Obama March 18th, 2008 Speech

Great Debates
381

You say you’re a HRC endorser (and presumably a staunch Democrat) and yet you try to throw this crap around like it’s supposed to make everyone run for the hills? “Ohh, watch out, the angry black men are hijacking the presidency!!”

I’ll tell you what - I understand pretty well why they’re supporting him, and while I don’t agree with their ideology, I know a tiny bit about how they might have come to embrace that ideology (I say that without guile - as I said in my earlier post on page 2, I don’t pretend to have more than a sliver of understanding of the black experience, but I do have that sliver).

For the record, I don’t believe that the NoI and NBP support Obama solely because he’s black - by that logic, why didn’t they support Alan Keyes in 04? I believe they support Obama in part for the same reason I support him - he speaks the truth about the underlying issues we face, including the “elephant in the room” of race that most politicians ignore until politically expedient, and, to many including myself, it seems he doesn’t try to play “the game”. To invalidate his candidacy because groups with such radical agendas support him is narrow-minded, and ironically, demonstrative of the very same issues Obama spoke about in his speech.

Now here’s where I go off topic, because this whole “experience” debate just chaps my ass:

There are those cynical folk who will say he’s just as ambitious and egotistical as the next, so why not vote for the most experienced. First off, I truly believe he has demonstrated that he is not ambitious for its own sake - it seems to me based on countless hours I’ve seen and heard and read, that he is participating in the democratic process because he feels he can have a positive impact on the common discourse. Can I give you a cite? Look for any interview with him on Google, on any topic - if you don’t get the same feeling as I, well, I can’t make you.

As for “experience”, I say if “experience” is carpet-bagging your ass up to New York when the senior Senator retires so you can get a sure-fire Senate seat (which to me, both then and now, practically screams “blind ambition”), then give me a one-term senator who’s lived in his district more than 15 years.

If “experience” is taking more money than any other active candidate from the insurance, health care, and real estate industries, and then having the gall to discuss fixing the issues endemic to those industries, give me the frickin’ janitor and I’ll trust him more. Cite.

Ok done - sorry again to get off-topic.

Anyway, smirk all you want and make all the “drinking the kool-aid” jokes you want, but at this time, in this place in history, I believe we need someone like Barack Obama, not despite, but, among many other reasons, precisely because of the broad spectrum of supporters he attracts. Whether you, I or anyone else likes it or not, the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers are entitled to be part of the national discourse as much as anyone.

If we can’t examine their divisive, extreme, yes, even hateful rhetoric to uncover the kernel of truth at the center, we will never move past the chasm of race that has existed since our founding fathers pledged that “all men are created equal” - a pledge that was tainted as the ink was drying.

Let me tell you, if you’re white, it is hard to really understand the profundity of that concept. I’ll paraphrase how it was once put to me: imagine - as that sentence “all men are created equal” was put to parchment, men, women and children toiled in the fields, and were traded as chattel, and were beaten, and were dying. Unaware that great men were at that moment laying the groundwork for a nation of liberty that would leave them behind for a century or more. For the descendants of those people, this is a legacy the still persists - whether we care to admit it or not, believe me, it persists.

Maybe that’s why Obama can take such a clear-eyed look at this issue - because he isn’t of those earliest African Americans, but has almost certainly suffered some of their legacy. I don’t know. What I do know is that this speech - this truthful, bald look at the core of our country’s racial issues - showed me exactly why I’m going to vote for him.

382

I’m surprised these endorsements don’t cause any concern for folks like yourself.

I take it from your answer, endorsements in and of themselves are never a reason for pause when you consider a candidate?

383

While I agree with the rest of your post enthusiastically, I’ll take some exception to this bit. I was in college in upstate NY while Clinton first ran for Senate, and as a registered Massachusetts voter and a right-leaning libertarian at the time, had no stake in the race, but did watch it out of curiosity. And what I saw was that Hillary ran an amazing campaign. As I recall, she went across the generally Republican areas of Upstate NY, hitting towns that hadn’t seen a Senatorial candidate in 40 years, working her ass off to hear and discuss the concerns of her prospective constituents.

While her opponent pretty much took the Upstate vote for granted he was basically just the choice of Long Island soccer moms. And in the end, enough of the rural Upstaters that would usually vote Republican were convinced that the woman from Arkansas (and later DC) who made the effort to talk to them better represented them than the guy from Long Island who figured that all NY Republicans must stick together.

