Just really quickly, that appears to be the case: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23634881/
Precisely why I wrote what I did. This is not about sound bites, and criptic political speak it was about a real living breathing problem in this country today. One that involves everyone typing on their keyboards in this thread and everyone whose eyes are reading it. Make no mistake, this is about everyone.
Change is hard to swallow no matter what you do, who you are, how you were brought up, or when you take piss, but big things happen over big elections. FDR and Social Security etc…etc…People have a hard time swallowing that a yong black man senator from Ilinois could have views and ability to change a large portion of society. Not change it into something else, but help it evolve into the next phase of this countries history. If Obama does not become president there will be a lot of people world wide shaking their head saying, “Damn, you blew it again by letting someone who would have been a great president go…”
Unless the tide changes drastically in the next three weeks, I see Obama doing very well.
Meanwhile in the United States, the Republicans have still been in the White House for the last seven years turning everything they touch to shit. How’s the dollar doing? New Orleans? Afghanistan?
But one of the Democratic party’s candidate’s pastor said some uncomfortable things, so clearly we can’t trust them. Never mind what the Democratic candidate himself actually thinks…in fact, better not spare even a moment trying to determine that, because clearly as Obama’s pastor goes, so goes America.
Nope, better give the Republicans another four years to keep turning things into shit…at least their pastors won’t say anything naughty! (Just their rich televangelist supporters.) Whew, dodged a bullet there. Well, no, not an actual bullet, those are still flying all over the goddamn place in certain relevant countries, but THAT’S NOT THE POINT, Obama’s uppity pastor made white people uncomfortable, OOGA BOOGA.
Jesus fucking Christ. On a sane planet, this bullshit about hanging a candidate’s church around their neck would have gone out with John F. Kennedy.
For those who’d like to have the pleasure of watching it again – or for the first time:
He was always going to tackle the race issue. He just found the right opening to share his incredibly honest views.
– bolding mine.
And having an iron-cast pair.
Mr. Obama has done the right thing. He has not repudiated the importance of his relationship with Mr. Wright, but has made it clear that he does not share all of Mr. Wright’s political beliefs. Had he stood there and denounced Mr. Wright, cast him off, he would have done a terrible thing: Mr. Wright stood in the place of mentor, nearly of father, to him, for 20 years. Should he abandon this? Expediency might say Yes, principle says No.
When you elect a man, you elect the whole person, warts, closet-skeletons and all. Mr. Obama is not afraid to show you what he is, where he came from. I admire him for that.
eta: excellent post, Orbifold. Many excellent posts in this thread.
From that link:
Personally, I don’t think that means he’s part of the campaign. YMMV.
You know what you are, America? You’re like a big bear with claws and with fangs… big fuckin’ teeth on ya’. And racism is just like this little bunny, who’s just kinda cowering in the corner. You’re not hurting it. You’re just kinda gently batting the bunny around, you know what I mean? And the bunny’s scared, America! The bunny’s scared of you, shivering!
You didn’t read or hear a word of the speech, did you? He made no such claim whatsoever. Inform yourself before you post.
ywtf, it seems I’m responding to your comments quite a bit lately. Just wanted to say that I appreciate the dialogue with you, even if we don’t agree. 
Oh, I think he had to do something. It was kind of like a festering sore. The Friday press junket band-aid fell off by Sunday. I think the new kind of politician gives this kind of speech at a time where his neck isn’t on the line.
I think Obama, or should I say Axelrod, defined a narrow path for his candidacy. He isn’t terribly experienced on the national level, and like it or not, that tends to be important to the public on electing a president (typically, anyway). So it rested on two things: being a different kind of pol - actually, not a pol at all, an outsider with an amazing biography and the ability to bring people together for change. Later, we got exposed to this idea of judgment - the concept being that though young and not familiar with the ways of Washington, this guy brings a resume of wise choices and sound decision making. If you ask me, these memes created an impossibly high standard that no human could reach. But for a very long time these themes resonated and all was well.
The Rezko thing, the snarky comments, the bad behavior and doublespeak of surrogates and the candidate himself, and now Rev. Wright has painted another image of Obama. I think the bloom is off the rose for most Americans regarding Obama, which I actually think is a good thing. I just wish it never was an issue and he simply ran as a strong young politician with strong political skills instead of this otherworldly entity that is crumbling every time we see evidence of him… you know, being a human being, and being a politician. And this speech, well delivered and poignant that it may be, is simply a political move to address a brewing issue. So no, it is not of the ilk of the “I Have a Dream” speech. King wasn’t trying to revive or gain votes for his campaign; the meaning was much deeper.
That’s a generous interpretation, but it in my mind works the opposite way. It would have been audacious to acknowledge his complicity and challenges navigating issues of race. But it was about other people and their problems with race, not his. That would have been something. It was along the lines of “America is diseased and I am the cure,” if I want to give it my most cynical analysis. He has a wealth of vignettes to draw from in his writings, but he played it like a pol.
I think in isolation this is exactly what we’d want. But courage and audacity means that you are held to a higher standard. You root out the negativity in your own campaign; don’t let someone else beat you to it. You have relationships with shady characters, you admit fully to the situation and disclose everything from day one, before the press starts sniffing around. You acknowledge responsibility for not having better judgment when you misstep.
I do think that there’s absolutely no way that we will know if this makes any difference one way or the other. The timing of this sucks for him, because there’s no action until mid-April and this story could linger for days. Trinity probably has a comment or two about Barack’s speech, and I can’t imagine that the congregation is in 100% agreement with Obama’s characterization of Wright, nor can they be happy with the attention the church is getting.
