Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

I'm going to keep this short for now.

It was an excellent speech, and for his supporters, it will be seen as historic, as concluding the Wright issue, etc.

Ultimately, however, it's not enough.

Besides my not liking his taking cheap shots at Hillary Clinton ('race card') and Geraldine Ferraro, the problems for Barack Obama after this speech are many. And he knows them.

This is why he denounced those who will play the Wright tapes 'on a loop,' and he took shots at pundits of both sides, and radio commentators.

Translation: The continued examination of the Wright tapes, and the fodder exposed by his opponents (esp. those on the right) is going to continue, and he cannot control that.

It was a wise move for Obama to introduce his white relatives in this speech. That was shrewd. And it will certainly lessen the concern among some voters.

But it's not enough.

Video of impassioned emotion, especially anger directed to your group is more powerful than a calm, contained speech, no matter how effective. And this speech was very effective.

Barack Obama's presentation will be played on a loop, and the spin has already begun. Both this spin and the reaction to Barack's words will be strong. The speech will resonate. He will get a bump in the polls, I imagine.

But discussions, as the senator said, will continue about white males going to John McCain, about the racial splits in TX, OH and MS.

Politics is a cynical business. JFK had a great agenda, but one of the things that won him the White House was how he looked on TV versus how Nixon looked. There is a bottom line here, so to speak.

And the bottom line for Barack Obama is that with those Wright tapes out there -- and with more likely to come -- there exists 'reasonable doubt' in many voters' minds, as Obama acknowledged. And that doubt is but one 30 second spot away.

And that is why Obama's address is not enough, nor could it hope to be enough.

Democratic leaders may well nominate Obama, but he cannot win the presidency post-Wright (not mentioning other figures he's tied to like Rezko and Ayers). The demographics of this nation, combined with Wright's words and Obama's close association with the minister, are too much.

You heard Obama pander to both Jewish and Latino voters today, as well as to whites, blacks and Reagan Coalition voters.

It is not sufficient, as we have seen from the returns so far this primary season.

I know many of you don't want to believe this, particularly in the afterglow of Obama's great speech, but this is what I firmly believe, as someone who has followed innumerable contests over many years and seen these things play out over and over again.

Negative campaigning works, that is a demonstrated fact.

Obama will be overrun by his associations in a general contest, if not before then.

Tags: 2008 elections, Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright (all tags)



Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-18 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

But every Black politician in America has his/her version of the Rev Wright connection. So you're really saying that he can't win because he's Black.

by mswaine 2008-03-18 08:29AM | 0 recs
Have You Ever Worked With Or Been Photographed

....with a Black person?

Then you probably can't hold political office.

by bernardpliers 2008-03-18 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Have You Ever Worked With Or Been Photographed

Have they never said anything like this?  Cause I can't think of many of us that haven't...

by Brillobreaks 2008-03-18 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Have You Ever Worked With Or Been Photographed

I don't have to like Obama, don't have to want him as the nomineedon't have to think he can overcome Wright to either not be racist or to be a good Democrat.

No, but you could stop pretending every other day that some new 'revelation' or speech changed what has been your opinion about this primary for at least the last two months.

And if you're going to be honest, I'll bet it goes back a lot farther than that.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-18 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

I continue to refuse to attack our other Black churches and their leaders, but I will once again mention that numerous pastors and reverends supporting the Clintons have made similarly inflamatory statements.

by Brillobreaks 2008-03-18 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

really? when and where?

Did they perform Bill and Hillary's marriage?

Did they baptize Chelsea?

Does Bill and Hillary attend one of their churches for 20 years, and not once object to material, for the COMMON GOOD OF HUMANITY?


No one can deny that; you can all marginalize people's offense at this, but that just comes back around to what obama says he's against  D I V I S I ON!!!

by destardi 2008-03-18 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Putting words in all caps does not make the point any more persuasive.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-18 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Many could consider Oprah a politician as much a performer

Many could consider a fish to be a bicycle.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-18 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Historic

So your basic response to a powerful moral call for our country to do better is to say, "no, I do not think we can overcome the history of racial tensions and resentments in this country."

In response to the choice that Obama presented you are saying "I choose to stay with the racial divisions of the past."

Let me suggest that that is the course of a moral coward.  Your choice is far less understandable and far more disturbing than the anger on display in the few selected snippets from Wright.  

by upper left 2008-03-18 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Historic

You are using your perception of the racial attitudes of others to justify not even attempting to make progress.  In my eyes that makes you a moral coward, as guilty as those ignorant souls that are truly racist.

by upper left 2008-03-18 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Historic


You're ridiculous.

you're a moral coward for not asking WHY this speech, NOW!?

20 years is a long time to remain silent on race...but wait, now he's being damaged by his 20 year association, so "it's all about race."


by destardi 2008-03-18 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Historic

Read "Dreams from My Father," Obama has been thinking about race, in all its complexity, for most of his life.  He is undertaking an enormously profound challenge: he is trying to be elected President in a country that was built on a several hundred year history of racism and racial animosity.

The very fact that Wright's comments sparked such controversy is testament to the iconic power of "the angry black man" in our culture.  I have little doubt that Obama knew he would, at some point, need to address the issue of race in his campaign.  The flap over Wright seemed an appropriate, even necessary, time.

Respond to the substance of Obama speech.  I found it very insightful, and I found his call for all of us to do better very moving.  I find it shocking that so many HRC supporters are so blinded by their candidate preference that they are unwilling to give Obama credit for what I believe will be a historic speech.

by upper left 2008-03-18 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Historic

If Obama were trying to heal race relations, sure.  His call for us all to be better, sure.  His thinking about issues of race his whole life, sure.