And I have always respected Clinton for that campaign, even at the time when I was ideologically opposed to her. I was hoping to be inspired likewise in this campaign, back when it looked like she was the inevitable nominee. But between my distaste for the dynastic aspect (which I’d easily swallow over any substantive issue) and the emergence of the Obama campaign, I found another place to look. The course of the race since then has pretty solidly raised Obama and lowered Clinton in my estimation.

So I think it’s a bit mistaken to portray Clinton as sweeping into New York to be crowned, and downplays one of her biggest strengths. I figure I’d better give her her due because she might just be the nominee, and then I’m going to have to try to talk a bunch of these Obama-or-bust people out of voting for that jackass McCain. And I’ve criticized the Clinton supporters for trying to sabotage an Obama-McCain matchup, so I’d be a hypocrite for doing the same.

384

Maybe I’m just dumb, but I’m going to have to ask again for a reason that this is supposed to give me pause. Please, put it in painfully obvious terms, I’m apparently pretty dense, but I just don’t see the relevance of endorsements that the Obama campaign has rejected on his fitness as a leader.

385

That isn’t the only other possibility ‘by that logic.’ They didn’t support Keyes in '04 because it was obvious to everyone (as obvious as you claim it was that HRC would win her seat in NYC) that Keyes had no chance of winning. That’s why not.

I agree to some extent that must be part of the reason they support him.

I don’t suggest his candidacy is invalid due to those endorsements. They simply give me pause. And not because I think “Ohh, watch out, the angry black men are hijacking the presidency!!” Really, this tactic/approach whether conscious or not of constantly imputing racist attitudes and over the top scenarios like that to people like myself is tiresome and it’s been absolutely routine in the Obama campaign. My ass is pretty chapped over that, as long as we’re talking about chapped backsides.

I happen to agree with you that to invalidate his candidacy solely on the basis of endorsements from the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers would be indicative of the same knee-jerk bias of which he spoke in his speech.

I happen to agree that’s part of his reason. I also think he’s personally ambitious and he’s said as much in fact. But no more than the next guy/gal.

I consider her entire lifetime of experience, efforts on healthcare, success with children’s healthcare and care for returning military that was done while working across the aisle with the very same folks that impeached her husband so talk about being able to work together (!), her years as First Lady alongside Bill watching and learning as her detractors admit when stating she’s been an ambitious bitch this whole time just planning to run (you can’t have it both ways), her familiarity with world leaders, world travels (if I’m not mistaken, Obama has only been to 2 foreign countries, is that right?)…not just her Senate seat. Although I would say she accomplished more in that short time than Obama has with his. And no, I’m not going to go cite-digging anymore than you did for your claim about Obama’s motivation for running.

Again, those doesn’t invalidate his candidacy but it is something that I note and take into consideration. He seems relatively unaccomplished to me. He also demonstrates stunning audacity to even be running. I believe he said as much in his speech that launched his campaign. I agree with him on that.

Taking money from lobbyists engenders the identical concern that I have with regard to receiving endorsements from questionable parties. One is cash and one is an endorsement. Both expect something in return; both are often given with the very notion in mind of quid pro quo. How people can go on about lobbyists (which is just an endorsement itself in the form of cash) but turn a completely blind eye to endorsements strikes me as a bit imbalanced. No, they aren’t identical in every way. But there are similarities enough to give me pause.

I agree that they do and I agree that he attracts a broad segment. I don’t think this is the time to have an 8-year discussion on race. The economy is tanking. I realize HRC opponents insist she’s a piece of trash on the economy, dismiss Bill Clinton’s stewardship of the economy showing the biggest boom and growth ever, balancing the budget, dealing with the deficit, etc., etc. It’s all more than Obama has done for the economy, nonetheless. And I think that matters more right now.

Again, I agree.

I’m not white, by the way. I understand it better than you, apparently, by your own admission on that basis.

386

I don’t think you’re dense at all. I think we just have different views on what is concerning with regards to endorsements.

Someone above said basically “Oh so what! What if NAMBLA endorsed Hillary?”

If the North American Man Boy Love Association endorsed Hillary, I’d wonder why.

And I’d like to know the reason why on earth they would do that; what are they hoping to have happen in a Clinton administration that they think would benefit NAMBLA?

It would give me pause, and I’d look into it.