What do you mean, ‘instead,’ ‘divert,’ and ‘change the subject’?
I don’t think any of those words or phrases applies here. He addressed the issue head-on - just not from the angle you seem to have expected.
By your standards, Jesus did nothing but change the subject when the Pharisees threw tough questions at him.
I’ve been a supporter of Obama for a little while now, and I genuinely believe he can take criticism better than some of his sycophants. I certainly hope he doesn’t believe that an explanation of why he still likes his racist preacher is comparable to MLK’s Dream speech.
He’s not MLK. He’s not JFK (thank gods). It was a good speech. But that’s all it was.
I’m sure Rush & Co. are picking it apart and ridiculing it, but so what? They pander to people who aren’t voting for him anyway. On the other side are people who will vote for him (or Hillary) no matter what, and they are swooning. I’m neither of those, but just because I didn’t have to change my shorts after hearing him talk doesn’t mean I want a game of “gotcha” or know who the heck Tim Russert is.
How much are you paying attention to what’s going on around you? Seriously, you think that this country is the way it is because we let politicians like Obama into the government all the time? Heh, that’s a laugh. Politicians like him are let in very, very rarely. And when they are [course no one knows it at the time] when they are allowed in, big things happen. Whether you want them to or not. Obama’s speech was historic, something a political figure hasn’t attempted in decades - the folks over at Time mag agree.
And to this:
Right you are.
Hey hey hey! I just hung up from a Rasmussen phone poll and gave a big THUMBS UP to Obama. 
I read the entire speech, Kreskin. Polish your crystal ball before you post. :rolleyes:
Now I REALLY gotta go. Until later…
LMAO!! NICE!!!
Well then why did you attribute an assertion to Obama that he did not make?
Same here. I’ve been bored in my life lately, so I welcome any distractions.
I think this story was well out the door. Another day or two and it would have been officially Old News. There was really no reason for him to do this, except because he wanted to.
I actually thinks this speech shows that one of his biggest strengths is his judgement. This is his first major crisis and yet he’s confronting it head on. There’s no question on where he stands now. Even his opponents can’t deny that the podium is his domain. So he took the controversy to a place where he knew he could beat it. You can’t show judgement and strategic thinking any better than this.
I see no evidence that he has marketed himself wrong, or that the “bloom is off”. Having good judgement doesn’t mean someone has to be perfect. Especially politically perfect. That’s the standard you’re saying he has to live up to, but he has never claimed to be impeccable in that way. He has faulted Hillary’s judgement on things of substance like her stance on Iraq. This is what he has staked his case on, not lesser things. So I disagree that he’s being done in by his own message.
Saying this misses the point, as I’ve already stated. Yes this is a brewing issue that Obama is trying to head off at the pass. And? Doing this is what makes him smart and different. Hillary doesn’t show this proactivity. Her manner is similar to the politicians that have preceeded her. Say all the “right” things and then hope the issue is eclipsed by something else. I expected Obama to follow a similar tact, but then he came out with this. It shows that he’s not following the same script that others do and have.
Well, he’s not a fool, Hippy. Come on. What were you hoping he’d say? “I too think rich white people run this country. I too think America is to blame for 911” or on the opposite hand “I too am scared of black men when I’m walking down the street”. I think he was brave enough to come as close as he did to defending Wright. I think he would have been crazy to profess that he is feels the same way, even a little bit. He struck a good balance between honesty and feel-goodism, and that was the right way to go.
Words matter because of the messages they deliver, not because they can be checked off some phony litmus test devised by political opponents–one that I notice shifts elusively when a candidate exceeds expectations as Obama did today.
I can play the “gotcha” game too: In your post you said Obama is “asking us to believe that he was idiot enough to not know about Wright’s beliefs and positions.” As DtC has pointed out, this is simply not true:
This is not an “I didn’t know” denial, this is an acceptance of the man and the church as a complex entity, the tip of a large and little-discussed iceberg.
He’s saying it’s a disservice to discuss race relations in America in terms of selective ten-second soundbites and conventional-wisdom checklists. And he’s absolutely correct. The words of this speech do matter, more than any perfunctory political statement I’ve heard in the past 20 years.
This says what I want to say better than I could articulate it. It was a speech with incredible affect (and yes, I mean affect and not effect). He spoke directly about matters that most of America seems to prefer dancing around. I’m sure many people living in the US, including myself, have felt the exact same things Obama articulated, but felt like they were shouting at a society that for the most part was putting its fingers in its ears and going “Lalalala I can’t hear you.” “Don’t you GET IT?” has been the frustrated cry of many of us, and today, Obama said, “Yes. I get it.” Bravo.
Is there any irony that a speech about unity, a speech about bringing people together… plays well. But it plays along partisan lines?
Whatever the motivation for the speech, isn’t the idea solid? If so… why do we instead discuss it in these terms? Now, some are being very civil and honest. But others are… intentionally baiting - and others are taking the bait.
We need to stop talking about talking - and actually do it. (Some are, but this thread reads more like people poking each other).
Can we focus on the topic instead of the politics? I think that’s what Obama wanted…
And I think it’s what America needs.
I voted for Obama. I liked the speech and I think he hit the points that needed to be hit. Did it answer all questions? No. But y’know… this is a guy who grew up without an involved father. A man who is incredibly sharp. A Harvard graduate. I think he can love and care about people without agreeing with them. In fact… I think that’s a large part of what is campaign is about.