Obama's Speech Also An Indictment Of Our Political Discourse
One other interesting moment from Obama's speech, which has now concluded.
Obama's speech, throughout, asks its listeners to transcend themselves -- it asks them to choose nuance over cartoonish political controversy; it asks them to acknowledge stuff about race they don't want to acknowledge; it asks them to think big instead of small.
In this spirit, at one point Obama appears to be offering an indictment of our very political discourse...
We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.”
The reference there to Geraldine Ferraro is noteworthy, since Obama's supporters, too, "pounced" on Geraldine Ferraro's racially-charged remarks as evidence that Hillary "played the race card." Also note the reference to white men "flocking" to McCain in the general election -- a condemnation of the empty arguments about "electability" you so often hear from the pundits.
Obama is basically demanding here that the practitioners of our political discourse do better. It's a challenge to the commentators and to the rival campaigns, of course. But the Ferraro reference suggests that it's also a challenge that some of his own supporters should take as directed at them, too. To not do this would be at odds with the true spirit of his remarks.
From his lips to God's ears...What a thought: that we do better in our political discourse. I can't ever remember a politician making that point. Ever.
March 18, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
When John Kennedy proposed to put a man on the moon, the Mercury program was already in place, and it was fairly clear what you had to do to accomplish the goal.
One of the criticisms of Obama has been that he offers voters a chance to catch up by voting for him. If you missed the civil rights movement or the anti-war movement, you can get your ticket punched by voting for Obama.
This speech seems to offer more of the same, and it attempts to sell the idea that only a vote for Obama can heal the racial divide. Presumably, his argument is based on the fact that his DNA derives from a black father and a white mother. Obviously, if we buy into it, he is the only candidate running this year who meets the test.
But his advertisement for himself misses the point, once again, that actions must follow words, whether that action is a civil war, the civil right struggle, civil rights legislation, or affirmative action.
It seems to me that this is the kind of speech that should include a couple of proposals from the candidate for closing the divide. Something beyond that moment in the voting booth.
March 18, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus wept. I know you're a troll but you can't have read the same speech as me and come to the conclusion that only Obama can heal the racial divide. He specifically, EXPLICITLY said that he can't and won't.
FFS, this was the most honest speech about race I've seen a major politician give in decades.
March 18, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy and the usual suspects:
You remind me of those who, if they got an invite to the Last Supper would complain that the bread as stale or the room too cold or the wine to warm.
Seriously, take a breather.
March 18, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who thought last Thursday/Friday that the Obama candidacy might be dead and posted as much in response to a Billy Glad TPM Cafe post;
As someone who is certainly feeling better now than I did last Friday wee-hour morming;
As someone who today heard, and read, a perceptive, compassionate, honest, thoughtful speech that challenged the American people to think in shades of gray, in a nuanced and honest fashion, in complex terms about race in America;
I now realize that as far as Billy Glad is concerned, Barack Obama simply cannot say or do anything right. Ever. Billy Glad exists on this forum to trash Obama, and only to trash Obama. His schadenfreude in the post referenced above was clear. I of course should have realized this earlier. BG's history in this board is quite clear and unambiguous.
Obama took the high road and used this Wright kerfuffle to try to initiate a decades-overdue honest conversation about race in America.
But to Billy Glad, in his unbounded cynicism and contempt for Obama, that all amounted to an "advertisement for himself."
Obama's speaking from his own personal experience, not as a Black man, but as a BIRACIAL person, with a beloved grandmother who nonetheless feared Black men and occasionally said hateful things, who spoke uncompromisingly yet compassionately about White as well as Black anger, translates to Billy Glad as "argument is based on the fact that his DNA derives from a black father and a white mother."
Accordingly, Billy Glad is nothing but a troll. As many others here have already recognized.
Case in point: BG, in typical supercilious, snarky fashion, claimed he had "got[ten] beyond" the call-and-response speaking style used, among other places, in Black churches, and occasionally by Obama and his supporters. He was soundly trounced by me and several others in the comments. For my part, I wound up that trouncing with a reminder of the use of the call-and-response style used by another famous Black man, active in Black churches and every now in then in US politics as well that, if I do say so myself, demonstrated the political, moral, and social utility of the call-and-response style.
Nothing Obama does or says is good enough for Billy Glad.
Nothing ever will be.
March 19, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
An addition.
One spot (of several) where Obama hit it out of the park:
Right there, Obama undermines the entire Reagan coalition, built on justified white working class and poor resentment over their treatment by corporate and political elites, but turned by Reagan and the entire "conservative" movement for the last 30 years into resentment against non-whites and "liberals".
This kind of truth-telling, if sustained, has the potential to bust that coalition wide open and to forge a new progressive coalition in this country.
But this, too, isn't good enough for Billy Glad. Or, perhaps, Billy Glad doesn't really want that coalition to be busted open, or want a new coalition formed.
No, it's just all about Obama's DNA and "an advertisement for himself."
Only someone willfully blind and hopelessly cynical can fail to see what Obama has done here.
But "willfully blind" and "hopelessly cynical" are a pretty good start for describing BG's relentless snarking on these threads.
The corporate media, of course, reduces these political points to incendiary sound bites, eviscerating the importance of what Obama has done -- because it scares the shit out of them, because the corporate media ARE an essential element of "a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed;" they ARE an essential arm of the "lobbyists and special interests" who "dominate Washington."
Perhaps this scares the shit out of Billy Glad, as well.
March 19, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Comparing Ferraro to his radical kook spiritual adviser is pathetic.
It is over.
Clinton will win.
March 18, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your glib comment personifies what Obama is talking about.
