Two big speeches
I see Rush Limbaugh - but the Obama speech has gone down well with most educated Americans, even those who think he is wrong. Howard Kurtz .
One thought in addition: a colleague of mine returned from teaching journalism in Bahrain last week. When the subject turned to American politics, his translator said: "Is it true that Barack Obama is Jewish?" Apparently it is something to do with "Barack" sounding like the Israeli name Barak. I am sure Geraldine Ferraro would claim this is yet another advantage to add to all the others he has...
As for the Bush speech on Iraq: the real issue now is whether the US can maintain sufficient troop numbers into the future, in other words whether America can do what the president claims it is ready to do. The end of is fascinating.
Hello, I'm 
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύ Post your comment
"educated?" Yeah, because the "uneducated" one' can't posibly think, with their teny tiny brains, for themselves and decide whether they like the man and his ideas or not! Smart there Justin!
Obama's speech 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 - . 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.
It was indeed a great speech! Good that decided to tackle the nasty race issue head-on now. Don't know how many more questions he has to answer from this speech though! His ABC - Nightline follow-up interview with Terry Moran was worth watching too.
I read that his first name has its origins in Hebrew - 'Baruch', meaning 'Blessing' (?), that he himself mentioned in an audience of Jewish voters. And there are also references online that it's of
Arabic --> Kiswahili origins. Someone can correct me.
I have to admit that I have never commented on a blog before but, having watched last night one of the most intelligent and ambitious political speeches of my lifetime, I felt compelled to add my tuppence worth to this one.
As a UK resident I have always been fascinated with US politics and especially election season. I stayed up all night to watch Clinton's victory in 92, and felt America's optimism. I also stayed up all night to watch the inconclusion of the 2000 election. And felt that awful realisation that we were entering an era of dangerous foreign policy.
A democracy is supposed, so the saying goes, to get the government it
deserves. But if the democratic process is largely determined by soundbites and selective editing then perhaps it's now more accurate to say that the media shapes the democracy that is to be governed.
I am mixed race too. I have never felt English or truly been accepted as English, although I have lived here since I was 12 and my father was born here. For that matter I have never felt Irish or Sri Lankan or African - despite the blood flowing
through my veins. What I do feel a part of is humanity. We are, as Senator Obama pointed out excellently, all in this together.
So, whether the point of view is one of "chickens coming home to roost" or one of "Bomb, bomb, bomb etc." - America, you are all in this together. And we, as citizens of a post WW2, American defined world, are in this with you.
And to use the issue of the current war to round off - we in the UK, as well as those in South Africa, know very well that you cannot defeat terrorism by military means alone. At some point we have to sit at the negotiating table and talk terms. And by its very nature, as we see in Northern Ireland and South Africa,
talking with whom you have been in conflict eventually, ultimately leads to peace, reconciliation and a greater understanding. I see it as an evolutionary process.
Senator Obama appears to me to be asking America to evolve. The question is whether America and its media are ready for a process of peace, reconciliation and understanding. Will America recognise its common humanity?
(around 15 attempts to post on the previous blog, perhaps it'll work here!)
Obama has a rare gift to turn the negative into positive. His speech yesterday on race was simply masterclass. He transformed the personal into global, in the end accepting responsibility with humility and pledging loyalty. He will not damp you in times of difficulty and he will uplift us when we are down. It will be a tragedy if we let the opportunity to have this gifted man as President slip by.
POSITIVE COVERAGE? Are you kidding? Since the speech last night, Obama's numbers have begun a drastic slide. Clinton is now ahead in Pennsylvania. Most coverage I heard after the speech was either lukewarm or negative (unless you were listening to CNN, MSNBC or reading the New York Times which are all propaganda outlets for Obama.)
I have satellite radio and I switched amongst several news channels . The overall coverage was definitely not positive.
Look at his poll numbers today. If it was a positive speech, he would have a huge margin this morning.
COME ON ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ. QUIT TELLING LIES.
How unlike you, Justin, to write-up the uber-Liberal and take a swipe at Limbaugh at the same time.
Balance still a problem at the Beeb, then.
Not all of them all that positive, if you read Kurz's article to the end. White liberals of course are just in the excuse business as they always are.The patronising of the white working class in Obama's sermon is exactly what you would expect from him and the so-called intelligentsia on both sides of the Atlantic. Fortunately electorates in both places can generally spot snake oil peddlers.
Dear Mr Webb
How you can be so foolish as to write blogs that espouse your personal views on the presidential campaign, and then expect the viewer/reader to expect professional and unbiased ongoing news coverage from you.
I don't know who is more unethical/ridiculous (delete as appropriate), the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ for encouraging their correspondents to air their inconsequential opinions, or you for agreeing to flaunt high and principled journalistic standards - not that they are much in evidence at the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ these days anyway.
I am 'educated' and I for one am disgusted at Barack Obama. What kind of judgment does it show that he can sit and seriously listen to the ravings of Jeremigh Wright for the past 20 years? When he says that we must face up to the issue of race, I would like to know exactly what he means by this. And it's ironic that it is only now that he feels compelled to address the issue of race after these awful things said by his pastor have come to light. So in other words, we must face up to the issue of race, but only after (or because of?) these latest revelations.
