The Speech

I think Obama's speech was pretty brilliant, if a bit long. Of course, at the end of the day the formal speech is the area of politics in which he most excels so channelling the Jeremiah Wright controversy into a "major speech on race" was a savvy move. I think this was the most significant part:

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.

The kind of white resentment Obama is talking about here has been a problem for the Democratic Party for decades now notwithstanding the fact that you rarely see the party nominating African-Americans to run in majority white constituencies. What Obama is showing us here is that precisely because he's black, he's able to acknowledge and validate these resentments in a way that would be very difficult for a white liberal politician.

At any rate, I'd say things are back on track. The Wright business had opened up a vague sliver of hope for Hillary Clinton's campaign -- if they could produce a result in Pennsylvania that looked like a Wright-induced collapse in Obama's white support, maybe they could convince superdelegates that he's unelectable. After this speech, I don't see it happening.

Comments

At any rate, I'd say things are back on track.

Uh-oh.

Posted by Gabriel | March 18, 2008 12:29 PM

Can anyone who has their TV on let us know what the pundits' take on this is?

I hate to get all horse-race about this, but the speech is really about whether Obama can get back in control of the news cycle. Is there any sign that this is what's happened?

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 12:29 PM

Does anything really happen in the political world unless it is acknowledged on CNN and MSNBC?

Posted by blah | March 18, 2008 12:33 PM

Yeah, good speech.
Now, a Hillary surrogate (Ann Lewis) is saying in today's Washington Post that "The role of the President of the United States is to support the decisions made by the people of Israel. It is not to up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties." (This attacking an Obama's spokesman who said there are other ways of looking at things than Likud's) Will Hillary have to repudiate Ann Lewis? Or does she agree on this definition of the president's role?
BTW, On this site I've always taken Hillary's side, on the basis of far more electable.

Posted by otherScott | March 18, 2008 12:34 PM

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 ...and in the end protest their fellow Americans receiving unfair advantages by voting for a white privileged Yalie legacy twice.

But thankfully Obama didn't correctly finish the statement. White people tend to find the obvious threatening.

Posted by Thomas | March 18, 2008 12:34 PM

Isn't Hillary a Baptist? If I'm supposed to believe that Obama shares his pastor's rage at white people, shouldn't I think Hillary believes she's supposed to submit to Bill's servant leadership?

Posted by aleks | March 18, 2008 12:34 PM

Totally agreed on that as the key paragraph; I've already quoted it in a couple of online discussions.

Tyro, it's just one data point, but CNN's original headline was "Obama: slavery 'stained' constitution", but it's since been changed to "Obama: We can move beyond racial wounds"

Here was my comment from the other thread.

Flitting quickly around, the conventional wisdom seems to be "great speech, the mainstream media won't cover it, the people may not get it".

I agree on the "great speech", and share the lack of confidence in mainstream media. But you know, the mainstream media is deathly afraid of being rendered irrelevant by the new media, blogs, and social networks. Watch how quickly the coverage of this speech and reviews of the mainstream media's performance radiate out, and the kind of pressure that builds if it doesn't get covered.

And as for "the people may not get it", this is blatant elitism. 90% or more of the people I know live this every day. They'll get it.

jon

Posted by jon | March 18, 2008 12:36 PM

"the speech is really about whether Obama can get back in control of the news cycle."

Strongly disagree. The success or failure of Obama's "interesting" tack today will play out in April, not over the next 12 hours.

Posted by Petey | March 18, 2008 12:37 PM

I agree with Matt - Obama's speech was a brilliant one, perhaps historic in its significance.

As for the mainstream media, well, as Obama said, they have a choice - to continue to traffic in sideshows and distractions, or to engage themselves and the American people in a serious, nuanced discussion about the future of this great nation. The choice is entirely theirs to make.

Posted by DaveWoo | March 18, 2008 12:37 PM

I agree with you Matt.

Obama pretty much sealed up the nomination this morning (barring any other unforeseen revelations). Strange to say he sealed up the nomination with a speech - but such is political life - words matter.

He'll still lose the primary in Pennsylvania, but he'll win in North Carolina and he has a good shot at Indiana. In both of those states, most of the lower income whites are already Republicans which means that the Democratic party consists mostly of white professionals, liberals and minorities.

The greatest effect of the speech will be to shore up the support of those leaning towards Obama who may have been rocked by the whole Wright scandal.

Of course it still remains to be seen how Obama will do in the general. However, I'm getting more convinced as the days go by, that Obama actually combines the political deftness and seeming earnestness that got a draft-dodging, pot-smoking-but-not-inhaling, womanizing guy elected president. Twice!!

Posted by DJ | March 18, 2008 12:38 PM

Totally agreed on that as the key paragraph; I've already quoted it in a couple of online discussions.

Tyro, it's just one data point, but CNN's original headline was "Obama: slavery 'stained' constitution", but it's since been changed to "Obama: We can move beyond racial wounds"

Here was my comment from the other thread.

Flitting quickly around, the conventional wisdom seems to be "great speech, the mainstream media won't cover it, the people may not get it".

I agree on the "great speech", and share the lack of confidence in mainstream media. But you know, the mainstream media is deathly afraid of being rendered irrelevant by the new media, blogs, and social networks. Watch how quickly the coverage of this speech and reviews of the mainstream media's performance radiate out, and the kind of pressure that builds if it doesn't get covered.

And as for "the people may not get it", this is blatant elitism. 90% or more of the people I know live this every day. They'll get it.

jon

Posted by jon | March 18, 2008 12:40 PM

MY is whistling past the graveyard. Obama is done and this speech compounds the problem. Among other things, Obama threw his own grandmother under the bus. So the list is now three icons tarnished:

1. 9/11 - "chickens coming home to roost"
2. "God Bless America, no God Damn America"
3. Grandmothers - mine loves me, but she is a racist.

Posted by Ephus | March 18, 2008 12:40 PM

I think that irrespective of the quality of the speech and its contents, just the fact that he had to do it proves that the conservatives have succeeded in bitch-slapping a Democratic leader one more time. I hope that it does not set a bad precedent for Obama.

The fault perhaps is in the amen chorus of the respective parties. The conservatives are so adept at forcing a Democrat to be on the defensive. The Republicans, on the other hand, continue on their merry ways of dissembling, blatant exhibition of ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry, and general screwing up of everything, and they almost never have to stand up and defend themselves.

We need better pundits and talking heads.

Posted by gregor | March 18, 2008 12:41 PM

As for the mainstream media, well, as Obama said, they have a choice - to continue to traffic in sideshows and distractions, or to engage themselves and the American people in a serious, nuanced discussion about the future of this great nation. The choice is entirely theirs to make.
Posted by DaveWo
*****************

It's a choice they made years ago.

Posted by aleks | March 18, 2008 12:42 PM

1. I don't see how this doesn't define him as the black candidate.

2. OJ was about race? Ooooh, boy.

3. Criticizing grandma isn't a good idea.

4. He sounded angry.

5. Quite possibly, some of it has been "repurposed" from old Deval Patrick speeches (or some other Axelrod client), given how quickly it was put together. If it was, someone will find it.

6. He is good at giving one speech and then beating it to death on the stump from then on. Not something he wants to do here.

7. He didn't address the central issue at all--why was he part of Wright's hateful church? Unless the answer was "because black people are full of anger".

Ultimately, I think the Dems are more fools than ever if they put him up.

As for it being a "great speech"--eh. But I've never liked the guy; he's a mirror for people like Matt to admire themselves in.

Posted by Cal | March 18, 2008 12:42 PM

I agree with you Matt.

Obama pretty much sealed up the nomination this morning (barring any other unforeseen revelations). Strange to say he sealed up the nomination with a speech - but such is political life - words matter.

He'll still lose the primary in Pennsylvania, but he'll win in North Carolina and he has a good shot at Indiana. In both of those states, most of the lower income whites are already Republicans which means that the Democratic party consists mostly of white professionals, liberals and minorities.

The greatest effect of the speech will be to shore up the support of those leaning towards Obama who may have been rocked by the whole Wright scandal.

Of course it still remains to be seen how Obama will do in the general. However, I'm getting more convinced as the days go by, that Obama actually combines the political deftness and seeming earnestness that got a draft-dodging, pot-smoking-but-not-inhaling, womanizing guy elected president. Twice!!

Posted by DJ | March 18, 2008 12:43 PM

CNN, MSNBC, and even FOX are generally praising this speech from both a Political standpoint and and an overall standpoint.

Its important that they realize that this isn't just about Wright or Ferraro, but about America at its very core.

Posted by Raum | March 18, 2008 12:43 PM

MY is whistling past the graveyard. Obama cannot recover and this speech compounds the damage. Among other things, he threw his own grandmother under the bus. The list is now three icons tarnished:

1. 9/11 - "chickens coming home to roost"
2. "God Bless America, no God Damn America:
3. Grandmothers - Mine loves me, but she is a racist.

Posted by Ephus | March 18, 2008 12:43 PM

As for the mainstream media, well, as Obama said, they have a choice - to continue to traffic in sideshows and distractions, or to engage themselves and the American people in a serious, nuanced discussion about the future of this great nation. The choice is entirely theirs to make.
Posted by DaveWo
*****************

It's a choice they made years ago.

Posted by aleks | March 18, 2008 12:43 PM

All I know right now is that Obama's words resonated with me, and for that reason alone they may with others. Then again, I'm an optimist by nature and not everyone is.

