« Obama's Speech | Main | Through the Looking Glass »

The Speech

18 Mar 2008 12:15 pm

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.

Share This

Comments (144)

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

Uh-oh.

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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

"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.

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.

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!!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

oops. apologies for the multiple post.

sheepishly,

jon

"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.

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

Seriously, it makes the anchors a ton of florins.

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.

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.

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.

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!

This is great news for Hillary?

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

"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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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...

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?

"This is great news for Hillary?"

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

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

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Obama's opposition to universal healthcare

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

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.

"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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

....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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Steve Sailer's take:

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

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

"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.

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

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

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.

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?

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

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.

"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.

"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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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 th