Obama like to make out that his is this great unifying force who will transcend the political divide. I see someone who is more divisive and polarizing than even Hillary Clinton who will say anything to get elected.
I look forward to the first black president but I truly hope it is not this man.
I am constantly amazed at the ongoing debate over Barack Obama's religious affiliation. He is a Christian, although there is still so much emphasis on his middle name which is being consistantly brought up by right-wing smear merchants. There is still the rumour that he would want to say the Pledge on a Qur'an. How many times must this be argued?
Also, when will Bush finally accept that the economy is in really dire straights and that the war is a terribly conceived and badly executed thing? As an American Studies student thought, I find it all terribly fascinating.
C
ummm...surely the "real issue" is that 70% of the US public now wants UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL (according to the latest polls) from Iraq and that Obama/Clinton plan to withdraw whilst McCain plans to continue the Bush/Cheney occupation at the Iraqi's and the American public's expense and desires.
So why is "the end of the piece" so "fascinating"? Because Bush "I listent to the generals" didn't like what an independent and rational Fallon was saying and replaced him with a sychophantic Mullen so that this bloody mess can continue?
Pkease explain what is so fascinating.
Re. Iraq, the US military deserves praise for uniting Iraqis against the common enemy Al Qaida: all parties in Iraq can agree that they are outsiders & dangerous lunatics.
But there's a problem here - they're outsiders. Al Qaida is not one of the core, systemic problems of Iraq. Once they are defeated, there still remain the problems of how Sunnis & Shias are to unite to form a stable state, & how Iraqis are to support & defend a state that was created by invasion, occupation, & outside interests.
The whole point of this adventure was to create a stable state, one amenable to US interests but still legitimate in the eyes of Iraqis. The US didn't want another Iran-under-the-Shah, another Saudi Arabia. The 'strongman' policy has proved dud.
People moot Petraeus' political ambitions, & I wonder if they are significant here. The military realised that if they wanted to win their war, they needed to convince the politicians not to pull the plug on it. They needed results, fast, & a general who could sell these results to congress & the public. Step forward Petraeus.
He seems to have succeeded in changing the firepower-obsessed mindset of the military. But has he sacrificed too much to a short-termism designed to turn heads in Washington & the media? Troop levels are unsustainably high, & security is in the hands of sectarian vigilantes, not the Iraqi police force. Why? Because Iraqis still do not believe in their new state.
This is not the endgame the US was looking for.
Petraeus is turning heads, but is he allowing people to take their eye off the ball?
Last suggestion - what if the switching of support away from Iraqi state institutions (police, army) & towards militias is somehow policy ? Are Cheney & co. such small-state fanatics, so averse to state-building, that they would do this? Or is this a silly conspiracy theory?
Justin, what really puzzles someone like me in the UK is why religion is such a potent force in America? If the Reverend Wright has chosen to make his comments anywhere else than in a church on a Sunday he would have been labelled a bigot and ostracised. It seems that in the US the pulpit allows you expound the most offensive of opinions yet you are protected by your association with some long dead philosophers. Religion has always been a personal matter for our politicians as Alistair Campbell rightly said "we don't do religion". However in the US a candidate could not hope to attain the Oval office without being seen to go to church and make very public pronouncements about a deeply personal matter.
The most worrying part of the Limbaugh article you quoted is the part were he praises a film supporting "Intelligent design" or creationism before the rebrand. I find it truly alarming that this view of the world is so mainstream in the States. After all this is a country whose power and wealth is derived from pushing science and empirical thought to the maximum yet some of it's leading politicians want a return to the days of the Mayflower.
In view of your travels around the US Justin, do you think the religious credentials of the candidates can sway the results of this election?
I find it quite interesting that Obama born of an African father and a white mother is categorically referred to as a 'black man'..!Would Lewis Hamilton be referred to as 'black' as well...?
And if i may, how do we explain this philosophy to our children who are born from a mixed backgrounds. Doesn't this explain the menace in our society as these kids don't know where they really belong...!
Nothing new here: the commentators that were already critical of Obama are still critical and the ones that were already sympathetic to him are still sympathetic. And meanwhile, curiously enough, the man at the center of the tempest-in-the-teacup, the right Rev. Wright is unheard from in major media outlets. Obama's every word is parsed, the talking heads are spewing their spin as usual but it's as if Wright is simply a media straw man with no voice of his own any longer. Has he been instructed to stay out of public view for the time being? As for Iraq, the "real issue" is the same today as it always was. The invasion of Iraq five years ago was totally illegal and immoral and therefore can never be a "success" by any measure except the pernicious yardstick of American hegemony. What's truly noxious about Bush's phoney pronouncements and the FT's 'analysis' is the implicit premise that the U.S. & Britain can knock over any country any time they want for any reason they want. It's truly frightening to hear comments about, "concerns that the Pentagon might not have sufficient forces for other military campaigns". What other military 'campaigns'?!! Iran?? Venezuela?? China?? But the central tragedy of it all is alluded to only tentatively in the article amidst all the imperialist strategizing bluster. No one in America -especially the despicable Bush who never mentions it - seem to much care that "Iraqi citizens have paid the highest human price with tens, if not hundreds, of thousands, losing their lives." We can only look forward to the day when Obama Copacabana, the deceitful talking heads, and the supine American public get as worked up over that unspeakable tragedy as they do over the free speech of an outspoken pastor.
