For a Smart Man...

You know those seem to be right-wing attacks right?

I want my candidate for single player, even if he has to say otherwise to get elected.

Anumber of the other things are BS. Especially Rezco, where he has disclosed whay he raised, but it is understandble that he might not know exactly how much, as what he raised and what he gave are two very different amounts, and beyond events, one not easy to determine.

Also, putting the word "token" next to the name of a black man, is perhaps un-pc.

here is Obama's full race speech, which is absurdly and tendentiously mischaracterized on the Confluence blog.

What I find frustrating is that most commentators, including the risibly naive one on Confluence, have nary mentioned the fact that remarks like those of Wright were heard very differently in middle class, black community, who apparently identify with a lot of the obvious anger and frustration they express. See here

The second issue is how we should feel, normatively, about the fact that Obama maintained ties with Wright, even after presumably realizing that he held views Obama now calls deplorable. I'm not prepared to render judgment on that here. But I do worry that this lays bare a very grim truth: That even middle-class black American culture is more angry and alienated than most whites understand, and that our country is simply not yet at the point where even an ostensibly post-racial black candidate can escape that dynamic entirely. (Indeed not only was Wright perfectly acceptable to Obama and his Chicago circle, but it seems likely that it would have been difficult for Obama to separate himself from the preacher had he wanted to, lest he be accused of not being an "authentic" member of the south side black community.) In other words, what's happening here is far bigger than the particulars of Obama and Wright, it's about cultural dissonance that was going to bubble up one way or another. And as a colleague put it to me today, in terms I hope are too pessimistic: "It makes me think it's going to be at least another generation before we see a black man elected president." If Obama can prove him wrong then he really may be a world-historical figure.

Likewise, Ferrara's remarks, taken at face value, were just dumb. Only if one ignores the long history of slavery and discrimination that have made race to this day such a sensitive topic would it seem like a straightforward "demographic" remark. Merest passing acknowledgment of that history should make obvious, I would hope, why suggesting that a black candidates only qualification is being black is not only plainly incendiary but absurd.

I listened to Obama's speech three hours ago and I thought it was brilliant and heartfelt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

Obama's Speech On Race.

I guess I should elaborate. Obama did a good job of explaining how Blacks from the older generation have a lot of hate and pain in their hearts, and that is understandable as they lived through segregation and their parents or grandparents lived through some really difficult times. Can you imagine having a grandparent who was a slave, a parent or grandparent who had to live with segregation and separate water fountains?

He also addressed how poor white folk had to deal with the notion that some black person had some advantage because of affirmative action.

These are all important topics that we should be discussing.

His speech deserves a thread.

I listened to Obama's speech three hours ago and I thought it was brilliant and heartfelt.

I agree. I would say it was one of the best political speeches I've ever seen, frankly, and a distinctive one for Obama. Part of what made his earlier speeches moving, even if only in part, was Obama's exhilerating delivery. This speech, by contrast, calm and cool, and its force carried almost entirely by its content and nuance, rather than delivery. I also agree with you that his effort to articulate at once characteristic misperceptions and shared ills was especially powerful and insightful.

Finally, I think it was gutsy to deal so frankly with a topic which--he's right--is rarely ever discussed so openly. He just staked his whole candidacy, so far as I can tell. He could have simply just repudiated Wright and moved on.

Curious what the reactions will be.

I should say here that my grandmother is a Tewa. (she's dead now, so the use of "is"... well, nevermind).. anyway..

She was taken from her family by Spanish missionaries and I can tell you that she had a lot of anger inside of her. I relate to Obama in that I have not had to deal with what my grandmother had to deal with, and yet I fully understand the anger and resentment that she had for the United States of America which began its history with enslaving blacks and eradicating the American Indian. And women didn't even have the right to vote in our early days...

Curious what the reactions will be.

Me too Adam... sigh..

It just dawned upon me why I support Obama as much as I do. I've spent a lot of time comparing their history as U.S. senators and Obama's history as a state senator, and they are not that different. I would be very happy to have Hillary Clinton as our next president. In fact, I would celebrate the fact that a woman could finally after all these many years even have the remote possibility of being elected.

But being a half breed, I also understand all of the hurdles that Obama has to jump.

Women and minorities have a lot of hurdles to jump, that's for sure.

As I sit here in the United Lounge at Dulles awaiting my flight to Ethiopia in yet four more hours, I have watched the speech replayed on CNN. It is all in the passive voice. Mistakes were made. Who made them then? Certainly not moi, I'm infallible don't you know?

This was Plan D. Plan A was the Huff Obama post. Plan B was a series of interviews including the friendly confines of Keith Obamamann. Plan C was hope it would just go away with Bear Stearns. The net effect of the Wright Stuff, rocket science it ain't, hate and ignorance it is, is now a 26 point gap in Pennsylvania and growing. His numbers are approaching Bush territory. His national favor/unfavorable number is down 11 points in two weeks, 7 points since Thursday. Even more disturbing for him, not for me it is pure joy at this point, is that 35% of Americans are yet to hear of the Reverend Wright. When they do, watch out.

Judgment has been his mantra. Two 20 year relationships now hang around his neck like an albatross. He's boxed in. In a quandary, his only resort is of course what he always does when he gets desperate like in South Carolina, race-bait (he's a baiter like I wrote in Crossing the Mara) or go negative. Politics as usual. Richard Nixon had Checkers, Obama is having this Romneyesque moment. And I told you so.

I see the unusual suspects still clinging to hope forlornly. Or should I put that in the passive voice so it might resonate like an Obama speech?

Instead I'll use Latin and put it the simple past tense:

Obesa cantavit.

I will be in Africa for the next 2-3 weeks, maybe I'll bump into the Reverend Wright who has been sent into exile there. Funny what Obama does to his friends.

The passive voice for Obesa cantavit.

Aria fut cantate per obesa.

Amazing the tricks people fall for. Darfur promises greater sanity than this. My only regret is that I won't be able to watch the unraveling of Obama that I predicted back in January. I take satisfaction that yet again knowing one's history pays dividends. Obama is nothing new. An updated Richard Nixon and now he has a Checkers speech to match. Probably won't have the same effect. Checkers was a dog. The Reverend Wright pretty much a lunatic. HIV a US govt plot. FDR allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. Truman dropped the bomb without batting an eyelash (I was a Truman Scholar in college, I'm offended by this). The KKK runs America? This speech wasn't about race in America, it was about Obama trying to save his campaign. My guess tomorrow he is down another 2-3 points in Pennsylvania and down another 3-4 nationally. Tying Ferraro who was right to Wright who is wrong is utterly despicable.

Odium theologicum.

Obesa cantavit.

Barack Obama:

"And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love."

Charles Lemos:

"It is all in the passive voice. Mistakes were made. Who made them then? Certainly not moi, I'm infallible don't you know?"

This critique from someone who responded to Olbermann's comment with often juvenile and simplistic whining ("you got a woodie"), and who never bothered to in any way defend himself to the "usual suspects" who pointed out that he had become a complete self-parody, reacting only with irrational distaste and dismissive anger.

If there is anyone here playing the part of a "usual suspect" and is unable to engage with and reflect upon any mistakes that "were made," it is Mr. Lemos.

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."

That is a Jehovah's Witness speaking. What's next speaking in tongues?

That has been my experience at Trinity.

Passive voice. And when it comes to assigning blame he takes the passive. There is no ownership of responsibility. And it dismisses causally that Wright was saying stuff. Why was he flown out of the country then? Why was he forced into retirement?

We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

Patently offensive and repulsive to equate the hate and ignorance of Wright with the work and wisdom of Ferraro.

But all the above doesn't matter, you will delude yourselves into thinking what you want to hear. That's beauty of his rhetoric, there's something for everyone, but it is rhetoric. No action.

Where there is action is in the polls. 26 points in Pennsylvania and widening. A thing of beauty.

Obesa cantavit.

This was Plan D. Plan A was the Huff Obama post. Plan B was a series of interviews including the friendly confines of Keith Obamamann. Plan C was hope it would just go away with Bear Stearns.

So he picks his fights, plans his moves, and reacts to his situation... shocking. Such an obviously evil way to interact with the world. Please tell me more Mr. Lemont. And do it in Latin, that gave me a woodie.

Lemont:

Patently offensive and repulsive to equate the hate and ignorance of Wright with the work and wisdom of Ferraro.

He didn't.

Obama:

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

I was almost sure Charles would be livid that Obama didn't mention the GLBT community in his speech, but apparently his commentary is even more esoteric than that.

Why was he flown out of the country then? Why was he forced into retirement?

Care to actually look up the answers to these questions? Or do you just "know" why because that's just what Obama, or politicians "do"?

Real Clear Politics data

1. The gap in Pennsylvania is 17 points.

2. Nationally, Obama is up 2 points versus Clinton

3. President Bush currently enjoys 33% approval, 61.8% disapproval ratings. Thats a -28.8% difference. Congress has 21.3% approval, 70.7% disapproval ratings. Thats a spread of a whopping -49.4%!

Newsweek just conducted a poll that found her unfavorable rating at 70% among Republicans. She averages between 40 and 50% unfavorables for all voters.

USA Today has her at 48% favorable, 48% unfavorable. This poll came out last month.

Senator Obama's favorables declined from 56% to 48% in the past couple weeks, according to Rasmussen. Bush territory? Hardly.

The same Rasmussen poll also shows Clinton at 46% favorable, 53% unfavorable.

My point in all this?

Charles "I told you so" Lemos is still shouting at the rain, and still not getting it. Have fun in Ethiopia.

Links: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

I take satisfaction that yet again knowing one's history pays dividends. Obama is nothing new.

This is the most common flaw of the historian point of view. They begin to see the world as playing out the history that they studied. It doesn't matter what time period, or subject, or breath or focus... it colors their world view making them blind to what is going on around them. All too often the historian sees only what is the same about the current state of events and misses what is different. This blindness cuts the other way, as historians are so eager to point out. Those involved in shaping history often only see the change they are trying to create and miss what is repetition. There are very few that can take from both perspectives and see things for what they really are... they end up being the giants of art and culture.

The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

You mean the Reverend Wright who thinks that the HIV virus was created in a government lab and then dispersed as part of a plot to subvert the Negro race? That Reverend Wright? You must be kidding.

Obesa cantavit.

Charles: Let's just get the bad Romney analogies out of the way at the outset, because they are not only misleading but silly (although you are not the only one to make them ).

Romney made a pandering speech where he avoided any mention whatsoever of the Mormon faith and the history of persecution and discrimination against them as a group in the United States, and in which he implied that being American means being a Christian. Obama directly confronted the issue of discrimination in American against people of color, discussed in detail the kind of anger this engenders, explained the kind of (understandable) reactions this anger engenders in white people. Liberals always complain that politicians and the news media talk down to them like their stupid. Here a politician with the guts to try to initiate a long, detailed, and incredibly sophisticated discuss of race, which is the third-rail of politics in this country.

You may be right that making the speech was a liability. But not for the reasons you say.

Incidentally, since we're discussing the passive voice let's add: "people were discriminated against," "people were enslaved," Oh look! The passive voice! Clearly he's trying to deny accountability! (This smear would be believable, so far as I can tell, only to some only who read only those two sentence fragments, and not the detailed speech of which they were part).

It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Apparently the fact that the Indians were slaughtered is okay. Our original sin started with slavery not genocide. You might have mentioned that the reason Africans were imported was due to the fact that the Indians had been erased as people. They numbered in the millions, today they don't even account for 1% of the population. The nerve.

Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.

Make up your mind. On Friday, you said you never heard say anything remotely controversial. Which is it?

Let's be real honest. You have been caught in yet another act of deception.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

The racist Pastor who is wholly ignorant (FDR allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor?) you defend but grandma let's throw her under a bus.

Ethiopia beckons.

Caveat emptor. Obesa cantavit.

Make up your mind. On Friday, you said you never heard say anything remotely controversial. Which is it?

Not true. On Friday, he said he'd never heard anything as offensive as the comments Faux news was playing from Rev. Wright while he was in church.

Apparently the fact that the Indians were slaughtered is okay. Our original sin started with slavery not genocide. You might have mentioned that the reason Africans were imported was due to the fact that the Indians had been erased as people. They numbered in the millions, today they don't even account for 1% of the population. The nerve.

1) African "importation" (what a handy euphemism for kidnapping!) began prior to the incorporation of the United States;

2) The United States did not "start off" with genocide; it worked its way up to it. And- at least in the case of the worst offenses- we did so while protesting ourselves. Is this your personal history rearing its head again? Because the conquistadores who invaded your homeland have more to answer for on this score than minutemen do.

3) Indians aren't in the Constitution. You lose via frame of reference.

The racist Pastor who is wholly ignorant (FDR allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor?) you defend but grandma let's throw her under a bus.

Yes, explaining that you love and admire your grandmother, but acknowledging she has flaws (like the pastor) is THE EXACT SAME THING as throwing her to the wolves for being a racist. If the why of bringing her in to the speech eludes you, perhaps I could boldly suggest you "just don't get it"?

Patently offensive and repulsive to equate the hate and ignorance of Wright with the work and wisdom of Ferraro.

Obama's point was that the way both had raised the issue was patently unhelpful and only engendered further resentment.

Ferraro made rounds on all the morning talk shows, saying, essentially, "Yeah, I did say that the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, successful community organizer, U of Chicago law professor and Constitutional scholar, author of a best-selling book, candidate with more legislative experience than Hillary, and Democratic Senator who has voted with his party 96.7% of the time owes his success to the fact that he is black." To my knowledge, Wright has yet to show up on the Today show and say, "Yeah, that's right, I said 'Goddamn American!' and I'm sticking to it! So in your face!" I do not personally believe Ferraro intended her remarks to be racist; that they were construed this way, and angered many, one would have thought, might have at least elicited a clarification, rather than incendiary dismissal. She seemed to have no idea whatsoever the kind of territory she'd naively and unthinkingly stumbled into. Obama, on the other hand, tried to have an honest, mature, and nuanced discussion about race. In my view, in honesty, intelligence, and integrity, she pales in comparison to him--and that is why he is where he is.

You mean the Reverend Wright who thinks that the HIV virus was created in a government lab and then dispersed as part of a plot to subvert the Negro race? That Reverend Wright? You must be kidding.

Are you paying attention? I have been a racist, wanted to become a priest, and even thought that some citizens didn't deserve civil rights. My friends and family have all harbored strange ideas from conspiracy theories, to outright hatred. People are not perfect, people are human. THIS IS REAL LIFE YOU FOOL. Rev. Wright is not the church. The church is the 8000 people that come together to support each other and work though the struggles of their lives together. Churches are not fan clubs, they are communities. Churches are bonds that rival family, and marriage. You are petty to ignore this fact of the situation. So many people on this site have pointed out the sheer ignorance of our society, the % of people who think the Sun revolves around the Earth, or that 9-11 was an inside job, yet you are somehow shocked that someone could have known someone that holds ridiculous beliefs?

I know that this site and those posting on it have a bent towards tearing things apart. I know the game well and it was a big part of my life after leaving religion. But you're not helping. I came to love this site because it gave a balance of tearing religion down, but also of building atheists up. It gave me roll models that were putting forth respectful and intelligent discussion about theism. I believe that is what attracted so much of it's readership. As things became more political, I hoped that that same mentality would be applied to politics. For a time it was. There was cutting commentary, but people advocated their position, and their candidate with respect. And then there was 2 left in the democratic debate, and for some reason that changed. Things went from a desire to build better political minds, to a game of tearing things apart. Even more disappointing was that only one side was picked for the ripping and so we are here today.

So please, elevate your game once again. I sure need the help to elevate mine.

Dear Mr. Lemos:

In this bit from Mr. Lewis Black, we learn why your anti-Obama rants and ravings are not useful. In context, Mr. Black is talking about why Ken Starr not a good choice by the Republicans in attempting to impeach Bill Clinton.

to wit: "When you wanna catch somebody who is an asshole, you don't hire a BIGGER asshole."

every time you post you mkae want want to vote for Obama nothing because you've said (or typed)endears me to your canidate. Personally, I think any of the three canidates at this point (McCain, Obama or Hillary) would make at least a good president. all of them have valid items to vote for them on their records, as well as bad things. the only real difference is how they want to handle the country to fix the problems that Bush made.

I'm sorry about getting slightly off topic, but the point I'm trying to make is that I believe that the best way for you to help your candidate's case is to stop posting. That's not entirely fair, so I will ask then that you stop your infantile ad hominem attacks on whoever is not handling your candidate with kid gloves and start posting positive things about them.

in response to your overuse of a latin phrase, here is one of my own: Ad nauseam

it means, basically, something that has been overused to the point of inducing nausea.

it's relevant to both your latin phrase, which is both an incorrect usage of the phrase, and an extremely arrogant method of saying "I win 'cause I said so!" when overused, and to the consistent bile so published here.

I think he did as well as he could. I considered it a good speech. The question is will be is it enough or will it only appeal to the true believers. The polls in the next month will provide some clues.

I too was struck by the Pastor Wright and Geraldine Ferraro. comparison. I think many will be put off by what seemed like an implied moral equivalence.

Churches are not fan clubs, they are communities. Churches are bonds that rival family, and marriage. You are petty to ignore this fact of the situation.

Thaddeus. There was much in your recent comment worthy of serious thought, it seems to me. But the bit above was especially insightful, I think: you simultaneously identify a core component of Obama's speech, his explicitly cited reason for joining Trinity, and a much bigger, and deep, generality that is easy to ignore when we start discussing what are, per first blush, highly unusual and often wildly implausible religious notions--that among the most frequently cited reasons for religious conversions are the need to belong to, and a feeling of attunement with, a community.

I came to love this site because it gave a balance of tearing religion down, but also of building atheists up.

Me too, and I think that emphasis is important, since I sense that what is disturbing to many of us is not just religion, but politically activist religion, and the dismissal of atheists as not "genuine" Americans. The spirit of the 'It's Simply, Really,' post might represent one way of how we might begin doing this politically.

It is all in the passive voice. Mistakes were made. Who made them then? Certainly not moi, I'm infallible don't you know?

Bullshit. It was not "all in the passive voice". And dispense with the faux French shit. I speak French quite well, and I've been speaking French since I was a young lass, so you don't fool me.

The net effect of the Wright Stuff, rocket science it ain't, hate and ignorance it is, is now a 26 point gap in Pennsylvania and growing<

You have no clue what African Americans and American Indians have had to deal with. It is not ignorance. Your inability to understand what Blacks and American Indians have had to contend with in this country in the past, and the anger attached to such history, is what is ignorant. And here in the Southwest, it was the Spaniards who are responsible for oppressing the Pueblo Indians.

The fat lady has sung, eh? Just because you throw out some phrase in faux Latin doesn mean shit.

I will be in Africa for the next 2-3 weeks, maybe I'll bump into the Reverend Wright who has been sent into exile there. Funny what Obama does to his friends.

How fucking disingenuous. Obama still respects his friend, Wright, who had to deal with racism and whose ancestors were subject to slavery and separation and Jim Crow. And yet Obama is attempting to set forth an understanding of this racism from our past that we all now deal with.

This speech wasn't about race in America, it was about Obama trying to save his campaign

How the hell would you understand? You're from Colombia and you have no fucking clue about how the Spaniards forced their fucking Catholic Christianity on the Native Americans and you have no clue how much pain and discrimination that Blacks have been subjected to here in the U.S.

If there is anyone here playing the part of a "usual suspect" and is unable to engage with and reflect upon any mistakes that "were made," it is Mr. Lemos.

Amen! The usual suspect is again here spewing his partisan hateful bullshit.

thaddeusphoenix said:

And do it in Latin, that gave me a woodie. LOL!

This is the most common flaw of the historian point of view.

An historian?! LOL! The guy who referred to Doris Kearns Goodwin as "Dolores Goodwin"! LOL! Quite the faux historian and faux scholar of Latin and french.

Lemos said:

Apparently the fact that the Indians were slaughtered is okay. Our original sin started with slavery not genocide. You might have mentioned that the reason Africans were imported was due to the fact that the Indians had been erased as people. They numbered in the millions, today they don't even account for 1% of the population. The nerve.

As if you give a shit about the American Indians. Give me a fucking break! And the Africans were "imported"?! Riiight!

Let's be real honest

This comment from you, Lemos, who said that you'll do and say anything that is politically expedient takes a lot of nerve.

Baseproduct said:

If the why of bringing her in to the speech eludes you, perhaps I could boldly suggest you "just don't get it"?

I can boldly say that Lemos doesn't get it. That's perfectly clear.

Patently offensive and repulsive to equate the hate and ignorance of Wright with the work and wisdom of Ferraro

You don't get it, do you? You don't get how slavery and discrimination against Blacks was an extremely difficult thing to deal with. Do you get how Spanish Catholics oppressed the American Indian? I would guess that you don't get it..

Apparently you'll do and say anything for political purposes. Disgusting!

I haven't posted for maybe a year or two but I have been lurking around watching the readers of this blog and the Democratic party implode.

This infighting really worries me.

Oh and to sum up JoAnn's post, roar.

To Mr. Lemos, to quote Jon Stewart, "you're not helping." All you seem to do is post inflammatory remarks! You need to reply to the people that provide evidence contrary to what you're saying. Throw out a link or something man!

One final thing, McCain should get his facts straight if hes going to support the war in Iraq. How is this not scary?! He has no idea what hes talking about!

w00b: that McCain link is frightening! His ignorance is typical of the discourse on this topic in the U.S., as though we can simply lump all Muslims, or all Iraqi's together, despite the fact that they are in the midst of a complicated, sectarian civil war.

On the main issue, this is, I think, the most balanced assessment of the Obama speech I've seen yet. Clintonian critics get some points, and credit is given to Obama where it's certainly due. I don't agree with all of it, but it might help tone down the discussion by refocusing the issue.

Norm:

I too was struck by the Pastor Wright and Geraldine Ferraro. comparison. I think many will be put off by what seemed like an implied moral equivalence.

Many people have been struck by this (including Dickerson, in the link I just posted), and you raise a good point about how the comparison might be perceived--although it's not clear what your own view is, that is, whether you are among the "many" who see the comparison as a moral equivalence. I took it that no moral equivalence was implied but each was a source of criticism of the Obama and Clinton campaigns respectively, and that each, in different ways, were representative of different ways in which the topic of race had been taken up in a counterproductive way. When taken in the context of Obama's many tacit digs at the news media, and how they've treat both figures, their commonality is less a moral one than one of public perception.

Charles, your credibility is under serious trouble.

1. Your assessment of his serious treatment of the realities of race in America are pathetically dismissive. You've made clear in your previous statements about Ferraro how ignorant you are on such matters, or at least how blinded you are to that perspective. To that end, you also missed the central point of his "comparing" of Ferraro and Wright: that to focus on EITHER of these was mainly a distraction, which has been exploited for decades.

2. Your analysis is almost completely ad hominem. So he didn't mention genocide of American Indians? Well, shit, he didn't mention white indentured servants, Chinese forced labor, etc. etc. This must mean he's not serious about race and doesn't understand history. Unlike you, apparently, who has utterly impressed us all with the breadth and scope of your ingenious insights of these.

3. There are plenty of weak points in his speech, worthy of poring over (which you almost started to do in talking about how he didn't strongly enough repudiate the absurdities of Wright's comments, how he didn't address it earlier, etc.). However, rather than continue on this tack, you just plunge ahead into absurdity after absurdity, replete with Latin phrase cast-offs and "I'm off to Africa!" Oh my, Lemos, you're giving me the vapors!

I work in academia. One thing that is common to every department I've ever worked in is that the real frauds, the people who are the most precious about their credentials and their research, are the ones who flaunt it (or imagine that they do). They also talk about how "important" their work is rather than just doing it, etc. etc. Do not imagine that since you comment on blogs on the internet, that you are the most towering (or most informed) intellect in the cyber-room.

Charles Lemos, I don't know who you are but you really seem to have found a home here. Sucks for me, because this used to be one of my favorite political blogs. You are the king of the jackasses, a man who loves to hear himself speak so much that when you're not posting the most recent slanderous, unfounded, GOP talking point as the day's obligatory Obama hit piece, you're busy responding to your own fiery rhetoric,writing three long-winded and cantankerous replies in a row. You deserve sHrillary, or more likely McCain, the only two people I can think of who might possibly match you in being small-minded and meanspirited. Don't let me work you into a tizzy though, you can keep your angst focused so zealously on Obama. Don't even be tempted to aim your clever Latin epithets at me. Rest assured, I will never visit this site again.

Just to clarify on the Ferraro thing:

I agree that I don't think he himself was making a direct comparison in terms of moral equivalence. I think he was talking about both the Ferraro incident and the Wright incident as being about talking about race in all the wrong sorts of ways. That we have to confront race, but the most important thing is in fact to work on the issues that are common to all Americans (or more accurately, Americans of all races in similar situations).

That said, I can understand completely why people would take the Ferraro comment that way, and for that reason he should have left it out.

Apparently the fact that the Indians were slaughtered is okay. Our original sin started with slavery not genocide. You might have mentioned that the reason Africans were imported was due to the fact that the Indians had been erased as people. They numbered in the millions, today they don't even account for 1% of the population. The nerve.

Charles,

Apparently your history degree is from a correspondence course.

The first slave was brought over as part of one of the first colonies in the US. Before wholesale slaughter had started here. Now, as a non-history major I may be missing something, but I don't have any knowledge of European colonists trying to use American Indians as slaves.

As far as the original sin of this nation. I do believe Mr. Obama was making reference to the 3/5ths amendment in the us constitution. That being the start of this nation and the sin.

Facts, not hate Charles.

Dear Everyone,

For months now we have watched a young politician, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, display the potential to be a transformational leader. A leader who treats the electorate with respect, and who respects the office for which he is pursuing.

Today, Senator Obama ceased to be about potential. He has become, before our very eyes, the kind of transformational leader who can elevate the political discourse in this country.

Today was the first time in my life when I felt a politician spoke honestly about race. He did not pander, he did not triangulate, he did not over-simplify. He spoke to the hard truths of the American condition.

To borrow from my favorite show, this is a time for American heroes. Let us do what is hard, let us achieve what is great. This is a time for American heroes and we reach for the stars.

I think CHarles has left the building/country. Which might present us with an opportunity to discuss how best to deal with him. For instance, he clearly revels in being addressed directly. He thrives on confrontation. So if that's the oxygen to his fire, why not deprive him of it? We've seen that reasoning with him is to no avail. I think he gets off on getting a rise out of people. So, why not talk amongst ourselves and ignore his posts, unless there is something of value to be found in them, in which case they can then be referenced.

Obama's speech was nuanced and courageous, I think. Even his opponents, if they are intellectually honest, will need to recognize that, as, for example, Norm has done here. But some would challenge Obama if he said the sky was blue, for belaboring the obvious, or for not being scientifically exacting about the sky. Whatever. No, Charles is not helping. But neither are we if we rise to his bait.

Well, I don't think it's necessarily useful to avoid or ignore Charles. I think what he feeds off of is not confrontation per se (hey, so do I). But I do think he's very intellectually dishonest a lot of times. THAT part is encouraged when some of the Obamabots on here have fed into him in ways that are also not helping--because this feeds into his righteousness and arrogance. Dealing with Charles' bad arguments is straightforward enough, so let's just do that without all the invective. And he can come back for more and more punishment on that score, as far as I'm concerned.

And occasionally, Charles also does have some good points and provides an interesting, if not always rigorous, perspective. My main beef with Charles is that he seems to want to play co-blogger. Norm: I'm not calling for Charles' head, but I don't like that he's been given the pulpit of his own posts, and the best we can do is respond to him on the comments. Is this your blog or his?

But Phid makes a good point about Obama's speech: nuanced and courageous, indeed. Who knows how it will play out? And let's think of things more dialectically here than in the other crappy responses I've seen: yes, it's his Checkers speech. But it's ALSO a clear call to arms on a subject that's dear to him.

Is it too much to ask that we can recognize it for being a political career speech, that at the same time aspires to be more? It's both, and those things are not necessarily contradictory.

When did we Americans become such uncouth cynics?

That. speech. was. EPIC!

He just stepped up, looked everyone square in the face, and owned the issue. It was an incredible and exciting moment in politics.

And why it is not being celebrated here in the Blog of Misery that 1gm has become, is a complete mystery. Charles' entry certainly marked a significant change in tone and vibe, though.

Little Mickey,

Read my post at 9:52pm. I'm with you, today was a great day for America.

Brett

Having just finished listening the Obama's speech, my impression was that it was at the same time one of the most honest, realistic, and yet progressive and energizing speeches on race I've ever heard from an American politician.

Charles Lemos: Your hatred of Obama has reached truly loony proportions but your ad hominem attacks have been so well dealt with by Adam, JoAnn, Fierce Pika and others - you really don't deserve any more attention for your tantrums.

Charles, you have served one constructive purpose: So many of the same posters have done so well in defending Obama and in linking to his positions on this blog that I am no longer undecided: I'm for him. Your concerns about his charismatic style are deeply colored by your hatred and cynicism. I think all thinking Americans have become so cynical about our political process, that we are scared as hell to acknowledge the most obvious quality Obama has that Clinton lacks: leadership. It is a potentially dangerous quality - if he is indeed the demagogue you fear him to be - but frankly, he doesn't speak like a demagogue, he doesn't campaign like a demagogue, he doesn't behave like a demagogue. Leadership imbues a politician with great potential to do good or harm, but if we are going to go with a technocrat like Hillary, I'm afraid we'll get stuck in four years (at least) or political trench warfare - and that's only if she gets elected.

If Obama is nominated, Hillary Clinton will not only fall into line but will work hard to get Obama elected - and I think Obama will do the same if the situation is reversed. But if Obama campaigns against McCain giving speeches like this one, he'll kick McCain's ass - hard. And a good hard ass-kicking is what the GOP richly needs and deserves.

I am watching CNN right now, with all these black pastors, objecting to the characterization of pastor wright. They are to a one, defending him. Stating that we are seeing snippets on TV, etc. Stating that they agree with perhaps not his exact words but the actual beliefs.

Does anyone have some decent links on a full sermon with some of the controversial comments, not just a few bits? So maybe all of us can judge it better.

Finally, i am so happy that we are having a contest with such good presidential candidates, and we are hearing speeches that actually talk about important things. Hopefully Hillary will come up to the plate and talk about her vision of America in a similar way. I would love someone to give a talk like this on international policy, or political ethics. Hillary could give the John Edwards like speech on poverty and our responsiblity to the poor and working class.

Norm: "I don't know where the OGM refugees are meeting or I'd post a link."

There aren't that many refugees, I imagine. The fact that we're hanging out here rather than some pro-Obama echo chamber is a credit to the blog but also perhaps to our numbers. There are much worse places to be an Obama supporter. Living at Kos and defying the majority would be unbearable for anyone. Sometimes it's unbearable when I agree.

Some of Obama's moves are not quite precise. Equating Wright with his grandma and with Ferraro wasn't a perfect fit, as ticked as I am at Ferraro. But the speech couldn't be just about Wright or just about black militancy. It couldn't be a "Sister Souljah" moment. He was able to talk about the frustrations of whites in a way that almost no liberal--black or white--usually does. And a guy raised by whites was able to authenticate black frustrations even as he repudiated some of the expressions of these frustrations. This is what Obama has done from the beginning of his campaign--change the terms of the debate. It's what Bill Clinton was able to do to some degree some years ago, but Hillary never has.

Charles: "Apparently the fact that the Indians were slaughtered is okay. Our original sin started with slavery not genocide."

Yeah, I'm sure Obama is fine with wiping Indians off the face of the earth. When the Constitution was written many abuses had been perpetrated, but the genocide of the native people was not accomplished nor was it an institutional fact. Slavery was indeed the original sin of the American regime--the founding document was built to accomodate it, and when an anti-slavery majority was firmly in place, the Constitution lacked the resources to stamp out the practice.

"Tying Ferraro who was right to Wright who is wrong is utterly despicable."

Ferraro was despicable. Liberals know very well that a big part of white America actually thinks that not only is racism a myth, but that blacks get all the breaks--affirmative action, welfare, white guilt, etc. This claim is itself a racist lie, and Ferraro--a supposed liberal--promoted it. Lemos has just joined Ferraro in Rush Limbaugh country. There is no difference between the worst comments of Limbaugh on race and what Ferraro said. Rush got fired from ESPN for saying something that was mild compared to Ferraro's comment. Many of Hillary's supporters show themselves to be exactly the same as the far right on race.

It's really a dumb, speculative sort of thought experiment to imagine what Obama would be if he weren't black. He wouldn't be Obama, he probably wouldn't be married to Michelle, or belong to Pastor Wright's church. His resume? A good looking, impressive speaker with a pretty amazing young law career and a short career in public office. Sounds a lot like a white guy who came pretty close twice. Except Edwards' legal career isn't nearly as impressive, nor is his career as an elected official as long as Obama's. But you know, black guys get all the breaks....

"I too was struck by the Pastor Wright and Geraldine Ferraro. comparison. I think many will be put off by what seemed like an implied moral equivalence."

Both incidents are about racial ignorance Norm...what would be unbalanced would be to only focus on one, while ignoring the later.

On a less related subject, Charles has become no less than annoying at this point. I don't even want to comment on what he has to say here(which as always is a LOT)...he seems to me to be like a child, kicking and screaming with hands held firmly over his ears. You can't communicate rationally with a person of this nature, the best thing you can do is to just leave him alone to scream.

"He just stepped up, looked everyone square in the face, and owned the issue. It was an incredible and exciting moment in politics."

I agree...it doesn't put an end to all the other issues that he is, or may continue to be week on, but you would have to be more than a little bit cynical to not appreciate what he has done here in this speech(this all comming form a VERY cynical person ;)).

I've been distrustful of Obama, and sympathetic for Clinton (but I'll vote for either of them), and I thought this speech was very, very good. It's high time race was discussed this bluntly (by a politician). I thought, as Jon Stewart did, that for once we were being spoken to like adults. "Preachers" don't speak to us like adults, and the less he talks like one, the more I like him.

Charles Lemos said (7 weeks ago):

On onegoodmove, Norm asked me to contribute on issues such as the role of corporations in civil society, income inequality, Friedmanism and global poverty, and natural resource depeletion.I may also contribute on subjects such as game theory in regards to politics, geo-politics, evolution and items of historical interests as they arise.

These interests have apparently shifted to political flame-bait. His better contributions stuck to those subjects that Norm suggested.

I promise that my future contributions while perhaps still provocative will also be less polemical and less full of hyperole.

How's that coming along?

I've read every single comments and I'm afraid that I can't respond to each and every one but I will note that many point out valid and fair criticisms that I have taken to heart.

He should. Given the very good rebuttals he's received but not responded to, he must be taking quite a lot to heart.

Fierce Pika said:

Dealing with Charles' bad arguments is straightforward enough, so let's just do that without all the invective.

Norm, could you define "personal crap" precisely, so we know if we or, for example, Charles, are transgressing against that rule?

Norm:

Comments that deal more with personalities than with issues.

Fair enough, but can we at least consider this in a larger context? If a person launches an unfair, even hateful, slew of invectives on a candidate that would make Bill O'Reilly blush, why is it not OK to point out the kind of influence this has on the quality of discussion, especially when it plainly provokes anger and resentment? Or that the tone of exchange on this blog have changed considerably since it became a two candidate race, to such an extent that you have more than once had to post a thread with such titles as 'To the point on rational discussion'?

Surely Charles is not alone to be blamed for the latter. But plainly several us think is influence on some topics has been both distinctive and distinctively offensive. I could hide behind the 'oh but I'm making an obvious sociological observation' fig-leaf, but I'm not big on discussing Charles in the third-person and in his absence. On the other hand, since the topic has come up, and I believe it to be important to me and--plainly--some others, I'll make a second-person address, to which anyone else is free to object or add.

Charles: I think on a lot of topics--3rd parties, the economy--you've offered thoughtful and insightful commentary, and been a generous interlocutor. But I find your remarks on Obama to be almost consistently so far beyond the pale as to be literally bewildering. Granted, many of us have made an occasionally unfair remark about a candidate not backed up by argument, very much including me. But the extent, degree, and rigid consistency with which you do so, on this topic, I suspect many of us find simply defamatory and offensive. And it derails discussion: more than half this thread has been sidetracked on defending Obama from such absurd charges as that he didn't mention an irrelevant issue about native Americans when he was trying to explicitly address a difficult, complicated, and highly sensitive topic with some measure of nuance and honesty. There is much that deserves comment, and perhaps criticism, in that speech, but let's leave the kitchen sink out of it.

I will simply stop responding to remarks like that, and I encourage others who have expressed discouragement on this score to do so as well. That is the only way I know how to get back to having the kind of conversations most of us come here to have.

I completely agree with you Adam.

It is expecting too much of him to include everything like the genocide and forced relocation of the Native Americans, the forced labor of Chinese immigrants to build the western rail roads, or in more recent history the Alien and Sedition Acts. The man only has so much time to talk. I, as a Chinese-American, do not feel neglected because he didn't include an example that intimately spoke to me. I got the point and that's what matters, at least to me.

keep up the personal crap and you take take your comments elsewhere.

That was too personal?

There is no need for a strategy for dealing with any commenter.

The strategy that Fierce Pika put forth was to deal with bad arguments rather than deal with the "bad" commenter. This is a general stategy that seems entirely consistent with the spirit of the forum rules.

Whether an individual responds to your specific criticism is not really that important. Your comments are for everyone. By responding to the issues that are raised you can elevate the discussion to what matters.

I agree that getting a response is not the point. However, I do think it's important to at least read the responses that one's post receives. To take a sort of "fire-and-forget" approach to posting shows disregard for others' ideas. The forums should be egalitarian in the sense that no one person's time and opinions are assumed to be more important than another's.

You don't need to point out the shortcomings of others, those are obvious to all.

Fair enough.

This was by far my most favourite speech by Obama. Somebody (a pundit maybe or commentator on this blog) once said that when you come away from an Obama speech you feel good but you don't remember any of the content or substance (some people reason cause there isn't any). But this time his story of his grandmother and her moments of racial prejudices really resonated. The reason is that my grandparents have prejudices ingrained in them. I love my grandparents but there are moments when they make comments I feel are repugnant. I have never tried to discuss the issue directly with them. In fact I don't even tell them that I date girls of other races. I really don't want to start a fight with them. But I do know they have recognized the changes in society around them. So I do have hope.

Back to Obama's speech I would really be interested in what makes a good speech. In particular why is this speech so good. To me there has to be a perfect confluence of substance and oratory. I really don't want to believe that a person with great oratory skills could persuade me with a speech inspired by Mein Kempf. Is this the demagoguery fear that Charles speaks of?

Charles Lemos:Politics::Deepak Chopra:Quantum Physics

Only charles can take a speech given on how racial politics is hurtful when talked about this way, and then go on to talk about race in such a way.

I'm glad everyone here obliterated most of charles' distracting posts above.

Having just finished listening the Obama's speech, my impression was that it was at the same time one of the most honest, realistic, and yet progressive and energizing speeches on race I've ever heard from an American politician.

I'm sorry, I can't help but agree

Off topic, but I thought I'd share. I believe someone asked for some of Wright's other sermons. Well, I'm a college student so paying for them isn't happening. But I did find the sermon that was the inspiration for The Audacity of Hope.

Since we're off topic anyway, I thought I'd drop another Sullivan jem I suspect some other readers might appreciate.

gem, that is. Dammit, I'm tired.

Norm, to some extent I think you're right: there was a little bit of hypocrisy in what I posted. I guess what got my ire up is that whenever we challenge Charles on some of his more outrageous statements, he acts as if our outrage is unwarranted and beneath comment.

The Latin phrases were actually kind of funny, though, gotta hand it to him.

So, okay, Charles: I for one don't think the more outrageous of your statements shouldn't go unchallenged. And beyond the ad hominems, would you mind spelling out in detail what you find so fundamentally flawed about Obama? I think there are legit issues concerning experience, policy, and so on. But as someone else posted above: he demonstrates a lot of character and leadership qualities, without the appearance, at least, of any demagoguery.

You may rightly be wary of his "pretty speeches," but I don't think these are delivered cynically (or at least not any more cynically than any political speeches are). Yesterday made it clear that he doesn't pander, even if he does try to persuade and hit the "right" notes. Further, whether you like it or not rhetoric does actually matter--it's a tool of persuasion, and it sets the tone for debate. Bush's poor speaking skills are not merely about demonstrating his thoughtlessness, stubbornness, or tenuous relationship with English. They color the terms of how we talk about what he talks about. At the moment, his rhetoric seems utterly impotent and irrelevant and untrustworthy (which in part it is), but it also means there is no meaningful discussion of policy, and so it goes.

Rhetoric is how leaders articulate their policy, sure, but also their vision of what they want for the country. It is also no real indication, one way or the other, as to the policy smarts, the personal fortitude, the capacity for dealmaking, etc., that the candidate has--one way or the other.

There's nothing wrong with having vision, is there, Charles? Or do you think all visions result in authoritarianism? Coming from Latin America I can understand why you might be suspicious. But I'm beginning to wonder whether suspicion (in addition to perhaps more legitimate factors) has given way to paranoia and hyperventilation.

Although I'll give you this: I don't like the explicit way that Obama linked Hillary with McCain and Bush today. He could have made the point in a different way.

I don't like the explicit way that Obama linked Hillary with McCain and Bush today.

I haven't yet seen his Iraq speech so I don't know what he said. Was it worse than when Hillary implied that John McCain was a more worthy candidate than Barack Obama?

"Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign; I will bring a lifetime of experience; and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002."

Was it worse than when Hillary implied that John McCain was a more worthy candidate than Barack Obama?

She didn't imply this was the case; she said so directly, after people apparently didn't take the hint that she was the "experience" candidate, and that this was very, very important.

I've decided we all need a little levity

a little levity

lol - literally - lol with tears. :o) Thanks for posting that.