Comments on: One for the History Books

One for the History Books

caddis — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:31:37 -0800

Today we saw and heard a preview of our brightest possible American future in Senator Barack Obama's glorious speech. This, then, is what it means to be presidential. To be moral. To have a real center. To speak honestly, from the heart, for the benefit of all. If there was any doubt about what we have missed in the anti-intellectual, ruthlessly incurious Bush years, and even the slippery Clinton ones (the years of "what is is"), those doubts were laid to rest by Barack Obama's magisterial speech today. A speech in which he distanced himself from a flawed father figure, Reverend Wright, and did so with almost Shakespearian dignity and honor. One of the most important speeches on race in decades if not longer. (text)

One for the history books. Obama's Bold Gamble Crisis into opportunity. Even RedState (I love RedState in its own way) loves Obama, kind of He gave the speech that no one with a real audience seems to have had courage to give, it acknowledges the feelings of both the black community and of the working class whites who so often seem in opposition, and he gives both their props. Cortex will probably delete this post, but nevertheless he can not silence the amazing phenomena which is Obama.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:35:35 -0800

This thread comes pre metaed. If you have any thread-crapping to do please do it in the meta thread.

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:37:51 -0800

Brilliant speech btw. I never, particularly after the last 7 years, thought in my lifetime I would see a leader so presidential and so stirring that he could have been an Aaron Sorkin character (minus all the rapid-fire pop culture stuff), but here we are.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:39:40 -0800

Not only best of the web, but the best in and about America.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:40:33 -0800

Not that I'm letting go of my love of all things Obama, but he lost me right about here:

and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:40:35 -0800

God dammit. This: http://img214.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cnnqv6vb9.jpg Go there (Ive been up over 48 hrs on deadlines. Sorry everyone)

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:41:16 -0800

so stirring that he could have been an Aaron Sorkin character I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.

By: cell divide

cell divide — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:41:46 -0800

Who wrote the speech?

By: cell divide

cell divide — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:42:32 -0800

so stirring that he could have been an Aaron Sorkin character Am I the only one who doesn't see that as a positive thing?

By: plexi

plexi — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:42:43 -0800

Torrent here.

By: tepidmonkey

tepidmonkey — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:42:44 -0800

I loved Jon Stewart's response to the story of this speech. Something like, "And so, at 11 a.m. on this Tuesday morning, for the first time ever a politician talked to us about the issue of race like we were adults." It was a punchline, but it was delivered so earnestly that no one could laugh.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:42:52 -0800

Senor Cardgage- Wow, they actually ran with that? They must have changed it pretty quickish.

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:43:30 -0800

I certainly hope that picture is worth it, Senor Cardgage.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:44:49 -0800

It's a nice speech, I suppose, but really it highlights how dumb the mainstream media viewpoint is.

By: caddis

caddis — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:46:16 -0800

Who wrote the speech? Obama himself

By: booticon

booticon — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:47:24 -0800

CNN seriously fucking did that? Are y'all shitting me? Senor Cardgage, are you sure you didn't link to the wrong image yet again?

By: AwkwardPause

AwkwardPause — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:47:41 -0800

Please keep this post.

By: cell divide

cell divide — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:47:42 -0800

Obama himself Wow. It is an incredible speech, I think everyone should watch this. I admit to be resistant at first but I'm glad I listened to the whole thing.

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:47:47 -0800

Senor Cardgage- Wow, they actually ran with that? They must have changed it pretty quickish. Yup its real. Ran for like 7 minutes.

By: Miko

Miko — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:47:52 -0800

in no other country on Earth is my story even possible To be fair, he's not just talking about the mixing of cultures or black success - he's talking about his family's history, which combines rural white farm folk in Jim Crow mid-20th century Kansas relocating to Hawaii, where their daughter met and had a son with a Kenyan exchange student. I think the collision of the particulars of rural white America with the global nature of Obama's upbringing, followed by his struggle to define himself amidst polarizing racial identities in 1970s and 80s college and graduate programs and Chicago's street politics, really are uniquely American. The generalities - that people of mixed backgrounds can lead nations - are not. It's quite true that nations all over the world have brought forth leaders from non-dominant backgrounds. But I think he is speaking of these peculiarly American conditions within his upbringing, which could honestly arise in no other country of the world.

By: zeoslap

zeoslap — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:48:40 -0800

Great speech, just makes me realize how sick of dumb I am.

By: donpedro

donpedro — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:48:41 -0800

*Goes off to type 'Kevin Johnson political aspirations' into Google News.*

By: notjustfoxybrown

notjustfoxybrown — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:49:15 -0800

Stirring and so neccessary in these times. I admit that I was one of those walking around feeling all "kumbaya" like because Obama's doing so well. Today, I remembered that we still live in America ... and that is both a good and bad thing.

By: notjustfoxybrown

notjustfoxybrown — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:50:01 -0800

And thanks Miko for clarifying that line. I can't believe it needed an explanation.

By: Meatbomb

Meatbomb — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:50:29 -0800

By preemptively slamming cortex and predicting deletion you sort of prefuckup an otherwise interesting post.

By: goodnewsfortheinsane

goodnewsfortheinsane — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:52:13 -0800

cell divide: "Who wrote the speech?" Marc Ambinder: This wasn't a speech by committee... Obama wrote the speech himself, working on it for two days and nights.... and showed it to only a few of his top advisers. No attribution beyond that, however.

By: mattoxic

mattoxic — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:52:48 -0800

Cortex will probably delete this post, but nevertheless he can not silence the amazing phenomena which is Obama YEAH, TOO RIGHT CORTEX We've put up with your Obama silencing for too long. We're not gonna take it any more! Down with cortex Down with cortex Down with cortex Down with cortex

By: Weebot

Weebot — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:54:47 -0800

Am I the only one who was far from impressed by the speech? I watched it in the morning and then listened to clips of it, and while there is no denying Obama's rhetorical chops, the speech still reeked of politicking and damage control. I understand the imperatives that drove Obama to give this speech and it's good for what it needed to do, but to call it best of America takes the Obama worship way too far.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:58:39 -0800

I don't want to press the point because seriously, big ups to Obama, but is the following scenario completely impossible?

I am the son of a black man from Nigeria and a white woman from Bristol. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Churchill's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line in Grenwich while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in England and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black Jamaican who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:58:58 -0800

I have a dream... ...and I see it shared. And I have hope.

By: tkolar

tkolar — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:00:21 -0800

to call it best of America takes the Obama worship way too far. Shhhh! You're ruining it!

By: aqhong

aqhong — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:01:31 -0800

Regarding authorship, from the Newsweek article: "Obama dictated a first draft to his young speechwriter Jon Favreau on Saturday, then reworked the speech until 3 a.m. Monday. He went at it anew on Tuesday, tweaking away until 2 a.m. Did Obama's political aides try to warn him off the idea? 'It wasn't even a discussion,' says Axelrod. 'He was going to do it. I know this sounds perhaps corny, but he actually believes in the fairness and good sense of the American people, and the importance of this issue. His candidacy is predicated on the fact that we can talk to each other in an honest and forthright way on this and other issues.'"

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:02:38 -0800

Inspiring speech, but I still don't think he's Presidential material. Why didn't he come out with this speech BEFORE the Wright revelations? Obama, during the SC debate, was asked "Why Do You Think Bill Clinton Was Called The First Black President?" His answer was right down the middle; then he closed with "but I'm not sure if Bill is really a brother, because I haven't seen him dance". WTF? That's not playing the race card? What if Hillary has said that **about her husband**?? She'd be out of the race. Sorry folks, Obama is too slick for me. Hillary isn't perfect, either, but at least I know what I'm getting. Her negatives are out there, already. If Obama gets the Dem nod, McCain will be the next President. There's NO WAY that Obama will beat McCain in FL and OH. With PA a close call. In fact, there's even an outside chance that Independent S. CA voters (ex-Republicans, 4-1) could tip the scales in that state against Obama (if he gets the Dem nod) It makes me sick, as a moderate liberal, to see another left wing Democrat (or so he says, even though his views are centrist) taken under the wing of the Camelot Kennedy's, etc. etc. - like Kerry (basically a wimp), and Dukakis - and go on to defeat in the big elections. Either this country starts to elect moderate politicians, or we're doomed. We can't afford orators, or "good old boys" any more.

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:03:31 -0800

Jon Favreau? I thought it was weird when he referred to the electorate as "beautiful babies" (check out my awesome restraint in not going for the "Youre so money" gag)

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:04:39 -0800

And thanks Miko for clarifying that line. I can't believe it needed an explanation. Many non-Americans find American exceptionalism tiresome, not to mention utter bullshit. Obama's 2004 Democratic convention speech included a similar "only in America" line, and it's easy to interpret it as suggesting there's nowhere else in the world that immigrants are welcomed and become successful. In this case, I agree with Miko's intrepretation, but I can see why people might not read it the same way.

By: Miko

Miko — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:05:28 -0800

Am I the only one who was far from impressed by the speech? It's not the kind of stirring speech we know he can give. But it does reward some hard listening and thought. it's impressive how he weighs and ascribes merit to both the perspectives of the white descendants of the immigrants of Europe and the black descendants of the forced immigrants of Africa, and then points to the forces of division that have exploited the fear between the two groups of the "zero-sum game," creating resentments that have been privately aired but not publicly shared with a focus on solutions. When was the last time you heard a politician actually sum up the positions and perspectives of the "racial stalemate" we've had in the country for quite some time? He's naming the parts. He's talking in very real terms about very real issues in the nation's racial divide. I'm not sure I've heard anyone as prominent as he is put these sets of concerns on the same level, under the same degree of examination, and suggest that they need to be brought into true reconciliation in order to create a fair polity.

By: nola

nola — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:05:29 -0800

Heh . . . don't pick on cortex, and he won't have to SHAZZAM!

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:06:00 -0800

With PA a close call. I'm not so sure that Pennsylvania is a swing state. That's even less probable, if Obama were the Democratic candidate, given Philadelphia's large and politically active black community.

By: notjustfoxybrown

notjustfoxybrown — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:06:14 -0800

but is the following scenario completely impossible No, but has it happened?

By: notjustfoxybrown

notjustfoxybrown — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:07:14 -0800

Wait, has it even come close to happening? Has the UK had any black candidate ... even one who wasn't viable?

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:07:35 -0800

I'm actually listening to the speech now. Based on what people were saying, and the fact that I'm totally gay for Obama [NOT GAY], I'm not as blown away as I had thought I might be, so far. But, yes, it is more than refreshing -- it's like an effervescent hope enema laced with sunbeams -- to hear a politician who speaks both eloquently and plainly, and doesn't just shovel the same old tiresome bullshit that has made so many of us angrier and angrier over the past decades. Is it possible after the leering fratboy douchebag, the greasy gladhanding car-salesman, the halting evil robot, and the wanna-be cowboy moron -- the last quarter-century of American presidential disappointments -- there might actually be the possibility of a reasonable, articulate, intelligent, ethical person at the top of the shit pyramid in Washington. I have hope, too.

By: yazi

yazi — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:08:12 -0800

You say "the anti-intellectual, ruthlessly incurious Bush years, and even the slippery Clinton ones" Oh, yes, they say. And work more on that perspective. Yer right, but extend it back, back, back. The degradation of America goes back to the pre-WWII decade, and then even more to the post-War 50s and 60s. THe fault is us! We stopped being local. We stopped eating real food, discipling and educating real children, reading real words and thoughts, not voting and acting by blocks and neighborhoods, not fixing, not cleaning. It's us. Bring it, Barack. Inspire people to live in their homes, work and build, and talk in their homes. THrow off the yoke of the cookie-cutter mind and stomach. Sigh and double sighs.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:08:24 -0800

The speech, at this point, discussed possibilities not realities. I can think of nothing in either British law nor British national character that would prevent it. Well, it would pose difficulties for such a person to become head of state, I guess, but this hypothetical person could sure be prime minister.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:10:34 -0800

Hm. I normally wouldn't do this, but I spent a long time trying to think of what I would say about this on my blog, and I don't think I can add any more to it: I've been trying to think of something appropriate to say about the speech Obama gave today, and I don't know where to start. I've read dozens of reactions, pro and con, but I feel like no one's managed yet to grasp the meaning of what he just did. There are a lot of people who've effused about oh what a wonderful speech it was, as well as a sizable contingent who've been nitpicking about it, but I haven't seen anyone yet who really seems to have grasped just what it meant. Even the people who've said that Obama "elevated the discourse" in some way don't seem to be able to explain how. The "how" is that it was a speech that my grandmother, who, like Obama's, is a saint of a woman who nevertheless harbors some racial prejudices that are so very, very hard for me to reconcile with my image of her as one of the sweetest, most wonderful people in my life -- and Obama's speech is the first time I heard anything that I think -- I know -- she would really understand. The first. I don't know if the speech will make a difference in the primary, and I don't know how the press will ultimately spin it. Elections are complex things, and I don't think the most important effects of this speech are ultimately about the election. I'd like to put the election aside for a moment and just talk about what Obama just did, which by all rights shouldn't have been possible. What I honestly believe is this: that speech was a singular intellectual achievement, a contribution to the race debate in this country that will reshape everything that came before it and that comes after. I want to be crystal clear that I am not saying this in support of Obama's Presidential bid. Some of the most brilliant, eloquent, educated, dedicated people I've ever met have spent years trying to grapple with the problem of race relations in the United States -- affirmative action in particular -- and none of them has ever come up with a response or a take on the issue that hit home. Not even close. I'd wager that I've spent more time pondering these issues that most people ever have or will, and it's never been anything but draining and frustrating. Texas Law is, after all, the unfortunate home for Painter, and more recently Hopwood, making it in many respects ground zero regarding affirmative action. There are still people on the faculty here who were directly involved in the case on both sides, and the issue is not far from the surface -- you can feel it. After nine years here, it's become almost palpable to me. And it grinds you down, because the tension never goes away -- every time I hear anyone say anything about race issues, no matter what their angle, no matter how radical or how conciliatory, I cringe inside, because I've heard all the reactions -- far too many times -- and I just know that there's no way anyone on the other side of the issue would react any way but negatively. It's a Möbius Strip of good intentions come to horrible ends. (And some not-so-good intentions as well, of course.) Much of the commentary on Obama's speech hasn't yet credited just how intractable a political problem this has been for so long -- nor how much effort has been expended here to such negligible effect -- and the almost surreal ease with which Obama just shattered a seemingly-impregnable political barrier. As a long-time supporter of affirmative action, I've been almost despondent at times trying to think of some way, any way, to move the issue forward. Greater minds than mine have tried and failed -- endless volumes of books, treatises, essays, and court decisions have done next to nothing to unravel the Gordian Knot; every statement that's made, you can just feel that it doesn't quite cut through. And yet, somehow, in one moment, Obama just... did it. That shouldn't even have been possible. I have been waiting for the better part of my adult life for someone to hit that perfect pitch, and Obama finally did it. That speech was the first time I've felt that I could say yes -- that is something I could say to my Midwestern relatives that they would actually understand. He connected their frustrations -- the frustrations that fueled the Southern Strategy, in many ways -- with the frustrations of African-Americans. That's a profound, profound thing. And it wasn't just Obama's take on the situation or his life experiences, and it wasn't just a pretty speech; he actually connected the intellectual dots in a unique and original way -- in a way that even great scholars haven't yet been able to -- and he did it more than once. All the strands came together -- his pastor, the media circus, his church, his grandmother: those were universal chords. They will resonate. I doubt that it'll become clear just how amazing this moment was for some time to come, but that was an intellectual and political tour de force on an absolutely unprecedented level. That was a stake through the heart of racism in this country, the Prejudice That Dare Not Speak Its Name, the "I'm not a racist, but..." sentiments that have fueled racial divisions between Americans since the end of the Civil War. That was really something special.

By: Miko

Miko — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:10:54 -0800

When that hypothetical person is real perhaps we could have a more pointed discussion about possibility.

By: notjustfoxybrown

notjustfoxybrown — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:12:14 -0800

either British law nor British national character that would prevent it. The former might be true but the latter is bullshit. Sorry.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:12:26 -0800

When your real person is elected president in reality, we'll see whether the possibility he discussed is real or not.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:13:23 -0800

Really?

By: kozad

kozad — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:13:38 -0800

This is the USA. This speech could honestly arise in no other country of the world. Patriotism belongs to us, to; not especially to the Falwell/Robertson/Cheney/Bush/CEOs coalition. Time to take this uniquely multi-culti country back. I love it. I've lived many places; I love this place. I love others more, sometimes, but this is my home and I miss it when I've left it. This is where the music and the idealism and its enlightened confusion still lives among its people, if not in its corporate-political leadership. Can we stay together (cue Al Green)? We will see. Count me, for at least these brief minutes before I fall asleep, as an optimist. Why can't we take control of this huge state and make it at least something resembling "The Shining City on the Hill?"

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:14:04 -0800

Spiderwire, you mind if I steal that and send it everywhere?

By: FelliniBlank

FelliniBlank — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:14:33 -0800

Many non-Americans find American exceptionalism tiresome, not to mention utter bullshit. Granted, and so do many Americans. However, it's only fair to acknowledge that the exceptionalist riff has been an inextricable part of English-speaking American political discourse from the get-go and that this rah-rah chauvinism plays big to the cheap seats, just as the same general sort of rah-rah national pride rhetoric undoubtedly works on the electorates of many other nations.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:14:42 -0800

The former might be true but the latter is bullshit. Maybe so. But discussions about Obama constantly turn back to "a black guy will never win in this state, and a black guy will never win with this section of the population". What evidence is there that race relations in, say, England, are that much worse than they still are in the US?

By: Miko

Miko — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:14:48 -0800

I don't even think we're discussing whether he's elected President or not. He's the front-running candidate for a major party nomination and is a mixed-race citizen of the country. If I'm not mistaken, that has not yet existed in your nation.

By: goodnewsfortheinsane

goodnewsfortheinsane — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:15:48 -0800

While we're at it: Iowa New Hampshire South Carolina Potomac Primaries

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:15:55 -0800

I completely and unreservedly withdraw all my comments, because I'm starting to give the impression that I don't want this guy to win.

By: notjustfoxybrown

notjustfoxybrown — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:16:24 -0800

The possibility he's discussing is not his eventual victory, but the success he's seen so far. Name me a politician ... a successful, prominent, universally recognized politician with his background in the U.K., with the type of support he's seen.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:16:42 -0800

You're right it hasn't existed in my nation, but I was talking about England, because I know damn well it's not a possibility in my nation ;)

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:17:38 -0800

I'm actually listening to the speech now. Based on what people were saying, and the fact that I'm totally gay for Obama [NOT GAY], I'm not as blown away as I had thought I might be, so far. Really? As someone who was completely unimpressed with Obama, I'm now impressed. A very mature talk on the subject of race, more notable still because it was given on television by a candidate for national office.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:18:30 -0800

By: Rhaomi

Rhaomi — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:18:45 -0800

I saw the speech live on CNN. It was a ray of hope that restored my faith in Obama's ability to handle himself in a crisis. A bold challenge to the current state of our politics, and the media's bloodlust for distraction and sensationalism. A call for unity, to bypass these petty attitudes and confront our more pressing problems. Then the speech ends. The first words out of Wolf Blitzer's mouth in response? "I thought it was a preemptive strike designed to rebut all the criticism, not only he's faced over the past few weeks as a result of these comments from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright coming to light, Heidi, but going down the road in terms of his continuing struggle to get the Democratic presidential nomination, the struggle against Hillary Clinton. And then if he does get the Democratic presidential nomination, a preemptive strike against what he could expect down the road in his battle against John McCain in the general election in the fall." And then it all falls back into simplification and banality. On a completely unrelated note, I just got done watching that scene towards the end of the last Matrix movie. For hours, the audience had been dragged through this dark and dreary hellscape of shadows and fire and smoke and clanking machines. And then, right as Neo and Trinity are about to have their ship disemboweled by ravening killbots, they rocket upwards towards the angry thunderheads churning above them. They break through. For a few moments, the screen is filled with light. The battered, disabled craft soars past puffy cumulus and blue skies. The long-forgotten sun sparkles off of the scratched windows. Trinity, who has suffered a lifetime trapped in the cavernous, dangerous underworld, can only stare in disbelief. "Beautiful", she whispers. Then they arc past the moon, turn down, and plummet back into the inky depths, imbued with new momentum and ready to crash the gates of the machine city. It's like a metaphor. Or something.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:20:42 -0800

Wolf Blitzer is a dick. All he could think to ask any guests was "do you think Obama condemmed pastor whatsisface enough".

By: Weebot

Weebot — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:21:15 -0800

Miko: I didn't criticize the fact that it was flatter than his other speeches. In fact, I said the opposite; I listened to it on the radio and the sentiment was sharper the second time around.

By: Miko

Miko — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:22:00 -0800

I was talking about England -sigh- I can't keep track. Why are you talking about England? These things do occur within a cultural context, after all. It's not always American exceptionalism to recognize that American culture has features that don't exist in other cultures, just as the other cultures have features not extant in America. In this speech, Obama is addressing specifically American constructions of race, and for all the reasons spiderwire mentions, it has a lot of power.

By: mdn

mdn — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:22:26 -0800

which combines rural white farm folk in Jim Crow mid-20th century Kansas relocating to Hawaii, where their daughter met and had a son with a Kenyan exchange student. I think the collision of the particulars of rural white America with the global nature of Obama's upbringing, followed by his struggle to define himself amidst polarizing racial identities in 1970s and 80s college and graduate programs and Chicago's street politics, really are uniquely American. If you're going to specify "mid 20th century Kansas" and "Hawaii" and "Kenyan exchange student" then sure, it's trivially only possible in america - it's only possible where he could have been brought up in mid 20th century Kansas, for starters. But that a white woman whose ancestry was racist or slave-owning could marry an African happens all the time in Europe, since they have a lot more direct African immigrants. It seems "uniquely American" only in that it actually happened in America, and because his experience was American, i.e., he has a sense of what being black in America is like due to the shade of his skin, which he might not have if his dad had done his exchange program in London. That doesn't really make his story itself only possible in America...

By: pompomtom

pompomtom — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:23:29 -0800

But I think he is speaking of these peculiarly American conditions within his upbringing, which could honestly arise in no other country of the world. I don't doubt that his 'story' can be defined in such a way ("best schools in America", "Pattons army" etc), but I thought it sounded like simple "aren't we great" jingoism. I mean, it doesn't really add anything, but if it makes the (target) audience (of which I am not a member) feel good about themselves (and thus the event, and the candidate), then yay for that.

By: notjustfoxybrown

notjustfoxybrown — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:25:10 -0800

My final thoughts on the speech and the matter before bed: I bet there's gonna be a bunch of white people at church on Sunday trying to get a handle on what we talk about there (I only go like four times a year so I'm not sure what's said the rest of the time.) I better get there early for a seat. This, by the way, is what they call a joke.

By: Miko

Miko — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:25:17 -0800

I disagree, mdn, because slavery and colonialism and post-slavery eras were not all the same in the nations you mention. They're not interchangeable. What it means to come from mid-20th -century Kansas is not interchangeable with what it means to come from some European city with a different history. he has a sense of what being black in America is like due to the shade of his skin Exactly. That doesn't really make his story itself only possible in America I'd say it does.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:25:56 -0800

And then it all falls back into simplification and banality. A good read on how the mainstream media has failed the United States is James Fallows' Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy. By framing all political activity in terms of candidate A vs B, for the purposes of garnering ratings, we do not get to discuss matters in an adult and thoughtful way. Instead, we can only rely on the infrequent good fortune to have YouTube and the like to watch politicians be human beings and discuss their ideas without the media's inane blabber getting in the way.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:26:38 -0800

Politicians telling the truth. What's next? A black guy as president.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:29:33 -0800

he has a sense of what being black in America is like due to the shade of his skin Exactly. That doesn't really make his story itself only possible in America I'd say it does. That comment wasn't about mixed race heritage, but a minority reaching the heights, so will this do? I'm sure it's not the only example. But what an example it is. Do actually read it.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:29:36 -0800

Hoping that the media didn't utterly mangle the message was certainly one of the bigger risks he took with this.

By: Dennis Murphy

Dennis Murphy — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:31:12 -0800

I believe that was what they call "a joke". posted by Artw at 10:18 PM Really? White people can't dance/ black people can dance is still funny? Or just to british writers? Maybe a great speech, but he has the comedic talents of arsenio hall.

By: darkstar

darkstar — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:32:33 -0800

Like the Gettysburg Address, we probably won't understand what this speech meant for America until some passage of time has seasoned it in our consciences. But I got a glimpse of it today. I was talking with my white, 81-year-old stepdad about the speech. He grew up in Eastern Kentucky, in the coal mining hills. He still uses the "N" word to refer to African Americans. And he is a Clinton supporter. But today, when he watched Obama give his speech, he said he was moved to tears. That's what this speech meant. I don't know how to put that into words, but I know it's something...wonderful.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:33:06 -0800

Really? As someone who was completely unimpressed with Obama, I'm now impressed. I just finished listening to it, and I think I want to listen again, but I'll say that the speech was pitch-perfect, not in any blow-dried soundbite CNN-pandering way, but in a real way, both in terms of delivery and language used, direct and yet carefully understated. Masterful, in every way, in the ideas and the way they were presented. It didn't stir me, or get my heart racing, the way that some of his other speeches have, and the way that some of the great speeches delivered by... (well, I can't think of an American one since Kennedy, to be honest), but I don't think, just off the top of my head having just listened to it, it was intended to. It wasn't that kind of speech, intended to rouse the masses, to be populist. It was plain, smart talk, and yes, I am even more impressed by the man than I was before, which I find a little hard to believe. I can't understand why Hillary Clinton is still in this race, to be honest. By comparison, she is so gratingly false, and by comparison, the way she telegraphs the... politicalness... of what she says, well, it seems like it comes from another century, like she should be in black and white (no pun intended), with frenetic piano music and dialogue cards flashed up between her thud-dullard rah-rah soundbite-timed pronouncements. But then, I guess the broad, Edward Bernaysian political manipulative dumbass thaumaturgy is from another century. Thank god it might finally be coming to an end.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:33:54 -0800

-shrugs- For an offhand comment it seemed pretty witty and charming to me.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:33:56 -0800

That doesn't really make his story itself only possible in America I'd say it does. Dammit. I'm back. If you want to get down to the idea that only the very specific details of his story could happen in America, rather than the broader themes, then why not take it further? Face it. That story could have only happened to him and might not say anything about broader American culture at all. After all, he's just 1 in 300,000,000 or so.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:35:00 -0800

That comment wasn't about mixed race heritage, but a minority reaching the heights, so will this do? To be fair, Canada is a bit ahead of the United States on most racial matters (and the same or behind on certain others), largely due to its history of seeing immigration as a positive for Canadian society.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:35:05 -0800

not in any blow-dried soundbite CNN-pandering way CNN seems to, in fact, be bending over backwards to fuck it up by fitting it into some kind of dramatic framework they can cope with.

By: mwhybark

mwhybark — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:35:19 -0800

Cortex will probably delete this post, but nevertheless he can not silence the amazing phenomena which is Obama. Way to crap on your own post. I mean, this is clearly the moment that brings it home or ends it for the candidate, and you choose to close the post with a nasty, pointless remark directed at a volunteer moderator that simultaneously shifts the focus from Obama's ideas and skills as a communicator to his role as a totem, a 'phenomena,' as you put it. Seriously, if the nomination is Obama's, and he wins, this speech will become a teaching tool in schools for two generations. It's as though you posted a thread on the day of the Gettysburg Address or on the day of the March on Washington, highlighting the day's speeches made by Lincoln or King, and ended it with extended middle finger directed at the staff of the newsletter or newspaper you hoped would publish it. You have cheapened your own perspective and lessened an important moment in American political history. Not that Wolf Blitzer has anything on you, but, like, kick it down a notch.

By: mwhybark

mwhybark — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:37:24 -0800

But today, when he watched Obama give his speech, he said he was moved to tears. Me too, for what it's worth. Let's hope we're not alone.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:37:31 -0800

mwhybark - In defence of caddis, there is some history to that (see the meta thread), though not history that really should have made it into this post.

By: billyfleetwood

billyfleetwood — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:38:14 -0800

> Am I the only one who was far from impressed by the speech? You could always go over to The Corner where they've pretty much proven that the whole speech was a thinly veiled threat to make being White illegal as soon as he's elected. Or something. That site doesn't really make much sense to me. All politics aside, from the point of view of a Black man who grew up in post-civil rights America, his speech was profound and moving. There is nothing about my life that fits into the simplistic polarized view of race that has been widely accepted as reality in mainstream discourse. I guess anyone can read whatever they want into his words. What I heard, was a call for a more intelligent nuanced and sympathetic discussion on a topic that isn't going away anytime soon. Giving that he's in the middle of a run for the highest office in the land, that's a pretty courageous thing to call for.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:39:05 -0800

True, BP. The equivalent would be, say, a Native Canadian becoming G.G., in terms of dealing with our own societal prejudices. But it's still a hell of a story, and I don't think it quite fits with the "only in America" perception, but whatever. That bit of rhetoric is hardly new.

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:39:08 -0800

Miko: It's possible, at least here in Canada.

By: librarylis

librarylis — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:39:12 -0800

I've been fairly apolitical this election cycle (though not usually) because it's been really hard to make up my mind. Do I choose the first X or the first Y? Is that even a valid method of choice? What about differing views on Issue Z? *Are* there any differences between the two candidates, really? It's all been bouncing around in my head, like a mini-laundromat. I accidentally caught a snippet of this speech while waiting in a friend's car today and I was blown away. Much thanks to Caddis for posting it, since I've been meaning to listen to the whole thing. Whether or not one believes Obama's situation is particularly unique to America or not (and I am not in the LEAST convinced that any country in Western Europe would at this time feel comfortable electing a man of color to their highest political position), it's worth pointing out that for America, this is historic. Obama's entire speech was a recognition of how much hope it's taken to even get this far. So maybe his rhetoric was a bit over the top. He's a politician running for office--'over the top' is entirely to be expected. American exceptionalism, too. He's not running for leader of the UN, he's running for leader of the United States.

By: Miko

Miko — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:39:27 -0800

so will this do? With all due respect to everyone, there honestly is limited value in comparisons to other Western democracies here. What am I supposed to take from this story? I don't understand Canadian politics, and I have no way of estimating how unusual it is for a Haitian with a fabulous education to get some sort of important government post. I would need cultural context to understand this. I do understand how unusual it is for a mixed-race, liberal American to be a viable candidate for the highest office in our nation after centuries of systemic discrimination and a particular and gradual history of civil rights agitation that has followed its own pace, created its own leaders, and taken its own course. Our racial history here is unique; just as the racial histories of all other countries are unique. The solutions that bring about racial parity will also be unique. They will occur within a cultural context that addresses the fears of the dominant group - whatever those may be - while advancing the aims of the underrepresented group - whatever those may be. The details will not be the same nation to nation, nor will the relative import of the events be exactly equivalent. Not only because our cultural histories are different, but also, for heaven's sake, that our apportionment of power within government is quite different. A President is not a PM. I agree that it may not be exceptional that A Black Person could achieve A High Office in A Western Democracy. But it is exceptional that Barack Obama is the Leading Contender for the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States.

