I believe I said Obama has transcended the popular dem vote enough in this campaign, so much that those of us who follow him closely know he has transcended not race but the obstacles that allow political figures like him to talk about race in public. That is starkly different from what Rev.Wright is saying and that is what Obama is detaching from.
?!?!?
He doesn’t need to do that every other month, if I were him I’d be frustrated as hell.
From Obama’s press conference on Wright:
“I want to be very clear that moving forward Reverend Wright does not speak for me, he does not speak for our campaign. I cannot prevent him from continuing to make these outrageous remarks, but what I do want him to be very clear about, as well as all of you and the American people, is that when I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts everything that I’m about and who I am. And anybody who has worked with me, who knows my life, who has read my books, who has seen what this campaign’s about, I think will understand that it is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country.”
Since what he stands for and where he wants to take this country has been stated many times before, I think it is clear when he says he is appalled and that Wright’s remarks contradicts his stance, he is reaffirming his message.
And this is just a snippet of his latest denunciation of Wright.
Kozmik, are nyou sure you’re debating in good faith, here?
So, any speech Obama makes that doesn’t explicitly restate the “audacity of hope” message is an implicit abandonment of that message?
Can you identify, specifically, how the message in the two speeches differed?
Ok. Let me try to… no - let me show you how I picture how this debate is moving (apart from the ad hominem 
) First, you brought up how no one, including politicians, are one-dimensional. I agree. Then you explain how there is a difference between his message and his pastor’s message. I *slightly *agree. And then you follow to the point that a political message and a religion message are separate. I disagree. This is why I disagree:
I don’t believe that Barack Obama has transcended this -
“I want to be very clear that moving forward Reverend Wright does not speak for me, he does not speak for our campaign. I cannot prevent him from continuing to make these outrageous remarks, but what I do want him to be very clear about, as well as all of you and the American people, is that when I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts everything that I’m about and who I am. And anybody who has worked with me, who knows my life, who has read my books, who has seen what this campaign’s about, I think will understand that it is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country.”
This reads like a statement. I can see the political response, “Reverend Wright does not speak for me, he does not speak for our campaign”. But I can’t see any personal response. There was nothing moving in that speech.
There was nothing that said, 'I have been betrayed. I re-affirm the message of Audacity of Hope from the political convention and from personal life. Audacity of Hope. That was the message of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I will completely distance myself from him, but I will not distance myself from the message he gave me. Audacity. That word has new meaning to me."
Obama had the opportunity to say that that word has new meaning for him. That was the message. Audacity of hope. He lost that message.
That’s how he transcends this.
How do you know it has new meaning for him? Did you read Audacity of Hope? It’s a very good read, please tell me you read it and didn’t just peruse it…Perhaps you didn’t read it, it explains much of what you are talking about, and further it affirms to those who read it that Obama is behaving and acting the way he feels is right…that has not changed. He’s handling this much like I would expect him to.
If you read it I apologize - but if you didn’t please do. It’s a quick read and explains much of what you are talking about.
sigh Maybe I should have titled the OP “Has Obama transcended Rev. Wright’s message”
I don’t agree but I will say I wish after reminding us that Wright does not speak for him and he strongly disagrees he had reminded us that we should be distracted from the serious issues that face us by those who seek to do so with endless discussion of select sound bites. I wish he had reminded us that we need to work together and reject this kind of distraction to really change how politics are handled in the future.
I did not read his book. I did read a few pages about health care. I didn’t read Hillary’s book either. Neither did I read McCain’s book, though I got it signed by him. I haven’t had a chance to read anything other than school related work, apart from browsing Borders. Maybe if I have time this summer…
I didn’t read HRC’s Book, but a lot of the women in my family did. I did read McCain’s book on courage an both Obama’s. It shed a lot of light on him as a human being, and it really enables his core supporters like myself to understand what’s really going on behind this man as he shoots up the ladder. 
It would be wonderful, if not essential for a summer read.
I’m pretty sure that if you leave the title blank, it won’t post the OP at all. Maybe that’s what you should have done with the title.
Well, perhaps not. Some people believe he kept his message. Some people believe he lost his message. Some people believe he transcended his message. That’s the debate.
What message?. He is running for president. He is a politician. But I do not see any particularly clear message. The only message I note is change. That is still a good message. McCain is more of the same shit. That is a bad message,
Yes. His message was change. He was supposed to represent the embodiment of that change. He is now revealed to be just another lowly politician that will parse and equivocate like the worst of them.
As I’ve said, he’s done. If he manages to win the primary he will get trounced in the general election.
The change that matters is getting out of Iraq. The Dems should be able to win on that with a tuna fish sandwich as the candidate (of course, I thought that last time too).
He looks to have a lock on the nomination. The numbers haven’t changed, nor the strategic issues that underlie them. Obama will still finish with a lead in both delegates and popular vote. (MI and FL don’t count, by Clinton’s own previous agreement.)
It’s nearly impossible, from a practical point of view, for the Dems to give it to Hillary. It’s just wishful thinking to believe otherwise.
In the general election, Obama still represents a considerable change from McCain. If the election becomes a referendum on the Bush presidency, as I believe it will, Obama wins by standing in sharp contrast to establishment politicians like McCain.
And you had the opportunity to recognize that Wright’s statement regarding the audacity of hope is separate from his statement regarding the persistence of racism. You also had the opportunity to recognize that Wright’s views of the audacity of hope may, indeed, have been slightly different from the interpretation that Obama took from the message years ago and that Wright’s views might have changed in the meantime, meaning that Obama’s views do not have to have changed, at all.
Yet you failed to either recognize the possible differences between your cryptic claims and reality or take the time to set forth an actual train of thought to be examined, making, instead, a fairly silly point the thrust of one more tired rant disguised as a debate. This thread can stay open a while longer in case someone (perhaps even you) can put together an actual thesis to debate, but if it is going to be just one more rant against candidate X, I am going to close it.
I opened the New York Times that morning. I saw the headline. I read about how Rev. Wright who I didn’t even know existed was ranting and raving about AIDS and this and that and I said ok this is not good for Obama. Then I read about how Obama denounces the pastor. Ok. But then I read how he was the pastor for 20 years. Baptized his two children and presided at his wife’s wedding. So here I could have understood why he did it. I knew it would have been painful and I might have questions. But I would have left it at that.
Again, I understand why he did it. But then I read about how Obama got his political message from the Rev. Wright. I understand how Obama and Wright’s views on this message may be separate. But what about the undecided voter. Not only undecided voters in general but undecided voters among Democrats. Maybe they look at both Clinton and Obama and see similar policies. So maybe they see how Obama handles this situation and think about how he might handle situations as Commander in Chief.
They understand why he did it. But they don’t understand what he didn’t do. Yes, he de-nounced the Reverend Wright but he didn’t re-affirm the message of Reverend Wright as his own.
Wright and Obama had the same views. Wright changed his views. Obama didn’t change his views. So by de-nouncing Wright and re-affirming the (past) message of Wright as his own, Obama is showing that Wright did change his views - and challenging Wright to re-affirm the message he taught him. Obama is not only re-affirming the message of hope, the views that Obama and Wright once shared but re-affirming the the message of audacity, re-affirming why Obama denounced Wright. The Audacity of Hope.