As I indicated in the answer to the other post above, an endorsement gives me concern for similar reasons to why lobbyists (HRC has a ton of them, I know) give me concern: I wonder what the endorsers expect will happen that will improve things for their stated goals.

The stated goals of NOI and the Black Panthers are not ones I really support.

Now, some have said radical extremist groups wouldn’t support Obama because he offers reconciliation and they don’t want that because they need the hate to keep going or else they’re out of business. There’s some validity to that, but if that’s so then why is NOI endorsing him? Is it because they sincerely always meant well and really are just misunderstood, racially-mistreated AA’s? Perhaps. But that’s not the only possibility. What concerns me about affiliations (Wright) and endorsements (Farrakhan, Black Panthers) is the complication of dealing with such issues during 4-8 years as POTUS. Endorsers, like lobbyists, want something in exchange for what they’ve given. Whether or not they get it is another matter.

I don’t think Obama is secretly down with them to the fullest extent of their racist rhetoric. But he’s down with Wright a little more than some would be.

It’s all just another complication to a presidency that I feel would already be strained given his relative inexperience and the state of the world today and one that I don’t think needs that extra bullshit (not Obama, the racist hangers-on) no matter how he handles it. There are other things to deal with right now.

That’s my view. I hope I’ve expressed it without insulting you and in a way that, though I expect you’ll disagree, makes clear my concern(s).

They’ve been dismissed as ‘peripheral bullshit’ on here, and that’s certainly one point of view. It simply isn’t my POV that it’s necessarily all peripheral to what an Obama presidency would look and sound like for 4-8 years.

387

Also, (and some will say it’s racist AND sexist, but oh well): in the same way that a woman POTUS causes some to think she’d “overcompensate” for appearing weak to make up for her gender (which I think is a reasonable suspicion and should be looked at to see how conflicted a person is about their gender and how it affects their performance), it seems clear to me that Obama was insecure about his race growing up, went looking for ‘blackness’ in the southside of Chicago, as he basically said, then married into it, and arrived where he is now. It gives him a broad, intelligent perspective.

But brains and emotions are not the same thing if Bill Clinton’s presidency has taught us anything. I think Obama does have emotional hangover with regard to race and I do wonder (like with the woman POTUS example above) about him wanting to overcompensate with some groups, see their point of view, etc.

It gives me pause. Is that fair to him? Probably not, but that’s the lay of the land.

And since I don’t think he’s Jesus Christ and therefore as vulnerable to the same emotional tugs as anyone else, I fear he may make profound errors of judgment as it relates to race. In fact, he already has in the minds of many.

I’d argue, and many have, that his association with Wright and his way of handling it (refusing to disavow him, comparing him to his grandma which isn’t the same since that’s your relative, not even doing the speech until he was under the gun clearly having wanted all this time to do the ‘safe political’ thing and not bring it up explicitly in an entire speech – only to then claim that he’s now giving it in order to NOT do the safe political thing thereby wanting to seize the moral high ground when the truth is he got in a jam by trying to avoid it and now got called on the carpet and had to explain himself, albeit eloquently) shows poor judgment already.

Hence, the endorsements give me pause. I understand for others, they don’t. Fair enough, I was just asking and rather surprised.

388

9thFloor, there are approximately three million sociopaths in the United States – about one in every one hundred people. Hypothetically speaking, if all of them took an interest in politics (which isn’t likely) and they were coincidentally evenly divided in their support of the three main remaining presidential hopefuls. a million sociopaths could come out in support of each of the candidates.

In reality, there probably are tens of thousands – if not hundreds of thousands of sociopaths out there advocating for each candidate. We just don’t know that they are sociopaths.

Should you be worried that you don’t know the actually tally of who has the most support from sociopaths?

Should I just wait until I find out who Rush Limbaugh is voting for and cancel out his vote? That could save me a lot of time and trouble. Or should I find out who Karl Rove is voting for and nix his vote? What happens when they support different candidates in a primary? What’s a good voter to do?

There will always be unsavory characters who support perfectly trustworthy candidates.

389

True enough. But my concern isn’t merely that of “unsavory characters who support perfectly trustworthy candidates.”

My concern, as long as we’re making up wildly bizarre comparisons, is more akin to this: a man is a cocaine addict. He gives it up. Then he runs for office. Then he’s endorsed by the cocaine lobby.

That would give me pause.

