I hope many of you got to hear this speech. If not, it is on Youtube. It is easily one of the finest political speeches I have had the privilege of hearing, in both content and delivery. It was very well written, and delivered with a somber yet intense tone that was very convincing and sincere.

In content, it said much of what I would like to say about race in America: That both sides (although he gives not much sauce to whites who are "rich" and in power) have a story to tell and the story has truth in it that must be understood to move forward.


"The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow. "

The speech continued to explain that Rev Wright has meant much to him and his parishioners, even if the frustrations he communicated were regrettable and perhaps stuck in the racial past--a past Obama encourages us not to forget, but to remember and then get beyond.


"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. "

While Obama's policy positions still must be scrutinized, as well as his lack of experience, I do not think he could have given a much better speech.

Questions for debate:

1) Does this speech end the Rev Wright issue? Should it end the Rev Wright issue?

2) Does the content of the speech on racial rapproachment ring true to you?

Does this speech end the Rev Wright issue? Should it end the Rev Wright issue?
I think so, though I think the issue was never much of one to begin with. Obama has a record which no one could mistake for black radicalism or anything of the sort.

This speech is just a demonstration in words of what he's said through his actions all his life.

Does the content of the speech on racial rapproachment ring true to you?
It's not perfect but it's the best we've got.

The best part was that he got real about America and race. He admitted the country has progressed but he also pointed out that the past still looms large in its influence on the present

Full Speech(PDF)

Without understanding that no one can hope to achieve racial harmony.

It would be nice to have president who can say that without flinching. I hope he doesn't take leave of his senses upon election.

"I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible. "

Above is another excerpt from the speech. As I continue to see all of the US bashers, and those who bash the pre-dominant culture here, I would suggest that the bold faced language be etched into your consciouness....

I hope I am not included in that number. I have only love for my countrymen, even those who might wish me harm. Blame Jesus, it was his bright idea.

...but mama didn't raise no fool, friend. There are many great nations. I'm met proud Canadian and Britons for instance who might well take issue with their exclusion from said statement.

Obama must pander but I am free to speak truth without great consequence.

We are not alone among the free nations of the world and we've flaws to attend to at home.

Deny it at the cost of your intellectual integrity.

But as an Irish friend of mine said, there is no majority white nation on earth where a black man would be so close to becoming, or might even become, its highest elected official. Think about how radical that truly is.

I dunno. I'd let our foreign members weigh in there but I think in Canada and the UK especially it is in fact possible.

In Mexico it has already happened.
Vicente Guerrero

Of course the fact that there are more black in the US than these other nations has a lot to do with it. Blacks have always been a huge part of American society and culture. No amount of subjugation could change that.

I couldn't help but laugh. Good try, tho--Guerrero was "el presidente", an emperor by coup. He has a hot great, great granddaughter, tho--Lisa Guerrero.

There's a forest in them there trees, quick.

The point is that it's not impossible nor even unheard of outside the US for a black to be head of state.

Guerrero clearly had his share of adherents, enough to win the battle.

El presidente is better than nothing.

Your argument is purely rhetoric. "Only in America" is a great catch phrase but it's wide world out there.

Best to simply be realistic.

I'm curious, do you disagree with Obama concerning the portion of the speech I quoted? How does it factor in to your admiration for his speech?

I thought it was a profound and thoughtful speech, something that I never thought I would hear again in an American election so dominated by repetitious stump speeches, media talking heads and candidate sponsored commercials. It held up a mirror for all of us to be self critical. I found myself regretting some of the things I've said about the Clinton campaign and resolving to be more forgiving. Obama may be the real thing and might make a great President if we all remain actively engaged even after the election. The problems we face are truly staggering and it will take all of us to solve them.

Quick and turnea, don't you think it is a little small to seize on a rhetorical statement calling attention to his opportunity in American to quibble about whether it would have really been possible in some other country?

I didn't exactly start that particular discussion but I participated because it's part of a larger discussion which, I believe, characterizes the most important message of today's speech.

Until and unless we unburden the discussion of race from the weight of American exceptionalism and infallibility there can be no progress.

I liked the speech but he's still not being entirely honest with the American people about that fact.

We can't really expect it, but it would be nice.

Obama had something for both sides, if you deem his to be a two-sided message. You chose your side with your quote. I think we need to acknowledge both sides, but of course, I acknowledge slavery and Jim Crow. Historical fact.

As I say often here, and as gets some great feedback, the issue will be on whose terms will we bury the hatchet? While it will be a compromise of some sort, some issues cannot be compromised and that is where the rub will come in. I tend to look at mainstream US history and say, "do as I say, not always as I have done, but what we said was generally pretty darn good." Therefore, I'd like to keep as much of those values as I can, even if white kids today have turned their back on so much of their own tradition.

This is a huge topic and I am just tossing lint at it with these few words, but it is one that will have to be addressed by Obama or anyone else who wishes to move forward.

There is a sullen and sad part about today's speech, though, for me: I doubt this speech could have been delivered by a white American without the cry of "racist" rising against him from the get-go....

Its also happened in Suriname and Guyana, so that actually puts the USA in fourth place amongst the American nations.

I doubt Britain will see a non white head of state any time soon though, though if there is any country in Europe where its going to happen in my life time, I'd guess it would be Britain. I can't see it happening though whilst the Scots retain their stranglehold on power there.

Guys, I did not discuss black heads of state. I was discussing black heads of state elected by a majority white electorate. Has not been done.

I agree that the speech needs to be understood in its entirety and I'm not choosing sides so much as highlighting what I think was unique and important about the address.


I don't view this as a battle. It's just a matter of being honest with ourselves. The past has made the present what it is. If we are to make any practical progress we have to reverse the affect that racism has has on the black community and the nation as a whole.


Hardly, most blacks have been dying to see any presidential candidate wake up and say something like this.


Hasn't been done here either despite the fact that blacks are more a part of the national fabric here than Canada or the UK.

The primary difference is demographics not national character.

I am going to surmise that this particular paragraph is intended for people of a more liberal persuasion who do criticize things about the United States of America, probably people who criticize George W. Bush, his intellect, his illegal domestic wiretapping, his war in Iraq based on half-truths and scare tactics, ad nauseum. In this case I am probably part of the intended audience.

Isn't it amazing that Barack Obama, who does not wear a U.S. flag lapel pin or his patriotism on his sleeve, actually does love and acknowledge this country in such a positive way?! As I continue to marvel at the pronouncements of the knee-jerk, Freedom-Fries, red-white-and-blue "nobody is as good as we are" crowd, I would suggest that people to the political left of them do indeed have a love for our country that isn't shown by the chest-thumping rhetoric that some* of our conservative friends need in order to appear "more patriotic than thou".

I think that Senator Obama addressed the race issue very eloquently and personably. No, it certainly isn't the end of hearing race issues in the campaign, but I believe that it did bring his pastor's thinking and what Obama thought about it into perspective. The senator spoke truth about our families and friends and how we speak with our "own" when in private. No group is blameless when it comes to bigoted, prejudicial, comments and attitudes. We need to keep working to improve ourselves, lose the ignorance and develop some empathy for others whose culture isn't the same as ours.

I hope a lot of people will pay attention to this speech, because it was not just another stump speech. It was worth listening to.


*Notice I said "some," not all.

Well, his comment wasn't exactly applauding America. He points to our history as both deplorable and inevitable, but does not demonize. Of course his story could not occur elsewhere. Some countries didn't have slavery in which his story could have been played. He isn't parading America around as a beacon of value, but recognizing that our history contains a mix of enormously uplifting elements amidst enormously monstrous events. I'm not entirely sure who you mean to bean with your comment, but it seemed to miss Obama's almost back-handed compliment.

1) Does this speech end the Rev Wright issue? Should it end the Rev Wright issue?

I guess the answer to that depends on how you view the issue. He denounced the behavior, but did not disown Rev. Wright... called him a part of his family. Probably the most profound theme of this speech was in regard to the people that we all love and the hateful things that they sometimes say or do when it comes to race. My grandmother, couldn't refer to people of color as anything other than "that nice black doctor", "the philippino family at the house on the corner" or the "mexican grocer"; these people did not have names, they had races and nationalities. Did I love my grandmother any less for these statements, no. And they were ignorant statements. I had a roommate in college from Missoula, Montana who would do anything for you. 95% of the time, he was a sweet, kind man. The other 5% was filled with bile when it came to race - it was frightening. How do I deal with a man like that? A man who helped me through a lot, a woman who helped to raise me while my father worked? Do I disown them? Or do I praise the good and condemn the bad? That seems to be what Obama was doing in this speech. Some will and, perhaps, already are saying it's not enough; but, I would argue that those people weren't really listening.

If you view this as an issue about questioning Obama's association with Wright, I think it is and should be the end. If, however, you view this as an issue about the feelings of bitterness and resentment that exist between the races, then the issue still exists and I don't believe Obama wants that issue to just go back into the shadows.

2) Does the content of the speech on racial rapproachment ring true to you?

Yes, absolutely. I agree with you, quick, when you say that this speech might get a different response from a white politician. There is a difference when a speech of this tenor is given by the group with the power. It rings less true, somehow... whether it actually is or isn't. But that's where we are in this country. It is another aspect about the racial divide in this country that we must accept before it can be overcome. But, how would this speech have been received had it been Jesse Jackson giving it? Or Al Sharpton?

I think this speech belongs to this man.

1) Does this speech end the Rev Wright issue? Should it end the Rev Wright issue?


I think it does, There's really nothing more on this issue to talk about, Obama sure as hell isn't going to say anything else about it and if he's asked about it he'll just say, "I already addressed it". Which he did, thus the Rev. Wright saga should come to a close.


2) Does the content of the speech on racial rapproachment ring true to you?


I think Obama believes it to be true. I don't know what he's going to do to bring it about, but I think he thinks he can. I'm sure he'll outline a little more about what he intends to do if he receives the nomination.


A couple of comments on the speech itself. Well-written to be sure and Obama did a decent job of delivering it, but it seemed to me he was considerably more subdued and less energetic than other speeches he's delivered. I can understand that this was a sobering moment for him, hardly a rally address, but there was a passion missing somehow. I don't think he was being untruthful, but it really seemed that his heart wasn't really into it.


Aquilla

Questions for debate:

1) Does this speech end the Rev Wright issue? Should it end the Rev Wright issue?

I think so. The fact that he spoke clearly, without hesitation, against Wright's controversial statements should set matters to rest.

2) Does the content of the speech on racial rapproachment ring true to you?

Indeed. I have not heard the speech delivered, but I have read the text. It strikes me as a remarkably honest and powerful speech, one which will wind up in the history books.

Senator Obama just went up a few notches in my book.

Amazing?

Only last week or so was his wife proud to be an American for the first time in her adult life. How patriotic is that?

Showing your love for your country means putting your country before you first regardless of the circumstances. Not judging your country based on how you feel on any particular day, month or year.

Obama's speech wasn't about the right or the left.

Citing a superficial cafeteria menu change and a Toby Keith song isn't what makes Conservatives conservative. If you're going to stereotype an entire populace of people based on the decisions of a few money hungry entertainers looking for a Top 10 hit, then at least look to see if everyone in that group thinks the same.

Stereotyping is racism without the color. It's a guess based on what you think might be true about something you don't know.

And after awhile, it starts sounding like, "White People -eh-eh-eh-eh... Black People -doo-doo-dooo-dooo" (Click It!)

Finally, I found it interesting that Obama didn't "disown" the good "Rev", even when he says stuff like this:
SOURCE
Yet he stopped short of an actual accusation that holds merit. Such as Planned Parenthood was the result of The Negro Project, founded by Margaret Sanger as a Eugenic Plan for Black Americans so that little black children weren't a "burden on society", and that poor blacks wouldn't reproduce.

THAT would have been an ACCURATE racial black eye on America. $50 million through Title X, and $50 million through Medicaid this year alone for a program whose initial goal was to slow the population growth of black kids.

What I find most interesting is that despite all the negative and controversial people Barack surrounds himself with, none of it seems to ever stick to him. That's utterly remarkable or complete luck. Usually you can judge a man's character by the people he chooses to surround himself with. Is he the exception?


/and no, I didn't think I was part of that *some
//but somehow, I have a feeling I'm being penciled in

I didn't see the speech but I probably will after reading some of this here. I have to give Obama some credit for some of the things he says. Like when he complemented former republican president Ronald Regan for no other reason than to say something nice about someone who didn't even share his political view.

The following couple sentences from the more recent (race speech) that you quoted really mimics some of my own feelings regarding race matters.........

"The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past."

I think this to myself all the time, as I watch people like Rev Al Sharpton, or Jessie Jackson, and even some people who make post on sites like this one. I sit back and some of the things I read and hear make me wonder if some people have been living in a cave for the last 30 years, unaware of how far both whites and blacks have come in prior decades, and how awesome that is. A handful of people on this site orient themselves around race related matters, like forums suggesting that conservatives are more racist than liberals, or asking when a nation such as this will be ready for a minority as president, even as the white democratic vote is almost split down the middle between Hillary and Obama, some people will still believe that the majority of America is too narrow minded to elect someone who is half African American.

I cant help but wonder if for some people it is impossible to let go of scores that were settled a long time ago, and this behavior exist among whites and blacks. My own philosophy about how to judge someone is thinking to myself (to know someone is to love, or hate someone.) You can get a feel for what a person is like by their personalities, and the things they say as well. For example Bill Cosby the actor/comedian has many of the same qualities that Barack Obama seems to have. These are both men who are not afraid to criticize members of their own race publicly, I remember bill Cosby for example saying that there is a serious problem in many African American families where kids are growing up without daddies and dropping out of school at the age of 13. He said this is a problem that African Americans have to take responsibility for, if things are going to get better. For that I give him a great deal of respect, as I do Barack Obama. Even if I disagree with Obama politically, I respect him for his demeanor, and character.

On the other hand someone like Al Sharpton is noticeably different, in that he will go trough great links to blame everything on someone else, particuarly whites in his case. The thing is you have Whites like this, Blacks like this, Mexicans like this, as well as in practically every other race, but this kind of narrow mindedness represents a relativity small potion of Americans. Racism and bias exist in most people to some extent, but those who can truly be defined by these words only exist in just enough numbers to be annoying to the rest of us in most cases.

That's telling I'm afraid...

It's available at C-Span.org.


Aye Carumba!

Please read or watch the speech, or even just read this thread. Score's far from settled Obama and anyone else who's paying any kind of attention already knows that.

I would argue this at length... but it's pointless until you actually see the speech.

Well, I sat down with the text last night and today I have a few observations:

1) It is clear from the populist tone, addressed to blacks, whites, latinos and asians, that Obama gave not one word of "hope" to "rich" whites or to big business. He's coming after these groups, maybe in ways Rev. Wright would appreciate. Just looking at Obama's tax program is illustrative: he seems to mark $50,000 per year family income as "middle class". Well, that leaves a lot of us in Obama's gunsights for more taxes and perhaps other surprises. Not my cup of tea, which is why I am voting McCain, but then you regulars already knew that.

2) Lots of discussion about Christian-styled ethics as a basis for Obama's govt'l philosophy and programs.

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

Any white candidate who made such a statement I believe would have been tarred and feathered for mixing church and state and for attributing to the "world's great religions" some sentiments they do not all share. I mean, how would the media have treated Mike Huckabee over a similar statement?

In the US, we have gotten accustomed to having a private or non-governmental morality and then a govtl approach that attempts to walk a line without religion as the main guidepost. I think this is nearly impossible, but I also know that anyone's attempt at using the imprimatur of govt to implement a religious agenda is very dangerous. From reading lately about black liberation theology, a significant subset of the black community may not believe in this separation, and indeed may find it hypocritical. Hmmm....

3) While Obama disavowed Wright's specific inflammatory statements, he surely did not disown him. I almost liken this to the old country club bugaboo that black activists hurled at white political candidates. They did not expect whites to say, well, I like the club, but personally I disavow the racially exclusive membership process; no, black activists railed at white candidates until the whites surrendered their memberships. Hmmm. While Obama may have hurt his support among blacks if he left this church and repudiated Wright altogether--this is policial reality--should we really feel satisfied that he did not go this far?

Also, how did you feel when he tossed his own white grandmother under the bus? I know lots of white women who are afraid of black men. After looking at our black-on-white crime rates, which are much worse than white-on-black crime rates, is such a fear so unjustified? Indeed, isn't it just being prudent?

4) What Obama did not do was give us a model for what this racial rapprochement is to look like, other than "being our brother's keeper". Indeed, state communism could look very much like the communal Christianity of the early church when implemented. In fact, one of the great personal dilemmas of my faith is how to resolve private Christian morality in the face of the need to weild power in the nation state, and through the nation state. Some person or group WILL wield power--this is inevitable; So, isn't it better to wield this power than to surrender it to someone or something with which one does not agree? Black liberation theology, to which Wright and presumably Obama subscribes, sure talks about getting and controlling earthly power.

As I have said many times on this board, I know what I want this rapprochement to look like. It has offended many of you, but I have to pat myself on the back as at least I recognize the problem. Obama likely does, as well, but would not dare lay out his thoughts during a political race. Shouldn't we want to learn exactly what Obama's new order would look like?


In conclusion, I still think it was a great speech. It went as far as it could without alienating the black core support, who would have been offended if he left the church; and it gave something to everyone who feels disenfranchised, EXCLUDING, of course, anyone who has been successful in this country.

But, as I tell all the young people I can find, everyone to whom Obama reaches out wants to be "rich", or should I say, "richer", than they are now. The black welfare mom, the unemployed white textile worker, the black college student, the asian immigrant, the "middle class" office worker in grad school. If this is so, and I know it to be so, is it really wise to subscribe to a philosophy that will label you as evil incarnate if you are fortunate enough and work hard enough to make it to that "richer" future you want?

First- one item that has been noticed by news types for some time- is Obama's ability to tell folks what they DON'T want to hear, the ability to disagree without being disagreeable, and it has played well for him, very well. He doens't come off as disengenuious or fake like Hillary, with her changing views based on focus groups. He wil say something and stick with it- he took alot of heat about voting against the war once, but now it has come back as a favorable.

1) Does this speech end the Rev Wright issue? Should it end the Rev Wright issue?

It won't for the 527 groups, but he has absolutely bunted any attempt by the 527s to smash him on this one- because he met it head on, and didn't flinch from it, and really, really explained it well, and didn't equivocate or find and easy way out- people appreciate this candor, really, canned or not, well scripted or not.

2) Does the content of the speech on racial rapproachment ring true to you

Very well done, the best I have heard in my lifetime, as an adult anyway.

OK. I've done some thinking on this speech, and am ready to deliver my thoughts:

Your opinion on this speech has to do with how you feel about the following proposition:



If you feel the way Mark Davis, author of the words above, feels about this speech, then there's probably no coaxing you onto this speech or the Obama bandwagon. If you believe in a world where good should summarily rejects all evil, and refuse to acknowledge the people behind that evil until they transformatively change, then you have no reason to vote for Barack Obama. But I would warn you: this idea that we can't engage people until they transformatively shed their evil ways leads to the very mess we are in right now -- a world where conservatives and liberals view each other as products of derangement and sociological illness; a world where half of the most important keystone nations in the middle east aren't talking to us; a world where we have lumped competing Islamic factions like Al Quaida and Iran onto the same team; a world where the 50-year-old Cuban embargo has done less good for the Cuban people than a few thousand cancerous cells will ultimately accomplish.

The central notion behind Obama's campaign is that we can simultaneously reject evil but understand and even empathize with the people behind that evil. That's why he would talk to rogue dictators, not to cave to their demands, or out of desperation, but to find common ground, and in doing so, help solve some of the root problems that give rise to extremism. That's why he can call himself a post-partisan politician, not because he is a Joe Lieberman Democrat or a John McCain republican, but because he can anticipate and acknowledge the validity of conservative viewpoints in a way that Hillary "fighter" Clinton cannot.

Here's the deal: Black preachers of Wright's generation have every justifiable reason to doubt the inner goodness of the United States, and if that frustration rolls out in paranoid sermons about crooked roman soldiers and government-sponsored AIDS infections, then that isn't an excuse to ignore the roots of their frustration. And this works in the other direction: Just because many rural Pennsylvanian white parents say offensive and wrong things about blacks having a leg up on a college system, or that blacks somehow have it easier because of AA, then that isn't a good reason to discount the concerns that rural white people often have about their failing schools economies. Just because White people's fears of the inner-city are often expressed in racist terms, that isn't an excuse to ignore the often justifiable concerns that white people have about sending their kids to inner-city schools.

Often, peoples grievances, however valid, get expressed in the most invalid ways: a black preacher who suffered the slap of segregation 50 years ago is still harping on "the US of KKK-A." A white family that saw its community fall apart in the 80s still feels that blacks are the culprits behind that decline, not shared victims. A bunch of Muslim men with their own grievances about the society they live in choose to fly planes into 3 buildings, killing thousands.

None of those actions are excusable, least of all the last. But Barack Obama is saying in his campaign and in that speech, that we have to understand the often legitimate grievances that came before the illegitimate actions. Human beings, when angered and frustrated, are bound to do and say very stupid things. But that doesn't mean they should fall off the map of our concern, that white Americans should ignore Rev. Wright, and just hope that we can wait out this racial stalemate we're in, until one day, Black Preachers will wax fondly of white presidents. Or that we should just ignore Iran, and hope that one day the Iranian people, like the Cuban people before them, will rise up in the name of freedom and start extolling the virtues of Classical Liberalism. I hope that happens -- so does Barack, it seems. But we have to work to get there, and that means, you start by understanding where each party is coming from.

I have to confess, up until this election cycle, this is not the view of evil I held. For most of my life, conservatives were, in my mind, intellectually lazy, heartless sycophants to hierarchical power who had no interest, even a disinterest in alleviating urban poverty. The proper thing for democrats to do then, was to shut out conservative views, to discredit Newt Gingrich, and to spew fire until Americans woke up and rallied behind the democratic party in record numbers.

Along the way, I've met conservatives who inspired me to think differently about these issues, thoughtful, considerate people whose own capacity for empathy led me to empathize with their points of view. I would put several posters here on AD in that category, and my time on this forum has in many ways vividly illustrated the limitations of federal government -- limitations, which by the way, the Black church will be the first to acknowledge.

But up until this election cycle, I still can't say that I was a radical on this position as Barack Obama is asking us to be; Barack, however, has put his finger on what I am slowly realizing is a fundamental roadblock to common progress: the way we politicize good versus evil narratives.

There are many people in politics, from several posters on this board to Jeremiah Wright to John McCain to George Bush and Hillary Clinton who do not hold the Barack Obama view of evil. In the world of George Bush and Jeremiah Wright, there is an unequivocal line between good and evil, and it is a nearly impossible line to cross; Rev. Wright casts white people as Romans lording over Black Isrealites, which just about counts me out, while George Bush casts theocratic Muslim regimes as people who "hate freedom," words that has done a splendid job rallying the middle east against the US. Hillary Clinton calls her opponents the "republican attack machine," or simply "the republicans." John McCain calls the New York Times -- one of the most bourgeoisie papers in the history of trees -- a "communist paper."

For these people, and many of their supporters, evil is something you shut out, discredit entirely. A man who calls America the US-of-KKK-A can have no other value, in any part of his life. Likewise, a preacher who says that gays were responsible for 9/11 could not have possibly contributed, in other ways, to the spiritual betterment of America. Instead of addressing rural poverty, you just wait till every racist in the state of Georgia moves to a major city and majors in the humanities. Racism: solved.

But in his "race" speech, Barack outlines a different way, one that is about a lot more than race. It has to do with a certain type of forgiveness that I don't think America has really exemplified lately.

When a nation makes a mockery human rights, or terrorists attack civilians, or a black man is dragged from the back of a pick-up truck, or a prominent black leader calls Judaism a "gutter religion" -- you do not ever forgive the sins. But you do engage the sinner. That this simple pretense behind the Civil Rights movement has been forgotten is depressing. But, maybe, America is ready to remember it again.

turnea


Lol, and why is that telling Turnea?





Ok I watched it and you know what, I agree with him and hold the same opinion I did before. Obama is clearly saying that some of the things Rev Wright says are racially polarizing. Hes criticizing him while maintaining respect for him which is great. Anyone who says Obama should disassociate himself with Rev Wright to prove himself as a candidate I feel is wrong for thinking that. Now that being said, Obama sees some important things that prior African American presidential candidates in many cases failed to see. That is what separates him from someone like Al Sharpton who obviously went nowhere as a candidate and for good reason.

Now have we in America solved all race issues, and settled all the scores? Perhaps not, but the hard parts are over, and the bulk of the fight for equality is over as well. In this speech Obama notes that Rev Wright has said things that offend people, and things that widen the racial divide. They clearly have their differences, and its people like Obama, and many others like him who don't play into this racial guilt trip, and you know what? congratulations to them. This is the kind of thing thats good to see in any race, people willing to take responsibility for their own actions instead of constantly pointing their finger across the racial line. Some people of course are so bad that they will forever live in the past, forever blame other races for their problems, and forever miss out on what has become one of the most liberated nations on earth. There are so many things that all races in America have that are continuously taken for granted, and its sad. Its sad to watch some people willingly live in a state of hate or racial tension, in some cases not knowing that despite their screams and accusations of racism, that they themselves in many cases are some of the most racist people on the planet. But you know, whatever, people like that don't fool the majority anyway, they certainly never fooled me, whether they be white or black.

Which tax plan are you referring to? The tax fairness plan that I read mentions the figure $50,000 in reference to two things: an exemption for seniors whose income is less than $50,000 and in reference to an all inclusive tax credit that - in addition to helping the wealthy would also benefit homeowners who make less than $50,000. That's it. Perhaps there is another tax plan that you are referring to?



You are allowed your beliefs, quick.



Your analogy doesn't work. Does the Reverand exclude whites from his congregation?



And here we go... . Yes, he's coddled the black preacher and thrown his own white grandmother under the bus. Yep, exactly.



One of the faces of power is money, it's true - I wouldn't deny it. But, it is not the only face. Some people view faith as power. Some people view confidence as power. Money has no morals - that is the problem with that face - which is why it is best to approach power in a manner that is multi-faceted.



The correct statement would be, "excluding, of course anyone who has been successful in this country who did so without morality and, in that way, at the expense of those less fortunate."



I think you're projecting here. Many people would like to be happier. Does that involve more money? Sure. Does it involve being "rich"? I think that is debatable. But the world is filled with more stories of the happy poor than the happy wealthy.

I knew this couldn't last.

Nonsense.

If I hear McCain say "Judeo-Christian nation" once more I think I 'll be ill.


Not even close. The important number to look at is the absolute probability of being attacked by a black criminal which is ridiculously low for a white person, particular one just walking down the sidewalk.


I respond that you've got the wrong idea.

This is about fairness and the well being of our fellow Americans not who wins or loses.


When did Obama label the rich evil.

Most Americans aren't wealthy it's naturally those who are struggling who need the most attention payed to their concerns. Part of governments job is to fix what's broken in the system.

So if the squeaky wheel gets the grease, why the shock?


Define "hard parts." We've still got a lot of work to do, as Obama acknowledged in the speech.

The problem is that some people are racing to see how far they can stick their heads in the sand and ignore it.


This is in my opinion the most unique and important statement in that entire speech.

The Rev. Wright thing is political crap. What matters as the real issues.

Yea the hard parts are over, you don't know that? It started when slavery was abolished, that was the first and most significant step. More recently there was the end of segregation. Also as far as I know, today by law blacks have all the same rights and privileges whites do. With all of this to be said, you honestly don't know that the bulk of the struggle for equality is in our past? From this point on primarily the only thing we can change is on a social level, not a gouvernment level. For example by law schools and churches can not be segregated, yet by choice many blacks go to one church while whites go to another. So yes there is some work that can still be done, but at this point its come down to how we treat each other, and I see some looking at tomorrow while others live in the past.

So you think people like me have our heads in the sand as if I don't understand racism is still an issue? I just understand racism differently than you in all likelihood is what it is. You think racism today is something that can and should be eliminated. I on the other hand understand racism to be a human trait that has always existed, and always will exist. It exist as part of our imperfections as a species, and its imperfections that define much of the human psyche. We have our good qualities, and our bad qualities. However the bad will always exist with the good, I don't believe in a utopia on earth where everyone treats everyone else with respect, it doesn't work that way. Some people think we should try to be increasingly politically correct, but I don't want to live to see the day when people have to read books on what not to say, or what will get you fired. People being racist, or rude, or insensitive, should be the right of any man. I really wouldn't expect you to understand that, I have read a number of your post, but I know people, and what was true of racism 2000 years ago remains relevant today, and therefore racism whether you or I like it or not will be here long after we are gone.

I have a theory that some people use the issue of race as a crutch, its not that they honestly believe that this nation hasn't come far, and its not that they believe they can eliminate racism, but it does make some people feel more secure if they can blame another race, or even blame another political group all the time. There is of course nothing wrong with pointing out injustices in America, or fighting for the race you belong to. However there is a difference between that and assuming race plays a role with everything while constantly looking for a race to demonize. I see this trait in people that are looked up to and thats unfortunate, people with power and money, and often some of the most racist among us are the ones who cry racism on a near daily basis.

I distinguish between bulk and hard.

To draw a comparison, we've won the initial phase, but we've still got the insurgency to smoke out.


One of the hardest parts of a war can be mopping up.


I believe in fighting the good fight, always have. Whether its crime, terrorism, or racism we don't give up because complete victory is unreachable.

We can minimize racism its effects.

For instance breaking up concentrated poverty through mixed-income housing, working aggressively to confront housing and employment discrimination, halting the de facto segregation of our schools and neighborhoods, improving inner-city education. Confronting police corruption and stopping the importation of narcotics at the ports and borders rather than wasting time money and space imprisoning small time hoods.

That's a start on what the government can do.


"Kill the messenger" is always a convenient impulse when confronted with a problem, but it's never helped anyone.

Many of you just were dismissive of my long post and missed the key point of this entire debate--what does this "post-racial" world look like? Obama has not given us his model. Neither have any of you. This will be more than mopping up. The devil is in the details, n'est pas?

And Entspeak--pulease. I thought you were going to break into song. Go out on the street today and ask anyone you see if they would like to be rich. Anyone. 99.99% will answer in the affirmative. Of course, if they are not rich now, they'd probably also want to stick it to the "fat cats", but they would sure not like to be so stuck when they became wealthy. In fact, I always chuckle at the irony of this. Think Eddie Murphy in Trading Places when he becomes "rich" and how he views his friends who are trashing the stuff in his new home.

It is not even debatable. People may say they want to be happy--fair enough. But no one would say they don't want the cash, too, and the two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm sorry, but I must have missed where you mention this key point in your opening post. Can you please point that out for me?



I'm sure you've got a poll or something to post in support of this?



I believe that my point was that the two were not mutually exclusive. You do not need money to be happy and those who have money are not necessarily happy.

1) Does this speech end the Rev Wright issue? Should it end the Rev Wright issue?

Yes to both questions. The whole “issue” was a tempest in a teapot, and Obama masterfully turned the heat off.

2) Does the content of the speech on racial rapproachment ring true to you?
(emphasis mine)
I rarely quote posters’ entire posts, especially when they are lengthy, but I was pondering my response to this thread, and can’t begin to top drewyorktimes’ thoughtful and insightful analysis, and felt it was worth a bump to interrupt the usual back-and-forth racial animus.

I will say this: too many of these threads are being started with irritating frequency as attempts to provoke and prolong 's very own race war, with the same players on each side reiterating the same arguments from every other too-similar thread, and it has gotten reeeeeally old...and boring.

I did lots of research to find out where Obama claims the "middle class" live for purposes of his tax cut plan and his tax increases. This was the best concensus answer I could find, although his web site is deliberately vague here, as he knows that when the line is drawn, those over the line will be a tad upset.





Probably not; he just tells whites to go to h&ll. Surely the analogy breaks down somewhat, but to make the analogy better, if a white candidate went to a church that advocated some sort of racism toward blacks, I can assure you black activists would demand that candidate leave the church. We have many examples of this---anyone who taught at Bob Jones University couldn't run for dog catcher until they resigned, and all Bob Jones did was prohibit interracial marriage. I never heard anyone affilidated with the school say anything about blacks remotely as obscene as what Wright said about whites.



I sure would feel closer to my grandmother (who raised him, by the way) than almost any preacher I can name. You take it how you want to take it. I would have left her out of this.



I have done a fair amount of reading on black nationalist liberation theology. Power through faith surely is not all they want. Do your own reading.




Your comment above reveals your real thoughts: Anyone rich is corrupt and wrong and did it on the backs of others. This, of course, is (edited to remove attempt to bypass the profanity filter). You just lost my vote. The rich or those trying to get there create jobs for all of the rest of us, directly or indirectly. Where I live, Coca-Cola funds every imaginable charity and community activity, from the museums to the ballet to Habitat; provides work for every kind of consultant, real estate broker, construction company, logistics company, caterer, supplier, small business contractor, lawyer, travel agent, accountant, and investment banker imaginable; and quite simply drives the train. Without companies like this, rich and with rich executives, there is no USA.

Only if we must construct our Xanadu from thin air which you seem to be doing.

What in Obama's speech talked about creating a new "post-racial" world? He talked in practical terms about what many blacks believe and how they live.

You're tilting at windmills about whose "terms" will dominate while Obama is simply talking about improving the lot of the disadvantaged.

turnea


Well I'm sure that the changes that blacks went through when slavery was abolished were more significant and difficult than any that will occur from this point on. So who is the insurgency you want to smoke out in your comparison, The racist?




I agree with the first sentence, that we should fight the good fight whether or not the enemy is one you can completely eliminate, which is rarely the case even in war terms. However I don't buy that some people, (constantly preaching equality) aren't in many cases just driven more by there own racial tendencies. Its obvious with some people that the issue of race is simply used to channel their own hatred at another race, in an indirect way. One way to determine who is using race as a crutch is to basically pay attention to what people say. This is why I separate Obama from Al Sharpton because the things people say and do define their character, and the funny thing is I don't agree with many of Obama's political stances, because I'm fairly conservative in general, this is why I'll be voting for McCain but if I were liberal id vote for Obama over Hillary in a heartbeat. Hillary in my opinion is a flake, its to hard to tell where she stands at times. Obama I do give repeated credit, even early on my two favorite Democrats were Obama and Joe Biden. Joe Biden because he was the least liberal of the bunch, and Obama because he was the most believable and fresh of the bunch.

Above in your last paragraph you pointed out many things you support that are just good all around things, but don't necessarily relate directly to race. Improving inner city education for example is good for a number of reasons. However employment discrimination is obviously race, or gender related, but given the times we are in today turnea what more is there to do with that one? Equal Opportunity employment is law, supposing the person is healthy and qualified. Employers today do not want to risk lawsuits in most cases, and while there continues to be cases of discrimination, it all goes back to a point I made earlier. The progress we have to make from this point on is primarily at a social level, if someone doesn't hire another because they are black, well they broke the law. I don't know what more you want, I suppose we could threaten employers with guns as a scare tactic not to discriminate but I'm sure most would say thats a tad extreme.

As for that comment suggesting that we are wasting time money and space imprisoning small time hoods, thats just silly. If these small time hoods have people committing small time crimes, then they should be tried for those crimes accordingly whatever race they are. Thing is, in many hoods murder/rape or serious drugs (not weed) are the crimes we are talking about, thats not small time. I got spoon fed some of the worst local news you could imagine, I grew up just north of New Orleans and the hoods down in places like the ninth ward earned New Orleans the title of murder capitol of America 3 years straight at one point.

Is this the old talking point where the cops are supposedly out to get the blacks, by wasting their time in the hoods? Well the N.O.P.D. is about half black anyway, yet they keep their hands full in the hoods of New Orleans more than most other cites. Are black cops wasting there time in hoods? There are still cases of racism in the police system, and even in the court system, but those who go to the extent of saying the system is rigged for the benefit of whites, which I hear often, their days just might be numbered. If Barack Obama does become president, you'll have a half African American as president of the worlds most powerful nation. Thats quite an honor, and from that point on if he does get elected, everyone who tells me the system is rigged for the benefit of whites, or something of that nature, I'll ask well who's the commander and chief of that system? Even now you have African Americans in some pretty well respected positions in Washington, which means they are part of the system some claim is rigged. Southern Louisiana is a perfect example of this, many of the politicians down there are Black. I cant remember the last time the Mayor of New Orleans was a white man. Yet rapper Kanye West claims George Bush hates black people, and thats supposedly why he screwed up with organizing the relief effort. What about Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin? Yea The (( this will be a Chocolate city again)) guy. Me and my dad call him Willy Wonker for that, lol Anyway I think crimes should be dealt with in Hood areas where crime is bad, its common sense.




What if the messenger, is more like a false prophet?

1) Does this speech end the Rev Wright issue? Should it end the Rev Wright issue?
This was never an issue, but there are those that were looking for some way to attack Obama and in Rev. Wright, they have found that way. The statements by Rev. Wright were anti-American. So the obvious question is that does the man running for President of the United States believe those statements? In his speech, he answered that question. For some, they weren't satisfied, they never will be satisfied. It seems that when ever we come to confront our race we always seem to start arguing which is why race should never be a political issue. It is, as Obama said, a divisive issue that keeps us from acheiving the things as a society that are important to our daily lives. Health care, economic prosperity, and opportunity. In this country, those things are not attainable to many of this country. Many are rejected for health care because of money. Economic prosperity is only accessible to the offspring of the rich and wealthy. Opportunity is merely a word and in these desperate times it is become forgotten in place of the immediate danger of survival. Great speech in that it addressed the divisiveness of race. It's not a political issue, it is a divisive technique.

2) Does the content of the speech on racial rapproachment ring true to you?
Many aspects of the speech are most definitely truth. I have listened to my white friends complain about losing government jobs because black men were given the position because of affirmative action. I have heard black men complain about the inability to succeed because white racism stood in their way. Obama addressed both of these two groups' anger. I know that descendants of white immigrants after the Civil War, as my grandmother was, hear the slavery argument and scratch our head, "What does that have to do with me?" Yet, many blacks are stuck in cyclical poverty because of slavery, never able to get out. And this speech addressed that as well. The most important part of the speech was the part about how this is dividing us. It is another tool and technique used by the power against the powerless to keep us disorganized and discouraged.

The response to this speech in the way of votes is going to be interesting. If Obama suddenly starts losing elections in states he would normally win because of this speech, or Rev. Wright, then my original belief will be proven. That the problem with the American political system is that it is full of Americans.

Questions for debate:

[b]1) Does this speech end the Rev Wright issue? Should it end the Rev Wright issue?
Short answer no and yes. The Limbot crowd is going to exploit this as long as it has legs. Rightwing Republican jingos are going to playing Wright's "Damn the United States" comment over and over. It's already happening on video, radio and in print. In a politically mature country such a statement placed in its proper context wouldn't raise an eyebrow but unfortunately we haven't evolved to that level of political maturity. Compare the politics of Wright with that of Pat Robertson or Hagee, two serious Republican power players and one quickly should get the sense that the concern over the political impact of a religious leader is badly misplaced.

2) Does the content of the speech on racial rapproachment ring true to you?
It does and superbly so. I was particularly interested to get some feedback from a marine friend of mine who I would say is a Republican conservative in the extreme and thinks Ann Coulter is the cats pajamas. He said he had never read a speech where a candidate had understood the racial divide as well as Obama had. Of course he was put off by the Wright business and had seen some video where he felt Obama had not shown the patriotic respect he should but nevertheless Barack was the first liberal he had indicated a real respect for.

The one thing that troubles me out of this whole Pastor Wright business is that Obama initially claimed that he hadn't heard some of the more controversial comments Wright had made. Whether right or wrong now the perception is he lied based on common sense(Knowing the guy 20 years) and apparently some evidence that he was at services where these controversial statements were made. I have tended to give Obama credit for getting out front on matters that might come up later, particularly in his two books, and I hate to see him take a hit on his credibility particularly when it was clear that Wright's more controversial comments were going to come out eventually.

Well, then, I'm sure it will be easy to point us to, then.



I'm sure you would attempt to assure me. Whether or not you could actually provide assurances, is debatable. Point to someone who worked at Bob Jones who couldn't become a dog catcher. I think your hyperbole is showing.



He never said he wasn't closer to his grandmother than his preacher. I was close to my grandmother (who helped to raise me, by the way) and she displayed her ignorance in regards to race all the time. I loved her no less for that, because I knew where it was coming from.



I have done a fair amount of reading on black nationalist liberation theology. Power through faith surely is not all they want. Do your own reading.[/qutoe]

Surely... is this the same as "I assure you"? Because if it is, I will take it with the same grain of salt. And, I read quite a bit, thank you very much.