Barack Obama will give a speech on race tomorrow in Philaldelphia.

It's obvious Reverend Wright has hurt him or he wouldn't be doing this.

Link : http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/17/obama_plans_speech_on_race_1.html

I'm actually really looking forward to hearing what he has to say.

Yes, even if he hits all the right notes, the chances are slim of Wright becoming a non-issue... but if anybody can give a speech, it's Obama. I wish him luck.

i dont know TT-i think eventually someone would have noticed he was black even without the good reverend..

I'm actually really looking forward to hearing what he has to say.

Yes, even if he hits all the right notes, the chances are slim of Wright becoming a non-issue... but if anybody can give a speech, it's Obama. I wish him luck.

i dont know TT-i think eventually someone would have noticed he was black even without the good reverend..



Obama is a great orator [though I'm not sure if that alone would make him a great president],but remember earlier this year when Mitt Romney realized that being a Mormon was hurting him?

So he gave a speech about himself and his Mormon faith.

As a result of the speech Romney went even further behind.

I'm not saying that will happen to Obama,I'm saying he's got to be very careful.

i dont know TT-i think eventually someone would have noticed he was black even without the good reverend..

Yeah. The over 90% of black voters who picked him sure noticed.

As a result of the speech Romney went even further behind.

There's zero reason to think there was a cause-and-effect between the two.

I'm not saying that will happen to Obama,I'm saying he's got to be very careful.

youre quite right-it not an easy task being black enough but not too black...and im not being facetious here..

Barack Obama will give a speech on race tomorrow in Philaldelphia.

It's obvious Reverend Wright has hurt him or he wouldn't be doing this.

Link : http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/17/obama_plans_speech_on_race_1.html

Yes, it's become too much of a hot-button issue he can't ignore in Pennsylvania's "Archie Bunker" territory. He needs to address it and clarify his viewpoint, and then hopefully be allowed to move on. This could be the make-or-break for his campaign.

His speech was incredible. I've never seen anyone connect the struggle of the negro in this society with the struggle of the average Joe in such a perfectly logical and convincing manner. It's about the "haves" making sure that the "have-nots" don't suddenly realize just how slanted the entire field is against anyone - black, white, Asian, Latino or Native American - who is trying to get a slice of a pie that the "haves" see as their's and their's alone. Basic competition between people for the perceived finite amount of wealth in an economic environment, and nothing more than that.

The common bond between the angry low income black man, and the angry low income white man, is that neither is angry at the people that are actually making their lives become something to be angry about. The angry low income black man isn't causing the angry low income white man's wages to stagnate while his bills go through the roof. The angry low income white man isn't creating a corporate environment where a "successful" black man is assumed to be handed that success on a tarnished silver platter due to Affirmative Action set-asides, even if that black man is beyond qualified for the position, poisoning the man's career as a result before he even gets a chance to prove himself. Neither low income man is responsible for any of the numerous roadblocks set in front of the average American's ability to actually succeed in this society.

This is the result of the "haves" engineering the economic and social environment to pit both of these "have-not" groups against each other, and keep both from challenging them for any of what they feel they were born entitled to possess. Their fathers and grandfathers set up this brilliant system to protect their sons and grandsons as the beneficiaries of their bloodline legacies in much the same way that the Old World aristocracy passed on royal titles from father to son.

In this new world of democracy and capitalism, it couldn't be as obvious as back when the titled class of Europe assured their legacies. It's just done differently here, and making us each hate each other over stupid things is a central strategy in keeping us all from turning on that 1-5 percent of the wealth owners in our society, and demanding equal play.

Barack is too smart to actually use these specific words, but this is what he alludes to. The struggle shouldn't be racial or ethnic. It should be a struggle against a system that's been designed to keep most people in life-long servitude through economic manipulations. If you have to constantly work for someone to just afford to eat and keep a homes, there's no way you'll ever have the time or ability to focus on what it will actually take to change the social environment to allow you the chance to actually advance yourself.

Then if the folks who pay the bills get their media and political flacks to dump in some inflamatory controversy to fill in what free time you might find, and you're completely consumed with what the corporate elites want you to be consumed with. Then, they can just relax and rake in the power and money while you sweat.

There's zero reason to think there was a cause-and-effect between the two.

Well,Romney's problem is that he was [is] an empty suit.

While Obama is not my number one choice, he isn't an empty suit.
youre quite right-it not an easy task being black enough but not too black...and im not being facetious here..

Good point fm.

His speech was incredible.


Well,I won't go that far.

But it was a very good,heartfelt speech and I think all of us who are left of center should support him on this issue.

It is a double standard when the media goes into this but gives Mc Cain a pass when he campaigns with bigoted redenck preachers like John Haggee and Rod Parsley.



Yes, it's become too much of a hot-button issue he can't ignore in Pennsylvania's "Archie Bunker" territory. He needs to address it and clarify his viewpoint, and then hopefully be allowed to move on. This could be the make-or-break for his campaign.


You win elections by forging alliances with various walks of life inluding the "Archie Bunker" types,that is the reality of political life.

His speech was incredible. I've never seen anyone connect the struggle of the negro in this society with the struggle of the average Joe in such a perfectly logical and convincing manner. It's about the "haves" making sure that the "have-nots" don't suddenly realize just how slanted the entire field is against anyone - black, white, Asian, Latino or Native American - who is trying to get a slice of a pie that the "haves" see as their's and their's alone. Basic competition between people for the perceived finite amount of wealth in an economic environment, and nothing more than that.

The common bond between the angry low income black man, and the angry low income white man, is that neither is angry at the people that are actually making their lives become something to be angry about. The angry low income black man isn't causing the angry low income white man's wages to stagnate while his bills go through the roof. The angry low income white man isn't creating a corporate environment where a "successful" black man is assumed to be handed that success on a tarnished silver platter due to Affirmative Action set-asides, even if that black man is beyond qualified for the position, poisoning the man's career as a result before he even gets a chance to prove himself. Neither low income man is responsible for any of the numerous roadblocks set in front of the average American's ability to actually succeed in this society.