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:41:27 -0800

Obama, during the SC debate, was asked "Why Do You Think Bill Clinton Was Called The First Black President?" His answer was right down the middle; then he closed with "but I'm not sure if Bill is really a brother, because I haven't seen him dance". I believe that was what they call "a joke". You mean a "racist joke", right? Sure, it was a light moment. I watched the debate, but there's NO WAY that Hillary could have said that even about her own husband. All that aside, Obama would be a great UN representative, or head of HEW, but President? Spare me? I want someone who knows how to get their hands dirty, and go right down in the dirt to duke it out with the forces of neocon evil. I don't think Obama can do that; in fact, I know he can't.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:44:20 -0800

I would need cultural context to understand this. Oh dear, Miko. I do find your comments to be insightful and intelligent, but come on. Arrives a refugee and ends up Governor General? The context was there. I guess you missed it. Clearly there has never been a success story like Obama's. America the beautiful, etc, etc. I was beginning to forget the refrain. I'll happily bow out now.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:47:29 -0800

If Obama gets the Dem nod, McCain will be the next President. There's NO WAY that Obama will beat McCain in FL and OH. With PA a close call. In fact, there's even an outside chance that Independent S. CA voters (ex-Republicans, 4-1) could tip the scales in that state against Obama (if he gets the Dem nod) Metaman, why? Let me acknowlege the elephant in the room. If, as seems highly probable, Hillary is behind in the pleged delegates and she gets the white super delegates to throw the election to her (newsflash--nearly every black super will vote for him for fear of never holding elected office) what makes you think that Hillary will be able to win without the support of African-Americans? Do you really think that they are going to vote for her? They will stay home or vote for McCain because they will feel rightfully that white America and the Democratic Party will have abandoned them. Not only that but it will take decades for the party to recover. And its not just blacks. Obama gets college age kids to register and vote Democratic. Studies show that first registration usually sticks. The Democrats will lose those voters forever. Hillary is going to destroy the party if she pulls off this manuver. Not just for this election, but for decades.Perhaps for all time. I've been a party activist for 20 years but if this works, the Democratic Party doesn't stand for what I believe in. If Hillary leads in pleged delegates, I will vote for her in the fall. If not and she becomes the nominee, I won't be able to vote for this party ever again. What makes it worse is that he consistently does better than her in the polls against McCain. Her whole premise is a lie.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:48:22 -0800

Caught most of it on CSPAN tonight - good speech. Hell, by U.S. political standards, it was a fucking great speech. Except for the part, of course, where he absolved rightwing Israeli government policies from any blame for the Palestinian mess. *gag* Still, it's obvious this guy really does have potential to bring folks together. It's weird how Obama's relationship with Wright - and the distancing from him, which began the day Obama announced - has been covered for at least a year but is just now getting traction. Obama's people knew this was going to be an issue, so they've had time to prepare a solid response. He did good. But, honestly, I wonder how much this speech can do to stem the impact of the attack ads we'll see in the fall with Wright's worst quotes superimposed over Obama's face. You can hear McCain's team giggling at the thought of a convenient "third-party" spot pointing out that Wright went to visit Qaddafi in Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan. Wright himself reportedly said, "When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Colonel Gadaffi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell." McCain would have to be an idiot to not use that, and Obama's going to have to hit back hard if he wants to win. I worry that his "we can all be reasonable" approach is going to have him on the defensive throughout most of the fall. Not a good place to be, even against a weak candidate like McCain. I still think Obama's a better Dem nominee than Clinton, barely, but you've got to be a fool to think this episode is over after today.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:48:31 -0800

The context was there. I guess you missed it. I don't wish to speak for Miko, but the context, I think, is that Canada is not the United States. For Obama to get as far as he has, given the history of the United States, is not only improbable but unprecedented. Again, that's with respect to the culture and background in the United States, because other countries have had female heads of state, for example (UK, Finland), and that, too, would be unusual and unprecedented for the United States, to its great shame.

By: tkolar

tkolar — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:48:47 -0800

billyfleetwood ... What I heard, was a call for a more intelligent nuanced and sympathetic discussion on a topic that isn't going away anytime soon. Speaking as a wealthy middle-aged white guy, that's what I heard too. Giving that he's in the middle of a run for the highest office in the land, that's a pretty courageous thing to call for. And one thing that I *am* sure of is that whether he wins or not, the fact that he was able to give that speech in that context will be another push in the right direction for racial politics in the U.S. So good on him. (the cynic in me, however, tells me that he's pretty much doomed on the presidential front. Sure would love to be wrong.)

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:49:30 -0800

I watched the debate, but there's NO WAY that Hillary could have said that even about her own husband. Bill could of pulled it off. I agree that Hillary couldn't, but that's mostly down to her being Hillary. And really, that's where the level is for "OMG racism"? I'm not sure that helps anything or anyone.

By: Miko

Miko — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:49:50 -0800

I'm reading about Canadian government strcuture. This Governor General, then, is appointed by the monarch of England? This person serves "at her Majesty's pleasure?" For no specific term? The position alternates by convention between French and English speakers? The position serves as a monarchical "check" on the government powers of the PM? That's quite a different path to power than what we're discussing here. I'm just saying that the generalities here are of very limited use. Obama needs to make his case within an American context. Were he to win the general election, it would be a pretty huge deal, given our government structure, cultural context, and particular history.

By: empath

empath — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:49:56 -0800

I'm not sure why this is, but I find myself intensely disliking people that nitpick Obama speeches. I feel like it tells me everything I need to know about them, that they're kind of person that could read or watch a speech like that and then focus on trivialities just to tear the man down.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:50:31 -0800

Dammit. I'm back. If you want to get down to the idea that only the very specific details of his story could happen in America, rather than the broader themes, then why not take it further? Face it. That story could have only happened to him and might not say anything about broader American culture at all. After all, he's just 1 in 300,000,000 or so. Jimbob, I can't remember how familiar you are with American political history, but what Obama's saying was accurate, in a certain way -- though I can imagine how it sounds to you, and I don't blame you for your reaction. And your reading is not necessarily wrong. But, by way of providing an alternate take, I've never taken that statement as America-centric nationalism ("Only in America, because America is the greatest..."), but rather as an observation on where he stands in our history personally, which is frankly at a very bizarre and unique place. Despite what you say, there are very, very few people in this country who have a background that's anything like Barack Obama's, in terms of how it relates to our cultural heritage. It's a contextual comment about the United States itself, and how Obama's lived somewhere near the intersection of many strands of our history and the conflicted emotions associated with them -- division, reconcilation, pride, anger, hope, guilt... We're a country that's deeply divided but almost totally unable to articulate why or how, and he's in a way a living representation of those contradictions. That's not to say that he's some avatar of redemption. Many of those various threads are positive, either in Obama's case (his father leaving him), nor in general. The point is that they exist and that they're a part of us, and he represents them in a way that's concrete rather than abstract, which they often are for many Americans who don't have a lot of contact with people outside their own insulated groups. Most American public figures are either very cookie-cutter or make an effort to fit inside those predefined categories. Someone who doesn't do that -- and is actively showing it like he is -- really is something pretty rare for us.

By: Rumple

Rumple — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:53:45 -0800

Michaelle Jean was appointed, not elected. Speaking of England, lets not forget they elected a woman prime minister 25-odd years ago, and, that woman was herself the daughter of a humble shopkeeper. So, I dont dismiss so lightly what the English are capable of, especially now. (Ihate the crusty old blighted island but facts are facts).

By: tkolar

tkolar — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:54:00 -0800

I feel like it tells me everything I need to know about them, Ah, that's the politicsfilter I know and love. [goes and deletes post from recent activity]

By: empath

empath — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:54:06 -0800

Also, this is not the first speech his done of this type or quality. His speech on religion and politics was just as thoughtful.

By: Joseph Gurl

Joseph Gurl — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:54:15 -0800

ONLY IN AMERICA

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:54:56 -0800

Miko has it, in my opinion. I didn't think I'd see this in my lifetime. I'm done being a measured supporter of Obama. I am now a member of the cult.

By: empath

empath — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:56:16 -0800

tkolar -- just to be clear, I'm fine with people criticizing the substance. What drives me up a wall is people pulling quotes out of context or saying things like "He threw his grandmother under the bus" after seeing a speech like that. I can't help it.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:56:26 -0800

Spiderwire, you mind if I steal that and send it everywhere? Of course not! I really wish I could just explain it more clearly, and without sounding like such a sunshine-pumper.

By: Miko

Miko — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:56:27 -0800

Obama's lived somewhere near the intersection of many strands of our history This entire comment is beautifully said, spiderwire. To our observers from overseas, I think all I can say is to read that and take it in. It's not that we believe that only in America can people from once-oppressed groups lead. It's that people with his particular set of experiences are indeed quite rare here, and that to be as great a success as he has been, he has to make sense to people on both ends of a very long continuum. Because of his background at spiderwire's "intersection," he has that ability and it may be the very thing, even the only thing, that could win for so unlikely, given our history, the broad public support required to gain our highest and most powerful office.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:57:43 -0800

I'm done being a measured supporter of Obama. I am now a member of the cult. You'll be more effective as a measured supporter. Rethink.

By: Rumple

Rumple — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:58:08 -0800

By: cytherea

cytherea — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:59:30 -0800

The only thing I dislike more than corrupt politicians is hero worship.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:01:01 -0800

But I think he is speaking of these peculiarly American conditions within his upbringing, which could honestly arise in no other country of the world. That's true, but what's also true is that the U.S. will be the first non-African country with a black president (With one exception being a south American country with a 40% black population, IIRC) WTF? That's not playing the race card? What if Hillary has said that **about her husband**?? She'd be out of the race. -- MetaMan. It's called a joke dude, lighten up. And by the way, Hillary has made jokes about her husband being "The first black president", and being in an "interracial relationship". So your central premise is actually wrong here, like your electoral prognostication (Obama losing CA? Get real) Obama wins head-to-head match up polling against McCain, and this crap only matters in Primaries where people worry about what other people think. In a general election, they only care what they think, and no one is going to vote for John "More wars, Less jobs" McCain. The biggest Fairy Tale in this election is the idea that any of the top democrats could lose. We stopped eating real food, discipling and educating real children, reading real words and thoughts, not voting and acting by blocks and neighborhoods, not fixing, not cleaning. Americans are smarter and live longer lives then they did in the 1930s. -- Anyway, repeating what I said in the MeTa, I'm kind of annoyed that Obama even had to give this speech. Nothing write said would have been beyond the pail for Conservative religious leaders, but when a Liberal religious leader spouts fiery rhetoric the media has a collective freakout session. "God Damn America"? At an evangelical "values voters summit" attended by republican presidential candidates several months ago they sang a version of "God Bless America" with "Bless" replaced with "Damn" where they whined about abortion and Teh Ghey. It cropped up on the Daily show and some liberal blogs. And look at John McCain's new best buddy John Hagge, a guy who thinks Catholics are devil worshipers and wants to go to war with Iran to hasten the end times. Is what Wright said worse? I really don't think so. The whole thing is a total distraction and while what Wright said was incendiary it would be par for the course on a site like Daily Kos. This idea that you're a horrible person if you don't praise America 100% of the time is ridiculous. Anyway, since I think race relations in this country are pretty much fine, since I wasn't frightened by Wrights comments, and since I'm not at risk of voting for Hillary I'm kind of detached from this whole thing. But, I've got too say he really took over the news cycle with this thing, and it was a very daring thing to do. And that's a quality that has been very lacking in democrats lately. Imagine (as someone in the MeTa mentioned) if Kerry had given a speech as daring as this one about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? He'd probably be president right now. A lack of political cowardice is a major part of Obama, and that's something we need in a candidate. Someone who can take these issues and anything else that crops up in an election head-on. Frankly, I was kind of expecting Obama to sort of ignore this stuff, hope it would go away and perhaps take a 5% hit in the polls or something. Not enough to lose the nomination at this point, but it would be something that would tarnish him. But he really pivoted on this beautifully. He's won the news cycle, and all the pundits are heaping praise on the guy. He really is a fantastic politician.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:02:07 -0800

I feel like it tells me everything I need to know about them, that they're kind of person that could read or watch a speech like that and then focus on trivialities just to tear the man down. I nitpicked his speech because that was the only clause in it that was in any way non-brilliant. Most speech these days are 99% bullshit, rather than only 1% bullshit, so it's harder to take them to pieces. Despite what you say, there are very, very few people in this country who have a background that's anything like Barack Obama's, in terms of how it relates to our cultural heritage. Well, that was kind of my point. Very few people. And yet the way I read that speech, he seemed to be implying that there's something unique about America that led to him being allowed to exist. Obama is a very rare occurence - if something like that is so very rare and unusual, how can it be used to justify the idea that it is "only possible in America". Were he to win the general election, it would be a pretty huge deal, given our government structure, cultural context, and particular history. Once again - America is so special that it's the only place someone like Obama could be succesful...and yet it would be a huge, historic deal if he is actually successful. Doesn't that sit kinda weirdly with you guys?

By: azpenguin

azpenguin — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:02:33 -0800

I didn't get to see the speech and haven't had the time to watch it on YouTube. However, I did read it. And the impact is stunning when you have the time to stop and re-read phrases of it that really got your attention, and go back and look at just how he ties everything together. This was a true "we need to talk" moment that I don't think anyone else could have delivered in such a way that people would take notice. Obama was able to deliver the message both from the point of view of someone caught in the middle of racial tensions, and from that of those who are seeing a whole different set of race issues. Very little of this was about the campaign, which is almost unbelievable when it's campaign season and all politicians can do with microphones is promote themselves. This, though, is what really stuck with me: "I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork." We're looking at something I haven't seen in... well, I don't know if I've ever seen this - a candidate who is willing to handle political poison and discuss what the issue is really about, instead of playing it safe and going for the soundbite win. (He did the same thing this week with the Chicago tribune's editorial board, spending 3 hours answering all of their questions about his connections to Rezko.)

By: empath

empath — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:03:19 -0800

I think a fair point of criticism, for example is pointing out that Obama's solution to the race problem seems to be spending more money on the same tired liberal programs that have done almost nothing to solve endemic poverty. I'd prefer to see something more bold from him. But I think before you get into criticism you at least have to recognize what he accomplished in terms of re-writing the racial narrative of America. It's a rare talent that can do something like that, and focusing on whatever was lacking in the speech just strikes me as being petty and small-minded.

By: empath

empath — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:05:11 -0800

also: jimbob, that wasn't directed at you. I was thinking more of the hillary-bots on the liberal blogs and the Corner folks at the National Review.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:06:20 -0800

And look at John McCain's new best buddy John Hagge, a guy who thinks Catholics are devil worshipers and wants to go to war with Iran to hasten the end times. The fact that the press isn't also going after McCain to distance himself from Hagge is one of the most disgusting things about this mess. Hagge's statements are much more specifically hurtful, but conservative extremism doesn't rate on the outrage scale, apparently. At an evangelical "values voters summit" attended by republican presidential candidates several months ago they sang a version of "God Bless America" with "Bless" replaced with "Damn" where they whined about abortion and Teh Ghey. I'd love to have a cite for this, if anyone's got one handy. I'm not doubting, just wanting the specifics.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:07:49 -0800

you've got to be a fool to think this episode is over after today. I am quite probably a fool, but I still can't understand why anyone gives a shit about 'the episode' (this Wright fellow, I assume), other than because the news media that needs fake-dramatic meat for its idiot grinder tells them they should. I really don't quite get why anyone who is both intelligent and thoughtful actually cares. I suppose it's a bit like the reaction of a child regularly beaten to flinch at a raised hand, even if that hand is raised in love.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:08:31 -0800

focusing on whatever was lacking in the speech just strikes me as being ~~petty and small-minded~~ realistic and even-handed. Much better. It's possible to be excited by Obama's candidacy and not leave your brain at the door. Acknowledging the beauty of the speech and then moving on to point out where you disagree with it is hardly "small-minded." Get a grip.

By: stupidsexyFlanders

stupidsexyFlanders — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:14:02 -0800

This speech just sucked all the oxygen out of the room. Hillary who?

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:20:15 -0800

I read Obama's statement exactly as Jimbob did: American exceptionalism, plain and simple, the flip side of the God's Country Bringin' Freedom and Liberty to The World attitude that has led to so many tears globally. Nobody (OK, lots of people, but you know what I'm saying) has been more vocal in their condemnation of that sort of thing, or more angry and disappointed at what has happened to America in the past 8 years (hell, the past 28 years) than me, but I am willing to totally give the man a pass on that, because, in a sense that is important here, it is literally true, or near enough not to matter. His story, because it is his, and because, if for no other reason than it includes ancestors who both were slaves and owned them, when put together with the other elements of his biography, might have been possible if he were a citizen of some other country, but so wildly unlikely as to make the rhetorical power of expressing it the way he did less a matter of exceptionalism than one of word choice. But that's just my take on it. I do think it's a little crass and a lot pointless to equate such a thing with the kind of garbage that spills from the mouths of George W and his ilk. It's possible to be excited by Obama's candidacy and not leave your brain at the door. Acknowledging the beauty of the speech and then moving on to point out where you disagree with it is hardly "small-minded." Aye. I think people are a bit gun shy because of the tendency of Democrats and their supporters to circle around a candidate and shoot one another in the face. I also think that the intelligence of this candidate makes it unnecessary to treat his ideas with kid gloves. My hope is, as ever, that it is his ideas as much as the (important, real, and necessary) sense of hope he is fostering that people discuss, honestly and in good faith, no matter where they find themselves on the political map.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:22:58 -0800

Well, that was kind of my point. Very few people. And yet the way I read that speech, he seemed to be implying that there's something unique about America that led to him being allowed to exist. Obama is a very rare occurence - if something like that is so very rare and unusual, how can it be used to justify the idea that it is "only possible in America". As I said, it's a fair reading. But I think the phrasing "my story is only possible in America" is the important thing. I wouldn't try to deny the sense of pride in the phrase, but pride isn't always shallow or banal. To the extent that Obama's talking about his own successes, he's also tying them into our history. And he almost always makes that connection explicitly when he uses this phrase, too. The causality there is important, because it's that subtle distinction that also underlies what you take issue with -- it's the distinction between the bravado that comes from a sense of entitlement versus the gratefuless that comes from a pride in our history and those who've sacrificed for us. That difference is also something that many of us here have been trying desperately to put into words to for the last eight years. Our inability to talk about patriotism in a way that didn't reek of exceptionalism had very real consequences. It's not an easy thing to do, but it's very important.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:25:05 -0800

What spiderwire said.

By: spiderskull

spiderskull — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:25:20 -0800

OMG IS THIS LIKE THE DIGG REVOLUTION? 09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0!! Actually, I'm glad this got FPP'ed -- it's a damn good speech.

By: billyfleetwood

billyfleetwood — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:26:55 -0800

Once again - America is so special that it's the only place someone like Obama could be succesful...and yet it would be a huge, historic deal if he is actually successful. Doesn't that sit kinda weirdly with you guys? I think the point of the whole conversation is that the history of race in the US is all kinds of paradoxical and weird and contradictory. Yes, we have lots of potential, and yes that potential is often thwarted.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:30:17 -0800

I'm not at all impressed. A table of "brotherhood" would have to be impossibly huge, even bigger than the red hills of Georgia, for the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners to ALL be able to sit down together at it. And this "day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."" What about separation of church and state? No, no, it's just all just a crazy dream or something.

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:32:01 -0800

I find this thread to be honestly confounding. What on earth has Obama said that is so earth-shattering? I read the speech and thought it wonderful and eloquent and so on (except for the "I'm here for Ashley" part-- I swear I've heard that story before) but are things in America so divided that this speech, which seems to me so uncontroversial, can really be all that ground-breaking? It's funny, but after all these years of living next door to America, having American friends-- my son's father is American!-- I get the feeling that I just don't understand you at all. ("You" in the most general sense, not just Mefites.) I mean, I'm wanting to argue with Miko. Miko, who I respect hugely; but for the very first time I can't understand, really, exactly what it is that she means here. How can Obama's story be uniquely American, except that it took place in America? In almost every country in the world people can remake themselves, with luck and daring and the right breaks. I have a friend who married a woman who was born in a hut in a Chinese village; she's not even exactly sure of the year. Now she's working in finance here in Canada. The world is full of such stories: the African emigrant, the South African CEO who was born in a village without running water. The world is full of ingenious, talented, smart people. Obama is, in this way, just another citizen of that world. Which is great; but as a narrative it's not uniquely American.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:33:28 -0800

You'll be more effective as a measured supporter. Rethink. I've rethought and rethought. I rethought after Reagan, Bush I, Clinton the First, and the coup d'etat of Emperor Bush II. I'm done rethinking. Obama is so far superior to any politician who has run for the presidency in my lifetime, by every single measure of quality, that to quibble even slightly is unseemly nitpicking. I mean seriously, Hillary Clinton? John McCain? Why eat frozen hamburger helper when there's steak on the grill?

By: Shakeer

Shakeer — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:33:28 -0800

Speaking of England, lets not forget they elected a woman prime minister 25-odd years ago, and, that woman was herself the daughter of a humble shopkeeper. So, I dont dismiss so lightly what the English are capable of, especially now. (Ihate the crusty old blighted island but facts are facts). Both women and minorities tend to have an easier time making political and electoral gains if they are rightist. This has been the case in many countries, though I think the reasons for its being so is different for both of them.

By: dw

dw — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:34:04 -0800

It's a good speech. A very good speech. Vintage Obama. But will kids be studying it in school? Is it his Letter From A Birmingham Jail? Is it one of those cultural touchstones where our grandkids will be asking where we were when Obama gave The Speech? Hell no. This is Obama's equivalent to Kennedy's speech on his Catholicism. Important, for sure, but not his greatest. It could pacify a vocal opposition like Kennedy was able to, but none of us remember the details of Kennedy's speech in Houston because we never had to learn it. His best speech so far? The one he gave in Ebenezer Baptist Church two months ago. That one I think will be in schoolbooks.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:34:31 -0800

You mean a "racist joke", right? No, that would be Bill Clinton saying "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, he he he." For fuck's sake, get real.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:35:45 -0800

Yeah, the British elected a woman prime minister because, among other things, she was a right proper racist. Like most white Brits of that era. And many of the present one.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:36:52 -0800

And like Hillary Clinton.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:37:01 -0800

Why eat frozen hamburger helper when there's steak on the grill? Well, that's an improvement over your cult metaphor, at least.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:38:06 -0800

Or I should say, Hillary is a opportunist, for whom racism is not out of bounds if necessary. I doubt she cares one way or the other about the color of anything but money.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:39:54 -0800

She's not an actual racist as far as we know.

By: Mister Cheese

Mister Cheese — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:40:18 -0800

I don't know if I got this right... did I get this right? Did Obama basically tell us that in order to move past this racial stalemate, we've got to understand the root of the resentment for both black and whites? And then we got to work together to make the United States better? That helping each other out benefits Americans as a whole? I didn't come up with this myself, but it sounds like he wants us to follow the older definition of "competition". The one that is defined as, "to strive together" rather than, "be in rivalry with." I can get behind that. I'm neither black or white, but I've experienced the nature of racial competition. Enough is enough. I can get behind what Obama's talking about, president or no.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:40:33 -0800

OK, mediareport. By "member of the cult," I wasn't being metaphorical exactly. I was using hyperbole. Obviously, I have no intention of giving up my faculty of reason. But it's very rare that a candidate actually appeals directly to my faculty of reason. So call it a cult of rationality and we're even. Obama would have to do something heinous to lose me at this point. I mean truly heinous. Like pick Hillary Clinton as a running mate.

By: Malor

Malor — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:40:38 -0800

You know, it's kind of amusing that about half the thread is nitpicking about the 'only in America' clause. I mean, jeeze, people, how to miss the freaking point, yanno? He's just pointed very clearly at a problem, and has positioned himself so that everyone can see him clearly, the first person to do so in my adult life. And many of you are arguing incessantly about a hangnail on his finger instead of just looking where he's pointing. Wouldn't it be a slightly better use of the collective Metafilter brain to talk about what the speech means, and where to go from here, and how to understand some of the problems he's pointing out? Who the fuck cares about 'only in America'? Do you need to distance yourself from the real message that badly?

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:41:22 -0800

The biggest Fairy Tale in this election is the idea that any of the top democrats could lose. Please tell me how Obama wins OH and FL against McCain? It just isn't going to happen. Look at this map http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/ Very little will change on this map, if anything, if Obama gets the Dem nod. If Hillary gets the nod, the Dems win OH and FL. Obama will lose those states to McCain. McCain is a *moderate* Republican, and Obama's negatives are only now just beginning to show. And if you think CA isi a safe bet for the Dems with Obama, you're dreaming. I've seen pre-scenario polling in S. CA with McCain against Hillary and Obama. It's not pretty for Obama. Arnie will be working hard for McCain, who comes off after exposure as a reasonable moderate. I am tired of the too far left Dems like Obama, Kennedy, Dukakis, Kerry, etc. ruining my party. Obama is another pre-general election flash in the pan who will have his socks handed to him by the GOP attack machine. Obamatans, it's time to stop dreaming! Hillary is *proven*. She took 67% in her last Senate race, in a state where they said she would get ground up like hamburger. Polling shows that the more people see and hear her, the more they like her. That's what's starting to happen. PA will give her a big bounce, and then the Supers will look at that map *above) and give her the nod; they know the score.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:41:51 -0800

This comment by a diarist at Talking Points Memo explains the bizarre cauldron of self-contradictions that is American race relations far better than I ever could. Seriously, it's very, very good. If the relevance of Obama's speech doesn't quite click, this may help to put it into perspective. The underlying story here is about our many, many blind spots, which even most of us who live in this country don't understand all that well. That's sort of the nature of a blind spot -- and why it's so historically important when they occasionally get brought to light.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:42:14 -0800

How can Obama's story be uniquely American, except that it took place in America? I think in a sense, that it is because it did. This is slippery to express, and I'm not sure I even have a good grasp on it, but I think what I was trying to express earlier (even though it's such a tiny sidelight on the whole more important picture that I'm a little ashamed to be thinking so much about it) is: his story is uniquely American because it took place in America (and elsewhere), just as my story is uniquely Canadian because it took place in Canada (and elsewhere). In other words, and this is the idiotic-sounding crux: it is American because it is American, and it is unique because he is unique, just as a similar thing could be said about me, or you, or anyone. It could and should be argued that reading it this way reduces it to a meaningless tautology, but actually, I think just the opposite is true. I think it's a marvellous way to look at it, and an inspiring one. Whether Mr Obama meant it that way or not, I have no way of telling.

By: Slap*Happy

Slap*Happy — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:42:20 -0800

American Exceptionalism isn't going away while America is still exceptional in the eyes of those who live there. It hasn't gone away in other countries that aren't especially exceptional, except to those who live there, either. If you can point out any elected official anywhere who got elected by saying "I'm just another privileged-class citizen of a country that has nothing to really reccomend it over any other" in a stump speech, I'll give you a cookie. Bickering over something so unexceptional is tiresome, and has taken up more than half the thread. Knock it off.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:42:57 -0800

You know, it's kind of amusing that about half the thread is nitpicking about the 'only in America' clause. I mean, jeeze, people, how to miss the freaking point, yanno? This.

By: semmi

semmi — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:43:55 -0800

what we have missed in the anti-intellectual, ruthlessly incurious Bush years, and even the slippery Clinton ones (the years of "what is is") posted by caddis You must be too young to have experienced the good years with Clinton, or completely numbed by the endless repetition of the Republican harassment over a blow-job. What has completely turned me off was Obama's equation Rev. Jeremiah Wright with Geraldine Ferraro. That was real cheap politicking.

By: empath

empath — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:44:14 -0800

She ran basically unopposed, and still pissed away millions of dollars in that Senate race. Even if Hillary wins 70% of the vote in PA, She. Can. Not. Win. Since Feb 28th, Obama has picked up 48 new Super Delagates to Hillary's -5. Where are these mythical superdelegates going to come from?

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:48:33 -0800

Where are these mythical superdelegates going to come from? They're going to come from the ones that haven't committed by the time the convention appears, in addition to Supers who figure out what the score is after Hillary pounds Obama in PA and Michigan. Obama has racked up delegates mostly in RED states. He has YET to win a strong blue state. You think the Supers that are holding back haven't noticed that?

By: aqhong

aqhong — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:51:26 -0800

Mark Penn? Is that you?

By: Rumple

Rumple — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:52:13 -0800

Obama has racked up delegates mostly in RED states. He has YET to win a strong blue state. You think the Supers that are holding back haven't noticed that? So, the more Democratic a state is, the more it is likely to vote Republican?

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:52:18 -0800

What has completely turned me off was Obama's equation Rev. Jeremiah Wright with Geraldine Ferraro. That was real cheap politicking. Hmm. Well, here's the section where he mentions her name:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love. Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias. But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

I'm not certain how that could be construed as 'real cheap politicking'. Care to elaborate?

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:53:04 -0800

She took 67% in her last Senate race, in a state where they said she would get ground up like hamburger. Polling shows that the more people see and hear her, the more they like her. That's what's starting to happen. WTF? She spent 30 million precious campaign dollars getting to 67 percent in an election she was so guaranteed to win the republicans did not even bother to put up a decent challenger. Jeanine Pirro, remember? You're thinking about the first senate election, perhaps? Where she ran against Rick freaking Lazio, a boy fresh out of school? As a New Yorker who voted for her twice and regrets it deeply, let me assure you that the more *this* New Yorker sees of her, the less I like of her. Spin all you want, but Obama easily wins New York and California, and makes half a dozen western states where Clinton is despised seriously competitive in any serious poll I've seen. I have no idea what "prescenario poll" means, or why you limit yourself to *Southern* California, which is like limiting to California to the part that votes like white Mississippi. But all Obama has to do is get McCain to lose his temper on the podium once and Johnny Mac is toast.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:55:28 -0800

I am tired of the too far left Dems like Obama, Kennedy, Dukakis, Kerry, etc. ruining my party. *falls out of chair laughing*

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:58:41 -0800

MetaMan (Mark Penn indeed!) dream on. The Dems just took Dennis Hastert's seat -- Dennis Hastert! -- in a special election in no small part because Obama campaigned for the Dem challenger (Foster) and McCain campaigned for the GOP nutter (Obwerweis). Superdelegates consist of a significant number of red state dems who need coattails to hang on to in a presidential election year. There must be some reason Clinton has not gained a SD in a month, and Obama has been gaining them at a rate of several a day. Maybe they know more than you about "prescenario" polling. The Jeremiah Wright thing was total bullshit, pure swiftboat attack politics with a nice healthy dollop of pure racism on top -- ooh, an angry black man is Obama's preacher! And Obama just took that swifboat bullshit and shoved it right back up the media's flatulent ass.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:59:09 -0800

Also, what SpiderWire said.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:50 -0800

"What on earth has Obama said that is so earth-shattering?" I think a bit of it is what he did. Some things work just on the face of themselves. Other things work in the "you had to be there" sense, for a certain time, place, feeling. He could have ducked it. He could have just let it alone. He'd already denounced Wright's comments and the smart, slick, H-A-double N-I- GAN - polticikin' thing to do would have to just leave it alone. He didn't. He took the issue straight up. In an era where everything is scripted, polled and pre-vetted, He just shook off the sign and brought the heat. Wow. Bit like pointing out Boris Yeltzin standing on the tank defying the August Putsch and saying but he's a drunk. Or y'know, Bluto when he says the Germans attacked Pear Harbor. Forget it, he's on a roll.

By: afx114

afx114 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:05:37 -0800

I want someone who knows how to get their hands dirty, and go right down in the dirt to duke it out with the forces of neocon evil. I don't think Obama can do that; in fact, I know he can't. I know I'm late to the party, but that's exactly what he did with this speach.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:06:35 -0800

Earlier tonight I was trying to think of countries that have elected members of a "racial" (sorry the anthro in me makes me quote mark it) minority to the head of government and I came up pretty blank. This was in response to some concerns a family member raised regarding the few women in high office and the nature of feminism (which I consider myself a feminist) and Clinton's support of large segments of that bloc, despite Clinton being where she is politically based on (at least in part) who she married, as opposed to say Pelosi, Boxer, Snow, Albright, Rice, Sebelius, Napolitano, Klobuchar, Granholm etc. Suffice to say this is not a cut and dry issue. Anyway, while I was unable to name an elected head of state from a minority race I could think of a few handful of women heads of States. So, on a global scale (unless someone can counter example me, please) it would seem women have a slight advantage politically over minority populations. I know this has limited bearing in the US but thought it was interesting nonetheless. (also interesting to note, we have had 30+ female Govs, and only 4 AA govs, 35 female senators 5 AA, 243 female Reps and 112 AA ) -Big caveat, this is not really about who is more qualified, just a small data point to use, especially when a small fraction of people claim that x group is more oppressed then y group.

