answer; perhaps our individual cynicism is too great. I'll go with the hope that it is not.
March 18, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's really a question we have to answer--do we remain in our neat little buckets or not? I simply don't know the answer; perhaps our individual cynicism is too great. I'll go with the hope that it is not."
Anyone else notice the similarity between the Obama campaign and three recent teeny-bopper movies: High school musical, Bratz, and Sidney White?
(and I don't mean this as an insult).
In all three of those movies, the kids refuse to be put into their assigned boxes ("science geek" "fashion diva") and fight to break down those buckets to allow each kid to be everything they want to be, and not just their assigned role.
March 19, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it admirable for the reasons others have given which I won't repeat.
And that it will cost him the election. Ever since I heard Adlai(it was him wasn't it) say he was going to talk sense to the American people-and lose 49 states- I've felt that talking sense is the prologue to the concession speech.
Where else does straight talk work? In advertising ?"Let us tell you about the things that are wrong with our widget" In the corporate world? "Where you're completely wrong sir.."
Obama already has my vote (as does HRC if she's the candidate). It's Joe Lunchpail whom he needs.JL would have applauded if Obama had launched into a scathing attack on Rev. Wright and concluded by resigning from the Trinity Church. It would have been contemptible but it would have been an election winner.
In a somewhat comparable moment in 52, Nixon's place on the ticket was endangered and he
gave the "Checkers " speech. The next morning a friend of mine asked Henry Cabot Lodge,Jr. how he could stomach its maudlin evasiveness. "I couldn't have made myself do it" Lodge said " but it was an election winner".
Sadly, it's the Nixons who get elected, not the
Obamas.
March 18, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it admirable for the reasons others have given which I won't repeat.
And that it will cost him the election. Ever since I heard Adlai(it was him wasn't it) say he was going to talk sense to the American people-and lose 49 states- I've felt that talking sense is the prologue to the concession speech.
Where else does straight talk work? In advertising ?"Let us tell you about the things that are wrong with our widget" In the corporate world? "Where you're completely wrong sir.."
Obama already has my vote (as does HRC if she's the candidate). It's Joe Lunchpail whom he needs.JL would have applauded if Obama had launched into a scathing attack on Rev. Wright and concluded by resigning from the Trinity Church. It would have been contemptible but it would have been an election winner.
In a somewhat comparable moment in 52, Nixon's place on the ticket was endangered and he
gave the "Checkers " speech. The next morning a friend of mine asked Henry Cabot Lodge,Jr. how he could stomach its maudlin evasiveness. "I couldn't have made myself do it" Lodge said " but it was an election winner".
Sadly, it's the Nixons who get elected, not the
Obamas.
March 18, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you haven't heard it and you have 37 minutes to spare, you can hear and read it here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html
As Rev. Wright might say: "Hillary could never have delivered this speech!"
It is a helluva one-sided conversation, not a speech or lecture (in fact the audience applause comes sporadically and at odd moments).... And those remarks at the end about mustard and relish sandwich Ashley and the old black man should make just about everyone this side of Rush Limbaugh well up ... and isn't everbody this side of Rush?
I first heard about Trinity United Church in January (I think it was the week after Iowa and it dawned on whitest america that this guy has a shot). A woman, who has a good heart, sent me a chain e-mail that parroted the racist trash Sean Hannity has been selling about the church for the past several months.
Not wanting to dismiss outright her fears that Obama wanted to be the next president of the Black Panthers, not the U.S., I did some research and found out why that church has the largest congregation of any U.C. Church. I also learned what the hard working goals of this African-Centrist Church are and shared them with her. (I regret that I can't find and share the very fair and well written article that examined the church, warts and all, and which educated me).
Now here we are a couple of months later and it has finally bubbled to the surface of the nation's political scum pond.
It's interesting how "religion" is once again playing a role in politics. I have no taste for it.
But I think the best thing about this past couple weeks is that the Conservatives have taken their best shots against Obama...This will be old news in October. Far better to air it now.
March 18, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
If you find the article again please share it with us.