This is the result of the "haves" engineering the economic and social environment to pit both of these "have-not" groups against each other, and keep both from challenging them for any of what they feel they were born entitled to possess. Their fathers and grandfathers set up this brilliant system to protect their sons and grandsons as the beneficiaries of their bloodline legacies in much the same way that the Old World aristocracy passed on royal titles from father to son.

In this new world of democracy and capitalism, it couldn't be as obvious as back when the titled class of Europe assured their legacies. It's just done differently here, and making us each hate each other over stupid things is a central strategy in keeping us all from turning on that 1-5 percent of the wealth owners in our society, and demanding equal play.

Barack is too smart to actually use these specific words, but this is what he alludes to. The struggle shouldn't be racial or ethnic. It should be a struggle against a system that's been designed to keep most people in life-long servitude through economic manipulations. If you have to constantly work for someone to just afford to eat and keep a homes, there's no way you'll ever have the time or ability to focus on what it will actually take to change the social environment to allow you the chance to actually advance yourself.

Then if the folks who pay the bills get their media and political flacks to dump in some inflamatory controversy to fill in what free time you might find, and you're completely consumed with what the corporate elites want you to be consumed with. Then, they can just relax and rake in the power and money while you sweat.

Bravo! Well-said, Nor.
And Obama actually did allude to this very idea as he wound down his speech. He walked a social-class tightrope today, excluded no one side of it, and wrapped it up with an inclusive statement of purpose that should unite the legions of forward-thinking people, of all backgrounds, who are tired of business as usual from our own government. I believe he has the intelligence and moral grace to become a great leader, if we give him the chance.

You win elections by forging alliances with various walks of life inluding the "Archie Bunker" types, that is the reality of political life.

I don't disagree, which is why it was very important for Obama to explain his position right now, before people's speculations about him went any farther in defining the perception of who he is and what he really stands for. He highlighted the idea of tolerance and building an effort to understand one another, to work with one another, and that is a very important concept in a divided nation such as this one has become lately.

Barack Obama will give a speech on race tomorrow in Philaldelphia.

It's obvious Reverend Wright has hurt him or he wouldn't be doing this.

Link : http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/17/obama_plans_speech_on_race_1.html

Obama's whole reason for being is that he has the judgment that Clinton lacks.

Doesn't this say loads about his judgment?

Can anyone really think that he didn't know that his "pastor" was a racist, jew-baiting/hating, piece of shit?

Obama's whole reason for being is that he has the judgment that Clinton lacks.

Doesn't this say loads about his judgment?

Can anyone really think that he didn't know that his "pastor" was a racist, jew-baiting/hating, piece of shit?

He had to have known what his preacher was saying during mass. If he did and didnt agree with what he said, he could have stopped going to that church.

I was raised roman-catholic. When I was old enough to make the decision not to go to church and attend mass because I disagreed with the church and what it stands for. Aside from funerals and weddings, I have not willingly attended a sunday mass in about 15 years. I didnt even get married in a church.

Can anyone really think that he didn't know that his "pastor" was a racist, jew-baiting/hating, piece of shit?

I noticed that REverend Wright used the term "rich white people" instead of International Zionists. Most of the "controversial" issues that Reverend Wright addresses besides the 'who has monopolized important businesses and government policy in America' are legit and should be addressed.

Obviously Obama knew that the REverend advocated Black Liberation Theology. That is what is most troubling, that Obama is playing dumb.

That was the best speech delivered in English in my lifetime.

That was the best speech delivered in English in my lifetime.


Obama is unique among today's crop of politicians in that he actually thinks about the world. Also, he has the rare talent to function brilliantly under intense pressure, without a script. He managed to transform a no-win situation into a triumph, by the sheer force of his will, demonstrating in the act that the difference between him and mediocrities like Hillary and McCain is the difference between a Bentley and a used Ford Fiesta.

Sen. Obama's speech was the best speech that I have ever heard from a politician regarding race. I feel that it was sincere, and it actually moved me a bit. I listened to the majority of it on the radio, so I assumed that he was reading it. When I found out that he wasn't, I was even more impressed.

Obama is unique among today's crop of politicians in that he actually thinks about the world. Also, he has the rare talent to function brilliantly under intense pressure, without a script. He managed to transform a no-win situation into a triumph, by the sheer force of his will, demonstrating in the act that the difference between him and mediocrities like Hillary and McCain is the difference between a Bentley and a used Ford Fiesta.

Word.

He had to have known what his preacher was saying during mass. If he did and didnt agree with what he said, he could have stopped going to that church.

I was raised roman-catholic. When I was old enough to make the decision not to go to church and attend mass because I disagreed with the church and what it stands for. Aside from funerals and weddings, I have not willingly attended a sunday mass in about 15 years. I didnt even get married in a church.

I agree. There is no way that he sat in that church for twenty years and listened to that racist f***ing piece of shit and didn't hear some vile crap.

if this was a white guy going to the church of David Duke then running for prez the race-baiting n's would be out in force and the crap NYTimes would be throwing conniptions.


As far as Roman Catholics go....I am one..and our Archbishop let a scumbag illegal Mexican pederaste priest escape to Mexico and then waited over the weekend to tell the police what the priest had told him becuase he thought that the investigators of such crimes were "off" on the weekend.

Later, my Parish Priest read a letter from the self-same scumbag Archbishop in which I felt the Parish Priest was supporting the criminal actions of the scumbag Archbishop, so I stopped going to church for a bit. Recently the priest came over to my house to find out why I wasn't attending, and then explained that he was in no way in support of the scumbag Archbishop.

I noticed that REverend Wright used the term "rich white people" instead of International Zionists. Most of the "controversial" issues that Reverend Wright addresses besides the 'who has monopolized important businesses and government policy in America' are legit and should be addressed.

Obviously Obama knew that the REverend advocated Black Liberation Theology. That is what is most troubling, that Obama is playing dumb.

this piece of shit "pastor" has the anti-semite angle covered though by his endorsement of the equally piece of shit FarraKKKan.

That was the best speech delivered in English in my lifetime.

Is the age listed on your profile correct then?

Have you never heard Tony Blair speak?

Despite the fact that it came off as a "damage control" speech in many ways, it really was close to being a great speech. But I still don't think he pulled it off. I know there are a lot of (American) leftists and Obamaniacs who will disagree with me, but those guys aren't the ones he needed to convince.

And that sucks. If nothing else, I think Obama demonstrated that he's one of the few politicians whose understanding of race and identity politics in the United States goes beyond a playbook on how to exploit. He gets the complexity of the issue, and looks beyond payback and bitterness into fair reconciliation. I fell off the Obama bandwagon a month or two ago because I cooled on his rhetoric and too many hints of '70s-style liberalism (That's code for "unelectable in America"), but on this particular issue, there is absolutely no disagreement.

Personally, I think he's ****ed. But I really hope it's just a temporary ****ed.

I agree. There is no way that he sat in that church for twenty years and listened to that racist f***ing piece of shit and didn't hear some vile crap.

if this was a white guy going to the church of David Duke then running for prez the race-baiting n's would be out in force and the crap NYTimes would be throwing conniptions.


David Duke is (or was) a member of a racist white organization that terrorized black people because they were black. Dr. Wright, to my knowledge, has not preached to his congregation to kill white people because they're white, as the Klan did their followers. Thus, if there was a white presidential candidate that had the same kind of relationship with a KKK grand wizard that Obama has with Dr. Wright, then hell yeah I would be alarmed.

Recently the priest came over to my house to find out why I wasn't attending, and then explained that he was in no way in support of the scumbag Archbishop.


The priest should have kept his mouth shut and counted his blessings.

William Grieder says:

His speech will live on as a complex, exalting memory, whatever happens, because what he said about us is true.

Remember, this is a very shrewd politician, not just highly intelligent and worldly, but wise about himself. He must have understood fully the nature of what he was doing in this speech because all of his life he has coped successfully with the dangerous cross-currents of race. In that speech, Obama was taking all the risks onto himself, going where no one had dared to go before in politics with awareness he might personally pay a price. That is what leaders do, isn't it?

First, Barack Obama did not speak to Americans as though we are children. His discussion assumed that people could relate to a sophisticated explication of the American experience. He did not repackage the realities of race into uplifting myths. Above all, he did not leave anyone out of this generous approach, not his white grandmother for her folk fears of black strangers, not the cruel narrative of the African-American struggle, not the white working class whose immigrant stories have their own legacy of suffering and resentment. Nor would he renounce his friend and mentor Jeremiah Wright, the minister who expresses deeply felt anger and disappointment at the American story.

If you understand the risks Obama undertook, you can see the beauty and pain in what he did. He could not back away from the risks without betraying himself and all those people who are part of him. On the other hand, he was putting at risk his own great promise as a politician. In psychological terms, what's extraordinary is his refusal to split off himself and his own experience from those others. So he embraced them, knowing the risks. Then he tells us--audaciously--that we are capable of doing the same. Yet most of us do the opposite in everyday life, defining ourselves in contrast to the others we are not, idealizing our own selves by demonizing the others. Obama knows all this. He still insists we can do it. He has seen it happen in life.

Could Obama be right about Americans? The proposition itself is thrilling to hear. We feel ennobled by his hopeful account of who we are, but also a little scared. Obama didn't let anyone off the hook. He threw the choice back at the people. But what if he is wrong? We are scared to find out. His hopefulness makes us feel nervous for him.

Obama sounds like cool blues. The calmness of style, the strength of his self-confidence, pull us through the nervousness. If people have the opportunity to hear him in full and think about it, they will recognize the strength it took for him to open his arms this way, casting aside all defenses and evasions. With the hope and everything else he stands for, this guy is one very strong character.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=300422

Is the age listed on your profile correct then?

Have you never heard Tony Blair speak?
yes. I used to watch prime ministers questions and have been following world politics for some time now. My original comment stands, but this is the subject of another thread.

I do hope you listened to the whole speech...

Anyone with the patience to listen to the whole thing and the ability to objectively reason can only conclude that Obama is nothing like this ranting preacher, either in ideology or style.

Wah wah wah 20 years! wah wah. How could you not agree with him after 20 years! wah wah. I've lived with my father for 20 years and we agree on <5% of all political issues. 20 years does not a puppet make.

Anyone with the patience to listen to the whole thing and the ability to objectively reason can only conclude that Obama is nothing like this ranting preacher, either in ideology or style.

Wah wah wah 20 years! wah wah. How could you not agree with him after 20 years! wah wah. I've lived with my father for 20 years and we agree on <5% of all political issues. 20 years does not a puppet make.Well said.

This speech was designed to make Barack Obama appear to condemn "Reverend" Wright while at the same time try to make excuses for his vile views and not offend his militant black supporters. It was a typical two-faced, talk-out-of-both-sides-of-his-mouth rhetoric. It was shallow and designed to make him be sympathetic and the victim. It was wrapped in his usual "what government (meaning Barack) can do for you" stump speech to buy voters with other people’s money. And of course he found time to pimp his books.

Vacuous, double-talking rhetoric from a politician isn't unique or admirable.

Obama is not adequately prepared to give a speech on race, for he is not a man who truly and fully understands the black struggle and black experience and how to address solving the problems. Understanding bits and pieces of history isn't going to cut it if his "solutions" are just more of the same big government dependency and racially-manipulative rhetoric that has destroyed black culture. And since he supports unrestricted abortion, he is unqualified to talk about civil rights in general.

If you want to listen or to someone who has true understanding of issues such as race and civil rights and the constitution, and is a master orator who doesn't have to read a teleprompter like Obama, listen to Dr. Alan Keyes. If you want to read something of substance, don't read pap from Obama, read Dr. Keyes' "Masters of the Dream," or read some of his excellent essays (particularly the multi-part "The Crisis of the Republic" which came out last year)

Obama's whole reason for being is that he has the judgment that Clinton lacks.

Doesn't this say loads about his judgment?

Can anyone really think that he didn't know that his "pastor" was a racist, jew-baiting/hating, piece of shit?

I have all sorts of friends and family who have said and done things that make me cringe,that does not mean the things that make me cringe are everything there is to those people and it does not mean that I love them any less [I'd even say that true love is loving somebody in spite of their faults].

Barack is not my first choice for president,but I don't approve of the way right-wing scum are demagoging this and I hope that all of left of center people[and all decent people for that matter] will stand by him on this.

I especially despise this Mc Carthy-like "guilt by association" angle the right is using.:mad:

All Sean Hannity and his wretched ilk are doing is playing the race card and they are dealing it from the bottom of the deck.



Sen. Obama's speech was the best speech that I have ever heard from a politician regarding race. I feel that it was sincere, and it actually moved me a bit. I listened to the majority of it on the radio, so I assumed that he was reading it. When I found out that he wasn't, I was even more impressed.

Race is the number one unresolved issue in this country,once it is resolved this great country can be even greater.

Despite the fact that it came off as a "damage control" speech in many ways, it really was close to being a great speech. But I still don't think he pulled it off. I know there are a lot of (American) leftists and Obamaniacs who will disagree with me, but those guys aren't the ones he needed to convince.

And that sucks. If nothing else, I think Obama demonstrated that he's one of the few politicians whose understanding of race and identity politics in the United States goes beyond a playbook on how to exploit. He gets the complexity of the issue, and looks beyond payback and bitterness into fair reconciliation. I fell off the Obama bandwagon a month or two ago because I cooled on his rhetoric and too many hints of '70s-style liberalism (That's code for "unelectable in America"), but on this particular issue, there is absolutely no disagreement.

Personally, I think he's ****ed. But I really hope it's just a temporary ****ed.



I pretty much agree with you.

He's not my first choice for president,but this is not the issue that should cost him the election.

Of course,right-wing talk radio is demagoging this and not mentioning that this is the fifth anniversary of our quagmire in Iraq.

I wonder why?

It is funny to hear you nuthuggers talking about how Obama's speach was exalting, incredible, the greatest they had ever heard etc.

I watched and listened to his speech and to me it was none of those things. Bias and cynicism may have influenced this view, but not nearly as much as it has those proclaiming this mediocre, hypocritical and timid speech to be somehow historic.

Would Obama have made this speech if no-one knew about Jerimiah Wright and his rantings? If anything Obama should have made that speech at the beginning of his presidential campaign.

It is funny to hear you nuthuggers talking about how Obama's speach was exalting, incredible, the greatest they had ever heard etc.

I watched and listened to his speech and to me it was none of those things. Bias and cynicism may have influenced this view, but not nearly as much as it has those proclaiming this mediocre, hypocritical and timid speech to be somehow historic.

hahaha to "nuthuggers".

David Duke is (or was) a member of a racist white organization that terrorized black people because they were black.

No they didn't.

The KKK were just standing up for the white rights against the New York Jew lawyers and carptetbaggers.

Didn't you ever read history?


Dr. Wright, to my knowledge, has not preached to his congregation to kill white people because they're white, as the Klan did their followers. [/QUOTE]

He was a US Marine so he must have been a terroristic murderer, like most black people.


Thus, if there was a white presidential candidate that had the same kind of relationship with a KKK grand wizard that Obama has with Dr. Wright, then hell yeah I would be alarmed.

Of course you would because you support black racists.

It is funny to hear you nuthuggers talking about how Obama's speach was exalting, incredible, the greatest they had ever heard etc.

I watched and listened to his speech and to me it was none of those things. Bias and cynicism may have influenced this view, but not nearly as much as it has those proclaiming this mediocre, hypocritical and timid speech to be somehow historic.

Is your view representative of the racist community generally?

The priest should have kept his mouth shut and counted his blessings.

I think that he mostly missed my tithe and the hundreds of hours of service that I put in at the church every year.

If you want to listen or to someone who has true understanding of issues such as race and civil rights and the constitution, and is a master orator who doesn't have to read a teleprompter like Obama, listen to Dr. Alan Keyes. If you want to read something of substance, don't read pap from Obama, read Dr. Keyes' "Masters of the Dream," or read some of his excellent essays (particularly the multi-part "The Crisis of the Republic" which came out last year)

You're joking, right?

Even if you aren't:

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is your view representative of the racist community generally?

I doubt it. This website doesn't let one post the word ni**er

I think that he mostly missed my tithe and the hundreds of hours of service that I put in at the church every year.

More likely, he's a moron.

I doubt it. This website doesn't let one post the word ni**er

You're not representative of the racist community generally; you're noticably below average -- a subpar bigot, as it were.

Well that may be true.

but I am so tired of these welfare recieving race-baiting do nothing ni***** knocking each other over for Imus comments and being completely silent when Wright and his racist stooge Obama preach REAL hatred.

I'm not an Obama supporter, or Hillary, or even McCain for that matter, but IMO, Obama hit a home run with that speech. He's a great speaker, and has great speech writers. There's no doubt about it.

I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but I do agree with parts of it. He made some great points, but IMO, also made some excuses for black resentment.n I also think the race issue is a stupid attack. His far left voting record in the Senate would do more harm if the McCain camp starts putting it out there and educating Americans on just how liberal this guy really is, how he wants to tax them, etc.

Overall, I think this speech helps him, and damages Hillary. She can't argue with him too much on the major points of the speech, because she's after the liberal and moderate vote; the same vote Barak is after.

I don't believe for a second that Obama never heard any of this vile, blatant, anti American racism over the last 20 years, but I doubt that his association with the reverend will phase his base , or send them flocking to Hillary. If anything, they'll more likely go to McCain if they abandon him.

Hillary has extremely high negative numbers as it is, and there isn't much she can do to make this issue turn in her favor. She can't disagree in a truly aggressive manner, because she needs the black votes as much as Obama does.

Time will tell.

The race hating "Reagan Democrat" won't ever vote for Barack Obama or for Hillary Clinton. Period. That kind of "Democrat" reminds me of my long-dead grandmother. The last time I saw her, she was dying of cancer that had spread from her lungs to consume her entirely, and my mom had to actually light the woman's cigarette and place them between her fingers as she sat in the chair motionless. My grandmother couldn't even lift her arm to smoke the damn things, but she needed to see them there and feel them in her hand - even though she knew it was those cigarettes that had put her through the last 10 years of chemo and radiation, and were now finally killing her for good.

These "Reagan Democrats" have lost their jobs, their pensions, their financial security, their buying power, and their ability to do anything about it by embracing the divisive politics of the Clinton/Bush/Cheney/Rove era, while the corporations have quietly been served by both sides of the constant cheap-shot DNC/GOP battle for their vote. They're devoted to the very thing that's destroyed their lives, and continue to work to ensure that it can continue to screw them well into the future.

Obama wasn't going to ever sway the lunch pail crowd with a speech. Those idiots careen between believing that he's an America-hating Muslim and a Afro-centric America-hating surrogate of a racist Christian preacher. As if it were possible to be both, or either at various times - vacillating between the two. I'm sure that Muslims are laughing at the notion that anyone could be a Muslim one day, and then be a racist Afro-Christian the next day. Not the Reagan Democrats though. They believe whatever their GOP overlords tell them. Especially when it doesn't make any sense.

Barack didn't lose any votes over any of this that he was ever going to get anyway. Those "Reagan Democrats" haven't been Democrats since Reagan begame president and capitalist was redefined as Christian. They're Republicans, and they'll always put the gun in their own mouths whenever they're allowed to play with it.

The race hating "Reagan Democrat" won't ever vote for Barack Obama or for Hillary Clinton. Period.


Yeah ,but aren't those people dying off in big numbers anyway?

I think the "Reagan Colition" is as dead as Reagan himself is.

That's why I would like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket.

She could bring in women,baby boomers and Latinios,he could bring in African-Americans and youth.

I think that would be an unbeatable colition.

Is your view representative of the racist community generally?

I wouldn't know. What I do know is that Obama could fart into a microphone and you people would be praising it. As for his speech, you hear and take what you want to from it.

I agree. The party line is: "did you hear the whole speech" or, "did you read the whole speech"?

What the hell difference does that make.

It was just another black guy defending the black racists in his community and pointing out that the whites are still MORE racist.

Is the age listed on your profile correct then?

Have you never heard Tony Blair speak?

That phony Socialist windbag only sounds good compared to Bush.

Despite the fact that it came off as a "damage control" speech in many ways, it really was close to being a great speech.

He has good speech writers on the payroll, like the rest of them. None of it was his own work. Making it appear to be 'heart felt' is his job, and ...

But I still don't think he pulled it off.

nobody else did, either. He came off as shallow as he always does.

I know there are a lot of (American) leftists and Obamaniacs who will disagree with me, but those guys aren't the ones he needed to convince.

The press has been real easy on him, and will continue to be. The last phrase is true, but the party fanatics don't give a crap; they like the fact he's a racist POS, a proven liar, and just another 'business as usual' hack. He will get the racist vote, though, from both sides of the color lines, except for hispanics, who will turn out for Hillary.

I fell off the Obama bandwagon a month or two ago because I cooled on his rhetoric and too many hints of '70s-style liberalism (That's code for "unelectable in America"), but on this particular issue, there is absolutely no disagreement.

He'll throw a little race based pork, but he has little in common with the average black, and almost none with white working class types. The Democrats are well on their way to losing yet another sure thing if they let that vermin anywhere near the nomination.

Personally, I think he's ****ed. But I really hope it's just a temporary ****ed.

I would certainly hope so; I don't think that just because he's popular with the racist and antisemitic 'Left' here or anywhere else is any reason to think he can carry independents in the Establishment Popularity Contest in November.

I agree. The party line is: "did you hear the whole speech" or, "did you read the whole speech"?

What the hell difference does that make.

It was just another black guy defending the black racists in his community and pointing out that the whites are still MORE racist.

The professionals have concluded that this speech's impact has broken down along clearly defined levels of intellect in our society. Those above a certain intellectual capacity found it to be brilliant and visionary. Those below a certain intellectual capacity "didn't get it" as far as being anything other than a political speech by a negro trying to get himself out of political hot water. After looking at how this speech has been received this week, I have to agree.

One moron at my gym even suggested that Barack planned the whole Rev. Wright thing so that he could (A) hide his Muslim ties with a fabricated controversy involving his "Christian" pastor and (B) take the controversy and have a reason to deliver this speech so that he could appear more "presidential" than Hillary and McCain. I didn't bother trying to save him from looking like a complete idiot. Some people you just can't save and it's best if you don't even try.

The idiots that "didn't get it" were never going to vote for him anyway. He didn't lose anything, and only needs 51% of the vote to win. These maroons will go bouncing from one weird notion to the other and vote for the guy they feel like they'd like to have that beer with at a picnic. Just like the last two times. Some people grow up and some people just grow old.

He has good speech writers on the payroll, like the rest of them. None of it was his own work. Making it appear to be 'heart felt' is his job, and ...


The word from every media source - even the ones that don't like him - is that he wrote the thing himself. You seem to always need to appear ignorant about the issues you comment on. Is this due to some tragedy of your childhood? Bed wetting, perhaps? Parental abuse? It's like you're purposefully humiliating yourself with this stuff, when it's so easy to check your facts and avoid looking so foolish.

I mean, it's not as though you're actually too stupid to operate a computer and log on to this board. It's gotta be psycghologically based. Like being a cutter or bulimic. The brain is a complicated thing.

It is funny to hear you nuthuggers talking about how Obama's speach was exalting, incredible, the greatest they had ever heard etc.

I watched and listened to his speech and to me it was none of those things. Bias and cynicism may have influenced this view, but not nearly as much as it has those proclaiming this mediocre, hypocritical and timid speech to be somehow historic.

I am not surprised that wisdom, nuance and intelligence will simply soar over the mullet-heads of those with more tattoos than teeth

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/20clintonwright1.533.jpg

"...so, when I said "kill whitey"....uh....you know I wasn't talkin' 'bout you and the missus....right? You folks is okay white folks."

Java_man
Originally Posted by Stigger
It is funny to hear you nuthuggers talking about how Obama's speach was exalting, incredible, the greatest they had ever heard etc.

I watched and listened to his speech and to me it was none of those things. Bias and cynicism may have influenced this view, but not nearly as much as it has those proclaiming this mediocre, hypocritical and timid speech to be somehow historic.

I am not surprised that wisdom, nuance and intelligence will simply soar over the mullet-heads of those with more tattoos than teeth

Priceless! :nice:

The professionals have concluded that this speech's impact has broken down along clearly defined levels of intellect in our society. Those above a certain intellectual capacity found it to be brilliant and visionary.

The idiots that "didn't get it" were never going to vote for him anyway.

I am not surprised that wisdom, nuance and intelligence will simply soar over the mullet-heads of those with more tattoos than teeth.

I imagine it must be difficult for self-styled intellectuals such as yourselves to maintain your smugness with someones sack in your mouth. While your success in that respect may be due to conviction, it is certainly not due to intelligence.

I imagine it must be difficult for self-styled intellectuals such as yourselves to maintain your smugness with someones sack in your mouth. While your success in that respect may be due to conviction, it is certainly not due to intelligence.

http://asnailpace.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/last-supper.jpg
"Take. Eat. This is my shit."

I imagine it must be difficult for self-styled intellectuals such as yourselves to maintain your smugness with someones sack in your mouth. While your success in that respect may be due to conviction, it is certainly not due to intelligence.

Stigger, we all appreciate that Obama's message is a million light years from the kind of rhetoric you like to hear, but that should not prevent you from recognizing that it was a historic speech displaying an openness and candidness about questions of race relations no other presidential candidate has ever displayed. You don't have to agree with him to do that, but you do have to be able to recognize that a black man is capable of being the first to break such ground. I think its painfully obvious to us all that there lies your true stumbling block here.

As an exercise, I invite you to try to find something unequivocally positive to say about Obama, without any cynicism. Who knows - you might develop a taste for being more positive and upbeat - stranger things have happened.

M.

It is funny to hear you nuthuggers talking about how Obama's speach was exalting, incredible, the greatest they had ever heard etc.

I watched and listened to his speech and to me it was none of those things. Bias and cynicism may have influenced this view, but not nearly as much as it has those proclaiming this mediocre, hypocritical and timid speech to be somehow historic.


Well you're a knuckle dragging racist dolt, why should anyone give a fluck what you think?

You, do not matter.

Is your view representative of the racist community generally?

What's funny about all this is that it's exposed the true racists (the far right), as only they could get so upset about what theguy said.

Just look at the things people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have said over the years, and they are or were buddy buddy with Bush and the rest of the GOP. But it's ok for them to say controversial things..:rolleyes:

What's funny about all this is that it's exposed the true racists (the far right), as only they could get so upset about what theguy said.

Just look at the things people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have said over the years, and they are or were buddy buddy with Bush and the rest of the GOP. But it's ok for them to say controversial things..:rolleyes:

What made Obama's speech unique in an American political campaign is that it didn't treat its audience like children. Instead, it offered a rather comprehensive and historically honest assessement of racial politics from a historical perspective, and most importantly (and impressively), Obama laid out the choice that Americans face, inviting them to choose between remaining embroiled in past wrongs and leaving the past behind.

He did this knowing that Americans may well choose the former (as represented here by Stigger, Farnsworth, Toejam, etc.), which means his campaign will lose. It requires courage to trust one's political fate to the ability of American voters to act like adults.

The mere fact that he was forced to make this speech (who cares what church he belongs to? I can't think of anything less relevant.) shows the terminal stupidity of American electoral politics, but it required great talent to turn this occasion into an opportunity to say something valuable and true.

What made Obama's speech unique in an American political campaign is that it didn't treat its audience like children. Instead, it offered a rather comprehensive and historically honest assessement of racial politics from a historical perspective, and most importantly (and impressively), Obama laid out the choice that Americans face, inviting them to choose between remaining embroiled in past wrongs and leaving the past behind.

He did this knowing that Americans may well choose the former (as represented here by Stigger, Farnsworth, Toejam, etc.), which means his campaign will lose. It requires courage to trust one's political fate to the ability of American voters to act like adults.

The mere fact that he was forced to make this speech (who cares what church he belongs to? I can't think of anything less relevant.) shows the terminal stupidity of American electoral politics, but it required great talent to turn this occasion into an opportunity to say something valuable and true.

:nice::nice::nice:

Something for everyone to keep in mind ..

It is one thing to judge a persons actions ..

another to judge their words ..

and even more removed to judge their associates actions ..

last and least .. their associates words

It is a good thing we are not all judged to such an extreme standard

Something for everyone to keep in mind ..

It is one thing to judge a persons actions ..

another to judge their words ..

and even more removed to judge their associates actions ..

last and least .. their associates words

It is a good thing we are not all judged to such an extreme standard

True dat. My grandpa calls people n!ggers all the time.

Something for everyone to keep in mind ..

It is one thing to judge a persons actions ..

another to judge their words ..

and even more removed to judge their associates actions ..

last and least .. their associates words

It is a good thing we are not all judged to such an extreme standard

Well said. Extremely well said.

And if this is directly applied to Obama in that correct order, it results in the following analysis:

- Obamas actions do not demonstrate racism, quite to the contrary

- Obama's words do not demonstrate racism, quite to the contrary

- his pastor's actions have, if we are to believe Obama, been respectful and courteous to white people at all times

- his pastors words have on occasion been offensive

It is one HELL of a reach to make racism stick to Obama on these grounds, but one HELL of a reach that people like Simone and Bertrade seem happy to make.

I will note that Simone and Bertrade are both articulate people who, as far as one can tell from contact only via the net, demonstrate intelligence. I can only conclude that something else is causing them to use this as an excuse to discount Obama as a good candidate. Partisanship, perhaps?
After all, if you habitually vote conservative but see such an impressive Democrat emerge on the scene, there must a be a powerful desire to find an excuse to still vote Republican... at least for those who operate along partisan lines. I don't know: I'm throwing guesses out because I simply don't understand how anyone could rationally apply this standard of judgement towards Obama.

M.

It is one HELL of a reach to make racism stick to Obama on these grounds, but one HELL of a reach that people like Simone and Bertrade seem happy to make.

I think that it's not racism that we have to worry about the Republicans trying to use to tar Barack after all this Wright crap, but lack of patriotism.

It is one HELL of a reach to make racism stick to Obama on these grounds, but one HELL of a reach that people like Simone and Bertrade seem happy to make.

M.

Please show me where I ever said anything regarding racism about Obama. Thank you.

Please show me where I ever said anything regarding racism about Obama. Thank you.

Certainly.


That bothered me a lot too. And here is where I finally lost any positive thoughts of Obama's judgement, any respect I had for Obama. You can't convince me that even if he didn't personally hear it he was not aware. As a white woman I can not claim any experience with discrimination but to continue to regard Wright as a close personal friend makes me truly suspect.


Truly suspect in terms of what, if not in terms of sharing to some degree the racist underbelly of Reverend Wright?
You can't fault me for having understood that from your post in that other thread: if you meant something else, I think you will agree you may have gained from expressing yourself with more precision.

M

I think that it's not racism that we have to worry about the Republicans trying to use to tar Barack after all this Wright crap, but lack of patriotism.

Yes, I agree.
And I think the best thing Obama could do to counter that, in the continuation of his proud tradition of straight-shooting, would be to explain that flaming patriotism is less important in a president than lucidity, and can often detract from lucidity.

If by patriot, it is understood that Obama loves his country, I think he can easily convince them of this. But if by patriot, it is understood that he is blindly going to rubberstamp the mistakes and blunders of the nation as acts of inherent greatness: that is THE LAST thing America needs right now. America needs lucidity, and the ability to see its mistakes and shortcomings with compassion, but also with tack-sharp focus and clarity. Obama embodies this, and he can, if he speaks from the heart on this matter of patriotism, turn the tarring to his advantage. America KNOWS it is on the brink of very hard times, and will hear the truth in these words.

This would be a continuation of the remedial effect Obama is having on the general scene of American politics. He has the opportunity to wake us up to the dangers of electing our leaders based on their fitting the mould of unrealistically America-praising sweet-talkers of the past. We need a dose of compassionate REALISM, and it might be a course of therapy we would do well to stick with from here on out. Seeing the world such as it is, is far more important than seeing it through the lying lens of a world view in which we are inherently understood to be God's chosen people who can do nothing unforgivably wrong, and who bear all the positive traits and non of the dangerously negative ones. The very idea that we should adhere to such a view suggests our insecurity and our inability to navigate through life without artificially boosted egos.

We are a nation of complacent, self-indulgent consumers - a little dose of tough love is just what the doctor ordered. Tough love is still love, and if it makes us a stronger, more lucid people, we should have the wisdom to EMBRACE IT as being precisely what we need right now.

M.

"All of you liberal Democrats better think hard and long on Obama's judgement and thinking processes. Try to divorce yourselves from the cultlike messages he puts forth"


From Post 56 in another thread.


You are correct Malcolm I should have been more precise. My suspicion centers around his judgement and thinking prcesses not about racism. And I will also amend my statement about 'any respect' to 'some'. Thank you for pointing out my imprecision

"All of you liberal Democrats better think hard and long on Obama's judgement and thinking processes. Try to divorce yourselves from the cultlike messages he puts forth"


From Post 56 in another thread.


You are correct Malcolm I should have been more precise. My suspicion centers around his judgement and thinking prcesses not about racism. And I will also amend my statement about 'any respect' to 'some'. Thank you for pointing out my imprecision

Thanks Simone, I appreciate the honesty.

Where did the 'cultlike messages' quote come from?

EDIT - Sorry I understand your post now.

Do you really feel his messages are cult-like? That sounds like the FOX news approach to Obama: focus on his popularity as something nefarious and cultlike, rather than admit he is striking the right note for the times.
More importantly though, he is striking those notes effortlessly: there is no act going on that I can tell - he simply is the intelligent, thoughtful, concerned and straight-shooting person he comes across as. That doesn't mean he is the ideal candidate, and it doesn't mean he is automatically better than the other candidates in every way - but its pretty telling when people don't want to give him this much credit, I think.

M

his speech was designed to make Barack Obama appear to condemn "Reverend" Wright while at the same time try to make excuses for his vile views and not offend his militant black supporters. It was a typical two-faced, talk-out-of-both-sides-of-his-mouth rhetoric. It was shallow and designed to make him be sympathetic and the victim. It was wrapped in his usual "what government (meaning Barack) can do for you" stump speech to buy voters with other people’s money. And of course he found time to pimp his books.

Vacuous, double-talking rhetoric from a politician isn't unique or admirable.

Obama is not adequately prepared to give a speech on race, for he is not a man who truly and fully understands the black struggle and black experience and how to address solving the problems. Understanding bits and pieces of history isn't going to cut it if his "solutions" are just more of the same big government dependency and racially-manipulative rhetoric that has destroyed black culture. And since he supports unrestricted abortion, he is unqualified to talk about civil rights in general.

Well said.

Would Obama have made this speech if no-one knew about Jerimiah Wright and his rantings? If anything Obama should have made that speech at the beginning of his presidential campaign.

True. It's just the usual ass covering, and of course he's being careful not to alienate the racist black vote, in fact his numbers among those have picked up after his association with virulent black racists and antisemites is finally being covered.

It was just another black guy defending the black racists in his community and pointing out that the whites are still MORE racist.

Yep, pretty much, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The word from every media source - even the ones that don't like him - is that he wrote the thing himself.

Like we should give a crap about your 'media sources' ...

You seem to always need to appear ignorant about the issues you comment on. Is this due to some tragedy of your childhood? Bed wetting, perhaps? Parental abuse? It's like you're purposefully humiliating yourself with this stuff, when it's so easy to check your facts and avoid looking so foolish.

... says the moron who spends a lot of time alerting us to how Bush personally planned the attack on the WTC, and regales us with stupid crap about exploding deisel tanks and other goofy gibberish.

The brain is a complicated thing.

It can be in some people, but certainly not in your case, Gomer. I'm still laughing at your pathethic 'damage control' over Ospamus's NAFTA lies.

What made Obama's speech unique in an American political campaign is that it didn't treat its audience like children.

... and I'm sure the rest of this post is chock full of even worse silliness from a 9 year old, as if he has some sort of a clue.

Something for everyone to keep in mind ..

It is one thing to judge a persons actions ..

another to judge their words ..

and even more removed to judge their associates actions ..

last and least .. their associates words

It is a good thing we are not all judged to such an extreme standard

Politics is all about associations, it is what politics is built on, so who associates and supports who does matter, and it matters a lot, whether it sounds 'appropriately 'profound' or not.in all the blogs or not is irrelevant The fact remains Ospama delberately sought out this 'church' to attend, for political reasons, and continued to remain a member, for political reasons, and he continues to defend his 'Reverend' and his associates, Farrakan, et al, so, that certainly tells us a lot about his descretionary abilities and lack of judgement, not to mention common sense, and along with his voting record and general shallowness, he is obviously as much of a phoney as the rest of the pack, and nothing special at all, despite what a few ignorant assed gullible, sociopathic kiddies on DA think of him.

His speeches are written as a team, he doesn't pay all those flacks money to just sit around kissing his ass all day and drinking boutique coffee, and in the middle of political campaigns he certainly doesn't sit around Pondering Wise Thoughts N Stuff and writing speeches all by himself, either; only true simpletons would believe otherwise.

This speech was designed to make Barack Obama appear to condemn "Reverend" Wright while at the same time try to make excuses for his vile views and not offend his militant black supporters. It was a typical two-faced, talk-out-of-both-sides-of-his-mouth rhetoric. It was shallow and designed to make him be sympathetic and the victim. It was wrapped in his usual "what government (meaning Barack) can do for you" stump speech to buy voters with other people’s money. And of course he found time to pimp his books.

Vacuous, double-talking rhetoric from a politician isn't unique or admirable.

Obama is not adequately prepared to give a speech on race, for he is not a man who truly and fully understands the black struggle and black experience and how to address solving the problems. Understanding bits and pieces of history isn't going to cut it if his "solutions" are just more of the same big government dependency and racially-manipulative rhetoric that has destroyed black culture. And since he supports unrestricted abortion, he is unqualified to talk about civil rights in general.

If you want to listen or to someone who has true understanding of issues such as race and civil rights and the constitution, and is a master orator who doesn't have to read a teleprompter like Obama, listen to Dr. Alan Keyes. If you want to read something of substance, don't read pap from Obama, read Dr. Keyes' "Masters of the Dream," or read some of his excellent essays (particularly the multi-part "The Crisis of the Republic" which came out last year)

That's a rather bizarre take CCC. There are not many people who share your dim view of Obama's understanding of race in our country. By and large, people are impressed, and what's more, people qualified to know what should impress them... are impressed.

Take my mother, for instance. She is a veteran activist, was involved with SNCC, met Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, and is the daughter of Richard Wright, America's most celebrated literary chronicler of race relations. She has spent her entire adult life as an activist, journalist and author around these same themes, and has lectured at the nations most prestigious universities on these very topics. She (and I, by extension, sharing much of her background) are not easily impressed in this arena. And we both disagree in the most unequivocal terms with your bizarre, unexplained dismissal of Obama grasp of the matter.

The only explanation I can think of is that you simply want to take a dig at him, and feel perhaps your blackness will give some sort of credibility to an otherwise groundless attack on Obama's expertise. Well I'm here to tell you it doesn't.

M.