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:07:40 -0800

The Jeremiah Wright thing was total bullshit, pure swiftboat attack politics with a nice healthy dollop of pure racism on top -- ooh, an angry black man is Obama's preacher! And Obama just took that swifboat bullshit and shoved it right back up the media's flatulent ass. Let's see how this plays in a general election. I will chuckle when the Supers name Hillary. It's gonna happen. The party would be mad to let someone who hasn't won a primary in a SINGLE serious Dem state go out on the slate. If it does, I'm voting Nader. As for S CA, you just watch. Oh, and btw, that's where MOST of California's population lives, in case you haven't looked at population demographics lately. Just watch moderates turn toward McCain if Obama gets the nod. Moderates are 4-1 ex-Republicans. You need to take off your Obamatan 3D glasses and look at the world aright.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:08:01 -0800

Oh, and to be fair Clinton did pick up two SDs today (Murtha and some fella from WVa)

By: Rhaomi

Rhaomi — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:10:48 -0800

fourcheesemac: "Spin all you want, but Obama easily wins New York and California, and makes half a dozen western states where Clinton is despised seriously competitive in any serious poll I've seen." This is something that needs to be kept in mind. Even in blood red states that Obama cannot win*, his much higher poll numbers against McCain will have a significant positive influence on the downticket races. Republicans will have to spend much more money defending state and local seats in normally "safe" districts. Such is the wisdom of the fifty-state strategy, and the idiocy of the Clinton campaign's Incredible Shrinking List of "important" states. I mean, what's the point of winning the presidency if you, by virtue of insulting and dismissing three-quarters of the electorate, go into office against a hostile majority in congress and in state offices around the country? * And that list of unwinnable states is much smaller for Obama than for Clinton. How many times in this primary season has off-the-charts Democratic turnout for him in normally sleepy red states kicked the crap out of the combined Republican showing? Obama is a map-changer.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:12:34 -0800

You are kind of acting like an ass MM.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:13:14 -0800

Anyway, while I was unable to name an elected head of state from a minority race Well, I'm not sure what 'minority race' even means in a global context (even acknowledging, as you do, that 'race' is a corrupt and illusionary concept), but. I don't think this kind of analysis is useful at all, and just distracts from real discussion and thought (not attacking you edgeways, just saying), but just off the top of my head I can come up with Alberto Fujimori and any number of white South African presidents during Apartheid, along with, no doubt, a whole bunch of other examples in Africa over the decades.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:14:39 -0800

Murtha's a sleazebag; not quite exhibit A in Washington's culture of corruption but close. Exhibit C, probably. Who knows what promises passed hands for him to endorse Clinton, but you can be sure it was something good.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:18:56 -0800

I was more than a little hesitant to use S. Africa for obvious reasons, but Fujimori is a good one overall, I forgot about him.

By: afx114

afx114 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:20:13 -0800

I'd love to have a cite for this, if anyone's got one handy. I'm not doubting, just wanting the specifics. mediareport: Here's a video of the Value Voters' version of "God Bless America" titled "Why Should God Bless America?" Starts around 2:00 into the clip.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:21:26 -0800

grr, sorry I should have consolidated. Biologically human races are without a doubt a farce concept, but culturally/socially it is real so I would take small exception to the "illusionary concept" label

By: billyfleetwood

billyfleetwood — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:22:31 -0800

>but are things in America so divided that this speech, which seems to me so uncontroversial, can really be all that ground-breaking? Now if one notices carefully one will see that between these two worlds, despite much physical contact and daily intermingling, there is almost no community of intellectual life or point of transference where the thoughts and feelings of one race can come into direct contact and sympathy with the thoughts and feelings of the other. ... throughout the category of means for intellectual communication,—schools, conferences, efforts for social betterment, and the like,—it is usually true that the very representatives of the two races, who for mutual benefit and the welfare of the land ought to be in complete understanding and sympathy, are so far strangers that one side thinks all whites are narrow and prejudiced, and the other thinks educated Negroes dangerous and insolent. Moreover, in a land where the tyranny of public opinion and the intolerance of criticism is for obvious historical reasons so strong as in the South, such a situation is extremely difficult to correct. The white man, as well as the Negro, is bound and barred by the color-line, and many a scheme of friendliness and philanthropy, of broad-minded sympathy and generous fellowship between the two has dropped still-born because some busybody has forced the color-question to the front and brought the tremendous force of unwritten law against the innovators. The Souls of Black Folk -W.E.B. DuBois Considering that over 100 years later his words still ring mostly true, I would have to answer your question in the affirmative. That's the fundamental contradiction. So much has changed that it's sometimes baffling how much hasn't.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:22:36 -0800

I was more than a little hesitant to use S. Africa for obvious reasons Heh. Can of worms status: opened.

By: semmi

semmi — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:28:13 -0800

I'm not certain how that could be construed as 'real cheap politicking'. Care to elaborate? posted by stavrosthewonderchicken No. I was wrong.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:31:12 -0800

MetaMan writes "I am tired of the too far left Dems like Obama, Kennedy, Dukakis, Kerry, etc. ruining my party." Zell Miller for Prezdent!

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:32:37 -0800

No. I was wrong. Good on ya for saying so. I was honestly curious.

By: Malor

Malor — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:43:30 -0800

The party would be mad to let someone who hasn't won a primary in a SINGLE serious Dem state go out on the slate. Well, first, you're accepting the Clinton definition of 'serious', which conveniently only includes states that voted for her. Offhand, I suspect the voters in other states would like to think their votes count too. Second: blue states will probably vote Democratic either way, so either candidate will win those. No matter how much Hillary won by in those states, it's irrelevant in the general election, which is all or nothing. Win by one vote or win by a landslide... it's the same either way in the final tally. Obama will take those states, and then he'll take many states where Clinton doesn't have a chance. So which, again, do you think is the wiser choice for the general election?

By: birdsquared

birdsquared — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:44:33 -0800

I also twitched at the "only in America" line but I agree that it is a non-significant part of the speech. However, can someone explain to me how he says he can't (and won't) disown Wright, yet refers to him twice as his "former pastor"? /nitpick

By: aqhong

aqhong — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:51:56 -0800

birdsquared: I think he's referring to the fact that Wright is now retired.

By: painquale

painquale — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:04:46 -0800

Count me as another eyeroller at the "only in America" line. But we eyerollers don't matter. Foreigners (I'm Canadian) weren't the target audience. I'll bet that nearly every American who hears that line doesn't notice anything all too weird about it, and nearly every non-American inwardly cringes. Forget that. This was an amazing speech. I consider myself pretty apolitical. I honestly have no idea how to vote or what considerations I should take into account. I'm pretty sure that a person's character shouldn't be an influencing feature. There's enough evidence, empirical and anecdotal, that show that character is a horrible predictor of how people will behave when you put them in new situations. People act contrary to predicted behavior when given power (for example, Supreme Court judges often defy expectation once appointed). But this speech has really made me like Obama, and it's tough to deny that magnetism. Jeez, I really don't want to become an Obama cultist, but the temptation is hard to stave off.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:10:33 -0800

You know, it was a good speech alright, and a refreshing change from the normal sycophantic-yet-dismissive displays we are used to from political types. But. There is something a little bit disturbing to me about the abject character-worship some people seem to be showing in response to it, and many other thing Obama. I mean, I understand that, on some level, it simply proportional to how deep the despair they feel over the current administration. Most folks are looking for someone who will, to put it gently, not be a colossal fuckup like Bush has been and continues to be. And I understand that Clinton herself is not a very sympathetic character, having been steeped in power too long and representing just another member of the Imperial Court shouting her claim for the throne. However, the response to this speech just really bothers me. It reminds me a whole lot of the unthinking wingnut defense of all things Bush ("A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. ... like a great painter or musician ..." blah blah blah), but coming from the other political direction. Don't get me wrong; I think, given the limited field that we have to choose from, Obama is the best candidate and I will vote for him and not for Clinton or McCain. But his camp followers worry me. I mean, seriously:

Cortex will probably delete this post, but nevertheless he can not silence the amazing phenomena which is Obama.

That was a joke, right? Because I can't seem to tell anymore given the adoration I have been seeing.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:11:50 -0800

I didn't need this speech to impress me. I read his first book, and I learned from it... and I've never learned anything from a politician about how to make my identity and privilege work for good until that point. The huge, confident, hopeful surge into intellectualism, consideration, fair play and righteousness that Obama represents to anyone willing to believe it can exist, is his greatest strength, and his graceful synthesis of complex ideologies into a strategy to accomplish progress is his second. He quoted Faulkner, ffs. I really enjoyed that. When he speaks about his story only being possible in America, two things come to mind for me: First, that ours remains a remarkably racially binary country in the mass culture perspective, and that is not only preposterous and divisive, but malevolent. All mixed-race people in our culture have a peculiar internal cultural synthesis to perform, but I hope that is already changing. Touting a mixed-race experience is identity politics, plain and simple, but the experience itself is a lifelong object lesson in the nuances of our culture, and in diplomacy and self-assurance. Second is a passage from Dreams From My Father, about how his mother reneged on her life plan to live with her new husband in Malaysia, because abandoning the privilege of educating her son, Barack, in the USA was simply too dear a price to pay. There is no reason to raise a child anywhere but this country, if you have that choice, was his perspective via his mother, on this event. They moved back to the states, without his stepfather, and I find that valuation remarkable and inspiring, even without any first-hand knowledge, myself, about education conditions in other countries, or decisive stance on the perfection of our democracy's potential. If there is to be an "American Exeptionalism," I hope its most ardent believer is our President. There's no harm in believing that we can do anything, that history cannot bind us, and that we have, especially right now, at this economically tense moment, an immesurably great potential.

By: ooga_booga

ooga_booga — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:22:36 -0800

Reading the speech brought tears to my eyes, and I was prepared for the tugging of heartstrings. If the reports that he wrote this himself are true, I take my hat off to him.

By: spiderskull

spiderskull — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:24:49 -0800

Jeez, I really don't want to become an Obama cultist, but the temptation is hard to stave off. I don't know why there's this assumption that if you support Obama, you do so in an extreme manner. I've supported the man for quite a while now, but I keep a healthy level of skepticism. And I don't agree with everything he says (just most of it) -- for example, I'm not totally on-board with his health plan, but realize the practicality of it. I know I'm not alone in feeling this way, which means there's probably a media-influenced perception.

By: aqhong

aqhong — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:37:37 -0800

For what it's worth, I'm an American and an avid Obama supporter, and the "only in America" line struck me as a little disingenuous ever since I first heard it in his 2004 DNC keynote. I don't think it's that big of a deal, though. As others have pointed out, it's a pretty ambiguous piece of "yay, America" rhetoric that can't really be proven one way or another, and it makes us feel good about ourselves, so eh. But seriously, can we talk about something else now?

By: aqhong

aqhong — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:49:45 -0800

spiderskull: I feel the same way, but this is a thread for an FPP that ends with "he can not silence the amazing phenomena which is Obama."

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:01:26 -0800

birdsquared writes "However, can someone explain to me how he says he can't (and won't) disown Wright, yet refers to him twice as his 'former pastor'? /nitpick" Wright retires effective the end of this month, and I think has already relinquished the duty of giving the regular Sunday sermon.

By: Brainy

Brainy — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:04:00 -0800

what I found most amazing about this speech, which I only mention because I haven't seen it mentioned (enough) is this: Obama mentioned the racism of the southerners (forgive my paraphrasing) and then he did not dismiss or condemn them! I mean, I went into this speech sadly thinking he'd be forced to do some backpedaling "oh no, anger? At the country? Who? Me?" instead, he stood up and said "yeah, he's angry and it sounds racist, he's angry and it turns into racism. And that's okay. Its not right but its not their fault. Let's change things and stop it from happening." I know those against affirmative action. I know those "Im not racist but..." people. A conventional politician would have said "they're ignorant, free your mind!" as if those people were irrational and decided to be racist as a fashion statement. As if those people were the root cause and not a symptom. This is a black man looking at those who would dislike him for who he is and he isn't shaking his head with a mixture of pity and sorrow. He isn't standing proud against him to overcome. He isn't defiant, or aggressive, or angry at them. He is saying "I understand" how many of us could do that? How many of us could turn the other cheek like that. I could no more disown my grandmother he said. His somewhat racist grandmother. He didn't throw her to the wolves as people have said, he did exactly the opposite. He embraced her. He loved a racist. He knows that many of us love racists. He wants us to keep loving them. He wants us to love them so much that we can help end the problems that let racism spawn like Mosquitos in stagnant water. He understands the racists. He loves the racists. Twelve years of catholic school and it seems like now I finally understand what Jesus was really trying to say.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:22:18 -0800

I don't know why there's this assumption that if you support Obama, you do so in an extreme manner. I do. It's the same reason that 4 or 5 years ago, everyone that opposed the President was referred to as a frothing at the mouth Bush hater. It's called marginalizing your opposition. If you paint them as irrational or overly emotional, then it's very easy to dismiss whatever points they may have. I used to like Hillary, and supported her for two Senate campaigns, but the way that her campaign has gleefully adopted the divisive tactics of conservatives in this primary race disgusts me, and has lost me forever.

By: Brainy

Brainy — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:27:00 -0800

posting at 5am on an iPhone that doesn't like to let you see more than a few words of what you're typing is hardly the best way to make a big sweeping statement like that so let me just add that no, I am not comparing obama to Jesus exactly...just that he seems to not only get what the guy was saying, but to be able to get me to understand it too. Also I am an athiest, so I don't had much concern for what he might have be trying to say...except that cognitive behavioral therapy, the 7 habits of highly effective people, the non-torture versions of the army interrogation field manual and a whole lot of common sense says that understanding others is the best way to resolve conflict. I mean, can you imagine Bush or McCain going into a country we're not too friendly with and being able to truly empathize with them? Not manipulate, not sucker, but treat them as equals and seek to understand them and why and how they feel the way they do? The amount of good that would do would be incalcuable.

By: citron

citron — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:40:00 -0800

There is something a little bit disturbing to me about the abject character-worship some people seem to be showing in response to it, and many other thing Obama. I've been disturbed by it for some time. Furthermore.. if it is a truly historic speech, first, we don't know that yet. It does take time, and it has to do something, doesn't it? Aside from moving many TV pundits and bloggers to instantly declare it as such, which isn't surprising given everything they've been saying about Obama all along, and there's likely a spirit of competition among them to outdo each other.. to be the loudest and most exaggerated in their praise. And if it is so brilliant, again, surely it can stand up to ~~nitpicking~~, critical thinking and close reading? That moment is when I'm disturbed - no - I don't want to be just swept away and not be able to step back and seriously think, and yes criticize, what he is saying. Yes, there are some points that can be quickly fixated on to complain about, but beyond that I always see such an extreme amount of sensitivity (at least among the online political discussion crowd) when it comes to any criticism of Obama, and often followed by lashing out at anyone who speaks up to do so. So.. Hillary is not a racist. Nor a member of an Imperial Court. She's a real person, brilliant, accomplished, and very tough - I don't do sweeping rhetoric myself, but I've been profoundly inspired by her, to see how much she's been attacked in the media and demonized for many years now, and her candidacy declared dead several times since January, and she just keeps fighting. I read all the time on blog comments that she thinks she's entitled, she's evil, she's a racist. I read that she'll redeem herself in the eyes of the media if only she'd do what they want and give up, and that she's dividing the party all by herself even though over 13 million Democrats have voted for her, and what we need is unity, which means those of us who support her should give up. I read people going further and further to dehumanize her to the point where this sort of language becomes part of casual discourse, and maybe they don't even know they're doing it any more. That kind of talk speaks about them and not about her. Especially from those who support Obama, I know it is a minority who do this, but they're very loud and insistent, and I wonder what kind of hope makes them dehumanize and insult political opponents? How that false narrative about racism and the Clintons got developed, now, I could write an essay on it since I read enough political blogs to have watched it unfold in real time, and it was ugly indeed, but didn't come from where you might think it did. And finally, I'm afraid the superdelegates are going to decide the nominee one way or the other, since neither candidate is going to hit the magic number in pledged delegates, and it's quite possible the popular vote will go the other way than the number of delegates. Obama racked up quite a few delegates by caucus victories in very red states with very small numbers of Democrats - one delegate in Alaska would be from a couple thousand votes, one in California, tens of thousands I think. Anything can happen and we should let the people vote and let the process play out, which some might call being against "unity," but I'd say it is just healthy and democratic.

By: zardoz

zardoz — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:43:52 -0800

MetaMan, you seem to have the whole "independent voter" scenario exactly backwards. The polls I've read about are pretty clear that Obama would beat McCain, but McCain would beat Clinton, if the general were held now. The reasoning goes like this: it's Obama, not Clinton, who's attracting independents, many of whom are against the Iraq war. Young people in record numbers would get out the vote. If Clinton is the nominee, that dynamic would work the opposite way. Young people would stay at home. Many blacks would stay at home. Not that they want McCain, it's just simply that a lot of people simply won't bother to go vote for Hillary. (Personally, 4 or 5 months ago I would've voted for her if she were the nominee, but after her "kitchen sink" strategy of muckraking and digging in the dirt, I don't think she deserves my vote. That 3 a.m. ad was the clincher--no way would I vote for her now.) Where do you think all those Ron Paul fans have disappeared to? Maybe some will side with Clinton or McCain, but I'd bet my bottom dollar most are supporting Obama. Lastly, you don't seem to understand the vast hatred out there for Hillary. For the most part, I don't think it's entirely fair, but it is definitely there. Republicans who can't stand McCain can't stand Clinton even more, so they will get off their butts to vote against her.

By: Rhaomi

Rhaomi — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:43:58 -0800

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:47:49 -0800

I actually mistook his "only in America" section to be about his ethnic makeup. It's pretty difficult to see the possibility of a Black prime minister in the U.K. at the moment. This is partly to do with race issues, but it's mainly to do with the fact that the current UK administration hasn't imploded nearly as spectacularly as Bush's administration. We also tend to vote more for the party than the person here. Thatcher wouldn't have got into power if Labour hadn't screwed up so badly in the late 70's; Blair wouldn't have got into power if the Conservative party hadn't upset so many people. If Cameron had been black, he would have been accepted and if Labour had *really* messed things up, then Cameron would easily win come the next election cycle. I accept that there's a lot of Ifs in there, but it's not impossible. This is not to say things are perfect here. They aren't. Far from it. In fact, the only unfeasible thing about Obama's situation being replicated in the UK (African / White married to a Jamaican) is that 20 years (or however long ago it was) ago very few Jamaican women would have considered marrying an African man. Anyway - don't know why I'm going back to this. It was only a small part of the speech and I agree it falls more into "America is great" rhetoric than into anything more substantial.

By: cillit bang

cillit bang — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:55:00 -0800

It's not always American exceptionalism to recognize that American culture has features that don't exist in other culture But then you and Obama are arguing little more than that it's special because it is American, which is exactly American exceptionalism.

By: citron

citron — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:55:19 -0800

All right, one more thing. Something that has confounded me during so much discussion of race lately. I see how easy it is to point at your neighbor, or a writer, or speaker, or an entire group of people based on class or geography and say, he is racist, she is racist, they are racist. And they're not like me. Is there any point when we can step back and look at ourselves and say, how am I racist, how have I been, what do I bring to interactions with people and do I ignore this, or am I willing, painful as it might be, to think about these things, and change? And how much about the history of this country and others' experience of it have I chosen to ignore? I wonder if some day a public figure in our country will give a speech declaring, I am racist, not for the childish reason that I look at others and choose to hate, but when I leave so much unexamined not only in history books, but in my own life. That might be the most courageous speech I'd ever hear.

By: cillit bang

cillit bang — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:58:38 -0800

Did the Gettysburg Address include an entirely unnecessary and pandering (to God knows who, though) mention of YouTube?

By: zippy

zippy — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:02:30 -0800

I listened to the first 15 minutes of speech on Youtube this morning, and I thought it was decent. He addressed the attack and turned it around. He spoke the truth, and he spoke pretty well. I realized, after listening to the speech again, and listening all the way through, that he did something more interesting. Yes, he turned around an attack, dealing with the immediate, urgent problem, but then he used it to open up a broader discussion on race. And he did so in a positive, heartfelt, honest way. For a politician to do this - no, for a presidential candidate to do this in a hotly contested race, to deviate from Marketing 101 talking point BS and speak for the better part of an hour about a real issue, that's something I cannot remember a major politician doing in my lifetime. This is more than Kennedy's Catholic speech. It's not the Gettysburg address, but it came from the same neighborhood. I've found this to be one of the most interesting discussions on Metafilter.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:16:32 -0800

an entirely unnecessary and pandering (to God knows who, though) mention If you don't know to whom it was intended to pander, then it probably wasn't very good pandering ;-) The one thing that has stuck with me these past couple of weeks on MeFi, is that for all of Obama's messianic influence or svengali-like grip on his supporters, I have yet to hear an Obama supporter call a Clinton supporter a racist. During these past few weeks, I have been called a sexist or misogynist no less than 5 times by fellow MeFites. This is something that would very much surprise and amuse my wife, my mother, my sisters, and the 7 women bosses I have had in my 15 year professional career. /OT

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:18:46 -0800

Is there any point when we can step back and look at ourselves and say, how am I racist, This is something I've been wrestling with recently too. I think we need a vocabulary that says "This thing here, although not deliberately racist is actually racist. It is not a bad racism and I will not hate you for the thing, but the thing is wrong." At the moment, the word racist is such an insult (rightly so), that nobody can use it in a way that isn't exclusionary. Until that happens, we can't address or discuss the quiet non-deliberate things which re-enforce the current racial environment. We need to get rid of the phrase "I'm not a racist, but" and replace it with something everyone can learn from. And the whispering Obama rightly talks about. That needs to be brought out into the light. And it needs to be done in such a way that we do not vilify those who's only crime is to be surrounded by misinformation. I think this is a huge challenge for liberals.

By: Nattie

Nattie — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:19:19 -0800

The part where he talked about his grandmother saying racist things really hit home with me, as did the part where he talked about middle and lower class whites feeling they haven't been privileged by merit of being white. The examples he gave of blaming things on immigration leading to a build up racial resentment were spot on, too. I'm only 23 and grew up in Houston, TX, so I had more minority friends than white friends growing up just because the city is so multicultural. In high school, the group I regularly hung out with was two white guys, a Filipino guy, a half-Chinese half-Japanese guy, a Vietnamese guy, a half-black half-Indian guy, a Chinese girl, a half-Venezuelan half-Iraqi girl, a half-Hungarian half-Chinese girl, a handful of Jewish people -- both secular and non -- a half-Vietnamese half-Hispanic guy, a couple of guys from completely different areas of India, etc. There were even more racial groups represented in my circle of acquaintances. So at least in my generation, in my high school, race (and religion) wasn't an issue -- or if it was, my friends and I were oblivious to it. The sheer number of "halfies" I knew certainly belied the idea that race was relevant. Not in the sense that there isn't discrimination that needs to be addressed, but in the sense that there ought not to be, and isn't it ridiculous that there is. So it's always been jarring to spend time with those people, then come home and hear some of the things my mother says. My family is lower middle-class white and while my mother claims not to be racist and certainly never had any problems with my friends, she says some of the most hateful, ignorant things about black and Hispanic people. She blames them for everything. This started coming to a head when I was in high school, then got worse as I went through college. When I'd come back every few months to visit, it became a weird sort of guessing game to predict just how much more racist she would be compared to the last time I saw her. There is some generous sense of the word in which you could say she is not racist, and I think this is what Obama was getting at with his pastor and grandmother. My mom has black and Hispanic friends and treats them kindly, and it's not insincere. She thinks about them as "one of the good ones," I guess you could say, although I doubt she would phrase it that crassly because it sounds racist -- and people like that don't think of themselves as racist. But whatever you want to call it she is deeply prejudiced, because she does preemptively judge people by their race. And the reasons she feels that way are exactly the ones that Obama described. For example, before we moved into what slowly turned into a lower-class Hispanic apartment complex in Houston, she didn't have anything against Hispanic people. After living there for nearly 20 years, that changed radically. Yeah, Hispanic guys have broken into our car, yeah Hispanic guys have shot each other in the parking lot, yeah a Hispanic guy fleeing the police crashed into our parked car, yeah a Hispanic guy drove through the apartment below ours when he was high, yeah some Hispanic people often shoot their guns off on New Years. It makes perfect sense to be mad about any of those things, but she's past mad and she's mad at people who didn't do anything to her, too. My mom can't seem to disconnect the few people who do those things from the whole, or even come to recognize why things are that way. There is a sense in which she forgets they are human; when she evaluates their behavior, she discounts anything that she might relate to. It's seriously as if she views them as crime robots, where every move they make is calculated for some nefarious purpose. A Hispanic guy stares at her in the parking lot? He wants to rob her. It couldn't possibly be that he was just looking at her, or that staring is not as rude in their culture, or that seeing a white person in that neighborhood is simply an anomaly, or that he was bored, or even that he just thinks she's attractive. Similarly, anything is a sign of a drug deal: Living eight to an apartment? Drug dealers. One Hispanic guy living in an apartment? He could only afford it if he sold drugs. Then things got worse when my sick father had to wait hours at the hospital to get anything done. He was in a low income program there, along with many Hispanic people. (My mom certainly doesn't feel she's been privileged for being white since we don't have much money. People don't stop to think how things could be worse.) For as long as he lived, my mother blamed any problems that cropped up on all the Hispanic people clogging the system, and still does. There are problems in that program that need to be fixed, undoubtedly. But meanwhile, my mom's resentment built up into full-blown racism. And then Hurricane Katrina hit, and many of the refugees came to Houston. And now all my mom talks about is "the Katrina blacks." Before Hurricane Katrina, my mom never had a SINGLE unkind word about black people. In fact, her father was a Baptist preacher who split from his church because he got flack for preaching to black people. Instead, he held sermons in their yard so the black people could come without incident. My mom grew up with his powerful presence and had many black friends, yet a single hurricane and its subsequent influx of crime apparently changed forty years of conditioning for tolerance. It really blows my mind. And the worst part is, since my mom changed her mind after unpleasant experiences with Hispanic and black people, she thinks she's completely justified. She thinks if she qualifies her statements, like saying "lower-income Hispanics" or "Katrina blacks" she's being fair and honest. She doesn't seem to get that she's still blanketing the majority of those people with negative qualities they simply don't possess, since, just like us, most minorities without much money aren't terrible people. How would she feel being grouped in a slur about "lower-income whites?" What's more, that's not even true anymore. She only thinks that she has a problem with lower-income Hispanics and blacks, but you can tell the racism goes deeper than that now. Recently, we've had more financial luck and she was looking for a house. She disregarded any neighborhood where she saw black or Hispanic children playing in the street. These are new $150,000 homes, which in Texas is pretty nice. You don't live in one of those if you're lower-income. What's more, you're not going to find an all-white neighborhood in a city like Houston no matter what the income level. But she's hated black and Hispanic people for so long now, she doesn't even make the economic distinction anymore and she doesn't even realize it. Sliding on down that slope. If a Hispanic or a black person cuts her off in traffic? Woo boy, here come the slurs, here come the assumptions that they're the kind of Hispanic or black person she has a problem with -- which now is to say, any black or Hispanic at all. It turns my stomach. Hating Hispanic and black people is completely misguided, a non-solution, something that actually exacerbates existing problems. But I've never been able to get her to see that. Yet all the same, she's my mother, and when she's not being prejudiced she's a great and caring person. And she's even a great and caring person to her black and Hispanic friends. She is the best mother I could have asked for; she is completely selfless and I have always felt that I'm her priority. It's really not simple. I couldn't disown her, or ignore the fact that the things that set off her racism are a real problem, while the racism itself is deplorable. And minorities of all stripes my age have the same kind of stories about their parents and grandparents, either examples of the "reverse racism" towards whites or racism toward other races. And I know how sad it makes us, how difficult and painful it is to hear those comments from someone you love. You want to change their mind, but you can't. It's immensely relieving just to hear someone who isn't white but understands exactly where my mom's racism comes from, who doesn't decry her as a wholly horrible person or condone things about her that ought not be condoned. It's relieving to see someone be so forthcoming about racism from minorities as well. It's a complex situation and it's about time someone talked about it in an honest way.

By: Duug

Duug — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:18:54 -0800

Nattie: a wonderful, brave comment and one which proves the value of Senator Obama's speech in full. If his speech can - as it appears - generate a national (perhaps even international) discussion of how we as humanity want to live our lives in the future, working together or divided by arbitrary and ridiculous differences, then it will indeed turn out to be one of the most historic speeches ever made. Only time will tell, of course.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:39:48 -0800

you can not change your parents. ever. but you don't have to belong to a church that preaches hate and say later you can not disown the guy running the place.

By: eustacescrubb

eustacescrubb — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:44:08 -0800

MetaMan: The party would be mad to let someone who hasn't won a primary in a SINGLE serious Dem state go out on the slate. Because, you know, winning all the major so-called "blue" states in the primaries was a clear indicator of success for John Kerry in 2004.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:49:16 -0800

Postroad, a hell of a lot of people out there attend churches that preach hate but lap it up, never questioning it at all. A lot of people sometimes just get pissed off with what's going on around them and let it all out, say things they shouldn't. There's rarely such thing as a "good person" and a "bad person", there's just people who have their good sides and their bad sides, their good days and their bad days. There's nothing unusual or controversial about any of this at all, so stop recycling that pathetic, tired talking point and put it in with the rest of the garbage where it belongs.

By: romakimmy

romakimmy — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:05:14 -0800

Who the fuck cares about 'only in America'? Because as an American overseas, that little bit of nationalistic rah-rah bullshit makes me pause; you've written a powerful speech on divisions caused by racism, yet you simultaneously pull out the "Go USA" card. It might be a case of playing to the crowd at hand, but there's some other rather large gaping rifts caused by recent US foreign policy that won't be helped by such cheerleading. My opinion only.

By: pracowity

pracowity — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:07:40 -0800

you don't have to belong to a church that preaches hate and say later you can not disown the guy running the place. Listen again to what he said. He explained why he wasn't going to disown anyone, why he understands how such attitudes develop, and why we should all be able to get past it. And I forgive him any American exceptionalism, past, present, or future - he's an American politician, it's an American political campaign, he's applying for a job that requires that attitude, he's talking to Americans, and, to most Americans, America is exceptional, if only because it's the only place they know anything about. It was a good speech for the purpose. Anyone but another Republican.

By: Jakey

Jakey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:10:48 -0800

The point about the media making it necessary for Obama to address the words of his pastor, whilst others get a free ride was mentioned a couple of days ago in the HuffPo article "Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero" I'm not sure that I'm quite in the Gettysburg Address camp, but the fact that a single thoughtful speech even prompts the comparisons speaks volumes about the level of political discourse to which we have allowed ourselves to become accustomed. (I use 'we' in the previous sentence in a much broader sense than the US). At the very least, it's surely to be applauded that a prospective presidential candidate has shown the ability and willingness to raise the bar a little. Let's hope it's catching.

By: TheOnlyCoolTim

TheOnlyCoolTim — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:19:08 -0800

Patriotism belongs to us, to; not especially to the Falwell/Robertson/Cheney/Bush/CEOs coalition. Patriotism is silly and pernicious.

By: digaman

digaman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:32:07 -0800

I was blown away by the speech. It was like watching an Olympic gymnast soar out of the garbage dump and do something marvelous and difficult for half an hour, defying gravity. Reading the right-wing blogs (and yes, Dr. Freud, I just accidentally typed "white-wing") afterward I felt nauseous.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:43:19 -0800

What on earth has Obama said that is so earth-shattering? He is a candidate in an election. He looked us in the eye and told us the truth.

By: wallstreet1929

wallstreet1929 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:01:21 -0800

Courage? Has free-fall 17 point drop in polls in two weeks. We have consensus that Hilary will do "anything" to gain nomination, citing "elect-ability." Knows McCain is on Easy Street in Baghdad and accumulating video for October. Weak interview with Major Garrett. Icarus is putting some hot glue on his feathers.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:09:09 -0800

You know, it's kind of amusing that about half the thread is nitpicking about the 'only in America' clause. I mean, jeeze, people, how to miss the freaking point, yanno? Seriously. If MeFi had existed in 1863, the same people would have reacted to the Gettysburg Address post thus: "Nice speech, but I hate this 'under God' shit: 'this nation, under God,' what's that about? Why does he have to drag God into it? Bah, just another politician." I'm all for skepticism and balanced judgment, but that's not the same as finding a tiny speck you don't like and focusing on that to the exclusion of everything else. No, this is not the Gettysburg Address and it's not going to singlehandedly Change Everything, but it's the most thoughtful and adult-to-adult speech I've heard a politician give in many years. If all you can do is whine about "American exceptionalism," your brain, heart, and soul have been eaten by snark.