It’s not just the matter of some unsavory endorsements.
**
It’s the nexus between who the endorsers are and what the issue is around which their endorsement revolves.**

In this case, it is mostly race (for NOI and the Panthers). And race is the very issue that Obama has had trouble with in the past, struggled with, and whose limitations he overcame (like the recovered cocaine addict). Except that he still attended Wright’s church.

To be endorsed by folks around the same issue that was the very same one that caused you a great deal of struggle and insecurity is concerning.

And no…(sigh)…I’m not saying he’s a ‘race addict’ or a cocaine addict. I’m making a point by using an exaggerated comparison. Sort of like the sociopath example.

I hope my point is coming across (and I do have one, a la Ellen!) LOL

390

Linda Chavez is mistaken. The church that Obama and the Rev. Wright belong to is part of the United Churches of Christ. The very foundation of the church is the strong belief in the unity and equality of all human beings. The motto of the denomination is “That All May Be One.” That in itself may help to explain why the congregation may be patient with the Rev. Wright’s more fearful views.

I don’t hear him speaking of other races with contempt for their inferiority to his race. I do hear fear and I hear problems with forgiveness. I don’t hear him claiming that he is perfect.

There may or may not be similarities between how this church service is conducted and how some other black church services are conducted. Not all black churches are alike. Certainly, this church is not like a Baptist Church in many of the beliefs it holds.

If you want to know more about the spiritual beliefs of Senator Obama and also the Rev. Wright, you might try looking at the website for that denomination. It’s interesting to see who some of the more well known members are. They include several Pulitizer Prize winning writers, respected theologians, a poet, and a couple of familiar politicians.

Magellan01, I’m sorry that I used your name when it was someone else who said that Obama had contradicted himself. My mistake.

The quote from msnbc is not a cite that actually shows his parsing, but is an example of someone else claiming that he splits hairs.

Then you give examples but don’t show them in context. Then you refer to “etc. etc.” which is not a cite.

I think that he chooses his words carefully and that the meaning is very clear. I don’t see his taking apart sentences in an effort to determine the meaning although sometimes it is necessary to do that here when we disagree about the meaning.

But he didn’t say that Senator Clinton could not also quote from MLK. Therefore, he didn’t imply that Dr. King belonged only to his side.

Cite for where he complained that it wasn’t fair for Bill to speak on behalf of Hillary since he’s the former president? You must have misunderstood him.
[/quote]

You certainly have a right to your opinions and to share those opinions here. And you have the right to quote from the opinions of others. But you can’t claim that the opinions of others are facts and you can’t use opinions – your own or others – as if they are facts.

Diogenes the Cynic, Bush may have called Billy Graham to back him up that Jews don’t go to heaven, but you didn’t post what Graham said. On Larry King he said that there are people of other religious faiths that will go to heaven and he quoted the scripture “Many sheep have I who are not of this fold.” It is his son Franklin who is so adamant that non-Christians will not go to heaven. However, I don’t know what he actually said to Bush. If you do, I would like to know.

391

Should we worry about any “unsavory” black person who endorses him?

Should we then worry about any “unsavory” white person who endorses him?

I’m sure that some of his problems have come from being bi-racial.

I’m just not really getting the point. Don’t give up on me!

392

Thanks. I wasn’t claiming that the opinions of others are fact or using them as if they were facts. In fact, I never used the word fact. In fact. I was linking you to an article that makes the point I’m making, and uses facts (direct quotes) to make them. The interpretation of what is or isn’t parsing is, obviously, individual. I happen to agree with him. You don’t, that’s fine. But it provided the list of quotes (facts) upon which the opinion was based. It is in that vein that I referred it.

You don’t hear him claiming that he is perfect, I do. Obviously not verbatim. Time and again when he’s asked about the heated rhetoric between both sides, he never takes personal responsibility for contributing to that by calling Hillary a liar. Instead, he points out that he’s proud of having done nothing wrong but states that he hasn’t gotten ‘the same treatment’ from the other side. Sounds like he’s claiming perfection to me. It doesn’t to you. And before you ask, again, the cite is from a TV interview he gave to Diane Sawyer about the heated rhetoric.

If by “I don’t hear him speaking of other races with contempt…” you’re referring to Wright, I’d say his contemptuous dismissal of Hillary as someone who’s never been called “nigger” qualifies. Not to you, I understand. And yes, I know the context.

