Fisking Obama’s Speech Today — Didn’t See It, Just Reading The Text
Posted By WLS:
I’m in no way enamored of Obama — neither his style nor his politics.
So, I’m looking at his speech with a very jaundiced eye. And there are lots of things I don’t particularly like in the text:
I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together…
From what I’ve read over the last few days, he didn’t learn “togetherness” as a method of problem solving from Rev. Wright.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
Which remarks have you condemned, and why did it take until this moment for you to condenm them? Were they not equally worthy of condemnation two weeks ago? Two months ago? Two years ago? Two decades ago — because he’s been saying them as long as you have been a member of his church. You are the one identifying — without specifying — that he has made comments in your presence that you disagreed with and considered controversial. Tell us which of his comments you consider controvesial — so that we will know which ones you DO NOT CONSIDER CONTROVERSIAL. That would tell the voters much more about you than you have told us in the 4 years since you hit that stage in Boston.
The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.
Obama attended Punahou School in Honolulu. Punahou was founded by Congregational Missionaries in 1841. Today it is nonsectarian, but retains its Christian heritage, including a requirement that students attend Chapel services once every six day “cycle” of classes. Obama graduated from Punahou in 1979, but says it was approximately a decade later that Rev. Wright led him to his Christian faith? Is that to suggest that after attending a school founded by the Congregationalist Church for 9 years he had no Christian faith? Or is it that he found a different faith as he next described:
Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
Is it this vision of the black experience in America — one you never lived given your personal heritage — that drew you to and kept you at Trinity? Does the “cruelty”, “shocking ignorance” and “bitterness and bias” that you see there animate your policy views in the same way they animate Rev. Wright’s sermons and education of his flock? Shouldn’t someone have stepped up in 20 years and said, “Rev., I hear what you say. But what you are saying is WRONG. It perpetuates cruelty. It perpetuates “shocking ignornace. It perpetuates bias and bitterness.”
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.
So it would have bothered you if he had made bigoted and anti-Semitic comments in a one-on-one conversation with you, but as long as it was only in front of the a couple thousand people in during a Sunday Service it was simply part of the “black church experience?” Shouldn’t the leader of a congregation of 8500 people work to eliminate from his own vocabulary the “bad” of the community he has served. I’m having trouble picturing Desmond Tutu reading from the same script as Jeremiah Wright.
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.
Wow. That’s all I can say to a comment that puts Geraldine Ferraro’s comment on the same level as the bile-laced hatred coming from Rev. Wright. How many Catholic ethnic female voters will he have punted away with that line if its seized upon by his opponents? Don’t give me semantics about that he wrote “some have dismissed”. He wrote this line and its completely gratuitous.
For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table….. And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. 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.
Since you have obviously recognized the counter-productive nature of this anger, what did you do during your 20 years at the Church to impress your view on the other congregants? If its counter-productive as you say, why did you sit there passively and allow Rev. Wright to continue to fan the flames of hatred that would only stoke the fires of that anger to burn hotter?
Is it only now when your political fortunes are at risk that you find the moral courage to stand up in front of the Congregants and the rest of us who have now been given a look into your spiritual world, and say to them “What we are doing here is counter-productive and it is wrong. Its bigoted, its ignorant, and its cruel because it gives each successive generation who grows up in this church the excuse to blame someone else for their plight.”
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
There it is America — liberal pablum. Its what us skeptics always suspected was behind the curtain. Its McGovern/Carter/Mondale/Dukakis/Clinton/Gore/Kerry policy prescriptions for progressive politics in America. Nothing new here.
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.
Now this can be read a couple of different ways. It could mean that you agree with your wife that the advent of your campaign was the first sign that progress has been made. Or, if these comments contemplated the progress that has been made over the past 40 years, then it reveals a real problem with communication in your marriage because that’s not a belief shared by your wife.
Frankly, I think its the former. You only see progress because of the way white liberal guilt has embraced you. Those of us that oppose your candidacy see the first fully formed campaign based on the politics of identity.
Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
Didn’t you say a few minutes ago that the school system that is failing black children is the historical result of institutionalized racism? Now its the same for white kids, asian kids, brown kids? Which is it? Is “rich whitey” — to quote the Rev. Jeremiah — gettin’ their kids great educations while black kids are stuck with the vestiges of Jim Crow? Right there in Chicago? Chicago being a city run by the Democrat Daley machine for about 100 years?
I’ve never been one to sit and watch Obama’s great oratorical skills. By virtue of my profession I’ve got pretty high standards in that regard.
But I’m quite pained by the fact that so many of my fellow citizens can be taken in by the slick presentation of empty words written on a page.
But I guess that explains Dickie Scruggs.
Obama stepped in it today. Had he made a simple statement condemning the over-the-top, inflammatory preaching of Mr. Wright, he probably would have been given a pass by the MSM after a few days of awed fawning over his oratory skills. Now, with the content of this speech, he has given Hillary and the conservatives plenty of ammunition to attack his judgment, morals, ethics and beliefs. Not a good way to handle the situation.
I would predict a new round of focused attack ads from the Hillary campaign over the next week or so.
Got any more of that popcorn, OldGuy?
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 3/18/2008 @ 7:27 pmIt’s good that you didn’t see him speak and instead are going by the transcript. As you rightly point out, so many of his followers seem to be mesmerized by his style of oration, and because of that they aren’t really paying attention to his actual words which somehow manage to be cloying yet empty. Nice job of fisking, WLS.
JVW (85f15c) — 3/18/2008 @ 7:43 pmWLS – Very well done. There are some real whoppers in the Ashley story at the end too. About how she could have blamed welfare, or illegal immigration for their situation, her mother had cancer. Just a toss-away pot shot thrown in for no reason.
JD (6a0a0b) — 3/18/2008 @ 7:45 pmhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/03/on_obamas_speech.html
Jay Cost is an excellent pundit.
voiceofreason2 (f3317f) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:02 pmGood post, WLS. On the Geraldine Ferraro point, Frank Luntz was on tonight’s Hannity & Colmes talking about Obama’s speech. As I recall, Luntz said he was offended that Obama equated Ferraro’s isolated statement with Wright’s lifetime of public bigotry.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:07 pmThere were three things about Obama’s speech that bother me to no end:
1st: In his opening statements, he speaks of the Declaration of Independence as an unfinished document. And says “It was stained by the nation’s original sin of slavery.”
Can we examine that statement? As a Christian he would most certainly believe that original sin is passed from one generation to the other without any action being required. Original sin can only be absolved by salvation. It seems to me that the underlying belief held here is that [white]America has not done enough to erase that original sin. No amount of affirmative action, set-asides and redistribution of wealth has been enough. White America must continue to atone for it’s original sin and pay and pay and pay.
2nd: He says that he cannot distance himself from Rev. Wright, who has been family to him, any more than he can distance himself from his white grandmother who loved him and raised him [who did without to send him to a private prep school that is not cheap]. But then, as he defends Rev. Wright, he throws granny under the bus as she was really a racist who was afraid of black men. Quite different from the story of granny’s near mugging in his book. Obama seems to have more loyalty to Wright than his own grandmother who raised him and who, since she is still alive, probably was watching his speech.
3rd: His reference to, in his opinion, that if we were honest, we would have to admit that we have heard much the same as Rev. Wright’s hate speech in our own churchs, parishes and synagogues. It was a “I know I am but what are you” moment.
His comparison of Geraldine Ferraro to Rev. Wright was pathetic. His political machine, ever well greased, took Ferraro’s interview with a little known publication and blew it the hell out of the water, making it a racial issue simply because she was on a Clinton committee. Yet, Wright can preach hate, intolerance and racism, and he is really no worse than Ferraro. Not to mention that the message of “if you don’t vote for me this racial strife will only continue and I am the way and the light” by Obama I found insulting.
Matter of fact, I found most of his speech insulting.