By: digaman

digaman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:11:47 -0800

Amen, languagehat.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:17:56 -0800

The callers into the Brian Lehrer Show left me feeling somewhat dispirited about the Obama Campaign's prospects. From what I was able to discern, all the callers were different flavors of liberal, but few were able to hear the speech through their own biases. You had the Kucinich supporter who could not get past the part that Obama could not suggest specific legislation to address trenchant racism. There was the blue collar guy who was offended that Obama dared equate Limbaugh and Hannity with Wright. There was the old school progressive that was frustrated that Obama didn't completely disassociate himself with Wright. None were really listening. It's sad. The whole reason for the speed was that Obama was taking all kinds of flack for Wright's inflammatory comments on YouTube, and had to take a time out to define himself a bit more clearly. We got that and more: we got was an eloquent treatise on the history of racism of America and a nuanced view on its causes and effects. I would love to have that ability to communicate such difficult issues in such a clear and level-head way in the White House, but I have my doubts that America is ready for it, or even wants it. It seems that most want the same old red vs. blue, go team go nonsense. That they're happy to vote for Hillary on the basis of "I know how to fight those Republican fuckers", or that she'll keep us safe from early morning callers, rather than someone who has a legitimate shot at changing the subject of conversation. You know, it's kind of amusing that about half the thread is nitpicking about the 'only in America' clause. I mean, jeeze, people, how to miss the freaking point, yanno? Yes, very frustrating. Lest ye forget, the guy is running for President of the United States, not chairman of the local Green Party chapter. Sorry if it offends your delicate sensibilities,and call it pandering as you will, but a belief in American exceptionalism is a job requirement. And by American exceptionalism, I don't mean the Amerika uber Alles variety, I mean a deep love for it and the never ending desire to make it better.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:40:14 -0800

I know people tend to overvalue the present, but this speech, while great, isn't even in the same league with the Gettysburg Address. The circumstances and the message are so totally different as the obviate the comparison. Lincoln was trying to remoralize a country, Obama his campaign. The hyperbole does Obama's message and moral courage a disservice. I, too, was disturbed by the line about "only in America," as well as the nods to conventional political approaches to Israel and "radical Islam." It isn't beside the point to acknowledge that the limitations of American politics constrain the acceptable discourse here, even in such a unique speech. As a friend said to me: "My Muslim friends feel a bit like they've been invited to the candy store with the other kids, but told they can't get anything there."

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:43:32 -0800

Anybody who doesn't acknowledge that Obama gave a good speech is simply too self-satisfied with the flatulent smell of their own snark.

By: flashboy

flashboy — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:46:21 -0800

I thought it was a magnificent text - intelligent, moving on a personal level and excitingly bold from a political perspective. But the weird thing is, for me (as a non-American) it actually marked the point where I sort-of stopped caring if Obama actually wins*. Both from the slightly bitter perspective of "if America decides it doesn't want him as a leader after seeing this, then they don't deserve him", but also from the perspective that he's changing things already. Even if he fails in the nomination or the presidency, his words will still be there as an example people can point to for how they ought to elevate the political discourse. And he'll still be talking about these things; if I needed any more convincing, this was enough to assure me that he's not just a showman throwing around some fancy rhetoric in a grab for power, but a considered and passionate politiican who actually wants to change things - and will attempt to do so whether he's running for office or not. And as a side note on the American exceptionalism thing: I cringed as well, even though I know that it goes with the territory and it's something presidential candidates have to say. I know it seems nitpicky to mention it, but to give a little context: that sort of talk seems, to non-American ears, as very precisely symptomatic of an American-centic myopia which we see as being central to many of the failings of American foreign policy, both historically and right now. So it's not just a case of getting irritated by the damn Yanks being all "Go USA" all the time - it's something that actively worries us. But yes - it was just a feel-good note in an unimportant section of the speech, not something deeper. Shutting up about it now. *To clarify, I do still really, really want him to win. But I definitely felt a certain calm come over me - I stopped thinking of it like a sporting contest where I'm emotionally invested in one team winning, and instead started seeing it as a little bit of history, which will endure regardless of the whims of the voting public.

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:52:15 -0800

That they're happy to vote for Hillary on the basis of "I know how to fight those Republican fuckers", or that she'll keep us safe from early morning callers, rather than someone who has a legitimate shot at changing the subject of conversation. Count me as one who doesn't want to change the subject to race, and I don't see the dignity in demanding that a half-black president make it a central theme. If people think we need a "race president" before universal health care and addressing the environment and the looming prospect of a financial crisis, then they are trying to cure the symptoms of inequality as a thought experiment and a religious exercise, same as usual if you ask me. I've talked to people that believe Obama is bringing back welfare as we once knew it, and though I don't believe it to be true (because it's a stupid concept to pay people to drop out and have kids), that's the subject that many of them listed as Hillary-killed, and the subject they want it changed too.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:52:45 -0800

someone who hasn't won a primary in a SINGLE serious Dem state go out on the slate. Wisconsin is a serious Dem state and it went for Obama (Kerry 2004, Gore 2000). Oh wait, you only mean states on the coasts that Hillary won.

By: cashman

cashman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:54:05 -0800

The fun part about this for me is having a sense or a feeling that he could deliver even more monumental shifts in discourse and truly lift up the nation, in the coming months, if he can secure the nomination. That he has the potential to put out something that would make the orators of the greatest speeches that moved America to change and grow, nod in approval - that he has that potential, is really heartening. A lot of people needed to hear this. He has an ability to speak right to a lot of people who otherwise would continue about their ways. This is a good thing. This is a great thing.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:57:52 -0800

I feel the exact same way languagehat. Here is this beautiful, honest speech addressing race, an issue that people deal with everyday no matter what country they are in, in a way that was unique, at least for me, in that it confronted head on the aspects of it that we are usually afraid to talk about, that black people are justifiably angry at white people, that white people are sometimes justifiably angry at black people, but that this anger is not helping anything, and that to move forward we all have to let go of that anger. But instead of using this speech as a springboard to have a much-needed healthy discussion about race, we have grabbed one insignificant sentence in the speech that had nothing to do with it as a whole, and beat that to death. That being said, I want to say this about American exceptionalism. Even if you were to elect a black man to whatever your country's equivalent of a president is (what is that? King?) then you still won't be our equal. Because no matter how crappy we have been in the last 20 or so years, everything you will ever do in your country, you owe every bit of it to the United States of America. Sorry, but its a fact. So unless your country invents a time machine and goes back in time to 1776 and overthrows the most powerful country in the world and invents the modern democracy, you can just listen to us talk about how we are exceptional and smile and nod. Cause we've earned it. But your country isn't going to invent the time machine is it? It might come along later and make it smaller and faster and more efficient, it might build it for cheaper, it may even come to light that the technology that it was based on was developed there, but you know for a fact, deep down in your cold shriveled-up old world heart, that when the first time machine goes back in time, and the first time traveler plants a flag right in baby Hitler's ass, that that flag is going to be red white and blue.

By: Atreides

Atreides — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:59:46 -0800

Obama's speech != Gettysburg Address. It was a good speech, and I agree with everyone else, that when compared to the usual processed material we get, quite refreshing. I agree with OmieWise's criteria for it not being on the same level as the Gettysburg address, and add one more, brevity. I believe it could have been an even better speech if Obama had broken it down further. The "only in America" didn't bother me in the least, because first, I'm an American, its what I've been hearing since I could grasp a rattle. Second, but more importantly, as much as folks have been dismissing the "Rah, Rah, USA" aspect of the comment, I think that as much as people equate this spirit purely as horrid and wrong, they disregard the positiveness of it. Its an open invitation to every American that there is no barrier to accomplishment. Its not really about "spreading Democracy" Bush style across the world (and democracy can be spread by means other than guns and death). While today, many Western (and non-Western) societies can claim as much a society of possibility, of social advancement, as the United States, for centuries this was not always the case. For centuries, those who had no hope or prospects in their homeland came to the United States because they believed in the "only in America" idea. This isn't an idea that arose during the Cold War to combat Communism, its an idea that has existed since before the establishment of the nation. As a result, its deeply ingrained, perhaps more so than in any other nation or culture across the world. This doesn't mean America is better than any other nation, it simply means historically, America has been a place where those with the will, regardless of background, have repeatedly again and again risen to achieve. We are a nation of immigrants or their children rising to wealth and power, as true now, as a hundred years ago and a hundred years before that. Its wonderful that the same can be said of other peoples and countries today. As per the speech again, I think it went several steps forward to offer to America what an Obama presidency would appear as. I think it made Obama appear a national candidate more so than Hillary, and Hillary can't answer this, either. Their attack on Obama only allowed him to step in front of the spotlights and provide even more of a reason to vote for him and not her. His speech can serve as a release to those who were afraid to vote for Obama out of race and gender, because the speech has said, "lets transcend that!" I don't think it'll result in a major change of events, but I do think it'll just tip the scales further towards Obama.

By: GhostintheMachine

GhostintheMachine — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:00:15 -0800

You're either for him or against him, is that it, jonp72? Good is not great. A great speech helps end slavery. A great speech helps entrench civil rights for all. A great speech rallies a demoralized and defeated people to try once again against impossible odds. A good speech rescues an election campaign from a potentially damaging situation before it gets out of hand. So, yeah, Obama gave a good speech. Anybody reaching beyond that apparently hasn't heard a great speech.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:01:23 -0800

Count me as one who doesn't want to change the subject to race, and I don't see the dignity in demanding that a half-black president make it a central theme. Obama isn't trying to make race the subject of the debate... he was forced to address it due to the uproar over Wright's YouTube comments, so we can move past it.

By: GhostintheMachine

GhostintheMachine — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:02:17 -0800

(on preview.... ND¢, it's impolite not to flush after leaving that thing behind, man.)

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:03:59 -0800

He was forced to address it because it has been the elephant in the room since the birth of our country and has been the distraction that has allowed so many shitty self-serving politicians, both black and white, to come to power since then.

By: i_am_a_Jedi

i_am_a_Jedi — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:04:37 -0800

John McCain better hold on to his wrinkly-old ball-sac.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:06:24 -0800

Oh and prove me wrong GhostintheMachine. I would love to ride a dinosaur.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:08:36 -0800

It isn't beside the point to acknowledge that the limitations of American politics constrain the acceptable discourse here I'm not sure what this means. The limitations of American politics constrain the language used as well; if he gave his speeches in French, he wouldn't have a chance. So should response to the speech include a lament that it was given in English? Does that somehow exclude all the other wonderful languages in the world, many of them spoken right here in the U.S.? We could have an interesting discussion of that, but I think it would be beside the point. Could a candidate for president get elected if they said "Look, this is just one country, no better or worse than any other country, except that frankly it has been worse than most lately—I'm hoping to do something about that—but I have to tell you that patriotism is responsible for many evils and you should not be proud to be Americans but should simply strive to be decent human beings"? Answer: no. So what exactly do you want of the man?

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:09:44 -0800

Cause we've earned it. The Founding Fathers earned it. Your jingoistic bullshit just squanders it.

By: cillit bang

cillit bang — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:10:58 -0800

that when the first time machine goes back in time, and the first time traveler plants a flag right in baby Hitler's ass, that that flag is going to be red white and blue Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:11:10 -0800

cashman -- yes! precisely my feeling. if this guy can hit a campaign speech this hard, imagine the first state of the union of the post-Bush era.

By: GhostintheMachine

GhostintheMachine — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:14:17 -0800

...everything you will ever do in your country, you owe every bit of it to the United States of America. Sorry, but its a fact. Sorry, but simply saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. You've made an assertion there, and I'm calling bullshit on it. It's up to you now to defend your position, and then I (or others here) will blast the shit out of it.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:16:26 -0800

See, blasting the shit out of things that you disagree with. That is another thing you got from us.

By: GhostintheMachine

GhostintheMachine — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:18:20 -0800

Ah, so you have no proof of what you're saying. Thanks for wasting my time.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:21:00 -0800

I'm not sure what this means[...]Could a candidate for president get elected [...] Answer: no. So what exactly do you want of the man? But that's exactly what I meant. He had to say it and so he said it. That doesn't make it unexceptional, that makes it very much worth remarking on. That he had to talk about American exceptionalism and deplore radical islam mark the limits of what even someone as groundbreaking as Obama, in a speech this unique, is able to push against. That the comments came in a speech this courageous highlights that there are always things we cannot talk about, even when we're talking about things we cannot talk about. I'm not trying to take away from the speech, from its impact, or intelligence. I'm not trying to suggest that he should have said something different about race. But what struck me about those two lines was that he was using them to draw himself inside a circle, reminding listeners that there are other things besides race by which people can be divided and through which people can be united. In that respect I found it to be one of the most interesting moments in the speech. It also, frankly, disappointed me that he included those lines, and it made me think about what the speech would have been like without them. Ultimately, as I told another friend who last night, though, I'm never going to have the chance to vote for a viable candidate for President who I can wholeheartedly support, and those lines didn't surprise me at all.

By: tomcooke

tomcooke — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:28:33 -0800

Has the UK had any black candidate ... even one who wasn't viable? UK population: 2.58% black (2001) US population: 13.1% black (2006)

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:32:18 -0800

I think there's a difference between forgiving the "only in America" line as standard politicking and actually trying to defend it as true, as people above were doing. Sure, that (and the mustard sandwich girl, and various religious references) is to be expected - I just mentioned that those were the parts where I cringed a little, whereas the intelligent addressing of the real subtlety & complexity of racial bias was good to hear. It only became an argument because a poster attempted to make the argument that what he really meant by "only in America is my story even possible" is "only America has deep rooted enough racial prejudices for this to be especially noteworthy." I really don't think that's what he meant. Anyway, I heard the radio responses psmealey refers to above. And I read the "corner" comments over at National Review linked above, though of course they weren't going to go for him anyway. Still, the question is how much this divides people - it may strengthen support of some people (as is obviously the case in this thread, eg) but it will weaken the support of others, and strengthen the opposition in some cases as well. Where it balances out is what matters...

By: splatta

splatta — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:34:59 -0800

It's really distressing to me that so much of this thread was made up of the "Nuh uh! Ya huh!" back-and-forth over the "only in America" portion of this speech. Reiterating what Malor said, and what empath said: by nitpicking, and focusing on a small, mostly irrelevant part of this speech, you're devaluing the content of his message. You're doing here what a lot of the cable news talking heads are trying to do on TV; that is distract with one hand, while pigeonholing with the other. Count me with those who are experiencing for the first time in their lives, a politician who seems to be able to transcend the divisive political ploys, and leapfrog the media to land right at truth.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:39:17 -0800

Just watch moderates turn toward McCain if Obama gets the nod. Moderates are 4-1 ex-Republicans. You need to take off your Obamatan 3D glasses and look at the world aright. There are no "moderates." There are independents who vote either way. But what really pisses me off, MetaMan, is the gratuitous insulting language from CLinton shills like you. I'm an "Obamatan" wearing "3D glasses" because I support the candidate of my choice strongly? That makes you a Clintonista, I believe. Or a HillBot. I don't see anyone in this thread calling Clinton supporters delusional, or stupid, or even racist. But this language is par for the course from you. I sense bitterness, anger, frustration, and rage. Which is pretty much what I sense from your candidate too, with her mantra that the only way forward is to "fight" for something. So let me lay it on the fucking line. If you're going to argue by insult, eat some of your own. Hillary Clinton has never *fought* for anything serious in her life. She has never won a major political battle in her life. Running for senate was a cakewalk to victory because she was the president's wife. Not because she was a woman. If she had been the first gentleman she would have had it handed to her just as much. She does NOT have "35 years" -- or even close to it -- of experience doing anything that matters for this purpose. She has 8 years in elected office. Obama has more. Her senate record is modestly distinguished for a Newbie, as is Obama's. But it is marred by one error many of us will not forgive, and for which she has never even apologized. And you know what it is. She voted for the Iraq war authorization out of political expediency, back when the *courageous* thing a "fighter" would have done seemed like political suicide. Her calculation -- that supporting the war would help her win the presidency in a general election -- was transparent and nearly explicitly her rationale for the vote. Good call, Senator. Excellent judgment there. Thanks for "fighting" to do the right thing on the single biggest issue of our generation. As for health care, she can tout her "experience." But look where we are today, 16 years on from her super secret health care initiative, which involved making deals with the fat cats and which *she still could not pull off.* Fucking fighter, my ass. Her "populist" credentials are entirely newfound. This woman was on the BOARD OF WALMART, supported NAFTA strongly, and lives like a queen in Chappaqua with her servants. I am amazed at her appeal to white working class voters, and can really only chalk it up to her lying rhetoric and her covert racist appeals (and those of her supporters) to Obama's lack of "electability." She cries sexism, in subtle and overt ways, whenever she's cornered, yet she has benefited enormously from being the wife of a president, or -- this is the fucking truth - she would NOT be running for president herself. You cannot say that about Obama and his race without cracking me up. Yeah, it's so easy to be a black male in the US, you might as well run for president. She is tone deaf for political rhetoric. Completely uninspiring, and hated by half the electorate, with very high negatives and what all the experts agree is a ceiling of around 55 percent, maybe, on a very lucky day. She cannot win in many states that *could* elect democrats to congress, and *might* elect a democratic presidential candidate -- in the west, especially. And she has distinguished herself in this campaign, especially, for desperate tactics that have included overt -- and many more covert and surrogate-driven -- appeals to the worst elements in American society, specifically the racist ones. She may not be a racist, as I said above, but tolerating racism from your surrogates, even in the name of desperate expediency, is racist in and of itself. So this is the "fighter" you support blindly, like a robot, while calling those of us who support her opponent wimps, fools, tools, and automatons. And you howl and scream that Obama is "too liberal to win! People said that about Clinton, too, you know. Republicans still do. They *relish* having her to run against, which is why they are helping her out with this Jeremiah Wright bullshit and so much else. They *fear* Obama. Or they even *respect* him in many cases. And you put a cherry on top by calling Kerry, Dukakis, and our other DLC centrist losers "too far to the left" to win. HRC is one of them. We've had enough triangulation, asskissing of the right, and micro-demographic campaigning to know it doesn't work, even with a strong candidate. And HRC is no strong candidate. She's not half the candidate her husband was, and he NEVER WON A MANDATE. He didn't even win a plurality of the vote. And he was a piss poor president we began to worship only because what came next was so bad. Oh, and despite all the hand wringing about his persecution, he was a lothario who shtupped a 21 year old intern in his office, gave away the shop to the right, sold out the poor, and tossed bombs around whenever he needed a poll boost or a distraction. I don't say it all that often, but then I don't get called a robot or an automaton or a cultist or delusional all that often, so this one is necessary: Fuck. You. And Go Barack!

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:40:49 -0800

Obama would be a great UN representative, or head of HEW, but President? Spare me? I want someone who knows how to get their hands dirty, and go right down in the dirt to duke it out with the forces of neocon evil. "Duke it out with the forces of neocon evil?" Really? Do you ghost-write for Marvel Comics? This is the same kind of Manichean thinking that got George W. Bush into the Iraq War to fight "the Axis of Evil." The idea that the best strategic choice for progressives and liberals is to get Hillary Clinton to make a quixotic frontal attack on the Right Wing Noise Machine is absolute madness. This is exactly the kind of short-sighted thinking that leads me to Obama.

By: Perplexity

Perplexity — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:43:27 -0800

The Onion's take. Heh.

By: butterstick

butterstick — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:46:39 -0800

The only thing I dislike more than corrupt politicians is hero worship. Seriously? Methinks you need to recalibrate your moral barometer. We could use a hero.

By: shiu mai baby

shiu mai baby — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:48:50 -0800

fourcheesemac just made me come.

By: onlyconnect

onlyconnect — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:50:52 -0800

I heard most of this speech while I was making dinner last night (so admittedly was somewhat distracted) and then read through all of these comments and honestly couldn't understand what Obama said that was so momentous. So I went back and looked at the transcript and came up with the following summary: Rev. Wright said things that many would call racist, and I strongly disagree with them especially because they do not acknowledge that America and Americans can and have changed and improved and continue to constantly improve. But there is racism on both sides going both ways: Racism by black people who are upset over past treatment, lost opportunities, and continuous refusal of whites to acknowledge the problem or their struggle. And there is racism from whites, for example whites whose experience is that of immigrants, who have had to work hard for every opportunity and haven't really seen anything handed to them from people in power. There is racism from and against all races. We all have friends and family members or church contacts who have said things that have made us cringe and that we don't agree with. As a politician, when such moments happen, it's easy to get distracted. The easiest thing for me to do here would be to do what Hillary did and distance myself from the person (Ferraro) who said these cringeworthy things. But I'm not doing that here, because for all of the negatives Rev. Wright has, he is like a member of my family and has taught me alot. So, I'm going to continue going to this church with the hope that we can ??? (not clear here. Maybe the idea is that we can have a more open conversation about race). So this incident with Rev. Wright can either be a distraction for everyone that we deal with in soundbites, or we can use it to start a dialogue that acknowledges the truth that we know and love people who express racist tendencies but have other positive qualities that have helped us, and we can't distance ourselves from those people just because of that. And it would be better if, instead of being distracted, we would work together to improve the schools that underprivileged kids go to, and acknowledge that their improved opportunities would not come at the expense of our own dreams and experiences. So that's about where I came out with this, and I agree that this was remarkably straight-talking for a politician, basically acknowledging racism in everyone and giving everyone permission to keep their family members close despite this racism, etc. To be fair, I'm not sure a white person could have made this speech and not received alot of flack for it, because they would be coming from the position of power, and not the position of someone who is usually discriminated against rather than the discriminator. (I'm using hugely broad generalizations here.) In fact, if a white politician came out with this result -- that they weren't going to distance themselves from someone who had said hateful and/or racist things, because everyone has these people in their lives and we need to learn how to start coming to terms with this -- I'm not sure there would not have been an uproar. So I don't know. Have I missed the real substance here? To be clear: I like Obama, and voted for him in the primaries because I think he's more electable than Clinton. I admire his willingness to speak the truth and confound American's expectations of politicians. I guess I'm not fully convinced that there is a "policy" in this speech that other people seem to be talking about and admiring, besides this willingness to say that we all have people in our lives who express racism and we still love them though we don't love those qualities. It almost seems like his end point, though, is that he can have his cake and eat it, too -- he can continue to associate with Rev. Wright who holds these awful opinions, but he is also a uniter on race issues. Okay, I guess, because I understand that people are complicated and he can associate with people who hold awful opinions and not hold those opinions themselves, but ... am I missing something?

By: Pater Aletheias

Pater Aletheias — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:53:44 -0800

I heard a pretty interesting comment about Rev. (Jeremiah) Wright on NPR a little while ago. Apparently his namesake, the biblical prophet Jeremiah, was executed by being tossed into a pit after his fiery prophecies convinced his contemporaries that he was an enemy of the homeland. Life's funny like that, huh? Close, but not quiet. Jeremiah did endure some horrible treatment because of his harsh criticism of the leaders of Israel (both political and religious), but he wasn't executed. After Jerusalem was overrun by the army of the Babylonian Empire, a group of survivors took Jeremiah with them to Egypt against his will.

By: skyper

skyper — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:02:30 -0800

Funny how Metaman echoed my thoughts *almost* exactly with just the names switched
"Sorry folks, ~~Obama,~~ Hillary is too slick for me. ~~Hillary~~ Obama isn't perfect, either, but at least I know what I'm getting."
Speaking for myself, the fact Obama isn't relying (as much) on speechwriters to devise his messages, is impressive aplenty. To this extent, I 'know what I'm getting.'

"Her negatives are out there, already.

Distrust, much? In your own words, "Hillary is *proven*..." -- and I agree! proven untrustworthy (with Whitewater scandal as just 1 example), so if the alternative to her candidacy is one who sounds "slick-voiced" to you, I'm baffled! I'd rather cast pearls of confidence to one untainted by scandal than to the swine still muddy with earlier pecadilloes.

"Polling shows that the more people see and hear her, the more they like her."
Are we sure it isn't the version that substitutes "him" for "her," that's making news?

By: Dave Faris

Dave Faris — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:03:43 -0800

I think that when you're parched and in the desert, when you finally get something to drink, it seems like a golden elixir. I think Obama's speech was good -- better than any speech an american politician has given in the last 20, 30, 40 years. But we've been in the desert, after all. And, after only 24 hours, I don't think we're prepared to have the words chiseled in stone on a monument quite yet. But here's to the sincere hope that it helps catapult him to the White House.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:03:46 -0800

Here's a site with a bunch of links to reactions to the Gettysburg Address. Some people apparently though it was lame.

By: mwhybark

mwhybark — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:04:49 -0800

Opening my inbox this morning, I find that not one but two generally apolitical but inveterate email forwarders in my circle of friends and relations have forwarded me the complete text of the speech. Something is indeed afoot.

By: lunit

lunit — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:10:12 -0800

Meh. I guess I'll just re-post what I said in the earlier threads about this speech. He really did say something that can appeal to everyone. This is a work of political manuevering that truly is genius. And while it's definitely carefully crafted to appeal to a lot of different viewpoints, it's also surprisingly genuine considering how much he had to play politics about this issue. That it's touching the conservatives and racists I know as much as it's touching the radical lefties speaks wonders to me about just how powerful this speech was. I've never seen so many people who disagree so fundamentally with each other be able to get behind something like this before. Remarkable. I do think that Reverent Wright was right about a lot of things, but I also understand and respect the way that Obama distanced himself from those statements while refusing to deny his close relationship with him. And I love the way he draws a distinction between political mentorship and religious mentorship. I did have an issue with this paragraph: But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. Uh, racism is endemic. Thankfully, I think the rest of his speech seems to allude to that idea, without necessarily saying it. Something tells me he's more radical than he's letting on. And, at a time and in a country where his own supporters cheer "race doesn't matter!", the fact that he even says "race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now" is an (unfortunately) radical affront to those who continue to operate under an assumption of colorblindness. I'd like to hope that this is a step in the right direction toward an honest and critical dialogue about race in this country. All that being said, this speech has literally changed my position on Obama from being merely a supporter to being a avid, die-hard believer.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:11:43 -0800

time for a reality check - obama has demonstrated he can talk like a great leader - he's yet to demonstrate he can be a great leader, although i'm hopeful he can but that's not what worries me we have yet to elect him and we have yet to demonstrate that we can follow him if he turns out to be a great leader great leaders need great followers --- The "only in America" didn't bother me in the least the irony of the whole "exceptionalism" debate is that if it was just about any other politician in the world talking about HIS country that way, we wouldn't be debating it because no one outside of that country would know or care in other words, only in america can a politician talk about his country and upset people all around the globe

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:14:40 -0800

"but I'm not sure if Bill is really a brother, because I haven't seen him dance" he won't be able to tell anyway, because he lets hillary lead

By: DaShiv

DaShiv — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:15:32 -0800

As commentators at The Field noted:

Another suprising defender of Obama this morning on MSNBC — Gov. Mike Huckabee: He was impressed by the speech and how Obama is handling the race issue. He brought up Jerry Falwell, and said that Falwell said plenty of things that his parishoners would likely not agree with, and that we shouldn’t hold someone accountable for every statment of their pastor. Lastly, he said that he grew up in the segregated south, and that a guy like Wright who has been discriminated against for most of his life, would rightfully have a “chip on his shoulder.” [...] Huckabee also said that had he gone through what he saw blacks go through he would probably be even more resentful.

I think it's premature in the immediate 24 hours following the speech to speculate on its historicality. But from its rich resonance across many unusual corners of the political landscape (including the many personal anecdotes in this thread and elsewhere), it's undeniable that Obama's speech was, in a very literal sense, quite remarkable. His speech was a salient moment in American political discourse, just as his 2004 convention speech was, but with a wholly different tenor. And any rhetorician would've given their left nut to have delivered one, never mind both of these speeches. The writer in me is duly impressed by the way his speech framed and moved his narrative about race and reconciliation -- as spiderwire puts it, effectively weaving together the "universal chords" between personal and political. His Faulkner reference about the past wasn't just a throwaway line: it was a breathtakingly apropos reference in its precision of usage and thematic relevance, and it's a sad political truth to say that I found such literacy so unexpected from any presidential candidate. I've always liked Obama because of his policy stances on technology and his work for government transparency (for instance, on Coburn-Obama), but enjoying his speeches has been the guilty dessert of following Obama's candidacy. Seconds, please.

By: empath

empath — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:16:19 -0800

For people that are dispirited about the reaction on talk radio, i would submit that talk radio callers are not representative of the population as a whole.

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:17:17 -0800

onlyconnect, I think the point is that racism is everywhere. It is not just a few people here or there that we might happen to know, that we can dissociate from. It's woven into our entire culture, and when it bubbles up and we say, oh, I'm not part of that, and try to move away, we're avoiding a much deeper, structural issue by just shifting around. But the issue is still there. The only way to actually bring about some kind of change is to really acknowledge it, which means that even those of us who think we're not racist have to think about the ways we are - most white people will be less comfortable at the party or applying for a job when they're the only white person in the room, for instance. When we move into a new neighborhood, are we really colorblind? Does your average liberal white suburbanite not notice if they move into a black neighborhood? I don't think so. We aren't as openly and directly racist as we once were, but the quiet racism we live with underlies the laws and the opportunities of the entire country, and makes the black experience completely different from the white experience. The prison system, the drug laws, health care, education, housing - all of these things are deeply affected by racism, and we can't just "have black friends" and not use the N word. It's institutional. It has to be addressed at a more fundamental level.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:21:28 -0800

If Hillary's negatives are "out there," why the hell won't she release her tax returns or the donor list for the CLinton library? Could it be because of Marc Rich, Abu Dhabi, and the millions she's made by selling influence since the end of her husband's term? Clinton's negatives are "out there," alright. And they are mountainous. Starting with the fact that nearly half of all Americans who vote say they would never vote for her. Obama starts at around the same floor, but his apartment has MUCH higher ceilings. And he can change minds and hearts with his words, whereas HRC sounds like a squawking chicken uttering her ghost-written, uninspired truisms and lies about "fighting" for the little people she never cared much about before all of this. I swear to god she reminds me of Imelda Marcos.

By: konolia

konolia — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:23:06 -0800

Obama is right this minute giving a speech at our local community college-I am listening to it on live feed-only invited guests were allowed to be there in person. He is giving his view on what should be done regarding Iraq and Al-qaida. As soon as there is a transcript available I will link it as he is actually giving specifics re what should be done-I will be interested in how his ideas will be critiqued here, at the home of Ft Bragg. (I know it will never happen, but dang, if he would only change his position on abortion, I could see myself voting for him. Seriously. )

By: Maias

Maias — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:27:48 -0800

Yeah, why on earth are people picking out the "only in America" thing-- the guy's a politician running for President in a race in which patriotism has been defined as "supporting the war, being a Republican, letting Bush do whatever he wants and saying it's good." Give me a break! Second, has anyone *ever* seen Hillary say or write something moving, complex and original? Has anyone ever seen her stand up for principle over politics and take a nuanced position, rather than a polled-to-death one? She's just like Bill: she'll do or say whatever it takes to get power, but she doesn't seem to really believe in anything enough to risk possibly not getting it. If someone can give me an example of where she's voted for something that would cost her, I'd like to hear about it. I'll vote for her if I have to because she'll be in power in a time when political support is strong for the ideas I tend to agree with, so she'll be likely to pander that way-- but she's not someone who is likely to do anything more than that. And I'm fed up with the notion that she has "experience" because she was the First Lady-- but she wants us to elect her because she's a feminist and a victim of sexism! She probably could have gotten to high political office without Bill-- but she *didn't* so she is not any kind of feminist pioneer and I'm sick to death of her trying to have it both ways.

By: Killick

Killick — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:29:26 -0800

It was one hell of a speech, and to me included two acts of bravery. First, he took a 'third-rail' topic and addressed it face on. Second, he was willing to include nuance and complexity in a political speech, and to trust that his audience could handle it. He had to have known that the Hannities and Limbaughs out there would sound-bite the speech, and he made what was (I think) a wise political calculation that the resulting negatives would be more than offset by the positive response from people surprised at being treated as if they had brains. And that's why the 'only in America' bit seems so jarring: It seems out of place and unnecessary in this speech. For the same reason, the part OmieWise referred to about the middle east seemed out of place here as well. American policy in the middle east needs to move away from simplistic and trite reaction to incredibly complex issues, and Obama's comment was not encouraging.