Justin
Please do share with all of us how you contrive to claim "the Obama speech has gone down well with most educated Americans".
Please educate us as to how you were able to ascertain this fact - to my knowledge, there isn't a Yellow Pages of "educated Americans" - let alone a related poll showing how many of them actually consider the speech as "going down well". Do you have some magical software application that maintains such a list and tracks each indivdual's response?
Given that it's a list of educated Americans, can I reasonably assume that you are NOT on this list?
Grandiose claims which imply you have some secret access to the thoughts of "most educated Americans" is arrogant at best. At worst, it's a gross fabrication and one that does not further your cause.
"educated" Americans? Attacking the uneducated is the last ism that can still be aired on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ. Might as well have just called the unconvinced "white trash"
I am amazed by some of the differences in what Justin Webb says on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ web site and what he says on ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ World Service radio. On the radio, I heard Webb say Americans are increasingly hopeful regarding George Bush's Iraq War policies. Hogwash! Does Webb actually think that Americans don't hear his broadcasts? Does he hope the rest of the planet will swallow his reports as true?
You obviously haven't talked to the most educated people, as they will confirm that the speech was nothing more than a great dance around the subject. Here is a man that claims to be "African American" attends a black church for 20 years, is only active in matters that affect "black" communities and claims to be a "uniter" of the races. Do you see ANY intelligence in his actions? no.
I suggest you step back and take a larger look at the situation.
I feel like Obama is being congratulated for saying nothing at all. Of course he disagrees with some of the things Wright says. I have never known a person with whom I did not disagree with on some points. I would like to hear Obama specify which statements he disagrees with and address why he disagrees with them.
Particulary, I would like to hear him say that he does not believe Wrights assertion that AIDS is a disease designed by the US government to kill black people.
Once again, Obama has succeeded rhetorically without "showing his hand" or substance.
Justin, you might have given equal space to Michael Gerson who writes for the same newspaper. His thoughts are more likely to reflect most Americans who are not of African heritage:
And Justin knows all the wrongly educated Americans. You see, our education system just ain't what it use to be before the social progressives took over with an agenda..
Strange that no one has yet commented. Taken offense at the Bahrain journalist remark, perhaps?
As to the Bush speech, Mr Webb, the real issue is not whether America can do what the president claims it can do, but more that the president seems to have deluded himself on the issue of Iraq, and now lives in a fantasy world where there surge has done actual good. Rather, the increased troop levels have only kept the situation from becoming much worse.
He would have done better to use terms like "stabilized," and not "success." The continual insistence on lying to the public only makes America look foolish to the rest of the world.
One hopes the next president will have more respect for the intelligence of the people.
Your piece brings to mind a simple yet interesting point of style. I always see Prime Minister as receiving initial capitals, while president seems to be subjected to the vagaries of the author. What does the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ style sheet say with regard to the treatment of the title; whether that be the President of the United States, or any other head of state?
The translator may have been confused because the Swahili/Arabic word "barack" is related to the Hebrew word "baruch". A more detailed explanation of the meaning of Senator Obama's first name can be found here:
Really enjoyed reading the links, but I have a question which i hope Justin, or even another reader, can answer:
I must admit I dont read much US media, only really British reports on the US, but i must say I was shocked by Rush Limbaugh's article, with respect to its clear and blatant bias and liberal-slagging off. My question is, where does this sort of article fit into the spectrum in America? Is it a common view and style of writing? By American standards, is this just a normal conservative piece, or something more?
I agree with the Washington Post piece that not only was this a brave speech but for historical sweep and calm honesty this was way above what we expect from most current politicians. Voters of all colours and incomes in America (and in particular in Pennsylvania in April)should follow his example and seize this opportunity, which may not come again for a generation, to take this gifted and magnanimous man to at least the next stage - as undisputable Democratic Party nominee. There are some things Senator Obama could do too. This ought not to be the only, major, 'first principles' speech he should make. He could re-assure on national security and jobs by providing a similarly Olympian analysis of the true springs and traditions of American security and prosperity (eg multilateralism, respect for international law, free and fair trade, a global community, the tradition of Truman and Roosevelt etc). Also, it would not hurt if he campaigned a bit side by side with some generals, admirals and economists to show to even the most prejudiced that he is not the naive tyro that he is sometimes portrayed as.
Race problems in the United states will never permanently heal. I love Barack. I also have a sort of love for my country. I am african american and have so much unforgiven pain towards the USA. The black experience has never been apologized for it has never been reconciled.
Slavery here was different than in any other place... Children were stolen and sold for over 300 years. Wives were raped ... daughters were raped... land was toiled for no monetary return... american blacks were considered non-human and sellable property...
we now are considered lazy... and portrayed as demons in the media...
"the Obama speech has gone down well with most educated Americans"
- provided you get your analysis for our left-wing media (or the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ). You might note recent polls that have Obama slipping as far as 8 pts behind McCain. Careful analysis of the speech might lead one to conclude Mr. Obama was trying to swing His and Rev. Wrightβs race issue as OUR race issue. Nice subterfuge there. The speech is chock full of bon mots sure to infuriate the discerning reader.
Honestly, this whole thing isn't so much a race issue as a judgement issue. 20 years in the pews listing to Wright's odious, divisive diatribes...thank goodness he was sleeping through the service! That's okay though as the oft shown clips were part of the special boxed collection of sermons peddled st the church gift shop. I wonder if the Obama's have a copy in their mansion?