As for “But he didn’t say that Senator Clinton could not also quote from MLK. Therefore, he didn’t imply that Dr. King belonged only to his side.” I find that unconvincing. He doesn’t need (nor would it be politically expedient) to be that explicit to claim MLK for his side. I said he claimed him IMPLICITLY, not explicitly. To you, a black candidate invoking MLK while peppering his speeches more and more with catchphrases and intonations that mimic (or parody, depending) that entire way of communicating is what I refer to when I say he implicitly claimed him. My opinion. Oh yeah, and the cite for Obama complaining about Bill speaking on Hillary’s behalf was also on TV, I don’t recall which channel probably CNN since that’s what I mostly watch (though, lately, I’ve noticed that it’s taken Fox News to go into the other side, which is pretty sad).

By the way, I’m not going to get sidelined by this obsession with citations. I think the points that we’re discussing are pretty clear and “you must have misunderstood him” only goes again to the notion of Obamacons seeming to be incapable of imagining their man doing or saying anything completely wrong. Not everything is a “misunderstanding” or subject to dozens of parsing interpretations. At least not to me. I respect that you see it differently.

393

I don’t know about what ‘we’ should worry about but as for me, I’m concerned when a formerly racially confused man is endorsed by racists of either side.

It’s way beyond “unsavory” by the way. LOL

394

You know, I’m just ready to lay this burden down. I just cannot find much fault with this man.

I know that he’s not perfect. He’s admitted that. It would be nice if he had more experience, but then maybe he would be all jaded and a “Washington insider.”

That was one of the most beautiful speeches I have ever heard in my long life. The last time I heard a speech that moved me so, I was sitting on an orange plastic sofa in the sweltering heat at my sister’s house in Detroit in the summer of 1963. I was 20 and too dumb to know this was a speech greater even than Gettysburg. I just knew it made me want it to be true so hard that I cried for all of us – black and white.

I am so excited to be moved that way again. And I’m thinking that if he is not elected, I’m going to spend a lot of time wondering how things would have been if he had been.

395

Looks like FL and MI are not going to get seated, the rules are going to stand and Hillary will have to do her best with out them. Morning news stations are already saying she won’t be able to do it. :smiley: Good news for Obama folks.

On that note, with Obama in as the Nominee, I believe the democratic party will stand up behind the man, some will of course not back him, but something tells me quite a few Clinton supporters will back ANY democrat to make sure the republicans don’t win it again.

396

It seems that a lot of people I know who lean republican are already wiping their hands, like “Obama is done”. It may be a comforting thought for them. But I don’t see it. There’s really not much to this, and it’s so early.

Maybe my bias has blinded me. But in more mixed forums than this one it’s common for me to hear the likes of, “It’s a shame, I think Obama dealt with this in a candid and direct way and he seems like a good man. But stick a fork in him with the great unwashed.”

If I was being cynical, I’d say that this is a way for one to promote the idea that his pastor makes him racist without taking personal responsibility for the opinion.

397

Bad news for the Democratic Party.

They’ll now have to go to millions of pissed off voters in two states, one of them a crucial swing state, and ask them for volunteers and money after this episode so that they can win a general election. I can see problems ahead when they try to do this.

398

Unfortunately, the speech did not appear to help among working class whites. One reporter’s Pennsylvania experiences seem to show this to be the case:

This is real dangerous stuff. A large percentage of the electorate only cares about 10 second sound bites. A great many working class white votes are now unavailable to Obama.

399

I hate my state.

400

Yeah, Obama will get creamed in most every state left except NC.

But if the superdelegates award based on delegates (and the “valid” popular vote if you exclude MI and FL as well), then it’ll still go to Obama.

I don’t see anything good coming of this.

If Obama gets it with FL and MI counted out thereby not allowing Hillary’s legitimate popular vote advantage to be considered (I think she’ll be ahead by Denver) against his delegate lead, I think a lot of folks will be pretty sickened, myself included and I’ll be voting for McCain.

On the other hand, if Hillary gets it DESPITE Obama having the delegate lead (and maybe even the popular vote lead by the time Denver happens depending on whether or not you count FL and MI in your mind, as a superdelegate) then I think a lot of folks are going to cry foul in the Obama camp.

There is NO WAY Hillary getting the nod at the convention will not be seen as racial by the Obama folks when everything else has been thus far including even faux pas comments and misinterpreted assertions. That won’t be pretty.