It's the "trying to be elected president" part that bothers me.  Thus the speech comes off as politically expedient (and necessary, in his situation).

MLK - who tried to heal relations, pondered race, and called on us to be better - was successful because it was Not. About. Him.  People of all kinds all over the country sensed that in MLK and responded to it in the same spirit that he brought to it.

by Montague 2008-03-18 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Historic

I get it.

Black folks need to just make their fancy speeches. Leave the presidentin' to the white folks.

by Sinbad Sinbad 2008-03-18 11:21AM | 0 recs
Duh. A fire-breathing (white) gay rights

activist like Barney Frank can't be presidentin' either.  But he can talk in public and improve relations between gay and straight people.

by Montague 2008-03-18 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Historic

Thanks for the alert but I responded before I saw it!

by Montague 2008-03-18 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Interesting. I guess that puts you in the same camp with Wright in terms of whether or not Americans can change.

by Mobar 2008-03-18 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

I suspect you've inserted your own ad hominem inference, because what I wrote was not ad hom. Obama criticized Wright for a belief system that believes Americans can't change. You're arguing that what Obama said won't work because of historical and demographic realities, i.e. Americans can't change. You truly are embracing a fundamental premise of the thinking that you are criticizing. Perhaps you think it's justified in your argument and not justified in Wright's. I just found it interesting that you share it in common. I suspect your thinking on the subject might benefit from reflecting on that similarity.

by Mobar 2008-03-18 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

And it is his association with his pastor which makes it so?  I accept that you believe this but is it possible you are doing a plurality of the US electorate an injustice?  Maybe it is you who feel this way.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-03-18 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Methinks thou dost prognosticate too much.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-03-18 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

That's more pragmatic than progressive, isn't it?

Not saying that one is better than the other, but if one believes that what Obama said today was, politically and socially, a realistic description of the state of affairs and the possibility of change, then one can choose to work for that change or not, regardless of questions of 'electability,' no?

by vadasz 2008-03-18 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Actually, I'm interested in Obama's snake like ability to not piss off black people who have supported him, by not completely utterly distancing himself from Wright, and by extension Farrakhan (award, November 2007 as a great human being from Wright), or not alienating white voters even while supporting this church financially.  

Sorry, but "cigar chomping crackers" is not something my white dad and mom worker their fingers to the bone supporting us, deserves.

And I don't care if Obama raised that spectre...This was purely a political, save your own arse speech.

If he wanted to do something about race, it wouldn't be only when he's called on supporting a racially focused/sensitive church; it would have been 20 years ago.

by destardi 2008-03-18 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Did you watch it?

by Sinbad Sinbad 2008-03-18 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

And, I didn't hear any ideas he plans to implement to improve race relations if he is President.  I agree - this was a CYA speech.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-18 11:41AM | 0 recs
Why it wasn't enough

You're right, it could not be enough for me, not matter what he said.  Why not? Because he did not make the speech until Wright became a political liability.  

by dhonig 2008-03-18 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Why it wasn't enough

It's fair to say, then, that your opinion isn't really worth listening to.  You aren't interested in  anything which would redeem him in any way, b/c you are heavily invested in tearing him down and putting Clinton in his place.

That's pretty sad, man

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-18 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Why it wasn't enough

For McCain.  Or are you going to come about and support Obama in the fall, once he's he GE nominee?

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-18 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Why it wasn't enough

Ummm. He wrote a whole book on race relations.

Why did he not address Wright until he became a controversy? Ummmm. Ummmm. Because you address controversies when they appear. You don't bring them up.

by Sinbad Sinbad 2008-03-18 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Nothing would have been enough for me.  This will only work with the Obamatons.

by switching sides 2008-03-18 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by NJIndependent 2008-03-18 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Be careful of what you ask for about this.  McCain is a war hero and he will be atractive to a lot of Reagan democrats and liberal but pro-war voters.  Personally i would have much preferred Mitt than McCain to run against.


by giusd 2008-03-18 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

True enough.  My brother despises W, but has already announced his intention to vote for McCain; my father and mother are leaning the same way.  That's only a small, anecdotal sample, but all of them were "Reagan Democrats".  There will be many, many more.  My brother's rationale painfully funny - he said as early as last Christmas that while he liked Obama, he just isn't willing to vote for someone he believes will be assassinated.  Makes him feel too guilty.

by aggieric 2008-03-18 08:24AM | 0 recs

I find it mind-boggling that people would think so ... or am I being naive about it?

I'm really interested in the roots and logic of the belief that Obama is a more likely casualty of assassination than, say, the two Bushes or Hillary/Bill Clinton.

by Sieglinde 2008-03-18 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Assassination?

The roots and logic lie in racism.  The KKK and white supremacy groups are far from dead in this country.

Think about the murders of gays and trans people (especially trans women) that still occur regularly in this country; think about how abortion providers are still terrorized in this country; think about how many innocent black men are accused, convicted, and put on death row in this country (DNA testing has begun to prove the fallacy of "blind justice").  Think about all that, and then you really think it's likely that Obama isn't at greater risk than the Bushes and Bill?  Women in this country are murdered by boyfriends and husbands at an alarming rate - I'm not discounting that, but misogyny isn't nearly as likely to result in a President H. Clinton's assassination as racism is a President Obama's.

by aggieric 2008-03-18 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

I'm not sure what's sadder -- that he things Obama would get assassinated, or that the fear of that is enough to keep him from supporting Obama.