You've heard of dead man walking? Well Obama is dead candidate talking. 90% support among black Democrats and white liberal guilt may win him his party's nomination, but he will never win the presidency, thanks to his preacher and his wife. He's a nice guy, but he can't escape the racial passions of his native Chicago, home to Farrakan, Jackson and other peddlers of racial division.
Why is the ex-Marine, Rev. Wright, divisive - but Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter are not?
Not only does every American have the right to speak their mind, veterans have further earned the right not to have their patriotism questioned. Rev. Wright is inflammatory but he served his country and has the right to speak out at its imperfections. More importantly, he works to fix them. His actions speak louder than his words or some talk-show lapel-pin litmus test. His sermons β whether cool or boiling over - do not take place in a vacuum, but are set amid 6 other days of helping the community.
Obama gave the most intelligent and inspiring speech of the election campaign, based on a reading of the 9-page text.
Unfortunately most of us saw this as a TV screen: with only a few sentences of this speech spoken by Obama, the worst seconds from a years-old Wright sermon blaring with his face inset screen-in-screen, a scrolling commentary, and more words spoken by several TV faces than were heard from the actual candidate.
I am sure Geraldine Ferraro would claim this is yet another advantage to add to all the others he has...
You've got a wicked sense of humour there Justin :)
I never understand this silly term "african american" or "italian american" etc.
Where was he born..america or africa...can't be both!
Does he have an african passport too??
Two Great speaches? One speach, ONE speach!!
Today, PRESIDENT BUSH blew Obama out of the water, folks! He laid it out in real clear terms: we need to win this war and we need to win it compulsively! We CANNOT afford to give any quarter to Al Quaeda. Not in Iraq and not anywhere. No quarters to terrorists!
This war is NOBLE and NOBLE PEOPLE support it. You're free to disagree but that's supporting the terrorists and you know it. Africans and Ausrtralians and AMERICANS and all people ALL over the world know it and support it and support PRESIDENT BUSH. GO WAR!!!!
David Ginsberg,
Will an American do? .. sorry. maybe Justin could translate? :)
These "long-dead-philosohers" gave us the Magna Carta.
In my view, philosophy led to principles which led to policy which degenerated into universal binary "correctness".
The left claim we follow only dogma. Beg to differ.
When I have to actually think about the ramifications of endless chains of THE SAME COW, being used as food, possibly never being allowed to really die for all I know (note the admission of ignorance that respects natural order), all the anti-religious have to do is laugh.
For spiritual reasons and reasons of defending natural, perfect design, this thinking repels the liberal's P.C. binary reaction(s),
such as: KEWL !!!!!
Liberals who suck-up to science like a hoover to a basketball neednt confront any real dilemmas.
They simply defer to polls, absolutes like "the vast majority", etc
So the answer is that philosophy is fairly confined to the right, and religion is intellectually confined to philosophy, which is of course the father of religion and science.
Hence, given that philosophy is a universal "good thing", rightwing Americans are dubbed Religious instead.
Believe it or not, Jeremigh Wright is being scrutinized for any trace of redeeming philosophy by Americans.. to no avail.
For Obama, that he sees race as THE crucial defining imperfection in our history and Constitution.. end of speech.
His agenda is admittedly personal and there will be no pretense of impartiality for The People. Kewl !!!!
Call me a dogmatic ditto-head, but Rush nailed this word for word.
I'm of mixed race like Obama too. I'm 38 and I consider myself black because there was no either/or when I was a kid.
Being mixed is interesting to say the least. I hear everyones casual racism. Whites don't think I'm black so I hear what they think of blacks. Blacks don't think I'm white so I hear what they say about whites. I look like other brown people - latinos, arabs etc and I hear everybodies open racial issues.
I don't go to church but I have been to a few black churches before and what Rev. Wright said isn't really shocking in comparison. Barack had it right when he said that its a black rage that wrongly sees America as static. I've heard and never said a word. My thinking always was, who am I to say anything to someone who had fire hoses turned on them in the street,dogs let loose on them, those who didn't have the right to vote until 1965. There are a couple of younger complicit generations who dared not step on the memory. I'm guilty. Barack is guilty. But we aren't guilty of hate and prejudice. We're guilty of being afraid to tell the older generation that the civil rights movement suceeded and they don't have to fight anymore. We're guilty of being afraid to say that we don't feel the same to people that paid the price for what I have in this country.
I and perhaps Barack also suffer from mixed guilt. The guilt that at times we're so happy that we aren't "really" black. We don't have to be a full part of that unfortunate lot with their broken families, high crime and lack of education.
I don't see it as snake oil. It's more complex than that.
I consider the assumption that Sen. Obama's speech "went down well with most educated Americans" to be somewhat insulting. If his speech didn't agree with me, I'm suddenly part of the uneducated masses? I think not.
I believe this opinion has already been expressed, but I am appalled by the enthusiastic reception of Sen. Obama's verbose, eloquent, and mostly empty speeches. His supporters gobble up the "Change We Can Believe In" rhetoric without questioning anything. President Bush has put this country in so desperate of a situation where people feel like they need to latch on to anything that promises change, and it just so happens that Sen. Obama was the first to really corner that market. That, however, does not automatically make him the most qualified person for the job. I do not believe there is a person alive who could accomplish what he is promising, and I fear mass retaliation if he should be elected and fail to make good on his word, even if he is not directly at fault.
