Obama's speech on race

[Chris]

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

This is a very important speech that addresses the modern day prejucides and challenges all races face in America. I recommend you take the time to watch the whole thing.

[Punisher]

I'm not voting this year so ???

[Ratboy]

This belongs in Politics forum.

[HorseHead]

can Obama play Left Tackle?

[Ratboy]

can Obama play Left Tackle?

Probably better than he can play QB.

[omgzlollll U R SEW RACEST!!]

[Punisher]

can Obama play Left Tackle?

he has a Kicker Type body Ha!

[bronco militia]

yeah, this speach was so important that Obama slipped in the public polls


yawn

talk is cheap.

[Smiling Assassin27]

to the Butt wit' ya...

[Beantown Bronco]

to the Butt wit' ya...

it can be merged with the one in the war and politics forum. it's going pretty strong over there.

[Blue Crusher]

I'm sure,you live long enough to realize that ALL of them are crooks,Liars,and theives.
Kind of like Bill belichek....

Belichek '08!!!

[Punisher]

This is not for the Butt pretty much everyone is going Off topic its the Off season if your not for Politics ya should of never clicked on this Thread anyway

[Jason in LA]

Forget left tackle, can he stop the run.

[Prodigal19]

yeah, this speach was so important that Obama slipped in the public polls


yawn

talk is cheap.

whats a speach?

Not hard to find things to criticize about anything anyone says. Nobody said that every sentence in his speech was important.

[24champ]

Wonder if that speech was plagiarized...

[gunns]

Wonder if that speech was plagiarized...


Well I doubt he got it from Bush. Made too much sense.

[NW Bolt Fan]

It's too bad it was RE-action instead of PRO-action... Nonetheless, pretty good.

[Chris]

It's too bad it was RE-action instead of PRO-action... Nonetheless, pretty good.

That's a good point but I think instead of disassociating himself with the man completely he stuck with what he believed and took the opportunity to tackle the much larger and politically risky issue of racism.

[rmsanger]

There's no speeches in Football.... THERE's NO SPEECHES in FOOTBALL!!!
Next...

[Atlas]

One of the best speeches I have ever heard. Amazingly, the best speech I ever heard was Bush's 911 speach. "We won't rest, we won't falter and we won't fail".
One of Bush's shining moments.

[Chris]

Bush failed us, as far as I'm concerned.

[Drek]

One of the best speeches I have ever heard. Amazingly, the best speech I ever heard was Bush's 911 speach. "We won't rest, we won't falter and we won't fail".
One of Bush's shining moments.

So how did we meet those goals when Bush broke records with all those "working vacations" (rest), we've stumbled repeatedly at controlling insurgents throughout the war we're currently in (faltering), and now the head of intelligence recently released a report that claims Al Qaeda is more powerful than ever before(failure)?

Bush had some good speech writers for a while, but he's been an absolute **** president. Definitely not the worst ever, but a significant step down from Clinton, Bush Sr., or Reagan. Hell, he's worse than Carter was.

[sirhcyennek81]

That's a good point but I think instead of disassociating himself with the man completely he stuck with what he believed and took the opportunity to tackle the much larger and politically risky issue of racism.


By accusing his white grandmother of racism, basically saying if my white grandmother says racist things, than its ok for my former pastor to say them too. This "speech" was designed to stop the bleeding, nothing more.


:Broncos:

[orinjkrush]

i wannabe president...i wannebe president...i wannabe president

watch the slowly swinging pendulum...

i wannabe president...i wannebe president...i wannabe president

you are feeling very sleepy...and warm....

[Hawaii_Guy]

Well at least the past 7 years we have had a good person in office and not a lieing cheating guy.

[Hotwheelz]

By accusing his white grandmother of racism, basically saying if my white grandmother says racist things, than its ok for my former pastor to say them too. This "speech" was designed to stop the bleeding, nothing more.


:Broncos:

You totally missed the point, didn't you?

[BroncoBuff]

Bush failed us, as far as I'm concerned.
That's putting it mildly.

[TailgateNut]

Well at least the past 7 years we have had a good person in office and not a lieing cheating guy.


:rofl:

[Broncojef]

By accusing his white grandmother of racism, basically saying if my white grandmother says racist things, than its ok for my former pastor to say them too. This "speech" was designed to stop the bleeding, nothing more.


:Broncos:

I wonder if he told his grandmother he would be throwing her under the bus to try to save his political career. I hate socialism as it is let alone someone who has a pastor like his for a role model. I'm no Bush fan but I'll be shocked if and when Barrack ever lists out how his change will occur. This coupled with the fact his wife has never been proud of America is a disgrace. I just hope he's not a Bronco fan, I'd have to reconsider my allegiances.

[NW Bolt Fan]

That's a good point but I think instead of disassociating himself with the man completely he stuck with what he believed and took the opportunity to tackle the much larger and politically risky issue of racism.As long as he spoke the truth- very little risk for him based on his heritage. How can he insult someone "culturally" when he is a representative...

Here in politically correct strangled America, one cannot discuss generalities of another race without being racist. Unfortunate, but true- in perception.

[Atlas]

So how did we meet those goals when Bush broke records with all those "working vacations" (rest), we've stumbled repeatedly at controlling insurgents throughout the war we're currently in (faltering), and now the head of intelligence recently released a report that claims Al Qaeda is more powerful than ever before(failure)?

Bush had some good speech writers for a while, but he's been an absolute **** president. Definitely not the worst ever, but a significant step down from Clinton, Bush Sr., or Reagan. Hell, he's worse than Carter was.

I hate Bush and everything he has done. What I said was that speech was his shining moment.

[Drek]

I hate Bush and everything he has done. What I said was that speech was his shining moment.

I'd agree, it was all downhill from there.

Thing is, it wasn't Bush's speech. Someone wrote it for him, he just mouthed it. Obama actually takes part in his own speech writing. Thanks to the fact that, well, he's actually smart.

Bush got into the ivy leagues thanks to legacy and the fam having the bankroll to eat tuition costs 100%. Obama got in in part thanks to a diverse background and affirmative action, but primarly because he's damn smart. He then went attended arguably the best law school in the country and went on to teach there. He's a bright guy. Most intelligent presidential candidate we've had in a long damn time, and it just so happens that education is directly related to social and legal issues.

[Rohirrim]

I'd agree, it was all downhill from there.

Thing is, it wasn't Bush's speech. Someone wrote it for him, he just mouthed it. Obama actually takes part in his own speech writing. Thanks to the fact that, well, he's actually smart.

Bush got into the ivy leagues thanks to legacy and the fam having the bankroll to eat tuition costs 100%. Obama got in in part thanks to a diverse background and affirmative action, but primarly because he's damn smart. He then went attended arguably the best law school in the country and went on to teach there. He's a bright guy. Most intelligent presidential candidate we've had in a long damn time, and it just so happens that education is directly related to social and legal issues.

I'm still trying to figure out how a C student from Yale gets into Harvard business school. (jk - Bush's entire life can be summed up in one word - Strings).

Obama's father had a PHD in economics, BTW. Too bad he didn't stick around and teach his son something.

[JCMElway]

One of the best speeches I have ever heard. Amazingly, the best speech I ever heard was Bush's 911 speach. "We won't rest, we won't falter and we won't fail".
Bush's one shining moment.

Fixed it for you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Fixed it for you.

http://www.bartcop.com/osamawho_2.jpg

[sirhcyennek81]

I'm still trying to figure out how a C student from Yale gets into Harvard business school. (jk - Bush's entire life can be summed up in one word - Strings).

Obama's father had a PHD in economics, BTW. Too bad he didn't stick around and teach his son something.


Al Gore had his father pull strings to get him into college. I am not sure if that is a valid complaint though. Most parents will try to do anything they can to get their kids into good schools.


:Broncos:

[Bob]

By accusing his white grandmother of racism, basically saying if my white grandmother says racist things, than its ok for my former pastor to say them too. This "speech" was designed to stop the bleeding, nothing more.


:Broncos:

Anyone who is intellectually honest would see the excuses...

Listen to what this bigot keeps saying -- he screwed up again just recently -- I heard it with my own ears -- and it gets buried by the drive-by media.

[Rohirrim]

Al Gore had his father pull strings to get him into college. I am not sure if that is a valid complaint though. Most parents will try to do anything they can to get their kids into good schools.


:Broncos:

No he didn't. After serving in Vietnam he got a Rockefeller Scholarship to go to Vanderbilt. Many don't know this, but Gore was a divinity student, along with journalism.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No he didn't. After serving in Vietnam he got a Rockefeller Scholarship to go to Vanderbilt. Many don't know this, but Gore was a divinity student, along with journalism.

sirhcyennek81 obviously comes form the "repeat a lie often enough..." school.

He's probably still telling people the one about Gore and the Internet too.

[baja]

Anyone who is intellectually honest would see the excuses...

Listen to what this bigot keeps saying -- he screwed up again just recently -- I heard it with my own ears -- and it gets buried by the drive-by media.

Bob everyone is a racist , it's just a matter of the degree.

I say let this go, if we insist on these witch hunts on these presidential candidates than we will never find the person needed at this time of global transition.

Bottom line is ya gotta like Obama's upside...

[Rohirrim]

Bob everyone is a racist , it's just a matter of the degree.

I say let this go, if we insist on these witch hunts on these presidential candidates than we will never find the person needed at this time of global transition.

Bottom line is ya gotta like Obama's upside...

Once again, I'm stuck in a presidential election. McCain is hands down the worst possible choice. Pretty much just Bush, Phase II. Obama's lack of experience worries me. The fact that he was caught off guard by this Pastor Wright thing gives me some pause about his judgment and understanding of the real, political world. I'm really worried that he would be somewhat of an insular kind of intellectual in office. Hell, the guy is basically a law professor. But I would still take him a thousand times over Insane McCain.

I suppose, out of three left, I would take Billary, if not just so we could send Bubba around the world as some kind of roving ambassador to patch up Dubya's offenses. Plus, the Billary team, if not Billary herself, have proven their competency in the past. Still, the Clinton's would bring few of the changes required and I despise their stand on NAFTA, WTO, etc. She's the most bought out candidate of the three, so I'm sure K Street would love to see her in the WH. It would probably be earmark heaven for the politicians. So, boil it down and the only reason I prefer Billary over Obama is because her foreign policy team is more seasoned and I think that is a more crucial issue than domestic issues right now.

The other key issue is economics. Unfortunately, none of these candidates is any better than the other on that subject. Of course, McCain is a complete boob when it comes to the subject, so the other two have him there. But once again, the Billary economic team has already been in the fight once before and Obama has basically co-opted members of the old Clinton team who are not with Billary, so that's a wash. They're both centrists, so we can't expect much change there.

I'm beginning to realize that, no matter who gets elected, it will be years before we can pull out of Iraq, so our nation has this bleeding wound that can't be staunched. No doubt, this weakness of ours, put on us by Bush, is the reason China felt they could go ahead into Tibet and start murdering people again. Hell, they own our note. What are we going to say?

What worries me the most is that Obama will get elected and be like Carter; In over his head from day one. It will take him two years to figure out simply how to pull the strings and by that time, the country will be falling apart. Then, after his one, disastrous term in office, the Repugs take over for 16 more years. That's what scares me.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Obama isn't just a "law professor". He spent years as a grassroots community organizer in Chicago after getting his law degree learning how to get things done by crossing the traditional lines and boundaries that usually seperate people and contribute to political and social gridlock. He's also the only black editor of the Harvard Law Review in it's 104 year history, obviously has MORE actual experience in political office than Billary does, having been in the Illinois State Senate from '97-'04 and then the US Senate for three more years. That's a total of almost 12 years in political office plus the time he spent as a Chicago community organizer. As far as his grasp on economics goes, he's installed economist and ex-Clinton white house staffer Karen Kornbluh as his policy director. Kornbluh worked in the US Treasury Department and for Alan Greenspan as well. Short of having a degree in economics, what else is needed? He also worked for a consulting firm advising American companies abroad. This guy's traveled all over the world and spent time in over two dozen countries and accomplished a great deal in a the short time he spent in the US Senate as well.

[Rohirrim]

Obama isn't just a "law professor". He spent years as a grassroots community organizer in Chicago after getting his law degree learning how to get things done by crossing the traditional lines and boundaries that usually seperate people and contribute to political and social gridlock. He's also the only black editor of the Harvard Law Review in it's 104 year history, obviously has MORE actual experience in political office than Billary does, having been in the Illinois State Senate from '97-'04 and then the US Senate for three more years. That's a total of almost 12 years in political office plus the time he spent as a Chicago community organizer. As far as his grasp on economics goes, he's installed economist and ex-Clinton white house staffer Karen Kornbluh as his policy director. Kornbluh worked in the US Treasury Department and for Alan Greenspan as well. Short of having a degree in economics, what else is needed? He also worked for a consulting firm advising American companies abroad. This guy's traveled all over the world and spent time in over two dozen countries and accomplished a great deal in a the short time he spent in the US Senate as well.

I did not say he was "just" a law professor, but I think that captures the essence of his personality. He is erudite, intellectual, reserved and very specific in his thought processes. Clinton has more of a street fighter personality. This Pastor Wright mess, and the fact that it blindsided Obama, supports my contention that he is not ready for the brutality of national (and international) politics . He's like a really fast, talented WR coming out of college who comes into the NFL and then takes his first safety hit going over the middle (Wright) and you wonder if he has what it takes to make it at this level.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I did not say he was "just" a law professor, but I think that captures the essence of his personality. He is erudite, intellectual, reserved and very specific in his thought processes. Clinton has more of a street fighter personality. This Pastor Wright mess, and the fact that it blindsided Obama, supports my contention that he is not ready for the brutality of national (and international) politics . He's like a really fast, talented WR coming out of college who comes into the NFL and then takes his first safety hit going over the middle (Wright) and you wonder if he has what it takes to make it at this level.
Do you have any idea what it takes to be a grassroots community organizer and a civil rights attorney in Chicago? A damn tough skin, that's what.

[Bob]

[QUOTE=baja;1924312]Bob everyone is a racist , "it's just a matter of the degree."

I think this is true (basically.) I just cant stand the double standards by the media, or party members. I believe that if McCain had gone to a church for twenty years, and his pastor had said the equivalent stuff but in reverse -- he would be writing his speech about how he is going into therapy, and dropping out. Hell, now that I think about it -- that wouldn’t be such a bad deal for true conservatives.



"I say let this go, if we insist on these witch hunts on these presidential candidates than we will never find the person needed at this time of global transition.

Bottom line is ya gotta like Obama's upside..."

I like Obama's presentation style -- and one does "want to like him." I think he would not be as grating to listen to as Hilary would be for four years, and not as dead of old age as McCain.

I just can’t understand why it is "ok" politically for Obama to have listened to that kind of stuff for as long as he did. Yes, blacks have been oppressed, been inslaved, raped and all of these wicked things done to them by whites in the past (and in some cases recent/present) -- but I dont think that should mean that a double standard be applied to minorities in consquence of past injusticices. Also, it seems the main-stream media is not digging deep on this one - as they would do for Romney, or McCain. White guilt is kicking in perhaps, or more likely they have a narrative in mind for Obama – regardless of some aspects of his past, or what he says.

For those that give a pass to Obama -- I HAVE stood up to a professor at a church-owned school infront with three hundred fellow students (when he taught what I felt was false doctrine.) I would not get into a shouting match now days -- but I would have spoken to him afterwards and spoken to him civilly about why I felt he was wrong. Obama knew this guy held some of these racist ideas -- if Obama stuck around for political gain only -- that's not so Obama-like. If he knew about it, and did nothing he was subjecting his kids and wife to a church, who's foundation is rooted in some ideas, that if reversed would be white supremacist. Blacks can be racist, even charming ones, that hold the best chance to implement one's political ideology. Now, I will let it go –

[baja]

[QUOTE=baja;1924312]Bob everyone is a racist , "it's just a matter of the degree."

I think this is true (basically.) I just cant stand the double standards by the media, or party members. I believe that if McCain had gone to a church for twenty years, and his pastor had said the equivalent stuff but in reverse -- he would be writing his speech about how he is going into therapy, and dropping out. Hell, now that I think about it -- that wouldn’t be such a bad deal for true conservatives.



"I say let this go, if we insist on these witch hunts on these presidential candidates than we will never find the person needed at this time of global transition.

Bottom line is ya gotta like Obama's upside..."

I like Obama's presentation style -- and one does "want to like him." I think he would not be as grating to listen to as Hilary would be for four years, and not as dead of old age as McCain.

I just can’t understand why it is "ok" politically for Obama to have listened to that kind of stuff for as long as he did. Yes, blacks have been oppressed, been inslaved, raped and all of these wicked things done to them by whites in the past (and in some cases recent/present) -- but I dont think that should mean that a double standard be applied to minorities in consquence of past injusticices. Also, it seems the main-stream media is not digging deep on this one - as they would do for Romney, or McCain. White guilt is kicking in perhaps, or more likely they have a narrative in mind for Obama – regardless of some aspects of his past, or what he says.

For those that give a pass to Obama -- I HAVE stood up to a professor at a church-owned school infront with three hundred fellow students (when he taught what I felt was false doctrine.) I would not get into a shouting match now days -- but I would have spoken to him afterwards and spoken to him civilly about why I felt he was wrong. Obama knew this guy held some of these racist ideas -- if Obama stuck around for political gain only -- that's not so Obama-like. If he knew about it, and did nothing he was subjecting his kids and wife to a church, who's foundation is rooted in some ideas, that if reversed would be white supremacist. Blacks can be racist, even charming ones, that hold the best chance to implement one's political ideology. Now, I will let it go –

What exactly is it that Wright said that bothers you so?

[Maximus]

I'd agree, it was all downhill from there.

Thing is, it wasn't Bush's speech. Someone wrote it for him, he just mouthed it. Obama actually takes part in his own speech writing. Thanks to the fact that, well, he's actually smart.

Bush got into the ivy leagues thanks to legacy and the fam having the bankroll to eat tuition costs 100%. Obama got in in part thanks to a diverse background and affirmative action, but primarly because he's damn smart. He then went attended arguably the best law school in the country and went on to teach there. He's a bright guy. Most intelligent presidential candidate we've had in a long damn time, and it just so happens that education is directly related to social and legal issues.

The bolded part of this otherwise great post is a deal killer. In his speech about race obama mentioned how white people may sit around their dinner table and wonder about affirmative action. He also spoke about how his mother kept him motivated to get good grades...

You state that he's intelligent and diverse but on the other hand you assume that he still needed affirmative action to get into Harvard?

This is the sh*t that pisses off African-Americans... No matter how hard we work to achieve our goals somehow the achievement isn't accepted for what it is. According to the barb in your statement... Anyone without white skin would never be admitted to Harvard unless affirmative action was involved! You prove it twice by throwing the lack of grades that bush had into the equation.

White Americans have affirmative action too... its called white priviledge!!! You proved it... Bush didn't have the grades, but he had the prestige of money and the correct skin tone to put him over the top.

I'm not hammering you Drek... it's the idea.

And BTW how do you know affirmative action was involved?

[orinjkrush]

I'd agree, it was all downhill from there.

Thing is, it wasn't Bush's speech. Someone wrote it for him, he just mouthed it. Obama actually takes part in his own speech writing. Thanks to the fact that, well, he's actually smart.

Bush got into the ivy leagues thanks to legacy and the fam having the bankroll to eat tuition costs 100%. Obama got in in part thanks to a diverse background and affirmative action, but primarly because he's damn smart. He then went attended arguably the best law school in the country and went on to teach there. He's a bright guy. Most intelligent presidential candidate we've had in a long damn time, and it just so happens that education is directly related to social and legal issues.

three of the brightest presidents in recent memory were: Clinton, Carter and Kennedy. Carter and Kennedy had inauspicious terms. Clinton was probably most accomplished. Don't know if there is any correlation between presidential brilliance and value to America. (looking at the reverse, two of the dumbest may have been Bush and Reagan, with close tie with Ford, and again the correlation is suspect.) its a multidimensional equation and other factors strongly mitigate.

[Rohirrim]

I think the main thrust of Obama's speech is being missed in this discussion, and that's his argument that our views on race are generational. That was the whole point. The Pastor, and his grandmother, come from a different generation. They way they see the issue of race comes from a whole range of experiences that a younger generation will never have. Face it. The twenty somethings on this board have no idea what "separate but equal" means, other than from a history book. They also have no idea what it feels like to go to high school with a generation of black students steeped in the ideas of Malcolm X. And they weren't there for the freedom marches, or the attack dogs, or the riots and assassinations of the 60s, when cities were burning. Hell, they probably don't even remember the Rodney King riots, which happened when they were babies. In the words of Pink Floyd, "The flames are gone but the pain lingers on."

Let's blame it on the Sixties generation. After all, isn't that what they're here for? ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The White Preacher Double Standard: How Hagee, Parsley and the Rest Get Away with Everything

Posted by Cenk Uygur (http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/cenk/), Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/) at 12:03 PM on March 19, 2008.


If the disparity in coverage isn't racist, then what is it?
[/URL]



http://www.alternet.org/images/managed/blogimage_thumb_mediumparsley.jpgReverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam.




Rudy Giuliani's priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3753385&page=1"]molesting several children (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80253/#comments) and covering up the molestation of others. Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works with him.
Mitt Romney was part of a church that did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them (http://www.slate.com/id/2178568/). He stayed with that church all the way into his early thirties, until they were finally forced to change their policies to come into compliance with civil rights legislation. Romney never disavowed his church back then or now. He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.
Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell) because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. It was our fault. Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university's commencement.
Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore." (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1393) He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (http://www.alternet.org/story/39748/?page=1) (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish (http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq72.html)). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/28/hagee/index.html) and will be part of the devil's army when Armageddon comes (http://youtube.com/watch?v=mOsYSwNrlBo) (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee's endorsement.
Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html). Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.
John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide." (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html)
What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama's? You guessed it. They're white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it's not racism that's causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?


I'm willing to listen to other possible explanations. And I am inclined to believe that the people these preachers go after are more important than the race of the preacher. It's one thing to go after gays, liberals and Muslims - that seems to be perfectly acceptable in America - it's another to accuse white folks of not living up to their ideals.
I think there is another factor at play as well. The media is deathly afraid of calling out preachers of any stripe for insane propaganda from the pulpits for fear that they will be labeled as anti-Christian. But criticism of Rev. Wright falls into their comfort zone. It's easy to blame him for being anti-American because he criticizes American foreign and domestic policy.
If Rev. Wright had preached about discriminating against gay Americans or Muslims, there probably would not have been any outcry at all. That falls into the category of "respect their hateful opinions because they cloak themselves in the church."
But one thing is indisputable - the enormous disparity in how the media has covered these white preachers as opposed to Rev. Wright. Have you ever even heard of Rod Parsley? As you can see from what I listed above, all of these white preachers have said and done the most outlandish and offensive things you can imagine - and hardly a peep.
If the disparity in coverage isn't racist, then what is it?
Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore." He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil's army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee's endorsement.
Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.
John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide."
What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama's? You guessed it. They're white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it's not racism that's causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?
I'm willing to listen to other possible explanations. And I am inclined to believe that the people these preachers go after are more important than the race of the preacher. It's one thing to go after gays, liberals and Muslims - that seems to be perfectly acceptable in America - it's another to accuse white folks of not living up to their ideals.
I think there is another factor at play as well. The media is deathly afraid of calling out preachers of any stripe for insane propaganda from the pulpits for fear that they will be labeled as anti-Christian. But criticism of Rev. Wright falls into their comfort zone. It's easy to blame him for being anti-American because he criticizes American foreign and domestic policy.
If Rev. Wright had preached about discriminating against gay Americans or Muslims, there probably would not have been any outcry at all. That falls into the category of "respect their hateful opinions because they cloak themselves in the church."
But one thing is indisputable - the enormous disparity in how the media has covered these white preachers as opposed to Rev. Wright. Have you ever even heard of Rod Parsley? As you can see from what I listed above, all of these white preachers have said and done the most outlandish and offensive things you can imagine - and hardly a peep.
If the disparity in coverage isn't racist, then what is it?

[Traveler]

Barack Obama's March 18, 2008 speech was about much more than race. It outlined a new politics that many Americans-candidates at all levels, activists, and ordinary citizens-have been speaking and writing about, and yearning for, for years. It is a politics that goes beyond the electoral horserace to the deepest questions about what America is as a nation and who we Americans are as people.

We are on the cusp of a new politics in America. It should be dated from March 18, 2008, the date of Barack Obama's landmark speech, A More Perfect Union. The usual pundits have looked mainly at the speech's surface theme: race. They weren't wrong. It was indeed the most important statement about race in recent history.

But it was much more. It was a general call to a new politics and an outline for what it needs to be. Just as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was about much more than the war dead on that battlefield, so Obama's speech-widely hailed as in the same ballpark as Lincoln's-went beyond race to the nature of America, its ideals, and its future.

To get an appreciation for the greatness of Obama's speech, we have to start with its context: What were the problems Obama faced in writing it, and what were the constraints on him?

He was under severe political attack, both from Republican conservatives and from the Clinton wing of his own party. Here's what he was facing:

Racial divisions and identity politics had been injected into the campaign by his opponents and the media. The effect was to position him, as an African-American, as opposed to the interests of whites and Hispanics.

An attack on his and his wife's patriotism.

A claim that he was really a Muslim.

A repeatedly shown film clip of his long-time pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who had married him and his wife and baptized his daughters, making embarrassing remarks taken as Anti-American and anti-Semitic.

One of the hallmarks of his campaign has been good judgment on foreign policy; his opponents claimed that his connection to Wright had shown bad judgment.

Another hallmark of his campaign has been authenticity, telling the truth. Two of his advisors had made remarks-one on NAFTA and one on Iraq-that opponents had twisted to make it seem that he was lying. He had to establish himself as truthful.

Another hallmark of his campaign has been values. His opponents had claimed that his values were unknown and that the public didn't know who he was.

His opponents had claimed that he could not stand up to strong opposition.

He was in the center of an intensely divisive campaign while pressing unity as a major theme.

His opponents had claimed that his eloquence was all talk and no action.
In addition, Senator Obama faced certain constraints on what he could say:

He understands that people vote primarily on the basis of character and how he would govern: on values, authenticity, trust, and identity, and only secondarily on fine policy details (See Thinking Points). He could not ignore the problems and hope they would go away. They wouldn't. Since he was being attacked on all of these character and governance issues, he had to confront them all.

He had been putting forth a vision of bipartisanship opposite that of Senator Clinton In her bipartisanship, she moved to the right giving up on fundamental values. In his bipartisanship, he understands that "conservatives" and "independents" often share fundamental American values with him. Instead of giving up on his values, he finds those outside his party who share them. His speech had to have such an appeal.

The honesty and openness of his declared new politics required him to be consistent with his previous statements.

He could not explicitly go negative and still continue to campaign on civility and unity. He could only go positive and evoke implicit negatives.

He could neither accept his opponents framing of him, nor argue explicitly against that framing. If he did either, he would just strengthen their frames. He had to impose his own framing, while being true to his values and his campaign themes.

He could not go on the defensive; that would just encourage his detractors. He had to show leadership.

Though he might have felt frustrated or even angry, leadership demanded that he be his usual calm self, embracing not attacking even those who opposed him. He had to be what he was talking about.

Try to imagine being in this position and having to write a speech overnight. And yet he wrote not a speech, but the speech-one of the greatest ever.

As a linguist, I am tempted to describe the surface features: the intonation, the meter, the grammatical parallelisms, the choice of words. These contribute to eloquence. I'm sure the linguistics community will jump in and do that analysis. Instead, I want to talk about the structure of ideas.

Any framing study begins with communicative framing, the context. Contextual frames carry ideas. Senator Obama is patriotic, and had to communicate not only the fact of his patriotism, but also the content of it. And he had to do it in a way that fit unquestionable and shared American values. Where did he give his speech kicking off his Pennsylvania campaign? Not in Scranton or Pittsburgh or Hershey, but in Philadelphia, home of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and at once home of one of America's largest African American communities. What building was it in? Constitution Hall. How did he appear onstage? Surrounded by flags. He is tall and thin, as were the flagstaffs, which were about the same height. He was visually one with the flag, one with America. No picture of him could be taken without a flag shaped like him, without an identification of man and country.

How did he start the speech? With the first line of the Constitution: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union..." He called the speech "A More Perfect Union." And that's what it was about. Union: About inclusiveness not divisiveness; about responsibility for each other not just oneself; about seeing the country and world in terms of cooperation, not competition or isolation. More Perfect: Admitting the imperfections of being human and making a commitment to do better; distinguishing the ideals on parchment from the reality that our actions must forge. A More Perfect Union: Looking to a better future that it is up to us to make and that can only be done by transcending divisiveness and coming together around the ideals of our Constitution.

That is what he has meant by "hope" and "change." It is the general message. And race, though a special case, is one the hardest issues to address. And though his opponents will continue to promote and exploit racial divisiveness, race is an area where huge progress has been made and needs to be made visible. If there is to be a test of character and leadership-a test of honesty, openness, strength, and integrity on his part, and good will and American values on the part of American citizens, race is as tough a test case as any. Not a test of Obama, but a test of America. A test of whether Americans will live American ideals. No pussyfooting. No sweeping it under the rug. This election sets a direction for the country. Will we face our problems and follow our ideals or not? Obama can hold the mirror up to us, and he can endeavor to lead the march. What he asks is whether we are ready to continue the march, "a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring, and more prosperous America."

Most of the adjectives are familiar in political speeches: just, equal, free, and prosperous. What is the crucial addition, right in the middle, is "caring." A day later, Anderson Cooper asked him on CNN what he meant by patriotism. His response began with "caring about one another." The choice of words is careful. In his Martin Luther King Day speech this year, Obama spoke repeatedly of the "empathy deficit," the need to be "more caring."

Empathy, as I showed in my book Moral Politics, is at the heart of progressive politics in America. And as UCLA historian Lynn Hunt has shown in her book, Inventing Human Rights: A History, the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness became self-evident by 1776 through the development of empathy. Democracy is based on empathy, on the bonds of care and responsibility that link us together and make us a nation.

It is the mark of a great speech not just to mention its themes, but to exemplify those themes. Empathy, union, and common responsibility are the ideas behind the speech, as well as the ideas behind the New Politics; and as the speech shows, they are behind the idea of America itself. The speech works via empathy, via the emotional structure built into the speech and into our national ideals. The speech works because, almost line by line, it evokes those foundational ideals-the ideals we have and feel, but that have been far too long hidden behind political cynicism, political fear, and the concern for advantage. And it is the mark of political courage to confront those monsters head on at the most critical point in a campaign for the presidency, when one could play it safe and just count delegates, but chooses the right but difficult path.

At this point, the symbolic structure of the speech becomes easier to see.

He begins by discussing the achievement of the Declaration of Independence in uniting the states, while seeing its flaw-the country's "original sin of slavery," part of the deal to get South Carolina to join the union. The nation is great, and still flawed-and loved for its greatness despite its flaws.

The same is true of Reverend Wright. Reverend Wright's history symbolizes the history of his generation of African-Americans-a bitter history of oppression by whites in an America in denial: segregation, legalized discrimination, lynchings, a brutal fight for basic civil rights. His bitterness and that of his generation is real and understandable. We can empathize with him. And we empathize even more when we learn of his positive accomplishments: Service in the Marine Corps. Speaking to Obama "about our obligations to love one another, to care for the sick and lift up the poor. And he lived what he preached: "housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS." He preached empathy, he lived empathy, and we empathize with him for that.

And yet Reverend Wright's statements as shown in the TV clips were wrong. Not just incorrect, but morally wrong: divisive and harmful, raising what is wrong with America above all that is right with America. Obama condemns those statements. But he won't fall into the same mistake, raising what is wrong with the man above all that is right with the man. Obama loves and is loyal to his flawed country, just as he loves and is loyal to this flawed but fundamentally good man. Just as he loves his wonderful white grandmother who is flawed by occasional racial stereotypes. His relationship with Reverend Wright shows in Obama a positive character: love and loyalty while acknowledging the reality of flaws and not being taken in by them. It is good judgment, not bad judgment-about Wright and about America.

But Obama is not just black; he is half white. His wife has in her veins the blood of both slaves and slave owners. Obama's empathy is not just for black America but equally for white America. He speaks of the real troubles of poor white Americans, and their real and legitimate feelings of anger and resentment. But both black anger and white resentment are counterproductive. They create divisiveness when unity is needed to overcome "the real culprits of the middle class squeeze-a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many." The poor-black and white and brown-are all victims of the real culprits, whose weapon is fear and divisiveness. Race gets in the way. It is a distraction from dealing with corporate greed.

Another culprit that stands in the way is the media, which uses race for its own ends-as spectacle (the OJ trial), tragedy (Katrina), and "fodder for the nightly news." Obama is courageous here. He is taking on a media that has been especially underhanded with him, helping the Right spread guilt by association by showing the Reverend Wright tape snippets over and over. For a candidate to talk straight to the media about what it is doing to harm the country is courageous, to say the least.

A bit of courage for a candidate who seeks the votes of Republicans is to point out that a serious flaw of Reverend Wright's is also a central flaw of conservatism: "the notion of self-help, or what conservatives call individual responsibility. It is central to conservative Christianity as well: whether you go to heaven or hell is a matter of individual responsibility. It is a mistake in both religion and politics.

What is called for is nothing less than what all the world's great religions demand-that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect our spirit as well.

American politics and religion come together on these moral grounds: empathy and responsibility both for oneself and others.

And with all the Christian references in the speech, it is hard to imagine him as a Muslim. Obama begins the close of his speech with a riff on how talk is action: "This time we want to talk about..." followed by the plights of Americans, plights that arouse our empathy-or should. Speech, Obama tells us, is action. Collective speech changes brains and minds, and when the minds of voters change, material change is possible. And if ever a speech was an act, this speech is it.

The closing portion is pure empathy- the story of Ashley and the old black man. Ashley, a white girl, out of empathy for her struggling mother, ate mustard and relish on bread for year to save on food money. She became a community organizer out of empathy for those in her community who were struggling. At an event she organized, she asked everyone to say why they were there. She told her story, others told theirs, and when they came to the old black man he said simply, "I'm here because of Ashley." The empathy of an old black man for a young white woman. A moral for us all.

The true power of the speech is that it does what it says. It not only talks about empathy, it creates it.

The speech achieves its power not just through the literal and the obvious. Family metaphors abound: the nation is a family; the nation's future is its children; it's flawed past is its older citizens, scarred by past flaws. "The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids ..." The nation is a family, and we have to care for our kids.

It is a common metaphor that an institution is seen as a person, with the special case that a nation is understood in terms of its leader. In this speech, Obama becomes contemporary America: as America is of mixed race, he is of mixed race; as Americans have benefited from advances over past flaws, so he has benefited. His story is an "only in America story," an American dream story. His candidacy is only possible in America. Indeed his genes are only possible in America. How could he be anything but patriotic when he is America? And how can we, identifying with him, be anything but patriotic when we are America?

No, this is not, as the NY Times says on its website, "a speech on race." It is a speech on what America is about, on what American values are, on what patriotism is, on who the real culprits are, and on the kind of new politics needed if we are to make progress in transcending those flaws that are still very much with us.

Finally it is a speech about policy and how he would govern. When he says "This time we want to talk about,..." he is listing a policy agenda: education, health care, overcoming special interests, creating good jobs, saving homes, fighting corporate greed that works against the common good, creating unity, bringing the troops home from Iraq, and taking care of our veterans. As a list, this looks like Senator Clinton's list. But there is a crucial difference.

Senator Clinton speaks constantly of "interests." In doing so, she is doing what many other Democrats have done before her, engaging in interest group politics, where policy means finding some demographic group that has been ill-served by the market or government and then proposing a governmental redress: a tax break here, a subsidy there, a new regulation. Obama does not speak of interests and seeks to transcend interest groups and interest group politics. That is at the heart of this speech. When we transcend interest groups, we transcend interest group politics.

And when he says, "I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents..." he is making a foreign policy statement, that foreign policy is not just about states and national interests, but about people and the world's family.

What makes this great speech great is that it transcends its immediate occasion and addresses in its form as well as its words the most vital of issues: what America is about: who are, and are to be, as Americans; and what politics should be fundamentally about.

The media has missed this. But we must not.

The media has gone back to the horserace, reporting counts of delegates and super-delegates, campaign attacks, who endorses who, and this week's polls. Hardly irrelevant, but not the main event.

The main event is the new politics, what has excited Americans about this election, what has brought young people out to political speeches, and what has led voters to wait for hours in the cold just to catch a glimpse of a candidate for president who has been saying what they have been waiting to hear. It is this:

The essence of America was there in its founding documents, carried out imperfectly and up to us to keep alive and work toward as best we can.

At the heart of our democracy is empathy-made-real, a political arrangement through which we care for one another, protect one another, create joint prosperity and help one another lead fulfilling lives.

[Traveler]

cont,

America is a family and its future is our children-to be nurtured and attuned to nature; fed and housed well; educated to their capacities; kept healthy and helped to prosper; made whole through music and the arts; and provided with institutions that bring them together in these ongoing responsibilities.

The strength of America is in its ideals and how we act them out.

Americans have come here from around the globe, with family, ethnic and cultural ties to virtually every country and with human ties to people everywhere. Our actions in the world must reflect this.

All of this is politics. Politics is essentially ethical, it is about what is right. And the nuts and bolts of determining legitimate political authority-the fund-raising, the on-the-ground organization, the speeches, the campaign ads, the voter registration, and the counting of ballots-should reflect these values as well.

That is the politics Americans have yearned for, and though we don't have it yet and it won't be here tomorrow, it is what so many of us are working for and that we have glimpsed through this speech.

No matter who wins the Democratic nomination and the presidential election in 2008, these ideals are not going to be fully realized right away. No candidate is perfect on this score, nor could be. But this is the vision. It sets the goals that I believe most Americans seek. We can make progress toward it in hundreds of ways. But in its vision it will always be the New Politics we seek as Americans, in 2012, 2016, 2020, and beyond.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4751

[W*GS]

I wonder when the Obamaniacs will get over their rock-star infatuation with the guy, come down to earth, and realize that Obama is just another scumbag politician who will say anything in order to attain his goal of power over all of us.

[baja]

WAGs I'm going to read about you shooting folks up from some bell tower some day, I just know it...

[W*GS]

WAGs I'm going to read about you shooting folks up from some bell tower some day, I just know it...

Not a chance. But coming from a guy who thinks Armageddon is nigh, I'll take your comment for what it's worth...

[baja]

Not a chance. But coming from a guy who thinks Armageddon is nigh, I'll take your comment for what it's worth...

Well I'm not the one throwing my hands up and refusing to vote....

[W*GS]

You're just the one who's cowering in his hidey-hole down in Mexico...

[baja]

Not really but than you know that.

[Rohirrim]

Traveler, there is an obvious disconnect in that piece that the writer ignores. Obama wrote a beautiful speech about unity, but he also sat in the pews of a church for twenty years where his pastor preached divisiveness. Which one is the real Obama? Some argue that the speech is transcendent. Others say the speech is simply a political device created to divert a political crisis in his campaign. Which take is the right one?

[Traveler]

Traveler, there is an obvious disconnect in that piece that the writer ignores. Obama wrote a beautiful speech about unity, but he also sat in the pews of a church for twenty years where his pastor preached divisiveness. Which one is the real Obama? Some argue that the speech is transcendent. Others say the speech is simply a political device created to divert a political crisis in his campaign. Which take is the right one?

Roh,

I don't know if you are religious or not, so I'll say this. Look again at the entire speech in context. How much of what he said is actually untrue? My sense from you is that you didn't like the sound bite that was played endlessly.

Whether Obama was present for any of these sermons or not, this really isn't an issue to me because this is only became an issue because the is running for President.

Can't say for sure, but I'm willing to guess that 20 years ago (or even in 2001), running for POTUS probably wasn't even on his radar.

I've heard some things in church I didn't particularly like or agree with, but I let it go because the Pastor's views are not my views. Same for Obama IMO.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://home.swbell.net/jekenn/Obama_hears_a_who.gif

[Rohirrim]

Roh,

I don't know if you are religious or not, so I'll say this. Look again at the entire speech in context. How much of what he said is actually untrue? My sense from you is that you didn't like the sound bite that was played endlessly.

Whether Obama was present for any of these sermons or not, this really isn't an issue to me because this is only became an issue because the is running for President.

Can't say for sure, but I'm willing to guess that 20 years ago (or even in 2001), running for POTUS probably wasn't even on his radar.

I've heard some things in church I didn't particularly like or agree with, but I let it go because the Pastor's views are not my views. Same for Obama IMO.

Sorry I didn't get back to you on this thread sooner. I was brought up catholic but I haven't been in a church in many, many moons and I'm not religious. Hell, the last time I went to church it was still in Latin. ;D

I have many problems with what is going on in America today, but the phrase "God damn America" still sets my teeth on edge. I can certainly see beyond the association of Obama with his pastor. What worries me is that a large part of the country will not. Especially after the GOP 527s go to work. The idea of McCain in the Oval Office makes me shudder.