Never mind. The latter is sadder. And is how terrorism works.

by Lettuce 2008-03-18 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by politicsmatters 2008-03-18 08:04AM | 0 recs
The future is inherently

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

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

by TomP 2008-03-18 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

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

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

by njsketch 2008-03-18 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

You do realize that you are calling for the "party elders" to rip the party in two, right?

If the "party elders" reject the choice of the members of the party, they might as well just disband the Democratic party because it will be a long long time before we win anything again.

by bawbie 2008-03-18 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Nominating Hillary rips the party in two while nominating Obama heals every wound in the nation and gives free ice cream to the little children, right?

by DemAC 2008-03-18 08:28AM | 0 recs
It's so very sad

All Democrats in the Union will, grief struck, bow their heads to the ground and ask: "Why, why, oh why? First we all voted for her, then she's nominated by the party and now we have a more than fair chance to whop McCain's behind and take control of the entire government. Why, oh why did this terrible fate fell upon us?"

by DemAC 2008-03-18 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: It's so very sad

From your lips to Nancy Pelosi's tin ear.

by oh puhleeze 2008-03-18 01:35PM | 0 recs
democratic party members?

more of them have voted for Hillary and they will be relieved when Obama's "be a democrat for a day" campaign is shut down.  The democratic party will be just fine and the swing voters who are having buyers remorse over Obama will be fine too.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-18 09:57AM | 0 recs
That tearing sound you hear?

Obama's campaign ripping apart the Democratic Party by trying to smear Hillary with outlandish accusations of racism.  This is not a time to play the game of who's-the-bigger-victim.  In the GE, claiming victimhood is a sure way to lose.

by Montague 2008-03-18 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: That tearing sound you hear?

There are some who will say that's not fair the way the MSM focuses on the bad stuff or that voters won't vote for a person trying to claim victimhood.

Well, no, it's NOT fair.  But as an atheist, I couldn't win, either, and that's not fair.  We have to work within the limits of what we have at the time.  While there has been sexism aimed at Hillary, she tends to laugh it off, which is the best way to handle it.  It's unfair that she has to put up with it, but she does it with grace and aplomb, and we expect that of our politicians.

by Montague 2008-03-18 11:53AM | 0 recs
oh ye of little faith

surrendered already I see.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-18 08:59AM | 0 recs
so, if lets say

obama wins nominations, will you be writing fiery diaries to help him get elected?

by kindthoughts 2008-03-18 07:55PM | 0 recs
yeah, big surprize Universal

its not enough as judged by you.

Any vdare links this time?

by kindthoughts 2008-03-18 08:06AM | 0 recs
ah, the disarming

half agreement with a small.

Good technique.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-18 08:02PM | 0 recs
erm, correction

a small smile.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-18 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

The genie has been let out of the bottle.

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

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

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

Who does he think he is fooling ?


by lori 2008-03-18 08:06AM | 0 recs

The Wright snippets are so much more volatile and compact and easy to run on a loop than any part of Obama's speech.  Speeches just are not made for the modern MSM.

by Montague 2008-03-18 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

I respectfully disagree.

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

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

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


by johnnygunn 2008-03-18 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Wow, you sound like a paid supporter.

I'm NOT, but to not find ANY fault with a 35 minute speech, is..well, "too good to be true."

by destardi 2008-03-18 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Actually -
If you check my diaries and comments you will see that I have been supporting Hillary Clinton for some time and think that Obama is, by far, the weaker candidate.

That said -
He still hit a home run today.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-18 10:55AM | 0 recs
It may have been a home run

(I haven't viewed it yet) but if so, it's a home run with the stands nearly empty.  Only a small percentage of the electorate will watch a speech.  The Wright videos are far more entertaining and compact than Obama's speech, and therefore they will continue to get more play than even interesting snippets from the speech.

I.e., general election loss.

by Montague 2008-03-18 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

From the MSNBC headline:

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

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

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

by mikes101 2008-03-18 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Man what a disaster. Cue the "wright has been like family to me" next to the g d america clips. He's a disaster. His speechwriter doesn't know anything about what he did I guess.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-18 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

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

Who do you think Obama lost?

by afr114 2008-03-18 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by Spanky 2008-03-18 08:12AM | 0 recs
Obama not speaking to the unhinged

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

by highgrade 2008-03-18 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

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

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

What will be the diversion in 2012?

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

by dannyinla 2008-03-18 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Yeah, and the first two candidates you mentioned lost.. well the second one did anyway.

by JustJennifer 2008-03-18 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Only Liberal whites & Blacks

Obama's speech did two things.

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

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

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

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

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

This speech was tailored made for Liberals alone.

Unfortunately, liberals cannot win you Presidential elections.

by latinfighter 2008-03-18 08:29AM | 0 recs
Actually, I think you can.

I know, there are at least 3 self-identified conservatives for 2 liberals in this country.  And neither group comes close to a majority.  But when polled about liberal values, i.e.

  1. A universal healthcare system;
  2. A "live and let live" approach to lifestyle choices;
  3. Pro-choice positions, especially when phrased as criminalizing abortion;
  4. A tax system that takes more, percentage-wise, from the wealthy, without removing their incentive to earn;
  5. A solid safety net for the least fortunate;
  6. Public instutions that look out for the welfare and safety of the people through regulation of dangerous and greedy corporations;

you consistently get over 50%.  So, speaking to liberal values will not alienate the electorate.  The next step is taking back the word "liberal" itself and correctly defining it as the popular political philosophy it should be.

by corph 2008-03-18 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

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

by njsketch 2008-03-18 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough


by Informed in Illinois 2008-03-18 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by mefck 2008-03-18 08:39AM | 0 recs
Negative Campaigning Works?

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

by Brillobreaks 2008-03-18 08:42AM | 0 recs
Well, one of them has to win.

