The Speech

Been tied up most of the day, but here's what I got (as sent in an e-mail to a buddy)

I went downstairs and watched it live.

My initial reaction was that it was a deep, well-thought out, very solid speech. Unfortunately, however, to truly appreciate that speech, and understand the message, you had to be a fairly enlightened, intelligent and reasonable person, and almost all of those folks are already in Obama's corner, so ultimately I don't think it really did him any good. (Sad, but true. And it probably damaged him because he did the honorable thing and did not toss Wright under the bus.)

I thought his efforts to capture the working class white man's resentment was masterfully done, but immediately thought there would be those coming with the "wtf does this darkie think he's doing speaking for us?"

Then, to make matters worse, one of the big dogs -- who has never spoken to me in my life -- comes up and asks me what I thought of the speech. I made him show his hand first, and he completely missed the point, so I just essentially looked, let him talk and moved on without saying much. (I love how all of a sudden my opinion matters. Why is that? I honestly do not understand.)

I also thought the "product of his generation" was right on point. However, that angry guy in black barbershop stuff, as true as it may be, simply does not resonate with people who have never been, and never will be, in one in their life.

Also, minor point, but still, why use the word "hues"? Nobody knows what you are talking about. "Shades," "skin colors," even "pigment" for that matter. But please use language everyone can understand.

Nothing earth shattering, I know. And I have tons more thoughts. But this is what initially hit me and I did feel like putting it out there. So there, it's out there.

Comments

[kaplan]

I thought the speech was great. I thought not throwing the Pastor under the bus was a risky yet bold move (un-Romney like), for which I think he's getting respect. Also, talking truthfully about the anger and frustration in both the black and white communities was firm yet compassionate.

I don't think Barack was trying to reach the goobers at this point, just trying to take hold of the narrative and the momentum, which I think he did. Also, the only people who matter now are the Supers and I think that's who he scored with today. They are the "fairly enlightened, intelligent and reasonable" people that will understand this speech (and listen to most of the pundits' praise of it today) and think of him as "presidential."

Loved the dig at the media for their treatment of race as a specticle.

He'll have more work to do on this if he's in the general, but for now, I think he did what he needed to do.

[TMan]

"to truly appreciate that speech and understand the message you had to be a fairly enlightened, intelligent and reasonable person, and almost all of those folks are already in Obama's corner, so ultimately I didn't think it really did him any good."

Agreed, but by the same token, the folks who would have been angered by Wright's comments were not going to be voting for Obama in the first place, so he wasn't trying to reach them. At this point, unless the DNC does something whacky with Florida and Michigan, all he's really got to do to win is sway the superdelegates. If he does, then the GOP will rehash this story in the general election and he'll get another bite at the apple.

[Jack Klompus]

"the folks who would have been angered by Wright's comments were not going to be voting for Obama in the first place, so he wasn't trying to reach them."

I don't know about that. I'll bet there's a slice of Clinton voters that he didn't want to scare off. He's going to want all Hillary's votes as soon as she's officially wiped from the race.

[Dr. Strangejazz]

I saw the speech in its entirety. I thought it was really great it outlined where we are as a people. It was probably one of the best speeches that I've heard in recent memory.

That being said. I don't think America was ready to hear what he had to say.

This speech probably cost him the election.

[jackie]

Agreed, but by the same token, the folks who would have been angered by Wright's comments were not going to be voting for Obama in the first place, so he wasn't trying to reach them.

I know where you are coming from, but I do not agree. I think there are certainly some people who want to believe in Obama, but this Wright stuff pushes them back to Hillary. I mean, I've heard people who are otherwise completely reasonable, rational,and logical human beings, arguing that Obama's connection to Wright and refusal to completely disown the man, somehow suggests that Obama secretly harbors an anti-white agenda.

[TMan]

KILL DEE WHITEE!

[TMan]

Sorry, that posted before I finished. I think that anyone who really believes that Obama goes to sleep at night paraphrasing Tyrone Green's "Kill My Landlord", with "KILL DEE WHITEE" didn't want to believe in Obama in the first place. They were just looking for an arguably non-discriminatory reason to not vote for him when they speak to people who might call them on it. And now they have it.

[Assman]

Great speech. A lot of the message is probably going to be lost on the intended since they're not really the "reading for comprehension" set. He might have had better luck singing Michael Jackson's Man in the Mirror.

The section where he talked about how working class whites don't feel privileged by their race was quite excellent; I'm just not sure anyone will notice it since that clip doesn't get much replay on the news.

Echoing Strangejazz - America's probably not ready for a lot of what he had to say. And I'm really not looking forward to the "what the fuck - they gave the nomination to Clinton anyway?" riots. I'll be home that day - miles away from Radio Raheem.

(Work has the site on lockdown, so I can only post from home these days.)

[Dr. Strangejazz]

RE: TMan

"They were just looking for an arguably non-discriminatory reason to not vote for him when they speak to people who might call them on it. And now they have it."

That might be true but what does that say about that person's character? It was a brave thing for him to come out and just tell it like it is. If that's not good enough for the American people then I don't know what is. And that's a damn shame.

Agreed. What I'm saying is that people who were going to or did vote for Obama were likely not swayed by what Minister Wright said. Any real fence sitters should have been assuaged by Obama's speech. Anyone not swayed or mollified probably wasn't going his way anyway. And I don't think this will cost him the election (Hillary's silence is evidence in my mind that she either engineered or pushed this story), but will be a huge hurdle if he gets the nomination. You know the GOP will make hay with the dirty boots crowd on this one, since they really don't have a great deal to offer other than flag-waving for that economic group.

[Jack Klompus]

"Echoing Strangejazz - America's probably not ready for a lot of what he had to say."

Sorry, I have to disagree on that. I don't think you're giving enough credit to the silent majority. Sure there are portions that are reluctant to listen to/discuss it, many of which are the ones who scream the loudest. But I think most of America by and large is able to have these conversations, whether they agree or disagree on points. Ready or not, what choice do they have? These types of conversations are only going to increase in frequency. When I hear, "Well America's just not ready" from the people that ARE ready to have these conversations -- it seems like they are preparing for a cop-out.

[Jackie]

"I'll be home that day - miles away from Radio Raheem."

Sippin' on some Miller High Life.

[Jackie]

Sorry, I have to disagree on that. I don't think you're giving enough credit to the silent majority...

I dunno Klompus, I honestly think a larger majority of the population is indeed not ready to hear that stuff, much less fully comprehend the depth, nuance, and precision of Obama's message.

I honestly just don't see a guy like George Bush and those type of fear monger tactics working to win two straight elections if the majority of the country was not simple and blinded to a very unfortunate fault.

And even beyond that, I know some very well-educated people that are still up in arms over the Wright stuff, which leads me to conclude that they just refuse to listen to reason when it comes to certain issues.

[Assman]

Klompus, you may be right and god willing you are. I've probably gotten too cynical about the whole thing to be honest.

I'm basing my America's Not Ready on what I see - whether that's the popularity of Moment of Truth, voting results after fear tactics or the sampling of message board posts I've seen (not scientific, to say the least) - and from what I've seen, the majority of folks out among us are low end comprehension at best.

From what I've seen, you're not going to find a majority of people that are willing to acknowledge the perspective of the other side of an issue. It doesn't happen at work. It doesn't happen in traffic. I can't see it happening on the racial fence.

But, god willing, you're right about this one. I'm like Fox Mulder - I Want to Believe.

[Jack Klompus]

"I honestly think a larger majority of the population is indeed not ready to hear that stuff, much less fully comprehend the depth, nuance, and precision of Obama's message."

I certainly don't believe the larger majority would be able to comprehend it all of it. Speaking for myself, I know I wouldn't be able to grasp the full the depth of it the way others would. But that doesn't make me unready or unwilling to have the conversation.

"I honestly just don't see a guy like George Bush and those type of fear monger tactics working to win two straight elections if the majority of the country was not simple and blinded to a very unfortunate fault."

So the other 49% were the enlightened ones?

"And even beyond that, I know some very well-educated people that are still up in arms over the Wright stuff, which leads me to conclude that they just refuse to listen to reason when it comes to certain issues."

Just because people don't agree with Obama, doesn't mean they are unwilling to listen. You know how people are. They get caught up in the moment, even intelligent people. This moment will end at some point and they will move on, in one direction or another.

[Ocho Ocho]

His honesty was on point and VERY true. However, people (mainly white people but also black) are uncomfortable discussing where race relations are/were and are going. He said nothing that everyone does not think. But most people prefer to pretend racism in either direction does not exist. White people who had nothing to do with Segregation, let alone slavery are tired of hearing about racism. He will scare some white people and give those who were looking an excuse not to vote for him. This was an ALL IN move. Either he gets the Gold Watch or he goes home. The question is: Did he overestimate America's intellect, and more importantly, willingness to address this issue?

[Dr. Strangejazz]

I'm gonna do a 180 and ask this question: Say America is ready to have this discussion. What do you think that entails?

White people are tried of hearing about racism because they have a different perspective than black people when it comes to that subject. To put it plainly how are we to see each other's POV?

[Ocho Ocho]

You are right and it needs to be addressed. But maybe after he was elected not before. Big risk.

[Jack Klompus]

"I'm gonna do a 180 and ask this question: Say America is ready to have this discussion. What do you think that entails?"

I don't think there are boundaries on what can be discussed. However, the subject matter will determine how engaged people will be. For example, if you're talking about racism in law enforcement and the legal system -- ther'll be a lot of participation. On the flip side, if the discussion is about how the levvies were intentionally blown up during Hurricane Katrina because we wanted to harm black people -- I don't think you'll be able to engage as many people. These are only two examples, so I'm not trying to polarize. Obviously there are gray areas when it comes to which subjects blacks think are appropriate and which ones whites think are appropriate. The important thing is, that disagreement on one subject should not suspend or limit other conversations within the topic of racism.

[jeffpotts77]

I have more respect for the man because he didn't act like a typical politician and avoid one of the nation's biggest issues for fear that it would lose him some votes. Fuck what the country is ready for and onward with what the country needs.

[Art Vandelay]

I know where you are coming from, but I do not agree. I think there are certainly some people who want to believe in Obama, but this Wright stuff pushes them back to Hillary. I mean, I've heard people who are otherwise completely reasonable, rational,and logical human beings, arguing that Obama's connection to Wright and refusal to completely disown the man, somehow suggests that Obama secretly harbors an anti-white agenda.

...and I've seen people follow a guy in such a sheep-like manner that when someone asks a few questions as to why he considers this man a mentor who goes all Jesse Jackson on his congregation, they abandon all sense of rationale and respond by attacking the person that asks the question rather than just answering them. He's not a facist dictator, Chiles. It's okay to ask some questions. Youre not gonna get a hand chopped off for trying to be objective. Really.

[Jackie]

"He's not a facist dictator, Chiles. It's okay to ask some questions..."

Hey Vandelay: From me to you. Custom made. You are very welcome.

[Jack Klompus]

"It's okay to ask some questions. Youre not gonna get a hand chopped off for trying to be objective. Really."

I think I hear a cat hissing...

[Art Vandelay]

Off topic:

Chiles, stop sending me bracket pool stuff at work. They sort of frown upon that.

[zumba]

agree that he came across as presidential.

he talked about an intensely complicated matter that rarely gets spoken about in general let alone in such a measured, balanced manner.

he showed integrity in explaining his relationship with his pastor rather than taking the easiest course of action.

talk won't solve all of the problems in the US, but without talking don't see how the downward spiral doesn't continue unabated and obama shows again and again that he is able to do this stuff with balance, empathy and integrity.

much like dubbya

[Crazy Joe Davola]

If Obama wins, McCain is going to choose Alan Keyes as his running mate.

[Ocho Ocho]

"I have more respect for the man because he didn't act like a typical politician and avoid one of the nation's biggest issues for fear that it would lose him some votes. Fuck what the country is ready for and onward with what the country needs."

I agree 100%. But he needs to get elected. This honesty thing is new to American politics and is risky

[Jack Klompus]

"This honesty thing is new to American politics and is risky."

Let's not get carried away, Ocho. He's still a politician.

[Jackie]

"I certainly don't believe the larger majority would be able to comprehend it all of it. Speaking for myself, I know I wouldn't be able to grasp the full the depth of it the way others would. But that doesn't make me unready or unwilling to have the conversation."

My "much less" essentially covered this, no?

"So the other 49% were the enlightened ones?"

No. A vote against Bush does not necessarily equate with enlightenment. A vote for him, however, casts some serious doubt. (Look, if he is the GOP guy, and you are a GOP guy, I guess you have to vote for him, but I will say affirmatively that if Hillary wins I will not be voting for her unless something happens to my good conscience along the way.)

"Just because people don't agree with Obama, doesn't mean they are unwilling to listen."

That's a fair point. But based on the "conversation" I had with the big dog yesterday I got the dinstinct impression that he not only did not agree, but didn't even really bother to listen. That said, again, your point is generally a fair one.

[Jack Klompus]

"My "much less" essentially covered this, no?

Not exactly. Just because the majority doesn't comprehend to all the depths, doesn't mean they aren't willing to listen and, eventually comprehend (to different degrees). It sounded like you were saying the majority was neither willing/ready to listen nor were they capable (as a majority) to comprehend. I agree with the latter part of that, but I would challenge the former.

[Dingo]

Vandelay is right to be asking the question. For many of his followers, Obama's candidacy is not about the issues. In fact, there are almost no policy differences between him and Hillary. Instead, he has pushed the themes of hope, change, and moving forward. For many people, Obama is seen as a vehicle for a post-racial America. He wrote in his book that he serves "as a blank screen, on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." That's how he's campaigned, that's a large part of his appeal, and so far it's worked. A lot of independents and Republicans have supported him.

The problem with the Wright issue is not whether or not what he said was technically correct. It's not that he will influence Obama to kill whitey. It's not that Obama has a secret anti-white agenda. The problem is that his luster is gone. The people who looked at Obama as a vehicle to a post-racial America will have a hard time continuing to do so and that's the most damaging thing of all. He may win the nomination, but he peaked too early. He'll have a hard time in the general.

[Jackie]

"It sounded like you were saying the majority was neither willing/ready to listen nor were they capable (as a majority) to comprehend. I agree with the latter part of that, but I would challenge the former."

I confuse myself sometimes with the "much less" stuff...

Just out of curiosity, why is it that you think that people can really, genuinely listen but can not comprehend? Just asking (as I definitely have an opinion, and I also intentionally left out the word "fully.")

[Jack Klompus]

"why is it that you think that people can really, genuinely listen but can not comprehend?"

First of all, I said ready/willing. Secondly, you said "fully comprehend the depth, nuance, and precision." While that would be the ideal outcome, it's not realistic. There are certain depths that white people will never be able to reach when trying to comprehend this -- no matter how much we want to. There are also depths that young black men and women will never be able to go to that older generations of blacks can. That said, it doesn't mean that people are unwilling to listen. Sure some will disagree, some will reject and go back into hiding, some it will just pass between their ears. But most will grasp something, probably incrementally and to differing depths of comprehension. But just because most people won't get the full message, doesn't mean it isn't worth it.

[Jackie]

"First of all, I said ready/willing. Secondly, you said "fully comprehend the depth, nuance, and precision."

My bad. Was not trying to engage in sleight of hand assbaggery (as evidenced by giving up the fact that I intentionally left out "fully.") Just was not diligent.

There are certain depths that white people will never be able to reach when trying to comprehend this -- no matter how much we want to. There are also depths that young black men and women will never be able to go to that older generations of blacks can. That said, it doesn't mean that people are unwilling to listen. Sure some will disagree, some will reject and go back into hiding, some it will just pass between their ears...But just because most people won't get the full message, doesn't mean it isn't worth it.

Completely agree.

Plus, to be clear, in no way did I mean to suggest that messages like Obama's are not worth it. All I meant was that in this context -- the context of trying to win the election -- it may not have been.

The more people hear real stuff like that, stuff from someone who so clearly getts it, and someone who has such a diverse background, the better. The very much better.

[Jackie]

Interesting breakdown of speech.

[soupnazi]

"Unfortunately, however, to truly appreciate that speech, and understand the message, you had to be a fairly enlightened, intelligent and reasonable person, and almost all of those folks are already in Obama's corner, so ultimately I don't think it really did him any good." So Jackie--please enlighten us all, and tell us about some of Mr. Obama's accomplishments, because I've been patiently waiting for ANYONE to provide me with ANYTHING positive that this man has done. As a somewhat intelligent and reasonable white guy, I've been waiting for years to break the back of the "good ol' boys" network of lying politicians and find someone that I can really believe in, but so far all I've heard or read is pure hype, idiots screaming about his "brilliance" without providing any proof.

[Assman]

but so far all I've heard or read is pure hype, idiots screaming about his "brilliance" without providing any proof.

Can you prove Socrates was a genius? Or can you sometimes understand that somebody has a lot going on upstairs just by hearing their thoughts on things?

And, no - I'm not comparing the man to Socrates. I'm just saying that in your life, you make judgements about people every day, and most of the time, you base them on what comes out of their mouth when they speak what's on their mind.

He might be a jackass. He might be a prick. He might be a thief. But based on what I've heard so far, he's at least brighter than the rest of the lot.

[Ocho Ocho]

Soup Nazi:

1. Yesterday's Speech

2. The Convention Speech

3. First Black Editor of Harvard Law Review.

You can bet that he had to be twice as good to get that last one. You have heard of Harvard. Right?

[soupnazi]

ocho-ocho---your answer is the whole problem---thats all you got??? 2 lousy sales pitches and his college highlights?? WTF??? Look people, my point is that I dont know if this guy is any good and chances are, neither do any of you!! In the end, I might have to vote for him as the lesser of 2 lying, theiving politicians--that hardly qualifies as "BRILLIANT".

[Jackie]

Here is a definition of "NOT BRILLIANT":

Someone who believes that the lone way to gauge an individual's brilliance is by their "accomplishments."

[Ocho Ocho]

Soup:

OK I can see some validity to your argument. Can you concede that at the very least, someone who can speak articulately and eloquently, somone who graduated from one of the best law schools in the country, someone who was widely acknowledged by title as one of the brightest persons inhis class at same law school, someone who has motivated millions, is at least not an idiot?

One of two things is happening: He is either a complete charlatan or He is what he claims to be. Either requires superior intellect to succeed.

Funny thing about a new job like the Presidency, you cannot really assess future success from past performance. Well, except in the last two terms. For my vote, I want the smartest guy in the room who appears to have a shred of ethical boundaries who is pro choice.

[Ocho Ocho]

Also, in America law school and college are seperate.

[Ocho Ocho]

GWB got elected with much less. In fact, what has he done well, ever?

[Jackie]

GWB got elected with much less. In fact, what has he done well, ever?'

He hit a triple.

To be fair, I don't think anyone is characterizing Bush as "brilliant," whereas according to soup "so far all I've heard or read is pure hype, idiots screaming about [Obama's] "brilliance" without providing any proof."

[Dingo]

One of two things is happening: He is either a complete charlatan or He is what he claims to be. Either requires superior intellect to succeed.

You sound like you're talking about Jesus. You even use the capital H.

GWB got elected with much less. In fact, what has he done well, ever?

He was a governor for 6 years.

Obama's campaign contained the promise (at least implied) of a post-racial America. Many people were willing to look past the substance and only at the style to achieve that result, but after the Wright fiasco, his campaign cannot reasonably make that claim anymore. It would be like Hillary's women supporters finding out she has a penis.

[Dingo]

This isn't going to help.

[Assman]

Obama's campaign contained the promise (at least implied) of a post-racial America.

Opposite. His campaign has repeatedly said that electing him would make no racial statement, but, as his speech the other day mentioned, the choice to get to a post-racial state is up to us. Any implied promise comes from the eye of the beholder.

ocho-ocho---your answer is the whole problem---thats all you got??? 2 lousy sales pitches and his college highlights?? WTF??? Look people, my point is that I dont know if this guy is any good and chances are, neither do any of you!!

Exactly. There was a good article about this in Time a little while back. Using experience as a measuring stick, we don't know much about him. Whether or not that matters is the real question.

When I bring a guy into my office for a job interview, I read his resume. But regardless of what's on that resume, I don't make an offer until that guy proves to me in that office that he's capable of doing what I need him to do. He does that verbally. If he's an idiot, I don't care what his resume says. If he's got it going on upstairs, that trumps a light load of experience.

Barack answers questions - tough questions - with the intelligence and preparedness that I'd expect from a leader. That's certainly not everything and it's not the best indicator of future performance, but it counts for something. He could be a fake, lazy or a joker, but he's at least got the brain power to do the job.

[soupnazi]

first, to ocho-ocho--yes, I will give you that he seems to be a very bright man, specially when compared to the current "pres". When I'm reffering to idiots here, I'm talking about the blind followers of ANY candidate, who often cannot tell you anything about their "leader". And Jackie, if you are not judged by your actions, then what???

[Jackie]

"And Jackie, if you are not judged by your actions, then what???"

"Actions" and "accomplishments" are not the same thing, and as a general matter, neither is any type of absolute barometer of an individual's "brilliance."

(There is something about Obama, however, that one advancing such an argument could point to in order to strengthen their position -- that it, the position that accomplishments are an accurate measurement.)

When I'm reffering to idiots here, I'm talking about the blind followers of ANY candidate, who often cannot tell you anything about their "leader".

This is a fair point. That said, you certainly were not clear on this in your prior posts.

[Dingo]

Opposite. His campaign has repeatedly said that electing him would make no racial statement, but, as his speech the other day mentioned, the choice to get to a post-racial state is up to us. Any implied promise comes from the eye of the beholder.

I said "Obama's campaign", i.e. the movement. I didn't say Obama. I didn't say his surrogates. Therefore I don't take issue with your statement, but it was still a reason that people were drawn to his candidacy. To deny that many of his supporters were motivated by that aspect and the damage that Wright did to it is, I think, wishful thinking.