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:31:09 -0800

You're either for him or against him, is that it, jonp72? Good is not great. A great speech helps end slavery. A great speech helps entrench civil rights for all. A great speech rallies a demoralized and defeated people to try once again against impossible odds. Cheezit! I try to defend against anti-Obama snark, and I set myself up for pro-Obama snark. Or maybe it's just snark for snark's sake.

By: JDHarper

JDHarper — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:32:38 -0800

konolia: If he would only change his position on abortion, I could see myself voting for him. I'm in a similar position of liking pretty much everything about Obama but abortion. I'm going to vote for him anyways, because the President doesn't have a lot of say on the abortion issue. I mean, we've had a Republican president and Congress for a long time; if they could have moved the country away from abortion, they would have. Obama's position is to keep things where they are, if I'm not mistaken. I don't see how that's any different from what the Republicans have done.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:33:46 -0800

The "only in America" thing is a reference to the boot-strap ideal of pioneerism. Get over it, it's part of our collective unconscious in the US.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:35:57 -0800

Seriously? Methinks you need to recalibrate your moral barometer. We could use a hero. I think the words you are looking for is personality cult, not hero worship.

By: Dave Faris

Dave Faris — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:36:43 -0800

I'm going to vote for him anyways, because the President doesn't have a lot of say on the abortion issue. While I don't want to dissuade you from voting for Obama, the people the President puts in the Supreme Court have lots to say about it.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:37:47 -0800

I am really glad to hear you say that konolia. Can I ask though, isn't a desire to minimize the number of abortions as much as possible enough? I mean, isn't that the middle ground? Can't everyone, pro-choice and pro-life get behind that? Wouldn't that be a win for the pro-life movement, if we reduced abortions down to where they were a rare occurrence?

By: pracowity

pracowity — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:38:15 -0800

From Kirth Gerson's link:

Chicago Times: "The cheeks of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat, and dishwatery utterances."

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:38:54 -0800

Or actually, HRC reminds me of Marie Antoinette dressing in peasant garb for sport and play. And we all know what happened to her. Look, Obama's speech doesn't have to be Gettysburg Address-level good, or "I Have A Dream" good, in order to nail home the case for his candidacy the way it does. I don't actually think it was in that league, because the stakes just aren't high enough yet in a mere campaign. But the guy wrote it himself. And it was the single most powerful speech of this or any recent campaign season I recall. And what this country desperately needs is a smart, modern, articulate, passionate, brilliant leader who inspires people to sacrifice and work together, not a "fighter" who will continue to divide and conquer our broken civil society by making enemies and polarizing the electorate around insoluble issues. I have never, ever been inspired by a Hillary Clinton or John McCain speech. Nor have I ever seen either one of those two speak past the core and rotten divisions in American society even in off the cuff remarks or unguarded moments or in print. While both are intelligent, neither has a quality of brilliance I associate with Obama. Or passion. And finally, as a 43 year old guy who works as a teacher of 20 somethings, I am most driven by a generational narrative that I believe will carry Obama easily to the white house if he is the nominee. McCain is approaching 80 years old. Running against him is as easy as pointing that out, not because it makes him incompetent (I think he is highly competent, and actually I admire him as a principled man, for the most part, and for a politician, and more than I admire HRC to be honest). But because it makes him OLD, as old as Hillary's ideas. We have had 2 generations now -- or more, even -- of post-vietnam right/left polarization in this country, of red/blue polarization, of white/nonwhite and native/immigrant and rich/poor polarization. What we have not had is a cross-cutting generational polarization, and that's the only polarization that has positive implications. The WWII and Vietnam generations have had their chances. They've fucked the US up something good, too. Everyone dies. The passage of time is inexorable. Polls show unequivocally that the younger you are, the more liberal you are; the more you support gay rights, don't care about racial difference, and think globally; the more you care about the environment; the more you think about the future on a far horizon. I want a president from my generation. I don't even need much more rationale for supporting Obama than the fact that I see my 20-something students passionate about politics after growing up dispirited and cynical and apathetic thanks to the dangerous moron now in office, and his backstage neocon warmonger handlers. You cannot fight time. Obama will win this time, or he will win next time (or someone of his generation, my generation, will win next time, anyway). It is not Hillary's turn. Her husband took her turn, and look what a great job he fucking did with it. Among the many lies and distortions of this campaign season, the construction of a nostalgic bubble around Bill Clinton's presidency is one of the most amazing to me. We settled for him because we had lived through Reagan and Bush I. He did a half-assed job at best, never won a mandate or a plurality, never managed to deliver sweeping reforms he promised because of that, and threw away our trust and support with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. If the right's reaction to that had not been so disproportionately evil, the left would have been more realistic. How many of Hillary's feminist supporters would excuse a 60 year old boss who took advantage of a 21 year old intern, say he should keep his job and even cheer and celebrate his escape from punishment for it? One thing this election has done for me, at least, is revise the Bill Clinton legacy into the proper dung heap it really was in historical hindsight. Bill Clinton is the reason we got George Bush the Second. Had Bill kept it in his fucking pants, Al Gore would have been president, and we might just have an energy policy, a green technological initiative, and no Iraq war instead of the utter disaster the US has since become. Hillary must bear that cross if she wants to build her case for the presidency on her "experience" in her husband's administration. But even so, I don't recall voting for her in 1992 or 1996. Do you?

By: mikeh

mikeh — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:39:27 -0800

How can Obama's story be uniquely American, except that it took place in America? In almost every country in the world people can remake themselves, with luck and daring and the right breaks. I'm not singling this particular comment out, but it's representative of a sentiment that's seen throughout this thread. Here's my take on it: Obama's personal story isn't uniquely American because of his ethnically-diverse background, or his overcoming prejudice, or anything else that involves some sort of harsh situation that could be faced in any other country. It's American because it happened here. The experiences you have in a place, experiences that are shared with others in that place, create a common background. Saying that this "could have" happened elsewhere is missing the point. Sure, he could have been the grandson of an English farmer and the son of an African immigrant, etc etc, but he wouldn't have had a childhood during the American civil rights struggle, or even seen the same television shows. If you don't believe the fact that shared experience and actually living in a culture are a strong part of personal identity, then I'm not sure how to clarify. The "only in America" idea isn't to say that people only overcome diversity here, it's a reminder that Obama is as American as anyone else, but has had to have experiences that many Americans haven't -- due to race, class, privilege, or geographic location. I mean, only in Chicago are you going to go to a Chicago church, and only in the US are you going to see the US civil rights era, and you're not likely to have a mother from Kansas if you're born in London. The diverse background actually will make some people feel like he's less American -- check out the scare tactics thrown around about his name, his schooling, and his church.

By: citron

citron — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:40:46 -0800

fourcheesemac, you hate her - WE GET IT. That's five posts full of complaining about it now? She reminds you of Imelda Marcos now because you ran out of other names to call her, I guess. Oh, there was "squawking chicken" after that. If you're for Obama, try finding a positive reason to support him instead of whining about the other candidate. And if you must, who can even hear any legitimate criticism you might be making of Hillary in the midst of such petty, spiteful garbage.

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:40:58 -0800

Jimbob writes "Once again - America is so special that it's the only place someone like Obama could be succesful...and yet it would be a huge, historic deal if he is actually successful. Doesn't that sit kinda weirdly with you guys?" There are parts of the speech which are political, which is what separates it from speeches like the Gettysburg Address. You don't get to give a speech like that until you're president. The American exceptionalism you hear is rhetorical and political. He gave a very honest speech, but he's still trying to run for president, so that's the part that's playing mostly to a mythology. But more importantly, the speech is meant for his run for president of the US, so he's speaking to citizens of the US primarily, not the world audience. You have to consider the audience for the speech.

By: citron

citron — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:42:53 -0800

I feel sorry for your students if you're that hateful about this woman to the point where you've gotten that angry that you're calling her those things.

By: mikeh

mikeh — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:43:16 -0800

On another note, geographic differences within the US are boggling my mind right now. Anyone posting here saying that Hillary has a better chance against McCain doesn't live in my neighborhood, because I can count on two hands the number of people I know who have either voted republican, who kind of cringe when they hear Hillary speak or just think that she's somehow "fake" who support Obama. And these people aren't far-left or far-right, and think that while either party could suit their needs, they'd rather not vote for Clinton. I don't know that it's rational, but even among people who think all three candidates are decent, there's an Obama->McCain->Clinton preference hierarchy. This being in central Iowa, though.

By: generalist

generalist — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:44:41 -0800

What on earth has Obama said that is so earth-shattering? *various comments about American exceptionalism* I'm still taking this speech in. Having read it and watched it and cried both times I'm trying to figure out what made Obama's words so important, so moving, so terribly welcome. And it starts with this: [The declaration of independence] was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery... This man who is running for President acknowledges the seeping wound in the heart of this country. He goes on to OWN that history, to relate via his story and the stories of his families, kin and elective, the pain and wondrousness of being an American. There's no jingoism, no rah-rah-USA, but Obama's is an exceptional life in an exceptional country which he believes can be bettered by understanding that my dreams do not come at the expense of yours. And I believe he will, if elected, extend that vision beyond the borders of the US.

By: shakespeherian

shakespeherian — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:46:14 -0800

(I know it will never happen, but dang, if he would only change his position on abortion, I could see myself voting for him. Seriously. ) konolia— It may or may not mean anything to you, but I come from a pretty conservative Christian background, and for a long time the abortion thing was my last not-going-liberal holdout, until I read David Foster Wallace's explanation of his positon:

In this reviewer's opinion, the only really coherent position on the abortion issue is one that is both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. Argument: As of 4 March 1999, the question of defining human life in utero is hopelessly vexed. That is, given our best present medical and philosophical understandings of what makes something not just a living organism but a person, there is no way to establish at just what point during gestation a fertilized ovum becomes a human being. This conundrum, together with the basically inarguable soundness of the principle "When in irresolvable doubt about whether something is a human or not, it is better not to kill it," appears to me to require any reasonable American to be Pro-Life. At the same time, however, the principle "When in irresolvable doubt about something, I have neither the legal nor the moral right to tell another person what to do about it, especially if that person feels that s/he is not in doubt" is an unassailable part of the Democratic pact we Americans all make with one another, a pact in which each adult citizen gets to be an autonomous moral agent; and this principle appears to me to require any reasonable American to be Pro-Choice. This reviewer is thus, as a private citizen and an autonomous agent, both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. It is not an easy or comfortable position to maintain. Every time someone I know decides to terminate a pregnancy, I am required to believe simultaneously that she is doing the wrong thing and that she has every right to do it. Plus, of course, I have both to believe that a Pro-Life + Pro-Choice stance is the only really coherent one and to restrain myself from trying to force that position on other people whose ideological or religious convictions seem (to me) to override reason and yield a (in my opinion) wacko dogmatic position. This restraint has to be maintained even when somebody's (to me) wacko dogmatic position appears (to me) to reject the very Democratic tolerance that is keeping me from trying to force my position on him/her; it requires me not to press or argue or retaliate even when somebody calls me Satan's Minion or Just Another Shithead Male, which forbearance represents the really outer and tooth-grinding limits of my own personal Democratic Spirit.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:46:43 -0800

It also, frankly, disappointed me that he included those lines That smacks to me of "I'd rather have an unelectable candidate who says only things I agree with than an electable one who sometimes says things I don't agree with because he's got that vile desire to get elected," which has been the traditional attitude of American "progressives" and a big reason we get stuck with assholes like Bush. I'm still not convinced Obama can get elected, but it's looking like it, and anyone who has the political attitudes most MeFites do would be crazy to nitpick him, because he's the closest thing to an ideal candidate you're going to see in your lifetime.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:47:06 -0800

I guess I'm not fully convinced that there is a "policy" in this speech that other people seem to be talking about and admiring, besides this willingness to say that we all have people in our lives who express racism and we still love them though we don't love those qualities. Yea, I didn't see policy in the speech, either. I do admire it- I think it took guts to get up and say what he said. I'm sure it would have made a lot of people, Democrats included, more comfortable if he had fully distanced himself from Rev. Wright and stopped talking about "race" i.e. black people. What he said was true, and I think it was worth saying, and if it helps get a Democrat in the White House, I say, good job. But I can't get all worked up over this particular speech. Outline some solutions, then we'll talk. Of course, that's the hard part, and hard work isn't very sexy (for a number of reasons), so maybe I wouldn't get all worked up over that, either.

By: Henry C. Mabuse

Henry C. Mabuse — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:47:36 -0800

Jeez, I hope you guys don't fuck this up.

By: anotherpanacea

anotherpanacea — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:48:17 -0800

*adds thread to recent activity*

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:48:44 -0800

Why do all these Obama supporters remind me of Dukakis supporters, and Kerry supporters, and Gore supporters (before Gore found himself)? I guess it's probably because they're mostly under 40, or have never voted in a general election, or fail to understand the machinations of politics, or completely ignore the fact that Obama's underlying advisory group is more right than Clinton, or that there is something called the "GOP Attack Machine" that will take everything Obama has done and said that's even remotely questionable, and use it as compost to grow a garden of middle-American doubt that will end up having McCain as President. If I'm wrong, and I *love* to be shown I'm wrong, unlike many dreamers who persist in their vision, even as they're plunging over the precipice, I will buy all the delusional Obamatans on the thread a virtual lunch, by coming back to say that I was wrong, and you were right. Until then, Hillary - a person who wrote the best book on family values ever penned by a politician (It Takes a Village); who was willing to stick her neck out for universal health insurance, in defiance of even the top players in her own party; who redefined the role of First Lady as activist; who has a solid record of liberal accomplishment over years; who is one of the smartest policy wonks out there; who has survived the savaging of the GOP and her own misguided party (from the Camelot far left); and, who has survived in spite of the annointed blessing of a press who has practically elevated Obama to the level of saint....HIllary will stay in this and fight like hell, because she knows how to do that, and she will WIN! GO HILLARY!!!!!!

By: Artw

Artw — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:51:38 -0800

GO HILLARY That's very suprprising from you.

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:52:02 -0800

Saying that this "could have" happened elsewhere is missing the point. for satan's sake people! he said "only in america is my story even possible." Stop trying to reinterpret simple political bullshit and just accept that there were some lines of simple political bullshit within an otherwise nuanced and intelligent speech.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:58:00 -0800

They're going to come from the ones that haven't committed by the time the convention appears Really? How many are those? Hillary supporters never do check their math. Turns out there's only about 200 uncomitted supers left.Hillary only has 37 more supers than Obama does and he leads her by nearly 200 in the pleged delegates. Do the math. She's going to have to win 80%-20% in EVERY primary from here on out and get all the remaining supers, and pick off some of the rest. Not only that, Metaman, ask yourself this: Were you making the same argument 3 weeks ago with the words "Texas" and "Ohio" instead of Penn.?

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:58:34 -0800

you can not change your parents. ever. but you don't have to belong to a church that preaches hate and say later you can not disown the guy running the place. Reverend Wright is not "the guy running the place" at Trinity United Church of Christ. The church has several pastors, and Wright retired early this year, although he retains the title of Senior Pastor. Wright preaches a brand of black liberation theology that was influenced heavily by the Black Power movement of the 1960s. I think it's clear from Obama's writings that he has assimilated the more liberating aspects of this theology, but has rejected its more prejudicial and black nationalist aspects, most notably Obama's rejection of Louis Farrakhan's dubious ideology and endorsement. If this wasn't clear before, I think his recent speech certainly made that clear.

By: citron

citron — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:59:52 -0800

Obama's underlying advisory group is more right than Clinton This is very true. Goolsbee, and his chief health care adviser.. I think a lot of people don't want to hear it or believe Obama really isn't listening to these folks, somehow, though they're at the top level of his campaign? Reviving the Harry and Louise ads against universal health care was very troubling to me. Paul Krugman's been writing columns for months trying to point to what we'd likely get from Obama, in economic policy.

By: localhuman

localhuman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:00:34 -0800

I'm 75% done reading this thread, have to go to work now. I just wanted to say it: Thanks metafilter for the wonderful discussion. This community is very smart, considerate, and can write like no other I've been involved in. Though things can tend towards snark and banality on most days, it is threads like this why I sometimes call in late for work.

By: Maias

Maias — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:00:40 -0800

Willing to stick her neck out on universal health insurance? Did you look at her plan and how she devised it when Bill was in office? It was basically the worst of both worlds: universal managed care for-profit! Ie, you get all the bureaucrats of an NHS *plus* people who make money from taking away care. Devised in secret where basically everyone compromised so much that no one agreed with what came out. Insurers support her plan over Obama's because it forces people to pay them. It Takes a Village is a great idea-- but a lousy book. MetaMan, I'd be really curious to see an example of where she stood up for principle when it would hurt her. It's certainly not now on health care when the situation is so bad that even the big corporations agree something needs to be done-- polling on universal health care is something like 60% (depending on how you word it, of course) last I looked. She certainly is smart, but she can't speak or write and after years and years of leaders who cannot communicate in a way that moves people...

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:01:39 -0800

Why do all these Obama supporters remind me of Dukakis supporters, and Kerry supporters, and Gore supporters (before Gore found himself)? You mean Democrats?

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:01:56 -0800

That smacks to me of "I'd rather have an unelectable candidate who says only things I agree with than an electable one who sometimes says things I don't agree with because he's got that vile desire to get elected," which has been the traditional attitude of American "progressives" and a big reason we get stuck with assholes like Bush. Yeah, lh, but that isn't what I said, and I don't think anything else I wrote really suggests that that's my position. I did mention that I'm unlikely to ever have the chance to vote for a viable presidential candidate that I wholeheartedly support, but I meant that that means I have to come to terms with making accommodations. Cut me a little slack, I think I was pretty clear about why I find it the most interesting part of the speech.

By: butterstick

butterstick — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:01:59 -0800

MetaMan, could you shill somewhere else please? This thread is about a specific event. You're even further derailed than those who are fixated on the Don King Clause.

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:03:08 -0800

Though things can tend towards snark and banality on most days, it is threads like this why I sometimes call in late for work. posted by localhuman at 5:00 PM on March 19 [+] [!] - I want to see you in my office.

By: Dave Faris

Dave Faris — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:04:06 -0800

Yeah, MetaMan. We should only shill for Obama in this thread. Get your own thread.

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:06:43 -0800

This thread is about a specific event. Right, about the mysterious taking over of minds by anyone who can speak in whole paragraphs - it's called "Bush Withdrawal". Might I suggest a good dose of history, and a stronger doze of anti-Rove pills. You're in for a surprise if Obama gets the nod.

By: caddis

caddis — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:07:03 -0800

The importance of the speech, at least to me, is not what it says about Obama, or about the race for the nomination, or Obama's former minister, it is that he appears to have said something about race relations that we have not been hearing from people in positions of influence. Anyway, it will be years before we know if this speech ends up having any impact on race relations in the country, whether it helps stop the finger pointing and opens a dialogue. I hope it does, and whether he is President, Senator or a university professor, I hope he helps lead that dialogue.

By: miss tea

miss tea — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:08:05 -0800

Obamatans Please take a moment, metaman, and consider how offensive this term is, and stop using it. I honestly don't see how you can use it and take your own political analysis seriously. It makes you look like a complete ass. Fine, say Obama supporters are delusional for thinking he'll make it past the GOP attack machine. I disagree, but that's an arguable position. Calling the supporters of the candidate you don't like names is just rude.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:08:39 -0800

Yeah, lh, but that isn't what I said, and I don't think anything else I wrote really suggests that that's my position. Sorry, didn't mean to suggest it was, it just reminded me of what drives me nuts about progressives in general. Thanks for clarifying. MetaMan, could you shill somewhere else please? Actually, I think he's serving as a useful example of what Hillary supporters are like. Keep on shillin', MetaMan!

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:08:53 -0800

A good line from Dickerson at Slate: Remember also that he did all of this while in the middle of a sleep-stealing, gut-punching presidential campaign, which is like writing the speech while riding backward on a flaming unicycle.

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:10:18 -0800

Why do all these Obama supporters remind me of Dukakis supporters, and Kerry supporters, and Gore supporters (before Gore found himself)? You mean Democrats? Yeah, the Democrats who screwed up the Democratic party, and let the Bush family in the White House, in case you haven't read any history prior to 2000. People have such a short memory, especially when their neocortex has been mesmerized by the incantations of hope, born of political convenience.

By: Atreides

Atreides — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:10:38 -0800

Metaman, I find your assumptions of Obama supporters to be dismissive and underlined with some kind of pseudo-educated attempt at reasoning away their support as if read verbatim from campaign literature. I actually voted for Hillary in the primary in my state, a vote I find myself increasingly regretting due not only to the attacks by her camp, but also by the behavior of her followers. I can thank you for reinforcing what I've felt has been wrong with the Clinton campaign, and helping to push one previous supporter away, and undoubtedly, other less vocal individuals.

By: empath

empath — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:11:00 -0800

Bill Clinton's speech on race in 1995, marking the Million Man March (oh noes, Minister Farrakhan!). It seems that it struck many of the same notes.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:12:30 -0800

You might be a more convincing advocate of your position, MetaMan, if you could bring yourself to stop insulting people who might possibly disagree that your candidate is the best choice. Talk about poisoning the well, what you're spouting is exactly the type of nonsense that keeps people home when their candidate doesn't win the party nomination.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:12:55 -0800

If Obama gets the nomination, it'll be the first time since I've been old enough to vote (and really in my life time), where there will be a candidate who I think will actually make America a better place. If he gets the nomination and loses to McCain, at least for once the Democratic Party will have put up the best candidate they had, rather than the best at working intra-party politics, or the one that focus-grouped as the "most electable." For once it'll be possible to vote for a Democrat without having to hold my nose when doing so.

By: lupus_yonderboy

lupus_yonderboy — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:13:27 -0800

same tired liberal programs that have done almost nothing to solve endemic poverty. Look back 100 years, when the "tired liberal programs" started. What was life like for the poor in the US? (answer: inconceivably awful and squalid by today's standards) Fast forward 75 years or so, to around 1980, and things were much, much better for your average "poor" person in every possible way; and, many of them had graduated to the "middle class". Since 1980, these "tired liberal programs" have been systematically dismantled. The results are obvious and will be come more obvious with each passing year. So I think our "tired old liberal programs" have done quite well, and that's considering that they've been systematically gutted by politicians and leeched by low-level bureaucrats. If they were implemented aggressively by competent people, there's no telling what could happen. Compare and contrast to the millions of humans killed and trillions of dollars pissed away by the "tired old conservative programs" in countries from Vietnam to Iraq.

By: scrump

scrump — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:14:02 -0800

I'm kind of amazed at the sheer volume of perfect as the enemy of good going on in here. It's like we just can't handle the sheer cognitive dissonance of an honest, straightforward speech, and we've been conditioned by forty years of lying on the part of everyone from the President to the dogcatcher to look for the hidden message. For the first time in my adult, voting life (I'm 35), a politician said exactly what he meant, and didn't weasel-word, shy away from or slow-pedal hard truths about the United States. That's the definition of remarkable, and nitpicking the speech is the equivalent of missing the forest for the trees. No US politician in my lifetime, with the possible exception of Paul Wellstone, has spoken so frankly about any issue. And certainly no viable Presidential candidate. That the leading candidate for President just did so, in this political and media climate, astounds me. Obama really is different.

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:15:52 -0800

Until then, Hillary - a person who wrote the best book on family values ever penned by a politician (It Takes a Village); Excuse me, but It Takes a Village was ghostwritten. I have met the ghostwriter personally.

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:18:51 -0800

People have such a short memory, especially when their neocortex has been mesmerized by the incantations of hope, born of political convenience. The denigration of "hope" by the Clinton campaign is just a symptom of the more terrible phenomenon of their effort to get Americans to expect lower standards from their political leaders.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:19:07 -0800

I want to take a moment to apologize for cursing out MetaMan, personally to MetaMan and to the rest of the participants in this thread. It was not necessary and disproportionate and I am sorry I did that. It's exactly what I am so angry about from the other side, so it was truly uncalled for. I stand by my points. I think it's a very deep insult to say of anyone that they are "robots" or "cultists" for having strong political feelings about a candidate based on a rational argument. But the profanity hurts the point I was trying to make. My only excuse is a sense of utter frustration that the discourse has become so ugly. I shouldn't have made it even worse. Thanks to peacay for calling me out on it in private. And again, MetaMan, I apologize. I am sure your support for Hillary is as principled as mine for Obama. May the best candidate win.

By: dobbs

dobbs — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:20:27 -0800

Jeez, I hope you guys don't fuck this up. Sorry, dude, but ... you know what they say: Only in America.

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:21:31 -0800

It took me quite a while to figure out that when MetaMan referred to Obama supporters as "Obamatans," he actually meant to write "Obamatons," i.e., a portmanteau of "Obama" and "automatons." I actually thought it was some dreadful racist use of the word "tan," referring to the color; q.v. Mantan Moreland and the reference to him in Spike Lee's Bamboozled. MetaMan, please forgive me for thinking that you might be racist. Instead, I see that you simply can't spell.

By: pointilist

pointilist — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:22:12 -0800

thanks fourcheesemac .

By: KevinSkomsvold

KevinSkomsvold — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:22:48 -0800

The only thing I dislike more than corrupt politicians is hero worship. Heros, huh? What Rogerian/Kopp 101 class did you snag that from? Christ, its not like anyone is collecting Obama Action figures or writing country songs about him. That sort of trivial one-off is exactly the type of crap that adds more noise to the ratio. After eight years of living in fear, muddled in war, losing a sense of respect and pride for America, paying $50 to fill my gas tank every week, watching my healthcare premiums triple, having my email and phone possible monitored "for my own good," having my brother shipped off to Iraq three times, not feeling safe traveling to another country, yeah - we could use a "hero" right about now. Even if Obama instills a sense of pride in what it means to be an American, I'd pay $100 to fill my gas tank.

By: scrump

scrump — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:23:54 -0800

I guess it's probably because they're mostly under 40, or have never voted in a general election

Go fuck yourself. I'm 35, and I've voted in every. single. election, local, state AND general, that I was permitted to since I was 18, because my parents drilled into me that participation in democracy was a privilege, not a right. I have diehard conservatives and outright neocons in my family. I also have diehard leftists in my family. My grandfather was an actual honest-to-God Socialist who barely escaped being hauled in front of McCarthy because McCarthy died. I don't know who the fuck you are, or where you think you get off trivializing those of us who have made a conscious, deeply thought decision to support Obama, but you represent the ne plus ultra worst of the Democratic party. I'm sure you're familiar with the Will Rogers axiom: "I don't belong to any organized party: I'm a Democrat". Look over your "contributions" to this thread, versus those of Miko and fourcheesemac and other Democrats, and I think it will become instantly clear who's responsible for the idea and the reality of the Democrats as circular firing squad. You seem to be fundamentally incapable of even respecting our choices, let alone honestly debating them. If we lose this election, it won't be because of Hillary or Obama or their supporters. It will be because people like you are so invested in dismissing everyone who doesn't act, behave or think like you do that you burn the party to the ground. At this point in history, we're supposed to be the party of inclusion: the party that represents a clear change from the "leave no billionaire behind", I-got-mine-and-fuck-you policies of the last 8 years. In this thread, which posters have best represented that inclusive spirit? And who has most embodied the opposite? It seems to me that the strongest voices for inclusion and civility in this discussion belong to people who have said they support Obama, and the shrillest, most critical hectoring has been coming from those who claim to support Clinton. This is not an accident.

By: bashos_frog

bashos_frog — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:24:20 -0800

"they're mostly under 40, or have never voted in a general election, or fail to understand the machinations of politics, or completely ignore the fact that Obama's underlying advisory group is more right than Clinton" Wrong on every count, but I'll only address the last one specifically. I believe Obama to be the type of person who can take advice from people with radically different viewpoints than his own, carefully consider it, and formulate a plan of action that is both practical and effective.

By: salishsea

salishsea — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:24:43 -0800

So late to this thread...but I've read most of the comments here and I just had to say that as a Canadian of mixed ancestry, I was impressed by Obama's speech and impressed by the likes of Nattie and some of the other commenters here who have clearly heard what the man was trying to say. The world right now is about segmenting everything - market share, demographics, political polarities. In the corporate world, we are subjected to team building exercises that using various typologies to label what kind of thing everybody else is. We are not seeing each other clearly. Prejudice, be it economic, racial, demographic or whatever, fuels everything. Companies and campaigns reach out to different groups in different ways to get them to buy into the same thing, leaving people divided, bitter and suspicious about the "other" even as we all end up drinking Coke. If Obama is doing anything - inviting anything - he is inviting us to rise above the ways in which we have been segmented, and the ways in which we segment ourselves and find partners, collaborators, creative sources of tension and cohesion by USING the diversity that exists everywhere. Diversity and multiculturalism in the America I know currently holds your country back. Obama is calling for it to take the country forward, and as a citizen of your biggest neighbour, I applaud that call and hope it resonates in November. I think Obama is raising the stakes with the magnificent speech. If his campaign dies because his message is destroyed by the very things he is calling out, it will represent a Pyrrhic victory for the the winner, be it Clinton or McCain. Whoever defeats that message of hope and cohesion will have inherited a country which glimpsed the light of possibility and lowered the shades against it.

By: mazola

mazola — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:25:09 -0800

I tried reading the speech in my head using George Bush's voice. I couldn't. Good speech.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:26:00 -0800

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:27:21 -0800

Christ, its not like anyone is collecting Obama Action figures Um mm ....... Come on, this is the internet. OF COURSE there are Action figures! :-D

By: anthill

anthill — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:27:43 -0800

Obama's nods to american exceptionalism help the candor go down. Accept the plate of beans and achieve enlightenment.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:29:21 -0800

Christ, its not like anyone is collecting Obama Action figures or writing country songs about him. *hides half-penned lyrics to "America's In Between a Barack and a Hard Place" under mattress*

By: adamdschneider

adamdschneider — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:29:22 -0800

Metafilter: your brain, heart, and soul have been eaten by snark

By: konolia

konolia — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:30:48 -0800

Here's the text to today's speech (it should be up for a day or two at least.)

By: Drastic

Drastic — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:32:54 -0800

Excuse me, but It Takes a Village was ghostwritten. I have met the ghostwriter personally. Steely-eyed unblinking taking credit for others' work just shows what a fighter she is. Fight fight fight! I agree with the "glass of water in the desert" analogy made up yonder. I hope he gets the nomination, but a big part of me is cynically convinced that a Daily Show bit pretty much nailed it. Paraphrased, America mostly loves the idea of voting for change. When it comes right down to the actual election, America just may find that voting for the 70 year old white guy is exactly the kind of change they're really looking for.

By: konolia

konolia — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:33:50 -0800

Here's part of it that you all may find of interest. I certainly did: So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden– as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer. In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy. What I propose is not – and never has been – a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started. My plan to end this war will finally put pressure on Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future. Because we’ve learned that when we tell Iraq’s leaders that we’ll stay as long as it takes, they take as long as they want. We need to send a different message. We will help Iraq reach a meaningful accord on national reconciliation. We will engage with every country in the region – and the UN – to support the stability and territorial integrity of Iraq. And we will launch a major humanitarian initiative to support Iraq’s refugees and people. But Iraqis must take responsibility for their country. It is precisely this kind of approach – an approach that puts the onus on the Iraqis, and that relies on more than just military power – that is needed to stabilize Iraq.

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:34:25 -0800

MetaMan writes "Yeah, the Democrats who screwed up the Democratic party, and let the Bush family in the White House, in case you haven't read any history prior to 2000. People have such a short memory, especially when their neocortex has been mesmerized by the incantations of hope, born of political convenience." It seems like you're stuck in a loop, but what the heck. In 2004, we were told that Kerry was the most "electable," and that Dean was too hotheaded. Look what we got. In 2000, we were told that Gore was more electable than Bradley. Look what we got. Gary Hart was drummed out of the '88 race, or he would likely have gotten the nomination, but Gore ran that year and did not get it. We've taken the moderate, centrist position since McGovern, with Carter perhaps being one exception.

By: konolia

konolia — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:35:08 -0800

Now that is refreshing. He told us not only what he wants to do, but how, and WHY.