It's as though the American population is passing the same sort of judgment over him as they are over Sen. Clinton when they call her "unlikable." I would not dare to disagree with those who call Sen. Obama a well-spoken and intelligent politician, because I would be in the wrong. But people seem to be giving their whole-hearted support (or disdain) based on such superficial qualities as those mentioned above. Likable or not, able to give epic speeches or not, black, white, or something in between, male or female, these traits should have the least to do with the public's opinion about a candidate. Sadly, these very issues are at the forefront of the campaign, and it seems they aren't going to be fading into the background anytime soon.
So, no. Sen. Obama's speech did not sit well with me in the context that it was presented. Not because it lacked style or insight, or because its author lacked charisma, but because of the content it very carefully stepped around and the warm reception it was given by the media here in America. Once again we were treated to a wonderful length of prose that had absolutely nothing to do with domestic policy, international issues, or really anything that the public should be paying attention to. His speech had no place in the race for the White House, just like a speech by Sen. Clinton on how women have been treated over the decades in this country and how she's overcome sexism in her life would be completely inappropriate. Then again, why should anyone listen to me, an uneducated American?
I'm a US citizen living overseas and have some questions:
The pastor made many racial commments through the years but why does Obama only denounce them now after they've come to national attention? Many politicians do this, not just Obama, but isn't Obama trying to prove he is above all this?
By explaining why the pastor makes those statements, is Obama subtly justifing them? I understand why those comments were said. I understand lynchings in the south and the effect to this day of the KKK. I understand the fear of gang violence and crime plus how it's linked to the black community instead of being linked to poverty (the true cause). I also understand something that apparently Obama and his pastor don't: that two wrongs don't make a right. Hatred and prejudice cannot be excused in a person based on the color/gender/religion/sexuality of the person making the statement and which group the comments condemn. Just because he comes from a certain "generation" does not provide an excuse.
Can statements be separated from the person makeing them? They are the pastor's statements. They are his views. They come from his heart and head. They are in him. The actor Michael Richards made horrible, horrible racist comments and had to admit that it was something in him that he had to deal with. By not condemning the man making the statement, is Obama really not condemning the statement?
Was this speech comparable to Kennedy's "Catholic" speech or Nixon's "Checkers" speech? Sen. Kennedy met with Southern Baptist ministers in 1960 to make clear that being catholic had nothing to do with his decisions if he became President. Vice-President Nixon gave a speech stating that he did not take money then explained what he did with the money he didn't take, ending with telling how he bought a dog named Checkers for his family. The Checkers speech was so emotional that everyone overlooked the fact that Nixon really didn't say anything at all. Obama gives the impression that he is dealing with the issue head on (like Kennedy) but only reflects on his own emotional impact of racism in his life and doesn't say anything about how we bring it the issue to a "higher level." All planned rhetoric and no plan for results.
If Obama is a noble person for standing by his pastor, then why isn't George W. Bush a noble person for standing by Jerry Falwell, Attorney General Gonzalez, and Secretry of Defence Rumsfield? Also, if Obama will stand by people completely wrong now, won't he do that when he's President just like Bush has done?
Why did Obama stand before US Flags instead of just giving his speech? Does anyone remember Gov. George W. Bush did that during the Florida recount in 2000 to looke more Presidential? Does it make Obama look more Presidential or more like George W. Bush? If Bush was wrong for not allowing Florida to recount or revote in 2000 because he would lose, why is Obama right to do that now in Florida and Michigan? Isn't Obama suppose to be above all that?
Finally, do people reading this think that I have never been for Obama or that I once was but am now seeing him a different light?
Both were interesting speeches, reflecting the polish of good communications staffs. But, as has become the norm in American Rhetoric, there were distinct dearths of content padded with enough adjectives and emotions to make them appeal to their intended audiences. I was far more interested in Senator Obamaβs comments but was left with the feeling of being patronized. I understand his perspective on race in America. However, what I really want to hear are comments on how unabashedly sexist his campaign has become. I have several feminist friends that saw they will break with the party for McCain if Senator Obama gets the nomination and I can see why. Senator Obama should start preparing his speech on gender in America if he thinks he is going to win. But unlike this round, he wonβt have the same βIβve seen both sidesβ on which to rest.
The bias of the author of this blog has been commented upon before. Yet, it seems necessary to point it out once more. It would be reasonable to assume that readers of this blog expect more reasoned argumentation than they might for other blogs. Mr Webb's entries read like they were written whilst seated on the toilet. Not only are they pathetically short and totally lacking in justification for the views espoused, they seem to consist entirely of slurs against Mr Obama. There is something worryingly deceitful about Mr Webb.
Nick Muzyczka
The race card was always going to come up at some point in Obama's campaign. His speech will not neccesarily assuage the feelings of those hurt by Rev. Wright's remarks, only the reverend can do that.
Obama's speech did not shy away from the issue or pander to either side, but calls on us all, Americans or not, to continue working towards greater racial harmony. On this basis for me, its a great speech.
Obama has done the right and honourable thing. If voters desert him because of how race issues has played out, so be it. In so doing, America would miss out on a real chance for racial healing.
Obama is simply joe-slick. When his campaign was accusing Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton of vile racist remarks, he didn't say a WORD about mending race relations. However, once HE is under the scope, it is suddenly de rigeur to speak up and out against it! What a phony.
He waffles all over the place on the nasty and vituperative rantings of his minister. HE claimed--at first--he wasn;t there when these "sermons" were delivered. Not there? Hmmm sounds like his Senate record. Yet he married in, attended and has his kids attend this church. Was he SLEEPING through the sermons? NOW he says he remembers but disagrees with them. Nice move. Sort of like saying I attended all of Hitler's meetings and brought the kids, but was opposed to what the Fuhrer was saying.
Sound slick? It is. He is a charlatan!
I am white, British, and somewhat conservative. I spent my teenage years in South Africa during the apartheid era, although I was fortunate to go to one of the few mixed race schools in the country at the time. So I have friends of all races, reflecting many divergent histories and views.
I have seen racism. I have seen the misery, suffering, poverty, hatred and distrust it causes. If there is one thing guaranteed to make my blood boil it is racism.
I have also seen my white friends suffer in the early post-apartheid years when they could not get good jobs because they were white. The white sister of a friend of mine died three years ago in South Africa - shot by a black man who stole her car while she was waiting at traffic lights.
So, I know that racism and the division and distrust it causes works in both directions.
I found and read the entire transcript of Obama's speech on the NY Times website. And frankly, by the end of the speech I could hardly read any more through my tears.
Before, watching the US Primaries was interesting; no more than that.
Now, having read his speech in full, I truly, deeply hope that Obama will be the next President. I hope that under his leadership America will once again move towards fulfilling the hopes and dreams of its founders β that America will once again be the shining beacon of HOPE that it can and should be.
If only the American voters would make my wish come true...
"the Obama speech has gone down well with most educated Americans"
More like the Obama speech has gone down well with most patronising white middle-class liberals . .
One of the best reactions I've read, from a surprising source...
There are two different stories -- one is Obamaβs reaction, the other one is the Rev. Wrightβs speech itself. And I think that, you know, Obama has handled this about as well as anybody could. And I agree, itβs a very historic speech. I think that it was an important one and one that he had to deliver, and he couldnβt wait. The sooner he made it, maybe the quicker that this becomes less of the issue. Otherwise, it was the only thing that was the issue in his entire campaign. And I thought he handled it very, very well.
And he made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can't -- whether it's me, whether it's Obama, anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements.
Now, the second story. It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left that are having to be very uncomfortable with what Louis Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon.
Sermons, after all, are rarely written word-for-word by pastors like Rev. Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say, "Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that." ....
....If this were October, I think it would have a dramatic impact. But it's not October. It's March. And I don't believe that by the time we get to October this is going to be the defining issue of the campaign and the reason that people vote.
And one other thing I think we've got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, "That's a terrible statement," I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you: We've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, "You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
****
Mike Huckabee
It's not yet clear how this piece will ultimately play with voters, but regardless of ones view on Obama you cannot say he has skated around the issue.
To do so would probably result in a facile, short 60-second denunciation of both Wright and his comments, probably using the words 'categorically', 'wholeheartedly','unacceptable' in the process.
What we got was a rejection of his inflammatory comments, but also an eloquent and rather moving account of where this anger comes from, the tensions that simmer below the surface of America today, and their effect on people's attitudes on all sides of the racial divide. Excuse the pun, but sometimes these issues don't break down into simple black and white. Most politicians would run a country mile from taking the issue on, and I'm truly glad he chose to, if not was forced to.
As mentioned, this is not guaranteed to win votes and may do the opposite, but reading Rush Limbaugh's crude and rather snivelling riposte was honestly the only cringe-inducing element on this blog. The fact his cigar-wielding portrait interposes the picture of his article's subject matter says rather a lot.
Everyone keeps talking about the "race" issue here. I would just like to remind everyone who reads these comments that racial divides are not just an American problem, although Americans acknowledge it more than anyone else, it seems. Nobody speaks to the fact that if "race" is as big of a deal in the US as everyone makes it out to be, why is Barack so popular? It appears that he has quite a large white following. It continues to puzzle me. He is called an "African American". I would prefer that he be called simply "American". That's what I consider him to be.
Justin,
Any comments on your namesake, Jim Webb, being the favourite (albeit at 11%) in the betting for Democrat Vice President?
Any comment on his military credibility and his response to the 2007 State of the Union Address?
My own personal hunch is that with him on the ticket, Obama's chances would be enhanced. I don't reckon he'd even consider an offer from Hillary in the unlikely event of her nomination (currently 25%)
Track the odds at
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
P.S. I enjoy your blog, but HATE the 502 Errors!
Soaring eloquence, almost as good as Reagan or FDR at their best....impressive performance...BUT: none of that counts. TWO facts were highlighted by this speech, (1) He and his staff have been lying for 15 months on his knowledge of the Reverends views, and (2) He refused to disown a person who preaches that the U.S. government caused the AIDs pandemic and the 9/11 attacks.
These will not change the minds of committed supporters. It will reduce his attractiveness to swing voters by a significant margin. He is now non-electable in the general election. What a damn shame.
