Obama's "embargoed" speech on race

From Huffington Post.

It is, of course, brilliant. One of the most appropriate speeches I've ever read. This honest and challenging approach is why I'm a fan.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
"A More Perfect Union"
Constitution Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."


Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.


The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.


Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.


And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.


This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.


This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.


I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American 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.


It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.


Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.


This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.


And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.


On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.


I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. 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; 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.


As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.


Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way


But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.


In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:


"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."


That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.


And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.


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.


The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.


Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.


Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.


Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.


A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.


This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.


But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.


And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.


In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.


Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.


Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.


This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.


But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.


For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.


Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.


The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.


In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.


In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.


For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.


We can do that.


But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.


That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.


This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.


This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.


This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.


I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.


There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.


There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.


And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.


She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.


She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.


Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.


Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."


"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.


But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.



Display: Sort:

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#1)

It's interesting how the Obama campaign constantly tells everyone to stop playing the race card and to not make race an issue, yet he seems to talk about race and inflame the situation more than anyone. Take his issues with his pastor for example.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#2)

Oh for goodness sake Northern Monkey!!

He's addressing the issue of race after his pastor gained notoriety for anti-white remarks.

He is distancing himself from Reverend Wright's remarks but has the courage to praise the man.

Nobody running for President has EVER addressed this issue with the honesty in this speech.

I despair sometimes - I really do!

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#6)

He hasn't condemned the Pastor himself and indeed seems to be standing by him - that's not a wise decision.

If Hillary banged on about how America hasn't full got over the gender problem (and it hasn't) then you'd be complaining that she's throwing the 'gender card'.

Ever since America's independence, women have made up roughly 50% of the population and yet there has never been a female President - that is far more worrying and disturbing than not having an ethnic minority President.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#7)

"He hasn't condemned the Pastor himself and indeed seems to be standing by him - that's not a wise decision."

Dear Northern Monkey, did you actually READ the speech?  Obama said the man has been like family to him and sometimes you disagree with your family. 

 
You obviously don't have many friends such is the intolerance you are displaying of anyone who remains friends with anyone else who isn't "perfect". Very sad.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#9)

The Pastor isn't just 'not perfect', he said some things which are deeply wrong and I wouldn't want somebody so close to my family (and marry me and baptise my children) who held such extreme views.

I think that's a reasonable view which most people would share.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#10)

It also needs to be said that the Obama campaign is framing the election in such a way that if he loses, they're making it look like America is a racist country after all.

He's more or less saying that the only way to overcome the bitter racist past of America is to elect him as President.

This is simply not fair. And we certainly have not seen Hillary use similar langauge to the same degree concerning her gender.

It's no surprise that Obama's poll ratings have gone down lately, and now Hillary Clinton holds a wider lead over Senator McCain than Obama does. This current tactic by the Obama campaign isn't working and if he wants to win, he should change.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#12)

It also needs to be said that the Obama campaign is framing the election in such a way that if he loses, they're making it look like America is a racist country after all.

I was typing as you posted this - it's just too stupid to actually believe you're not attempting a wind up. 

Now, I'm not sorry!! 

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#11)

NM - I'm sorry for being so short with you but do you not see what a petulant, grubby, idiot you are behaving like? It's both cringworthy and frustrating from someone who claims to be left-wing.

Read the speech. Actually read it and then come back and honestly say Obama has a case to answer.

Show me anywhere at all, where a serious contender for the highest office in the free world, has ever spoken in public so honestly about racial division and how it detracts from actual politics.

He has fully dealt with it. Over on Conservativehome a number of people recognise as much.

I don't think that you can't see it - I think it's that you flatly refuse to out of misguided loyalty to Clinton.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#13)

NM - I'm sorry for being so short with you but do you not see what a petulant, grubby, idiot you are behaving like?

I'm not interested in throwing insults back and forth Tony.

Show me anywhere at all, where a serious contender for the highest office in the free world, has ever spoken in public so honestly about racial division and how it detracts from actual politics.

What do you mean by 'so honestly'? I don't believe previous Presidents have denied there being racial problems in the United States. Race certainly does distract from the issues, that's why Obama would be wise not to make a big deal over it.

And to be frank, I don't think Obama is being entirely 'honest' in saying that he knew the Pastor for 17 years and yet never once heard him make the kind of comments heard on the news lately.