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:36:19 -0800

Bill Clinton's speech on race in 1995, marking the Million Man March (oh noes, Minister Farrakhan!). It seems that it struck many of the same notes. An excellent point (and probably better delivery too). I guess the difference is that Obama was talking more directly about personal experience with race, while Clinton had to rely on numbers more. To some people that was probably a plus - he directly talked about policies and statistics, disparity in prison population and so on, so there was a better sense of what one supposed he might be able to do about it. With Obama, there were more details about his own friends and family, but for the politically minded also a sense of, ok, now what? But people do seem to just like him better, which admittedly makes a real difference. If a higher percentage of people will listen when Obama says it than did when Clinton said it, then that's still a higher percentage of people listening.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:38:57 -0800

That David Foster Wallace quote is the best summary of how I feel about abortion.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:43:06 -0800

HRC reminds me of Marie Antoinette dressing in peasant garb for sport and play. And we all know what happened to her. [glados] Cake? [/glados]

By: drezdn

drezdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:43:10 -0800

This is a longshot, but what if Obama could convince Gore to be his running mate? Sure, Gore would bring some baggage, but it would make it hard to argue that the ticket lacked experience.

By: Miko

Miko — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:43:23 -0800

Once again - America is so special that it's the only place someone like Obama could be succesful...and yet it would be a huge, historic deal if he is actually successful. Doesn't that sit kinda weirdly with you guys? How can Obama's story be uniquely American, except that it took place in America? In almost every country in the world people can remake themselves, with luck and daring and the right breaks. I woke up still thinking about this subthread in this thread. Thinking about it a bit more, I realize that there are two readings of it, and therein lies the difficulty. So I will try to be specific about my reading and what I think is the other possible (and perhaps more obvious and more common than I give it credit for) reading. My reading is a narrow one: it is like spiderwire's, mikeh's, and stavros'. It message is that Obama is uniquely American not because he succeeded despite prejudice, but because his particular personal experiences at the "intersections" of class, race, and regionality as they are lived in America could only have occurred in America, in this cultural context. They've given him the knowledge and the understanding of different American perspectives that allow him to create very effective solutions to what are in many ways uniquely American problems - the inequity of our justice system and health care systems, for instance, which aren't exactly like the issues faced by other nations with different political and social service structures. So someone with all of his qualifications, and an identical ethic background, who hailed from another country and culture would not be able to be as effective in the problems he takes on, because they would not have had the life-shaping experiences of living as a mixed-race American within America. His strength, for me, is in his ability to balance and weigh fairly different American perspectives with intimate knowledge of them. I believe that intimate knowledge is a result of his ethnic background and his upbringing, which is fairly unusual even within America. So what I am NOT saying is that "only in America" can a person of mixed-race background overcome prejudice in a white-dominated society and achieve national leadership. I am not saying that. Obviously, that's not true. I think that much of the objection to my perspective has assumed that I'm saying that. I don't believe that the US is the only nation that offers opportunity to people from formerly oppressed groups, or that only in America could someone with a background like Obama's achieve his levels of education and experience. Not at all. So those people who provided examples of black leaders in other nations were addressing the second reading, the more general reading, that suggests that only America offers such opportunities. If the premise is "only America offers such opportunities," then pointing out other nations in which non-dominant races have come to power is an excellent argument against the premise. But that's not my premise. My premise is "only an unusually divergent American upbringing like Obama's can prepare a person to address the diversity of American racial perspectives." Or, only because of American conditions of history is his story a possible American story. I don't think it's quite a tautology; it's that his intimate familiarity with various American views on race qualifies him well to understand and address the sensitive issues that surround it. So the argument that "other countries have black leaders too" misses the point. It will take someone who understands America's racial issues to help solve them. Should Canada's Governor General relocate here, she might do very well at many aspects of our government, but I'm not sure how well equipped her background would make her to understand the underlying assumptions that create American racial problems. I would suggest Obama's background equips him better to understand those assumptions and make progress on solutions than someone who comes from another cultural background entirely. I hope the difference between the two readings is more clear now and I hope that I'm not somehow confused with the USA! USA! contingent. I do think it's a shame to lump Obama supporters within that contingent, too - for the most part, I'd say that they are more likely than other Americans to work toward a global perspective and to test and question American myth. I recognize that he is probably asking for the support of patriots, and using an appeal to patriotism here. I recognize also that the broader, more general reading about America, Land of Opportunity is the commoner trope and probably the way in which the words are more likely to be heard. So in hindsight, I shouldn't have been surprised that the more general premise - that this is the only nation that would make it possible for someone like Obama to succeed - is the one that has been assumed by most listeners. And I would also say that it might very well be the one he means, as a politician campaigning to a public that does love its myths, not the one that I with my benevolent perspective on him would like him to mean. Obama is succeeding so much, in part, because he makes it feel permissible to embrace ideals that have been part of the American conversation since the founding of the nation, but which have been given short shrift in recent years. One of those ideals is certainly that the path to leadership should be open to all citizens. If he is saying that can only happen in America, he's wrong - and by reading his books, I know he doesn't believe that, at all. But he is aware that a lot of Americans do believe that America offers unusual opportunities (our common and relatively recent immigrant history ensures that idea has great power), and I am sure that's why he emphasizes his peculiarly American story in this way.

By: booksherpa

booksherpa — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:45:03 -0800

psmealey: The callers into the Brian Lehrer Show left me feeling somewhat dispirited about the Obama Campaign's prospects. From what I was able to discern, all the callers were different flavors of liberal, but few were able to hear the speech through their own biases. You had the Kucinich supporter who could not get past the part that Obama could not suggest specific legislation to address trenchant racism. There was the blue collar guy who was offended that Obama dared equate Limbaugh and Hannity with Wright. There was the old school progressive that was frustrated that Obama didn't completely disassociate himself with Wright. None were really listening. It's sad. I agree. I think I was actually talking back to the radio at points. I did find the pre-speech roundtable discussion pretty interesting, though. I was glad that the start of the speech was delayed, giving the discussion more time. For the rest of you, the Brian Lehrer show is a local show on WNYC (New York Public Radio), and yesterday's show (including audio of the whole speech) can be heard here.

By: hypersloth

hypersloth — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:46:39 -0800

*Echoing the 'thanks for this thread' (wow spiderwire and fourcheesemac) Also wanted to second the recommendation for the Call to Renewal speech - another one I don't think most politicians would have had the stones to take on... Am I being naive in thinking that the speeches are obviously his own since he rarely has to look at any notes? Regardless, I think it's at least a sign that he believes what he's saying.

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:51:57 -0800

Am I being naive in thinking that the speeches are obviously his own since he rarely has to look at any notes? He is always looking back and forth between two teleprompters. Hendrik Hertzberg has written about this...

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:53:14 -0800

"they're mostly under 40, or have never voted in a general election, or fail to understand the machinations of politics, or completely ignore the fact that Obama's underlying advisory group is more right than Clinton" I'm 41, I voted for Bush in 1988, became a Democrat after Panama and Desert Storm and then voted for Clinton, Clinton, Gore and Kerry. As for the Senate, I not only voted for Hillary in 2000, I canvassed for her campaign in western New York State, where I was spit upon and had curse words directed at me that even I had never heard before. I never really "believed" in either Bill or Hillary as politicians, but I thought they were effective, coalition building politicians, but mostly I believed that their vision of the country aligned much more closely to my own than anything I was hearing from either the GOP or people like Perot or Ralph Nader. When Hillary voted to give President Bush the authorization for going to war in Iraq. I was heart-broken. I could not believe that she was so craven as to put her stamp of approval on this predictably horrendous escapade to cover her own ass for her certain run for the Presidency. When she was given multiple chances to redeem herself, to admit a grievous wrong, she failed. She danced, and danced, and never got there. I do not believe this is forgiveable. The campaign she has run against Obama has been reprehensible. The cynical cloaking herself in pity to up her numbers, the thinly veiled divisive attacks by proxy, the idea that voting against her is voting against ALL WOMEN (ok, that's not her, but I is often brought up by her supporters), all this stuff is straight from the Lee Atwater playbook. It cannot be countenanced or justified. What are the chances that, if she wins, it will be right wing attack radio all the time for the next four years? That congress will be a gridlocked disaster with another 4 sessions of name calling? That again, the Presidency will respond to the whims of pollsters rather than a different vision for the country? I would bet it's a sure thing. Yeah, I'll vote for Hillary if she wins. But only because of the ages of certain Associate Justices on the Supreme Court, if for no other reason.

By: hypersloth

hypersloth — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:55:51 -0800

He is always looking back and forth between two teleprompters. Hendrik Hertzberg has written about this... Aha, thanks.

By: stinkycheese

stinkycheese — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:56:03 -0800

Because no matter how crappy we have been in the last 20 or so years, everything you will ever do in your country, you owe every bit of it to the United States of America. Sorry, but its a fact. *dies laughing*

By: KevinSkomsvold

KevinSkomsvold — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:58:10 -0800

Paraphrased, America mostly loves the idea of voting for change. When it comes right down to the actual election, America just may find that voting for the 70 year old white guy is exactly the kind of change they're really looking for. Good point and my greatest fear. Four years ago I was sure that Kerry would walk away with the win but I suspect that when it came time to punch the chad or touch the screen, indecisive folks opted for the known vs. the unknown. That makes it all the more important for whomever wins the nomination to make it a slam dunk in November.

By: Artw

Artw — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:01:46 -0800

Plus Kerry was an awful candidate with the charisma of a block of wood.

By: stupidsexyFlanders

stupidsexyFlanders — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:02:33 -0800

I haven't listened to talk radio today except for a bit this morning in which Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck laid out what will probably be the bullet points of the day: - Obama threw Grandma under the bus (Beck quote) in equating her remarks with Wright's - He can use all the fancy talk he wants, he still stayed in the church for 20 years while this guy spouted garbage in front of him. (implication: Obama secretly agrees with Wright). The first seems more like a laugh line, but that's talk radio. On the second point: Any African-American politician carries the weight of his community's distrust and resentment of white America, regardless of whether he personally shares it. Forget about the preacher -- the important thing is the millions of blacks who either tolerate or actively agree with him. What is Obama to do - denounce all of them? Forget about rejecting the preacher -- what about the 3,000 people sitting there with him who also are not walking out on the sermon? You break from the shepherd, you're abandoning the flock as well. So a politician coming out of that community, who has designs on healing the racial divide in this country -- it's a balancing act. He HAS to maintain is place in the community. Otherwise he's got no credibility there. Leaving his church not only doesn't quiet the invective, but it actively impairs his ability to work to address its causes. I think he's done about as much as he can do here, and I look at this speech as his admission of same. He's saying: I am who I am, and my people are who they are. We're all flawed, America is flawed, let's stop throwing slop at specific people over specific comments and look at the big picture, and try to fix this thing. I can't wait to pull the lever for this guy on April 22, and in October.

By: spock

spock — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:04:16 -0800

This guy is more than teflon. He swings a big bat that hits shit right out of the PARK.

By: aqhong

aqhong — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:06:50 -0800

Just wanted to third the recommendation of Obama's Call to Renewal keynote (MP3 and transcript available here), probably the most intelligent speech on the subject of religion and politics I have ever heard, and my favorite speech of his up until this one.

By: aqhong

aqhong — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:07:46 -0800

Whoops, first link was supposed to be to the video.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:08:19 -0800

Plus Kerry was an awful candidate with the charisma of a block of wood. Kerry is a block of wood. Didn't you know that?

By: oneirodynia

oneirodynia — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:09:18 -0800

Yeah, the Democrats who screwed up the Democratic party, and let the Bush family in the White House There was no Bush "family" in the White House until Bill Clinton self destructed, taking the Dems with him. It makes me sick, as a moderate liberal, to see another left wing Democrat (or so he says, even though his views are centrist) I am tired of the too far left Dems like Obama, Kennedy, Dukakis, Kerry, etc. ruining my party. the fact that Obama's underlying advisory group is more right than Clinton, So you're complaining that he's too left, and then you say he's more centrist and has more "right" advisors than Clinton. Which is it?

By: afu

afu — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:11:51 -0800

That Clinton speech is pretty good, the problem is that in fact, he didn't do shit to improve race relations in the U.S. "And blacks are right to think something is terribly wrong when African American men are many times more likely to be victims of homicide than any other group in this country; when there are more African American men in our corrections system than in our colleges; when almost one in three African American men in their 20s are either in jail, on parole or otherwise under the supervision of the criminal justice system -- nearly one in three. And that is a disproportionate percentage in comparison to the percentage of blacks who use drugs in our society. Now, I would like every white person here and in America to take a moment to think how he or she would feel if one in three white men were in similar circumstances." If that was true he shouldn't have appointed Barry McCaffrey as Drug Czar, he should have tried to actually try to change drug laws and prosecute drug crimes. We'll what happens with Obama.

By: francesca too

francesca too — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:14:00 -0800

Today is the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. I was becoming more and more despondent about this country, and I was starting to regret becoming an American citizen until I read Obama's speech ( and the comments on this thread). Today I remember why I have chosen this country, and it is not just the natural beauty and the elbow room. It is the generosity and the kindness of people, the willingness to try new things and to experiment with new ideas, the ability to say "oops! I was wrong" and to be open to dialogue. It is the courage to reject the " we have always done it this way" attitude and the courage to appear naive and unsophisticated in order to defend beliefs. And a whole lot of other reasons, but I'm supposed to by productive right now and earn my paycheck

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:17:23 -0800

That David Foster Wallace quote is the best summary of how I feel about abortion. Then you are pro-choice. To be politically pro-life, you have to believe that the fetus has to be protected by law, not that you would personally choose not to kill the fetus. That is a fundamental difference - we don't leave murder up to each individual autonomy to make a choice about. The question on abortion is whether it is a decision to make on a social scale, like murder or theft, or to be made on a personal scale, like vegetarianism or spanking your kids.* If you believe it ought to be made on a personal scale - whatever your personal choice would be - then you are pro-choice. * I realize not everyone is satisfied these are currently "pro-choice" in the US, but for the moment they are -

By: empath

empath — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:19:38 -0800

what if Obama could convince Gore to be his running mate? I'm starting to become more and more convinced that Jim Webb needs to be his running mate. It would instantly shift the ground the campaign is run on and make him competitive all across appallachia and the south. A former marine, a former Navy Secretary under Reagan, and he literally wrote the book on poor white southerners (Born Fighting). It would instantly give Obama National Security cred and open doors for real racial conciliation between poor, aggrieved whites and black people.

By: empath

empath — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:21:16 -0800

Hillary's argument that Only She Can Unite Working Class White People in the democratic party is a load of horse shit. She's not the only white person in the party.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:22:55 -0800

Then you are pro-choice. Agreed.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:23:54 -0800

what if Obama could convince Gore to be his running mate? I don't think Jesus Christ Himself could handle three terms as Veep if the plight of Creation depended upon it. If anything, I've heard some wags mention a "dream" scenario where the Convention gets hung up, Gore steps in and ends up with the nomination and has Obama as his running mate. That won't happen, either, but it's funny to think about.

By: teleri025

teleri025 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:24:14 -0800

For me, this speech was very well-done and reflects a great deal of research I've been exposed to recently on race in America. Since I'm taking two courses that deal with race, America Divided: Race, Class and Gender in American History and the History of the Old South, it's both frustrating to see that race continues to be such an issue in America and rewarding to see a politician take a view of racial relations that is historically sound. The part that stood out to me about the speech was the elements of uniting black and white against the corporate interests. That's something that hasn't really been said much in America. The poor or middle class white guy and the poor or middle class black guy have a hell of a lot more in common with each other than they do with the rich. But instead of working together, they've allowed racial lines to continually imped progress. Additionally, like many others in this thread, I've got family members and friends that are good, kind people but hold racist viewpoints. I think that those people may eventually change to see the broader picture of race in America, but even if they don't those of us who love them despite their flaws can work to change the current situation. Sadly, humans like to blame other humans for their hardships; but it seems that Obama is trying to encourage us to not blame each other and work towards a solution.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:29:12 -0800

"It was an important speech, but I will let the Democrats wrestle with their own issues and problems," Cheney said, according to a transcript released by the White House. because, you know, race could never be a republican problem unfuckingbelievable

By: i_am_a_Jedi

i_am_a_Jedi — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:29:19 -0800

I'm not worried for Obama in the general vis-a-vis the GOP Rovinator 2008 smear-machine. I think he'll be able to get down in the mud with them and climb up on top of the pile without a speck on him.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:31:42 -0800

When it comes right down to the actual election, America just may find that voting for the 70 year old white guy is exactly the kind of change they're really looking for. Actually, I think that George W. Bush has torpedoed the whole white man as president concept, at least for this election cycle. We gave the whit eman a break and look where it got us. So, I don't see how getting super sized in the geezer department will be making the whole another white man for president thing any more palatable. Especially when he goes around spouting Iran is training Al Qaeda can't-tell-Shiite-from-Shinola crapola that even gets Joe Lieberman fact checking his crazy uncle in the basement ass right at the press conference. I think some one said it best yesterday--Reagan was the Teflon candidate and McCain is the Klingon candidate. He only gets revved for the bombing. It's all about the martial honor 24-7. He doesn't have a health policy because he can't storm the hospitals and vanquish the doctors. He is going to be this election's Bob Dole of 1996. Bob Dole on even more clueless and hopeless Get Off My Lawn You Hippie Traitors!!! steroids. And Double Mega Dittos if he goes for a Rapture Ready Veep... Whoo hoo! And we get a veto proof Senate majority. too boot. Barring Hillary's candidacy on that last, of course....

By: i_am_a_Jedi

i_am_a_Jedi — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:33:09 -0800

I'm starting to become more and more convinced that Jim Webb needs to be his running mate. This this this. Webb's going to be a major player in the future of the party.

By: dawson

dawson — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:36:39 -0800

Plus Kerry was an awful candidate with the charisma of a block of wood. Kerry is a block of wood. Didn't you know that? Yeah, Hank Williams even wrote a sad song about him.

By: scrump

scrump — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:42:07 -0800

I'm starting to become more and more convinced that Jim Webb needs to be his running mate.

As attractive as this is, Webb has always struck me as a "party above self" guy, and it's undeniable that him leaving his seat would put the Democrats in a bind. Don't get me wrong: I'd love to see it, too, but the plain fact is that Webb put up a hell of a fight to win that seat, with a lot of activist help on the ground, and he undoubtedly feels like he has a duty to those people and that district. Does anyone know what would happen if Webb actually did this, in terms of special elections or replacement?

By: stefanie

stefanie — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:46:20 -0800

Outline some solutions, then we'll talk. I saw this point made elsewhere, and it kind of confused me. Why can't we talk now? Wasn't that the point, that he said "Maybe we could all start talking about this elephant in the room. I'll wait while you guys get used to that idea". What's the value in him saying he's got a five-point plan for dealing with the elephant, when half the country is saying "Elephant? What elephant? Why is he wasting my time with imaginary elephants?" It's just backwards. We can't find solutions until we start talking, like we're doing here where people have opened up and talked about what it means to have a mother or a grandmother or a pastor who's got a block of hate and resentment in their heart. Part of the problem is us, and the fact that we don't really talk about our secret fears and unpleasant opinions about race. The more we start talking, and letting some of this into the light with an eye toward understanding the parts of ourselves, our loved ones, and our leaders that need improving, the closer we're going to get to improving the state of race relations on both small and large scales.

By: Devils Rancher

Devils Rancher — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:49:03 -0800

Dear George, Yup, he wroted it all by hisself. True fact. Love, Chris

By: teleri025

teleri025 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:54:04 -0800

A-freaking-men stefanie. One of the major problems with race discussions in America is that secrecy about the whole thing, the fact that we don't talk openly about this very divisive and scary thing. Race and racial prejudice is such a slippery and difficult thing. It is and has been a cancer upon this country since our inception and it needs to be brought out into the light and stared at, and poked and prodded until we can find an effective way of getting rid of it.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:54:56 -0800

Yeah, the Democrats who screwed up the Democratic party, and let the Bush family in the White House, in case you haven't read any history prior to 2000. People have such a short memory, especially when their neocortex has been mesmerized by the incantations of hope, born of political convenience. Speaking of short memories, Metaman, you do remember exactly who those Democrats were, right? Who was it again who preceded Bush in office?

By: aqhong

aqhong — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:55:40 -0800

scrump: His successor would be appointed by the governor of Virginia, currently Democrat Tim Kaine. Dylan Loewe makes the case for an Obama/Webb ticket here, if anyone's interested.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:56:12 -0800

Outline some solutions, then we'll talk. I saw this point made elsewhere, and it kind of confused me. Why can't we talk now We can talk now, but I don't think I, or anyone else, has to jump from "This man can identify problems" to "This man can provide solutions" based on this speech alone. Which others seem to be doing, although I imagine they're pulling in stuff from other places.

By: dw

dw — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:56:13 -0800

I used to be around the Promise Keepers a lot when they were hot in the early 90s. Back then they had Jim Dobson speaking to stadiums filled with white men with coded messages about Vince Foster. But then, Bill McCartney decided that the organization needed to focus on something else: Racial reconciliation. White Christians needed to seek out black Christians and use their common faith to build bridges and maybe begin to heal the hundreds of years of hate and discrimination. It went over like a lead balloon in the white church. It effectively drove Promise Keepers from the scary, nasty Army Of Conservative Christian Men everyone was afraid of in the 90s to a small organization that struggles to fill small arenas a few times a year. If you leave aside all the things about Promise Keepers and McCartney that most of you find bigoted or hateful, you have to admire their attempt to try and move race relations forward, and feel quite a bit distressed over the refusal of the greater community to take up the challenge. The white community does not understand the language of the African-American community, or their politics, or their churches. When they say, "I'm an African IN America," whites fret over whether they're trying to form a separate nation because they don't understand the origins in Marcus Garvey and the Back To Africa movement. There's meaning in their words that us white folk don't understand. So when I hear Obama's speech yesterday, I hear him saying three things. To White America, he's saying these are my people and I'm not letting them go, and you must accept that as a nation we have a sorry past that you're reaping the benefits of even if you claim to lack a bigoted bone in your body. To Black America, he's saying it's time to let go of this language, time to take the chips off the African-American shoulders, and start figuring out how to move on. To everyone, he's saying we are all afraid of one another, and it's time to stop living in fear and living in the past and start living in a hopeful future. That's almost exactly what I heard from Bill McCartney 15 years ago. That's exactly what I've heard from many in the racial reconciliation movement. And no, it's not some secret coded message from the Christian Right, it's a deep hope that it's time to take that last paragraph from Martin Luther King's speech and make it real:

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

To hear it from the mouth of a white football coach, that's interesting. To hear it from an African-American man in the middle of one of the most contested presidential campaigns in generations, that's incredible. And only he can give it. Bill, Hillary, McCain, Kerry, Edwards, it's an interesting speech, but it's coming from the majority. Obama is speaking from the minority, downtrodden and beaten down, enslaved, lynched, discriminated, and ignored. He's saying to White America, of course we're angry, but it's time for all of us to move on. It's not the Gettysburg Address. It's not I Have A Dream. It's not Never Surrender. But it's the most important speech about majority-minority relations since Kennedy defended his Catholicism in Houston 48 years ago. It's just a speech. But we can hope that it's a positive step down this long road of racial reconciliation.

By: Prospero

Prospero — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:00:12 -0800

zardoz says, above: The polls I've read about are pretty clear that Obama would beat McCain, but McCain would beat Clinton, if the general were held now. This was once true (and may become true again), but at this moment at least two polls indicate that it is not true. Gallup: Clinton 49%-Obama 42%; McCain 47%-Obama 43%; McCain 48%-Clinton 45%. The last day of that polling was Tuesday, the day of Obama's speech. Rasmussen (not a permalink, so it will change in a day): Obama 47%-Clinton 42%; McCain 48%-Obama 42%; McCain 49%-Clinton 43%. The last day for this poll was also Tuesday, the day of Obama's speech. Though these polls have different results for Clinton vs. Obama, they agree that McCain is preferred to both candidates. (Other polls may have different results; these are the only two polls I can find with data that includes Tuesday.) I fear that this points more to a fracture within the party than anything else.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:04:12 -0800

heh, you know I just had a low level ephinay, in some aspects this speech was the advanced and nuanced version of Dean's comment years ago about trying to enfold Southerners who have a gun rack and the Confed flag on the back of their truck.

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:05:08 -0800

I'm starting to become more and more convinced that Jim Webb needs to be his running mate. It would instantly shift the ground the campaign is run on and make him competitive all across appallachia and the south. A former marine, a former Navy Secretary under Reagan, and he literally wrote the book on poor white southerners (Born Fighting). It would instantly give Obama National Security cred and open doors for real racial conciliation between poor, aggrieved whites and black people. I see your point, but I was a precinct captain for the Webb campaign, and he defeated George Allen only by a few thousand votes. The state of Virginia is probably about to elect the former governor Mark Warner to a Senate seat, which means that we will go from two Republican Senators to two Democratic Senators in just a few years. The Democratic margin over the Republicans in the Senate is so thin that we can't afford to lose a perfectly good Democratic Senator, especially one in a Southern state. Think of how John Edwards resigned his Senate seat in North Carolina and how it immediately went to a Republican in the next election. I think Webb is a good veep choice on the merits, but tactically speaking, we need him more in the Senate than in a job that's "not worth a bucket of warm spit."

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:07:46 -0800

Prospero writes "I fear that this points more to a fracture within the party than anything else." Yeah, I agree, and I think the party will stand behind the nominee once that happens, so these polls aren't reflecting the realities of the general election as much as the realities of the primaries. But the longer this nomination process drags out, and the more vicious it gets, the harder reconciliation will be.

By: goethean

goethean — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:09:20 -0800

About the Values Voters Summit and "God Damn America": http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/09/why_should_god_bless_america.html

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:11:04 -0800

Thanks for that link, konolia. You're right, there's some surprisingly detailed policy talk in there — and also some very well-reasoned talk about how to run a campaign against McCain. Good stuff. As far as abortion goes, it seems to me like Obama won't do anything to give it more legal protection than it's got. Realistically, he couldn't if he wanted to — it would be sheer political poison — but also, there's no evidence that he wants to. So he may not be advancing your cause on that issue, but he won't be setting it back any either. Does that help? Politics aside, it's good to see you've come back and are speaking your mind again.

By: empath

empath — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:14:34 -0800

in some aspects this speech was the advanced and nuanced version of Dean's comment years ago At the risk of being accused of hero-worship, I've said a few times that I think Obama is the Jesus to Dean's John the Baptist. Not in a religious way, only that Dean was the firebrand that prepared the party for a new progressive, grassroots movement and Obama is taking us the rest of the way.

By: generalist

generalist — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:16:06 -0800

One of the most interesting aspects of the Obama phenomenon is how many self-avowed republicans/conservatives/what-have-you profess admiration for him. My father, who voted for GW twice (!!!), has told me that if it were Obama vs. anyone he'd vote Barack. I think this response, which seems widespread, goes a long way toward explaining the fervor.

By: aqhong

aqhong — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:16:40 -0800

Question: Is there any other politician who could quote Faulkner and mention Youtube in the same speech?

By: Slap Factory

Slap Factory — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:19:41 -0800

Buried in Eloquence, Obama Contradictions About Pastor

By: rokusan

rokusan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:25:18 -0800

Nobody reads threads this far down (prove me wrong, I dare you), but that DFW bit on abortion always shakes me the wrong way. It's almost exactly my own position, sure... but I just can't read it without Vizzini's voice in my head.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:28:52 -0800

By: dawson

dawson — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:31:02 -0800

I don't like Webb for veep, for any number of reasons. Primarily because I think he's most needed where he is. But if we are doing fantasy league here, I'd near about cream myself if BO got Dick Gephardt as his running mate.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:34:06 -0800

Should have read the link. Actually, from your link slapfactory, above: Obama goes on to say in his speech that, yes, he had heard his pastor say controversial things during his sermon, but the specific remarks made in the footage that's been making the rounds on TV Obama condemned more unequivocally, suggesting that he had not in fact heard those specific remarks before, contrary to the spin in the article you linked. His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air. But yesterday, he told a different story. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia. This characterization is inaccurate. The admission of having heard his pastor say controversial things explicitly did not refer to the much harsher statements shown in the video clips.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:37:16 -0800

Here's the full relevant passage to show where the article on the ABC blotter goes wrong. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America He's clearly drawing a distinction between more mildly controversial statement's Wright has made that he was aware of, and the much more incendiary statements at the heart of the controversy. There's no contradiction at all. Someone over at ABC news just needs to learn how to read.

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:39:11 -0800

I've been following this thread, and I just read the text of Obama's speech on Iraq. He's so sane. Go on, you guys, elect him. Maybe he is the man that I hope and many of you believe he is. Who am I to let my fears and reservations-- fed by eight years of Dr. Strangelove levels of lunacy in the White House-- get in the way of what might be a great, or even Great, Presidency? I'll forgive him the 'only in the USA' thing-- which twitched my alarm bells because it lines up too closely with standard rhetoric, and with the mindset that got us (the world) stuck with Bush-- and even put aside the nod to the fear of 'radical Islam'. Get him in power in Washington, because I want a mind I can respect in that office. And for God's sake, please don't elect McCain, okay?

By: cerebus19

cerebus19 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:41:53 -0800

Jim Webb would be a good, but not great VP choice for Obama. Better, I think, would be Mark Warner, the former governor of Virginia and current candidate to replace the retiring John Warner in the Senate. He was extremely well-liked as governor and would be almost certain to turn the state blue in the election. Of course, someone would have to replace him in the Senate race, but there are quite a few who could. There's been some talk about current Virginia Governor Tim Kaine as VP, but the problem there is that his term isn't up till January 2010 (though he can't run for reelection), and the Lieutenant Governor is a Republican.

By: dawson

dawson — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:42:19 -0800

i hate faving a post that ended on such a snarky, petty, hateful note, but i think many comments here have redeemed what is, perhaps, the ugliest post ever to remain on the site. shout out to cortex, tho i know about as well as I do any of you. so, peace.

By: onlyconnect

onlyconnect — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:49:17 -0800

In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. Okay, wait. Does no one else think that Obama is going to have a problem with running on a platform of constant and immediate troop withdrawal from Day 1 when he is running against a hawk like McCain? Maybe I'm jaded, but I can't believe this won't become the main issue of the election, and McCain will call him rash and inexperienced with the kind of world tumult that a destabilized Iraq could cause, and that will be it right there. In my opinion, all you have to do is say "destabilized Iraq" and democrats, republicans, and independents alike will run to McCain, particularly if there is some sort of terror event before the election.

By: stenseng

stenseng — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:50:44 -0800

Because Iraq is "stabilized" now, somehow?

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:51:49 -0800

Obama/Dean '08 If you pick who you vote for by whether someone screamed at a rally over four years ago then we don't want you to fucking vote for us.

By: oneirodynia

oneirodynia — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:54:04 -0800

We can talk now, but I don't think I, or anyone else, has to jump from "This man can identify problems" to "This man can provide solutions" based on this speech alone. I'm not seeing that people are saying that Obama can solve America's race problems, and Obama himself doesn't claim that either. I mean, that's an awfully tall order, and pretty unrealistic to boot. Certainly it's not something that can be pithily outlined in a 30 minute speech. Seeing Obama as some sort of omnipotent problem solver goes against the real core values of his campaign, and that's what is worrisome about Obama "cultists". These are the people who are going to crash hard when he doesn't solve all their problems the first six months in office- and these are the sort of people who expect that because he talks about race, he's got to be the one to do something about it, when his real point is that it's really up to all of us to do something about it.

By: Artw

Artw — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:55:39 -0800

Obama/Dean '08 Um, wouldn't that be problematic given that Dean is going to be highly influential in the selection process?

By: Hildegarde

Hildegarde — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:56:00 -0800

Miko: I don't understand Canadian politics, and I have no way of estimating how unusual it is for a Haitian with a fabulous education to get some sort of important government post. I would need cultural context to understand this. If you don't have the context to understand it, how can you possibly suggest that some story is only possible in America? And don't give me this "but it hasn't happened in Canada/France/Britian yet", this isn't about has it happened, it's about is this narrative possible, if you're listening to the speech at all. It's a blatantly untruism, but it fulfills an important goal, one which Barack Obama is a genius to capitalize on: Americans want a new way to look at themselves after the old "we are the most just/free/fair/successful country in the whole wide world" identity slowly crumbled into ruins to the point that everyone, including Americans, now knows that its a lie. Americans need a new lens through which to view themselves, something hopeful and exciting, and that's what Barack Obama is trying to give them. That's an amazing goal, and he's very smart to pursue it. I too was entirely surprised and delighted to see an American politician talk about race is such an open and honest way. It's a conversation that is long, long overdue, and I look forward to being a fly on this wall.