March 18, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
getalife -
The comparison was not Ferraro to Wright, but Ferraro's treatment from Obama's surrogates to the treatment of Wright in the media. I think in this comparison, she fares rather well, don't you.
March 18, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOu think Ferraro's not a kook? Whoa.
March 18, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is indeed an indictment of our political discourse. But the most powerful indictment is the one implicit in the speech – that sophisticated, historicized explanations of deep-seated problems can reach and move the electorate. By choosing to respond in this manner, Obama is arguing that the possibilities of our national conversation have been sacrificed to the demands of political expedience and media profitability. If he’s proven right – if voters continue to embrace his candidacy, and vote for him come November – then that will be damning indeed.
But if the Wright controversy comes to define his candidacy, if voters split along racial lines, if the media proves unable to cover the speech with as much sophistication and depth as Obama displayed in delivering it – then it will be the senator from Illinois who has misapprehended the possible.
March 18, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think David Kurtz can't see the forest for the trees.
It is more than a political speech. It is perhaps the reason Obama is campaigning in the first place.
This IS his service to the nation on the most important issue to him personally.
I think you are missing the point. Politically, he could have done many much easier things for the sake of the rabblerousers. HE chose not to, and deserves respect for that.
March 18, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In this spirit, at one point Obama appears to be offering an indictment of our very political discourse..."
And so he should. Our political discourse is reduced to Swiftboating and smears.
"The reference there to Geraldine Ferraro is noteworthy, since Obama's supporters, too, "pounced" on Geraldine Ferraro's racially-charged remarks as evidence that Hillary "played the race card." Also note the reference to white men "flocking" to McCain in the general election -- a condemnation of the empty arguments about "electability" you so often hear from the pundits."
Good point here. He calls his own supporters to do better, as well as his opponents.
I guess Hillary and McCain will ignore this. But it would be a mark of real leadership if they were to join him in the spirit adn message of his speech. America needs this.
March 18, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soooo close, and then you slipped into the tired old politics as usual. Why would you presume that Clinton and McCain would ignore his call?
Ahh, the audacity to have hoped that Obama supporters to practice what Obama preaches.
Oh well ...
March 18, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Greg, you might want to send your analysis on "Obama's Speech Also An Indictment Of Our Political Discourse" over to David Kurtz on the front page. He can't wait to figure out what Fox's next 20 second sound byte will be.
As Dems we spend too much time looking over our shoulders worrying if Rove is about to shoot us in the back. Can't we look forward, without fear, and take a hold of the narative?
March 18, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama is basically demanding here that the practitioners of our political discourse do better."
Not gonna happen. The institutional and intellectual bankruptcy of what passes for news these days will always be focused on the trivial, i.e., the "telling detail" that shows these people as they "truly are." That or the horse race.
What's sad is TPM is now practicing the exact same kind of journalism.
March 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I came to TPM to read their reaction first. It was sad to read what they took away from his speech. Are they mistaking cynicism for analysis?
March 18, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was a great speech that will not neutralize Fox. The meme has been born and now they're off. Why the Obama campaign didn't see this one coming is literally beyond me.
Having said that, what kills me is the fact that no Republican will ever have to defend his or her pastors remarks like this, ever. Ever. There will never be a comparable media flap with a Hagee or a Falwell, no matter how grotesque their beliefs.
Now why is that, do you think?
March 18, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simple: IOKIYAR.
March 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? unBabelfish it for us...
March 18, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's Ok If You're A Republican.
Whew. Lotsa html tags in that!
March 18, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing was ever going to neutralize Fox. If it wasn't this it would be something else. They are doing what they do - attack, distort, smear.
Honestly, neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton was ever going to win over the hardcore Fox viewer. This speech was not for them.
March 18, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 18, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's what's best for our country. Are people brave enough to accept and go for it?
March 18, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card" .. good for obama he said that. But i'm curious because time after time Hillary has been accused of playing race card by his supporters and Obama campaign happily egged it along, its only after he is getting a really bad rap by the media on this race issue, he is telling his supporters to back off! i still give him credit for saying that but it would have been more powerful had he said that when Hillary was getting bad press on these nonsensical issues!
March 18, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did. Back at South Carolina.
March 18, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama's speech, throughout, asks its listeners to transcend themselves -- it asks them to choose nuance over cartoonish political controversy; it asks them to acknowledge stuff about race they don't want to acknowledge; it asks them to think big instead of small."
Oh please. If you think that it doesn't worry most Americans that his preacher who he has been so close and chummy with is a wackjob, then that's your opinion. I for one think that it tells quite a bit about Obama's character. That said, I think he's still favored to win the Dem nomination, but I think he will lose in the general to John McCain. Mr. Obama seems to think that we shouldn't even talk about race in this country. Sorry but that's just not possible.
March 18, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Then why did he devote such a chunk of his speech to that very issue?
You seem to think that the only way we can talk about race is in angry dialogues. Oh please. How sad.
March 18, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying we should focus on cartoonish stuff and ignore nuance?
March 18, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does it say about his character that he's unwilling to throw his friend and mentor to the wolves just because people like you say he should?
Would I get an accurate picture of your character if I found out that you, say, had a bill go to collections once? Should I conclude from that incident alone that you're an untrustworthy person who should never be believed? Or even that such a one as you should be banned from using credit forever?
It's darkly humorous to watch people say they know everything about a person because of what someone associated to that person said. Have you no shame, sir, at long last?
March 18, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let the pundits and Josh make this speech about delivery, timing, sound bytes, relationship with Rev Wright, size of his balls, etc...
Americans who want change and hope recognize it for what it was, a reminder that we hold the promise for a better future.