The man who claims to be able to transcend racial divides has just taken race relations back 40 years. In one speech, with the help of one minister, he has destroyed the work of thousands.
retire05 (495fca) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:07 pmHis political machine, ever well greased, took Ferraro’s interview with a little known publication . . .
Woah, retire05, you are talking about Patterico and my hometown newspaper here. Don’t make us feel all small-time. (I would insert a little smiley-con here, but I don’t do that sort of thing.)
JVW (85f15c) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:11 pmThanks, VOR2, that was a good link and I’m glad I read it.
After reading Obama’s speech and Jay Costs’ article, I wondered if Barack Obama would be as understanding and inclusive of Bull Connor as he is of Jeremiah Wright. After all, both men were/are conflicted and flawed but committed to their beliefs and to serving their communities. I think Obama would and should renounce segregationists like Bull Connor but, given the reasoning he applied to Jeremiah Wright, I don’t see how he can.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:26 pmPeople in emergency rooms with no health care. Nope. Sorry. They have health care. They don’t have insurance.
kimsch (2ce939) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:32 pmJVW, I am soooo disappointed. I just love smiley faces. Especially ones wearing cowboy hats.
retire05 (495fca) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:53 pmThis time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who chose cell phones, cable TV, air conditioning and a second car with cool rims in lieu of health insurance.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:53 pmHuh. That would be their own failing, not mine or “The Man”…
Ask Justice Thomas what he thinks of “the power to overcome”…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:09 pmDRJ,
I think you are being sarcastic about Bull Connor but what the heck I’ll bite.
The primary difference between the two is that Connor actually acted out his beliefs, abused the legal authority he was given and denied the rights and liberties of others sometimes through violent means. The things he did very likely (opinion yes) had an influence on Wright.
Wright has expressed some very disturbing and distasteful rhetoric which is indefensible but no one has shown him to have done more than spout off his bile. He has not denied anyone their freedom, life or rights.
That is one component. And expecting Obama to make excuses for Connor is silly – but again I think you are being sarcastic.
The other component is Obama. I think that the questions Cost raised are valid and reasonable. Obama probably will lose the election due in large part to this story. There are many whites who will not vote because of it. It doesn’t necessarily make those whites racist, just shows their discomfort with his associations.
I’m glad that it came out now rather than in the general election. Obama speaks wonderful rhetoric about healing and uniting and transcending. I had sincerely hoped early on that he was the real deal because he is bi-racial and should have a much clearer understanding of bias/racism than a person who has two white or two black parents.
Alas, he is a politician and a disappointment. But I don’t think he really subscribes to the radical doctrine of Wright and except for a statement by his spouse and Wright’s sermons there has been nothing I’ve seen that would indicate he does. Rezko is probably a better indicator of what he subscribes to.
Someday someone like Tiger Woods will be the one that better bridges the differences.. but that day is not going to be in this year.
voiceofreason2 (f3317f) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:12 pmUntil then our country will be divided and that is something that shouldn’t be relished because of the fall of one person.
When you hang an empty suit in the closet, do you have to use a hanger?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:16 pmVOR2 – If Wright were in the same position of authority and power as Bull Connor would you trust him not to abuse his power after the statements he has made? Some bad guys dont hide what they will do given the chance, its just people dont listen or believe them.
chas (fb7ad4) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:58 pmGreat post WLS. I also wanted to comment on the illustrious DRJ’s post, but that one seems to have devolved into a conspiracy theory (not due to DRJ). As I read Cost’s piece, I had two thoughts.
1 – It seemed to me that Obama’s speech had the strange effect of proving Ferraro correct. Not directly, but indirectly. Cost brought up the valid point that Obama was in risky territory regarding his descriptions of white and black race relations in America today -“not a safe political tactic”.
Except that he is perhaps the only candidate in our current political sphere that could make this argument. Contrary to what a lot of MSM and blogs attest, I believe that Obama had the black vote “at hello”. As such, he is able to “challenge blacks and whites to do better”, something any other candidate that has run thus far could not possibly do. In this specific instance (race relations), he is able to make radical suggestions and comments, and yet remain credible to both groups simultaneously.
