I sometimes wonder what rabbit hole I've fallen down around here sometimes...

I agree, I have a really hard time seeing how this speech is divisive as some have tried to say. I think that this was a truly honest discussion of race. I thought it was very well handled.

Let's not mince words.

Obama now admits he heard his pastor use divisive language, stuff that made him cringe, stuff that he totally disavowed in this campaign, and yet he:

allowed this man to marry him, baptize his children, titled his two books after him, contributed money to his church, appointed him to his presidential spiritual advising committee, etc...

Yes Barack, you don't get to choose your grandmother. And we all heard members of our family say things that are mean, even racist.

But we get to CHOOSE our pastor. And who you choose to associate with, for over 20 years, demonstrates what supreme LACK OF JUDGMENT you have.

This speech has become a Rorschach test for the MyDD community (as well as a reading comprehension test).  It reveals a great deal about the writers' psychologies.

for reminding me why I still manage to wade through the bile and piss that passes for content on this site.

Not because i'm an Obama supporter, but because you give clear and well reasoned analysis, not out of context attack dog hit pieces.

The speech was really quite something.  I get why there's real resistance to it.  What he did was incredibly honest and open and to anti-Obama partisans, it's got to have hit hard.

Good speech, but I don't think it changed people's views on Wright or their new found fears about Obama.

I think this speech was aimed at keeping AA's with him and an attempt at bringing middle america white voters back to him.  I think he succeeded at keeping AA's with him, he will keep his diehard Obama fans with him but I don't see this changing the majority of white's views that Wright is racist and Obama is of the same cloth.  To do that he needed to completely distance himself from Wright and he didn't do that.

It is up to the MSM to deal with it now.  They will decide if Obama is done or not.

staaart.... yourrr.... pre-fabricated stock comments!

3...
2...
1...

"OBAMA IS FINISHED. DONE!"
"TWENTY YEARS TOO LATE."
"YOU LET THIS MAN OFFICIATE AT YOUR WEDDING AND BAPTIZE YOUR CHILDREN?"

----

I just hope a couple people take the time to read the speech. Whether you support Obama or not, it truly is honest, intelligent, and thought-provoking.

Some might, and unfortunately do still use race in a divisive manner. This is a reality we cannot ignore.

Yes, I agree. Barack Obama is one of them. He has used it to deeply divide the Democratic base. First he smeared Edwards as a racist, then he smeared Bill and Hillary as racists.

The hypocrisy of this man is astonishing.

Had he given this admittedly terrific speech at the beginning of his campaign, he would have been at the top of my list for Democratic candidates.

Too little, too late.

i win.

I didn't see his Ferraro comment as Jerome did, either. Obama was talking about people's reactions to Wright, and strongly implying that those who believe that Ferraro harbors "some deep seated racial bias" are WRONG.

Keeping hope alive I see.

I thought it was a good speech too.  However, he has tripped himself up with too many inconsistencies IMO and this will cause him a lot of problems if he gets to the GE.  .  

You obviously did not watch the speech.  Obama took no shots at anyone.

This may be the most honest political speech I've ever heard.  I expected him to denounce Wright, and talk about the need for unity.  I didn't expect the level of detail, the extremely personal nature, and the honesty about America's racial challenges and what it will take to meet them.  This was absolutely outstanding.

The desire to win an election has stripped Hillary's supporters of all sense of judgement.

OH NO THE SKY IS FALLING

it was a great speech.

As I pointed out in the other thread - Jerome read what he wanted to read.... and his fanbois happily jumped on board.

How anyone can see his creative snipping as anything other than CLEARLY trying to wring a different meaning than intended is beyond me.

This isn't a soundbite speech - not today.   It's a sweeping address that doesn't claim to play damage control, or put 'an issue' or a 'controversy' to rest.

For better or worse, Barack Obama - his campaign and his supporters - have cast their lot with the theory that Obama is more than just another President, just another candidate.  That's not to say he's a messiah or Jesus -- it's to say that every so often, America finds itself with an extraordinary leader.   Once you start down that path, you need to deliver.

That's what Obama has continued to do here.  This is a carbon copy "I reject and denounce" mea culpa -- it couldn't and shouldn't be.   It's exactly what he set it out to be... a larger discussion of the underlying issues around the last few weeks of this campaign - and the undercurrent that's really been a trickle since 2007.

BTW... It's worth reading the entire section that Jerome hackishly snipped apart for his own purposes.  Read it all - and tell me you don't see the section differently than Jerome's original hackish portrayal.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.  On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.  
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.  For some, nagging questions remain.  Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy?  Of course.  Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church?  Yes.  Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views?  Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.  

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial.  They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice.  Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough.  Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask?  Why not join another church?  And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man.  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.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"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 has been my experience at Trinity.  Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger.  Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor.  They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear.  The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

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.

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.

Shame on Jerome.

That was cut, excerpt, and skew worthy of Rush Limbaugh.

Obama did not distance himself from his radical kook spiritual adviser. He praised him.

He is divisive and full of crap.

Unity my ass.

Get real.

Please explain how the Ferraro reference "took a shot" at her.  You have completely ignored the text and are seeing only what you want to see.  Which, I suppose, is not surprising.

Gtreat speach - this is the litmus test for people who want change for the better or who want to go back to business as usual.

very emotional, honest and deeply thought through.

A politician with depth. What a novelty

I was upset at some of the stuff on MyDD the other day and wrote a post swearing I was not coming back.

I just read the text of Obama's speech, however, and it reminded me of why I love politics at its best.  

Amazing speech.  Covered it all.

So rather than discuss Wright's comments and examine the country's problems that lead to comments like Wrights, you'd rather have him meekly apoligize and make it about Barack Obama.

Obama took a divisive moment and made it a opportunity to address real racial issues on the public stage. He made intelligent and reasoned arguments for the existence of racism, and offered real first steps to combat it.

If that's not enough -- then yes, Obama's campaign is doomed. Any real leaders' campaign would be.

Deep depth.  He's got it.

I didn't watch him give the speech, but just the text was amazing.

When someone as smart as Jerome describes it as 'ugly and unfair,' I can only say, "which alternate universe were you in when he gave that speech?"

Sound analysis Johnathan.

As Obama said there are those who WILL want to continue to use race...and some of them are right here at mydd, sadly enough.

Obama DEFENDED Ferarro for cryin' out loud.  HE DEFENDED her!  I think the mere mention of her name drove some pople here right over the edge.

Game-changer.  He was already ahead in delegates, votes, states, and SD momentum (a new one today in IL)...this is going to remind folks of why he was considerda transformative figure in the first place.  It has already begun in fact.

Have you HEARD the pundits?

I think he may have sent Fineman an advance copy.  He DID everything and more Fineman said he must!

But what has Obama really done for racial equality?  

This is what I want to know.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

This is the disconnect between me and Obama. I have not heard my priest make remarks that are in any way similar to Rev. Wright's, or for that matter similar to Jerry Fallwell's or John Hagee's. I would not attend mass with a priest who made such comments, because I believe those kinds of comments are morally wrong.

I really thought this was a brilliant speech.

I've seen many politicians place a bet on the fundamental intelligence and good will of the American electorate and lose that bet.  Obama's bet is of a slightly different sort and I certainly hope he wins it.

Anyone who didn't just fall off the turnip truck knows how this story is "supposed" to end.  Wright is just too divisive a figure, the sound bites are just too incendiary, there's no way to prevent it from overcoming Obama's candidacy and dooming it.  That's the usual political narrative in this country.  It's the picture of Willie Horton all over again.

But as Obama says, our society can make progress.  We obviously still have major issues concerning race in this country, but that doesn't have to mean we've gotten nowhere on them.  Maybe he's right that we've at least reached a point where we don't have to let a divisive racial issue like this one completely drown out every issue that actually matters.  Maybe yes, maybe no - that's the bet he's making.  In a sense that was the bet of his whole candidacy all along.

This is the first time I've really gotten a sense of Obama's overall campaign narrative, the idea that he's calling on us all to become something better.  It's a powerful idea.

Again, it was a good speech, but I don't see how this has eased white people's fears of Wright and now Obama.

How will this speech make a middle america white voter no longer question Wright or Obama's close relationship to him?  

Yes, we all know race is still a problem in this country.  But middle america white voters will still think that Wright is over the top and that Obama is in the same parish as Wright.  Obama didn't ease that fear in my opinion.

Still a major problem for him in the GE and perhaps the remander of this primary.

I've done some websurfing on reaction to this, however.

And, all I can say is this:

Anyone that equates/equivocates a former Dem V.P. candidate's (let alone the first female to cross that threshhold) distorted comments from a paid, personal appearance (that had nothing to do with her campaign activities) with those of a videotape of someone essentially unknown to the American public is pretty darn desperate about something, IMHO.

It's an irrational comparison, from a purely subjective standpoint. And, it's one that will rub a lot of perfectly rational folks the wrong way.

It's apples to oranges. Period.

I really don't need to know anymore. I'm sure the rest of Obama's speech was compassionate, powerful and convincing. But, the guy blew his opportunity here by choosing to make a comparison that many voters will find unconvincing. IMHO, this is an implausible comparison--at a very basic level--to a lot of people.

He missed the proverbial shot. I don't think I really need to know much more.

I believe his polling nos. will bear this out over the next 72 hours, too.

Donna Brazile & Co are going to have to do some serious re-strategizing due to this implosion now.

That's the thing about politics...as Forrest Gump said it: '...ya' never know what yer' gonna' git.'

The timing couldn't be worse for the O-man, either.

"The Page" describes and defines how things are seen by the punditocracy.  They have often framed things in ways the Clinton people like.  This is what they say --

Obama Rises to the Occasion on Race and the Race

Obama blows away the chattering class with Philadelphia speech.

Delivers historic remarks on race in address that was wide-ranging, personal, and (at times) passionate.

One key topic: his relationship with the Rev. Wright. Click above to watch excerpt.

Widespread praise from anchors/pundits/reporters for sweeping remarks drawing on American history and his own biracial upbringing to explain struggle of race in the country. Suggests his campaign can help unify a long-divided nation.

We know he gives great speaches, but his actions don't always match his rhetoric.  I think he said some terrific things, but how much credit should we give for rhetoric?  How much do we dismiss actual life choices?

Obama supporters are asking the nation to just trust him because of his words.  Even prior to these racial issues, there have been serious doubts among non-supporters about his level of preparedness for the presidency.  Now, we have serious doubts about whether he has prepared himself enough for this post-racial unity his followers are so sure he will deliver.

Again, my answer for Obama's candidacy remains that he really should spend at least another four years (or eight depending upon the results of this election) preparing for this nation's top leadership position.  Is that really so much to ask of him?

I believe in reality and Ferraro is, at least partially, correct. Obama's candidacy is viable because of our "wide-eyed" interest in racial reconciliation. But, Reverend Wright is on the wrong end of the spectrum because of:

"..incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike...."

Paraphrasing from Andrew Sullivan, who used John McCain, but I substituted Hillary Clinton. And now tell me your honest answer.

If Hillary had spent twenty years hanging with Pat Robertson, describing him as her mentor, attending Robertson's church, having Chelsea baptized by Robertson, having Robertson officiate at her wedding, giving him the inspiration for the title of her career-making autobiography, collaborating with him in political organizing, and then tried  to dismiss criticism  by calling Robertson her lovable uncle who sometimes goes too far, what do you think the reaction would be?

This was possibly the most deeply honest speech about race and America I have ever heard, while it may have lack the eloquent beauty of some of his earlier speeches, this was his finest work. I am 25 years old and I can honestly say that this may have been the most historically important speech of my lifetime (the only other one I can think of is frighteningly by Dubya-the post 9/11 speech due to circumstances), not for its effects on his canidacy but for what it could mean about America, this could really be the healing of the divde which has scored this country since its founding.

It was a good speech, but a few things noted:

1. In order to move past racial divisness in our country - only Barack Obama can "cure" us?  

I kind of felt like he was stating that he's the "official" person that can heal us and only he was capable of that - a bit of arrogance on his part.

2. Now he admits he was there when Wright said some of those controversial things. So, when he said before he wasn't, was that a lie? Or what?

3. While he explained away Wright's beliefs based on the era he grew up (50's/60's) - I'm not sure Obama really distanced himself from Wright's comments.  I understand he can't throw him under the bus, but he still seemed to be saying that it's understandable for him to feel/think the way he does.

4. The slave blood running through Michelle's veins was an attempt to explain some of her anger in my opinion, but not sure that really worked.

5. It was good that he brought up immigrants and the understanding that there are divides amongst immigrants and the black community.

All in all I thought it was a good speech, but I'm not sure it will help him in a GENERAL election (maybe among democrats).

1.   You wrote:  "Some might, and unfortunately do still use race in a divisive manner. This is a reality we cannot ignore."

Yes, and no one in this campaign has done a more thorough job of using race in a divisive manner than Obama himself, and his campaign manager David Axelrod.  See these three articles on Axelrod's calculated race approach:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12053667 7319031953.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazi ne/01axelrod.t.html?ref=magazine&pag ewanted=all

2.  You wrote:  "The hope of bringing people together. Yes, this is a hope. We are not there yet. But is is something noble to strive for."

Here Obama dismisses several generations of white involvement in civil rights, justice, and poverty issues.   True progressives like Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton have worked together arm in arm for decades.  Jewish people from the north came down to the south and got themselves killed for civil rights in the 60s.  

Nowhere in any Obama speech do you see even a nod to this.   Obama speaks as though he invented the notion of racial harmony for the first time in history.   What an arrogant, ill-informed, and insulting position to take.

I'm trying to think of a precedent for this speech.

Bill Clinton did a racial intiative campaign 1997 but it did not fully take off. There's some good lines in that link, thought.

Does anyone have any other instances addressing race and resentments and how they work to hold us back like this?

are on this thread, in such a short amount of time. Man. MyDD is jumpin' today!!

Ace in the hole. This speech should go in the history books. This candidacy should (and will) go in the history books. This was one of the most "presidential" speeches I have ever heard a candidate give in my life, if not THE most. It challenges every American to be better, from top-down and bottom-up. He didn't dance around issues as most politicians and people in the public light do. If you didn't feel challenged to be a better American after listening to this speech, you were not paying attention.

I didnt see BO so i have not commnent on speech.  But the real problem for BO is that "race" is now a central theme of his campaign even through he has been smart about not letting that happen up until super Tuesday and the TX, OH, RI results.  And the dkos crowd has done BO no favors in this regard by constantly being up race the wed after super Tuesday.

Elections are about what the voters think and race cuts both ways and this is most true for working class white voters.  These voters think enough has been done to address race.  These voters (and this is not speaking for myself) no longer agree with the need for things like afirmative action, etc or that racism exists in any significant way.

And remember these are working class voters who are often two working parent families that are just, and i mean JUST getting by, and they are really sick and tried of hearing about race and in there opinion expected to suffer from some kind of collect guilty about slavery or seperate but equal.

That is the problem for BO.  These voters see comments like his, and my guess this speech, as more about PC than racism and race in america.  BO hasnt done well with these voters and my guess is after the whole Wright issue and this speech these voters will continue to move away from BO.  The truth is these voters are sick of hearing about race and want someone to address what they see as their own issues of being working class families living pay check to pay check and keeping their jobs.

david

Scandals have two trajectories.  They either rise and rise which causes the press to report on the effect of the scandal which causes them to rise some more and it becomes a feedback loop.  If that doesn't happen, they tend to dampen quickly because the press gets bored with the story and wants to cover something else.

Coming into February, I was worried about two things, Rezko and Wright.   I didn't see the damage in either case, but I still can't believe that Dean was brought down by poor microphone placement in a room in Iowa.  So I was worried.

The press relieved some of my fears in their post game comments.  They were talking about turning the corner and the narrative being changed.  It then comes down to next week's polls.   If the damage is stopped (and especially if it's reversed), then this "issue" is largely defused.  If Obama can get past this, I don't know what's left to cause issues.

It doesn't mean a free November win, but I'm feeling better today than I did yesterday.

The speech was pretty good as far as those things go.

I can't help but to think he brought all this drama upon himself.  Before this Wright thing blew up in his face he was more than willing to toss around cries of "the race card" as if it was rice at a wedding.  

So, he gets no sympathy from me b/c he chose to play this way.

David/giusd,

You couldn't be more right.  What you stated are exactly my thoughts, only you wrote it much more eloquently.

Great speech, but did nothing for working class white voters.  These are the voters he is beginning to lose and I don't see this stopping the bleed.

Obama will probably still win the primary, however if this happened sooner, he would not have won the primary.  I don't see how he can possibly win the GE though.  

Obama seems to be unable to disown Wright solely based on his racially divisive comments, but Obama is perfectly willing to disown Ferraro because of her comments. Her comments were not nearly as divisive as Wright's, yet he practically demanded her head. Could someone explain this disparity?

youtube link for those who wish to listen before they put foot in mouth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbL UU

Admittedly, I am a Hillary supporter but I have no trouble supporting him should he walk away with the nomination.  Still don't because I think the Supreme Court is a very big issue coming up.  However, I have reservations with him in the general.  I know some idiots who have openly stated that they will vote for McCain if Obama is the dem nominee based on their perception that he is less patriotic and more prone to go against Israel if elected.  Can he win in the general when we know the GOP will be using every means to paint him as a Wright subordinate and possibly driving away any white male support?  I am not sure and fear losing the WH in November.  Time will tell if this speech, as electrifying as it is, can undo that perception.  The PA vote may tell the story in the end.  

"That uppity colored has insulted the honor of Missy Ferraro!"

Is it really all about defending white women from predatory black men? Ferraro herself claims she is being attacked "because she is a white woman," which was a strikingly Klan like dog whistle.

A reminder of why I still wade around in the much here at times.

Truly a historically significant speech.

Ranks with anything given in the last 50 years.  

Not since JFK's inauguration have we seen such statesmanship.

Obama acknowledged why Wright's comments upset people and why they were wrong.  But he could not throw Wright under the bus, and it is this kind of loyalty, so lacking in opportunistic politicians  like The Clintons, that will appeal the most to the crossover voter, the white working class male.  Those people know about loyalty.  

Thankfully, finally we have seen some honest and forthright dialog about race in our political culture.  Truly, only Obama can absorb and reflect both sides of this issue because of his heritage.

The Clinton Kool-Aid drinkers must shrivel up and blow away in the face of this oratorial magnificence.  Hilary's campaign is over.  This is the moment that historians will point to in the future as marking Obama's inevitable march to the Presidency.  Count on it.  

Comparing her private conversations to his minister's repeated attacks on  the Government, Jews and  whites in general is not only not analogous it is a disgrace to the memory of his Grandmother. People that respect their families don't drag out minor indiscretions to further their own gains. Horrible and it shows how much he values the relationship with Wright.

Yes, you missed that part. You missed the part about Wright being a very influential speaker. You missed the part about him treating every white person he was around with dignity and respect. You missed the part about Wright being a very strong spiritual leader.

You've probably missed that a school of divinity in Dallas is honoring Wright next week, after school officials went back over all of the sermons and double-checked.

Wright definitely crossed a number of lines in the inflammatory remarks he's made. No question. Obama made that exceedingly clear, and that he did not in any way agree with them.

Wright is also very clearly a highly spiritual person, most of whose teaching is very uplifting, and who's done an enormous amount of good.

As Obama himself said: if all you knew of Wright was the remarks on YouTube, of course you wouldn't associate with them, and he wouldn't have.

But there's far more there than those remarks, and to his credit, Obama acknowledged it and moved the debate from one pastor to our entire society.

No, Ferraro's comments were WORSE than Wright's.

She should know that it's just not true that Obama wouldn't be in the position he's in if he was a white man, or a woman of any color, which is what she said.  That's a load of garbage.

He is where is because he's an expert politician, a very talented speaker, and here's the part where jealousy comes in...he actually inspires his followers and invokes passion instead of shrugs and mere nods of the head.  

Geraldine Ferraro, and you can take this as an insult if you like, is merely a competent run-of-the-mill politician.

Wright's comments come from a long history of deprivation and frustration.  We should be lucky that people like Wright are merely screaming out their frustrations, not doing anything worse than that.

Ferraro's comments were those of a desperate supporter of a losing candidate lashing out at her opponent in the most childish and destructive of ways.

"Ferraro's comments were those of a desperate supporter of a losing candidate lashing out at her opponent in the most childish and destructive of ways."

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The lies and deceit of the Obama campaign in trashing Geraldine Ferraro will alienate many of us from ever supporting him under any circumstances.

Do I understand why some people liked some of this speech?  Yes.  Do I understand why some people did not like some of this speech?  Yes.  Was this a speech that actually proposed real change, maybe audacious change?  No.

Did he offer something truly new, truly big - like he would work to sunset all legislation that extends preferential opportunity based on race; and seek to replace it with legislation that extends preferential opportunity based on economics (i.e., help the lower class).  No he did not.

Instead he essentially defended the status quo.  And if you object to that characterization, then please take a look at how he ended his speech.  Specifically the story he told about Ashley Baia, and the "Perhaps somebody..." sentence.

"There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there."  "Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mothers problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice."

Would anyone care to argue that suggesting imaginary "facts" - "facts" that will anger certain racial groups - is not part of status quo racial politics?

Would anyone care to argue that the inclusion of an imaginary Hispanic slight was not an attempt to establish an "us versus them" sentiment (i.e., status quo racial politics)?  

Lastly, could that story have been told without the imaginary racial slights?  Yes.  So why didn't he tell it that way - and why did he end his speech with this story?