He has fully dealt with it. Over on Conservativehome a number of people recognise as much.

Nine times out of ten I disagree with the people on ConHome and this is no exception!

I don't think that you can't see it - I think it's that you flatly refuse to out of misguided loyalty to Clinton.

That's unfair given that many members of the public have turned against Obama in the last week. As I said, Hillary's now beating McCain by greater margins than Obama is beating him (I remember you using the head-to-head statistics against McCain before, but now things have gone the opposite way I suspect you won't!)

It's the somewhat fanatical Obama supporters who fail to recognise people's very serious misgivings of Obama. And by insulting those who hold such misgivings as right-wing or racist will end up hurting Obama more than anyone else.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#14)

Polls now put Clinton better placed against McCain. That's true - although not nearly as many and no national polls - that I'm aware of.

This is since Hillary thew the kitchen sink at Obama. Since she said the Republican (you'll remember them - the ones who ruin everything) would be a better commander in chief. Obama will easily overcome McCain in November as long as Hillary's dirty campaign doesn't undermine Democrats completely.

If Hillary wins the nomination - the 527s will destroy her. Nothing will bring the demoralised Republican base out to vote Republican like she will. That's a fact. It's a shame - she was likeable until this campaign but it's a fact.

The speech was unprecedented in its honesty - he addressed white anger at affirmative action, he demonstrated where racism exists and he said that politicians exploite race as a distraction from the issues.

I have no misgivings about Obama on the basis of what his pastor said. I have no misgivings about Obama on the basis of ignorant remarks from Geraldine Ferraro.

I worry that he has less experience than previous candidates but am more than comforted to see that he has shown superior judgement in everything he's done in public life.

I do not demand experience in a broken system to validate one's ability to fix that system. You don't have those misgivings - you have flummery, baseless flummery upon which you are not informed - healthcare being the one issue you bleat on about. You looked at an unticked box in The Economist and formed a view.

And to be frank, I don't think Obama is being entirely 'honest' in saying that he knew the Pastor for 17 years and yet never once heard him make the kind of comments heard on the news lately.

Will you please read the effing speech???!!! 

14th para in Obama's speech:

For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. 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.  

I refuse to engage you when you ignorantly splutter comments on something you demonstrate you know little about - I'm sorry!

Not playing anymore - last word is yours.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#15)

Tony, you're not the only one to find that "debating" with Northern Monkey is like talking to a brick wall.  NM's comments are shameless.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#17)

Matthew, I can understand your bitterness given that the last time we debated you lost comprehensively, but don't sour other people's debates please.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#19)

Incidentally Matthew, will you please have the guts to point out which comments are 'shameless'?

Or are you yet another Obama-fan who blindly slanders anyone who disagrees with precious Obama as a racist?

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#20)

The tone of your posts seem to indicate that someone who criticises Clinton is a misogynist.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#21)

The tone of the Obama supporters on here is that anyone who dismisses their candidate is a racist.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#22)

Stop talking bollocks, NM.  You're becoming tedious.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#23)

Why the nastiness?

I don't like the fact that people pick and choose who they're having a go at based on which candidate they're supporting.

Let's get one thing clear - Tony started this thread about Barack Obama and it's perfectly legitimate for me to criticise Obama in the comments section. If you don't like it, then debate back but don't just dismiss it as 'talking bollocks' because you can't be bothered debating.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#24)

You say:

The tone of the Obama supporters on here is that anyone who dismisses their candidate is a racist. 

After that bewilderingly stupid assertion you, without a trace of irony, go on to ask:

Why the nastiness?

You're being a hypocrite and a jerk and you are spouting moronic nonsense not even nearly backing it up. Are you even reading your own stupid posts? You're usually a fairly respectable contributor - I just can't explain the implaccable bone-headed nature on this subject.

I did say I wasn't getting into it anymore - couldn't help myself.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#25)

Oaky NM, maybe I shouldn't have been so blunt to you but you did write "He hasn't condemned the Pastor himself and indeed seems to be standing by him - that's not a wise decision."

However, in his speech, Obama said amongst other things "Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive" and then "Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough." 

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#30)

I accept Barack Obama doesn't believe what his pastor says.

But he did deny that he'd heard anything that extreme from him in the 17 years that he'd known him and I'm not sure I believe that.

Also, he said that he couldn't disown his pastor because he was one of the family. Again, I'm not sure I believe this - he can choose who his pastor is, where as he cannot choose who his grandma is.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#29)

Do you see what I mean - calling me a 'jerk' and saying my posts are 'stupid'.


I don't think you're willing to accept that people are allowed to criticise Obama and don't have to change their minds. And I'm sorry but there's more than a whiff of crying 'racism' when none exists (as with the Ferraro case) from Obama supporters and I don't like that at all.


I'm also angry about the fact that his supporters are doing their absolute best to make sure Florida and Michigan cannot vote again precisely because they know their candidate would lose big time in both states. This is not democracy and the entire primary process is turning into a shambles.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#31)

You've been very stupid - you've not made any sense - when faced with logic, you've babbled on and moved the goalposts.
 
I'm not saying, and have never said, supporting Hillary is stupid - you've gone about it in a very, very stupid manner. You've also made generalisations about Obama supporters which I think green lighted my being rude.

On you new point about Michigan and Florida. They should be seated but they broke the rules. There's no evidence to support your accusation (indeed, there never is).

I will remind you though - Clinton signed a pledge not to campaign there or participate in primaries which violate DNC rules. When she thought she'd be cruising to victory she said it’s clear the election in Michigan “wasn’t going to count for anything” (listen).

Now that she needs them – she says they should.

Disingenuous.  

As I said - I'm sick and tired of her remorseless campaign. I lay significant blame with Mark Penn - her useless, useless chief strategist - but ultimately, it is she who is responsible.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#18)

Polls now put Clinton better placed against McCain. That's true - although not nearly as many and no national polls - that I'm aware of.

It's not 'how many' that counts, it's 'how recently' they've occurred. And in the recent weeks, Hillary's been performing better in head-to-head match-ups with McCain than Obama.

Obama will easily overcome McCain

That's not what the polls are saying.

If Hillary wins the nomination - the 527s will destroy her. Nothing will bring the demoralised Republican base out to vote Republican like she will. That's a fact. It's a shame - she was likeable until this campaign but it's a fact.

The Republicans have already grouped around McCain and that's how it will stay - only the very naive could possibly have thought that some Republicans would have backed Obama. They've thrown everything they have at Hillary and she's still standing. But there's plenty of skeletons in the cupboard for Obama and McCain (as we've already seen). She's in the strongest position to fight McCain head on.

The speech was unprecedented in its honesty

Why do you say that? I've heard plenty of politicians speak honestly about race. Just because he's black, it does not make his speech more 'honest'.

I do not demand experience in a broken system to validate one's ability to fix that system. You don't have those misgivings - you have flummery, baseless flummery upon which you are not informed - healthcare being the one issue you bleat on about. You looked at an unticked box in The Economist and formed a view.

Tony, never once have I heard you say anything about substance concerning Obama - it seems you, like many Obama supporters, just got caught up in the bandwagon and got lost in the moment in between all those soundbites and meaningless catchphrases like 'in the unlikely story that is America', 'there's no such thing as false hope' and 'yes we can'.

I backed Hillary from the start because of her policies and her strength. The Economist article was only offered because you persistently asked for it. It confirmed that they thought Hillary's plans for universal health care were better than any other candidate's. I agree and I'm disappointed that Obama has sold out to the right-wing by not including universal health care as a policy.


And the pastor's remarks that we're talking about were not merely 'controversial' - they were downright insulting and deeply wrong. He denied that he'd heard such extremeties from the pastor despite knowing him for 17 years and that's why he went on about 'if I'd have seen what was shown on YouTube I'd have been shocked...'


I'm afraid I don't believe him that he wasn't aware the pastor held such extreme views. And if he did, that makes it even worse since he shouldn't have stayed with him.


Barack Obama couldn't have chosen his Grandma - but he can choose his family pastor. 

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#26)


[Rolls eyes]

[Sighs, wonder’s what’s the point when the goon won’t read it anyway?]

[Reconsiders – perhaps someone will]

Tony, never once have I heard you say anything about substance concerning Obama - it seems you, like many Obama supporters, just got caught up in the bandwagon and got lost in the moment in between all those soundbites and meaningless catchphrases like 'in the unlikely story that is America', 'there's no such thing as false hope' and 'yes we can'.

What about substance here, where I linked you to his voting record here, on the very issue of substance itself here or on the reasoning behind his healthcare policy here?

The reason I’m calling you stupid is that you’re suggesting that all Obama supporters are caught up in rhetoric – they’re not – it’s why he’s out ahead. Much smarter people than you support Obama and find laughable the idea that were all mesmerised by good communication – you only say it because it provides you with some comfort.

I perfectly respect someone defending Hillary, supporting her and making a sound argument on her behalf. YOU’RE NOT DOING THAT!!!

You’re being an idiot, talking in exasperating general and unsubstantiated terms.

Anyway – if you were interested in substance you wouldn’t be piously seizing on the Pastor’s comments like a Fox News or CNN f-wit. By contrast, Hillary Clinton’s husband is a serial philanderer, was accused of rape and was impeached. I know that that has no bearing on her integrity or “family values”.

And the pastor's remarks that we're talking about were not merely 'controversial' - they were downright insulting and deeply wrong.

Must I renounce my Catholicism because of my Priest’s view on homosexuality? My Godfather in the West of Ireland, 94, doesn’t care so much for the British, having lived under English rule during, shall we say, unpleasant times in the early 1900's – despite my being an anglophile - shall I disown him if I’m ever to run for anything (which I won’t)?

Please don’t pretend you’re interested in substance.

It's not 'how many' that counts, it's 'how recently' they've occurred.  

It is how many as only Zogby and Rasmussen put her ahead – scores of others don’t. It more about weighting, representation – but I’m not explaining statistics to you.

To Matthew Stiles you said:

Matthew, I can understand your bitterness given that the last time we debated you lost comprehensively, but don't sour other people's debates please.

And Lo! Your thinking is revealed – every “debate” is a point-scoring exercise – a competition where concession is foolish and “winning” is the purpose.

On this subject - you’ve made a fool of yourself and a mockery of cogent argument.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#27)

Notice NM, it is you who has brought up the issue of pigmentation. And don't respond with Tony wrote a blog about 'race' as that is merely talking about it, Tony has never said Obama is a wonderful human being for being black. You are the one who brings up that 'Obama is only doing well because of the black demographics'. Noone is bringing up, 'Clinton is a woman' here other than her supporters, and I think it is a credulous entry into identity politics, that I must support this senator, who I can judge on her husband's presidency, as I'm perfectly entitled to do so, as otherwise the Clinton 'is the experienced candidate' argument carries no weight.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#28)

He has said very clearly hat he doesn't agree with the comments made by his pastor. But explains equally clearly that he doesn't think that he should disown people for political advantage.

He has been accused of being vague - he answers that with great detail on his views.

He warns that concentrating on minute matters, whether in his camp, or in others; reduces the time talking about serious issues.

He is totally right in all these respects.

It is an excellent speech.

Hilary Clinton's team cannot have it both ways. He cannot be adequate as vice-president but the wrong type of person for president.

I for one hope he is elected. 

 

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#3)

Good speech. I wonder who wrought it for him?

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#4)

The guy's a talent.  His team are phenomenal.  He's going to do it and the world will be a better place for his victory.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#5)

Its a great speech. it has the same rhythm and resonance as Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#32)

Obama wrote the speech with his wife Michelle the evening before he delivered it - that's why it was brilliant, because it was far more personal than any speechwriter could ever have made it.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#8)

Great speech. Much more religion than we expect and I would like someday for a candidate to say 'whether you are male or female, black, white or Latino, of any religion or none. Candidates who appeal to aetheists are shooting themselves in the foot; I wish that could change.

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#16)

It was a case of having to make the speech.  I have listened to much comment on the content - it was well covered by the World Service as well as in the American press.  Not everyone was enamoured by the content with some voters stating he had lost their vote.  A renowned Professor of Media studies also suggested that the mention of his white grandmother was wrong and would haunt him in the weeks to come.

I want Hilary to win - I have always supported her. 

Re: Obama's "embargoed" speech on race (#33)

Two quick points:

1.  Reference to Obama's grandmother: that is an old story told in his first book, so was only new to people who had not been following his story.

2.  Opinion polls today (26th March) show Clinton with a lead of less than 10% in Pennsylvania (she needs to win by at least 15% to give her a chance of winning the popular vote in the primaries) and Obama leading by 21% in North Carolina, which would by far cancel out any delegate gain Clinton made in Pennsylvania.