Obama, by contrast, is on the verge of securing the nomination.
I hope you're right. I'm hella curious how this speech is going to play in the PA primaries (assuming anyone remembers it in a week or so...after all, maybe someone will turn up S&M photos involving some senator or governor).
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 think you overstate the 'literate people support obama' vote. this won't undo the wright 'controversy' but it will push back a bit, if not from people hearing the speech (tho i think it will change some minds there) then in the news media push that follows
The fuck you doing reading Little Green Footballs, son? I mean, I like to read stupid winger blogs and mock them, but LGF is way too far gone for me to find it funny.
The fuck you doing reading Little Green Footballs, son? I mean, I like to read stupid winger blogs and mock them, but LGF is way too far gone for me to find it funny.
haha well Odub got me to trolling the right-wing blogs to see the reaction to the speech, and, well LGF just came to mind as a good starting point. next stop: michelle malkin!
and dude, you gotta see some humor in some of his posts! so many laughs over the years for me.
hahaha I was just reading that entry. it's not the LGF blogger, it's the dude who wrote that photo essay that comes through with the comedy:
"Five years to many what? I kept looking around for the second banner that must have had the rest of the sentence. Something like, "5 YEARS TO MANY OF US SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME TO WIN A WAR" or something.
But I'm saying - that speech was golden to the people who like Obama already. What makes you think it's going to win converts from the White base that Obama needs to build on? Because he acknowledges that white people hate school busing? I think Kaus makes some good points in terms of how White people don't want to "talk that back in the day shit."
no question that there is a lot of faith in the american ppl's intelligence obama has in using this speech as a defense. but it will turn the media tide in his favor for a minute, which gives him breathing room. he also commandeered the news cycle away from clinton, who just received two superdelegates and likely edwards endorsement
no question that there is a lot of faith in the american ppl's intelligence obama has in using this speech as a defense. but it will turn the media tide in his favor for a minute, which gives him breathing room. he also commandeered the news cycle away from clinton, who just received two superdelegates and likely edwards endorsement
I'm sorry, but the media opinion of the Obama speech is overwhelmingly negative. Look around. It appears that Rupert Murdoch's ownership of the WSJ is proving to be more heavy-handed thanpreviously expected, judging from their reductive editorial related to what schoolteachers might refer to in future classrooms as Obama's "Philadelphia Speech." I'm actually hard-pressed to find many positive words in the mainstream media given to this oratory.
no question that there is a lot of faith in the american ppl's intelligence obama has in using this speech as a defense. but it will turn the media tide in his favor for a minute, which gives him breathing room. he also commandeered the news cycle away from clinton, who just received two superdelegates and likely edwards endorsement
I'm sorry, but the media opinion of the Obama speech is overwhelmingly negative. Look around. It appears that Rupert Murdoch's ownership of the WSJ is proving to be more heavy-handed thanpreviously expected, judging from their reductive editorial related to what schoolteachers might refer to in future classrooms as Obama's "Philadelphia Speech." I'm actually hard-pressed to find many positive words in the mainstream media given to this oratory.
are you serious? It was overwhelmingly positive - you even had joe scarborough and the author of the bell curve talking about how it was like, the speech of a generation.
headlines: Barack Obama shows amazing grace New York Daily News, NY - 2 hours ago
Chicagoans: Obama 'right on target' Chicago Sun-Times, United States - 1 hour ago
Obama Confronts Racial Division The Associated Press - 1 hour ago
Obama attacks racial divide Baltimore Sun, United States - 3 hours ago
Invited to Wrestle in a Racial Mud Pit, Obama Soars Above It Washington Post, United States - 6 hours ago
Obama calls for racial healing Chicago Tribune, United States - 4 hours ago
Obama stands his unique ground on race Los Angeles Times, CA - 3 hours ago
Left and right, radio talkers praise Barack Obama speech New York Daily News, NY - 2 hours ago
Speech Aimed at Diverse Audiences Draws Some Comparisons to JFK Washington Post, United States - 8 hours ago
etc etc etc. The NY Times also has a big editorial about how important the speech was and theyve been in the tank for hillary for a minute, including a front page article musing about the possibility of obama being shot shortly before primaries.
are there exceptions? sure. but the overwhelming response has been positive
rhetoric: Pure shit as usual from obama. It seems to have become fashionable to compare obama to lincoln but such a comparison is beyond ridicule. Lincoln was a first rate stylist, his finest speeches demonstrating a literary craftmanship few can equal. Obama on the other hand shows no such talent. His speeches are rife with cliche and he usually opts to to pick a metaphor off the shelf rather than create his own. A good thing too since his rare forrays into rhetorical originality are usually regrettable, note "it is not the bigness of our problems but the smallness of our politics". One: this device is just hack, TWO: Bigness? lolerz
Intellectual substance: NONE. I know you people are the type to confuse length for content but ask yourself just what the meat of this was. It was the following "white people have problems, blacks have problems too! lets be a big happy family and solve them together by voting for me yay!". FUCK OBAMA
The Right Wing response has been appalling. That guy Major Garrett on FOX (is that his real name?) took issue with Obama comparing Wright with something like Obama's grandma's "much more subtle racial stereotype." I puked a little in my mouth, when FOX later ran a story about McCain's trip to the Middle East; they really emphasized that McCain "misspoke" when he mixed up Sunnis and Shiites -- as if our Middle East expert and intelligence work would mix up something so rudimentary.
I liked the way CNN's black commentator from Chicago (Roland something) took issue with the way people were calling for Obama to "disown" his pastor -- something that shouldn't and doesn't jive at all with what Christianity teaches.
Speaking as an outsider: Great political speech as a political speech - how much of an impact it will make with folks who are not on his side, I don't know. I agree with Spanky and Faux on the Middle East comment - it felt out of place. I may be nit-picking, but I also found it interesting he didn't include imams in the section where he asks how many people have disagreed with what their pastors, priests or rabbis have said at one point or another - I mean if you're going to go there, then go there...is it that he is trying to distance himself from Islam given questions around his faith?
A good mix of personal anecdotes, let's-work-together-on-solutions-and-not-get bogged-down-by-the-problems take on things, good approach to the Ferraro situation; he didn't dwell on it - came off confident and not opportunistic, and kept bringing it back to the pastor so he can't be accused of trying to avoid the issue or distract from it. I've talked with some folks who disagree with me, but I didn't feel there was an apologetic tone to the speech, which I really liked.
by the way. i still think Obama is toast. again, my prediction. Obama's negatives continue to rise as people start to realize he is pretty much like every other politician. Hillary wins PA by enough to make the argument that she has the momentum, but more importantly that she can win the big swing states necessary to win the general election (PA, TX, OH). Superdelegates, who are all elected officials and understand how elections work put Hillary over the top in the end. Hillary picks Obama to be VP because otherwise the 30% of the voters who are "Obama or nobody" voters don't turn out for the general.
Comments
I hope you're right. I'm hella curious how this speech is going to play in the PA primaries (assuming anyone remembers it in a week or so...after all, maybe someone will turn up S&M photos involving some senator or governor).
Yeah, the Nat'l Review critics made both points:
1) He's not dissing Wright enough and
2) Obama is making his campaign about race.
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/4972/cnnqv6.jpg
Some sad shit.
what do you mean?
What's the issue here?
The fuck you doing reading Little Green Footballs, son? I mean, I like to read stupid winger blogs and mock them, but LGF is way too far gone for me to find it funny.
haha well Odub got me to trolling the right-wing blogs to see the reaction to the speech, and, well LGF just came to mind as a good starting point. next stop: michelle malkin!
http://www.slate.com/id/2186845/
http://www.theroot.com/id/45336
hahaha I was just reading that entry. it's not the LGF blogger, it's the dude who wrote that photo essay that comes through with the comedy:
"Five years to many what? I kept looking around for the second banner that must have had the rest of the sentence. Something like, "5 YEARS TO MANY OF US SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME TO WIN A WAR" or something.
But there never was a second banner. "
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f0/Micky_kaus_lrg-thumb.jpg
the root article, if written 5-6 months ago, would have been droning pessimistically about how obama couldnt even become competitive in the primary
I'm sorry, but the media opinion of the Obama speech is overwhelmingly negative. Look around. It appears that Rupert Murdoch's ownership of the WSJ is proving to be more heavy-handed thanpreviously expected, judging from their reductive editorial related to what schoolteachers might refer to in future classrooms as Obama's "Philadelphia Speech." I'm actually hard-pressed to find many positive words in the mainstream media given to this oratory.
headlines:
Barack Obama shows amazing grace
New York Daily News, NY - 2 hours ago
Chicagoans: Obama 'right on target'
Chicago Sun-Times, United States - 1 hour ago
Obama Confronts Racial Division
The Associated Press - 1 hour ago
Obama attacks racial divide
Baltimore Sun, United States - 3 hours ago
Invited to Wrestle in a Racial Mud Pit, Obama Soars Above It
Washington Post, United States - 6 hours ago
Obama calls for racial healing
Chicago Tribune, United States - 4 hours ago
Obama stands his unique ground on race
Los Angeles Times, CA - 3 hours ago
Left and right, radio talkers praise Barack Obama speech
New York Daily News, NY - 2 hours ago
Speech Aimed at Diverse Audiences Draws Some Comparisons to JFK
Washington Post, United States - 8 hours ago
etc etc etc. The NY Times also has a big editorial about how important the speech was and theyve been in the tank for hillary for a minute, including a front page article musing about the possibility of obama being shot shortly before primaries.
are there exceptions? sure. but the overwhelming response has been positive
My critique
rhetoric: Pure shit as usual from obama. It seems to have become fashionable to compare obama to lincoln but such a comparison is beyond ridicule. Lincoln was a first rate stylist, his finest speeches demonstrating a literary craftmanship few can equal. Obama on the other hand shows no such talent. His speeches are rife with cliche and he usually opts to to pick a metaphor off the shelf rather than create his own. A good thing too since his rare forrays into rhetorical originality are usually regrettable, note "it is not the bigness of our problems but the smallness of our politics". One: this device is just hack, TWO: Bigness? lolerz
Intellectual substance: NONE. I know you people are the type to confuse length for content but ask yourself just what the meat of this was. It was the following "white people have problems, blacks have problems too! lets be a big happy family and solve them together by voting for me yay!". FUCK OBAMA
I liked the way CNN's black commentator from Chicago (Roland something) took issue with the way people were calling for Obama to "disown" his pastor -- something that shouldn't and doesn't jive at all with what Christianity teaches.
A good mix of personal anecdotes, let's-work-together-on-solutions-and-not-get bogged-down-by-the-problems take on things, good approach to the Ferraro situation; he didn't dwell on it - came off confident and not opportunistic, and kept bringing it back to the pastor so he can't be accused of trying to avoid the issue or distract from it. I've talked with some folks who disagree with me, but I didn't feel there was an apologetic tone to the speech, which I really liked.
The Ashley ending was weak imo.
Robber Barons
I thought it started out weak, and I was wondering where the hell he was going with it.
But, i thought it finished strong, with the, 'start of a more perfect union,' etc.