By: stupidsexyFlanders

stupidsexyFlanders — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:00:23 -0800

Obama/Dean '08 Um, wouldn't that be problematic given that Dean is going to be highly influential in the selection process? Remember the name of the guy who lead the search for Bush's 2000 VP pick?

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:01:05 -0800

The polls I've read about are pretty clear that Obama would beat McCain, but McCain would beat Clinton, if the general were held now. Polls this early in the election cycle don't mean shit. Fuckin' Ross Perot would have been our 42nd president if they did. Seriously, they are so often so completely wrong that it is really stupid to look to them for anything other than today's temperature. But the thermostat today doesn't tell you anything about the weather in November. Obama has not been attacked yet. He has not been dragged through the mud or put out there as "our guy". He has been in a safe space where his only attacks have come from other democrats, who are never going to be as harsh as Republicans, no matter how "over the line" you think the Clinton campaign has gone. If he is the nominee, there will be "swift boat" style attacks directed at him over any remarks or stances which can be understood as anti-american or foreign. They will definitely play to people's underlying prejudices. And as nice as a speech like this is, it is extremely possible to imagine it working against him in the end. People often don't want nuance when they're trying to decide who should be the most powerful person in the world. As some folks have said, it is good in theory that we talk about racism, but at the voting booth, it may become simplified in some minds to, this guy partially agrees that blacks have a right to hate me. That might be risky in office, even if I don't know exactly how. That guy will keep things more or less how they are. Well, my life's not so bad... I hope not, but it really is way too early to say.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:01:35 -0800

In my opinion, all you have to do is say "destabilized Iraq" and democrats, republicans, and independents alike will run to McCain, particularly if there is some sort of terror event before the election. BS. That's a nice story line the cowards on the right would have us all believe. But Americans are a hell of a lot braver and smarter than that. If there's somehow a McCain victory, I don't give a damn what the polls say, I will only be able to conclude the election has been yet another fraud.

By: spiderwire

spiderwire — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:01:54 -0800

Question: Is there any other politician who could quote Faulkner and mention Youtube in the same speech? Actually, I was reminded of Gore's speech a few years back -- which is also eerie in how it presages the shape of Obama's campaign -- where he quite competently name-checked Jürgen Habermas, John Kenneth Galbraith, Walter Lippmann, etc., discussed Net architecture (last mile, packet-switching, etc.), and closed talking about, yes, YouTube, though no one knew it yet:

It is true that video streaming is becoming more common over the Internet, and true as well that cheap storage of streamed video is making it possible for many young television viewers to engage in what the industry calls "time shifting" and personalize their television watching habits. Moreover, as higher bandwidth connections continue to replace smaller information pipelines, the Internet's capacity for carrying television will continue to dramatically improve. But in spite of these developments, it is television delivered over cable and satellite that will continue for the remainder of this decade and probably the next to be the dominant medium of communication in America's democracy. And so long as that is the case, I truly believe that America's democracy is at grave risk.

So I'd say that comes close at least.

By: onlyconnect

onlyconnect — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:02:04 -0800

Because Iraq is "stabilized" now, somehow? Because if we withdrew 1 to 2 combat brigades each month without any apparant thought to whether the country was prepared to handle its own civil war, it certainly could become a hell of a lot more destabilized than it is right now, yeah. Seeing Obama as some sort of omnipotent problem solver goes against the real core values of his campaign, and that's what is worrisome about Obama "cultists". Yes. I appreciate that he is starting a dialogue, but I'm not sure that makes change happen, though it may possibly mobilize people ... though without some platform on racial issues to support, it's not clear what change would happen, so there we are again.

By: onlyconnect

onlyconnect — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:08:16 -0800

That's a nice story line the cowards on the right would have us all believe. Well, I'm a democrat who voted for Obama in the primaries, but as the election draws nearer I will be listening for the argument of why it might be insanely unsafe to promise to withdraw the majority of our troops in Iraq without any apparant regard for what state of civil war that could leave the country in and what effect that might have on the US and the rest of the world, and I would consider voting for the candidate who did not promise such a plan in response. EVEN THOUGH I don't want more conservative judges on the Supreme Court, and even though I've never voted Republican in my life before. Seriously.

By: Miko

Miko — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:08:23 -0800

without some platform on racial issues to support I think the challenge is to go beyond waiting for leaders to propose platforms, but to take the democratic process on ourselves and engage in localized solution-finding as well as large national initiatives.

By: afx114

afx114 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:11:05 -0800

goethean, thanks for the link. Why aren't more people picking up on this? Republican Presidential candidates were present on stage while "Why Should God Bless America?" was performed (too bad McCain wasn't there). Where is the outrage against the Values Voters? Are they traitors too? Is this any different from what Wright said, except for the fact that he's a "crazy angry black dude?" Talk about race-influenced double standards.

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:12:48 -0800

Okay, wait. Does no one else think that Obama is going to have a problem with running on a platform of constant and immediate troop withdrawal from Day 1 when he is running against a hawk like McCain? Seriously. I was going to link to something I heard on the radio earlier in this thread, when someone first brought up the withdrawal, but I couldn't find a transcript... (it was BBC america, through NPR). But to just think we bring our guys home and Iraq will "work it out" does come off as kind of naive. The story I heard discussed how until the surge, the morgues in Iraq were overflowing with the dead civilians to the point where they ran out of refrigeration space, and had to pile the bodies outside, and how the people who came to identify their relatives had to walk across the bloody floors to find them, and how many had to be buried in mass graves in the end. The war may not have been that bloody for americans, but it has been for Iraq, and to think that our getting out of the way will just solve everything is unfounded. Things were better before because there was a dictator. There's no dictator now. With the surge, America is being a stronger military presence, and now the death toll has gone down significantly. If we just leave, without getting things organized there, why expect it won't just go back to chaos? I'm not saying going in was the right choice to begin with, but the "not our problem" attitude is going to be a tough sell if McCain talks about what is actually happening over there.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:16:37 -0800

withdraw the majority of our troops in Iraq without any apparant regard for what state of civil war that could leave the country in and what effect that might have on the US and the rest of the world, and I would consider voting for the candidate who did not promise such a plan in response. yeah, I could see how that would be a concern for you--if anybody was proposing doing that. there has been a civil war already in iraq. we only brought about the current shaky cease-fire in that war by paying off the same adversaries who were attacking our troops before. the fact that we're bribing the "insurgents" is all that stands in between iraq and chaos now, and it's not going to get any more stable by continuing to use a blunt military instrument where diplomatic and political surgery is needed. you're thinking is wrong. dead wrong.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:20:03 -0800

All this discussion about Obama's "only in America" phrase is focusing on an essentially trivial issue, much like the focus on Reverend Wright's comments is a distraction from important issues of this campaign. The United States had over two centuries of slavery, fought a Civil War in which over 620,000 people died (two percent of the population; the equivalent of 6,000,000 today), black people endured a century of Jim Crow segregation and abuse, had decades of struggle for civil rights, and still has some profoundly racist aspects. One out of every 15 black adults is in prison compared to one out of 100 of American adults overall. During Barack Obama's lifetime he's gone from a time where it was illegal for him to sit in the same part of the bus as white people to becoming a leading candidate for president. When he was born, black people couldn't vote in most of the South. That story is unique, and it could only happen here. I think Obama has done a judo move and turned a potential threat to his campaign into an asset that will help him secure the nomination and win the election. (Asserting that winning a state's Democratic primary has anything to do with winning the state in the general election is silly. Democratic turnout has been massive for both Clinton and Obama, and the second-place Democratic candidate has often gotten more votes than the winner of the Republican primary.) Also, if Obama wins I believe he'd be the first president to say the word "gang-banger." Is there any other politician who could quote Faulkner and mention Youtube in the same speech? Robert F. Kennedy quoted Aeschylus in his eloquent remarks on the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

By: onlyconnect

onlyconnect — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:27:00 -0800

the fact that we're bribing the "insurgents" is all that stands in between iraq and chaos now So you think the 30 combat brigades of American troops that Obama proposes to remove at a rate of 1-2 brigades per month are having no effect? With all due respect, I think that's a little silly.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:28:11 -0800

The war may not have been that bloody for americans, but it has been for Iraq, and to think that our getting out of the way will just solve everything is unfounded. Nobody's saying we can just get out of the way. The point is to begin pulling combat troops out in a phased redeployment--combat troops are absolutely the wrong tool for promoting stability in Iraq--it's like sending in a bunch of football players to repair an electrical grid. How peaceful do you think your neighborhood would be if there were hopped up 20-year-old kids who've been trained to shoot first and never ask questions stationed on every corner with machine guns, killing off a neighbor in a checkpoint mix up or even killing off entire wedding parties every month or so? More of that is not going to promote long-term stability in Iraq, dammit. It's just a physical reality that the more violence you pump into the system the more feedback there'll be. And violence is all that combat troops (note, I'm singling out combat troops here) can possibly bring to the problem.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:30:19 -0800

That's a nice story line the cowards on the right would have us all believe. But Americans are a hell of a lot braver and smarter than that. You assert that with a level of conviction that does not seem to me warranted by recent history. I sure hope you're right, though. Robert F. Kennedy quoted Aeschylus in his eloquent remarks on the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. But did he mention Youtube?

By: Hildegarde

Hildegarde — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:30:45 -0800

All this discussion about Obama's "only in America" phrase is focusing on an essentially trivial issue Fortunately, it's our divine right on the intertubes to focus on trivial issues. Though, if you think it's trivial, I think you're missing the overall point of the entire campaign.

By: konolia

konolia — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:33:28 -0800

Well, whether or not pulling troops out will work I do like the fact he has put thought into what we should and should not be doing with our troops and WHY. I have a feeling that if he were elected and he were given facts to indicate that troop withdrawal as he proposes would be unwise, he would reevaluate in a thoughtful manner and come up with a plan B-still focusing on ultimate objectives. I guess what I am seeing is, someone is actually willing to THINK and to talk to the American people like we are grownups and not just consumers of The Right Buzzwords. Now, whether that actually can work in real life is another matter entirely, but I do appreciate the fact that Obama is willing to try it.

By: oneirodynia

oneirodynia — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:35:21 -0800

without some platform on racial issues to support I think the challenge is to go beyond waiting for leaders to propose platforms, but to take the democratic process on ourselves and engage in localized solution-finding as well as large national initiatives. Yep, that's exactly my point. Unfortunately, people in this country are accustomed to top down politics, not to mention living in a culture that that promotes avoidance of taking any sort of personal responsibility for anything, and demonizes "activism". I'm not sure that a lot of Obama enthusiasts really understand that Obama is not a silver bullet for all that ails this country. It was pretty disappointing to go on the Obama blog during the height of the muckracking/Ohio primary week and read all the shrill cries of "WHERE is OBAMA??? why doesn't he DO SOMETHING???!!" For the people (like me) that are supporting him based on his notions of inclusiveness and the power of grassroots activism it was an ugly reminder that we, as a country, may not be ready to actually care enough to do anything but vote and complain. I hope I'm wrong, but it's really going to be a huge paradigm shift.

By: darth_tedious

darth_tedious — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:38:42 -0800

The revolutionary thing about this speech is that it wasn't... dumb. American culture is the culture of the idealized image, and this culture crystallized with the creation of motion pictures. Propaganda-- big, glossy, better-than-true, stylized, repetitive, dumb, big, repetitive, oh, and repetitive-- is pretty much our lifesblood. This perpetual self-glorification isn't all bad-- when you're seen to be riding high, or when you're glimpsed from afar, this attitude can actually exert an attraction on those around you, as the most motivated and ambitious struggle to reach you, hoping to find your Streets Paved with Gold. After all, it's this sort of optimism-as-doctrine, this sort of mechanical, automatic, relentlessly self-validating-pep-talk, that tends to distinguish, say, champion professional athletes from talented amateurs. And it even keeps your enemies that much more uncertain. Basically, narcissism as a strategy can be pretty great... until what you're doing stops working. The thing is, if what you're really good at is telling yourself, and those around you, that you're really really good, course correction gets hard. You might not even acknowledge the problem. You might even accuse those acknowledging the problem of wanting you to fail... as gloom-and-doom nay-sayers who hate the shining city on the hill and want the terrorists to win. And the biggest challenge for the US is not really any of its particular, material challenges-- racial division, the loss of its manufacturing sector, its dependence on national military might as individual ego salve, ad infinitum-- it's the fact that, culturally, we like telling ourselves and others about how we look in the mirror (Jim Crow laws sucked! See, we know that now. Take that, Old Europe!) without spending much time actually looking in the mirror. If anything, it's American exceptionalism, and its related phenomena-- whereby, as a politician or commentator in the US, you're obligated to genuflect before America the Paragon; whereby America, like GW Bush, doesn't do nuance; whereby acknowledging the roots of problems, and consequences, and resentments, and blowback, is to "manifest" them and will more of them into being; whereby discussing festering wounds in a mature and intelligent way is simultaneously elitist and amateurish, and something no smart politician would ever do-- that's really steepening America's global dive. Structurally, the US problem is that it has gone from propagandizing the rest of the world with Hollywood to propagandizing itself with a triumphalist media; its focus has moved from clever marketing to neurotic self-delusion. To state the obvious, Obama's state was amazingly ballsy, by offering up the absolute minimum of USA!USA!USA! and actually drilling down a level or two-- not just X, but Why X, and Why, Why X. The explanations were the ones that everyone already knows-- but that our standard level of discourse won't accommodate. Not Good/Bad, but Good/Failed Good Intention and Bad/Hidden Good Intention. The revolutionary element was that he was putting this stuff in a public, political speech, and willing to assume that listeners wouldn't freak out when he invoked the "Reagan Coalition" in the context of racial resentment. Of course, Carter's truth-telling "Malaise" speech was actually a big hit in its immediate aftermath-- but in re-runs, and in the re-telling, it became the Epitome of Un-American Defeatism. Fortunately, Obama isn't Jimmy Carter. A beautiful and smart, smart piece of work-- and on the narrowest and most tactical levels, I can't help but think it makes Hillary's campaign, as presently managed, look trivial by comparison (what's she going to do in response? Offer a Listening Tour or a Townhall Meeting on the glass ceiling?)-- but, great as it was on its own terms, how it'll play out within the terms of politics, after being reduced to snippets and sound bites, and framed by analysis of one bent or another, is much harder to know. Still, lovely to see a political figure with a realistic shot at the presidency willing to Go Big, rather than just play dumb, play defense, and hunker down.

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:41:12 -0800

Obama/Dean '08 Um, wouldn't that be problematic given that Dean is going to be highly influential in the selection process? You're allowed one guess on who led George W. Bush's vice-presidential search committee.

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:43:40 -0800

Oops, Stupid Sexy Flanders beat me to it (a while ago)

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:43:49 -0800

You assert that with a level of conviction that does not seem to me warranted by recent history. I sure hope you're right, though. yeah, I keep hoping that one day, I'll give people the benefit of the doubt and they'll earn it. but everyday I get a little closer to embracing the position Vonnegut embraced toward the end of his life: Like my distinct betters Einstein and Twain, I now give up on people, too. I am a veteran of the second world war and I have to say this is not the first time I have surrendered to a pitiless war machine.

By: elwoodwiles

elwoodwiles — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:43:53 -0800

What saul said. It seems like we're arguing a false dilemma: if we stay there will be more peace, but if we leave there will be chaos. I think that's what's naive - thinking that the current "peace" is sustainable. We simply cannot afford to support current troop levels &c. Also, the Iraqi "government" has been slow to organize. At this rate there will never be an Iraqi government, just the US speaking through another puppet regime . If we put out a clear and decisive timeline I think we also outline a clear and decisive goal for Iraqi leaders. All that said, the ABC piece is one of the sorriest examples of journalism I've ever seen.....

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:45:16 -0800

Bill Clinton is the reason we got George Bush the Second. ...the Democrats who screwed up the Democratic party, and let the Bush family in the White House... You mean we're not blaming everything on Nader anymore?

By: orange swan

orange swan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:45:31 -0800

That is a fantastic speech. If all political discourse was on this level, I could quite happily devote myself to politics and forget all about sex for the rest of my life.

By: scrump

scrump — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:48:20 -0800

it won't just go back to chaos

Go back to? It's there now. I mean, maybe you and I are watching different wars, but, Jesus, nobody with an iota of actual clue about the situation thinks things are going anywhere but down, regardless of what we do.

By: Floydd

Floydd — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:52:17 -0800

Propaganda-- big, glossy, better-than-true, stylized, repetitive, dumb, big, repetitive, oh, and repetitive-- is pretty much our lifesblood. This bears repeating.

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:52:26 -0800

I accept all apologies from those who have accused me of the most vile of offenses. As well, my apologies to those who might have taken my words as personal insults. I wish we could all be face-to-face, so that we could see that this is all political banter, driven by a passionate belief in the candidate of our choice. If we were all having a beer together, or a few chummy words over a cup of tea, we would be able to become far more animated in our language - even peppered by a few friendly FU's, and just laugh about it. Online communication often appear far more harsh than the intentions behind it. That said, I'm a moderate liberal, and have watched for oyears as the left-liberal wing of the Democratic party has manipulated (that's the way I se it) the most unfortunate part of its support base for votes, only to leave them high and dry on legislative matters - even when the Democrats enjoyed majorities. Like them or not, the reason that the GOP *viscerally* hates the Clintons is because their stance on policy is right down the middle, and occasionally right-leaning. I have trouble with the latter. For instance, I was not happy about NAFTA, and the fact that Bill Clinton gave out more corporate welfare than the last three GOP presidents, combined. I am not happy with Hillary's early vote for the war, either. She has also been duplicitous in certain local legislative efforts re: her own constituents. The Clintons, and many moderate liberals, *take away* the traditional GOP talking points. They move forward, down the middle, but *leaning left*, and *get things done*. They're not revolutionary, but constantly insinuate as much of the liberal agenda into legislation and policy as is pragmatically possible. Do you think that the GOP was happy about Bill Clinton - a Democrat - balancing the budget? That a traditional *GOP* talking point. What really bothers me about his race is that Obama - a good man - has been pushed forward as something akin to a saint, without flaws. Clinton has been taking it on the chin from the GOP and the left part of her own party. These are the people (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc. etc.) that have been screwing with far left liberal agendas that cause backlash, and result - in the long run - in all of us having to deal with the likes of Bush and his sad little band of shoot-em-in-the-face-neocons. What frustrates me about Obama is that he's *not at all, at base, in his policy, or policy advisement* what he says he is. He's a pure centrist and pragmatist. There is something I find irksome about his oratory, which professes a kind of MLK-lite, and the disconnect I've seen from his actual *work* in the Senate, and prior to the Senate. Obama, in other words, is JUST as cynical as Hillary Clinton. I know Hillary Clinton's record, and have a feeling about what she will do on certain issues. I know that she will occasionally disappoint me. Not so for Obama. I simply don't know where he stands, because all I see is a fancy website that has Camelot-like talking points, and speeches that move people (me, included). I have a strong intuitive sense that Obama, if he gets the Dem nod, will spend the better part of the election being savaged by the GOP attack machine. Obama, from what I've seen, is NOT good on defense. What's going to happen when the most vile stuff comes forward? Also, about his wins in red states. So what that he has brought new voters to those states; those voters are STILL outnumbered 6-1 by GOP voters (form what used to be 10-1, before Obama). I do NOT want McCain in office, but I think that's what will happen if Hillary doesn't go to the general election. She has WON against the GOP attack machine time, and again. She's a known quantity. Who cares what the polls say about McCain-Obama (with Obama winning)) BEFORE Obama gets savaged by the GOP attackers. Remember how everyone thought that Gore was a slam dunk against Bush. they thought the same thing about Kerry, too. McCain, like Bush, is RESONATES WITH THE LITTLE GUY. Obama resonates mostly with youth and upper middle income professionals. the little guys far outnumber the latter two groups. Aside from all that, Hillary Clinton is, I believe, as visionary as Obama, and given a chance to put into action the ideas she has espoused in her writings,, and other causes championed over the years, could well make the best President we've seen in the last 50 years. Last, what about the "gender card". I NEVER see the press talking about the hit that Hillary has taken in the polls from white men, of all persuasions. Think about that, and why we haven't seen essay after essay written about that? I hope Hillary scraps it out to the very end, and the Supers see the things that I've been talking about. Hillary needs to be the one - otherwise I fear we may see another GOP president.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:03:32 -0800

Obama, from what I've seen, is NOT good on defense. Pay close attention: This very speech was an act of political defense. This is what it looks like -- not crocodile tears, not hyperbolic shrieking, not thinly veiled (and NOT so thinly veiled) race baiting. The best defense makes it look like you're not on the defensive. Hillary defends herself about as poorly as any politician ever has.

By: Huplescat

Huplescat — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:04:34 -0800

Black Guy Asks Nation For Change.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:06:26 -0800

I think you make some excellent points, MetaMan, and I respect your view of Hillary even though I might not see what you see. But on this: Hillary needs to be the one - otherwise I fear we may see another GOP president. I think you're dead wrong. I think that only Hillary can mobilize the GOP base to come out in numbers to vote for McCain, in a way that McCain working by himself, cannot. The RR thinks that she's the living embodiment of the antichrist (fer chrissakes) and she's a symbol for everything talk radio hates about the left (even though, I agree, she is a centrist). I think Obama is seen as religious/moral, has mainstream appeal, a lack of track record in the Senate on controversial issues and eloquent enough to convince the right wing base to stay at home on election day. Anecdotally, at least he has even won over a few of my moderate Republican friends.

By: Slap Factory

Slap Factory — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:08:18 -0800

uh, slap factory--obama quite explicitly says in his speech that such contradictions exist in his feelings about his pastor and he connects those contradictions to the fabric of racial issues in america more generally. for some commentator to point them out as if they weren't an explicit part of the message seems kind of--well, embarrassing for the commentator, actually. Saulgoodman: Did you read the article? It is about a different kind of contradiction. Not about a "contradiction in feelings," but a factual contradiction between Senator Obama's earlier denials that he had ever heard Reverend Wright make the statements that he now denounces and the admissions in his speech that he was aware of them. Maybe this is "old politics" and the story is wrong to point out that Senator Obama's story is not completely consistent in the context of such a glorious moment in history. Or maybe Senator Obama is using lofty rhetoric to distract from very specific, basic issues.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:10:01 -0800

Does no one else think that Obama is going to have a problem with running on a platform of constant and immediate troop withdrawal from Day 1 when he is running against a hawk like McCain? No. According to a CNN poll this week, 61% think "the next president should remove most U.S. troops from Iraq 'within a few months of taking office.'"

By: elwoodwiles

elwoodwiles — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:15:37 -0800

Last, what about the "gender card". I NEVER see the press talking about the hit that Hillary has taken in the polls from white men, of all persuasions. Think about that, and why we haven't seen essay after essay written about that? I take it you don't read the NYT. Earlier, that is a few weeks ago they ran a number of essays and articles about gender issues with regard to Clinton. Also, when racial language creeps into the current discourse the NYT and other organizations have tried hard to equivocate the race and gender issues. I think that one of the main reasons gender isn't getting as much coverage and discussion as race is Clinton herself. Her campaign, directly and through proxies, has continuously made race an issue. Have any high ranking politicians or democratic officials questioned whether or not America is ready for a woman president? Are working class whites ready for a woman president? It's her own failed attempt to smear Obama blowing back at her, otherwise there might have been a broader discussion about gender. Oh, and on the experience issue, I'm not sure what experiences Clinton is really talking about, other than her experiences of making votes and forming policies that many, many democrats disagree with (War? Health Care?) Besides, after make "experience" the cornerstone of her primary campaign, she will have to completely shift gears to run her presidential campaign. I have no idea what she will decide her position on the war, the economy or health care will be against McCain. Clinton is a politician first - that is her experience, and a leader afterward.... Which is to say not a leader at all.

By: drjimmy11

drjimmy11 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:17:04 -0800

What frustrates me about Obama is that he's *not at all, at base, in his policy, or policy advisement* what he says he is. He's a pure centrist and pragmatist. There is something I find irksome about his oratory, which professes a kind of MLK-lite, and the disconnect I've seen from his actual *work* in the Senate, and prior to the Senate. Amen (no pun intended). I support Obama, voted for him in the primaries, and plan to vote for him again. And I disagree with you: I think he can beta McCain easily, although Hillary can beat him too. But I have a strong adverse reaction to the deification of Obama because the substance just isn't there, not yet anyway. This speech is not "one for the history books." not even close. No one will be quoting it in 100 years, or ten, or probably one. It's a fairly well written piece, and seems to be succeeding at its intended purpose: damage control. but: You know when you go to see a band in a club? And they're pretty good. Then you see their 20 hardcore fans clustered around the stage- the ones who know all the words and go to every show. They're up there screaming like its the Beatles, even for the band's worst songs. And you start to turn against the band a little bit- not because they're BAD, but because the reaction is so out of proportion to reality, it's alienating. This is kind of like that.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:20:22 -0800

Think about that, and why we haven't seen essay after essay written about that? There's an entire book about it.

By: tarvuz

tarvuz — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:24:36 -0800

I must be missing something about Obama. He is not inspiring, talks like a robot most of the time and doesn't really say anything. I guess most of it is image based idol worship. I suspect his political fall will be very hard on those who worship him. The cognitive dissonance will be interesting to observe. In any case he will be our next president.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:26:58 -0800

Saulgoodman: Did you read the article? It is about a different kind of contradiction. Not about a "contradiction in feelings," but a factual contradiction between Senator Obama's earlier denials that he had ever heard Reverend Wright make the statements that he now denounces and the admissions in his speech that he was aware of them. Yep. I had an itchy trigger finger at first (confused the ABC piece with one I recently read in Slate so I thought I'd already read it). But I responded to the main points raised in the article here and here. The long and short of it? The ABC article is still crap. I hope Hillary scraps it out to the very end, and the Supers see the things that I've been talking about. Hillary needs to be the one - otherwise I fear we may see another GOP president. If Hillary "scraps it out to the end," we're more likely to see a GOP president. Even if the GOP can't actually win fair and square, they'll have established a plausible enough story line for fudging the election results and pacifying people into accepting the outcome. If we block international election observers again this time, there'll be plenty of reason to suspect shenanigans. We might look to ChoicePoint and others to explain why it is that elections in which they're involved in any way, both here and abroad, inevitably end up swinging to the right. If you are genuinely progressive in any sense of the term, it would be wise, IMO, not to ever seriously admit the possibility of the dem's losing the election at this point. There's no benefit whatsoever to allowing the idea that such an outcome is even remotely plausible to take hold in popular consciousness if you have a stake in this election. I for one will not recognize any outcome that puts the GOP back in the White House as legitimate.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:27:38 -0800

Here are the lyrics to the Why should god bless America song sung at the 2007 "values voters summit". They didn't actually sing "God damn America" like I remembered, but here's a sample:

In ‘73 the Courts said we Could take the unborn lives The choice is yours don’t worry now It’s not a wrong, it’s your right But just because they made it law Does not change God’s command The most that we can hope for is God’s mercy on our land

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:32:16 -0800

Last, what about the "gender card". I NEVER see the press talking about the hit that Hillary has taken in the polls from white men, of all persuasions. Think about that, and why we haven't seen essay after essay written about that? Or conversely, the hit Obama takes from Women, who make up a majority of democratic voters. They are much less likely to vote for him. So it's not a one-way street here.

By: mattbucher

mattbucher — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:02:01 -0800

If Obama is not the nominee, will there be a viable 3rd party nominee? No. And if there were one, it would only divide the democratic vote further (a la Nader). If Obama is not the nominee, will he be gracious in his concession and support HRC? Yes. Is Hillary's only chance at winning the nomination waiting for a convention fight in August? Yes.

By: dw

dw — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:05:35 -0800

That said, I'm a moderate liberal, and have watched for oyears as the left-liberal wing of the Democratic party has manipulated (that's the way I se it) the most unfortunate part of its support base for votes, only to leave them high and dry on legislative matters - even when the Democrats enjoyed majorities. Uh, where have you been? That's how the GOP has stayed in power, too -- pandering to the social conservatives and throwing them a bone or a judge every once in a while, but always keeping the prize as a carrot on a stick. If you give us a GOP Congress, we'll ban abortion. If you give us a GOP Congress and a GOP president, we'll ban abortion. If you give us a GOP Congress and a GOP President for two terms, we'll ban abortion. Just you wait, we'll load up that court with conservatives soon enough. Oh, I know it's taken 30 years but we're only halfway there, can't let those babykilling Dems in, you know you can't trust them.... And that's been the status quo on BOTH sides. Let's live in fear of what They will bring. They will Ban The Bible and make Your Children into Gay Muslim Witches. They will Force You To Convert and make Your Children into Unthinking Automatons. What does Hillary offer for that? As far as I see, nothing. In fact, it feels like Bill Part 3 -- we're going to have another four years of the 90s with GOP blowhards making money hand over fist over "Billary" and her "murderous Communist ways." Might as well get the backhoe over to Vince Foster's grave because that will certainly need digging up. The Clintons, and many moderate liberals, *take away* the traditional GOP talking points. They take them away because they ARE GOP talking points. What frustrated Gingrich was that Clinton stole his script. And honestly, Clinton was closer to a classical conservative Southern Democrat than anything else. But I don't get the sense that's the direction we need to be going in. If anything, the last year is starting to repudiate some of Clinton's script-stealing, esp. repealing Glass-Steagall. What really bothers me about his race is that Obama - a good man - has been pushed forward as something akin to a saint, without flaws. Clinton has been taking it on the chin from the GOP and the left part of her own party. Well, he is invoking passion. Clinton, honestly, doesn't. These are the people (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc. etc.) that have been screwing with far left liberal agendas that cause backlash, and result - in the long run - in all of us having to deal with the likes of Bush and his sad little band of shoot-em-in-the-face-neocons. So, what you're saying is that the problem here is those East Coast Establishment Liberals who are trying to Take Away Our Guns. Are you reading from the correct script? Hillary's problem coming in was acting like this was just like when Bill ran, and she's run Bill's campaign -- an establishment campaign that relies on big donors and assumes that people will welcome her with sweets and flowers. What happened was McCain-Feingold. What happened was Obama's people salvaging what worked in Dean's campaign and putting it to use in 2008. What happened was Obama understanding Dean's 50 State Strategy and putting it to use. What happened was the Obama campaign running circles around the Clinton campaign for six weeks. What happened was the Clinton campaign believing their own bullshit, and then getting pissed off everyone else didn't. Clinton's campaign has been a failure so far. Not as monumental as Giuliani's $50M a delegate campaign, but definitely a failure. She's still in because the Establishment is keeping her in. But if it's 50/50 in PA, it's over. I have a strong intuitive sense that Obama, if he gets the Dem nod, will spend the better part of the election being savaged by the GOP attack machine. Obama, from what I've seen, is NOT good on defense. I have a sense that the GOP won't have to do much with Hillary. The narrative is already established. My family in Oklahoma will vote for Obama. They won't for Hillary. Why? They know the "Billary" narrative by heart. They know her. They don't want her. And when you talk to people in the middle of this country, you'll find the same response. If Obama can get over the "Muslim" stuff, the middle of the country will listen to him. That may swing Missouri. Or Iowa. Or New Mexico. Or Colorado. But Hillary on the ticket, the chances you'll swing those formerly blue states back diminishes greatly. Also, about his wins in red states. So what that he has brought new voters to those states; those voters are STILL outnumbered 6-1 by GOP voters (form what used to be 10-1, before Obama). I think that's pretty irrelevant, honestly. If this logic is correct, it suggests that the normally blue states will stay home or flock in droves to McCain. You really think New York will do that? Massachusetts? I do NOT want McCain in office, but I think that's what will happen if Hillary doesn't go to the general election. She has WON against the GOP attack machine time, and again. She's a known quantity. And that's why she's going to lose the South, maybe even Arkansas. Remember how everyone thought that Gore was a slam dunk against Bush. they thought the same thing about Kerry, too. Gore's problem was Clinton. Kerry's problem was the problem of the Establishment filled with Baby Boomers believing they could throw a Vietnam War Vet -- one of THEIR PEOPLE -- on the ballot and that would fix everything. But Kerry was dead in the water before the Swift Boat stuff. It was like watching a 2x4 run for election. Kerry was the Democrats' Bob Dole. A war vet who was nominated because it was "his turn." And that fell apart fast. And back on Gore for a second -- he's now a star because he's been able to stay above the fray in defeat and separate himself from the Clintons. I think Monica is going to play a huge role in this election if Hillary is nominated. A lot of Dems felt like the party paid dearly for Bill's inability to keep his pants on, and a lot of folks in the middle of this country think Hillary is only still married to her because she's riding on his fumes. McCain, like Bush, is RESONATES WITH THE LITTLE GUY. Obama resonates mostly with youth and upper middle income professionals. the little guys far outnumber the latter two groups. Well, Obama has some time to figure that out. McCain resonates with white men more than anything else. Even then, the GOP rank-and-file are still really unsure of him. They feel like he threw the party under the bus with McCain-Feingold and the Group of 14. Aside from all that, Hillary Clinton is, I believe, as visionary as Obama, and given a chance to put into action the ideas she has espoused in her writings,, and other causes championed over the years, could well make the best President we've seen in the last 50 years. I believe Hillary Clinton is a cold, manipulating Establishment politician who would feed Chelsea to a pack of ravenous wildebeests if a superdelegate asked her to. She's a brutal politician that will restore the Clinton era. But right now, I'm not sure if bringing back Bill is the right solution. A decade on, we need someone who can rebuild this country from eight long years of war, recession, and misery. Maybe the Bill and Hillary Show can do that. But her campaign has shown that she wants to rely on her experience to solve these problems, and these problems aren't the ones her husband faced in 1993. Do I think Obama can do it? I'm not completely sure. But I'm willing to give it a try. He reminds me of Bill Clinton, too, but the parts of Clinton I loved -- smart, pragmatic, coalition-building, relying on smart and savvy people to make the right decisions. I kinda feel the same way about McCain. Hillary, not so much. Last, what about the "gender card". I NEVER see the press talking about the hit that Hillary has taken in the polls from white men, of all persuasions. Think about that, and why we haven't seen essay after essay written about that? You do see them. You're just not looking for them. They're mostly written by Second Wave Feminists who seem to think anti-Clinton == anti-woman. And if Hillary wins the nomination, you'll see more of them. Because, honestly, Hillary is going to struggle mightily with the white male vote, even more than Obama. I think this is why you're seeing this feminist slant on the topic -- to remind women it's their "duty" to vote for her, and doing otherwise would betray their X chromosome.