Posted by David W. | March 18, 2008 12:43 PM

oops. apologies for the multiple post.

sheepishly,

jon

Posted by jon | March 18, 2008 12:44 PM

"Can anyone who has their TV on let us know what the pundits' take on this is?"

Their take is that Heather Mills got what she deserved.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | March 18, 2008 12:44 PM

Hey, aleks, give them some credit, such a choice pays the bills, baby!

Seriously, it makes the anchors a ton of florins.

Posted by Greg | March 18, 2008 12:44 PM

The Wright business had opened up a vague sliver of hope for Hillary Clinton's campaign -- if they could produce a result in Pennsylvania that looked like a Wright-induced collapse in Obama's white support, maybe they could convince superdelegates that he's unelectable.

I'm not sure that Clinton COULD use the Wright issue as a way to convince elected officials even if she wanted to. First, superdelegates won't want to have this conversation. Awkward. Scary.

Now perhaps superdelegates could make this decision quietly, privately, BUT they also have to justify their vote, and they can't say publicly that they're voting against Obama and the will of the people over the Wright issue. There's got to be something else.

Posted by AKBY | March 18, 2008 12:45 PM

After this speech, I don't see it happening.

I agree, for the more visceral reason that I can't imagine Hillary Clinton making a speech this moving and apt about anything, least of all this topic. I think (hope) Obama has sealed his nomination.

Posted by John-Paul Pagano | March 18, 2008 12:45 PM

I think that irrespective of the quality of the speech and its contents, just the fact that he had to do it proves that the conservatives have succeeded in bitch-slapping a Democratic leader one more time. I hope that it does not set a bad precedent for Obama.

The fault perhaps is in the amen chorus of the respective parties. The conservatives are so adept at forcing a Democrat to be on the defensive. The Republicans, on the other hand, continue on their merry ways of dissembling, blatant exhibition of ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry, and general screwing up of everything, and they almost never have to stand up and defend themselves.

We need better pundits and talking heads.

Posted by gregor | March 18, 2008 12:45 PM

I think Obama's speech was pretty brilliant

Gee, was there ever any doubt that Matthew would find the speech "pretty brilliant"?

Obamabots find Obama speech brilliant! Film at 11!

Posted by Al | March 18, 2008 12:46 PM

This is great news for Hillary?

Posted by blah | March 18, 2008 12:46 PM

Obama is taking a gamble that the electorate is actually intelligent. I don't think it is a bad gamble. Of course, the punditocracy is unintelligent, not to say vile, corrupt, and braindead, so I have a hard time imagining they will like the speech, and they like to think of themselves as the political brokers. Those who they damn, whilst eating the barbecue with McCain, should stay damned. One of the reasons, of course, that HRC pisses them off.

On the other hand, the punditocracy is far to the right of most Americans on most issues, and still thinks of Bush as an admirable, strong leader - maybe the Truman of our time. And I think the public knows pretty much that the press corps, in general, are brownnosers, parasites, shallow, full of shit, untalented, unable to analyse a paper bag, lazy, high paid stenographers, sycophants, mooks, feebs, starbanging assholes, buncombe artists, pompous, racist, sexist and generally a locust like blight on the land.

Posted by roger | March 18, 2008 12:47 PM

CNN, MSNBC, and even FOX are generally praising this speech from both a Political standpoint and and an overall standpoint.

Its important that they realize that this isn't just about Wright or Ferraro, but about America at its very core.

Posted by Raum | March 18, 2008 12:48 PM

The Wright business had opened up a vague sliver of hope for Hillary Clinton's campaign -- if they could produce a result in Pennsylvania that looked like a Wright-induced collapse in Obama's white support, maybe they could convince superdelegates that he's unelectable.

I'm not sure that Clinton COULD use the Wright issue as a way to convince elected officials even if she wanted to. First, superdelegates won't want to have this conversation. Awkward. Scary.

Now perhaps superdelegates could make this decision quietly, privately, BUT they also have to justify their vote, and they can't say publicly that they're voting against Obama and the will of the people over the Wright issue. There's got to be something else.

Posted by AKBY | March 18, 2008 12:49 PM

If he loves his racist grandmother despite her faults, why can't he be more accepting of the Democratic Party's racist Grandma Geraldine?

Posted by aleks | March 18, 2008 12:50 PM

"the Democratic party consists mostly of white professionals, liberals and minorities."

We all already understand that this is the vision of the small-tent party preferred by blogospheric Obama boosters, but it's not an accurate description of the actual Democratic Party.

If it were accurate, then Obama would be easily winning the popular vote among Democrats, rather than losing it by a rather large margin.

Posted by Petey | March 18, 2008 12:51 PM

without pointing a finger obama illustrated the difference between a campaign that expolits the resentments of its constituency for political advantage and one that views those resentments as the obstacles to a better life and better country they actually are. a very adult speech. if this doesn't move the clintons to shame then there's no shame in them.

Posted by dbreger | March 18, 2008 12:52 PM

Isn't Obama doing the same thing here with blue collar whites that he's been doing with conservatives, i.e., acknowledging their position rhetorically while, presumably, still disagreeing with it? This seems to raise some obvious questions: Is Obama against this sort of busing? Is he against affirmative action? I'm guessing not.

So why should blue collar whites vote for Obama if he just articulates their concerns but will do nothing to assuage them?

Posted by Fred | March 18, 2008 12:55 PM

If it were accurate, then Obama would be easily winning the popular vote among Democrats, rather than losing it by a rather large margin.
Posted by Petey | March 18, 2008 12:51 PM

He's doing what now?

Posted by aleks | March 18, 2008 12:58 PM

Fred, because voters don't vote on issues and are the sort that say, "I don't always agree with him, but he cares about people like us, and I know where he stands." And if, over time, that support for the candidate starts to cause their views to be more in line with Obama's views, all the better.

This is particularly the case in the democratic primary where the policy differences between the two candidates are so subtle.

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 12:59 PM

Man, that really woke up the (barely) crypto-racists.

Posted by ed | March 18, 2008 1:02 PM

"He's doing what now?"

He's losing the popular vote among Democrats to Clinton by a rather large margin.

-----

"This is particularly the case in the democratic primary where the policy differences between the two candidates are so subtle."

Quite true, if you consider Obama's opposition to universal healthcare and Clinton's support for universal healthcare to be a "subtle" difference.

If DJ's comment above about low-income folks no longer being a part of the Democratic Party were true, this "subtle" difference might not be such a problem for Obama. But considering that Obama's upscale supporters are not the major chunk of the party, this "subtle" difference continues to be a problem for him.

Posted by Petey | March 18, 2008 1:06 PM

If he loves his racist grandmother despite her faults, why can't he be more accepting of the Democratic Party's racist Grandma Geraldine?

So, he's supposed to care as much about Geraldine Ferraro as his own grandmother?

Posted by AKBY | March 18, 2008 1:07 PM

So, he's supposed to care as much about Geraldine Ferraro as his own grandmother?
Posted by AKBY | March 18, 2008 1:07 PM

Ok, you nailed me.

He's losing the popular vote among Democrats to Clinton by a rather large margin.
Posted by Petey | March 18, 2008 1:06 PM

Do you have a source on that? Are you counting Michigan? Or is it that the massive popular vote lead he's generally reported to enjoy includes Independents?

Posted by aleks | March 18, 2008 1:14 PM

Re: Fred's post at 12:55.

He is listening to them. He is acknowledging their concerns. He is not demonizing them as racists. He is willing to reason. How is that not assuaging their concerns? Is a heck of a lot better than I'm just going to talk to my base and the rest of you could just go f*** off.

My only problem with his speech is the usual "let's blame the evil corporations" bit. Not that corporations (and CEOs) are all angels. But it is too tired and predictable.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | March 18, 2008 1:15 PM

I will vote for the Democratic candidate in November. But reading this speech it highlights to me that Obama has no experience to draw on, all he has is hope. His lack of accomplishment and experience is like the proverbial elephant in the living room, it is bad manners to talk about it. His personal story is inspirational, he overcame tremendous odds to become a US Senator. But he was running for President within a year of taking that office. he has had a typical freshman term, unremarkable. He aspires to create a beautiful world, his dreams are the dreams of all decent and honorable Americans. Yet, even he can't articulate, at least to me, why he can succeed where others have failed. I am very worried.

“What Obama is showing us here is that precisely because he's black, he's able to acknowledge and validate these resentments in a way that would be very difficult for a white liberal politician.”

Geraldine Ferraro agrees wholeheartedly

Posted by phg | March 18, 2008 1:16 PM

I've been a Hillary supporter, but this speech makes me feel much more warmly towards Barack: at last, though very, very late, the substance about what "change" means, and what we need to do as a nation about the central wound in our society that infects everything we do, from Iraq to Wall Street. In fact, I think it's history-making honesty for a political candidate, the heavenly corrective to the Checkers speech.

The speech sets American society a test: if we use it as a mirror to see ourselves more honestly, we actually could begin to work together to solve our enormous problems and slow or even reverse our decline as a nation: that has been his promise of leadership, and in this speech, for the first time that I'm aware of, he actually shows us the full measure of the substantive leadership he is capable of.

However, I think he would have made the test easier for us if he had borrowed from Nixon's methods a bit more (and thereby redeemed them): people need visual aids, and perhaps he should have made the speech in an intimate setting and shown pictures of his mother and grandmother and father and African step-grandmother, to illustrate the part of the speech where he said "belief in reconciliation is in my genes" or however he put it. Those pictures would work to correct, to inoculate against, the images of Rev. Wright. And to some people, that array of flags behind him will be interpreted as a vicious presumption: "he won't wear a pin, and he goes all Commander in Chief with the flag display when he gets in trouble? I told you! etc., etc." But those may be the people no reason could ever reach.

