Obama Speech 3/18 - "Race In America" - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Frank · #76 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

The term "White Flight" dates back to 1968 and doesn't apply to our current society as times have drastically changed with respect to civil rights.

The statistics I have read say otherwise but this is not the issue of debate I suppose. Continue on folks...

Dilettante · #77 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

To my considerable amazement, I think Sen. Obama may survive this whole Jeremiah Wright episode, and actually do better because of it. Perhaps even more surprising, I find myself among those whose opinion of him has gone up.

When I first read about Jeremiah Wright and saw his incendiary remarks, I personally felt a new wariness toward Barack Obama as a potential presidential candidate.
And while its unusual for my mind to be changed by a public speech, this one seems to have done the trick; the man has risen considerably in my estimation and has somehow managed to repudiate the abrasive remarks of his pastor without thoroughly denouncing him as a person.

I should probably mention that, if the election were held today, I'd still be voting for John McCain. But I think that Obama's speech today will likely be the best piece of rhetoric to emerge from the 2008 campaign, from any candidate, and I hope it gets remembered.
If he gets the Democratic nomination, there is perhaps a (small) chance that I'll end up voting Dem.

This is, IMO, the most impressive part of the speech:

Quote:

For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews...That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

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

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze...yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now...

DANG, he's good!

chassisman · #78 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

To my considerable amazement, I think Sen. Obama may survive this whole Jeremiah Wright episode, and actually do better because of it. Perhaps even more surprising, I find myself among those whose opinion of him has gone up.

When I first read about Jeremiah Wright and saw his incendiary remarks, I personally felt a new wariness toward Barack Obama as a potential presidential candidate.
And while its unusual for my mind to be changed by a public speech, this one seems to have done the trick; the man has risen considerably in my estimation and has somehow managed to repudiate the abrasive remarks of his pastor without thoroughly denouncing him as a person.

I should probably mention that, if the election were held today, I'd still be voting for John McCain. But I think that Obama's speech today will likely be the best piece of rhetoric to emerge from the 2008 campaign, from any candidate, and I hope it gets remembered.
If he gets the Democratic nomination, there is perhaps a (small) chance that I'll end up voting Dem.

This is, IMO, the most impressive part of the speech:

DANG, he's good!

If he's lucky, we'll see.

RFK1968 · #79 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

Quote:

For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews...That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

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

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze...yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now...

The guy even goes to so far as to dismiss claims of racism against whites who have resentment toward blacks. How could anyone possibly say that this man shares the distorted views of his reverend? I think it would be a tremendous service to everyone if the people who dislike Obama would say they won't vote for the guy because of his church, rather than try to suggest that Obama shares all the views of the church. I, for one, would certainly find them much more credible for it. Anyone who thinks Obama is a racist because he belongs to a "black-nationalist" church, in spite of all of his desperation to bring racial harmony, is burying his/her head in the sand.

Won't vote for Obama because of the church he belongs to? Fair enough.
Won't vote for Obama because of his liberalism? Completely fair.
Won't vote for Obama because of his inexperience? Unquestionably justified.
Won't vote for Obama because they think he automatically shares all the views of his church? Just sad.

Alex · #80 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFK1968

The guy even goes to so far as to dismiss claims of racism against whites who have resentment toward blacks. How could anyone possibly say that this man shares the distorted views of his reverend? I think it would be a tremendous service to everyone if the people who dislike Obama would say they won't vote for the guy because of his church, rather than try to suggest that Obama shares all the views of the church. I, for one, would certainly find them much more credible for it. Anyone who thinks Obama is a racist because he belongs to a "black-nationalist" church, in spite of all of his desperation to bring racial harmony, is burying his/her head in the sand.

Won't vote for Obama because of the church he belongs to? Fair enough.
Won't vote for Obama because of his liberalism? Completely fair.
Won't vote for Obama because of his inexperience? Unquestionably justified.
Won't vote for Obama because they think he automatically shares all the views of his church? Just sad.

Words are not deeds. Obama went to this church for 20 years, giving a canned speech written by some Madison Avenue ad executive doesn't change that. He is a good speaker. He is not Presidential material - he has demonstrated very poor judgment - Resko, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers....

Frank · #81 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFK1968

The guy even goes to so far as to dismiss claims of racism against whites who have resentment toward blacks. How could anyone possibly say that this man shares the distorted views of his reverend?

Because he sat in the "reverends" pews for 20 years, admitted to viewing this man as an inspiration and to this day refuses to disassociate himself from the man? This is strange behaviour when the anti-racist allegedly honest Barack admits that the "reverend" presents a distorted view of his nation and race relations issues.

In my book actions speak louder than words...

Quote:

I think it would be a tremendous service to everyone if the people who dislike Obama would say they won't vote for the guy because of his church, rather than try to suggest that Obama shares all the views of the church.

Hypothetically speaking would it make sense to you if I was an active 20 year member of the Seventh Day Adventist church yet believed that the central doctrines of that church were mistaken? Would that add up to you?

Quote:

I, for one, would certainly find them much more credible for it. Anyone who thinks Obama is a racist because he belongs to a "black-nationalist" church, in spite of all of his desperation to bring racial harmony, is burying his/her head in the sand.

No, people like myself are not militantly naive and believe that actions speak louder than words.

Quote:

Won't vote for Obama because of the church he belongs to? Fair enough.
Won't vote for Obama because of his liberalism? Completely fair.
Won't vote for Obama because of his inexperience? Unquestionably justified.
Won't vote for Obama because they think he automatically shares all the views of his church? Just sad.

What is sad is how so-called democrats would demonise a White candidate if he belonged to a Christian Identity church but choose to give Obama a free pass because he is a black man who belongs to a racialist church.

Talk about racist double-standards.

CorpMediaSux · #82 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

Quote:

Obama went to this church for 20 years, giving a canned speech written by some Madison Avenue ad executive doesn't change that.

The man has written two books and numerous constitutional articles that are MORE sophisticated than this speech. His campaign said that unlike his stump speech, his speech writers didn't do this one. That makes sense because it had an entirely different tone than his usual stump.
[quote]
Words are not deeds. [/QUOTE
Are you familiar with the democratic process? The candidates are in a "campaign" they are not yet Presidents so they can't "act" they are making their case to the American people. They do that through...speaking.

And in this speech his words spoke very loudly:
1. He didnt do what most politicians would do, which is lie to us about "disowning" someone who is a personal friend.
2. He used this opportunity to lay out a PHILOSOPHY of America, something Presidents have not done since JFK and FDR
3. He showed that you can talk about race in a calm way, that's not inflammatory or crazed.
4. He laid down the gauntlet and put it ALL out there in a way that was incredibly politically risky to.

Finally you say it was a "canned" speech. Answer one question. Did you read/listen to the whole thing? Yes or no. Because if you didnt then you are just blowing hot air.

Oreo · #83 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by baaz

He is an incredible speech giver, that is for sure. Not so good on interviews and off the cuff tho. I watched the speech. At times thinking, ok, that sounds good, then at times saying....hey, you shouldnt be saying that. It gives me the creeps to think of the potus sitting in a church like that, listening to that anti american crap. He had to have known this was going to come back at him. He should have distanced himself a long time ago.

Agreed--Oprah Winfrey went to this same church. She left in 1990 because she felt it was too extreme.

hermanboo · #84 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

Now you've got me wondering what a "white community" is, too.

I bet self identified "angry white men" could tell you.

Oreo · #85 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Because he sat in the "reverends" pews for 20 years, admitted to viewing this man as an inspiration and to this day refuses to disassociate himself from the man? This is strange behaviour when the anti-racist allegedly honest Barack admits that the "reverend" presents a distorted view of his nation and race relations issues.

In my book actions speak louder than words...

Hypothetically speaking would it make sense to you if I was an active 20 year member of the Seventh Day Adventist church yet believed that the central doctrines of that church were mistaken? Would that add up to you?

No, people like myself are not militantly naive and believe that actions speak louder than words.

What is sad is how so-called democrats would demonise a White candidate if he belonged to a Christian Identity church but choose to give Obama a free pass because he is a black man who belongs to a racialist church.

Talk about racist double-standards.

Agreed--if a white candidate was going to a church like this, he/she wouldn't have made it through the first primary state.

Frank · #86 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

Is Barack really good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obama

For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

This "anger" is being expressed in a church; a church Obama frequented for 20 years. Obama does not deny the racism of the "reverend" but merely explains it while openly associating with it...

Sorry Barack but I am not a low-IQ American democrat who is susceptible to your swooning; the bottom line is your reverend is a bigot and you support the man; you just tried to explain away his racism citing historical events that have long since passed.

Quote:

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews...That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

So Obama admits that the "reverends" racism has entered the church; Obama claims to disagree with said racism but continues to attend that church to this day!? In fact Obama does not even seem to condemn the racism but merely the anger behind it!

Unlike your worshippers Obama; I do not get mesmerised by fancy long-winded speeches! Your own words while coded and fancy betray you.

Quote:

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.

Of course people are angry; diversity has not worked for white people either but I do not see legions of democrats calling for understanding of the root causes of white anger when addressing Klan groups.

Quote:

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.

Wow! Telling me something I already know! "Affirmative Action" is no secret Obama. Here is the problem Obama; YOU SUPPORTED such discrimination against whites when you backed affirmative action!

2004 - US Senate Race - The Issues

Your past record betrays your words today Obama!

Quote:

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze...yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now...

Barack supported affirmative action backs a racialist church and he talks about closing the racial divide; is this guy kidding me!?

CorpMediaSux · #87 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

Oreo. Did you read the speech?

Alex · #88 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

[quote=CorpMediaSux;1182636]The man has written two books and numerous constitutional articles that are MORE sophisticated than this speech. His campaign said that unlike his stump speech, his speech writers didn't do this one. That makes sense because it had an entirely different tone than his usual stump.

Quote:

Words are not deeds. [/QUOTE
Are you familiar with the democratic process? The candidates are in a "campaign" they are not yet Presidents so they can't "act" they are making their case to the American people. They do that through...speaking.

And in this speech his words spoke very loudly:
1. He didnt do what most politicians would do, which is lie to us about "disowning" someone who is a personal friend.
2. He used this opportunity to lay out a PHILOSOPHY of America, something Presidents have not done since JFK and FDR
3. He showed that you can talk about race in a calm way, that's not inflammatory or crazed.
4. He laid down the gauntlet and put it ALL out there in a way that was incredibly politically risky to.

Finally you say it was a "canned" speech. Answer one question. Did you read/listen to the whole thing? Yes or no. Because if you didnt then you are just blowing hot air.

I heard parts on TV and read the entire transcript. It was well written (by someone other than Obama) and the parts I saw were read from the teleprompter very well too. But that is not the issue here. The issue is Obama's lack of judgement. His friends and advisers are bombers, thugs and racists.

William Ayers - attacked the Pentagon - Obama is "close friends"
Jeremiah Wright is a race bating America Hater - Obama calls him "family".

Tony Rezko - currently on trial for fraud and extortion - Obama's "close friend".

Obama lacks judgment. Sorry, sometimes the truth hurts. You are a fan, good for you. I think he's a good speaker and a very good liar. I don't go by what a candidate says, I go by what they have done. He's attended a racist church for twenty years, associated with a known criminal, and is great friends with a man who bombed the Pentagon. His word don't amount to shit.

Frank · #89 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorpMediaSux

Oreo. Did you read the speech?

Oreo is absolutely right! Ron Paul promoted equal rights for all people on a libertarian platform and he was demonised as a bigot for allegedly "racist" comments in his past newsletters written by other people. He was also demonised for accepting a donation from Stormfronter Don Black...

Look at this CNN article about the Ron Paul newsletters dripping with accusations of racism while one CNN analyst says such racism should be fully exposed:

Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays - CNN.com

Yet we are expected to give Barack the benefit of the doubt and focus on the "issues" instead of his racialist links?

What is good for Ron Paul is good for Barack Obama; if the issues can be put aside for the white candidate the same standard should apply to all candidates.

RFK1968 · #90 (**permalink**) 03-18-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

Oreo is absolutely right! Ron Paul promoted equal rights for all people on a libertarian platform and he was demonised as a bigot for allegedly "racist" comments in his past newsletters written by other people. He was also demonised for accepting a donation from Stormfronter Don Black...

Look at this CNN article about the Ron Paul newsletters dripping with accusations of racism while one CNN analyst says such racism should be fully exposed:

Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays - CNN.com

Yet we are expected to give Barack the benefit of the doubt and focus on the "issues" instead of his racialist links?

What is good for Ron Paul is good for Barack Obama; if the issues can be put aside for the white candidate the same standard should apply to all candidates.

Accusations that Ron Paul was a racist were as unfounded and unsubstantial as these claims against Obama. These guilt-by-association charges are fundamentally flawed. It doesn't matter if they're levied against a white Republican or a black Democrat.