If Obama is "shot" but both Hillary and McCain are just as damaged, that makes him more electable because there's no alternative.

by corph 2008-03-18 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by democrat voter 2008-03-18 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Wait... Obama's candidacy is an attempt to keep the women down?  Seriously?

by Brillobreaks 2008-03-18 08:48AM | 0 recs

no one said that.  He threw Ferraro under the bus and he was wrong to compare what she said to Wright's hate speech.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-18 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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


by steve468 2008-03-18 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by nikkid 2008-03-18 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

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

by lori 2008-03-18 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Good luck with that canard. Let me know how it works out.

The man gives us intellectual nurishment to last for weeks, if we want. He offers a real discussion of race. It treated the audience like adults... truly a sign of better politics ahead if we take it.

You took the petty path instead -- one that's not even born out by any quotes. Just a desire to find a fake "gotcha."

In the context of that speech, makes your comment even pettier.

by Lettuce 2008-03-18 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

yea, supporting a guy who uses "cigar chomping cracker" to attack white people.


by destardi 2008-03-18 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

cigar chomping cracker??? what are you talking about?

by politicsmatters 2008-03-18 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

No, because according to some of my fellow progressives who are falling into the same trap as Bush supporters, you can't question someone they so ardently believe in.

by destardi 2008-03-18 09:58AM | 0 recs
Donate to Hillary Now

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

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

by Scope441 2008-03-18 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Donate to Hillary Now

OR be part of History and DONATE HERE:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/ view/main/Fightin4Bro

by a gunslinger 2008-03-18 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by JustJennifer 2008-03-18 09:05AM | 0 recs
his first instinct is always to see

if he can get away with the lie.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-18 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

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

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

by Nobama 2008-03-18 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

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

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

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-18 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

and "woman" too, don't forget that BlueInColorado.

They don't matter much.  Especially according to Wright.

"cigar chomping cracker."

by destardi 2008-03-18 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Uh huh. Jan Schakowsky. Janet Napolitano. Kathleen Sibellius. Caroline Kennedy. Claire McCaskill.

All just too dumb to know they're simple-minded pawns of the patriarchy.

Funny, seeing how four of them have, unlike Ferraro, have actually won elections in the last twenty years.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-18 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Doesn't seem to matter to Pastor Wright...

After all, Natalee holloway seems pretty insignificant, since she went to Aruba and "gave it up."

"cigar chomping cracker" Pastor Wright.

by destardi 2008-03-18 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Gee. There's a brilliantly coherent and relevant comment.


by BlueinColorado 2008-03-18 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Which makes it all the more interesting how hard the Obama campaign had to work to dig up Ms. Ferraro's comment: an honest answer to an thoughtful question in the context of an open discussion at a small speaking engagement, which subsequently was posted on a local paper.  Perhaps the Obama campaign knew that someone was finally beginning to scrutinize their candidate's judgement and they urgently needed a diversion?  Seeing nothing handy directly from the Clinton campaign, they had to scour the internet to find anyone, anything they could to replenish their deck of race cards?

by Informed in Illinois 2008-03-18 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Actually, she said to her "pal" John Gibson before she gave that "thoughtful answer".

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-18 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Ben Smith of Politico has reported that the comment was sent in by a viewer and was not pushed by the Obama campaign.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-18 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

It's also a misrepresentation of the Ferraro story. She first made her remarks at a speech. No one bit at the bait.

Then the took them to a newspaper. By all accounts of it, she rather vehemently made the remarks to the newspaper to make sure they'd be covered. That's not my account, that's not Obama's account, that's the account of the reporter who wrote the story.

How the remarks got wider play than that is up for debate. They were in the media days before it all blew up. It's not clear whether the media decided to fan the flame or if Ferraro's continued repetition of them finally fanned the flames.

But there's no scenario under which the Obama campaign was responsible for them becoming well-known and worthy of comment and debate. Saying otherwise would be just like blaming the Clinton campaign for the Samantha Power flap -- after all, surely they could've just ignored it, now couldn't they?

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-18 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by christinep 2008-03-18 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

How on earth can you hear "You must understand me, but I need not try to understand you" from Obama's speech? He specifically spoke to the contrary...

by Lettuce 2008-03-18 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

He is the empty vessel into which each person can pour his/her own hopes, dreams and attitudes.

by Informed in Illinois 2008-03-18 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough
love this:
"It is one thing to ask for understanding of what leads to bitterness and other complex emotions that underlie Sunday mornings at Trinity Church, but quite another to skip/not acknowledge many (such as blue-collar white people) who also carry their burdens to Church on Sunday mornings."
by jentwisl 2008-03-18 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

He specifically mentioned those things in his speech.  Why do people fucking comment on something they haven't even listened to or read?

by ficus1 2008-03-18 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by zenful6219 2008-03-18 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

obama is done for the majority of the voters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it Obama?

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

obama=skilled politician, but untested.

Good luck with that!

by destardi 2008-03-18 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Just words.....

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

by bayareavoter 2008-03-18 09:50AM | 0 recs

when will Clinton get equal time?

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-18 10:16AM | 0 recs
Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

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

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

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

by Betsy McCall 2008-03-18 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

Women are not as important as black men.

by destardi 2008-03-18 09:59AM | 0 recs
that's right

and the struggles of white women do not matter.
After all Affirmative Action helped white women more than it helped black people according to some people.

Life has just been so freaking easy for Hillary all she had to do was marry the right man.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-18 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

It was honest.  Imagine that, an honest politician.  As a middle aged white woman, it rang true to me.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-18 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

...so it rang true to you, that Obama essentially negated all of the "sacrificing" his white grandmother did for him, by ending that part of the speech with bringing her into a negative light, with the label of "racist"?