Will we pass the test? I think that's unlikely in this first instance; this speech is so far ahead of the national conversation, and so threatening to those who benefit from making sure that real conversation about race and class and inequity never happens, that I think it probably won't save his candidacy--but it may make him viable again in another cycle when the social crisis has deepened even further (as it surely will).

In a way, though, it may lead to a more tragic outcome: it seems likely to rescue him among Democrats (Matt's rather ingenue take models that, I think, though perhaps with the flu, that's an understandable quick response), get him the nomination, but not be nearly enough to win the general--where he has plenty of other problems versus McCain, and the Wright videos and much more vicious piling on will be in store. And that might be his only shot at the presidency, which would be the tragedy. The racists in the Republican Party *have* to defeat this man, he is their existential crisis, so you can count on their pulling out every devilish weapon--and we haven't seen a tenth of what they're capable of.

But today, Barack did us proud. Do we deserve him? We shall see...

Posted by Kevin E. | March 18, 2008 1:17 PM

I think Obama's speech was pretty brilliant

Gee, was there ever any doubt that Matthew would find the speech "pretty brilliant"?

Obamabots find Obama speech brilliant! Film at 11!

So Al, I'm kinda curious. What's your take on the speech?

Posted by WillieStyle | March 18, 2008 1:17 PM

"This is great news for Hillary?"

Posted by blah | March 18, 2008 12:46 PM

no. THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 18, 2008 1:18 PM

Petey only counts the Democrats he wants to count to come up with his math, just ignore him.

Posted by Eric k | March 18, 2008 1:19 PM

"Or is it that the massive popular vote lead he's generally reported to enjoy includes Independents?"

Obama is up by 70,000 votes out of over 26 million votes cast, which produces a "massive" lead of about 47.5% to 47.3%.

But, of course, that includes the upscale Republican and independent votes that DJ incorrectly attributes to being part of the Democratic Party.

If you break out only the Democratic votes, Clinton holds a substantially lead over Obama in the popular vote.

Blogospheric Obama supporters may want to pretend that low-income voters aren't part of the Democratic Party, but they're just flat out wrong.

Posted by Petey | March 18, 2008 1:22 PM

Petey only counts the Democrats he wants to count to come up with his math, just ignore him.
Posted by Eric k | March 18, 2008 1:19 PM

So that's where Hillary got it.

Posted by aleks | March 18, 2008 1:22 PM

Petey say "Quite true, if you consider Obama's opposition to universal healthcare and Clinton's support for universal healthcare to be a "subtle" difference."

I really would like to see where Obama is opposed to a workable universal healthcare coverage system, and where Clinton proposes one. I hope you realize her use of the word mandate is meaningless and only rhetorical as she has no provisions in her plan for enforcing the mandate.

Posted by john m | March 18, 2008 1:22 PM

At any rate, I'd say things are back on track. The Wright business had opened up a vague sliver of hope for Hillary Clinton's campaign...

Forget about Hillary. The primary is over. The danger of the Wright business is in the general election. I hope this stuff is going away, but I seriously doubt it.

Posted by Jim W | March 18, 2008 1:23 PM

Obama's opposition to universal healthcare

Now there is a statement old Turd Blossom would be proud of. Kudos to Petey.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | March 18, 2008 1:24 PM

My only problem with his speech is the usual "let's blame the evil corporations" bit.

It wouldn't be a Democratic speech without it.

Posted by Brad | March 18, 2008 1:24 PM

"How is that not assuaging their concerns?"

Because he isn't offering any substantive policy changes to address these concerns. If Obama is elected, unqualified blacks like Michelle Obama will still get into Princeton over a blue collar white guy's son.

Posted by Fred | March 18, 2008 1:25 PM

Shorter racists: "Help me I'm melting!"

Honesty and context may as well be water to a witch if you thrive on ignorance.

Posted by joejoejoe | March 18, 2008 1:26 PM

I really would like to see where Obama is opposed to a workable universal healthcare coverage system, and where Clinton proposes one. I hope you realize her use of the word mandate is meaningless and only rhetorical as she has no provisions in her plan for enforcing the mandate.
Posted by john m | March 18, 2008 1:22 PM

Hillary's judging from her *experience*. She didn't have to force Bush to invade Iraq, she just made it as easy as she could and he went ahead and did it. She figures it'll be the same with getting people to buy health care.

Posted by aleks | March 18, 2008 1:27 PM

So why should blue collar whites vote for Obama if he just articulates their concerns but will do nothing to assuage them?

You're presuming that Obama means to do nothing.

Compare and contrast your "blue collar white" concerns with evangelical opponents to abortion and the current regime's conflict between rhetoric and inactivity on abortion.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 18, 2008 1:31 PM

Cal: If you're wondering where the material for this speech got repurposed from, consider reading his two books, especially The Audacity of Hope. I got around to reading it over the weekend (after reading his first book years ago), and these themes are very familiar.

Posted by phil | March 18, 2008 1:31 PM

"I really would like to see where Obama is opposed to a workable universal healthcare coverage system"

Here 'ya go.

And he seems opposed for the most craven and cowardly political reasons.

"and where Clinton proposes one"

Jesus Christ. The campaign has been going on for a year now. Is it really too much to ask for folks to pay minimal attention to the candidates' positions?

Clinton has copied the Edwards universal healthcare plan, which has pretty universal support among Democratic policy mavens.

Posted by Petey | March 18, 2008 1:31 PM

Obama is up by 70,000 votes out of over 26 million votes cast...

Posted by Petey | March 18, 2008 1:22 PM

Not that this hasn't been debunked a million times, but Petey's 70,000 number only holds up if you include not only the dubious Florida vote but the utterly farcical Michigan vote.

If you look at the contests where he was able to campaign and was, you know, actually on the ballot, his lead is closer to a million.

Posted by ResumeMan | March 18, 2008 1:33 PM

Steve Sailer's take:

Here's the text.

As always, very eloquent.

I'm sure it will be taken as the Sister Souljah moment I've long urged Obama to carry out on Rev. Dr. Wright. Amidst all the high sounding phrases, however, it's not clear whether Obama is confessing that he blatantly lied last week when he asserted:

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."

Nor does it appear that he's withdrawing from Wright's church, to which he donated $27,500 on his two most recent available tax returns.

Obama is trying to leave the impression that this is kind of a recent senile crack-up on the part of Wright (who is 66):

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.

No, this is just Wright being the same Wright who went with Farrakhan to see Gadaffi when he was 42. The only difference is that it's Wright being Wright on Youtube.

When he was told he needed a church to be politically successful, Obama searched out Wright out of all black pastors on the South Side. He got what he was looking for.

And, no, not all black pastors are like Wright. Here's the website of the biggest black megachurch in LA, West Angeles Cathedral, with almost three times as many members as Wright's Trinity. It's a Christian church, not the far left politics in dashiki vestments.

In summary, unless I'm missing, Obama's speech is a lot nice words and zero action.

We'll see if he ever holds a press conference on this topic.

Posted by Juan | March 18, 2008 1:34 PM

....this speech is so far ahead of the national conversation, and so threatening to those who benefit from making sure that real conversation about race and class and inequity never happens, that I think it probably won't save his candidacy.

But the reality of the situation remains, with Hillary being too far behind in the delegate count to catch up. It's her cnadidacy that needs saving.

Superdelegates with political careers will not overturn an election based on the Wright issue. They have to justify their votes, publicly, so there's got to be something else.

Posted by AKBY | March 18, 2008 1:36 PM

Here 'ya go.

Well, since the link doesn't show what you said it would, I don't think I'll be following any future links. What it showed was Obama offering a different health care proposal that he finds to be more amenable to low income people than Hillary's.

Shame, shame, shame.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 18, 2008 1:36 PM

Steve Sailer's take:

Here's the text.

As always, very eloquent.

I'm sure it will be taken as the Sister Souljah moment I've long urged Obama to carry out on Rev. Dr. Wright. Amidst all the high sounding phrases, however, it's not clear whether Obama is confessing that he blatantly lied last week when he asserted:

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."

Nor does it appear that he's withdrawing from Wright's church, to which he donated $27,500 on his two most recent available tax returns.

Obama is trying to leave the impression that this is kind of a recent senile crack-up on the part of Wright (who is 66):

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.

No, this is just Wright being the same Wright who went with Farrakhan to see Gadaffi when he was 42. The only difference is that it's Wright being Wright on Youtube.

When he was told he needed a church to be politically successful, Obama searched out Wright out of all black pastors on the South Side. He got what he was looking for.

And, no, not all black pastors are like Wright. Here's the website of the biggest black megachurch in LA, West Angeles Cathedral, with almost three times as many members as Wright's Trinity. It's a Christian church, not the far left politics in dashiki vestments.

In summary, unless I'm missing, Obama's speech is a lot nice words and zero action.

We'll see if he ever holds a press conference on this topic.

