Why didn't you mention MJ?

;)

Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union" was just brilliant. Most impressive was his ability stand with one foot in his White heritage and the other in his Black heritage and speech frankly about race in a way neither a Black or White man ever could.

Even more impressive for me, is that after 8 years with a slack-jawed dufus in the Whitehouse, we can look forward to not only a President that can string a 6 word sentence together without drooling on himself, but he can actually WRITE such an elequent speech.

That's right - Obama wrote that speech he gave. By Himself. This speech, being lauded over by both critics and pundits alike as "Historical", was written by Senator Obama. He gets it. Without being told what to say and think by polls and advisors - he really gets it.

The man is impressive and uniquely qualified to lead our country in these Dark times.

Here's what I can't get: What did Reverend Wright ever say that was racist?

He said "God Damn America".
He said we created the AIDs virus.
When did he ever hate on white people?

Why does this bullshit meme keep getting repeated?

A politician who has audacity to ask Americans to think, has courage to turn a crisis into an oppurtunity. It's refreshing/

I just have a feeling Obama is a head of our times and I hope I'm proven wrong.

aborton,

How about this one: "Hillary ain't never been called a nigger before!"

Not enough for you? How about you take a deeper look into the quotations your provided.

You would be a fool not to acknowledge that the 'government' that he is talking about is, without any doubt, the white 'America.' You can chose not to believe this, that is your prerogative.

Moreover, let's set the question of 'racism' aside and instead look at the question of race being used politically.

Even in Mr. Obama's speech yesterday:

I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

And this, refering to Rev. Wright and the Trinity Church:

A country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land . . .

There is nothing racists about these comments at all. But using race as a political tool is something that likely irks Sen. Clinton and her supporters very much.

On whether or not we're ready for the change Obama is talking about:

As a future teacher, the greatest teachers and teaching techniques I've seen come when the instructor raises the bar above expectations and gives tells students they have the benefit of the doubt that they can hit it.

I don't think he's ahead of our times, we've been trying to get Civil Rights going at least legally on the federal level since the 1950's. He's right for our time and realizes Americans can be guided away from their divisive ideas and will come willingly when someone can truly lead them and gives them a chance the perceive to be genuine.

Barack Obama's speech was brilliant and daring. I am sadly afraid that it might not be successful.

I did not come to support Obama quickly, easily, or with the messianic fervor of many other coastal whites. I did so slowly, deliberately, with eyes wide open to his shortcomings and weaknesses. I felt he was not nearly as strong a general election candidate as many pundits did, and I was unsure of his readiness to be commander-in-chief in an uncertain and scary time. I considered seriously Bill Clinton's warning that voting for Obama was a risk.

With time, I decided I wanted to take that risk. I needed to take that risk. Over the course of fall and early winter, I slowly saw in Barack Obama the potential for something different in America, in her politics, and to a certain extent, in myself. I witnessed and grew enamored of a candidate who possessed a steely calm, who championed a cause without demonizing the opposition, and who challenged a broken, dysfunctional political system.

The past week, the endless cable TV loop of the worst of Jeremiah Wright filled me with dread. I have spent enough time in black churches and among the political hard left to be unfazed both by Wright's politics or by his tone in the over-exposed clips. But I am enough the son of Reagan voters, enough the product of an ethnic mill town, and enough the political operative, to realize that Wright's comments had thrown Obama onto the third rail of American politics, and tied him there, firmly, tightly.

I was nervous about the speech this morning. I was skeptical that he could salvage his campaign from this crisis. Twelve hours later, I am not sure he did, but I feel genuine awe and gratitude for what I witnessed this morning.

What impressed me was not his eloquence, or his grasp of history, but his uncommon courage. Alone on stage, reading a speech written by his own hand and from his own heart, Barack Obama forcefully, calmly and eagerly broke every rule of modern American politics. He refused to simplify and pander. He opted for loyalty over political expediency. He thoughtfully explained instead of deliberately obfuscating.

Most remarkably, though, rather than try to short-circuit or bury an agonizing conversation about race in America, Barack Obama chose to start one. He understands this nation needs to embrace the complicated dialogue he has had within his own head for much of his life. He understands the discussion needs to be unflinching, unvarnished, and often painful. And while he understands the conversation will never be finished, that the union will never be perfected, it is necessary, productive, and ultimately transformative.

I am in awe of Barack Obama for what he did today. I have never felt as proud of supporting a candidate as I did today. I have never before felt that a candidate was really trying to change something big and deep and troubling in our country. And I have never before felt a leader was sincere when he said this was something "we" needed to do.

But I am skeptical that this speech will save his campaign. The significance of his message is either being lost or deliberately obscured by the rabid hyenas on CNN and Fox. And although I try, I cannot muster the faith he has in the American electorate to not only embrace the dialogue he calls us to, but to see and understand his candidacy as being about not that one conversation, but about so many more.

I don't quite believe we can, but he makes me want to. He makes me just audacious enough to hope that I am wrong.

This was a great moment in American history -- a time when a transcendant political figure addressed issues of race and religion and division honestly and openly, with nuance and courage, from both the heart and the head.

I hope, as with JFK's Catholic speech, it vaults him on to the presidency, where he, uniquely among the contenders, has the potential to do great things.

If it doesn't, that will also tell us a lot, not only about the state of race relations but especially about the state of American political discourse and the health of our democracy itself. Unfortunately, what it tells us will not be good.

Didn't his speech represent the kind of political dialogue and the kind of political vision progressives have been yearning for? Isn't it time to unify behind this remarkable, once-in-a-generation leader?

I think a lot of the commentators have missed the point on the true audience for this speech. They like to think Obama's intention is for his words to be reprinted around the country, with the populace pouring over his words like they were the Lincoln/Douglas debates. All this fretting over whether Joe Sixpack will be moved by the speech is misguided. Obama's audience was the media. And the speech was a complete success. Over the last few weeks, Clinton, with an assist from Wright, managed to tarnish Obama in the eyes of the media, reducing him to an empty vessel not up to the job (just look at Fred Armisen's portrayal of a bumbling Obama on SNL). Obama needs the media like no other candidate; his survival as a black man trying to be president depends on the MSM being on his side. They're the ones who have kept Clinton viable long after the odds of her winning the nomination approached zero. If they truly turn on Obama, the supers may soon follow. But by delivering a powerful, risky, and brilliantly composed speech, he brought the media back to his side and presented his strongest argument for being ready to be president. The Wright thing will play itself out over the next eight months, but it will be joined by McCain gaffes, a tanking economy, an endless war, etc. Obama needed the media both to back off on Wright and re-embrace the man they jizzed all over in Jan. and Feb. There's plenty of time to woo actual voters. He is much closer to being president today than yesterday, because he gave a great POLITICAL speech.

I, personally, thought it was an amazing speech. I'd like to share what our local paper, which happens to be the largest in Oregon, devoted to Obama's speech.

2/3's of the entire front page with the bold heading, "We can move beyond some of our old racial wounds," included a picture and an article. Today's editorial gave the speech a glowing review. Another inside page was completely devoted to an article entitled "Choosing reconciliation over rancor"; another article, "Oregon's history pockmarked with racial injustices." On another page an article, "Worshippers look past jarring words of sermon." It recounts experiences people have had in their church when the sermon is of a nature to make them angry/uncomfortable. It concludes that often issues are set aside for the sake of a relationship that means more than any single issue.

My point in sharing this....if this is indicative of what is happening all across this country, I hope we all, as Americans, take this pivotal moment in our history and embrace it.

I thought the most refreshing and telling reaction came from none other than Mike Huckabee. He was on Joe Scarborough's show this morning, presumably brought on the churn the hopper of red meat for the Right, and he defied expectations.

He essentially said--and my paraphrasing does not pay adequate tribute to the calm, rational manner in which this was laid out--that yeah, sure, preachers say crazy things all the time, but that doesn't mean that listening to them means you believe them. He went on to discuss thepolitical fallout, saying that this may be an issue right now, but it's March, not October, and by the time we get there people will be looking at issues that have nothing to do with what someone's pastor (or spiritual advisor) said from a pulpit that has been rejected by the candidates.

There is a full transcript over at DailyKos, and I have to tell you that in reading it I had to re-read it.

Because it was refreshing.

Huckabee has integrity, I will give him that.

I have read the report of the comments and the comments on the comments which have come before mine.

I have not noticed any reporting or any commentary on I believe has been missed in much of the MSM coverage of the Presidential Primaries in general and the Reverend Wright issue, in particular.

Are we becoming a “sound bite” society?

Are our intellectual interest and our curiosity acceptably fulfilled by only a miniscule amount of facts?

How do “sound bites” impact our abilities to make sound judgments?

And, if “sound bites” are our “new” reality, does this “new” reality reflect a “dummying down” of our critical analyses of events and issues?

Let’s address the Reverend Wright issue.

Can anyone of any intellectual capacity accept or judge any individual based upon a few “sound bites” that does NOT in any way, reflect or encapsulate 30 years worth of sermons, WITHOUT surrendering their critical analysis?

If any one of us is SO perfect, that somewhere in the course of our own lives, we would not both inwardly and outwardly cringe at a 30 or 60 second “sound bite” played and replayed of some of our less than Sterling moments?

One of my personal largest gripes about news coverage these days is that it is more and more trending to tabloid fodder versus sound, investigative reporting and analysis.

This American does NOT appreciate the “dummying down” of information and reporting of the “news” and if it were not for the Internet where I can research & read to make my own analysis.

For this reader, “sound bites” are just that and do not constitute the news. MUCH LESS using sound bites to JUDGE another humanbeing.

I can reflect on my own life and realize that there have been moments I certainly wouldn't want to relive in 30 or 60 second sound bites. Each commenter would have to consider that for themselves.

For me, today I heard in total what was and will be the most definitive and perhaps historical speech on race relations that we have ever been offered. It was honest and from the heart.

Senator Obama was and is asking us to see the real grievances of race as a divisive issue which KEEPS us from improving our country's ecomony, jobs, education, position on the war and yes, look at our own prejudices that keep us from UNITING and OVERCOMING our divisions to become the BEST that we can be - like we came together after 911.

For me, it was TRULY inspiring!

How each of us chooses to view it, judge it, is entirely up to us but I trust ALL Americans to come to that decision based upon MORE than “sound bites".

For those interested in what else Rev. Wright might have said there is a link which follows for reading:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html”.

That speech was a masterful snowjob done as cynical reactionary political gamesmanship. Anyone who takes even a few moments to look at it objectively can see it for what it's worth...nothing.

"Won't Get Fooled Again" I what I say. This guy is a total deception. None of you true believers actually has any real clue as to how he'll act as president. He has too short a history and too much baggage to be knowable.

He is the Great Deceiver.

LAindependant wrote:

"What impressed me was not his eloquence, or his grasp of history, but his uncommon courage. Alone on stage, reading a speech written by his own hand and from his own heart, Barack Obama forcefully, calmly and eagerly broke every rule of modern American politics. He refused to simplify and pander. He opted for loyalty over political expediency. He thoughtfully explained instead of deliberately obfuscating."

That is absolutely right. LAindependant nailed it right on the head. What struck me most about the speech was not the topic (which don't get me wrong, I thought was so important and powerful that I found myself on the verge of tears), but the raw honesty and the risk he took to say what he did. That utter lack of BS, to me, was the most powerful part of his speech. I believe, if Obama can continue to do what he did yesterday with Iraq and the economy, the real story will be that Obama has found his voice and his voice will connect with the American people like no other politician in our history.

Exactly, skynyrdjd. He came across so genuinely (in spite of fogu2's delusional comment), so heartfelt--I've read so many reports from people commenting on GOPers, independents, others watching Obama as well yesterday and being moved by what he had to say... I do not think Obama wants this to be a race about race, so to speak. I think the campaign worked hard to avoid that, and was forced to address it early on to some extent in response to some of the ambiguous (or not so ambiguous, in the case of Andrew Cuomo's unfortunate "shuck and jive" comment) line of talk coming from the Clinton camp. And now you have blowhards like Limbaugh and Russert (who's turning into the MSM, somewhat politer version of El Rushbo) declaring Obama as the "black candidate." Actually, by meeting the topic head-on (and it's certainly BEEN THERE all along) yesterday, Obama defused it to a large extent. It was a brilliant speech, morally AND politically speaking. The polls will not reflect it for several more days, but at the least, the damage has been stopped--and I think in the end he will actually gain from this whole episode. And we can get back to taking it to McCain!

I'm afraid what this will come down to is a conflict between people of good will and people with basically dark hearts. That may sound oversimplistic, perhaps even naive, but anyone who wants to look at Obama and not see a person of good will...well you can fill in the rest. From where I stand, I obviously can't predict what the end result will be, but when I remember the sizeable American majority that wanted to bomb Iraq off the face of the earth five years ago, it becomes a bit hard not to think of Americans as a pretty self-obsessed and meanspirited bunch. Even now, the one million Iraqis dead and counting don't seem to count. And then let's not forget the mainstream media noise machine. They're not going to give this up and if they don't pander to what is worst in human nature, I don't know who does. Then in addition there will be the Republican noise machine, encouraging righteous indignation and hate in the name of the Christian god who is of course always on America's side. And a jealous and vengeful god... Or in other words, I fear Obama's goose is cooked. I hope I may be proven wrong, but only time will tell.

JZ--"Obama's audience was the media. And the speech was a complete success."

JZ got it right. This speech changed the narrative. The media coverage ebbs and flows of the campaign. Obama was stuck in a negative feedback loop and he needed to break out of the "Clinton/McCain make a charge, Obama defends himself" cycle. Obama's speech provides a pivot point for the media narrative. I believe it will be decisive.

The ability of Obama to fight back has been in question in the media and the blogs. This speech answers the question. He is a fighter, but his fighting style is different. He elevates the discourse; he provides inspiration and thoughfulness in response to negative attacks. The well-documented Clinton fighting style is different. I prefer Obama's approach to politics, it gives me hope for the future.

Something that I haven't heard discussed on TV at all is that Obama showed real leadership here. He took a real chance and confronted the situation head on. He led from the front. He did it with confidence in the American people. It almost doesn't matter what the issue was, but that it was race makes it all the more significant. He displayed leadership and statesmanship in a way that no candidate has in my voting lifetime. Forget how it played with this or that demographic, Obama stood there and delivered a challenge and gave us the only real indication seen from any of the candidates of willingness and ability to address potentially disastrous situations with thought and courage.

My only worry is that it will take a collapse of 1930s proportions for this country to realize the magnitude what he offers us.

How weird that such an effective display of leadership was followed this morning by our delusional president spewing his flaccid tripe all over the airways.

Most commentary on Obama's talk focused on whether or not he put to rest the Pastor Wright question. But I do not think that was the key impact of his speech. I think the key impact is, whatever your position is on the Wright issue and all the questions of race/religion surrounding it, Obama's talk was the first address in this primary season in which any of the candidates came close to appearing fit for the presidency.

Whether you like Obama or not, whether you intend to vote for him or not, he is so far the only one of the three remaining in the race that thinks and talks like a president of the United States should.

Aye, Aye, suntzu!

"That speech was a masterful snowjob done as cynical reactionary political gamesmanship. Anyone who takes even a few moments to look at it objectively can see it for what it's worth...nothing.

"Won't Get Fooled Again" I what I say. This guy is a total deception. None of you true believers actually has any real clue as to how he'll act as president. He has too short a history and too much baggage to be knowable.

He is the Great Deceiver."

Indeed, unlike, of course, that useless bugger, uh, sorry, compassionate conservative, that manuevered his way in there in 2000. What would convince you that someone is real?

Did anyone see how the O'Reilly Factor handled discussion of the speech last night? Unfortunately, I don't see the name of the guest posted online but I remember him identified as an Assistant Professor at the City University of New York. To me, it seemed like a different type of exchange - almost civil. And I think offers a hint towards Obama's bold strategy.

As on would expect, the imagery carried a few disparaging images of black churches (most notably low-fi footage of a singing choir shot from an amateur camera) and the questions were ridiculous. Still, the relatively young African American professor did not pander and did not run from O'Reilly's attempts to disparage.

To me, it was as if the nature of the content precluded the norms. O'Reilly and those of his ilk simply can't afford to appear overtly racist by shouting down an articulate African-American guest who is offering calm, clear insight on underlying American racial issues.

I would guess that O'Reilly was wagering that there are enough latent racist sentiments among his audience to do the work for him. It also seems to me that Obama's calculation is that, by raising the issue of race in a substantive way, he can begin to disarm sleazy elements of the punditry by raising the ante.

As others have noted here, the concept of using real, substantive dialogue to counter smears by reframing the debate seems to mark a turning point in presidential politics. It runs directly counter to the practice of reframing the debate by introducing more smears. A less eloquent candidate might consider it too risky to take that approach, but Obama's wager references another potential turning point in American history.

There have been generational gains in race relations which are just beginning to appear on the political radar, particularly among younger people. And pundits avoid the appearance of overt racism, regardless of their goals. The result last night was that O'Reilly found it difficult to discredit a young, articulate professor who was speaking eloquently and substantively about race relations in America.

O'Reilly's betting that racism will do the dirty work by itself. Obama's betting that substantive debate can disarm the flash-in-the-pan attacks. I believe this approach contradicts the norms of presidential politics, and I think Obama's wager is a good one.

Yesterday's magnificent speech was not the first time that Barack Obama has brought me to tears with his beautiful and thoughtful treatises. I have long despaired of our broken and dysfunctional politics, and he has brought joy and hope to those of us who long for the days of rational political and cultural discourse. I do have faith that the number of people like me far outweigh the number of loudmouth blow-hards who have a vested interest in sowing division and hate. We just aren't as loud and overbearing as they are. I refuse to be cynical and think that the ugliness of the past will prevail forever.

Dari,

you have summed up the way many people feel,you have caught the magic i felt listening to the speech, thanks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802594.html

incredible article

The problem with Obama's argument is that Wright is not a symbol of the strengths and weaknesses of African Americans. He is a political extremist, holding views that are shocking to many Americans who wonder how any presidential candidate could be so closely associated with an adviser who refers to the "U.S. of KKK-A" and urges God to "damn" our country.

Obama's excellent and important speech on race in America did little to address his strange tolerance for the anti-Americanism of his spiritual mentor.

This was not a campaign stump speech. Nor was this the damage-control press conference that everyone expected of Obama in this circumstance. Instead, I think this was (president) Obama's first State of the Union address.

He tells us where we are on race and its role in political discourse; he tells us how we arrived at this place; and then he tells us where we need to go and how we can get there. It did not seem the speech was driven by the need to score points nor to quickly dismiss an unfavorable press cycle. It seemed driven by a need to articulate ideas that America needed to hear--political consequence be damned--and thus he provided soundbites that could even be used against his campaign. It showed that he does not want to win at any cost, that he he is not willing to say or do anything to win, which may in fact be a negative for some Democrats. But it did benefit his campaign in one respect: He demonstrated again that he has that one presidential quality that both the competent, wonky Hillary Clinton and the Bush-enamored changling McCain lack: "That vision thing."

For those suggesting the fear and stereotypical views Obama's grandmother expressed for blacks don't compare to the inflammatory comments made by Rev Wright, I can only assume they've never been the object of such fear or stereotyping. Slights like this experienced on a daily basis by people of color are a constant reminder that blacks are a 'negative reference group'. When the ex-president of Mexico Vincente Fox made the controversial statement that Mexican immigrants were willing to do jobs that 'even blacks wouldn't do' he said it all. Globally, people of African decent are viewed at the bottom of the human pecking order; naturally criminal, ugly and deficient. Comments with these assumptions at their base (absorbed over a life time) are more vile and damaging than a hundred out takes of Wright's sermons making whites momentarily uncomfortable.

In his first book, Obama actually describes an instance during his early teens when his grandfather informs him of a 'racist' sentiment expressed by his grandmother, and he says, in that moment, it was like being 'punched in the stomach'. How could a woman who he loved (and who he knew loved him) strike so insensitively at the very core of what he was? How could she identify with thinking designed to make him feel less than human? The fact that some on this post see that as a minor thing illustrates how huge this gap of understanding is, and how incapable some people are of seeing though any eyes but their own.

It's true, Obama could not select a grandmother like he selected a pastor. But in light of this dilemma, he could have become an angry, bitter and confused youth, who cut off his white family ties. He chose not to do that. He worked through this problem in a way that allowed him to understand the complexity and duality inherent in human beings, and decided to love and embrace her anyway. In the same way, he was able to do this with Rev Wright.

This is, no doubt, a quality enabling him to maintain dialogue with those he strongly disagrees with without demonizing them. It's the quality that makes him capable of engaging an enemy in productive conversation. And it's just the quality this polarized and dangerously divided world needs. No other candidate running has demonstrated this capability. In my view, this is tangible evidence his leadership is exactly what's needed today.

Obama '08

"Ann"

He made this speeech when he had no choice, but because he had to. I believe this is call a last gambet.

He has finally acknowledged his white grandmother(with photo yet), not to honor her in any way, but to lump her into the same mold as the Rev Wright.

Now if what he said about her is true, then the 20 years under the Rev's influence, now becomes 40 + years of brainwashing, the Rev + Granny.

Still say clever, but angry young man