By: batou_

batou_ — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:22:53 -0800

Anyone seen the Obama headline on Fox news? "Obama get Panther OK" "Day after Obama delivers his race speech, an unasked for endorsement from New Black Panthers remains on his blog." Sadly, I doubt this speech will change anything.

By: illiad

illiad — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:35:02 -0800

Instead of picking a candidate based on what they have to say, shouldn't we be more interested in the people that are likely to form their cabinets? I mean, what if Obama wants Secretary of State Oprah?

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:35:25 -0800

I tried reading the speech in my head using George Bush's voice. I think that when you're parched and in the desert, when you finally get something to drink, it seems like a golden elixir. And, oh, what we've had for the past seven years!

By: Araucaria

Araucaria — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:36:23 -0800

empath writes "I'm not sure why this is, but I find myself intensely disliking people that nitpick Obama speeches. I feel like it tells me everything I need to know about them, that they're kind of person that could read or watch a speech like that and then focus on trivialities just to tear the man down." empath, I think this is an example of something called negative-affect override. [One tends to learn about these things in marriage counseling.] Once your balance of feeling toward someone has tipped to the negative side of some threshold, you are predisposed to see only negative aspects in their actions and ignore their positive qualities. It just seems to be the way we're wired. It goes the other way too ... if you have a net-positive emotional balance with someone, you tend to give them a pass on the occasional negative action. I'm afraid I have a bit of a negative-affect override with Hillary Clinton, myself. Something about her reminds me of my ex-wife [who is extraordinarily intelligent and efficient and has made incredible strides in an intensely male-dominated field, by the way]. It's just this look she gets ... like that pause when she said "as far as I know." She ought to be thinking of the best interests of the country, and not be trying to win at all costs.

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:37:02 -0800

dw, good post. I don't agree with most of it, however. This is what a makes democracy great - that people can debate differences and still not hate each other (almost, anyway :). I remain a Hillary fan; I know she's cynical, but so is Obama - it's just that he hasn't been around long enough for people to notice. One thing for sure - whoever wins is going to be gone in 2012. America is in deep trouble, and Americans are really good at blaming their politicians for that trouble. The next four years will be dealing with 1) the war; 2) tax reform; and 3) social security reform as baby boomer retirement hits critical mass. Along with that, America will continue to lose hegemony, causing a lot of displacement in this country. If Obama gets in as a far left Dem (which is how he's perceived, and sells himself) , watch for a backlash return to hard-nosed neocons or mindless ultra-conservatives, who by that time will be using Obama's promising rhetoric against him. I'm far more comfortable with a moderate liberal in office; one who honestly professes to be as such, instead ofo someone who is using the far left message of hope to gain office, as he takes advice from some of the most cynical centrist advisors we've seen to date. We haven't seen what Obama is really all about. It's my dervent hope that we never will, in the Presidency, anyway.

By: empath

empath — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:42:36 -0800

I think we need to stop worrying about what Fox News is going to say. Fuck Fox News. They're the enemy.

By: naju

naju — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:45:34 -0800

Here's my (late) thoughts on the speech, sorry if this has been said better elsewhere. I think he has the unique perspective on race and division that comes from someone who was stuck between disparate cultures while growing up, and not really fitting in anywhere or having a home team to root for, and relating to little bits of everything he sees, picking and choosing things here and there to grasp on to. I can understand that, because I did the same thing growing up. And it's the same thing I've seen from other friends and relatives who grew up mixed or as the sons and daughters of immigrants. And the best conclusion someone in Obama's shoes can come to is: I won't let race or tradition define me. Because how can it define me, when my very existence transcends the binary perspective? Culturally and racially I exist nowhere and everywhere. So I'll just be a human being. That thought process can also lead to a very special empathy and compassion for "the Other." (I mean "Other" as broadly as possible, including "white majority" from the perspective of a minority.) It's the kind of thing that leads you to say "I don't agree with that racially-charged remark, but I understand it, and I even see a little of myself in that person." This kind of stuff has been on my mind for a while, since I believe that dualism and the illusion of binary structure is the cause of most of, if not all of, our problems in this world. And this speech might be one of the first times in my lifetime a call for the rejection of the binary (as well as a clear disregard for the "sound bite culture" of our media which values simplistic thinking) has captured the national attention, if momentarily. Not just in race, but he's also touched upon this in terms of politics, religion, gender, and other areas of life. So this speech isn't just political expediency, and it isn't simply "we gotta unite, dude" but it's something much more nuanced and profound. And it goes to the heart of what "change" and "hope" embody in his campaign beyond mere rhetoric. In my opinion anyway.

By: Araucaria

Araucaria — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:50:11 -0800

Another thing that bothers me about Clinton is that she seems willing to accept tainted support: * With McCain nearly a sure thing, there were probably Republican crossovers voting for her in Ohio and Texas. * The same thing is even more likely to occur in Pennsylvania * She signed a pledge with the party to neither campaign nor file in Florida and Michigan. I understand that she filed early, so she was already on the ballot by the time she signed that pledge. But she has shown that she is willing to change the rules of the game, her own statements, in fact, if it will increase her chances of getting elected. I don't happen to like two-party dominance, and I don't agree with many aspects of the way the Democratic Party is organized. But it has the right to plainly state its rules in advance of the contest, and candidates who wish to receive its imprimatur should abide by those rules.

By: sic

sic — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:55:35 -0800

I suspect his political fall will be very hard on those who worship him. The cognitive dissonance will be interesting to observe. What's more interesting is to see how deeply the "worshiping" "cultist" meme has taken hold. Anybody who gets excited about a candidate now is "worshiping" that candidate? That's about as clever as FOX meming Clinton as a socialist. Cognitive dissonance? Please. Look to your own meme stained brain before you start throwing around big psychological terms, professor!

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:56:43 -0800

She reminds you of Imelda Marcos now because you ran out of other names to call her, I guess. Oh, there was "squawking chicken" after that. I don't think I called her a squawking chicken. Did I? But I like it. It has a certain ring to it.

By: aqhong

aqhong — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:57:38 -0800

MetaMan: I had earlier dismissed you as a troll, but your last two posts have been level-headed and at least not laughably illogical. I hope you will continue to make your case in such a coherent way. That said, I disagree with many of your points and I think your assessment of electoral dynamics is flawed, but I can at least see where you're coming from now. I will leave the point-by-point refutation to others, but I will say this: I am willing to bet you that despite your most "dervent" hopes, a) Barack Obama will be our next president, and b) he will serve two terms.

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:00:07 -0800

Will guys just ignore this metman dude for fuck sake. He's trolling. Just ignore it.

By: onlyconnect

onlyconnect — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:00:12 -0800

According to a CNN poll this week, 61% think "the next president should remove most U.S. troops from Iraq 'within a few months of taking office. Okay. Ask that same question with "even if that means the complete destabilization of Iraq" tacked on at the end, which is the way McCain and Co. will spin it once the real election campaign has started, and let's see what happens to those numbers. Sure everyone wants our troops to come home ... until you explain what the consequences are. That's why the surge became popular. If McCain spins Obama's position as deserting freedom-loving but ill-equipped Iraquis and a subsequent loss of the "war" -- I believe that the reaction at the polls will be OH NOES, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE MEANT!

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:01:30 -0800

I had earlier dismissed you as a troll, And you had it right. He's gaming you.

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:07:14 -0800

batou_ writes "Sadly, I doubt this speech will change anything." ... on Fox News. But nothing on Fox News will change unless Murdoch says so. Remember, this is the man who bought the NY Post and took it to new depths. I'm not sure what the point is referring to Fox News as a barometer in the Democratic primaries, or any of Murdoch's media organs, which are nothing if not predictable.

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:07:38 -0800

Okay. Ask that same question with "even if that means the complete destabilization of Iraq" tacked on at the end, which is the way McCain and Co. will spin it once the real election campaign has started, Which is easy to refute with actual facts. As in Iraq is ALREADY destabalized. And gee. What is the singular factor between the more or less oppressed but stable Iraq of 2002 and the cluster fuck Iraq of 2008? Hmmmm. What was that difference? Oh yeah. We frigg'n invaded it and destroyed the place. But sure. Facts don't always mean much to the average dip shit out there.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:09:51 -0800

If Obama gets in as a far left Dem (which is how he's perceived, and sells himself) Oh, Jesus Christ. "Far left Dem"? I must have missed the Che Guevara references in his speech from earlier today.

By: Hildegarde

Hildegarde — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:15:02 -0800

These are the people (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc. etc.) that have been screwing with far left liberal agendas that cause backlash It's amazing what goes for "far left" in the united states. From my perspective, there is no left wing in the US, not one with any power or politicians (other than possibly Kucinich, I'm told).

By: zennie

zennie — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:20:47 -0800

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war... testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated... can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate... we cannot consecrate... we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be here dedicated to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us... that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion... that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom... and that this government of the people... by the people... for the people... shall not perish from the earth. November 19, 1863

Well, since we're comparing.

By: onlyconnect

onlyconnect — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:21:33 -0800

Which is easy to refute with actual facts. As in Iraq is ALREADY destabalized. I don't think the majority of Americans accept that Iraq is a lost cause that we should leave in chaos and damn the consequences. I think that many or most people are like me -- people who think we should not have gone, but now that we're here we should try to get things to as stable a position as possible before we flee. Because it's the right thing to do given the turmoil that we have caused. A candidate who says that he is setting up predictable timetables for monthly withdrawals, regardless of conditions on the ground, apparently based on the hope and belief that Iraquis will now realize it's their responsibility to defend themselves and they'd better get their act together asap, in my estimation will get creamed by a war hero who supported a surge that has been very popular. Talk about the audacity of hope. I like Obama, but this position does not fly with me and I think it could play very badly for him against McCain.

By: cybercoitus interruptus

cybercoitus interruptus — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:26:39 -0800

A conservative friend has just emailed me his reaction: "He's certainly also an admirable individual and attractive in some respects. . . . The speech looks good at first instance, and may have sounded good when first heard, but there are a number of parts of it that don't stand up well to closer scrutiny, such as the attempt to draw a relative comparison between the egregious and odious statements of his pastor and his grandmother's milder concerns." I emailed him back some historical context for Wright (Tuskegee syphilis experiments re the HIV paranoia) and added that unless he's seen videos of Obama's grandmother uttering her "racial and ethnic stereotypes," he's got no basis for judging those utterances as "milder" than what he's viewed Wright say in non-stop contextless sound bites.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:27:02 -0800

I don't think the majority of Americans accept that Iraq is a lost cause.... Only those that don't read books, newspapers, listen to the radio, or watch television news. In other words: swing voters. Ok, unfair. But as for leaving Iraq in chaos and damning the consequences... I'm not yet read up on today's speech, but does that accurately represent Obama's viewpoint? I'm a bit skeptical of your precis, but will reserve judgment until I read it.

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:32:53 -0800

onlyconnect writes "That's why the surge became popular. If McCain spins Obama's position as deserting freedom-loving but ill-equipped Iraquis and a subsequent loss of the 'war' -- I believe that the reaction at the polls will be OH NOES, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE MEANT!" Well, the other side of that is that the economy is a bigger issue than the war, and the war is costing us dearly. If it's framed as, we can keep fighting this war, and you'll be paying for it and so will your grandchildren, then the (false) issue of stabilization doesn't seem so important. Besides, Obama has said repeatedly that he wants to withdraw, but that we should get out of Iraq as carefully as we did getting in carelessly. IOW, we shouldn't rush plans getting out, because that's obviously not served us well going in. I don't think it's a difficult argument to refute. Just ask McCain: How are you going to pay for it?

By: onlyconnect

onlyconnect — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:40:30 -0800

psmealey, I was responding to tkchrist, who implied that it would be no big deal if we left Iraq in a destabilized condition because Iraq is already currently destabilized. Though I actually do think that following this plan of removing 1-2 combat brigades per month as soon as Obama hits office would result in chaos, especially because the insurgent forces will now KNOW that our plan is immediate and steady withdrawal. "Make yourselves at home, guys, we're just leaving."

By: goodnewsfortheinsane

goodnewsfortheinsane — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:41:15 -0800

zennie: Well, since we're comparing. Huh, that's not the Gettysburg Address I know. (self-link)

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:48:05 -0800

onlyconnect writes "especially because the insurgent forces will now KNOW that our plan is immediate and steady withdrawal. 'Make yourselves at home, guys, we're just leaving.'" That's a false dilemma. We obviously cannot stay indefinitely (we really can't afford to stay much longer, and our military is stretched beyond what it can do with available troops), and our presence is adding to the destabilization, not improving it. How are we going to end this, anyway? By "secretly" moving troops out until someone notices we're not there anymore?

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:51:33 -0800

onlyconnect you simply do not get it. The underlying and fundamental cause of this destabilization in Iraq is US. Yes thing s will explode when we leave. Things will explode if we stay. And it will keep exploding as long as we are there. We will only make things worse. But things will stand a much better chance to stabilize with us gone. We are the scab pickers. We are the burr under the saddle. Unless of course we install another Saddam. Which is what McCain and Bush et al are going to end up doing if they actually expect to leave at all. With us gone a slightly more legitimate dictatorial regime may evolve under the sovereign power of Iraq. And as imperfect as that is it is going to last longer than anything we install and try to maintain remotely.

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:55:48 -0800

psmealey, I was responding to tkchrist, who implied that it would be no big deal if we left Iraq in a destabilized condition because Iraq is already currently destabilized. No big deal? I implied no such thing. That kool aid must be sweet. You may want sip slower. Stains the lips purple, you know. Anyhoo. Warp factor "moving on." Shields on. Phasers set to "ignore."

By: BobFrapples

BobFrapples — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:59:08 -0800

Well, the other side of that is that the economy is a bigger issue than the war, and the war is costing us dearly. If it's framed as, we can keep fighting this war, and you'll be paying for it and so will your grandchildren, then the (false) issue of stabilization doesn't seem so important. You've got it right, kf... the majority of Americans are not going to want us to "lose" the "War on Terror", pull out our troops and "destabilize" Iraq. But if someone (like Obama) can get it into their idiot skulls that if we stay the resultant financial effects will give them the ass-rapin' of a lifetime... well then, at that point, the Iraqi's can fucking jump off a cliff as far as they care.

By: Rumple

Rumple — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:01:49 -0800

Surely this is the Gettysburg Address for our times.

By: aqhong

aqhong — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:05:49 -0800

spiderwire: It was a rhetorical question, but thanks for the link to that Gore speech; it's great. If only he hadn't come across as such a stiff in 2000. If only...

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:07:03 -0800

BobFrapples writes "well then, at that point, the Iraqi's can fucking jump off a cliff as far as they care." Eh, well, that's not going to go over too well, either, but we can't bear the cost for years more of occupation while waiting for things to stabilize. And at some point, we have to deal with the economic and military realities, and that point has already arrived, but Bush is trying to foist this off on the next president. But, you know, "screw the Iraqis" isn't going to rally too many people ...

By: onlyconnect

onlyconnect — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:08:36 -0800

Just ask McCain: How are you going to pay for it? imho, after 9/11 for the foreseeable future, national security is always going to win over the economy. If Americans see our precipitious withdrawal from Iraq as creating an increased likelihood of terrorism at home (and I believe they do), the economy won't control their vote. Isn't that basically how Bush got a second term? He wasn't that great and the economy was already hitting the toilet, but folks didn't think the swiftboated Kerry would make a strong commander in chief. (Perhaps likeability also played a factor but I never found Bush likeable.) tkchrist, I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that I don't think most Americans would agree with you that there is nothing we can do to prevent Iraq from exploding after we leave. We're an optimistic bunch of fools who think we can fix things. We want to believe we can make things better. So when McCain explains the consequences of Obama's position on withdrawal to America during the election campaign, people are not going to say, "Oh yes, I realize we messed things up over there and we're just making it worse, so let's just wash our hands of it and come home." They will say, "what should we do then to make sure that we don't leave things in total chaos?" And McCain will say we should stay just a little longer to "get things under control" before we leave, and not take this drastic, naive step Obama suggests. And people are going to believe him, because they don't want to accept that we can't fix the mess we made. I don't know whether or not you're right, and the mess we made is unfixable. Maybe so. But that's not the point. People don't want to believe that it's unfixable, and McCain will present them with a happy sounding alternative and will make Obama's position sound scary and inexperienced. And sorry for all the comments; I will leave this thread for a while now. Also, I'm not intending to personally attack anyone here. I'm arguing with all sincerity and don't really grok the kool aid insults, but whatever I can take it I guess.

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:11:25 -0800

tkchrist: Will guys just ignore this metman dude for fuck sake. He's trolling. Pot, meet kettle. Nice way to chill interaction with someone you disagree with. Perhaps reading up on your namesake will help?

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:15:00 -0800

imho, after 9/11 for the foreseeable future, national security is always going to win over the economy. What if the two are linked? The Iraq war has made our nation LESS secure in a hundred ways, but in an obvious enough way by costing us what many predict will be more than two trillion dollars. Think of the security that could have purchased. To say nothing of the hatred we've stoked and all the "security" concerns that has engendered. I am so tired of these false dichotomies, arguing on the terrain of the right all the time. They lie, then they lie about lying, and then they lie about the lies they told us about lying until people start to believe that the truth is whatever bullshit Wolf Blitzer repeats often enough on behalf of Dick Cheney. And then you go and repeat it here on metafilter, where some people are smart enough to remember that it is still a lie.

By: Artw

Artw — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:16:31 -0800

No, you are not "interacting".

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:17:05 -0800

Which is easy to refute with actual facts. As in Iraq is ALREADY destabalized. I don't think it will be as easy to refute as you seem to think. You are already convinced of one side of the argument - maybe you were sure about it from the start. But Iraq is more stable now than it was a year ago (as touched on above), and a lot of Americans had mixed feelings about the war... Remember that American opinions are fickle. In May 2003 "A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war." Right now, people are feeling against it, because it seems to be a mess, and they kind of wish we'd never got mixed up in it. But if things started going well, and a new government began to get implemented, and eventually a real democracy was set up, then yes, people would switch back to supporting the war, no doubt. The American Civil War had enormous casualties, but history thinks Lincoln did the right thing by holding fast. We can't just say that holding fast when there are casualties is the wrong answer. So if McCain frames this as Iraqis living in bondage, and us ditching them because we don't have the time or money to deal with their problems, even though we started it, it could very well be tough for Obama to make his plan sound good. People want for the war to never have happened, but no one can do that. Being "anti-war" is fine, but he has to explain how cutting forces in Iraq is going to work for them, or it is just going to look like "well, that was bush's fuck up, it's not my fault, have a fun civil war guys! see ya." Some portion of Americans may not care, but McCain will surely make it an issue, and if he manages to make it personal & bring it home, some will care, and will think the Obama position is too flippant and inexperienced.

By: spock

spock — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:17:49 -0800

You know what would be really amazing? If Hillary and Bill Clinton came out tomorrow and said, "I was hoping to be a part of history and be the first female U.S. president, but I have to put my desires aside for the good of this country. I have become convinced that this nation needs Barack Obama as it's President, and today I'm withdrawing my candidacy and asking all of my delegates to support him." OK. So that's not going to happen.

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:18:00 -0800

Long Bet: We see multiple installments of presidents for the next three elections, at least - i.e. no repeaters for the next three elections *after* 2008.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:18:05 -0800

Which is to say, and I hope Obama repeats it all the way to the white house: the Iraq war has made the USA less secure. And Hillary Clinton voted for it, as did John McCain.

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:18:48 -0800

well then, at that point, the Iraqi's can fucking jump off a cliff as far as they care. Close. The average American, the ones who care about staying in Iraq, anyway, couldn't give two shits about the Iraqi people. They didn't give two shits when we left the Iraqi's high and dry after the first gulf war. They didn't give two shits during a decade of sanctions that starved Iraq children. The didn't give two shits while Clinton was bombing Iraq on a whim. And they didn't give two shits about us shocking and awe-ing the fuck out of innocent Iraqi women and children in 2003 based on obvious lies. What they DO give a shit about are the most vague and most sefish of things. They are worried about the US looking like pussies to the Commie Europeans who they imagine will be laughing at us over espresso and snails. They are worried about the US looking like pussies to the imaginary James Bond Super villains and to their concocted nightmares of unstoppable unemployed Arab teenage suicide bombers that will somehow be emboldened and made 50 feet tall and able to stride the Atlantic ocean by the knowledge that America pussed out. If Iraq 'destabilizes" with us gone it's somehow much worse than if it explodes with us piling up the corpses our selves and using them as shields. Our national prestige is at stake! Where as somehow it wasn't when we lied our way into a war, tortured innocent people, and backed out of a dozen or so treaties, etc. For those that say we have to stay until Iraq is "fixed"... uh... what is fixed? What is winning? Nobody seems to be able to describe that scenario. Except in the most vague platitudes and generalities. Please be detailed so I will have plenty to entertain me on my ride to the gym. I love fantasy fiction.

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:21:52 -0800

No, you are not "interacting" I see, and when, exactly, was it that you last looked in a dictionary?

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:26:43 -0800

And Obama voted up $300 in war funding without a peep. Sure, he was against the war *before* coming to office, but he has been very slippery about that since coming to the Senate. He even rationalized his own *new* weaker position re: the war by at one point stating something like "I understand why these votes were made". I still don't know where this guy lands; he's like a dandelion seed, floating this way and that, looking for a place to set down and start something. Just look at his record and proceedings on the Exelon case. He basically said "screw you"to his ownn constituents about really shoddy practices exposed by Exelon (a nuclear power company)

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:27:50 -0800

that's $300 BILLION in war funding

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:29:39 -0800

But Iraq is more stable now than it was a year ago Utter fallacious nonsense. It's a fools stability. What stability there is has very little to do with the surge. The fact is we are paying people to not attack us and we have retreated into fewer more fortified areas. That's why nobody is blowing up Americans like they were. Entire regions have been ethically cleansed. Moqtada Sadr drew a cease fire because he mostly succeed in getting everything he wanted BEFORE the surge. THATS why violence is down. The map of Iraq is now entirely drawn in sectarian lines. It virtually assures there will be a civil war if we stay. As far as for the average Iraqi? Things are just as bad if not worse in many areas. There is still mindless violence. There are still death squads. There is just as much if not more unemployment. There are few schools. Little electricity. Oil is not pumping. Women have utterly lost their rights. Mmmm. More stable? For who?

By: Floydd

Floydd — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:36:45 -0800

Maybe we could address what he actually said: "What I propose is not – and never has been – a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started. My plan to end this war will finally put pressure on Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future. Because we’ve learned that when we tell Iraq’s leaders that we’ll stay as long as it takes, they take as long as they want. We need to send a different message. We will help Iraq reach a meaningful accord on national reconciliation. We will engage with every country in the region – and the UN – to support the stability and territorial integrity of Iraq. And we will launch a major humanitarian initiative to support Iraq’s refugees and people. But Iraqis must take responsibility for their country. It is precisely this kind of approach – an approach that puts the onus on the Iraqis, and that relies on more than just military power – that is needed to stabilize Iraq. Let me be clear: ending this war is not going to be easy. There will be dangers involved. We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure. "

By: mdn

mdn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:40:32 -0800

The underlying and fundamental cause of this destabilization in Iraq is US. That is a nice answer, because then there is an easy solution that really makes everyone happy. However, there is zero evidence for it. There are warring factions in this region that have been at each other's throats for decades. There was stability when they had a dictator (at least partly due to our maneuvering back when) and there was chaos when the dictator came down, and now that there is heavy police force in the region there is some stability again. If we disappear, without installing a dictator, what possible reason do you have to believe that suddenly the sunni, shia and kurds are gonna just get over their feuds and elect a leader? We caused the destabilization in that we took down Saddam. But there's no evidence we're preventing re-stabilization by continuing to be there. Why do you suppose that if we left, Iraq would not just sink further into an endless bloody civil war? Now, of course, the middle east has been at war in one form or another all century, and there's a sense in which it's fair to say it actually isn't our problem - we made a mistake, but we can't fix it any better than anyone else, so we have to leave sometime, kinda thing. But what I'm saying is, it will not be politically expedient to say that sort of thing, and McCain will make this into a moral issue...

By: Floydd

Floydd — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:45:44 -0800

MetaMan, it's a bit more polite if you do the research to back up your assertions. I'll help you out just this once. Obama & Exelon: NYT Obama's response.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:46:43 -0800

I really wish people could stop calling the occupation a 'war.' Using language that is disconnected from reality is a kind of insanity. If it was a 'war' there would be an opposing army to defeat. Disjoint groups of people who are incensed at the atrocities committed against them cannot be negotiated with or defeated, they can only be killed, whether or not they deserve to be.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:47:51 -0800

And don't feed the trolls, please.

By: Floydd

Floydd — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:57:26 -0800

And Obama voted up $300 in war funding without a peep. "Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war." Really, don't be so fuckin' lazy.

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:00:48 -0800

I really wish people could stop calling the occupation a 'war.' Using language that is disconnected from reality is a kind of insanity. It's taking years for "climate change" to replace "global warming" in the political vocabulary, so I wouldn't hold your breath. I think the left uses "war" because their base is traditionally very anti-war and it comes across well at rallies. They don't realize that for another large portion of the population it only seems to inspire patriotism. Where as, yes, "trillion dollar occupation" is both more accurate and less desirable to a lot more people. And don't feed the trolls, please. Floydd fed him the correct way, at least. Link to the best counter arguments and don't let him get under your skin. At least you can be read up on it when your right-wing blowhard neighbor starts blabbering about how Exelon is worse then a thousand Enrons, or whatever.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:02:45 -0800

Ask that same question with 'even if that means the complete destabilization of Iraq' tacked on at the end, Same poll I mentioned before: "71 percent said they think U.S. spending in Iraq is a reason for the nation's poor economy" and 66 percent oppose the war. Which is to say, and I hope Obama repeats it all the way to the white house: the Iraq war has made the USA less secure. He did that in his Iraq speech today: "there is a security gap in this country – a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions... we have neither the strategy nor resources to deal with nearly every other national security challenge we face...What [McCain] and the Administration have failed to present is an overarching strategy: how the war in Iraq enhances our long-term security, or will in the future...the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades." He makes a detailed argument that our involvement in Iraq has emboldened Iran, North Korea, the Taliban, and al Qaeda. I think that many or most people are like me -- people who think we should not have gone, but now that we're here we should try to get things to as stable a position as possible before we flee. How many more people have to die before you admit that's not going to work? When he announced the surge in January 2007, President Bush said that the Iraqi government would take over security in every province by November 2007. That didn't happen, and it still hasn't happened. 906 Americans have died since then, and who knows how many hundreds--maybe thousands--of Iraqis. The market where McCain made his heavily-armed victory lap last year is now unsafe for Americans. All the surge has done is reduce violence to 2005 levels, and Iraq was a disaster then. The stated purpose of the surge was to buy time for the Iraqis to reconcile politically, and General Petreus said last week, that isn't happening, either. We did try to get things to as stable a position as possible.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:05:11 -0800

Oh, dear. On review, I *did* call HRC a squawking chicken. I apologize profusely to chickens.

By: EarBucket

EarBucket — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:15:09 -0800

Instead of picking a candidate based on what they have to say, shouldn't we be more interested in the people that are likely to form their cabinets? I mean, what if Obama wants Secretary of State Oprah? Yes, what if? What if he nominates Mr. T for Secretary of Defense? What if he taps a goatee-wearing Evil Jim Webb from the Mirror Universe for Vice President? What if Spider-Man joined the Fantastic Four?

By: illiad

illiad — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:17:07 -0800

Yes, what if? What if he nominates Mr. T for Secretary of Defense? What if he taps a goatee-wearing Evil Jim Webb from the Mirror Universe for Vice President? Okay. What if Spider-Man joined the Fantastic Four? Now you're just being silly.

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:18:10 -0800

"Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war. Really, don't make so many weak excuses for Obama's backing off from his opposition to the war. Like I said, there's a daze of hypnotism about this guy. the patina is going to wear off, soon enough. I've never seen anything like this, and I was alive to see Kennedy elected. It's like tulip hysteria, with Obama's stock climbing based on nothing more than words. Silly people.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:18:55 -0800

And you just *know* MetaMan would be calling Obama out for "not supporting the troops" if Obama had not voted to continue funding for the ~~war~~ occupation once he was in the senate and the ~~war~~ occupation was well underway. One of my favorite qualities of the Clinton defenders is the way they can take *anything* and spin it in any direction they want. He's either too far right or too far left, too opposed to the war or too supportive of it, inexperienced or experienced in all the wrong ways, not black enough or too black, maybe a Muslim or maybe a radical angry Christian, etc. Meanwhile, the glaring, blatant contradictions between word and deed, record and representation, that animate Senator Clinton's political identity are not to be mentioned lest one be accused of picking on a poor defenseless woman, who runs on the argument that she is as tough as nails and can take more abuse than Obama. I am looking at today's polls and feeling depressed, even as I sit here at the edge of the melting sea ice in the arctic (taking an afternoon off from going out on it). Yep, the right wing has managed to tar Obama as "dangerous anti-American angry young black man" and stick "God damn America" firmly to his hide. Yet another media lynching party led not only by the far right wackos on Fox and CNN, but by "liberal" Clinton supporters. Hillary and her racist supporters are, once again, doing the GOP's dirty work for them; if she can't be president then she's gonna break all your toys and storm home to her mansion in Chappaqua. Yeah, lynching. You heard me. Whip those white middle American supporters into a frenzy of racist fear and hatred. Hand the right wing another cycle and one more chance to turn the US into a third world country. You go girl.