Daniel (no. 20). You describe Obama's speech as "a great dance around the subject"
I have to agree. What a great, great dance. Like a ballet of words that moves the heart and mind in one sweeping movement of hope, intelligence and strength. But most of all, just plain honest.
I thought that Obama was going to sweep his past with his pastor under the table like so many hungrily ambitious politicians would and have done. My heart sank.
But, thank goodness, he has turned out to be a greater man than that.
Congratulations America, whether Obama becomes President or not. If you are able to produce men and women of his graciousness and wisdom, then the future is bright.
Post #48, Gail is the closest one I agree with, and the only person on this blog who has even come close to what goes on here. Yes, racism is our secret shame in this country, we imported slaves from Africa up until the early 1800's. However, President Lincoln outlawed slavery in 1863, and in April of 1865 when the south surrendered to General Grant, it was no more. Yes, resentment held on, and racism was out in the open, with a lot of horrible crimes committed against black people until 1964, when the Civil Rights Act went into effect. However, I disagree that whites today have anything to apologize for as a country. It's called free speech here. I have spoken about the shame of racism to older blacks who deserve to be apologized to. I refuse to acknowledge that those too young to even remember 1964 deserve an apology. I was born in 1959. All blacks I came in contact with during my lifetime, and are my age group, have just as many rights and opportunties as I have, if not greater opportunities. White middle class Americans don't have near the access to grants and scholarships as blacks do.
And although it is not a popular opinion, some blacks need to get over themeselves. Yes, there are still racists in America, but it is a delusion to think you can legislate human behaviour or emotions. However, there are far fewer racists now than ever before, and so long as preachers like Reverend Wright keep his congregants permanently fixed in the 1950's, there will never be real dialogue between the races.
I just wanna explain why Obama refers to him as a "black man". I have friends who have a white... and a black.... The reason for them to define themselves as black is that society doesnΒ΄t view them as white and let alone acknowledge them as part white because of the history of Jim Crow.
Now in Britain there is a acknowledgement that there is mixed people therefore they need not identifie themselves as black.
But when you talk to the black men in america who has mixed background they will gladly and happily admit that they have another mother and in no way feel ashamed about that, instead more proud of their history.
And I think when conservatives plays the black thing they are repeating the remnants of Jim Crow by not themselves acknowledging Obama mixed background. Therefore Obama aim is to get past this and this is going to take a long time, but at least the ball is running.
I myself have dark skin, but never have I used the term black to define me, I think its simplistic and offers no deapth the same way white does.
When i refer to what the media calls black and white, I have always used dark skin and light skinned because in truth that is the only differens. Just like haircolour or eyecolour or whatever.
Although this is unlikely to be deemed worthy of posting by the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ (some of the posting you do allow really baffle me), Iβm still going to see if this gets shown the light of day. Could the Obama cynics please spare us from the pseudo intellectual analysis of why Obama (and his speech about race) shows him to be fake and dishonest? I wonder how all of you would defend yourself on the issue of being guilty by association if audio or video footage of all the comments made by your friends, family, pastors/rabbis/imams about race were made public, let's see if you would come out with the same blame game of "Oh he knew his comments so he must be guilty too!" There was an interesting piece in the Washington post where Terry Moran defended his brother Rick Moran even though he disagrees with his views, may I suggest some of the cynics read it. Last point, the aspect of Obama's speech I disagree with concerns his statement that the issue of race is not static in the US, judging by the negative comments to his campaign and his speech by those looking to play the blame game with Reverend Wright (isn't there freedom of speech in the US, especially when you're in your own premises?) the true reflection of the US's progress is found in comments on these and other blogs and it ain't looking good.
No great surprise that his poll numbers have dropped. The impact of Obama's speech will take a while to filter down the system. But he needs to keep addressing this issue in the way that Dick Morris has advised.
He mustn't panic. He has plenty of time to repair the damage and win back those lost white voters.
Let me express my glatitude over the issue. I am a Malawi young Man ( African) Who sparring have been following the American Elections.
God created different kinds of flowers for them not to be different but to be beautiful, the same should apply to human kind. God created Man different Races of Man kind for us not to be different as the Pastor has mis-interpreted the nature of human race, but for human kind to be beautifull and I can see the beauty of man kind at its best in the present state of Affairs, with the leading examples in the likes of Nelson Mandera and Barack Obama, and all the great human contribution thas has made the difference among Humsn Kind.
It gives me great joy to see such togetherness that American community is asa of today,and I also have got all the hopes that this changing moments have come to stay among brotheren across the globe.
I should congraturate Barack Obama for the historic unifying speech he has presented to not only American Society but also to the globe community as a whole, and out of this I would like to have more comments from world leaders in their capacities not only from American Pundits and political advocates only, no!!!.
Let me teach the controvecial Pastor to learn from Unifying Leaders in the likes of Nelson Mandera whom his leadership skills has benefited not only South Africans but also the whole of Africa and broadly the world learn the good leasson from the Great Anti-Apathered Icon , The Great Nelson Mandera.
The wolrd Needs leaders Like Mandera no wonder we are all commenting for Barack Obama's Speech as the one who could unify the Great Nation Amid the divisions and loss of direction by President Bush and his commands who can see only WAR as a solution to problems, I've even liked his presentation for careful picking of worlds not to offend any interested Parties. Thank you PRECIDENT BARACK OBAMA.