Some may argue that he is not actually in risky territory – when was the last time anyone heard the exclamation “but you have no idea what it’s like to be white!”? But that just proves the point. The lack of risk is the central argument that Ferraro was making. (an aside – I don’t actually think she had analyzed it to this extent – her comment seemed blundering and ill formed)
Which leads me to my second thought –
2 – Regarding risk – what has Obama done that’s actually risky? Again, Cost eloquently states that Obama doesn’t seem to have done much to address the “profoundly wrong” attitude of the religious institution to which he belongs. Moving to a much larger conceptual point, great leaders seem to have an ability to challenge the people they lead to re-think their limitations and objectives and almost magically grant the power to supercede those limitations. They do this by breaking with tradition and stepping out into new ground – see “tear down that wall”.
This is Obama’s big problem. Had he given this speech four months ago, even two weeks ago, he would have IMO cemented his Presidential acceptability.
It is perhaps telling that his timid manner (voting present, reacting instead of acting) may be the one thing that certifies that he is absolutely NOT the one to bring about the kind of changes of which he speaks.
Apogee (366e8b) — 3/18/2008 @ 11:52 pmI may have “heard remarks from [ ] pastors, priests, or rabbis with which [I] strongly disagreed”, but the only ones I’ve come across who spoke as Wright does were Imams.
jim2 (6482d8) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:56 amIt’s funny how the only real response Republicans can have to Obama is “he isn’t really saying ANYTHING” over and over, and then ascribing evil motives/dishonesty to everythign he does say.
Because if you take Obama for what he SAYS he is, he is truly offering the opposite of what Republicans are offering (except for fiscal liberalism — on that they agree). Tolerance, respect, understanding, cooperation, inclusiveness — everything that the U.S. political system has ignored for the past 8 years (with the acquiesence of Democrats, of course).
Republicans HAVE to say Obama isn’t saying anything. Because if what he’s suggesting is really possible, they are screwed. Because they aren’t offering any of that.
The Republican platform these days is basically “hang on to what you’ve got right now, kick out or lock up everyone who isn’t just like you, and hope for the best.”
If anything Obama is offering is for real, Republicans have nothing to offer at all.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:08 am“The Republican platform these days is basically hang on to what youve got right now, kick out or lock up everyone who isnt just like you, and hope for the best.”
After seeing the “Dr. Jekyll” Phil in the other thread, waxing on about how important it is to be able to disagree without demonizing the other side, it’s both refreshing and comforting to see the re-emergence of our old friend “Mr. Hyde” Phil, aka Divisive Phil, for whom every Republican view on crime and immigration is but a veneer for thinly-disguised racism.
Welcome back, Divisive Phil! You don’t have to pretend not to despise us! Can the B.S. about respecting disagreement. No one has less respect for his ideological opponents than you.
Patterico (2d0f2c) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:46 amWell, there’s Billy…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:53 amDr. Jekyll Phil:
Mr. Hyde Phil:
Phil: finding common ground by calling others racists and xenophobes.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:59 amYou don’t have to pretend not to despise us! Can the B.S. about respecting disagreement. No one has less respect for his ideological opponents than you.
Yeah, Patterico, that’s why I read your blog as often as any other out there. Because I despise you and have no respect for your opinion.
If I really didn’t respect disagreement, I’d hang out on a blog where most people generally agreed with me, and gang up on the few people who piped up with alternative ideas, calling them names and generally disparaging them.
Not that anyone here does that . . .
Phil (0ef625) — 3/19/2008 @ 4:28 pmTolerance, respect, understanding, cooperation, inclusiveness
Damn if I could find any of those things among the qualifications and/or duties of the President in Article II of the Consitution.
nk (34c5da) — 3/19/2008 @ 4:57 pmor even the “Constitution*
nk (34c5da) — 3/19/2008 @ 4:58 pmThe trolls are having trouble remembering which intellectual approach – holier-than-thou or tougher-than-thee – is en vogue. It’s so tough to keep up these days, isn’t it?
ras (fc54bb) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:07 pm[i]Just wondering ,[/i]
If we had not been told days in advance that Barak was going to give a major speech addressing the race issue in America and how important this speech was going to be,
if we had not been told all this ,
Would anyone think this was a “Great Speech” ?
seaPea (75b9b4) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:12 pmActually, Phil, I go to some lengths to make sure that people who are polite here, are treated politely.
But you tend to resort to the race/ethnicity card. So I don’t go out of my way to ensure that people are especially civil to you. I demand some civility from everyone, but the standards are lax, and especially so for people who accuse others of being racist. As you often do.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:15 pmBlack Obama is the Trojan Horse that the Muslim and his anti-white beliefs can going into the White House and distroy our America his Rev Wright hates so much. American’s BEWARE!!! Obama’s speech was just a way of telling you and All American’s that he and his church and blacks and Rev Wright HATE us. The have shoved their black butts down our throats long enough!!! They are the one’s that draw the line in the sand not us. Wake up America — it is time to make them accountable for theirselves. And another thing, how dare he bring up the Confederate Flag and The Civil War — Obama check you history the Civil War was not fought just for slavery—it was a very small part of the civil war. You and your blackness have made it a large part of the war and so has Hollywood. Also, the Confederate Flag is part of history. Why not see the flag as a symbol of liberty instead of hate!!!
Jewel Roberts (c36902) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:19 pmSheesh, another Moby.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:25 pmCheesus K. RICE-ST –
papertiger (3a3033) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:38 pmJewel how can you say the Civil War wasn’t about slavery?
I bet you are going to look at that post tomorrow and wish Pater had deleted it.
I have no idea what jewel is talking about…
SteveG (71dc6f) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:44 pmbut thanks for the imagery.
Quick questions? Why is the Civil War called the War of Northern Aggression? Can a point on a compass be aggressive?
I said that the Civil War was not just for slavery (the key word is just), yes the war was fought for slavery but the reasons for the war not just for slavery.
Jewel Roberts (c36902) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:48 pmVOR2 #13,
I wasn’t being sarcastic about Bull Connor. Obama clearly stated in his speech that he was offended by Wright’s statements and yet he would not disavow Wright because, even though he is conflicted and flawed, he is committed to his beliefs and to serving the people of his community.
That was Obama’s standard as set forth in his speech, and I think it’s fair to apply it to others for comparison purposes. Bull Connor could fairly be described the same way Obama described Wright, e.g., he was a good person who preached a bad message but his intention was to help his community. Nevertheless, I feel sure Obama would have no problem disavowing Connor.
That’s the problem with vague standards and pronouncements. They are nice and inclusive when the subject is couched in generalities but they can come back to bite you when you get down to details.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:49 pmI imagine Jewel with the bitter beer face as she sent that.
papertiger (3a3033) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:50 pmhow about Obama’s belly opening up to disgorge hoards of Sharia screaming jihadi’s?
I can see that one happening. lol
papertiger (3a3033) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:53 pmSteveG #31,
It can if you believe The South Will Rise Again.
I think we tend to anthropomorphize the Civil War because it reinforces the idea that this was a war between brothers.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/19/2008 @ 5:55 pmbitter beer face is smiling 🙂 at your remarks. I need to smile. But I am so very tired of Obama. His empty words of Change. I watch and hear his speeches and I still cannot see what his actual platform is. Help!!! I am just concerned if he is elected what will he do to help America? And I have met many people that are waiting for the South to rise again, but I think they should get over and move on.
Jewel Roberts (c36902) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:06 pm“be proud you’re a rebel ’cause the South’s gonna do it again”?
SteveG (71dc6f) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:18 pmDRJ,
I just don’t agree with you. Connor wasn’t a preacher and that is only the start of their many differences.
By this logic we should be demanding mass defections from the Falwell, Hagee, and Parsley congregations because of hateful statements each of them has made.
Just as you did when you left out the word “really” in regards to Michelle Obama’s statement “…for the first time I’m really proud” and made a long case for your point that she claims she had never been proud (“really proud” indicates that she had been proud on more than one occasion) you are playing kind of cutesie with this one line from Obama’s speech.
That is the problem with trying to apply absolutes to every situation and applying them to one particular sentence. It is useful for debating purposes but of limited value in the everyday world we live in.
voiceofreason2 (190e8b) — 3/19/2008 @ 10:03 pmVOR2,
Feel free to disagree with me but you should not feel free to misquote me.
Here is the post I wrote on Michelle Obama. Not only did I accurately quote her statement – including the qualifier “really” – but I also questioned a different report from a second media source. As it turned out, Michelle Obama apparently gave two speeches on this subject and it’s possible both quotes were correct. In my post, however, I focused on the quote that was more widely reported. Furthermore, if you will re-read that post and the comments, I was one of the few conservatives reluctant to rush to judgment regarding Michelle Obama’s statements.
I may be cute but I’m not “playing kind of cutesie” on this or any serious subject.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/19/2008 @ 10:22 pmI hope some reporter reminds Obama of the result of a precipitous withdrawl of Union forces from the post war South. It resulted in a hundred years of black oppression, by the Democratic party he is vying to become the standard bearer of today.
papertiger (e9a2a0) — 3/20/2008 @ 3:24 amThat alone is a major acheivement – but in a way it isn’t. Time wounds all heels and so it has the Democrats.
But how long will Iraq suffer, and how often will that suffering spill out into foreign lands, “chickens coming home to roost”, from the studied, politicly expedient, apathy, of a Democratic POTUS’ premature withdrawl? Another hundred years? Quite possible.
Obama can’t be a muslim Trojan horse, because if he were he wouldn’t pull out of Iraq. A hasty retreat of US forces is the worse fate he could wish on them. That’s a strange way to treat “your” people.
Patterico (post 20/27) said:
Phil: finding common ground by calling others racists and xenophobes.
especially so for people who accuse others of being racist. As you often do.
If I have ever called a person racist, I will apologize to that person. While I am frequently personally attacked here (and my ideas are frequently ignored), I try very hard not to personally label or attack anyone.
Do I call ideas racist? Absolutely. Do I call party platforms, or political positions racist? Absolutely. Do I call particular people racist? If I do, I apoligize. Would like to know if I have — I don’t recall doing so.
And further, when I say that the Republican platform, or the neocon position is something, I also try not to label people as “republicans” or “neocons.”
If you choose to adopt a position I call “racist” that is your choice, not mine. I am not calling you racist.
Further, I have every faith that if I convince you that the position I am claiming is racist actually is racist, you will abandon it.
So, in fact, I believe that people are not racist. Once a person recognizes that a position they hold is racist, they abandon it. Calling someone a racist is effectivly saying they can’t reason. I don’t do that. I try to reason with people, to show them their ideas are racist, under the assumption that if I succeed, they will abandon the position.
In other words, the whole reason I’m telling you a position/idea is racist is because I believe that you are NOT racist, and that if I can show you how racist the position appears to be from my perspective, you will be persuaded to abandon it.
On the other hand, people call me “racist” all over the place her on this blog. Which is fine. I recognize that people here do not have the same respect for me that I have for them. I accept it, and I’m still here.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:53 amPeople here don’t have the same respect for you that you have for us? What a howler. The only difference between how you treat us and vice-versa is that most of us are content to insult you part of the time.
Xrlq (b71926) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:49 pmObama can’t be a muslim Trojan horse, because if he were he wouldn’t pull out of Iraq. A hasty retreat of US forces is the worse fate he could wish on them. That’s a strange way to treat “your” people.
Comment by papertiger — 3/20/2008 @ 3:24 am
Sorry for slow response but the truth is that Obama would make his people happy…the people that hate all man kind.
Jewel Roberts (c36902) — 4/12/2008 @ 9:04 am