March 18, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I've become much more cynical as the state votes have unfolded while watching the discussions between the supporters become toxic on the political boards I frequent. I stopped counting the "Well I'm not going to vote for your suck-O candidate if s/he wins" posts I've seen because it was too depressing. I've been voting for 40+ years and, coming into this year, I had never felt more optimistic about a presidential election for the Dems. Now, not so much.
Regarding the speech today, I thought it was a good speech but was troubled that it came in an effort to 'deal with' the Rev Wright statements as a backdrop. That's a defensive maneuver...damage control. He definitely needed to do it politically but I don't see it breaking any new racial ground, eloquent as it was. I'm glad he gave it, I'm glad it was well-received and I hope that it limits the damage. It shouldn't even be an issue. Manufactured outrage...but republicans know that it works with some people.
As I watch this shit going on, I find the core of my frustration. The fucking house is burning down and we've got the leading Democrat talking about race (tinged with religion), the trailing Democrat applauding the speech and John McCain raising money for the GE.
Welcome to the next ass-kicking.
March 19, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the article about Trinity United Church which I referenced in a prior comment. It was written by Jayson Byassee and appeared in Christian Century on May 29, 2007.
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3392
March 19, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. Useful
March 19, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Numerous intellectuals parse O's speech in a similar vein: The Nation calls it an "eloquent teaching moment"; Politico applauds O's speaking out against "perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam". However, as you point out well, what has O done about it?
Neither you nor The Nation nor Politico nor Dowd nor the NYTimes editorial board brings up Wright's pilgrimage to Tripoli.
Pilgrimage is the proper word for Wright's visit to Moammar Kadafi with Wright's friend Louis Farackhan in 1984. What trifecta has more "perverse and hateful ideologies" than Wright, Farrakhan and Kadafi?
Wright's hateful ideology is "Christian" yet he makes a pilgrimage to a radical Islamic mind, Kadafi.
Few - perhaps no one - realizes Wright's hateful "God Damn America" comes straight from Kadafi.
With typical evasiveness, an O supporter would say, "The phrase is too common. Of course, he didn't come from Kadafi". Oh?
Consider this:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,907040-6,00.html
April 2, 1973
"When a Libyan student asked Gaddafi this month why he did not throw the Americans out of Libya, the colonel replied, 'Nothing would please me more, but who else would pump the oil that we need? God damn America.' "
However, we need a President whose values are strong enough that he or she can throw a biggoted Antiamerican, pro-radical Islamic ["Christian" or not], antiJewish and antiwhite man out of our house, out of our lives. Obama lacks that moral strength. I do not see O's speech as "courageous" but cowardly and politically expedient. You cannot maintain friendship with an "uncle" who lauds Farrakhan and Kadafi and who repeats the values of both men.
I was a psychotherapist in a prison for years, helping men [black, white and Latino] try to kick drugs and alcohol. Obama does not walk the talk.
We do not want to see Wright as a guest, saying grace at some White House diner. Wright may have helped some people "come to Christ" but he is a hateful biggot.
The double standard prevails.
If Hillary’s minister had spouted antiwhite, antiJewish and anti-American nonsense for 20 years, O supporters and pundits would end her political career with savagery.
Democrats must get off the O train before it wrecks the party.
March 19, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
As soon as Obama finished his speech the cable shows and their guests started parsing it. MSNBC, CNN, FOX all need grist for their 24/7 mills so this story will go on until some blonde gets murdered in a sex scandal. As an added bonus, its cheap to air bobble heads babbling about politics, much cheaper than paying reporters to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, or to do investigative reporting.....or, heaven forbid, in depth stories on subjects that directly affect the majority of the public as Frontline does.
If Wolf Blitzer is getting paid more than minimum wage, CNN is being cheated.
March 19, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that there is another outcome here than increasing the public debate about race in a way that makes some voters uncomfortable. I think that actually enough people could be uncomfortable with the race issue that Obama might have closed the door shut on it for this primary season at least. Only time will tell what will happen from hear, but with a speech like this one he might have opened the door and closed it at the same time by "owning" the race debate in a way that makes him and the issues around it untouchable.