March 18, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boldest, frankest, most honest discussion of race I've ever heard any politician make, ever. My support for Obama has been bolstered, but I'm very pessimistic about how this will play in the media. How many will make the effort to read the full text of the speech? Not many, sadly.
Can you imagine Hillary taking this kind of a risk? I didn't think so.
March 18, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
and neither do I think hillary's pastor gave any anti-american sermon!
March 18, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry who is Hillary's pastor?
March 18, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is time for Hillary Clinton to step aside so the party can finally unify behind Barack Obama.
March 18, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy to expect the worst from the American people, especially after the past two presidential elections. But I think the demand for change is strong this time. Barack Obama is appealing to the best, not the worst, in us. Win or lose, this is the candidate I'll back to the hilt.
No more 'lesser of two evils' for me. Finally, a presidential candidate I can fully respect and unequivocally support. I don't agree with him about everything - I don't agree with ANYONE about everything - but I can see that this is the person America really, really needs right now.
March 18, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this speech may help to throw the political discourse into sharper relief. Who's choosing distractions over issues?
But to be fair, sure, just about any politician's speech should have helped you do that.
March 18, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honesty, what a concept! TPM seems to buy into the idea that every speech is manipulation, designed for consumption. Does it seem possible that a person can run for office who really believes they have a purpose in doing so? Is it such a hard sell that someone whose own genetics and upbringing cross racial barriers might just see the presidency as more than a personal prize, and a vehicle of service and healing? The cynicism here is overwhelming! Personally I can't imagine why anyone would want to put up with the abuse you get from the likes of Pat Buchanan or TPM in running for higher office.
March 18, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Contact the pundits and media -- tell them to rise about this garbage about Ferraro and Wright -- THIS TIME!
Feedback@foxnews.com
oreilly@foxnews.com
hardball@msnbc.com
countdown@msnbc.com
joe@msnbc.com
verdict@msnbc.com
www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form/.html?39
www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3052660
March 18, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, wasn't just us Obama supporters .
March 18, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama could deliver the Gettysburg Address word for word and the Fox headline would be "Obama and Lincoln question whether 'America can endure'.. Do They Want to See America Lose?"
we need to stop caring what Fox and Friends say. every time we give them credence, we give them authority. all of those posting here, and increasing numbers of mainstream Americans, know the dangerous and debilitating effect that sensationalist, jingoistic, inane media parsing has on our discourse.
yet David Kurtz on the front page, in response to an Obama speech on how we need to move past caring only what the next day's sound bites and insubstantial chatter will be, proceeds to base the effectiveness of Obama's speech on what he thinks the next day's sound bites and insubstantial chatter about it will be. do not let TPM become everything we posters read TPM to subvert.
March 18, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did not distance himself from his radical kook spiritual adviser. He praised him. Read his speech.
He compared him to Ferraro.
He is divisive and his unity is crap.
Get real.
Total bs.
March 18, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Gotalife:
No, I don't think you actually do. (Have a life).
March 18, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
awesome troll. wonder if there's a correlation between low-functioning trolls and Obama hating on these forums?
seems to be.
March 18, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
In your view of the world, is it possible to care for someone deeply enough that even though you don't agree with them completely, you still care for them and won't throw them under the bus on anyone's say-so?
Or do you think that someone -- and their friends -- has to be holier than Jesus or they're just another raging hypocrite?
Show us one, ONE, divisive thing in that speech. Show us just one place where he's exploiting fear, racism, or ignorance. Then show us how he's not trying to get us to acknowledge that race is still a major issue in this country and that we need to address it by listening across the divide and taking small steps to fix it.
March 18, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did not distance himself from his radical kook spiritual adviser. He praised him. Read his speech.
I did.
Is this what you meant?
March 19, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM, SET UP A PREVIEW FUNCTION IF YOU MUST MAKE US TYPE IN OUR OWN HTML TAGS!
It's not that hard. Kos does it. Firedoglake does it.
Do you have a webmaster?
March 19, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey David,
Get you head out of your ass.
This NY, gay Jew knew in his bones that what Barack Obama was saying was more powerful than you are obviously capable of giving him credit for.
I actually welled up several times during the speech. Had to stop what I was doing while he was speaking and sit down becuase my knees wobbled.
That's not an exaggeration.
This is much more than just about Wright's words, which I also happen to think have some validity, (though could have been addressed much more eloquently), it was about a truth this country hasn't been willing to face head on, from any point along the color spectrum.
This speech will be looked back upon in a greater light than even JFK's speech. 50 years from now naysayers like you and the racists who are alive and well on this site (conscious or otherwise) who still can only focus on Wright's words will be forgotten, just like the anti-Catholics were after JFK's historical speech.
March 18, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
hmmmm.. so we are all racists!
March 18, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
BonoX,
Of course we're all racists. Didn't you get the memo from Hillary Hollows? If not, I'm sure Hoost can supply it to you. We're also stupid, ignorant, arrogant, non-progressives hicks standing in the way of destiny by refusing to recognize Obama's Messianic qualities.
As for the speech itself, I don't think it will quiet Obama's critics or answer all the questions. It turned out to be, not so much a major address on race, but rather just another political speech. It was about ten minutes too long; he needlessly, if subtly attacked Hillary, by saying the Iraq resolution shouldn't have been passed; and he attempted to link Ferraro's words to Wright's. Last transcript I saw, she never said anything as crass as blaming the US for 9/11 or uttering those words first made immortal by Philip Nolan "God Damn the US." Too bad for Obama that, unlike Nolan, the Rev. Wright isn't a fictional character. As for the notion that Wright's rhetoric is common in black churches, there's way too many black ministers, such as the Rev. Eugerne Rivers III, saying it just ain't so. (For those of you not in the know, Reverend Eugene F. Rivers, III is co-director of the National Ten Point Leadership Foundation and pastor of Boston's Azusa Christian Community, a pentacostal church.)
March 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a terrible speech with an incredibly flat and off key delivery.
But most importantly:
Obama has finally admitted that he has been lying about never hearing Wright's hate speech in person.
OBAMA ADMITTED THAT HE HAS BEEN LYING TO US ALL!
Any good his speech might have done is destroyed by his mendacity.
Who can now believe a word he says?
He has failed the test that he himself set for our politics.
Beyond that his speech was really nothing but a recitation of and excuse for endless black grievance. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah.
It is Evil America's fault that Wright is a racist antiSemitic Americahating terroristloving bigot and there is more truth than falsehood in Wright's claim that the government invented AIDS to eliminate Black America, etc.
Oh yeah, and now to expiate Americs's sins we must elect Obama president.
How pathetic a rationale Obama offers us for both his lies and his candidacy.
He decries a return to the Clintonian 90's and instead offers a return to 60's Detroit in flames, back to the future in OJ's Ford Bronco, and calls for us to make Duke Lacrosse our national sport.
He is a disaster in the making.
March 18, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but it was a terrible speech, flatly delivered, so why do you care?
March 18, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did spittle fly all over the place as you composed this?
March 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is such a hateful post. It could have come straight from Fox News. This is exactly what we're fighting against.
March 18, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile, JTHB Hearts McCain.
McCain's active seeking and enthusiastic acceptance of Hagee's endorsement, to JTHB, is not a problem. Just like Hillary Clinton, JTHB has no problem setting up an Insane McCain presidency, with 100 years of Iraq occupation (at $12B per month that's, hmm, 14 quadrillion dollars, to say nothing of the lives lost), a hard right 7-2 Supreme Court majority, and all the trimmings.
Typical of someone who that Obama serves an "Islamofascist constituency".
Never mind that McCain actively sought the Hagee endorsement, and said he was "honored" to receive it.
Never mind that McCain has also campaigned in Ohio with his "spiritual guide", the Rev. Rod Parsley, a wingnut if ever there was one, who claims, inter alia, that America was founded in part to "destroy Islam." Never mind that Parsley illegally drove voters to vote for the Smirking Chimp in the 2004 election. (Hmm, how come his church has never been subjected to an IRS investigation?) Never mind that Parsley's Center for Moral Clarity called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. Never mind that Parsley he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis.
JTHB's bigotry is on prominent display here. So are JTHB's true political leanings. JTHB favors an Insane McCain presidency over an Obama presidency.
Does JTHB claim to be a Democrat?
If so, research and judge the claim for yourself.
March 19, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Better link.
March 19, 2008 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where's the lie, JTHB?
Exact words. Sourced. With links.
Obama's words. Not your spin. Not your "paraphrases." Not your distortions.
Where's the claim that you claim Obama made?
WHERE IS IT?
March 19, 2008 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
A perfect example of someone who would never have voted for him ever. This type wouldn't believe Jesus Christ himself.
March 18, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This speech whould have had its full impact had it been delivered at the State of the Black Union.
Obama: Judgment you can trust.
March 18, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, Ferraro's comments were bigoted, and no one accused Hillary of being racist, just that she would exploit racism. This isn't just some flippant controversy from the pundits, it was the PATTERN of race-baiting, a pretty obvious pattern, that made it a bigger issue.
I wouldn't read much into the Ferraro comment part of this, and he didn't even mention her directly, so really mentioning racially charged comments from her surrogates is pretty vague, since so many of them have made such comments...so can we really assume it was just about Ferraro?
And yes, it is pretty sad that when talking about racially charged comments from her surrogates there is a long list of them that could be referenced.
He was dead right on everything though, I wish him the best of luck in trying to make people use their brains, but I fear too many Americans, and even many Democrats apparently, are too ignorant.
March 18, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fox news and company will certainly loop "god damn America" over and over and over and over and over and over and over -- will it work to destroy Barack Obama's candidacy?
Only time will tell. I think Obama is tactically and strategically smart to deal with it now front and square and all out in the open. There is more than a month to go before the Pennsylvania primary -- and he has time to move the discourse away from the memes of racial stereotypes and racial fears to the idea that we all share common interests and have common needs and that if we fail to move beyond the politics of division we will never be able to solve our common problems.
Now is the time for him to take this bull by the horns -- bring it all out in the open and make it a transparent discussion. Move it to a real discourse and away from ugly insinuations.
There is time for this to play out and for him to move beyond this moment and escape the attempt to ghettoize him.
March 18, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hold on. Now its time the campaign not to be about words? Rise above what. Oh yeah barack. I get it. Old Uncle Jeremiah....he is a little nutty and I really don't agree with much he says but....hey.....I can't say anything about it till someone calls me on it. I can't be honest about what is behind it or why I didn't leave the church. I didn't say anything about it before. And please lets move on because any other questions are too hurtful, too polarizing. Lets rise above this and let all of my past not be scrutinized. I think the whole thing sounded like a smooth talking George Bush
March 18, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smooth talking George Bush?!? Thanks for the laugh...
March 18, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was one of the great American speeches--and Obama seems to be very capable of writing and delivering as many of them as my heart and mind can take.
The only thing that will stop the manipulation of our population by those who benefit if we stay separate and fearful in our little groups is to step out and say "enough". And I've had enough--enough of bad or zero healthcare; enough of bad schools; enough of jobs being sent abroad by corporate executives seeking a "better deal" while at the same time not feeling responsible for the death and injury that's shipped back in toys or heparin; enough of people not being supported by my government ala Katrina which could happen to white as well as to black as well as to brown.
We are simply more alike than we are different. It's time to step away from the fear. When all of the nonsense is drained away, fear is left. And this is an election that demands that we step away from it.
March 18, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Full video here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/18/122716/628/855/479171
March 18, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, every time the next thing that's definitely for sure going end Obama's candidacy and cause all of the deluded Obama supporters and the MSM to "wake up" and see that he is a bad, bad, shallow, stupid, sexist, person and magically salvage her mathematically doomed campaign, the hardcore Hillary supporters always go through the whole Kubler-Ross cycle right before our eyes.
So far, we're working denial and anger hard.
March 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the next stage we can look forward to?
Please, please, please tell me it's resignation followed by acceptance. The denial and anger stages are so damny ugly.
March 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is notable about the speech, and even perhaps historical, is that he gave us a narrative frame to understand why we still have a racial divide in the United States. That narrative allows us to see how the stain of slavery has resulted in the oppression and bitterness of both whites and blacks, both of whom share responsibility for bridging the divide. That narrative helps explain the media's tendency to turn racial issues into spectacles. It also helps explain why both campaigns have been so ungracious to each other in recent weeks -- and why they will undoubtedly continue to be so in the future. Obama will be able to return to this narrative throughout the rest of the campaign for its power to explain imperfections and inconsistencies when it comes to race.
In bringing both his grandmother and his pastor into the fold (Love the sinner, hate the sin), the narrative works on a profoundly personal level and shows how these national problems can exist in the psychological makeup of one man. (If you read Obama's memoir, you'll see that racial identity was a very problematic concept for him growing up -- and I suspect it remains so to this day.)
Working on both the national and personal levels, the speech is a brilliant merger of political philosophy and campaign publicity. I'll be interested to see how he returns to these themes in the coming days.
March 18, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
David I very much agree.
In fact this personal revealation was profound. How does a human being grapple with the idea that the person who loves you more than life itself confides an actual fear of your very being and what you are...a black man??.
That right there said how critically important it is for Obama to find the common humanity no matter the spoken nor optic differnces in people. That is his driving motivation in all situations where differences exist. He could not be at peace within himself unless he finds that common humanity. Anything else is a rejection of hisself.
Yet there are those who have said that he was rejecting his mother by attending Wright's church a place they believe she would not have felt comfortable. A premise I doubt given that his mother saw beyond differences to our core humanity as a young woman when she married a Kenyan and named her child Barack Obama. His mother believed in the ideals and dreams of America so much so that she looked beyond racial divisions in the 50s. She instilled that in Obama as well.
My heart went out to Obama when he said his grandmother confided her fear of black men to him and that she uttered racial stereotypes to him. What type of strength of character does it take to continue believing in one's self when the people who love you the most voice rejection of you on the basis of your race despite you being their very own flesh and blood?
Is that not American's history of slavery? Was not that the very thing slave owners did? Breed and enslave their own flesh and blood. They were fearful of their own flessh and blood based solely on the color of their skin.
It is his mother though who shaped Obama's world view, his grandmother embodied his racial realities and together they molded a black man who has the extraordinary leadership to inspire others to seek first our common humanity and rise about our differences to work together to solve our national problems. They launched him into the world full of his mothers hopes and deftly capable of transcending his grandmothers fears.
The only piece of America Obama was missing was the angry, despair and hope of black folks and especially black men and Wright filled those gaps.
Obama melded all this bits and pieces of America together and created a vision for himself and America. He understands all sides and is able to embrace the differences and love the richness of his and America's heirtage.
That message is what all Americans should hear and come to grips with because it is that understanding which will allow us to move forward as ONE NATION.
That is what drives Obama and informs his belief that we can as Americans move forward and solve our problems and perfect this imperfect union. Just as he knows he too is an imperfect man learning to perfect all the differnces he encounters living in America and growing up in a home suffering fear from the very person who professed to love him most.
Incredible.
America this is our moment!
As Oprah says: 'he's the one'
March 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Oprah leave that church and suffer Wright's scorn for leaving? Just asking.
March 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Billy and I do not believe her choices are relevant. Oprah is not running for President. Oprah was born in MS, she would have no need to understand the anger of the black experience.
March 18, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Wright a veteran of the Marines?
Just asking.
March 18, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the whole thing sounded like a smooth talking George Bush
The fact that you think George Bush is a smooth talker hurts your argument...fatally.
March 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama's speech, throughout, asks its listeners to transcend themselves -- it asks them to choose nuance over cartoonish political controversy; it asks them to acknowledge stuff about race they don't want to acknowledge; it asks them to think big instead of small."
i'm having trouble holding down my lunch. did a tiny shred of this line of thinking ever occur to these cretins when everyone leapt a mile to conclude that bill clinton's use of "fairy tale" was code for "black man can't run a legit presidential campaign"? and the call at 3 a.m. means beware the black man because it's not typically terrorist? enough of this intellectual affirmative action crap! looking at this board, i see the democrats doing a reprise of their periodic harakiri, when they see the second coming and not him as michael dukakis or george mcgovern until they become, well, dukakis and mcgovern. on second thought, given that the pillars of this "movement" are unskakeable -- the 90% voting black and GOP (guilty overpaid) whites, this is not so much seppuku as it is assisted suicide.
March 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding?
This was a speech that stepped beyond the immediate term, looked both forward and back, and articulated the candidate's vision for how to heal America.
How is that somehow either a) pandering, or b) serving "white guilt"?
March 18, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you'd rather have us nominate the female version of Walter Mondale? Yeah, that's going to work well in November.
March 18, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, don't insult mondale. He is nothing like the clintons. He actually had some integrity, honesty and cared about the american people. He was no republican, like the clintons. I still don't understand why they are running in the dem primary.
March 18, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama wants everybody to play by HIS rules big on white guilt. If you don't you'll play by Obama's rules be accused of being a racist. Obama makes the rules and demands all Democrats and the national electorate play by them. Sorry, no dice.
March 18, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
to the gay guy whose knees got wobbly listening to the speech, girl, you've got to learn to distinguish between inspiration and lubrication. your feelings are confused, sis.
now to "thinking big." injecting the ferraro comment is disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst. to even correlate that with wright's, implying a parity in their outrageousness, is another in a long list of examples of intellectual affirmative action that is all over these days. clinton's informal and tactical ties to ferraro pales beside obama's and wright's constant and longstanding intimacy through marriage, baptism, counseling, mentoring and the audacity of plagiarism, and no amount of juxtaposition will sell it as a street corner shell game. you had it coming when you cry racism every time any scrutiny is done on an undervetted talkmeister who so far is a rhyme upgrade over jesse and al.
and then you heap on this mirage the phantasm of electability. yeah right, wait until the policy specifics are fleshed out in the general, not that the Kool Aid zombies will believe their lying eyes. and the general electorate has not even chewed on proud-for-the-first-time-american michelle as first lady yet, who's going to make lani guinier look like hannah montana. but then look at all the votes he got -- AL, GA, ID, IA, LA, MS, NE, ND, TX, UT, VA, KS, TN, WY -- he's going to win these states, right? right.
March 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
He'll take Virginia. I'd bet money on it.
If some of the SurveyUSA polls are to be believed he's got at least even odds of flipping Texas, too.
March 18, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sick, broken people are really scared of this, I can see. Nothing is more threatening to them than a guy who has both the platform and the ability to make a direct and deadly attack on the politics of division.
March 18, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
harrier, hate to shake you out of your stupor, but your guy will lose california to mccain. i'll give you all the primary states he won (and that's way to generous), but if california goes, he loses by more than kerry and gore combined. california is not a >10% democratic state as most believe, it's more like about
March 18, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
When reading commentary delivered by Marginal Prayer and Moravia, I come away more convinced than ever that Barack Obama's comments today are as relevant and rational as ever. I failt to see how anyone can read the entirety of the speech and come away with anything but an appreciation for someone plainly seeing happenings in this country as divisive. The divisions which he points out are as comlex and unique as the history of this country. It is not simple enough to complain of racism or sexism but rather the situation deserves a conversation and deserves a platform for which all americans can unite. If we can come together and realize that we are imperfect but that many of us share common problems not unique to race or sex then maybe we can move forward together. What is wrong with this idea? I agree with it, and yet many of the people who seem doubtful are those who are uninformed, apathetic, or outright biased. I do not expect that everyone is going to wake up an decide to be informed and therefor come to the same conclusion, but asking people to understand the complex relationship, to understand that we are all impperfect and have imperfect moments as well as imperfect friends for whom we may find ourselves in disagreement but nonetheless love them with our hearts, I ASK AGAIN WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS(sorry about the caps but I haveno idea how to emphasize this last part)?
And to Moravia, again yes I think he has the opportunity to win many of those states and when he does, America might finally be able to conclude that it has its eyes open again.
March 18, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama hasn't changed much from the earliest things you can read about him 20+ years ago before he was "the" Obama. Gracious, calm, honest, thoughtful, respectful, hardworking, a peaceful man filled with integrity.
I think of Kipling's "If" so often with him and after this speech it's the lines
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools"
Because the fools come out. They even write here. "Oh he lied" No he didn't fool. He had said he wasn't there for those particular speeches.
"Oh he has a wicked, bigot minister" "Oh he's divisive" "Oh his unity is fake" I realize the stupid aren't likely to vote for him, he never had your vote.
I use to be nicer but I weary. The media wearied me. I never saw such one sided reporter on such a volatile issue at such a time in our country. Rep King seemed to unlock the door for vile posters and then the whole media added to it with this.
May enough people recognize the gift we have in this man, not because he is black or despite it, but because he is Obama.
I should probably write another time though when the stupid comments don't make me want to slap them all.
March 18, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
People do not like to be made to look foolish. Denial will often kick in big-time when one is confronted with one's own drivel. The GOP has been on the wrong side of racial equality for decades, and Obama's words simply grind salt into the wound. Yet grind he must.
"That we don't talk about it" is the exact sentiment which killed my own family.
Obama's courage for taking on this issue cannot be diminished. If he was pandering, then he was pandering to us all. But I don't see it. I saw someone who was calling this country out for an inexcusable racial divide while offering solid ideas on some ways out of it.
You will never hear Hillary or McCain address this issue. Ever.
You can piss and moan that you don't like Obama the candidate or man, but all it does is perpetuate a problem that exists regardless of who is president. You only perpetuate the foul bigotry of dicrediting the speaker rather then reflecting on the message. This is the GOP way.
If you are deliberately resisting the call to become larger than yourself, I suggest you do not vote this time around. You have bigger fish to fry at home.
As does America.
Pax,
M.
March 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Seems like there's something in it for everyone with a vested interested in the status quo."
"Exactly brother. What Jesus obviously fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem!"
March 18, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
applause joshquasimoto, take a bow. as a political agnostic, i must say i'm relishing this. because the democrats will deserve the whipping they will get once again. it might take one, even two more presidential cycles for them to, as you say, open their eyes and find a way to be competitive again. i hate to douse your enthusiasm, but plainly, the speech was such a loser i can almost hear karl rove's and roger ailes' guffaws. it was understandable to those already in the know, but unintelligible to those who need to know. it was a speech addressed to doris kearns goodwin, when he needed to explain to larry the cable guy.
and, please, the message is the medium here -- pick any snippet of that speech which will counteract any 60-second replay on youtube, not to mention the thousands of replays by rush, drudge and the echo chamber. try to get your feet closer to the ground, my friend, it's the only way to improve your fading chances.
March 18, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly enough, Viccisitudes, his grandfather hung out with a group of disenfranchised black men in Hawaii as if he identified with their plight and saw in it something of his own.
I think you are right about Rev Wright. In a life story that is focused so much on the missing father, Wright was a male connection to an Afro-centric view of the world. The church also gave Obama a black community, something he struggled with throughout his youth. (He first became aware of his racial identity in a Life magazine he was reading in the American embassy in Indonesia.)
It is refreshing to see a politician who doesn't present him or herself as having all the answers, whose mind is not already settled, who acknowledges how he has struggled and grown. People like that generally make better executives than the dogmatic and doctrinaire.
March 18, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.
I'm glad he said we could do that.
LOL
March 18, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Media are saying he "explained" his pastor.
Well no he didn't. He didn't explain why he needed to continue to attend that kind of church.
And again, he admitted he knew. Therefore, he admitted he lied when he said he didn't know.
March 18, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think his speech was a perfect con artist speech ......over the weekend since friday night he looked into a camera on almost every network and said i was never in the church when remark were made and in this speech he said ..".was i sitting in the pew when rev wright made contreversial remarks yes i was"...that means he lied at least seven times that i seen ,,,,,,,saturday he said he knew rezko for 24 years and had lunch with him every day during his campaign .....when he kept saying he was just a acquaintence.......oh he also donated 250,000 instead of 150,000.......how many lies is he going to get away with .......the MSM keeps giving..... him a pass on these lies and he talks his way out of them .....i cant see this guy as president and when the gop and 527's get through with him he will look like hamburg
March 18, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moravia, the Republican-troll-pretending-to-be-independent schtick was already old when dinosaurs ruled the earth.
March 18, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting real tired of the hate and blame America first crowd, especially hearing it from a presidential candidate. Obama buried his admission of knowing, participating in, and standing by his racist and America hating church by instead blaming it all on America and asking, can't we just get along?
Sorry, Obama has once again admitted to lying. How many times will it take before the Obama Cult catch on?
March 18, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you ever read what you've written before you hit the "Send" button and laugh maniacally, and then say to yourself, "that'll show 'em!"? Because that's what I envision you doing.
If you had watched or read the speech, you'd know that what you just said was completely wrong.
March 18, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. LaBonne, you have no other rebuttal than to engage in a party label guessing game? this party needs to find its soul, then grow some spine. they lost me when they scampered like cowards in terry schiavo's case (when it turned out that 70% of the american people had it right all along) and every time karl rove injected the words values and patriotism into the public discourse. they deserved to lose in '00 and '04, and with obama, they will lose by more than gore and kerry combined. and you call willie slick? the squid tactic of injecting the larger issue of race to cover up the utter stupidity of the wright rant is downright insulting to the intelligence of the american people. no doubt the Kool Aid corps of which you are a flag waver will suck this up. but watch how this plays in PA between philly and pittsburgh, and in ohio and similar demographics where the foxholes will be dug in the general. i'm dying to read your posts in 01/09 (if this board is still around).
March 18, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain will take CA? I don't even want to know what orifice you pulled that one out of...
Just an FYI, Survey USA
doesn't have McCain winning CA against either Clinton or Obama. Forgive me if I find them slightly more compelling than whatever it is you're doing.
March 18, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
vicissitudes, I love your posts - hope you keep writing. Lots of times, you write exactly what I've been thinking, except that you do so in a more coherent way. I go to these blogs for discussion like that. I'm hoping that Obama will inspire us all to continue with this thoughtful approach to our world and its problems. We have so many problems: people of good will, if they worked together, could really make some strides. Can you imagine if he becomes president how he will challenge us to stay involved and accomplish a better future? I don't understand the snide comments, and the general reluctance to try to be better than we've been.
March 18, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
folks like you were the ones lapping up the lattes when dukakis was 30 pts. ahead of bush, and now counting votes before the policy specifics are fleshed out in the general. unifier? test it by having the obama of the House, dennis kucinich reason with steve king or tom tancredo. rejoicing at polling data taken before the american people have digested the contrasts of the actual 2-sided contest. then again, we haven't even chewed on proud-for-the-first-time-american michelle, who will make lani guinier look like hannah montana before roger ailes and karl rove are through with her. for most immigrants, mccain, more than any politician of any party, gets it on immigration. he suffered the political costs of a courageous position that is anathema to the bulk of his party. between the latino vote (much larger than that 90% voting bloc) and the national-security/patriotism/christian right vote in the central valley and orange county, mccain is well positioned to take this treasure trove of electoral votes. he is doomed by his hubris of running against the bill clinton presidency, for the one person who could salvage his chances in CA is hrc. this is untenable now, given his arrogant dismissal. bottomline, his 90% bloc won't give the winning edge in any state, but his deficit in the latino community is crucial in many, demonstrated without exception in the primaries: CA, NV, TX, AZ, NM, and might cost him CO too.
March 18, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is fallacy to assume he or she who wins the Primary, will go on to win the General.
And if you think Hillary can win Texas in the General...
I want what you're having.
March 18, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
SCMadden:
precisely. boy, how fun to be soaking up such brilliance. i'm sure you have been flummoxed as well by the Kool Aid corps' touting of primary wins in AL, GA, ID, IA, LA, MS, NE, ND, TX, UT, VA, KS, TN, WY. but in his case, he's going to carry these states in the general -- the great unifier. take a closer look at the context, i pointed out TX as a notably latino state, not that either democrat will carry it, but to stress the fact that obama's 90% solid block won't spell victory in the general. the 90% solid block and the GOP (guilty overpaid) whites, the two unshakeable pillars of the obama movement -- do not provide the winning margin for victory in any state. let me stress again -- the latino vote is critical in all the states obama MUST win.
March 18, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, the funniest thing about this campaign so far isn't the carefree banter that goes on between the Clinton and Obama partisans.
It's the ongoing belief that neither Obama nor Clinton is capable of unifying disparate voting groups and are therefore completely incapable of winning in November...
...and yet...
...John McCain is apparently capable of doing so.
My personal opinion is that the current national polls reflect the fact that the Democratic struggle is focusing attention on Clinton and Obama and away from McCain. Honestly, if Obama's speech hadn't dominated the news today, the headline would have been McCain's ignorance of whose side Iran is on in the Iraq struggle.
Face it, the Democratic contest is the guy's security blanket. Once it's gone, he'll need to step up to the plate more than he has so far.
March 18, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Splitting Image:
good point. a disclaimer: i'm not a clinton partisan. i think bill should hitch a ride with spitzer to the shrink (such self-destructiveness!). my only interest here is that obama and clinton should be dissected with scalpels that are equally sharp, and applied with equal pressure. the obamaniacs have been just out of this world. transformative? transcendent? give me a break!
March 18, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's speech went pretty well as my infinite wisdom predicted--Olbermann fodder irrelevant in the general election. Back to the drawing board.
March 18, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the problem folks. The Rev Al S. (I think he is a Rev, if not excuse my misspoke) is in the Jessie Jackson extortion mode.
If Obama doesn't get the nomination, blacks will take to the streets in large numbers, worse than the riots of 1968. ( I'm old enough, but don't honestly remember the 1968 riots) I vaguely remember something called "watts" (note to self, talk to pastor about weekly sermon so we will never forget)
If he makes it to the GE, McCain will beat him,so same thing will happen then.
Pay the piper now or later?
March 18, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
My humble opinion....
It is difficult for me to grasp the obvious disdain, and even sometimes hatred, a few posters here seem to feel toward Obama and his campaign messages of transcending old wounds and ingrained hatreds, and working together to create positive solutions to our common problems
A couple of earlier posts have asked these posters quite pointedly, "What is wrong with that?" and I must reiterate that question. What is wrong with his stated desire to bring us together to work together to solve our problems? Those who post with such disdain or hatred, you have not answered this question. I do not get what it is you are so upset about.
Forgive me for being so naive.
Next.....
As to his "lies" about what he heard in the church pews....
The particular most infoammatory words in question that we have heard again and again, Obama has given evidence that he indeed was not in his church for those extreme words. He has said if he had heard them, he would have voiced his strong disagreement over them.
But he admits that he did hear Reverend Wright say controversial things sometimes over the years. We conclude from these multiple statements that those sometimes controversial things he heard were not as egregious in their tone and/or delivery as the words he missed. For those who take their religion to heart (and soul), Church is where we come for multiple and sometimes dissonant reasons, and one of them is to be challenged and stretched in our religious convictions and subsequent life choices. Reverend Wright, it would seem, rightly, and at times wrongly, was most amazingly able to perform this prophetic role, in addition to the many other roles of pastor he so lovingly performed for his congregation. Rejecting and walking away from his pastor and his community over any disagreements (imho) would not have been the true Christian response. Remaining active and choosing to lead and work for change by living example is quite probably the best correct choice, which Obama made as a Christian, and even more as a moral person of any or no religious faith.
Additionally, Obama explained to my satisfaction, that his Reverend was a man who had served his country in the uniform of a marine, at a time when treatment of blacks both in their own homes and in the military, was unquestionably riddled by deep and disabling evil. And as well, his Reverend also served his community, his flock, for many years with very real and deep Christian love. To dismiss his preacher because of strong disagreement with some of his Old Testament prophetic "fire and brimstone" truth to power preaching would have been a betrayal of Obama's own Christian convictions. Those who would require such a rejection from Obama have a truly unChristian expectation. Thankfully, you see Obama actually makes his choices consistent with his Christian values.
Further, how can you possibly presume to know what Obama did or did not ever say in private to his preacher on any occasion of the many thousands of days of their 20 year relationship? For all you know he may very well have privately expressed disagreements with his pastor any number of times. Why would you think he would choose to reveal such discussions, only to further fuel the rantings of those who feel they must gleefully attack on every possible real or fabricated flaw of either of these men?
Well, sorry for the length of this post.
Let's hope our hearts will experience the needed understanding, love, and forgiveness that I believe all Christians are expected to be working for.
Please.
March 18, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You assume that the uneducated, blue collar worker is the base group that will win the election. That may be true in the Pennsylvania primary. Factually, the blue collar (Hillary's base) is a stagnated group and many of them are expected to vote for McCain in November, whether the candidate is Hillary or Obama. This great speech was obviously for those able to discern, and it will bring even more excitement among the under 30-age voters, and that is a group that Obama is expected to expand greatly in November. You need to get your talking points from somewhere besides the Hillary camp, they are just putting out smoke screens to keep people donating.
March 19, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
My prediction: Obama will have a strong hispanic VP candidate to help win over the hispanic vote in the general (not Hillary though). With an overwhelming African-American vote, hispanic vote, and youth vote, along with the support of progressives and a majority of independents, Obama will easily win in November.
March 19, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Debra, how could you possibly know, that this would happen? Congrats.
March 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink