Be honest; nothing would have been enough for you, because you aren't interested in anything but his destruction in the election.

If this election comes down to how Obama looks on TV vs McCain, I like my odds.

Is there anything Obama could have said that would have satisfied you -- honestly?

unpredictable because it has not happened yet.  Your certainty in your prediction does not make it so.

You may be right, but you may not be.  Time will tell.  

Which party elders do you think will get together and let Obama know the nomination is over?

He may very well have the "math" to win the nomination, but is the Democratic party leadership and elder statesmen and stateswomen so naive and short-sided that they would allow this person, which this kind of racial baggage, to be at the top of a major political party presidential ticket?

So, who is going to inform Obama that his position that he staked out untenable and highly divisive to the vast majority of Americans?

its not enough as judged by you.

P.S.
Any vdare links this time?

It was a good speech and I don't see him getting any bump in the polls.

The genie has been let out of the bottle.

This is a lot more about judgement however Obama as usual failed to recognize that.

Of course he would like it to be about race because he has constantly used race as a weapon .

Someone should advise him to stop comparing Gerri Ferraro to that despicable individual.

Who does he think he is fooling ?

 

I respectfully disagree.

Obama's speech was a great speech.
It may be viewed as the turning point of the campaign.

Obama successfully distanced himself from the most egregious statements by Rev. Wright,
but then went on to explain to the nonblack viewer why Wright may have said them.

He also stated clearly that the issue of race cannot be swept under the carpet
or be resolved for whites by electing one black candidate.

Superb.

From the MSNBC headline:

"Obama: Racial anger is 'real'
  In major address, Obama condemns comments from his longtime pastor, but says, 'I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community'"

CNN: "Wright has been like family to me".

You really see this as getting him a bump in the polls?  Bearing in mind that this is about as much as most people are going to see of this speech.

I am surprised to hear you say that guilt by association. So, Clinton and McCain have no Skeletons in their closet?  

They do and lots of it but what are you really saying?

Who do you think Obama lost?

You are the sades person on this site. Your diaries are so divisive.  You epitomize the Clinton campaign completely.

Remember that. He was speaking to the vast majority of reasonable Americans who are disturbed by the recent controversy, but not so demented that they will believe the Newsmax or Fox News explanation of Obama's explanation.

In 2000... the punditocracy chose to obsess about Gore's farm, Love Story, and the Internet.

In 2004... the punditocracy chose to obsess about Kerry's inability to tell a joke, his windsurfing, and his ketchup heiress wife.

In 2008, the punditocracy chooses to obsess about Obama's connection to Reverend Wright.

What will be the diversion in 2012?

The press loves to point us to the bright shiny things... it keeps us from noticing the real problems of the war, the economy and health care. It seems that Universal is also being hynotized by the shiny things.

Obama's speech did two things.

1) It calmed down & reinforced the beliefs of his white liberal supporters.

2) It calmed down & reinforced his support among African-Americans.

But to the 70% of All Americans, this did absolutely Nothing to sway them to join his racial healing.

Mentioning Ferraro & comparing her to Wright will hurt him even more with white working class voters.

How in the world could you compare what Ferraro said to the sermon of hate of Wright.

This speech was tailored made for Liberals alone.

Unfortunately, liberals cannot win you Presidential elections.

What's changed in three weeks? This speech was politically driven, nothing more, nothing less.

Three weeks ago, when asked about his church at a campaign event, Obama replied: "I don't think that my church is actually particularly controversial. It is a member of the United Church of Christ. It's got a choir. We sing hymnals. We talk about scripture. You would feel at home if you were there."

The question remains, what does newsmax have to say about this?  And when will someone here adopt their talking points as their own?

You're right, negative campaigning works.  But to then leap from that to the conclusion that Obama is therefore unelectable ignores the reality that Senator Clinton will face the same negative campaigning from the right, and that John McCain will face it from the left.  

Yes this speech was good, but he did not actually move his numbers with this speech.  He has merely pointed out the racial divisions, but his candidacy alone cannot bridge this divide.  Neither can his candidacy do a damned thing about the real unequal thing and that is not race but rather gender.  That he not only dismisses, but by his candidacy is trying to no allow once again.  Many women see it that was and his including Ferroro as if what she said is in any way similar to what Wright said is absurd and insulting to all women everywhere.

Obama is nothing more than another politician telling everyone what they want to hear, the only difference is that his rhetoric sounds more convincing then the spin some other candidates have uttered. His stab at HC and the Ferraro comments where way out of line and took away from what was otherwise a decent speech. Unfortunately for him, this speech is not going to undue the damage it has already generated among many white voters and even some blacks. Latest poll from Rasmussen shows Obama's favorability rating dropping due to his connections with Rev. Wright.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/340740.aspx

good speech that might help him with democrats, but i don't see it helping him in the general election.

Obama said up until yesterday that he didn't hear the pastor utter these speeches.

When the dust settles , someone should ask him why he deceived Americans on national tv

Here is the link.  Let's get Hillary back on the air with more 3am wake up calls.  =)

https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/fo rm.html?sc=1699&utm_source=1699& utm_medium=e

Why did Obama say his church wasn't particularly controversial?

Agreed, not nearly enough. Why is it that Oprah had the backbone years ago to desert this church over the incendiary comments by Wright and Obama didn't? It isn't nearly enough to dismiss Wright's racist and divisive comments while continuing to support the man who made them. Might as well embrace Hitler while condemning the comments he made about the Jews or embrace Hezbollah while condemning attacks on Israel.

Obama stood by while Rev. Wright delivered what amounted to hate speech. This goes to character and judgement which, to this voter, seem lacking.

Obama cannot be the choice of the super delegates and must not be given the nomination. If he were to be the nominee, he'd lose us the White House.

Hilarious. People who didn't like Obama yesterday still don't.

On the Geraldine Ferraro theme that keeps coming up in this thread: To die-hard Clintonites, Geraldine Ferraro has become a noble, truth-telling martyr. To Obama supporters, she is a sad, angry person and FoxNews contributor who didn't know when shut up.

To the vast majority of Americans, Democrats, Republicans and Indepedents alike, Geraldine Ferraro is today what she was three weeks ago: a historical footnote, to whom no one (with the possible exception of people watching Jeopardy or playing Trivial Pursuit) has given more than a passing thought in twenty-odd years.

In recent years, I've really not been too much into speeches.  A lot of speeches have been given in my lifetime--some good, some not-so-good, and a few great, memorable orations.  Obama's speech wove the necessary themes; and, yet, it necessarily had difficult snags where he had to join disavowal of words and "owning" of friendship.  At first, he appeared to do both by separating behavior from a person's humanity (Wright's inflammatory language from Wright's selfhood.)  The problem that Obama faced, in terms of speech dynamics, appears to be how to get the understanding of the listeners to reaffirm with him what he is also trying to disavow.  By using the device of including Ferraro, he attempted that reconciliation of the contradictory terms of his speech.  Yet, by using the Ferraro reference to ask for understanding as well as setting out several more minutes of reasons for understanding, he may have overstepped with those outside the AA/white liberal demographics.  It is one thing to ask for understanding of what leads to bitterness and other complex emotions that underlie Sunday mornings at Trinity Church, but quite another to skip/not acknowledge many (such as blue-collar white people) who also carry their burdens to Church on Sunday mornings.  It seems to me that the "healing" Obama really focused on here was somewhat narrow.  It had a feeling of "You must understand me, but I need not try to understand you."  At least--contrary to the early euphoria a few months back--Obama and his followers have publicly said that we do have a ways to go through the racial minefield until we reach a better place.  He and Ferraro might have a public chat together for starters in light of his public references to her.  In the meantime: After the words, we still don't really know about how he could not know of Wright's videos of damnation of our country.  That matters to a lot of Americans.  It always does.

This speech did nothing to end the Wright/Obama controversy. In my opinion, it makes it worse. For example, even though Obama characterized Wright's comments as racially divisive, he was unwilling to disown Wright for those comments. But, Obama's perfectly willing to let Ferraro burn in hell (my words, not his) for her comment, which I do not think rose to the same level as Wright's. If Obama continues to embrace Wright, he should be willing to embrace Ferraro.

obama is done for the majority of the voters.

Face it; not practicing what you preach, is certainly a decisive factor.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/2008011300 04

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12 /obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

He first said he was "shocked, just shocked" at the content of WRight's sermon.

Now he doesn't seem so shocked..admitting he'd heard controversial stuff before.

Which is it Obama?

Lying, politically expedient denouncement of Farrakhan, only when it's made national news, not 5 months ago when Wright gave him an award.

obama=skilled politician, but untested.

Good luck with that!

Just words.....

I don't think it will change the narrative: his supporters will think it was manna from heaven and everyone one else will see it as a campaign speech doing damage control.

were the equivalent of calling all Clinton supporters, esp. women, racists on the same level as Rev. Wright.

Distorting Ferraro's comments and valid complaints about double standards in media coverage was one thing, labeling them as "deep seated racism" is not only blind, but vindictive.

Obama can't seem to pass up any opportunity to insult and denigrate women supporting Clinton's campaign.  When will he come to terms with his problem, or, as in so many political and social circles dominated by men, is it still acceptable?

Irrefutable content
Irrefutably Historic.
Irrefutably the Democtaric nominee.

He has the potential to be greater than Kennedy. When he travels overseas he will be greeted as the Liberator, the person who liberated America's dormant decency, inteligence and Leadership.

(By the way it was not a slight on Ferraro - he is giving a pass - the same pass he gives everyone whose environmental background prevents clarity of thought on such issues)

we'll just fucking well see about that. november's only a few months away.

I am not an obama supporter per se; he only gets points from me by virtue of not being Hillary Clinton or John McCain - the lesser of three evils. but while the wright kerfluffle has given repiglicans a target to screech against, it has fallen flat otherwise, mainly by virtue of having been oversold by obama's enemies.

the wright tapes could have been devastating, but the histrionic fox newsish screeching around them has effectively neutralized their impact. with obama's speech today, the screech is now the story, rather than the tapes themselves, and the clinton partisans now find themselves on the same side of the fence as Fox.

result: you lose.

Universal, what would you think about Sen. Obama finishing the speech like this:  Now we have to move ahead to insure the economic viability of all our citizens.  I'd like to invite Sen. Clinton to join me to calm the fears I've been hearing from our American electorate as to the recession ahead.  These will affect all of us = black, white, Latino, Asian.  Let's talk about those solutions now.

Frankly, I thought the speech was similar to his other speeches - which is not bad.  But I am focusing my energies now on how to survive in what I think will be a disastrous economy and while we're spinning in the racial vortex, the country seems to have been stolen!  From all of us!  If you think racial attitudes are bad now, wait til we're all surfering economically even more.

I see two fairly serious flaws in this speech.

1) No easy sound bites. You can't fight TV sound bytes with an eloquent essay. This probably won't reassure the people he needs to win over.

2) Older white people always say to me, "How come he never talks about his white relatives?" Well, today he did - he talked about his grandmother by saying she makes bigoted comments that make him cringe.

This diary confirms my worst suspicion..."Universal" is not an Obama supporter.

Everytime I watch the videos of pastor Wright I cringe.  That type of talk has no place in a house of God, in my opinion.

And my biggest issue with Obama's explanation is that I cannot get past the fact that he sat there for 20 years and listened to this man give these "sermons" from the pulpit!

This man married him and his wife and baptized his children.

I honestly don't know what to make of it all, but it makes me mad!  Obama is supposed to be above all of this.  A uniter.

I don't believe that he can continue to make that claim when he was perfectly willing for 20 years to listen these types of hateful diatribes and consider them his way of being close to God.

I think I'll be a brain surgeon.
Even though I've only done minor surgery
and my LIFE LONG mentor and Pastor says "SURGERY is evil and god damn surgery!!"

I still want the job.  I want to unite all SURGEONS with all of those who'd rather suffer or die. My Mother was a surgeon.  My Grandmother was a surgeon.

Those who blame the SURGEONS when surgery fails.
Yes they tried their best but it was NOT good enough.  They failed.  Why try again? Gd dAm the SURGEONS.

Just hire ME and I'll unite the SURGEONS with the herbalists, the SURGEONS with the Christian Scientists, the SURGEONS with Jeraldine because she's the WORST of ALL!  WRight?  

SHe recognized a disease.  Called us on it and we all went WILD!  GD damn SURGEONS.

(um yea)  

A lot of this back-and-forth about the speech is missing the entire point of the Wright flap, outside of the blogosphere where we pick everything apart and poke at the pieces one by one in carefully worded responses.

As a response to the blogosphere I think the speech is really good; except for people who want to read into it things that aren't there (such as Jerome somehow finding multiple mentions of Ferraro), you can pick it apart and answer every little picked-apart charge.

Want to know why Obama maintained a relationship with Wright? It's in there. Want to know why Wright was appropriate for weddings and baptisms? In there. Want to know how Wright treated people? In there. Want to know if Obama was in church for the inflammatory parts? In there. Every nitpicky piece-by-piece response you ever wanted is in there. You may chose to ignore them, but that's not on Obama. If you're going to be in the blogosphere picking things apart, reading and listening comprehension is assumed, as well as willingness to actually listen.

But that's really missing the point. This wasn't a speech intended for the blogosphere to go wonky over. And the responses miss the entire point of the speech.

The point of this entire thing has been whether Obama is a stealth racist with Wright's views. If he is, then obviously people aren't going to vote for him, even if otherwise he looks pretty good. It isn't and hasn't been about whether Wright is good or bad, placing him in context or any of that.

What the voters that everyone's fretting about want to know is two things:

1. Does Obama love this country, and
   
2. Is he plotting some sort of blacks-good whites-bad "racial justice" agenda if elected President.

After listening to that speech, it's impossible for anyone who hasn't already firmly made up their mind to the contrary to believe that Obama doesn't love this country, nor that he's some black-power racist crusader. And there are very very few people whose minds are still that made up.

It's not going to speak to the convinced. Nothing was going to. It's not going to sway hardcore Clinton supporters. It wasn't supposed to. It's not going to swag right-wingers or the Democrats-hate-America crowd. There wasn't a chance of that.

But among the independents, moderates, Reagan Democrats, and non-Reagan Democrats for that matter, it answers the big questions unequivocally and firmly. It wraps Obama up with America and puts him fully behind the glory of this country, sets his agenda fully as being the improvement of America for each and every American. It makes it clear that he's for everyone. It advances unity and decries divisiveness.

It's a home run. Yes, it won't stop the swiftboats, but it'll make them extremely easy to sink, because all you have to do is pick snippets from this and remind them that they already know Obama is not Wright.

And that's why Universal is right. It wasn't "Nearly Enough". It was far more than enough. There's no nearly about it.

Obama will never win the GE in my opinion.  This story is growing and his speech today didn't change anyone's feelings on it.  Just that he addressed what all american's already know, that race is a problem.  But it also confirmed that Wright and now Obama are part of that problem.  Not good and I feel a fatal blow to Obama.  

Lets make sure we nominate the strongest candidate...Hillary Clinton!  I just donated $25 today.

DONATE TO HILLARY NOW

Click the link above and donate today!

What a sad, hopeless country you live in, Universal.

Uni didn't like Obama's speech.  I have had some run-ins with Uni in the past, and he or she has a pattern of sad behavior like this.  I am truly worried about this individual, and have publically stated so.

The conventional wisdom on the speech for good, ill, or indifferent is this:
Best Speech This Year
By Nicholas D. Kristof

Barack Obama's speech on race just ended and, boy, can he speak! That was the best political speech I've heard at least since a certain keynote address in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention. And maybe this was better, because it was substantive and peeled away layers to confront sensitive matters that normally go unexamined.

One concern is that this was a long and complex speech but that few will hear the whole thing, and that bits will be plucked out of context on talk radio and cable TV. On the whole, I think the speech as a whole would reassure nervous white voters, but it may be that specific lines will be taken out and played endlessly on talk radio and exacerbate the public nervousness or discomfort with a black candidate. A friend of mine says that the first Catholic president (Kennedy) wasn't very Catholic, and that the first women and black presidents won't be very female or black, either. So I have a nagging concern that parts of this speech could be played over radio, out of context, to make Obama seem "blacker" and leave some whites less comfortable with him.

I thought that Obama's basic pitch was right: Whites need to acknowledge the legitimacy of blacks' complaints about the legacy of Jim Crow, and blacks can't let anger be an excuse to fail to read to their kids. In general, Obama's emphasis on education as a remedy feels just right: The biggest way we fail black kids today is with poor inner-city schools, and that's the best ladder we can offer to overcome social and racial inequity.

If you haven't seen or heard the speech, do so. It was a masterpiece to go down in history along with Bryan's "Cross of Gold" and Kennedy's about his Catholicism.

**

Now there are those who will undoubtedly seek a reason to fault the speech or continue to be divisive in this cycle, but you can BET, between the FL thing being resolved, the MI re-vote being killed by ITS LEGISLATURE and this speech...the Super Delegates are going to be stating their case in pretty short order.  

Everyone wants to be a part of history.

This speech no matter how great it seems it was (haven't watched it yet) is not enough. Good thing the election isn't today. ;)

Obama would have been electric if he'd addressed and apologized for the real and immediate race issue in front of his nose: his campaign's divisive exploitation of it to turn the Clinton's into racists.  He waited to take this stand on racial division until he needed it for damage control to his own campaign, and not when the damage was being done to the party, to democratic voters, and to the civil rights legacy of the only two-term Democratic president since Franklin Roosevelt.
See my diary:http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/18/1446 16/548

On the pastor. While I don't condone what he said. But he was a Vietnam veteran, you have to know, a lot who came out of, affected them.

He has served his time in duty and he has a right to say what he did. Don't mean it's right but I understand why he was ranting.

You know what some older people will say - "He's no Tiger Woods". Because that's their standard.

I haven't seen the speech, yet, but I read the Yahoo article on it. No matter how good it was, I think he is in big big trouble. The article I read on CNN re: Wright's statements didn't seem too terrible, but from what I heard on "Countdown" last night, they are bad enough ("God d... America!", etc.) that it would hurt Obama terribly at any time, much less in this totally militantly nationalistic period following 9/11. He must have known how inflamatory some of Wright's sermons were and taken the bad with the good, while not agreeing with the bad things. This is a problem with Liberals who don't see in black and white like the sheeple. I've read enough of his first book to feel that because Barack is half white and was raised by a white mother and white grandparents, he often felt that he had to try harder not to look like he was rejecting his Black heritage, esp. in the 60s and 70s when "Black Power" was such a big thing. I think he understands the anger that other Blacks have toward Whites and maybe he has some residual guilt for not rejecting his white side. It's not like he is hateful re: all Whites, himself, but because he understands the anger, he has probably been more forgiving of the rhetoric of angry Blacks (and I noted that Wright is lighter than Barack) than he would've been otherwise.
I don't think it would have helped to distance himself from Wright earlier. We have to consider the putrid excuse for journalists in the corporate media which amounts to 90% or better of the largely GOP conservative owned/controlled media. They would've found out this stuff and swiftboated Barack, anyway,just as they would and will use Whitewater, etc. to swiftboat Hillary. And who focused on Hillary and Barack more than Richardson, Biden, etc. who were less vulnerable to attacks, but the corporate owned REPUBLICAN Bush/Cheney lovin'media? Plus, they waited until Ferraro imploded Hillary's campaign, at least as far as Black voters go, to destroy Barack's chances with white voters, esp. crossover GOPs and Indies. Now, McCain will win thanks to the media which is anything but Liberal. So much for freedom of the press when the press is controlled by the same corporations that are controlling the country all in the name of greed.
I think Hillary has a slightly better chance than Barack now, but I think we all better start praying that McCain develops some backbone and turns on the neo-cons cuz I think he will be elected. (And how hard is it to emigrate to Canada, now, cuz much as I hate the cold, as a die hard Liberal, it is looking pretty good to me, right now? Sigh!)

not from emotion. This was obviously a speech to answer questions raised by Wright's words and to reassure the American voter that he is a safe, regular guy who only wants to bring everyone together and does not represent some sort of threat. So, did he do that?

I don't think it's a sure thing and here are some quotes and quesions and amateur political analysis of how it will play.

"And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn."

He says this as though it was some political hit job that caused this rather than the hate speech of his preacher. This is not about a discussion of race-this is about using hate speech from a church pulpit. I don't think  people see this as a racial issue as much as a radical anti-American hate speech issue

"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."

Here he essentially equates the extremist statements of Wright with the types of things Americans routinely hear in their church or other place of worship and "disagree" with-don't think that's going to fly.

"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."

Here, again, he equates radical hate speech with things old people sometimes say that makes you cringe, like calling AA's colored. His grandmother was afraid of black men in the street. Many women are afraid of all men in certain  places. I don't think  most rational people equate the things that Wright said which are not only anti-white but anti-American with the type of prejudcie exhibited by your grandmother.

"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."

Here he equates the treatment of Wright and Ferraro even though the content of their respective remarks could not be more different. Wright is overtly racist and preaches racism in a church. Ferraro gave her opinion which some saw as racist but it was not the purpose of the statement.

"But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."

Here he argues that black anger is justified and we need to understand it. Will that play in middle America? Is that what people are concern about right now-understanding the roots of anger?

"In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community"

OK-will most people accept that they feel the same way that Wright expresses? Do most people go to churches that preach this type of anger and hate? Not to my knowledge.

"In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed."

Will voters want to hear this? Do they want this election to be about the legacy of discrimination?

"We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies."

Again, the minimization and equivalization of Wright with gaffes-will that sound logical to most voters?

Anyway, the speech to me was all about politics and minimizing the very real damage Wright did to Obama's campaign. The lofty rhetoric surrounding it would be more convincing if it was't so much of a piece with a clear attempt at damage control rather than a sincere effort of bridging a racial divide.  

Will it work-I don't know. But I don't think it's the sure thing most Obama supporters think it is.

If you can't see this, then you're beyond the ability to honestly assess a speech.

It was the best speech I've ever seen any politician give.  

The reviews of this speech have been almost uniformly positive, except for Rush and some Cornerites, who of course would never be satisfied.

Given that the speech was made about 7 hours ago, it is way too early to make predictions about the impact of it or the Wright issue on the general election in November.

Regardless, it is good to see a Clinton supporter basically admitting that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

I look forward to seeing pro-Obama diaries from you after he is officially named our nominee.

OBAMA08

My understand is that the ranting pastor was a vietnam veteran. Firstly he served so he has a right to critzice the country. I doubt if anyone of you did. Secondly he is angry cause he served- put his life on the line, came home and faced racism. He is bitter. It is understandble. Obama said that is a generational thing. He was right.

John McCain's advisor Hagee. His friend and supporter called the Catholics, ''son of whores''.
Unless he denounces, I will work every day till the general to spoil McCain's chances.