I can't wait see what happens from here as it will tell us a lot about where we are as a country today.
March 19, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the speech was in any sense lofty, it was only because it was delivered from the height of hypocrisy. Sen. Obama' use of the race issue has come back to roost with him.
This campaign strategy is something that I have thought about it quite a bit, and I believe I have come up with a good analysis of how the Obama campaign has used race.
Here is my theory: there are at least two race cards, the black card and the white card. Those who play the black card make statements and create images which cause African-American voters to vote as a bloc. The Obama campaign chose to play the black card in the SC primary. They accused Hillary of being a racist, because she had implied the President Johnson may have played an equal or more important role in the passage of the Civil Rights legislation, than did Martin Luther King. They dispatched Michelle Obama to SC to argue that all AA voters needed to untied around Barack. Sen. Obama put on a show with Oprah Winfrey, the most popular TV personality, black or white.
The strategy worked in SC, but Sen. Obama received only about the same percentage of the total vote as Jesse Jackson did back in '84 and '88. When Bill Clinton made this obvious compaarison, the Obama campaign decided to really ramp up this strategy and go with the charge that William J. Clinton was himself a racist. With the support of the media, this charge was widely circulated and also seems to have worked, until recently.
Of course, this kind of disingenuousness is very irritating to Clinton supporters, and Geraldine Ferrao went public with her frustration. What she was attempting to say was that the Obama campaign was unfairly using the race issue by playing the black card. She was angry because Sen. Obama had played the black card to take 80 and 90 % of the AA vote, even though Hillary was polling very well in that community before the black card was played. And what did Sen. Obama say? That Ferrara was engaging in "slice and dice" politics.
The white card is really not something that can actually be played, because that would mean that white voters would vote as a bloc against AAs, and no one wants to revive all the old memories of segregation. But there are very subtle ways of invoking the white card without actually playing it.
That is what has happened with regard to Rev. Wright: his apparent lack of patriotism and hatred of white America are seen as totally unacceptable. His close ties to the Obama campaign made it imperative for Sen Obama to give his speech yesterday, which was a plea for sympathy for himself and for other AAs, as well as a plea for racial tolerance. In other words it was a plea that white voters not allow themselvess to feel that the white race card should be played against him, due to his long association with Rev. Wright. His plea may resonate in some parts of the country, but I doubt that it will have much of an effect elsewhere.
March 19, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW, what an analysis. Barack Obama plays the black race card to get the black vote!
No candidate plays any card in any one particular state that doesn't get on the news nationwide. Ergo, if Obama played the black race card or whatever tactic in SC it was reported nationwide.
I can't imagine a black Obama playing the black race card to get the black vote which in turn would alienate the white and Hispanic voters.
So, does Obama hate whitey? Is he unpatriotic?
Anti-American?
March 19, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, John W, Obama did have to play the black race card in SC. Remember, Hillary had just upset his applecart in NY and NV. It was imperative that he pull a supermajority of black voters in SC, and that is why his campaign played the black card. You do remember that his campaign accused Hillary of being a racist, don't you, because she mentioned that President Johnson had to use his political muscle to get the Civil Rights legislation passed?
Of course, the race card was not played openly, but by accusign Hillary (of all people) of being a racist.
March 19, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oklahoma,
Now let me get this straight;
Barack Obama, a black man, and the first black man to actually have a shot at the Presidency, had to play the black race card in SC in order to get a large black vote.
Got it!
Would it then follow that if Barack didn't play the black race card, much of the black vote in SC would have gone to Hillary?
March 19, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
He told that story about the little girl with the mustard and relish sandwiches, and the elderly black man? not again!!!
And, by the way, "like you I was raised by a single mom"
And like you he has lived a tough life, no advantages, Harvard, Columbia, private school in HI
No father figure, deserted when he was 2 years old, no example to follow, had to make his own way.
Thank the Lord, Rev Wright found him.
March 19, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink