Just finished watching. Deeply moved. Very subdued audience. All I found out about the audience was "small and racially diverse".
I don't want to change the subject, but I can't help but picture what is going on in the Clinton camp right now. "We will have Rosie O'Donnell bash men, get the loops played on the networks, then you give a major speech telling about how you want to heal the riff between men and women."
I am hoping that Obama's speech will be viewed, on the opinion pages and the front pages, as as important as we all here think it is. I also hope that it will resonate in Philadelphia, and that Clinton gets buried once and for all.
I'm superbly annoyed at how so many news outlets are making the speech about his pastor and not about Obama tackling RACISM IN AMERICA.
"We can continue to look the distractions....."
Among my favorite parts... As said in an NPR recap, he basically said, 'We can have a little election, or we can have a big election. We can make this a spectacle, or we can talk about real things.'
Out of curiosity, I went and read what the National Review website had to say about the speech. I know they have their own constituency to keep happy and what not but sometimes I just wish they weren't so damn predictable in their criticisms. Surprise me once in a while!
I love how they think this speech is "the beginning of the end" for Obama. LOL.
not to detour this but was anyone else a bit disturbed at Obama blaming unrest in the Middle East on the shoulders of "radical Islam"? I mean, I know no presidential candidate is allowed to dare question Israeli policy and what not, but that sounded straight up GOP.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
Hey,
I don't see the Rev. Wright situation any differently than child-parent relationhips. As the saying goes, "first we love our parents, then we judge them." Nearly all of us have noted inconsistencies in our parents' ideologies, just as Sen. Obama noted with his former pastor. Similarly to Sen. Obama's response, these very human shortcomings do not justify hating our parents, or as in his case, a man with whom he has had a long friendship. As I age, I'm finding myself more critical of my parents but I do not love them any less. Personally, I think the Rev. Wright situation is very typical of the human condition, that well-meaning people who are, by definition, limited by their humanity. The issue becomes the extent to which we can accept our imperfect humanity while striving every day to improve upon it.
There will be opportunities to talk honestly about Middle East policy. He had to address the "chickens coming home to roost" issue.
I thought it was quite important that he speak in those terms. The biggest pitfall of most liberals is to lump all insurgent Arab groups into "Freedom Fighters".
I like how he was able to adress the Pastor shit and turn it into a larger concern. So well woven.
Yeah - it was a masterful speech in that respect. He covered a lot of ground and did it "organically."
Q: did Wright ever use the words "racism is endemic"? I felt like that was kind of a strawman point by Obama to discredit Wright.
From what I read of Wright, it's nothing that many Black leaders haven't been saying now for decades.
I dont recall Wright using endemic, but yes many Black leaders have been highlighting this. Shit, theres a gang of Hip Hop that talks about this. Surprised by a Pres candiate speakin on it, Yes. Never heard these ideas in a public forum, Nah.
I'm only dismayed that not enough folks seem to grasp the gravity of this speech.
True, but its not really a new message.
No, but what's completely new is that it's coming from somebody with a serious chance of being this country's next president.
Saying!
Dudes, please be serious.
While Jesse's participation in the process was important--and winning the handful of primaries that he did was an incredible accomplishment for the time(s)--he never had anything resembling a serious chance.
not to detour this but was anyone else a bit disturbed at Obama blaming unrest in the Middle East on the shoulders of "radical Islam"? I mean, I know no presidential candidate is allowed to dare question Israeli policy and what not, but that sounded straight up GOP.
coulda been an attempt to address -- subtly -- the specifically anti-Israel remarks that his pastor has made over the years (which has sorta been ignored).
most people aren't aware of those remarks given the focus on the "anti-American" remarks he's made, but Wright has basically blamed Israel (America's only ally in the Middle East) for all of our problems there. aimed at those in the audience that track Israel-related issues, this may have been an attampt to show that Obama doesn't see things the way his pastor does.
and BTW, with unrest in nearly every Muslim country Obama may have been seeking to address a wider issue than you give him credit for (i.e. not just the Arab-Israeli conflict as you suggest).
not to detour this but was anyone else a bit disturbed at Obama blaming unrest in the Middle East on the shoulders of "radical Islam"? I mean, I know no presidential candidate is allowed to dare question Israeli policy and what not, but that sounded straight up GOP.
The one part of the speech that I took issue with--it seemed like a footnote that was a) unnecessary and b) conflicted with the speech's larger message.
It is refreshing to come home and hear his speech, and see you good people talking about it.
It's an interesting thing, that Obama's biggest accomplishments to date, are not policy or legislative, they are him talking to America. I think that is a strange and good thing. It is also interesting that this election is only Obama's second election where he had a formidable opponent. He lost the first one.
I'm only dismayed that not enough folks seem to grasp the gravity of this speech.
True, but its not really a new message.
No, but what's completely new is that it's coming from somebody with a serious chance of being this country's next president.
Saying!
Dudes, please be serious.
While Jesse's participation in the process was important--and winning the handful of prmaries that he did was an incredible accomplishment for the time(s)--he never had anything resembling a serious chance.
No doubt. But lets not make Imiri Baraka's speech to be that new shit.
While Jesse's participation in the process was important--and winning the handful of prmaries that he did was an incredible accomplishment for the time(s)--he never had anything resembling a serious chance.
Well, isn't that because dude fucked himself up rather than it being that America wasn't ready? A slightly more politic (and less perceived anti-Semitic) Jackson could have gone a lot further in 84 than he did.
not to detour this but was anyone else a bit disturbed at Obama blaming unrest in the Middle East on the shoulders of "radical Islam"? I mean, I know no presidential candidate is allowed to dare question Israeli policy and what not, but that sounded straight up GOP.
The one part of the speech that I took issue with--it seemed like a footnote that was a) unnecessary and b) conflicted with the speech's larger message.
There were moments, such as this one, that I did think took the speech down to its original purpose- the campaign. Some critics had problems with his citing the Ferraro comments, which I can see. It didn't bother me specifically, as I do think the timing of her comments and the Wright sermons linked those two incidents, and pushed up this speech. But, it was moments like that and the middle eastern comments that did take this from the pantheon of great speeches, and down to what it essentially was- a campaign speech.
In the end, though, I do think Faux put it well. This is the most important political speech I can remember EVER hearing.
While Jesse's participation in the process was important--and winning the handful of prmaries that he did was an incredible accomplishment for the time(s)--he never had anything resembling a serious chance.
Well, isn't that because dude fucked himself up rather than it being that America wasn't ready? A slightly more politic (and less perceived anti-Semitic) Jackson could have gone a lot further in 84 than he did.
Well, he actually did get further in '88, but there was no way he was getting anywhere near the nomination.
Do you really think this is debatable or are you just being contrary?
Wild exaggeration. In fact every country in the Middle East with the exception of Syria and Iran (and we do have diplomatic relations with those countries) are American allies.
One example, we have military bases in many Middle Eastern countries, but Israel has never allowed the US military into Israel.
Wild exaggeration. In fact every country in the Middle East with the exception of Syria and Iran (and we do have diplomatic relations with those countries) are American allies.
One example, we have military bases in many Middle Eastern countries, but Israel has never allowed the US military into Israel.
Okay dude. I will not have that inane argument with you.
I was simply paraphrasing what Obama said in an attempt to explain why he said it.
I don't think Jackson had a realistic shot - not in the way Obama clearly does. But the point is that he's been the voice of racial awareness - for better or worse - for a few generations and he once commanded - if even for a moment - the national stage in a presidential election.
Hell, we're not even sure if Obama is going to win the nom.
On that note: I was thinking this speech would help Obama but I'm rethinking that only b/c this speech will go over big with people who already like him. But I don't know how this plays with folks on the fence. Certainly the right can't wait to start using the speech against him.
I was thinking this speech would help Obama but I'm rethinking that only b/c this speech will go over big with people who already like him. But I don't know how this plays with folks on the fence. Certainly the right can't wait to start using the speech against him.
I don't think Jackson had a realistic shot - not in the way Obama clearly does. But the point is that he's been the voice of racial awareness - for better or worse - for a few generations and he once commanded - if even for a moment - the national stage in a presidential election.
Hell, we're not even sure if Obama is going to win the nom.
I've said twice so far that I am not seeking to minimize what Jesse did, but you cannot pretend that the two candidacies are remotely comparable.
Jesse was present primarily as a dissenter. He did not run in order to be elected president. He didn't necessarily even want to run--he tried to recruit Maynard Jackson to serve as that voice instead of him.
Obama, by contrast, is on the verge of securing the nomination. Dissent is not the end purpose of his candidacy. He had everything to lose in speaking this boldly and honestly at this point, and he did it anyway.
I was thinking this speech would help Obama but I'm rethinking that only b/c this speech will go over big with people who already like him. But I don't know how this plays with folks on the fence. Certainly the right can't wait to start using the speech against him.
My thoughts exactly.
Since it's hard to take issue with what he said in the speech, I think we'll see the right-wingers attack the very idea that he said it, i.e. attack that he's "harping on race" or "obsessed with race" or creating some non-existent racial divide rather than addressing the real issues that plague our otherwise perfect colorblind society.
Comments
In that context,yes like Luck said.
I actually got teary, but this has has been said in other forms so many times.
And if a Caucasoid candidate were to say this.......
"We can continue to look the distractions....."
I don't want to change the subject, but I can't help but picture what is going on in the Clinton camp right now. "We will have Rosie O'Donnell bash men, get the loops played on the networks, then you give a major speech telling about how you want to heal the riff between men and women."
I am hoping that Obama's speech will be viewed, on the opinion pages and the front pages, as as important as we all here think it is. I also hope that it will resonate in Philadelphia, and that Clinton gets buried once and for all.
lol
Saying!
Among my favorite parts... As said in an NPR recap, he basically said, 'We can have a little election, or we can have a big election. We can make this a spectacle, or we can talk about real things.'
I love how they think this speech is "the beginning of the end" for Obama. LOL.
Yeah - it was a masterful speech in that respect. He covered a lot of ground and did it "organically."
Q: did Wright ever use the words "racism is endemic"? I felt like that was kind of a strawman point by Obama to discredit Wright.
From what I read of Wright, it's nothing that many Black leaders haven't been saying now for decades.
I don't see the Rev. Wright situation any differently than child-parent relationhips. As the saying goes, "first we love our parents, then we judge them." Nearly all of us have noted inconsistencies in our parents' ideologies, just as Sen. Obama noted with his former pastor. Similarly to Sen. Obama's response, these very human shortcomings do not justify hating our parents, or as in his case, a man with whom he has had a long friendship. As I age, I'm finding myself more critical of my parents but I do not love them any less. Personally, I think the Rev. Wright situation is very typical of the human condition, that well-meaning people who are, by definition, limited by their humanity. The issue becomes the extent to which we can accept our imperfect humanity while striving every day to improve upon it.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
I thought it was quite important that he speak in those terms. The biggest pitfall of most liberals is to lump all insurgent Arab groups into "Freedom Fighters".
I dont recall Wright using endemic, but yes many Black leaders have been highlighting this. Shit, theres a gang of Hip Hop that talks about this.
Surprised by a Pres candiate speakin on it, Yes. Never heard these ideas in a public forum, Nah.
Dudes, please be serious.
While Jesse's participation in the process was important--and winning the handful of primaries that he did was an incredible accomplishment for the time(s)--he never had anything resembling a serious chance.
coulda been an attempt to address -- subtly -- the specifically anti-Israel remarks that his pastor has made over the years (which has sorta been ignored).
most people aren't aware of those remarks given the focus on the "anti-American" remarks he's made, but Wright has basically blamed Israel (America's only ally in the Middle East) for all of our problems there. aimed at those in the audience that track Israel-related issues, this may have been an attampt to show that Obama doesn't see things the way his pastor does.
and BTW, with unrest in nearly every Muslim country Obama may have been seeking to address a wider issue than you give him credit for (i.e. not just the Arab-Israeli conflict as you suggest).
The one part of the speech that I took issue with--it seemed like a footnote that was a) unnecessary and b) conflicted with the speech's larger message.
http://wweek.com/editorial/3418/10516/
It is refreshing to come home and hear his speech, and see you good people talking about it.
It's an interesting thing, that Obama's biggest accomplishments to date, are not policy or legislative, they are him talking to America. I think that is a strange and good thing. It is also interesting that this election is only Obama's second election where he had a formidable opponent. He lost the first one.
No doubt. But lets not make Imiri Baraka's speech to be that new shit.
Well, isn't that because dude fucked himself up rather than it being that America wasn't ready? A slightly more politic (and less perceived anti-Semitic) Jackson could have gone a lot further in 84 than he did.
There were moments, such as this one, that I did think took the speech down to its original purpose- the campaign. Some critics had problems with his citing the Ferraro comments, which I can see. It didn't bother me specifically, as I do think the timing of her comments and the Wright sermons linked those two incidents, and pushed up this speech. But, it was moments like that and the middle eastern comments that did take this from the pantheon of great speeches, and down to what it essentially was- a campaign speech.
In the end, though, I do think Faux put it well. This is the most important political speech I can remember EVER hearing.
Well, he actually did get further in '88, but there was no way he was getting anywhere near the nomination.
Do you really think this is debatable or are you just being contrary?
Wild exaggeration. In fact every country in the Middle East with the exception of Syria and Iran (and we do have diplomatic relations with those countries) are American allies.
One example, we have military bases in many Middle Eastern countries, but Israel has never allowed the US military into Israel.
Okay dude. I will not have that inane argument with you.
I was simply paraphrasing what Obama said in an attempt to explain why he said it.
Hell, we're not even sure if Obama is going to win the nom.
On that note: I was thinking this speech would help Obama but I'm rethinking that only b/c this speech will go over big with people who already like him. But I don't know how this plays with folks on the fence. Certainly the right can't wait to start using the speech against him.
My thoughts exactly.
I've said twice so far that I am not seeking to minimize what Jesse did, but you cannot pretend that the two candidacies are remotely comparable.
Jesse was present primarily as a dissenter. He did not run in order to be elected president. He didn't necessarily even want to run--he tried to recruit Maynard Jackson to serve as that voice instead of him.
Obama, by contrast, is on the verge of securing the nomination. Dissent is not the end purpose of his candidacy. He had everything to lose in speaking this boldly and honestly at this point, and he did it anyway.
Since it's hard to take issue with what he said in the speech, I think we'll see the right-wingers attack the very idea that he said it, i.e. attack that he's "harping on race" or "obsessed with race" or creating some non-existent racial divide rather than addressing the real issues that plague our otherwise perfect colorblind society.