Posted by Juan | March 18, 2008 1:37 PM

Obama is up by 70,000 votes out of over 26 million votes cast, which produces a "massive" lead of about 47.5% to 47.3%.
But, of course, that includes the upscale Republican and independent votes that DJ incorrectly attributes to being part of the Democratic Party.
If you break out only the Democratic votes, Clinton holds a substantially lead over Obama in the popular vote.
Blogospheric Obama supporters may want to pretend that low-income voters aren't part of the Democratic Party, but they're just flat out wrong.
Posted by Petey | March 18, 2008 1:22 PM
********************
Ok, you answered one of my questions, now let's try the other two. Is that including Michigan, where she was the only candidate on the ballot? And do you have a source?

Posted by aleks | March 18, 2008 1:38 PM

Can't you policy wonks react to a speech that is vital to Obama's political survival without reverting to your tedious arguments about health care?

Posted by Jim W | March 18, 2008 1:40 PM

Steve Sailer's take:

Do you also have David Duke's take at your fingertips, too?

Posted by Kevin | March 18, 2008 1:42 PM

"What it showed was Obama offering a different health care proposal"

Indeed. McCain is also offering a "different" healthcare proposal.

However, both Obama's and McCain's proposals are not universal healthcare proposals. And neither of them is workable enough to be turned into actual legislation.

Clinton is proposing a legislatable universal healthcare plan, which is why she's winning the popular vote among Democrats.

DJ and many other blogospheric Obama supporters may think that the Democratic Party is only comprised of upscale professionals who are opposed to social insurance programs, but that's not the actual composition of the Party.

Posted by Petey | March 18, 2008 1:44 PM

Re: Fred's post at 1:25?

What? On the lighter side I am more than willing to sacrifice Michele Obama's Ivy School degree in exchange for Clarence Thomas being booted off the SCOTUS.

Seriously, your comments are in bad faith. You are comparing Michele Obama, a real person (who whatever her other faults seems extremely smart), with the hypothetical more deserving blue-collar white guy's son. Since we will never know his name, we can never prove that Michele might actually be smarter than him. I can also make a case for a generic more-deserving black (or whatever color) kid who was denied his Yale/Harvard admission because of Dubya my-dad-is-a-big-shot Bush.

The argument against affirmative action is not whether it is fair or unfair. Nothing in the world is completely fair. The better argument is to analyze whether it actually works to achieve its objective or not.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | March 18, 2008 1:48 PM

At the risk of sounding old hat - Reverend J.A. Wright didn't preach anything that college professors all over America haven't taught for decades. Ward Churchill ring any bells? Talk is cheap, but Hillary Clinton has had entire books written about her "spiritual life," and even founded her own college - at which Ward Churchill did speak, at taxpayer expense - but neither she nor Bill Clinton attend any church. Barack Obama puts forth that both Rev. Wright, and Geraldine Ferraro's ideologies were shaped by the 1960s - as were, I might add, the Clintons, and of course Elton John's. Barack Obama threatens to drag the Democratic Party, kicking and screaming beyond “1984,” into the 21st Century. And, some don't like it: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 18, 2008 1:49 PM

Fred, as a white guy who was rejected from Yale, I can tell you that if that's your biggest grievance in life, things are going pretty well for you.

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 1:51 PM

However, both Obama's and McCain's proposals are not universal healthcare proposals. And neither of them is workable enough to be turned into actual legislation.

You contrive your own special definitions and then go all wroth because of them. You need to get out more.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 18, 2008 1:51 PM

Brilliant speech. By embracing Wright while disowning his divisive comments, that he knew about, and explaining their context he has restored reality and rebuilt his post-racial narrative.

I Agree.

Posted by Chris Dornan | March 18, 2008 1:52 PM

Not that this hasn't been debunked a million times, but Petey's 70,000 number only holds up if you include not only the dubious Florida vote but the utterly farcical Michigan vote.

And if you leave out four caucus states that haven't released popular vote totals (Nevada, Iowa, Washington, and Maine--one skin-of-her-teeth Clinton win, one solid Obama win, and two Obama blowouts).

And if you include Florida and the farcical Michigan vote, where Obama wasn't on the ballot! And even then, his lead is over 80,000 according to Real Clear Politics.

If you look at the contests where he was able to campaign and was, you know, actually on the ballot, his lead is closer to a million.

Over 813,000 when you include the four caucus states, according to RCP. 519,000 including Florida and 190,000 even when you include the dubious Michigan results.

Posted by Marc | March 18, 2008 1:57 PM

It seems like in his newest column, Pat Buchanan distorts and exaggerates Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright. The link is Here.

Posted by BK | March 18, 2008 2:00 PM

you guys are unbelievable. all the complaints about the msm focusing on the horserace and here's a speech that ventures into a big tract of rarely visited substance and you'd rather go all snarky over the speaker and stategy. you deserve the clintons (nobody deserves mccain).

Posted by dbreger | March 18, 2008 2:01 PM

"If you break out only the Democratic votes, Clinton holds a substantially lead over Obama in the popular vote."

Maybe. But first of all, any talk about the popular vote gives ridiculously little weight to the states that hold caucuses instead of primaries. And we're not just looking for someone to lead the Democratic party; we're looking for someone to lead the United States of America. If you really want to change the procedure so that caucuses are forbidden and only registered Democrats get to vote in primaries, go ahead and try to argue for that change. I didn't hear any HRC supporters arguing for that change back in 2007 - so really this is just special pleading on behalf of HRC. But I can't take it seriously; she had the name recognition and the money and she knew what the rules of the game were - trying to change the rules just because you're losing is feeble.

I started out supporting Edwards, like Petey. But I've been hugely impressed by the Obama campaign's achievements; and greatly turned off by the incompetence, chaos, and tone-deaf ugliness of the Clinton campaign. Policies matter. But competence matters too, and the Obama team has a big edge. And even on policy, my suspicion is that we won't have the money for much progressive reform until we get out of Iraq, and HRC's history and hawkish inclinations will make her reluctant to cut our losses there. It's going to take a lot of competence and a bit of inspiration to dig us out of the current hole: I don't know whether Obama can manage it, but I'm sure he's better suited for the task than Sen Clinton, intelligent and hard-working as she is.

Posted by Richard Cownie | March 18, 2008 2:01 PM

Jayhawk's post made me laugh and want to cry at the same time:

"Can anyone who has their TV on let us know what the pundits' take on this is?"
Their take is that Heather Mills got what she deserved. Posted by Jayhawk Max | March 18, 2008 12:44 PM

Posted by Beth in VA | March 18, 2008 2:04 PM

dbreger,
Of course we do, but we're hoping the country deserves Obama and we can ride Uncle Sam's coat tails.

Posted by aleks | March 18, 2008 2:05 PM

Blogospheric Obama supporters may want to pretend that low-income voters aren't part of the Democratic Party, but they're just flat out wrong.

By this logic, Petey likes to pretend that black people (who are disproportionately low-income) are not part of the Democratic Party.

Posted by Brendan | March 18, 2008 2:07 PM

So Al, I'm kinda curious. What's your take on the speech?

WillieStyle,

I will not be able to watch/read it until tonight, I'm afraid - which is why I haven't commented on it. I barely have time to procrastinate by scanning MY today.

Still, it was pretty predictable the Matthew was going to find it brilliant, dontcha think?

Posted by Al | March 18, 2008 2:07 PM

To the guy upset about not getting into Harvard:
that Obama left the race question blank in his Harvard Law application.

Posted by Beth | March 18, 2008 2:11 PM

Matt has indeed pointed out one of the most significant portions of the speech, and a point that the 'netroots' seemed to miss over the last week. Obama should run with his take on race as an example of 'New Politics' in action.

I only hope his message isn't too complicated for the media.

Posted by AJ | March 18, 2008 2:11 PM

"By this logic, Petey likes to pretend that black people (who are disproportionately low-income) are not part of the Democratic Party."

Au contraire. AA's are disproportionately registered Democrats.

And those who seek to say that will of Democratic voters doesn't matter in determining the Democratic nominee are ultimately acting against the interests of AA voters, even if that's not how the lines are drawn in this particular nomination race.

Posted by Petey | March 18, 2008 2:12 PM

"What? On the lighter side I am more than willing to sacrifice Michele Obama's Ivy School degree in exchange for Clarence Thomas being booted off the SCOTUS."

Clarence Thomas was clearly an affirmative action appointment to the court, though his writing since he's been on the court has been impressive. Either he is more intelligent than his track record suggested or he's got some of the Court's smartest clerks.

"Seriously, your comments are in bad faith. You are comparing Michele Obama, a real person (who whatever her other faults seems extremely smart), with the hypothetical more deserving blue-collar white guy's son. Since we will never know his name, we can never prove that Michele might actually be smarter than him."

Michele herself has implicitly acknowledged that she wasn't qualified to attend Princeton on the merits (see her comments about people at her fancy high school telling her that she didn't have the test scores or grades to warrant applying there). As for Michele being smart, see her Princeton senior thesis.

"I can also make a case for a generic more-deserving black (or whatever color) kid who was denied his Yale/Harvard admission because of Dubya my-dad-is-a-big-shot Bush."

But no one would believe it. There are so few truly qualified black students that none is at risk of not getting into an Ivy League school.

"The argument against affirmative action is not whether it is fair or unfair. Nothing in the world is completely fair. The better argument is to analyze whether it actually works to achieve its objective or not."

Fair enough, but what is its objective? To increase diversity in elite institutions? To what end? See again Michele Obama's senior thesis. By her own admission, she felt more self-consciously "Black" after four years there. If affirmative action's goal is to put more blacks in diversicrat sinecures like Michele's at the U. of Chicago Hospitals, again, mission accomplished, but to what end? If affirmative action ends up putting under-qualified blacks in real jobs where they can kill people with their incompetence (e.g., Patrick Chavis), who benefits from that? If the objective of affirmative action is to make blacks feel better about themselves, than it seems to be a failure: look at how resentful it has made Michele Obama. If the policy breeds resentment among both the blacks it 'helps' and the whites it hurts, why continue it?

Posted by Fred | March 18, 2008 2:17 PM

And those who seek to say that will of Democratic voters doesn't matter in determining the Democratic nominee are ultimately acting against the interests of AA voters

So Hillary, and Bill, and Mark Penn and Harold Ickes are ultimately acting against the interests of AA voters.

Exactly.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 18, 2008 2:23 PM

Michelle Obama came from a blue collar family, so there's no need for you to get all classist on us, Fred.

Posted by Phoebe | March 18, 2008 2:23 PM

Fred, all in all, being passed over for admission to Yale in favor of the basketball player, triple-legacy, guy who did origami, oboist, promising high school student from North Dakota, and student who promised to major in Basque, didn't really seem to cause the same level of resentment in me, all these years on, that it seems to have in you.

Actually, it doesn't seem to have caused that same resentment in you-- your resentment focused on blacks. I think Obama is right to acknowledge that resentment while also having a president that, over time, will cause people like you to get over it.

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 2:26 PM

Still, it was pretty predictable the Matthew was going to find it brilliant, dontcha think?

Well sure. I think I could accurately predict the reactions of the vast majority of people on this site (including Petey). That's why I asked your opinion not theirs.

Posted by Williestyle | March 18, 2008 2:33 PM

This guy from my high school got into Princeton with a B average because he was good at tennis.

Posted by Barbar | March 18, 2008 2:44 PM

Tyro,

"I think Obama is right to acknowledge that resentment while also having a president that, over time, will cause people like you to get over it."

How would having a black president make those discriminated against by affirmative action happier about that? If anything, they might resent it more, because if the country is accepting enough of blacks to elect one as president, that should obviate the need for affirmative action.

Posted by Fred | March 18, 2008 2:47 PM

My high school by the way had 4 times as many students admitted to Harvard as to Princeton. Probably because we weren't that white.

Posted by Barbar | March 18, 2008 2:48 PM

Fred, actually, because the country will be a country more heavily leaning in favor of Democrats and more heavily leaning towards support of Democratic party policies after an Obama presidency.

People who disagree with Obama on the affirmative action issue will have a chance of voting for him in spite of it because he's "a straight shooter", and some of them will come around to his POV over time. At some point, disagreements about AA can't be "negotiated away." The best a president can do is try to turn disagreements with him into agreements.

Also, I'm really not sure that the constituency of "whites rejected from princeton over legacies, sports stars, "pointed students", and those who benefited from affrimative action" really has much power at the voting booth. I would venture to argue that the vast electorate is well aware that admissions to top-tier schools are not "fair" in any objective sense of the word.

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 2:57 PM

This won't really get at the substance of Obama's speech, which I've only caught in pieces. It seems consistent with his general M.O., however, and I think there's a bit of confusion about what that M.O. is.

Obama seems to me an expert at the techniques described in Bill Ury's _Getting to Yes_, one of the classic works in negotiation. [I'm not saying that Obama's following that book, has read it, or even heard of it. I just see a parallel between his approach and what the book recommends.] In a nutshell, successful negotiation, according to Ury, consists not in trying to find an acceptable middle between two positions, but in understanding the varied interests that underlie those positions, and then crafting a solution (typically different from both original positions) that deals with those interests.

An example from the book: a librarian encounters two patrons getting agitated with each other. One wants a window open, the other wants it closed. [These are positions.] Attempts at finding the degree of openness that will work for both of them are failing. [This is a traditional approach to compromise.] The librarian asks, "WHY do you want the window open, and why do you want it closed?" [This is seeking out interests.] The answers: I want some fresh air, and I don't want to feel the draft. The librarian thinks for a minute, closes the window in that room, and opens one in the next room. [A solution that deals with everyone's interests.]

I think that's what Obama is trying to do with a number of issues, including race. He's not just trying to pay lip service to black and white resentment. He's trying to acknowledge the real interests that those feelings are rooted in, in order to try to come up with some solutions that might fit everyone's needs better than the old positions do (e.g. busing or ending busing, affirmative action or ending affirmative action). It's a legitimate move, but hard. Anyone who misses it, though, is going to mistake Obama for a snake-oil salesman. I think his record proves otherwise, and supports my portrayal (while guaranteeing nothing about his chances for success as President).

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | March 18, 2008 3:07 PM

This speech makes me so proud.

Wow, a truly beautiful and courageous speech, and history in the making.

I felt like I was listening to Booby Kennedy in Indianapolis in '68.

Remarkable not only in its courage and intelligence, but also in its humanity. He refuses to throw anyone under the bus. People are flawed, America has race issues, and we need to come together.

Senator Obama has so much dignity and intelligence, he makes his attacks and cynics look very small-minded.

In some sense, Obama has in this very speech, already served his country well. This speech is what his campaign is all about -- moving past division, showing leadership, healing and unity and courage.

Bravo, for a beautiful speech that makes me PROUD to be an American!

Posted by J. Dowd | March 18, 2008 3:16 PM

As a strong Edwards supporter I have to say that I was quite impressed by the Obama speech. Substance and character were on display. Commitment and thoughtfulness were on display. Consummate politics that transcended the purely political were on display. I can't imagine Edwards would endorse Clinton after watching this speech, which hit many notes from his campaign's themes. I could imagine him endorsing Obama, although I don't know that he will.

Posted by o'edwardian | March 18, 2008 3:21 PM

Read Sean Wilentz.

Posted by lambert strether | March 18, 2008 3:45 PM

"Fred, actually, because the country will be a country more heavily leaning in favor of Democrats and more heavily leaning towards support of Democratic party policies after an Obama presidency."

They will be more supportive of all Democratic policies, including affirmative action? Why do you think this will be the case?

"and some of them will come around to his POV over time."

Again, why do you think this will be the case? Is this just your vague hope, warm feelings you get from listening to Obama speeches, or have you thought out why him being president would make unpopular policies (see how anti-affirmative action/discrimination policies have done at the ballot box in CA, MI and elsewhere) popular?

Posted by Fred | March 18, 2008 3:47 PM

MY:
still standing by your assessment than Obama's relationship with Wright & the church was opportunistic and cynical from the get go? [remember, just cuz you have a cynical worldview doesn't mean others do]

"going to have a hard time explaining that I take to be the truth, namely that his relationship with Trinity has been a bit cynical from the beginning. After all, before Obama was a half-black guy running in a mostly white country he was a half-white guy running in a mostly black neighborhood. At that time, associating with a very large, influential, local church with black nationalist overtones was a clear political asset (it's also clear in his book that it made him, personally, feel "blacker" to belong to a slightly kitschy black church). "

Posted by eli | March 18, 2008 3:52 PM

MY:
still standing by your assessment than Obama's relationship with Wright & the church was opportunistic and cynical from the get go? [remember, just cuz you have a cynical worldview doesn't mean others do]

"going to have a hard time explaining that I take to be the truth, namely that his relationship with Trinity has been a bit cynical from the beginning. After all, before Obama was a half-black guy running in a mostly white country he was a half-white guy running in a mostly black neighborhood. At that time, associating with a very large, influential, local church with black nationalist overtones was a clear political asset (it's also clear in his book that it made him, personally, feel "blacker" to belong to a slightly kitschy black church). "

Posted by eli | March 18, 2008 3:53 PM

"I think that's what Obama is trying to do with a number of issues, including race. He's not just trying to pay lip service to black and white resentment. He's trying to acknowledge the real interests that those feelings are rooted in, in order to try to come up with some solutions that might fit everyone's needs better than the old positions do (e.g. busing or ending busing, affirmative action or ending affirmative action)."

It's a tribute to Obama's charisma and rhetorical skills that you believe this, but there's no evidence at all that it's true. Obama's policy priorities are traditional liberal Democratic ones: has he proposed ending affirmative action or other elements of Democratic identity politics that most Americans oppose?

Posted by Fred | March 18, 2008 3:53 PM

Fred, it is human nature that the dialog will lurch over time in the direction of those who hold power and the pulpit.

There's no reason it ignorantly assume that the opinions of the public are static or that the longtime presence of a popular president will not shift the "center" of the electorate to a place closer to the views of the president and his party. Rember, it was within our living memory that even among republicans, cutting taxes to produce increased revenue was considered "voodoo economics."

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 3:54 PM

How much affirmative action is there anymore? It's a teeny % of what it used to be and hoping to elect a crotchety old white guy (who's a success in politics by marrying a millionaire wife) by fanning the embers of race resentment suggests that too many politicos are beyond being merely cynical and deeply into being racist schmucks.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 18, 2008 3:56 PM

Fred, didn't you say yesterday that Obama was done? So let it go. Please.

Posted by Barbar | March 18, 2008 4:04 PM

Regarding "Getting to Yes" - Roger Fisher was at HLS during Obama's time there and one had to work hard to avoid being involved in a "Getting To Yes" symposium through at least one class during the first year of law school.

The fundamental issue with Obama is that his candidacy now requires voters to rethink their gut-level revulsion at statements (1: 9/11 was "chickens coming home to roost", 2: "God bless America, no God Damn America" and 3: My grandmother was a racist) and conclude that we are all at fault and we all must move to "higher ground." I expect the vast majority of voters to say, "I don't have to do anything" and vote for someone who makes fewer psychic demands. In my view, he is done.

Posted by Ephus | March 18, 2008 4:12 PM

Ephus, I think most people who are not themselves racists are going to relate to the common experience of having grandparents who held rather racist views that, even though they were nice people, are not considered acceptable in polite conversation today. Do you claim otherwise?

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 4:15 PM

This speech is one of the most incredible things I've ever heard. No coded language, no dancing around issues that are too sensitive and scary for most politicians to touch. He lifted the rock and let the sun shine in on decades of bitterness and misunderstanding and festering resentment. I'm trying to think of the last time I encountered such a clear-eyed honest discussion of race. Maybe Cornell West back when he wrote Race Matters? Maybe further back than that. This took some serious guts.

One other thing; it was big of him to cut Ferrarro some slack, because she probably didn't deserve some of the more overheated rhetoric coming her way. But hot damn, did he ever destroy the point she was trying to make! Finally, a politician who treats voters like adults instead of 7th graders who need to be spoonfed simplistic mush, a politician with the guts to take on tough issues, and the integrity not to pander. Hillary, as good as she is, couldn't come up with something this bold and this good if you gave her detailed instructions. Read this speech again and then tell me what an empty suit Obama is, tell me that I like Obama because he's black. I support the man because he a) has good policies and b) has levels of courage, compassion, and wisdom that are simply jaw-dropping.

Posted by spokeytown | March 18, 2008 4:16 PM

I'm starting to get the impression that a lot of people simply had different experiences than I did, and that my experiences line up more closely to Obama's. Because my grandparents held views that were considered retrograde, and I can love my grandparents while also acknowledging that their views were somewhat irrational and inappropriate in modern America. And I had spiritual mentors who were known for holding beliefs that are simply unacceptable views to be aired by any political figure. And I was brought up with an ethnic identity that I was taught to be "unapologetically" proud of. At the same time I have also been a successful, politically engaged American citizen.

Plus, it's an experience that Obama understands in a way that McCain, Clinton, and Bush simply don't and have no connection with. Obama, here, is appealing mostly to the press to grab control of the narrative. But he's also making an appeal to ethnic whites and middle class americans not firmly on the democratic side who have seen their families' attitudes toward race shift over the generations. I really don't see how the other candidates can compete with that.

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 4:22 PM

This speech makes me so proud.

Wow, a truly beautiful and courageous speech, and history in the making.

I felt like I was listening to Booby Kennedy in Indianapolis in '68.

Remarkable not only in its courage and intelligence, but also in its humanity. He refuses to throw anyone under the bus. People are flawed, America has race issues, and we need to come together.

Senator Obama has so much dignity and intelligence, he makes his attacks and cynics look very small-minded.

In some sense, Obama has in this very speech, already served his country well. This speech is what his campaign is all about -- moving past division, showing leadership, healing and unity and courage.

Bravo, for a beautiful speech that makes me PROUD to be an American!

Posted by Kate | March 18, 2008 4:28 PM

has he proposed ending affirmative action or other elements of Democratic identity politics that most Americans oppose?

It doesn't seem clear at all to me that a most Americans oppose affirmative action. What people think on this issue appears to depend almost exclusively on the frame of the question, even within polls.

From the LA Times:
A majority of Americans supported GWB's statement that AA was unconstitutional. At the same time, a majority thought that AA was adequate or did not go far enough.

Then, there is this poll set from USA Today, which rather definitively says that college admissions should be based strictly on merit, even though the majority also supports affirmative action (a majority that grows more substantial when the question is about jobs).

The public is nothing but deeply schizophrenic on this issue. There's no stampeding majority to be found. Between the extremist views, there are a bunch of people that recognize that schools, and even jobs, are both outcomes and opportunities, and that support some practical efforts to counteract systemic disadvantages, even if the methods at hand are philosophically imperfect.

[Personally, when I was wait-listed at Harvard, I didn't give too much thought about who might be taking "my" space (be it a minority student or a legacy).

I did what most middle-class white kids do in the face of such things: I went to a different school that also happens to be well respected, and which has not held me back in the slightest, AFAIK. (In my case, it was Georgetown, which is a model of diversity: they accept wealthy people from everywhere).]

Posted by Brad L | March 18, 2008 4:29 PM

The "throw grandma under the bus" stuff is incredibly dense and tone-deaf. Enormous numbers of whites and blacks know exactly what Obama was talking about because they've experienced it in exactly those terms and with the same conflicted feelings.

Part of being a successful politician (as opposed to blog commenter) is connecting with people in ways they can understand and relate to. Obviously, there are no guarantees that the MSM or American people will listen. But, I'd suggest that your "gut-level" reaction is uninformed, remarkably immature and you appear to lack basic political instincts.

Posted by Rihilism | March 18, 2008 5:01 PM

If it were accurate, then Obama would be easily winning the popular vote among Democrats, rather than losing it by a rather large margin.
Posted by Petey | March 18, 2008 12:51 PM

He's doing what now?

Petey has retired to Fantasyland, which has two superdelegates, Ricardo Montalban and Tattoo. The rivers run with milk chocolate and the trees and foliage are made of cotton candy.

Posted by Peter K. | March 18, 2008 5:07 PM

Enormous numbers of whites and blacks know exactly what Obama was talking about because they've experienced it in exactly those terms and with the same conflicted feelings.

Yeah, no kidding. Interestingly, though, everyone expressing this sentiment is using the same phrase -- "throw grandma under the bus." That indicates to me that it was fed to them over the right-wing talking-points wires. There's not a lot of self-reflection being done when they repeat it.

We'll know for sure if that becomes the main criticism of the right-wing talking heads on the cable news shows.

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 5:07 PM

"Yeah, no kidding. Interestingly, though, everyone expressing this sentiment is using the same phrase -- "throw grandma under the bus."

Chris Ford is already using in another thread. If that's the "talking point", it's incredibly stupid. Smerconish just used it on Hardball. Except that he used it to say the opposite, that Obama DIDN'T throw grandma under the bus. Oops! RED ALERT, RED ALERT, THE ROBOT IS OFF MESSAGE, THE ROBOT IS OFF MESSAGE. Better call tech support.

That's the trouble with large numbers of people not thinking for themselves as exemplified by the conservative talking head welfare system. If one says something dumb, the rest just follow them over the cliff...

Posted by Rihilism | March 18, 2008 5:20 PM

I hope that they keep asking him about his grandma being afraid of getting mugged. Given the FBI statistics on black-on-white violent crime (see "The Color of Crime"), just what is so irrational about an elderly woman being afraid, just like Jesse Jackson was, of getting mugged?

Brad L --

doesn't it piss you off that an upper-class African-American with the same gpa and test scores as you would have almost certainly gotten into Harvard, and you didn't? Why not?

Posted by white cornerback | March 18, 2008 5:26 PM

for commenter aleks,

bubbling font of disinfo and innuendo:

Isn't Hillary a Baptist? If I'm supposed to believe that Obama shares his pastor's rage at white people, shouldn't I think Hillary believes she's supposed to submit to Bill's servant leadership?

Posted by aleks | March 18, 2008 12:34 PM

Er, she's a Methodist, always has been, clearly more faithful to her childhood church than her husband, who is known to do much more of the cafeteria thing with Protestanism, with a marked preference for black Baptist when they give good choir.

If he loves his racist grandmother despite her faults, why can't he be more accepting of the Democratic Party's racist Grandma Geraldine?

Posted by aleks | March 18, 2008 12:50 PM

Um, from Obama's speech, page 3 of New York Times' text:

....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....

Posted by artappraiser | March 18, 2008 5:35 PM

As a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who carried signs for Gary Hart in '84, Paul Simon and Jim Donchess in '88 and organized NH-2 for Dick Swett in '90j and has remained a committeed activist since then, I can assure you that I used the phrase "throw grandma under the bus" because that is the current argot to describe when a person sacrifices a member of his "side" in order to save himself. I certainly did not receive any right-wing talking points.

Regarding the substantive point that many people can identify with having grandparents (or parents) who express racist idea, of course many people under 40 have that experience. But:

1) Most people, even if they are not proud of their elders latent racism, would not expose it to the world to help get themselves out of a tight spot. Saying, look how loyal I am to family, I do not turn against them even when they say racist things is not (and will not be perceived as) loyalty;

2) A substantial proportion of voters are too old to have the sort of experience that Obama describes, because their racial views are precisely the same as their elders.

I fear McCain salting crowds with eldery women holding "Grandmothers against Obama" or worse "Grandmothers afraid of Obama" signs.

Posted by Ephus | March 18, 2008 5:36 PM

Ephus, your interpretation that Obama was exposing racism of family members "to the world to help get themselves out of a tight spot" is simply bizarre. Rather, Obama articulated the discomfort of the large mass of Americans who have seen attitudes otwards race change within the living memory of the generations. That goes for basically all boomers, which means 60-and-under. That you think that this reality should not be discussed in public is, quite simply, aiding and abetting cowardice in our leaders.

If anything, Obama disarms the "granparents for McCain" movement by making such a movement appear racist. That's the exact opposite of what McCain needs to do.

Acknowledging the discomfort of racism among our family members is a large part of the American experience. I can only think that someone who thinks that this was some kind of outrageous, unusual thing to mention is simply disconnected from having grown up in America.

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 5:44 PM

I'd love Grandma, even if she's a racist. I, personally, do not think Obama was throwing his grandmother "under a bus." I think he was telling the truth. And, to a kid who looks black, it must have hurt to hear his white grandmother reveal her fears about black men to him. But that doesn't mean he stopped loving her.

Same with Reverend Wright. This man helped Obama open his heart to Christianity, something that has been a positive factor in Obama's life. No wonder Obama loves him like family. And, family is always bound to say something inflammatory that you don't agree with.

In any case, being mixed raced myself, I can identify with Obama. I also know what it is like to have family members on one side of the family make racially derogatory remarks about the other side of the family. I think it means you end up learning to have patience, compassion, and a penchant for leading by example.

Posted by ILoveGrandma ... | March 18, 2008 5:46 PM

According to Tyro, I am either a right-winger (as opposed the activist Democrat that I actually am) or "disconnected from having grown up in America". Sorry to disappoint, born on the Groton, Ct. sub base, raised on Long Island. Between my elders and my in-laws, I have confronted the full spectrum of racial beliefs and fears (including a father who was a part of the March on Washington).

I want a Democrat to win in November. If I could trade in all my chips right now for President Obama, I would do it. I just fear that Wright - and Obama's speech today - will be like the Pledge of Allegiance for Dukakis in '88. Everyone knew it was coming, but the answers that worked during the primaries did not work in the general.

Posted by Ephus | March 18, 2008 5:50 PM

The fear expressed by his grandma was no different than the fear expressed by many black people about the black underclass. But Obama's mother, somehow, has no license to have such a fear, without being accused of being a racist or a bigot. Same situation, different standard of acceptability, depending on one's race. Now THAT'S racism.

Posted by white cornerback | March 18, 2008 5:53 PM

Ephus, what can I say? It may be that your grandparents never expressed sentiments that you found racially uncomfortable. Assuming you're not mixed-race as Obama is, such sentiments never had a personal character. But I find it bizarre then when Obama articulates a discomfort that is part and parcel of growing up for a huge number of us, you would regard this as "throwing grandma under the bus." Dude, it's called speaking openly and honestly of your family and what it's like to be an American during changing times. What the heck else is our president supposed to talk about in moments like this?

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 5:54 PM

Obviously Obama is going to say whatever he must to get elected. Everybody knows that.

The question is will the American public gamble the Presidency on Rev. Jeremiah Wright's star pupil? Seems unlikely to me.

Posted by Undecided | March 18, 2008 6:08 PM

"As a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who carried signs for Gary Hart in '84..."

Wow, not even rudimentary political instincts... Snark aside, Gary Hart is a great person who would have made a great president (and who's had some very nice things to say about Obama), but he was a shitty candidate. Still not sold on your presidential politics bona fides.

"I fear McCain salting crowds with eldery women holding "Grandmothers against Obama" or worse "Grandmothers afraid of Obama" signs."

How about, "Grandmothers formerly married to John McCain"?

Seriously, are you serious? Cause where I'm sitting, your fears seem pretty silly and again, politically tone-deaf. Your "argot" would certainly be effective, if that's what actually happened. And, yes, there's always a way to spin stuff, but that would be true regardless of what Obama said. Seems to me that if you're not working off the conservative talking points, you're certainly trying very hard to perpetuate and inculcate them. I think you may be a tad bit too concerned with Rush Limbaugh might say, which, of course, empowers Limbaugh but does little to get a Democrat elected this Fall.

"1) Most people, even if they are not proud of their elders latent racism, would not expose it to the world to help get themselves out of a tight spot. Saying, look how loyal I am to family, I do not turn against them even when they say racist things is not (and will not be perceived as) loyalty;'

Actually, I'd argue that it was remarkably refreshing to hear someone finally be honest about something everyone knows to be true. It’s almost like when people used to refer to cancer as the C-word due to some deep seated yet irrational fear that simply saying it out loud will cause the world to come crashing down. If your sense of loyalty to your family forces you to never confront the demons, you'll always be stuck with them and to paraphrase Obama, nothing will ever change.

Posted by Rihilism | March 18, 2008 6:12 PM

I think white cornerback is a bait and switch troll. "Obama is a practitioner of reverse-racism and grandma hatin', but I'm gonna vote for him". That makes absolutely no sense, what so ever...

Posted by Rihilism | March 18, 2008 6:21 PM

No Rihilism, I'm just your typical white liberal who actually has to live and work with lots of black people every day. I can see that Obama is a brilliant politician and a deep thinker, and I agree with him on the issues maybe 80% of the time. Why wouldn't I vote for him?

Posted by white cornerback | March 18, 2008 6:29 PM

I bet there wasn't anyone among Obama's white relatives who said any racist comments about blacks and Obama just made that stuff up about his grandmother, so he'd have something to balance out Reverend Wright's comments with. Think about it: Obama's white relatives were very liberal, hippy-dippy types. If they were racist at all his grandparents certainly wouldn't have agreed to raise the kid their daughter had after she got knocked-up by an African.

Posted by Juan | March 18, 2008 6:42 PM

Are you guys kidding? My dad is a neocon. But I love him. That was the whole point of the thing. Good people have their imperfections. You don't need to lock them all up. You just have to know what to reject.

Posted by ZednCu | March 18, 2008 6:56 PM

Well, thanks for clarifying, white cornerback. Whew, that's a relief. It all makes perfect sense, now...

Posted by Rihilism | March 18, 2008 7:00 PM

Rihilism -- I smell a whiff of sarcasm...
Seriously, I do want to know why Obama would find his grandmothers comments about race to be "uncomfortable" or worse. I of course am supposed to understand where Jeremiah Wright is coming from, and not feel like he is attacking me personally as a white person. Shouldn't Obama do the same thing when the woman who raised him expresses an entirely justified fear and dislike of black criminals?

Posted by white cornerback | March 18, 2008 7:10 PM

Think about it: Obama's white relatives were very liberal, hippy-dippy types. If they were racist at all his grandparents certainly wouldn't have agreed to raise the kid their daughter had after she got knocked-up by an African.

Wait - Obama's grandmother was born in 1922. So, what, she was a hippie who grew up in Kansas and was nearly 40 years old by the time Barack Obama was born in 1961.

Madelyn Lee Payne was born in Augusta, Kansas, to "stern Methodist parents who did not believe in drinking, playing cards or dancing." She was one of the best students in the graduating class of 1940. But despite her parents' strict upbringing, she loved to go to Wichita, Kansas to hear the "big bands."[1] While in Wichita, Kansas, she met Barack Obama's grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham (born 1918) from the oil-town of El Dorado, Kansas and the "other side of the railroad tracks." [1]

The Dunhams were Baptists. Unlike the Paynes, Stanley Dunham did not come from a white-collar background. Described by the Chicago Tribune as "gregarious, friendly, impetuous, challenging and loud," Stanley Dunham was a furniture salesman "who could charm the legs off a couch." Madelyn's parents did not approve of her marriage to Stanley Dunham on May 4, 1940.[2].

After Pearl Harbor, Stanley Dunham enlisted in the Army, and Madelyn worked during World War II on a Boeing aircraft B-29 assembly line in Wichita. She gave birth to Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (who went by the name of Ann Dunham, despite being named "Stanley" after her father who wanted a boy), in Fort Leavenworth in November 1942.[3]. With Madelyn and Stanley both working full-time and struggling, the family moved to California, Kansas, Texas, and Seattle, Washington (on Mercer Island), where Ann graduated high school. In El Dorado, Kansas, Stanley managed a furniture store while Madelyn worked in restaurants. In Seattle, Stanley worked in a bigger furniture store (Standard-Grunbaum Furniture) while Madelyn eventually became vice-president of a local bank. Mercer Island was then "a rural, idyllic place," quiet, politically conservative and all white. Madelyn and Stanley attended Sunday services at the East Shore Unitarian Church in nearby Bellevue. [4]

Madelyn and Stanley then moved to Hawaii (where Stanley found an even better furniture store opportunity). Ann attended the University of Hawaii and there met Senator Obama's father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, a graduate student from Kenya. Both Dunhams were upset when their daughter Ann married Barack Obama Senior, particularly after receiving a long, angry letter from the graduate student's father in Kenya who "didn't want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman." [5]. But the Dunhams adapted. Madelyn Dunham was quoted as saying, “I am a little dubious of the things that people from foreign countries tell me."[6].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelyn_Dunham

Obviously his grandmother was a stoner WWII era hippie who followed the big bands around the Maui furniture circuit.

Somehow I don't find it surprising that occasionally a person born in Kansas in 1922 might occasionally use terms which Barack Obama might find make him cringe -- which is not quite the same as 'throwing her under the bus'.

Posted by El Cid | March 18, 2008 7:16 PM

1) Most people, even if they are not proud of their elders latent racism, would not expose it to the world to help get themselves out of a tight spot. Saying, look how loyal I am to family, I do not turn against them even when they say racist things is not (and will not be perceived as) loyalty;

Except he didn't say anything about her he hadn't said before. Obama covered the subject in Dreams from My Father. His grandparents even had a big fight over the issue, as I recall.

2) A substantial proportion of voters are too old to have the sort of experience that Obama describes, because their racial views are precisely the same as their elders.
I fear McCain salting crowds with eldery women holding "Grandmothers against Obama" or worse "Grandmothers afraid of Obama" signs.

If that happens, Obama's grandmother, who's still among us, will have plenty to say to them!

Posted by Joe | March 18, 2008 7:22 PM

Sometime in the mid 80's, my mother (who I love dearly), said something to the effect that she thought AIDS was a curse from GOD. She didn't know I was gay, but you can imagine how devastating that was to hear coming from someone I love. Later in life she slowly overcame those irrational beliefs and ignorance to the point that she chose to take a creative writing class populated predominantly by lesbians (of course, no one was to let Dad know, under any circumstances).

Now, imagine you are walking down the street, a black man who loves his white grandmother dearly, and she make some comment about how she fears blacks. Something like that could really tear a person apart.

If you don't understand that, white cornerback, if you can't comprehend how you can love someone and can still be shocked and dismayed by the statements (obviously racist or homophobic or anti-Semitic or anti-pick your prejudice) that sometimes roll carelessly off their lips, if you spend your whole life renouncing the prejudices of others while ignoring your own, if you can't seem to pick up a dictionary and read the definition of racism and prejudice, or if you actually read or listened to Obama's speech and came away thinking that Obama was asking you to ignore or minimize Wright's statements then you either still have a great deal ignorance and irrational fear to overcome or you are purposefully trying to antagonize others. Neither option places you in a very good light.

Posted by Rihilism | March 18, 2008 9:02 PM

Steve Sailer gives some background on the grandmother Obama threw under the bus in this speech:

---------------------------------------------

Obama throws his own living grannie under the BS Express

From Obama's Wright speech:

I can no more disown [Rev. Dr. Wright] 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.

The story, on pp. 88-89 of Dreams is that Obama's white grandmother, who was raising him and earning most of the money in the family while his own mother was off in Indonesia working on her 1067 page dissertation on peasant blacksmithing, rode the bus each morning to her job as a banking company executive. One day, the 16-18 year old Obama wakes up to an argument between his grandmother and grandfather. She didn't want to ride the bus anymore because she was hassled by a bum at the bus stop:

"Her lips pursed with irritation. 'He was very aggressive, Barry. Very aggressive. I gave him a dollar and he kept asking. If the bus hadn't come, I think he might have hit me over the head."

Obama's lefty white grandfather doesn't want to give his wife a ride because she was being prejudiced:

"He turned around and I saw that he was shaking. "It is a big deal. It's a big deal to me. She's been bothered by men before. You know why she's so scared this time. I'll tell you why. Before you came in, she told me the fella was black." He whispered the word. "That's the real reason why she's bothered. And I just don't think that right.

"The words were like a fist in my stomach, and I wobbled to regain my composure. In my steadiest voice, I told him that such an attitude bothered me, too, but reassured him that Toot's fears would pass and that we should give her a ride in the meantinme. Gramps slumped into a chair in the living room and said he was sorry he had told me. Before my eyes, he grew small and old and very sad. I put my hand on his shoulder and told him that it was all right, I understood.

"We remained like that for several minutes like that for several minutes, in painful silence. Finally he insisted that he drive Toot after all, and I thought about my grandparents. They had sacrificed again and again for me. They had poured all their lingering hopes into my success. Never had they given me reason to doubt their love; I doubted if they ever would. And yet I knew that men who might easily have been my brothers would still inspire their rawest fear."

Then Obama drives over to his grandfather's friend Frank's house, an old black CPUSA member, for counseling, who tells him:

"What I'm trying to tell you is, your grandma's right to be scared. She's at least as right as Stanley is. She understands that black people have a reason to hate. That's just how it is. For your sake, I wish it were otherwise. But it's not. So you might as well get used to it."

"Frank closed his eyes. His breathing slowed until he seemed to be asleep. I thought about waking him, then decided against it and walked back to the car. The earth shook under my feet, ready to crack open at any moment. I stopped, trying to steady myself, and knew for the first time that I was utterly alone."

Man, what a family full of drama queens! And now Obama is equating his own grandma, who was the main breadwinner in his dysfunctional family circus, and who is still alive, with Rev. Dr. God Damn America.

Classy.

Posted by Juan | March 18, 2008 10:28 PM

Wait -- Juan just reproduced Steve Sailer's post under the Charles Murray post almost word for word. Still just as crappy and wrong, but just the same, down to the "Classy".

Is Juan merely plagiarizing or a sock puppet or just dumb?

Posted by El Cid | March 18, 2008 11:41 PM

More importantly, I don't give the slightest crap that people like Juan or Steve Sailer or the nuts at the Corner or any other typical Republicans won't vote for Obama, and no one should.

Posted by El Cid | March 18, 2008 11:44 PM

BREAKING NEWS, BREAKING NEWS!

Sneve Snailer gives some background on the grandmother who thought he might be gay:

"It was devastating, I tells ya. I kept telling her that the dress was a gift from Lady Thatcher!"

Sassy!

Film at 11.

Peace out,
Youwanabesnevesnailer

Posted by Rihilism on behalf of Youwanabesnevesnailer | March 19, 2008 7:36 AM

Art Appraiser,

I was indeed foolish to assume Hillary was a Baptist like Bill. She says she's a Methodist, and there's no reason not to take her at her word, as far as I know.

As for comparing Obama's grandmother to Geraldine Ferraro, I guess the sarcasm wasn't clear enough.

Posted by aleks | March 19, 2008 8:15 AM

Rihilism -- thanks for your thougtful reply to my earlier rant. I can understand how you would be angry at yo momma, love her too. I guess I just sympathize with the sentiments Obama's grandmother expressed, as opposed to your mother's words. One person is being rational, the other isn't.

Juan, thank for the sailer post, my fav. writer on race matters.

I guess it all comes down to this, the entire gospel on race in America, according to Obama and liberals:

"...black people have a reason to hate. That's just how it is...So you might as well get used to it."

I don't accept it.

Posted by white cornerback | March 19, 2008 10:11 AM

Obama did not claim that black people have a reason to hate. This is so stupid it has to come from somebody whining about how insulted they feel as a white person.

Posted by El Cid | March 19, 2008 10:17 AM

Brad L --

doesn't it piss you off that an upper-class African-American with the same gpa and test scores as you would have almost certainly gotten into Harvard, and you didn't? Why not?

Wow, I am a bit surprised this thread is still kicking. Since it is, and since this question was addressed directly, let me try to, er, tackle it for you.

First, I suspect that for every hypothetical person such as you describe, there are about 10 that are wealthy white legacies. Getting cranky about the one guy that achieved to a similar level that I did and gets favored over me seems to be missing the forest for the trees.

Second, I recognize AA for what it is: an attempt to overcome systemic disadvantages that are quite real. Would it be better if it were based strictly on, say, income? Possibly, although I think there are certain disadvantages in this world that do come from race alone. AA is far from perfect, but it is a reasonable effort that does far more good than harm at this point in time.

Third, it's not exactly as if my two outcomes were Harvard or a box on the street. I cried all the way to Georgetown, and I suspect many/most of the people that were borderline went to similarly good schools.

Finally, I think there is a fundamental mistake in conflating statistical achievements with "deservedness." I imagine a school looks at many things when deciding to take/leave an applicant, such as:

1. Are they capable of success at this school?
2. Will the school benefit them, and how much?
3. What will they do for the school, in both the short and long term?

Only the first of these questions has an answer that lies in one's GPA or SAT scores, and even those are not perfect measurements. That doesn't mean the school is wrong to consider them, or to choose candidates that they feel are a better fit.

Anyway, there is my long answer to a short question.

Posted by Brad L | March 19, 2008 10:43 AM

"Rihilism -- thanks for your thougtful reply to my earlier rant."

You're most welcome!

"I can understand how you would be angry at yo momma, love her too."

Yo, mamma? Oh, you mean "mother, dear". Yes, sometimes she can be a real pickle!

"I guess it all comes down to this, the entire gospel on race in America, according to Obama and liberals"

Huh? I could have sworn earlier you said you were a "typical white liberal". That must have been something I read on another blog. Fiddle-dee, my memory is fading with the old age, dontcha know.

"One person is being rational, the other isn't."

Yes, that's quite clear.

Lovely chatting with you, white cornerback!

Posted by Rihilism | March 19, 2008 12:46 PM

Well sure. I think I could accurately predict the reactions of the vast majority of people on this site (including Petey). That's why I asked your opinion not theirs.

I finally read the speech. It's pretty good, as far as speeches go. But I think Ross is exactly right - it's not going to be convincing to conservatives, since the premise is basically that we need to enact lots of liberal policy ideas to bridge the racial divide. (I do also agree with some of the comments out there about throwing his grandmother under the bus - yikes.)

The big question is whether it will assuage the fears about his connection with Wright. I think it could. That's not really a big deal to me anyway, and I kind of see where he's coming from (although I don't think that Democrats can see the flip side - i.e., why Trent Lott hangs out with some of the people he hangs out with). But the Wright issue IS a big deal to some people - I know the "God Damn America" video really put off my wife & mother-in-law (who are both Democrats). I will have to see if they heard the speech and if so what they think.

Posted by Al | March 19, 2008 1:39 PM

"But I think Ross is exactly right - it's not going to be convincing to conservatives, since the premise is basically that we need to enact lots of liberal policy ideas to bridge the racial divide."

Yes, so of course to support Ross's "reasonable" assertion that Obama has yet to or somehow must satisfy conservatives (yeah, that'll happen. Pat Buchanin and Tucker Carlson, just this morning, said they just didn't think Obama had convinced them. Go figure) is to cite, wait for it..., Steve Sailer. Brilliant analysis! If only Obama could mollify the intransigent neo-eugnenicists of this world, it'd be "smoothe sailing" to the WH.

Posted by Rihilism | March 19, 2008 1:59 PM