Keep it up telling the wolrd the truth about goodness of being people
Rush Limbaugh is just one of many talk radio personalities that want to agitate racial divides in our country. Sadly enough he has many followers. Mr. Limbaugh being a recovering addict, should understand forgiveness. Senator Obama's speech left those who truely listened, joyful and hopeful. Some on my job cried during the speech, yes it was a mixed crowd. Most American's have forgotten things said by pastors Hagee, Robertson, Falwell and Parsley that were inflammatory. I guess listening to understand is a hard skill for most in America to master. Hillary Clinton continues to embarrass herself by clinging to any means to surpass Obama and doesn't care who in the world is watching.
I really enjoyed Obama's speech, but I thought with him after the speech was excellent, and helped me understand why he'd chosen to say what he'd said. I do think he would have been better off with whites if he'd repudiated his pastor a bit more, but perhaps he'd have severely harmed himself in the black community?
RE: Comment #27, by Jon: "I must admit I don't read much US media, only really British reports on the US, but i must say I was shocked by Rush Limbaugh's article, with respect to its clear and blatant bias and liberal-slagging off. My question is, where does this sort of article fit into the spectrum in America? Is it a common view and style of writing? By American standards, is this just a normal conservative piece, or something more?"
Jon, Limbaugh is what's known here as a "shock jock," a radio talk show host who's statements are designed to get an outraged reaction from the opposing group and appeal to only one end of the political spectrum. In Rush's case, he's a super-conservative Republican who loves to make statements that get liberal blood boiling. He's very popular here in the U.S., but generally only on one side of the political spectrum.
Personally, he drives me crazy; I'm not a fan of blatant exaggerations and denigrations of any group of people, and shock jocks love to insult whichever group they're against.
He's not the mainstream news media, which supposedly tries to stay unbiased (usually, it fails in some way) but he is very well known and people expect that style from him.
Posting comments from the U.S. is impossible!
Alastair King (44),
I was crying too, and I'm the great grandson of slave owners.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
In American and perhaps British political campaigns there is often a watershed moment, one in which a critical issue is raised around which the electorate must sort itself out, and upon which the character of the nation is defined.
I believe this speech by Senator Obama may be the watershed moment of this presidential campaign. He began his campaign striving to be above race, that is, running not as a black man, but as an American capable of representing all Americans. We had not had an African-American candidate credibly make that claim before him. Generally, he succeeded in keeping his race from being the center of the discussion, until the recordings of Pastor Wright were edited for effect and broadcast.
When this campaign strategem forced the issue, Senator Obama responded by presenting a speech that he has been preparing, I imagine, all of his adult life.
He talked about the issue of race in America openly, candidly, directly, as perhaps no other American has ever been able to do. He is a black American, and he is a white American. He knows both sides of the street, and uniquely can speak for both and to both. He has the national podium as few black persons have ever had. He risked his political prospects in the attempt to frame a better approach to this critical flaw in American life and history.
We shall see what the nation makes of this, and their response will show the rest of the world who we are in this generation. If a large enough number of us can understand his speech, and grasp the hope inherent in his approach, we can again consciously move toward 'a more perfect union'. If we do not, this primary campaign and the general election will fall back into the morass of pettiness, divisiveness, distractions and denials that is so typical of how we make decisions over here, and have since Jefferson and Hamilton.
You will know who we are when the Democrats chose their nominee in August.
A Republican for Obama
I am Scottish and have lived in the US for over twenty five years. As a result of my West of Scotland Labour roots, I have always voted Democrat. What is currently happening with the Obama/Clinton race is sickening and the Republican party are having a field day. The next President of the US WILL be John McCain and here are the reasons why:
1. The Clintons will NEVER accept defeat. They will try to win at all costs. They are relentless and will throw anyone under the bus to succeed. They want a Clinton dynasty.
2. Obama will not back down. Much to the Clintons dismay he does have a very deep base of support and it is mostly (not completely)) black and the youth of the party. The blacks see history in the making and the youth see a new world.
3. If the Cintons win, the vast majority of the Obama camp will NOT vote fro Hilary. If Obama wins a significant portion of the Clinton camp will not vote for Obama.
4. The current stalement and bitter fight will fracture the Democratic party forever. It is possible that it can never be repaired and it is also possible that a third party will emerge that will be very powerful.
5. This third party will unify ALL middle class Americans (there is a significant upper class in the democratic party that 100% aligns with the Clintons). There will have to be reconciliation between the Blacks and the Hispanics but that is possible.
6. The result of all of this (which the Conservative commentators are beginning to sense) is that the Republican Party will be in power for quite some time (decades) and the reason for this will have been the Clinton thirst for power and dynasty.
The Clintons will have truly changed American life, however not in the way they would have intended.
I'm college-educated and educated in life enough to recognize when someone wants to divert my attention from the real issue. I reject the ultra-conservative Christian ranting and hate-mongering, as well as those of Rev. Wright. If you sit and listen to that garbage long enough, it seeps into your soul. Words do have power, and to let them go without response for so long implies agreement. To bring your children into this kind of environment in irresponsible, and for someone who participates in this to try to heal racial tensions will find it impossible. Rev. Wright's rants have been static, and he brings his congregation back to the past instead of leading them into a better future.