Man, you're easy to convince.

by destardi 2008-03-18 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro


You can't see flaws in people you love without casting them in the worst possible light, without understanding, compassion and forgiveness?

What a sad and lonely existence. you must have. I hope your post here merely reflects your politics, your resentment and bitterness toward Obama, rather than the way you actually live you life.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-18 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

Well, BlueinColorado: I live in Colorado too.  Yet, my take is vastly different than yours.  The person immediately above your comment did not seem to say anything so dishonest or nasty that called for you to attempt to rip out her psyche.  (Of course, if I misunderstood what appears to have been your attempt to undermine a writer by "analyzing" whether her life was sad her not, then I am sorry.)  Frankly, I do have some questions about Obama's use of Ferraro in the speech--as a speech device, it is one thing; as a further incendiary device, it is quite another??

by christinep 2008-03-18 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

Obama essentially negated all of the "sacrificing" his white grandmother did for him, by ending that part of the speech with bringing her into a negative light, with the label of "racist"

that doesn't strike you as "nasty" ? And I don't think the poster's life is that empty and lonely, I think s/he is so twisted by political resentment toward Obama that s/he is dishonestly and nastily twisting his honest discussion of his grandmother in order to say something sick and nasty and hateful about Barack Obama.

as for Ferraro: I honetly don't think anyone outside of this site and Geraldine Ferraro's family--and I'm including the Clinton campaign--cares enough about her to consider a refererence to her "incendiary". Tell me the truth: Prior to last month, when was the last time you thought about Ferraro? Or Lloyd Bentsen? Or, for that matter, Walter Mondale?

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-18 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

Hey, it's fine to acknowledge these things in our near and dear, and to still love those people.  But now his grandmother is on the radar for the whole world as a racist.  Sheeee-it. If he loves her, why do that?

by Montague 2008-03-18 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

No. His grandmother is portrayed to the world as a generous, loving, flawed individual.

God, you people are just awful.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-18 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

I sometimes wonder if there were two versions of the speech, and most of the country got one version, but Clinton supporters received the other one.

That so completely misses the point of what Obama said that I can't believe you heard the same speech.

What he said was that his grandmother was a wonderful woman, that he loves her deeply, and that she was flawed despite it. He said the flaws did not make her less wonderful or less beloved.

He said, by extension, that people are not just evil or good. That good people can have bad thoughts, even bad actions, and still be good people overall.

It was a wonderful expression of the good in people, of how we can get past our differences and our fears and hatreds and do good.

And you hear it as throwing her under the bus.


by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-18 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

Again, Obama's message is that white women are flawed and racist.  Sorry, but the subtle message he's sending there is wrong.  Sexism is as bad as racism, and Obama needs to either realize he's guilty of it or apologize to women voters for making that inference.

by Betsy McCall 2008-03-18 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

I need a transcript of the speech you heard. It sounds like a pretty poor speech. I'm glad Obama didn't give it, because I'd have been pretty upset about that.

In the speech I heard, Obama took the time to decry sexism, when it wasn't on the subject of the speech. He made no sexist inferences at any time in the speech I heard. Talking about how one woman can hold both a great, great amount of good in her, and also some negative thoughts, is not sexist. It doesn't say she's a racist.

He certainly didn't make any generalization about white women being flawed and racist. In the speech I heard, he talked quite a bit about Ashley Baia. Ashley is a white woman. At no point did he describe her in racist terms, nor did he describe her as flawed.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-18 10:58AM | 0 recs
re: his grandmother, he didn't say "that he loves her deeply", he said that she is  "a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world"....
please quote him accurately, or at least get the "subject" who "verbs" correct in a paraphrase (!!)  
and, yes, that wording does make a difference.
by jentwisl 2008-03-18 10:48AM | 0 recs

Again, if you can't see the love in how he spoke of her, the way he described her, you didn't see or hear the speech I heard. You're right about the words, but missing the meaning. And the whole point of speeches is to convey meaning.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-18 10:54AM | 0 recs

Wait a minute.  I thought words meant something.  Thus Obama should have said the actual words.  

This seems like another indication of his outsized ego - she loves HIM, oh yes, but he won't bring himself to say he loves her in so many words.

by Montague 2008-03-18 11:32AM | 0 recs

Wow. You people are truly sickening.

I've said it before: Hillary Clinton, with all her flaws, deserves better supporters than she has, from Penn and Wolfson to sick, twisted little trolls like you.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-18 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

Granted I have yet to hear the actual speech, but would it NOT have been better for Obama to admit his OWN failings and inappropriate thoughts rather than shame his grandmother in front of the world?  

by Montague 2008-03-18 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

In my world, Obama mentioned Ferraro once and Clinton not at all. So in my world, there was one possible "shot" at Ferraro and no possible "shot" at Clinton.

In my world he said that some people would dismiss Ferraro as having some deep-seated racial bias, but implied that he would not say that about her. That is not a cheap shot, or any kind of shot.

In my world he said that he could have simply rejected and denounced Wright, exactly as Ferraro had been rejected by Clinton, and gone on with things. That is not a cheap shot, or any kind of shot.

I fail to find any shots whatsoever at Clinton or Ferraro. I'd love to see the transcript of the speech Obama gave in your world, to see if he mentioned Clinton or said something nasty in yours. Jerome says he mentioned Ferraro often in his world, but there's only the one in mine. You say he took shots at Clinton, but it's certainly there in the transcript from my world.

As for Ferraro: if her comments were "valid complaints about double standards in media coverage" than she would have restated them and apologized for the confusion when she was told by most everyone including her own candidate that her remarks were distasteful, unpleasant, and had the effect of denigrating someone. That would be the right thing to do, if one had a valid point to make and was the least bit concerned with how her remarks might be taken.

Instead she chose to repeat the same things on right-wing talk radio.

Sorry... Geraldine Ferraro may be many things, but she's not that stupid. She knew what she was saying, she knew what people were hearing, and she went right on saying it. She does not get a pass because someone else said something yet more inflammatory.

If she had a valid point, and I do think there may be a valid point to be had somewhere inside what she said, she would have rephrased it and apologized for the misunderstanding. There are ways to say such things that no one could mistake for race-baiting and that could be easily defended. There are ways to say them that wouldn't have put her candidate in the position of having to reject her support.

She had the choice. She chose to take her statements to right-wing talk radio as they were, without fixing them, knowing what audience that would race and whose goals that would serve. She does not deserve nor does she get a pass on that.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-18 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

Ferraro already did as you suggest - restating the context of her remarks - many, many times.  But the "racism" bandwagon was already speeding ahead and no one would listen.  It was far too easy and advantageous for Obama and his supporters to keep calling her remarks "racist" even after she had given full explanation.

His speech today continues in that same vein, lumping her into the same category as Rev. Wright.  Inexcusable.

Obama apparently feels that attacking Ferraro is the most effective means of diverting attention away from the issue, while allowing him to fall back on the same, tired tactic of labeling anyone who challenges or questions him as a racist.

What a disturbing prospect to consider - if Obama were to be elected president, no one would be able to question any decision he makes for fear his surrogates would find a way to label them as racists.  It would play as well as labeling someone "unpatriotic" or "helping the terrorists".  

by Betsy McCall 2008-03-18 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

She took the exact same set of comments onto right wing talk radio. She has never apologized either for the remarks or how they have been received. Her only comment has been that she's right and they're wrong.

Under what circumstances is it appropriate for a Democrat, a well-known, historically significant Democrat, to take racially charged remarks about a fellow Democrat onto right-wing talk radio, especially when the other Democratic candidate, the person ostensibly being supported, has already rejected the remarks being made?

Seriously. Under what circumstances is that acceptable?

Suppose, for the purposes of argument, that Jesse Jackson got up one morning and said, if Hillary Clinton wasn't a woman, Barack Obama would've already been the nominee. That she was only where she was because she's a woman, and that it's just because she draws so many women that she's denying the nomination to Hillary Clinton.

Imagine the outcry.

Then suppose Obama rejected and denounced Jackson's comments. Suppose there was a loud outcry about how he should either restate them or stop them.

Suppose he just said, no, I stand behind what I'm saying, and then took them on O'Reilly or Limbaugh.

Are you seriously telling me you'd be out there complaining about this just being the "sexist" bandwagon and that it was perfectly fine to do that?

Because that is exactly what's happened here. I find Ferraro's behavior reprehensible, just as I would if it were a black male politician accusing Clinton of being where she was simply because of her gender.

And yet Obama said, in his speech, that he did not consider her to be a deep seated racist. His only mention of her was to imply that she did not have any deep seated racial bias.

And he's the bad guy.


by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-18 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

Sadly, you are still taking her comments out of context and mischaracterizing them as racist, which they obviously are not.

What kind of Democrat vilifies a fellow Democrat by falsely accusing them of racism?  Not a very good one.

It appears the Obama "racism" bandwagon is still going full speed ahead throwing good Dems under its wheels and remaining in denial about its own unfair exploitation of the issue.  

Be careful, the bandwagon is headed for a cliff.

by Betsy McCall 2008-03-18 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

I'm not accusing her of racism. I've said before that I do not believe her to be a racist.

I'm accusing her of race-baiting. That's a very different thing. I'm accusing her of consciously using Obama's race to denigrate him as an "affirmative action" candidate, playing to low-information voters who resent affirmative action and will happily buy into the idea that a black candidate is there because he got a bunch of special breaks.

Again, if most people made comments in a serious attempt at conversation, and were told they were hurtful and damaging and inappropriate by their own candidate, they would apologize and rephrase. What they would not do is take them to a venue known to hate their own candidate to get them wider play.

You haven't answered my analogy. Am I to assume that, if Jackson (for instance; he wouldn't do it) were to say the exact same thing except for in gender terms instead of race, you be defending strongly the appropriateness of his comments?

If someone, anyone, said "Hillary Clinton is where she is because she's a woman", and the Clinton campaign (rightly, in my opinion) piled on them as a sexist, would you be leaping to their defense and telling the Clinton campaign that the comments were being taken out of context and mischaracterized?

If if's fine for Ferraro to say what she said, then it's fine for anyone to say the same thing about Hillary Clinton in gender terms; if it's wrong to say that Ferraro is race-baiting, then it would be equally wrong for anyone to complain about sexism or gender-baiting for the same remarks.

I really don't expect that that's your standard. But if it is, just tell me, and I'll happily drop the argument with you. I won't change my view; I believe that allowing race-baiting and pandering to bigots is destructive to the party and sets a very bad precedent for any non-white-male candidate in the future.

But any other stand would be highly hypocritical.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-18 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

Imagine how bad it will be if he uses it in the White House.  No thanks.

by Betsy McCall 2008-03-18 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

And the attempt by many of Clinton's supporters to brand any commentary by the Obama campaign as racist is just as offensive. There has clearly been fault on both sides.

I also find it highly hypocritical, in light of the amazing frequency with which the term "sexist" is thrown around. I'm not calling you out, Universal; it's a broad pattern, though. I've seen people, formerly respectable people, essentially saying that any Obama supporter is sexist, simply for being an Obama supporter. The term is thrown around with abandon, and aimed at women as well as men.

If the Obama side overuses the race card (something with which I strongly disagree), then the Clinton side overuses the sexism card just as much.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-18 04:24PM | 0 recs
Ditto about his grandmother

He really appears to throw plenty of women under the bus, to use an overused phrase.  That's a very serious issue I have with Obama - his attitude towards women.

by Montague 2008-03-18 11:26AM | 0 recs
He's an incredibly flawed man

His remarks make it evident he harbors a great deal of resentment against his own mother and the grandmother who raised him and paid for his education.  

No doubt he grew up in a difficult environment as a half-black child raised by upper middle class white grandparents. His resentment and anger have been covered over, but not resolved.

His comments reveal he is filled with latent hostility towards women, not the kind of leader we need.  We already have one POTUS with psychological problems, we don't need another.

by Betsy McCall 2008-03-18 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's cheap shots at Clinton and Ferraro

Yeah, he called all Clinton supporters racists.  You're a fucking moron.

by ficus1 2008-03-18 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Irrefutable content
Irrefutably Historic.
Irrefutably the Democtaric nominee.

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

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

by dbeall 2008-03-18 10:01AM | 0 recs
yes I see

if you aren't black you are just wrong.  Thanks for clearing that up.

ps... he will never be the nominee.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-18 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

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

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

result: you lose.

by rabidnation 2008-03-18 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough


"cigar chomping cracker"
"award to Farrakhan 5 months ago, from Wright, which Obama didn't denounce"
"blue eyed devils"
"whites are potential humans, not fully evolved"
"the government (ran by whites) gave HIV to black people"

These things aren't going away because of a bloviating speech, where Obama essentially admitted to being aware of Wright, and fully accepting his comments by being a part of his church for 20 years, and condones the DIVISIVE language.


by destardi 2008-03-18 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

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

by Xanthe 2008-03-18 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

I see two fairly serious flaws in this speech.

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

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

by Susie from Philly 2008-03-18 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

How has he hidden them?  He often talks about his mother and about being biracial. He often talks about being raised by his white grandparents.

If you haven't heard this, you haven't been listening.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-18 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Actually, I listened to (non-right-wing) talk radio for an hour after the speech. They managed to find about 10 nicely-sized radio-friendly sound bites that hit very high notes. I think it's quite sound-bite-friendly.

There's no way to seriously talk about race in merely a series of sound bites. He gave a speech. However, there are a bunch of nice easily-digested radio morsels in there.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-18 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

he talked about his grandmother by saying she makes bigoted comments that make him cringe.

That's not all he said about her. That's all you chose to hear.

And that's pretty sad.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-18 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

No. I think most would agree that you and the other sad little cretins on this thread writing filth like this are even more pathetic than I thought you were this morning.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-18 04:46PM | 0 recs
Uprated due to hide-rate abuse n/t

by DemAC 2008-03-19 03:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by Newcomer 2008-03-18 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

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

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

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

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

by jaydub799 2008-03-18 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

You have heard some small snippets, not all of the man's sermons. You don't have a basis to judge what the man said because you don't have enough information.  If you insist that this is all Wright stands for, then you demonstrating that you don't care if you have enough information to form a rational judgment.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-18 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

I concede that the public does not have hours and hours of footage Rev. Wright's 30 years of weekly services.

I have to admit that I have a sneaking suspicion though that this wasn't merely "speak hatred about America and bash white people" week at TUCC.

One does not usually speak like this unless there are deeply held beliefs that drive them to.  As an extension, one generally does not attend a church unless they believe in the principles of that church.  Obama chose to attend that church.

by jaydub799 2008-03-18 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

When my pastor made hateful, bigoted remarks, I got up and walked out on his sermon. And I was only 16 at the time.

by Susie from Philly 2008-03-18 12:23PM | 0 recs
Being CIC - it's not brain surgery

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

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

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

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

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

(um yea)  

by CarolinaDawn 2008-03-18 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Being CIC - it's not brain surgery

Interesting corrolation  :)

It's a little different when you are a politician connected to a politically involved congregation that has a pastor who spews hate speech.

Just a little different.

by jaydub799 2008-03-18 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Being CIC - it's not brain surgery

A better analogy perhaps

when picking the team captain

you don't pick someone who has spent way too many Sunday's cheering AGAINST that same TEAM he's wanting to Captain.

that's all

I want the TOP cheerleader (no W pun intended) or TOP quarter back as Captain. Not the mascot from another team.


by CarolinaDawn 2008-03-18 11:07AM | 0 recs
Missing the point, completely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-18 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Missing the point, completely

Oh, I am :) It's easy to do in the position we're on, on the Obama side of things.

And you too... something could still happen that really would make Obama unelectable. At this point I think it would have to be something truly tragic, in a non-political sense, but it could happen. And at that point, should something horrible happen, Clinton would make a pretty good nominee too.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-18 04:29PM | 0 recs
Donate to Hillary Now

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

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


Click the link above and donate today!

by Scope441 2008-03-18 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by smoothmedia 2008-03-18 11:14AM | 0 recs

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Everyone wants to be a part of history.

by a gunslinger 2008-03-18 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Well...

Oh yeah.... DONATE to OBAMA NOW: http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/ view/main/Fightin4Bro

by a gunslinger 2008-03-18 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Well...

Good.  'cuz you DO have my attention (and concern).  



by a gunslinger 2008-03-18 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Well...

LOL Do you really think Nick Kristof was the person he had to win over with this speech? Of course not. This was preaching to the choir - the press wanted a reason to love him again.

No, this speech was supposed to rehab his image with the kind of people who get their news from the teevee. We won't know if it worked until the four-day poll numbers come rolling it.

by Susie from Philly 2008-03-18 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Well...

Obama will certainly cultivate at least 2 good new cycles out of this...especially if the MSM asks viters about leadership and understanding voters problems.

This is not even considering the Super-D's that obama is going to shake loose asa direct result of the speech.  How many tis week??  3, 5, 7?

by a gunslinger 2008-03-18 12:32PM | 0 recs
You know Uni your right

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

by Drewid 2008-03-18 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Let the real healing begin
Obama would have been electric if he'd addressed and apologized for the real and immediate race issue in front of his nose: his campaign's divisive exploitation of it to turn the Clinton's into racists.  He waited to take this stand on racial division until he needed it for damage control to his own campaign, and not when the damage was being done to the party, to democratic voters, and to the civil rights legacy of the only two-term Democratic president since Franklin Roosevelt.
See my diary:http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/18/1446 16/548
by oh puhleeze 2008-03-18 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

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

by ListenNOW 2008-03-18 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by ellend818 2008-03-18 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough
I haven't seen the speech, yet, but I read the Yahoo article on it. No matter how good it was, I think he is in big big trouble. The article I read on CNN re: Wright's statements didn't seem too terrible, but from what I heard on "Countdown" last night, they are bad enough ("God d... America!", etc.) that it would hurt Obama terribly at any time, much less in this totally militantly nationalistic period following 9/11. He must have known how inflamatory some of Wright's sermons were and taken the bad with the good, while not agreeing with the bad things. This is a problem with Liberals who don't see in black and white like the sheeple. I've read enough of his first book to feel that because Barack is half white and was raised by a white mother and white grandparents, he often felt that he had to try harder not to look like he was rejecting his Black heritage, esp. in the 60s and 70s when "Black Power" was such a big thing. I think he understands the anger that other Blacks have toward Whites and maybe he has some residual guilt for not rejecting his white side. It's not like he is hateful re: all Whites, himself, but because he understands the anger, he has probably been more forgiving of the rhetoric of angry Blacks (and I noted that Wright is lighter than Barack) than he would've been otherwise.
I don't think it would have helped to distance himself from Wright earlier. We have to consider the putrid excuse for journalists in the corporate media which amounts to 90% or better of the largely GOP conservative owned/controlled media. They would've found out this stuff and swiftboated Barack, anyway,just as they would and will use Whitewater, etc. to swiftboat Hillary. And who focused on Hillary and Barack more than Richardson, Biden, etc. who were less vulnerable to attacks, but the corporate owned REPUBLICAN Bush/Cheney lovin'media? Plus, they waited until Ferraro imploded Hillary's campaign, at least as far as Black voters go, to destroy Barack's chances with white voters, esp. crossover GOPs and Indies. Now, McCain will win thanks to the media which is anything but Liberal. So much for freedom of the press when the press is controlled by the same corporations that are controlling the country all in the name of greed.
I think Hillary has a slightly better chance than Barack now, but I think we all better start praying that McCain develops some backbone and turns on the neo-cons cuz I think he will be elected. (And how hard is it to emigrate to Canada, now, cuz much as I hate the cold, as a die hard Liberal, it is looking pretty good to me, right now? Sigh!)
by Dee9lvs 2008-03-18 12:40PM | 0 recs
I look at it from a political perspective..

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

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

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

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

"Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

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

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

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

"We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by berkshiretrueblue 2008-03-18 12:49PM | 0 recs
One of the great speeches about race, our nation

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

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

by maconblue 2008-03-18 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

by politicsmatters 2008-03-18 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

Oh really. Most of what I've read has been mixed. obama supporters loved it conservatives largely laughed at it and everyone in the middle just can't seem to get past the fact that he sees nothing wrong with Wright and actually said "he's like family."

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-18 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

I've now heard comments from dozens of moderates. Not one of them -- not one -- has said anything bad about it whatsoever. If one listened to the speech with even a tiny bit of attention, it was abundantly clear that Obama did see a number of things wrong with Wright. He's just not willing to throw the good, and there's an awful lot of good to Wright, out with the bad.

From my reading of the speech, he called Wright imperfect and mistake[n]. He called Wright's language controversial, incendiary, divisive, and inexcusable, and Wright's views distorted and offen[sive].

If someone called you those things, I truly doubt you'd characterize it as them "see[ing] nothing wrong" with you. And I'm not sure that anyone could actually listen to that speech, or read it, and come to that conclusion.

In fact, except for those who are absolutely unwilling to actually hear what was said, I'm sure they couldn't.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-18 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

You are pretty much stating the problem. He's saying all this stuff about wright but then calls him "part of his family" or some such. He's trying to do this nuanced trick and straddle the fence which really doesn't work in politics. He can't let the guy go even though he knows the terrible and horrible things he has said.

He's really in a bad way with this. If he throws Wright under the bus then he looks bad, but if he doesn't separate completely from Wright he still looks bad. He's trying to have it both ways and it just doesn't work in politics today.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-18 05:30PM | 0 recs
Too early

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

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

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


by Lawdawg 2008-03-18 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

If he becomes the nominee.. what will you do?  

by a gunslinger 2008-03-18 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Too early

Even better. I guess that means no more diaries from you on mydd in another month or two. I am assuming many other bitter Clinton supporters will also fade away. Great Democrats, one and all.

by Lawdawg 2008-03-18 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Speech: Not Nearly Enough

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

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

by ListenNOW 2008-03-18 01:46PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads