Jeremiah Wright and the "Dignified Climbdown"

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 14:30


Barack Obama has definitely taken a pretty big hit over Jeremiah Wright, as demonstrated by his declining position in national polls against both Clinton and McCain. Now, this isn't the first time Obama has taken a hit, and it is entirely possible that this current downturn is yet another in a series of entirely temporary negative stretches for his campaign. However, in this particular case, I think it is more likely that Obama has suffered some lasting electoral damage.

More in the extended entry.
Chris Bowers :: Jeremiah Wright and the "Dignified Climbdown"
Obama can partially recover, and his speech yesterday was an excellent step in that direction. Also, he is still the odds-on favorite to become the next President (I would say Obama 45%, McCain 40%, and Clinton 15%). Still, this story has made his path to winning more difficult because it cuts directly at the heart of his campaign rhetoric that has long been essential to win the support of many white voters. Widespread broadcast of excerpts from Wright's sermons has, in one formulation, damaged Obama's ability to offer a "dignified climbdown" to white voters who are still uncomfortable, but not outright opposed, with an African-American as President:

I have a theory as to why Barack Obama appeals to a significant smattering of Republicans: he provides what we'd call "a dignified climbdown."

I'm a student of nonviolence, and Gandhi and Dr. King always said that in a struggle with an oppressor, the most important thing is to separate the oppressor from their oppression - oppose the behavior, not the person - and try to find a way for the oppressor to "climb down" from their perch and see the light but with their dignity fully intact.

Obama's rhetoric of hope and optimism helps almost any listener "feel good" about being an American again. Even the Republicans who voted for Bush in 2004 know deep in their gut that something is very, very wrong with the U.S. right now. They might even be in favor of policies like "kill all the terrorists," but somehow, somewhere, they know that America's on the wrong track.

Obama's doing a great job of telling us what's wrong about Bush's presidency - which appeals to the left. He's also offering an emotionally powerful idea of hope and cooperation - which appeals to everyone, including Republicans.

However, as Open Left commenter bluethunder wrote, the sections of Wright's sermons that have been shown to the nation over the past week create the exact opposite of a "dignified climbdown" and general hope for, and cooperation in, America:

I also suspect that inside most white people, there is a deep fear of black revolt, a kind of archetypal Nat Turner fear, that Wright reminds them of. Part of Obama's appeal for white folks is that he's a black man who is not overtly angry or scary, and so validates their desperate desire for a "post-racial"/color-blind/guilt-free America.

Which is why I think the Wright issue is potentially very difficult for Obama. A lot of people were secretly hoping that despite his dark skin, he agreed with white people that black people generally shouldn't be too upset about racial issues in America.

Now, I have never been much of a fan of Obama's hope and unity rhetoric, because it is not the sort of campaign message that will build a progressive governing mandate. If your campaign mandate is to be non-partisan, non-ideological, and to reach out across the aisle, that isn't exactly a progressive mandate. Further, it won't even work, since at this time there is no way that anyone can put more pressure on almost every congressional Republican than the conservative base.

However, if you are only interested in winning, and not in securing a progressive mandate, then than Obama's strategy has pretty darn good. Sunny talk of leading America in a new direction of hope, unity and optimism is going to appeal to voters. Further, Obama's tone also offers many voters who otherwise would not vote for a Democrat or an African-America a "dignified climbdown" in the tradition of Gandhi and King. The "Great Backlash" narrative that has fueled the conservative rise to power in America over the last thirty-five years has been based on stirring up white conservative and moderate resentment at two targets. First, it is directed at liberal elites who supposedly look down their noses at the rest of the county. Second, it is directed against the civil rights movement "excesses of the sixties and seventies" that supposedly damaged the social fabric of America. Obama's rhetoric, before Wright, offered a way to appeal to some of those voters. After Wright, he has probably lost a decent number of those voters permanently. This is going to create a problem for Obama in appealing to independents and conservative Democrats.

One option for Obama would be to change tactics, and begin running a more ideologically focused campaign. Even if doing so might not make an impact on his general election chances, such a shift would give him the potential to improve his standing among self-identified liberals in the remaining Democratic primaries. So far, liberals have been the largest voting group in the nomination campaign, but no significant ideological gap has appeared across ideological voting groups. Obama could change that and also, if he does go on to become President, it would give him more of a mandate than simply promising to reach across the aisle. Wright might have damaged Obama's ability to offer a "dignified climbdown" to such a degree that running as a progressive might not only be a better governing strategy, but a better electoral one, too.  

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Jeremiah Wright and the "Dignified Climbdown" | 75 comments
most white people (4.00 / 1)
you mean like 51% or 99%?  I'd be hard pressed to believe most whites are afraid of a black revolt. The idea isn't even plausible logistically.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
Well (0.00 / 0)
I don't mean white Americans (like myself) actually think there will be some kind of uprising, but that an aspect of white guilt is a kind of fear-tinged irrationality around black anger. If Rev. Wright's words were delivered by a demur Korean woman (for example), it would not inspire the kind of anger that Rev. Wright has.  

ps - Chris, it's bluesteel, like this:
http://images.google.com/image...

[ Parent ]
racism is ignorance (4.00 / 3)
That specific type of ignorance that fears a "black revolt" is called racism. Whether it's 51% or 99% (even 51% would be horrifying,) it's out there. I totally appreciate the concept of a "dignified climbdown," but my gut reaction to the self-righteous criticism of Rev Wright on this and other liberal blogs, given the reality of continued prejudice that Wright was addressing, really pushes my buttons.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Politico mentioned a Republican email (0.00 / 0)
with images of Wright spliced together with images of Malcolm X doing the classic black power gesture, so that would certainly support your argument.
        However, I personally think that if Wright were a small Korean woman  the response would still be strongly negative.
       Americans just don't like to confront their own cultural darknesses- that's why it's so difficult for racism to be addressed in any fashion, and it's why Obama has an uphill battle.

           

[ Parent ]
I like Malcom X (4.00 / 1)
anyway, what I really think whites tend to fear or hate or whatever, is that they don't want blacks getting their money. At least this is my northeastern white immigrant family experience. They also dont want to live near them, which is kind of irrational racist phobia. but I've never heard fear of revolt or fear of black power, mostly its the money. at least thats what I've heard in my life here.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
I'm confused by this post. (4.00 / 14)
   That speech gave us some of the most transformative progressive rhetoric of the campaign.  He took down conservative radio.  He mentioned the plight of forgotten, rural whites.  He didn't sista souljah his preacher.  He denounced (implicitly) the great backlash narrative that we all despise.  Will you acknowledge this?  I'm astonished that you didn't even mention those points.  
 Now you want him to become ideological?  Do you think people will really buy it now?  I think what he has to do is focus on the economy.  It's now the most important issue of the campaign, and McCain is weak on the issue.  Very weak.
 

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
Good points (4.00 / 3)
About both the significance of his speech and the need to focus on the economy.

When, exactly, are either one of these candidates going to come out hard on our literally crumbling economy? It's as if fate handed them this golden opportunity and they both just sit there hemming and hawing about it. They have a recession, an opponent who himself admits he is weak on the economy, and a whole slew of structural problems being brought into broad daylight, yet they can't muster more than some "tax cuts for the middle class" rhetoric. How about regulating hedge funds? Capping interest rates? Raising taxes on windfalls for executives? And actually punishing, not bailing out, some of those corporations that are responsible for this current mess.

If Obama wants to change the message, that is how to do it. Come out fighting with a little Edwards-style economic populism. Then we can all argue about how liberal he is, and not how black he is.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Agree. (4.00 / 9)
I think this post is a little off, but maybe things look different in the Bay Area than Philly.

Obama extended a huge olive branch to working class whites by saying that our real problems are not racial but class, and that the non-rich need to stick together to really attack common problems such as health care, poor education, insufficient opportunity, dominance by special interests etc.  

Then today he pivoted to the war, taking down John McCain (and, by extension, the whole DC establishment) on his lack of real understanding of our national security threats and the need to get us out of the Iraq entanglement to begin to solve those real threats.  It was another very good, very substantive speech that equated McCain and Bush in their overly ideological and Clinton in her overly political approaches to the war, saying we need a clean break with the past especially on Iraq.

This "clean break with the politics of the past" is obviously his new theme, to some extent replacing hope.  And it isn't "reaching across the aisle" (as he savages McCain) but reaching across the table to GOP and Indy voters who know we are on the wrong track in Iraq.  

Tormorrow he evidently plans another speech on the costs of war in terms of what is happening to the economy.  Again substantive, and I'd predict more in the same--call it populist--vein.

He's saying that it is safe to join with his coalition because it is big and diverse and not angry, and if people do, we can tackle the real problems of the middle and working classes.  Or they can fixate on race and continue to hope for handouts from the GOP fat cats.

He has done this without sacrificing his dignity or principles, and has shown that he can rise to a crisis by calling us to what is best in us, to grow in understanding and unite rather than remain divided.  What more do you want/expect in the way of leadership?

Plus, he attracts the young, the creative, the bulk of the activists, the money . . . . He is the future of the Democratic Party.  I'm a 65 year old white woman living in a very diverse community and it certainly doesn't scare me, it invigorates me.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
clean break with the politics of the past (4.00 / 1)
word! i'm sure many noted like i that Obama said "This time we will..." about 8 or 9 times in a row yesterday.

Additionally, i am very surprised that Chris does not see the race speech as incredibly progressive. it was beyond Edwards, it brought out all the dark sinister petty sniping that we use in proxy of really addressing the problems.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
What seems odd to me (4.00 / 4)
So I've been reading the responses online to this speech since yesterday morning. I only just now got around to reading the actual speech.

Something that fascinates me is that none of the responses to the speech have actually had anything whatsoever to do with the speech itself. Not having read the speech yesterday didn't impact in the slightest my ability to follow the discussion on the speech. Having read the speech now isn't helping in the slightest my ability to follow these discussions.

When people in the blogosphere are responding to the speech they're responding to the speech itself, not its content. Oh, it was a great speech, they say. Or sometimes "Oh, it was a great speech, but".

Half the people discussing this are just plowing ahead with talking about Jeremiah Wright, repeating his name like a mantra, as if the speech hadn't happened. The other half seem primarily concerned with the practical question of whether or not Obama's speech will be sufficient to stem the two minutes hate against Mr. Wright before it damages Sen. Obama. This 50/50 split seems to hold on both the right and left wings of the blogosphere, and both sides of the split seem concerned with nothing except electoral impact-- the discussion is never about was Jeremiah Wright right or wrong? or what does Obama's response tell us? but rather what will this do to poll numbers? or what does this mean for the Obama campaign?

Obama's speech was trying to start a conversation about race; the conversation I'm seeing is about Barack Obama. Obama's speech was all about trying to convince everyone to look above petty gotcha smears and how they impact the mechanics of the Presidential campaign, and focus on the actual issues of importance to America. But the mechanics of the Presidential campaign are all the blogosphere knows how to talk about.

Thus, even the positive responses seem to be missing the point. Chris Matthews talked about how "historic" the speech was. The first response I saw from Hillary Clinton seems to sum up the entire situation by itself: "I wanted to start out by saying I did not have the chance to see or to read yet Senator Obama's speech, but I am very glad he gave it. It's an important topic." Okay, so this is not Sen. Clinton's fault-- I'm sure she's very busy and watched the speech as soon as she had time-- but still, no, no, no! It doesn't matter how historic the speech was, it doesn't matter Obama gave it. What matters is what Obama said. And if what Obama said isn't what turns out to have ultimately mattered about the speech, if all people care about is that he gave the speech and they don't internalize the content, then the speech was just damage control, political theater to counter the political theater of cable news playing the Wright footage over and over.

If I look on the blogosphere, if I thumb through the media chattering on Google News, the only discernible interest seems to be in the political theater. Of course, that's just the blogosphere. What I wonder is what the rest of the American public is paying attention to-- the theater? Or the words?

[ Parent ]
Hillary's comment was surreal (4.00 / 1)
"I didn't see it, but I was glad he gave it, it's an important topic." and then she turned to her stump speech about experience and McCain.

I was bewildered about it. I still don't know what to make of it without saying words that would put Hillary supporters on the defensive. I think she looked really out of touch.

Perhaps what was soooo interesting about her comment, to someone who had seen or read the speech, was how its emptiness underscored how significant a speech it was.

and you are right, I looked at most of the big media, they almost all seemed to completely miss the point. It wasn't something they could easily package, and they seemed to bungle over explaining it. I think this is going to go on, and people are going to keep talking about this speech and what was really said, and word is going to get around. it will take time to reach people but in a few weeks it will have its effect. it will be similar to the way word of Obama's massive rallies and powerful speeches became the talk of the nation over the course of a month.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Hmmm... (4.00 / 2)
I think I'm going to take the simpler view on this and say that this probably won't be nearly as big an issue as people are making it out to be.  I really think that it will become "overplayed" and eventually people will just think "meh".  Judging from the way Republicans appear to be salivating at this now, it may even backfire. John McCain, over his objections, will look like he's just running a racist campaign and I think independents will reject that.

Clearly, it's hurt him in the short term, but I think the further we get from this "incident", the more it'll just fade into the background as another silly issue that people got upset about.

I'm hoping (4.00 / 2)
that the same people who latched on to the "Obama is a scary Muslim" idea will latch onto "Obama had a scary preacher," and the net effect will be minimal.

Alternately, HRC and/or GOP could hammer on it, which I suspect would end up making them look like jerks.

Worst case scenario-- it gives people who were generally reluctant to vote for a black man a more "solid" reason not to.  

[ Parent ]
Just think this campaign has been ridiculous... (4.00 / 1)
And it's just been one "controversy" over another.  If McCain had been anyone else, his "gaffe" would be dominating the news cycle right now until whatever the NEXT scandal was... just the way our 24-hour news cycle works... in a sense, it was probably a good thing for this Wright stuff to come out now, as it's one less potential "scandal" that could come up later.

I know it's extremely cynical of me to say, but it just seems like whoever has the latest big "scandal", assuming there is one, around the time of the election will probably lose the election.  We saw a dip in Obama's support now, just as we saw a dip in Clinton's with Ferraro before that, just as we saw a dip in Obama's before that with "Naftagate", just as we saw a dip for Hillary before that with Bill Clinton's remarks.

It truly is silly season, apparently.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't sure until I checked various media outlets to see how the event was being reported. As far as I can tell, Obama and the speech were given very favorable coverage. Many outlets called the speech historic. Chris Mathews went as far as to say it should be required reading in school.

The only negative coverage I witnessed was Fox News and Lou Dobbs.

[ Parent ]
The challenge for Obama (4.00 / 5)
will be to stop talking about race.

This election is going to be decided on the economy.  What is encouraging is that people are starting to link our disaster in Iraq to the problems in the economy.  In this regard 71% now U.S. spending in Iraq is a reason for the nation's poor economy.

If Democrats can persist in showing this connection, it will provide them with a lethal blow against McCain.  

If I were the Obama campaign I would schedule a major speech in the economy in the next week. A major part of this speech would be to build off the work of Stiglitz, and talk about how ending the Iraq War is an economic imperative.  

He's doing it, tomorrow. nt. (4.00 / 4)

[ Parent ]
Taking borrowed money out of Iraq and spending it here (0.00 / 0)
is not a great message though. How about not borrowing it from China at all?  
[ Parent ]
Which confirms (4.00 / 1)
one thing I have believed since I worked in Iowa for Edwards: the Obama people know what they are doing.
[ Parent ]
He did it today. (4.00 / 2)
On the War.

What we would hear if we would get off this Wright stuff.

And thank the gods for Maggie Williams not letting any of Hillary's people denigrate Obama's speech.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Lanny Davis (0.00 / 0)
Has this post up at HuffPO. He may not be a one of Clinton's people, but he is a self-proclaimed supporter, and he's proven himself to be quite the concern troll with that one post.
But many people, including Obama supporters, may still have two questions that Senator Obama's speech did not sufficiently answer, at least in my opinion. And, for any Democrat whose priority is to win back the White House in 2008, they need to be answered now -- because, if Senator Obama ends up the party's nominee (I am a supporter of Senator Clinton's) -- for sure Senator McCain will insist they be answered in the fall.
Is it possible to be more transparently phony than that?
[ Parent ]
Yes, and that would be the boldest move Obama could make (4.00 / 2)
You've nailed the reason I've stayed out the discussion over the Wright/race issue and why Obama must move on too.  This is a massive (and utterly predictable) diversion that exploits the major vulnerability of the Obama campaign.  

Running as an inspirational yet vague, post-race, post-partisan figure was only going to get him so far, given the take-no-prisoners  approach of the Republican noise machine.  They no doubt have combed every aspect of his public  and private life and will continue to run and re-run the Wright snippets (obviously devoid of any contextual discussion) and anything else they've found because they seem to so fundamentally contradict the narrative. And they'll continue to do it as long as it looks like its working and keeps the subject away from those issues on which McCain is so vulnerable:  you know, just about all of 'em.  

The speech was given the same day we read about a massive govt bailout of Bear Sterns investors that also took the form of a nifty gift to JP Morgan.  That actually led the television news in my town, not the speech.  Folks might not know exactly what went on there, but they do understand that the govt is scrambling right now to bail-out the rich when the rest of us are beginning to flounder.

A sense of real leadership and understanding on the looming economic reckoning (and yes the linkages to Iraq) is what's in order.  Let's not be too quick to assume that voters who are not so deeply moved by the "transformative" rhetoric about race actually harbor fears of angry black rebellion.  The real fears they might harbor are of imminent economic catastrophe striking their families. Perhaps they are waiting for the candidate who can talk transformatively about that subject.  In the absence of that, folks might just go with the devil they know... or think they know.  

[ Parent ]
We'll see, I guess.... (4.00 / 6)
Personally, I think the speech will, in retrospect, be viewed as a turning point of the campaign (especially with the other addresses he is giving this week).  The Wright stuff was/is pretty damaging, I agree, because it cuts to the heart of the appeal that Obama has for a sizable percentage of the electorate.  But, frankly, Wright could have said worse things, and based on anecdotal evidence, I think as it was, the controversy raised doubts in folks but did not make them turn away decisively from Obama.  With those doubts lingering, I think a lot of people were looking forward to Obama's speech -- and by all accounts, he nailed it, bigtime.  

The "dignified climbdown" that you are referring to just became a whole lot more envisionable, in my view.  Now, some of the subtext of the campaign that you have identified is out on the table...  

Wright is a disaster on all levels (4.00 / 1)
The problem isn't just the question of appealing to white voters who are skeptical or fearful of blacks.  It is a very deep cut:

1.  It has hardened the opposition in the ranks of the Clinton faithful, who were already mad about their perceptions that Obama has dishonestly interjected race into the campaign (a view repeatedly espoused by Wilnetz and others);

2.  It takes the edge off a major advantage of Obama v. Clinton - the idea that Obama will not rile the demoralized Republican base;

3.  It raises doubts about judgment, a major theme of the Obama campaign, and builds a storyline to hang other "association" attacks (eg Rezko);

4.  It is a huge piece of the "anti-American" theme that the Republicans have been pushing against Obama (eg, flag pin, whether Michele is proud of America);

5.  It undermines Obama's image as a candidate not limited to identity politics; and

6.  It raises doubts about the possibility of more skeletons in Obama's past.

Wright is a turning point, and a reason to reevaluate every piece of common wisdom about all three candidates.  

Is not the speech a (potential) turning point as well? nt. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
the choir (0.00 / 0)
People already predisposed to give Obama the benefit of the doubt (Obama partisans, liberals, most pundits) obviously think it's a great speech (which it is). But they're already on board. The people that most need to hear it probably never will. But they'll have heard all about Reverend Wright.
[ Parent ]
Why do you assume that? (0.00 / 0)
   Why do you assume that no on will hear Obama's speech?  They all heard Wright's.  The media networks are peddling Obama's speech.  I'm not going to say that the Wright incident wasn't damaging, but I think there is way too much hand-wringing going on.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
the way things trickle-down (0.00 / 0)
Why do you assume that no on will hear Obama's speech?

Through some variation of Churchill: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Also, as great as Obama's speech was, there's an element of "dog bites man" to it.

"Black presidential candidate's crazy preacher says racist American government intentionally gives black people AIDS" travels a lot quicker, and further, than "Black presidential candidate gives great speech saying we all gotta get past race."

The voters most likely to be affected by Wrightgate are low-information voters who think in racial terms and probably get a lot of their political information through word-of-mouth and talk radio. They would be otherwise vulnerable to a strong economic appeal from a Democrat this time out, but the racial stuff may be too strong to overcome it. It's been proven time and time again that you can get people to vote against their own interests by appealing to their fears.

I've noticed that Obama supporters tend to have a lot of confidence in the ability and judgment and intelligence of the American people. And I have no idea why. History suggests just the opposite.

Perhaps it is this cynicism that has rendered me mostly impervious to Obama's charms. But I'm not his problem, I'll happily vote and work for him if he's the nominee. But to think this Wright thing is anything less than a major wound strikes me as wishful thinking at best.

[ Parent ]
Not Churchhill, but (0.00 / 0)
maybe Samuel Clemons (Mark Twain).

[ Parent ]
the media, the speech, and typical voters (0.00 / 0)
Obama gave his speech late morning yesterday, when a lot of people were at work. Think of someone who drops their kids off at school in the morning, heads to their workplace, gets off at 5, picks the kids up from daycare, commutes home, gets dinner ready, helps their kids with their homework and tries to stave off fights among them, bathes the little ones, does the dishes and whatever other cleaning can reasonably be done in a few minutes, puts the kids to bed, collapses in front of the television to watch a few minutes of some mindless t.v. show and maybe some cable news, and promptly falls asleep on the couch.

A lot of people didn't see the speech, and don't have the time or inclination to watch the whole thing on YouTube. Not because they're inherently uninterested, it's just that they are focused on the rest of their lives. These people are particularly susceptible to soundbites, to talk radio and pundits, and likely to hear both analysis/opinion regarding Obama's speech (instead of the speech itself) and snippets of Wright's more inflammatory statements. They are the ones most likely to be affected by Wrightgate.

[ Parent ]
The pundits? (0.00 / 0)
The same people who have been running Wright on a loop for the past half week?  Who have all declared that Obama's message has become "stale"?  

No, the pundits are definitely not in Obama's camp at this point.  He had to convince them, as well as a bunch of voters, on this issue, and and I think he went a long way towards doing that.  

[ Parent ]
the usual suspects (0.00 / 0)
They were uniformly ebullient in their praise on Hardball and Countdown last night. More than one said it was the best speech on race in American history.

My point was basically that people who think of themselves as "high-minded" (like most pundits) are very receptive to the message of Obama's speech. It's the "regular people" who need to be reached, and that's a far more difficult prospect because of the way news travels.

[ Parent ]
Pundits (0.00 / 0)
Exactly.  I have no idea how this places out in the long run, but I think Obama has the pundits and press back on his side.  That's an important start.

But there will be Wright based swift-boat/Willy Horton ads in October.  This speech, and the fact we are going through the Wright stuff now, goes a long way in preventing the press from picking up the narrative, which is good.  But it still is going to be very ugly.

[ Parent ]
I think you're wrong on all counts (4.00 / 1)
The reaction of Clintonites is basically moot.  Barring some major, unforeseen electoral calamity or Democratic suicidal superdelegate coup, Clinton is not going to be the nominee.  Clintonites may grunt and groan and whine and snipe, but the overwhelming majority of them will pull the lever for Obama in November.

Who cares if the Republican "base" is riled?  We're talking, what, 20% of the electorate?  The best we could ever hope is that some of them would stay home.  Obama was never going to get their votes and neither was Hillary.  The only question was how many would vote for McCain.

You're last four points are all partisan exercises in wishful thinking.  The Republicans are going to smear no matter what.  That has always been the basic fallacy of the Congressional Dems who vote for Republican initiatives because they're afraid the Repugs will say bad things about them, then the Repugs say bad things anyway.  And I don' think Senator John "Keating Five" "I am proud of Pastor John Hagee" McCain would particularly want to get into an "association" war.  And which skeletons are more lethal, the ones that MAY be in Obama's closet, or the ones that have already come out of Hillary's and McCain's closets?  

I think Obama with his speech(I am not an Obama supporter, by the way) turned this whole manufactured incident into a positive reinforcement of his campaign themes.  And the biggest positive for him is that the MSM, by and large, are vigorously applauding his effort.  For better or worse, there are many citizens whose opinions are formed by what they are told, and they are being told by the powers that be that Obama did good.

 

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.

[ Parent ]
Sharpening the knives (0.00 / 0)
The Republicans seem to think it fundamentally changes the dynamics:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...

Obama is now "easier prey" than Clinton was.  They can now "connect the dots" in the storyline they want to frame around Obama.

[ Parent ]
What you aren't pointing out are the double-standard and the media keeping this alive (4.00 / 4)
The same things that brought Dean down, with the "Dean Scream".  

I hear you, regarding the possible electoral damage.  But that damage, isn't really ABOUT Obama.  It's about the double standard the media holds to anything that doesn't fit in their pre-conceived notions.  

Look at the following:

a. A buy into the illogic of guilt by association, by the MSM.
b. The double standard to any McCain (or even Hillary) preachers conversations.
c. The keeping it alive - it's on 24/7, like this is an OJ trial.
d. Even though, with Obama going on the networks and answering the questions on Friday, his speech yesterday, still - this 24 hour coverage, on what is basically a non-issue.

This is what happens to progressives.  This is what happens, as you know.  

Also, in a sense, he is already "running as a progressive" in the sense of perceptions.  Not so much on policy, but I don't think a narrative change would help much.  He's doing pretty good there, and his speech was making sweet sweet lemonade, after being handed, unfairly, rotten lemons by the media.

Dean Scream (4.00 / 2)
Not to get off topic here, but Dean had already lost by the time the Dean Scream came around.
[ Parent ]
No, not really (0.00 / 0)
He had lost Iowa, but nobody thought he was done for good until they kept running that clip and he lost NH.
[ Parent ]
Yes he was (4.00 / 1)
He was down in the polls in NH and had blown through his money in Iowa--$25 million, which at the time seemed like such a princely sum.

How times change.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Yes, but (0.00 / 0)
The idea at the time was that the constant re-runs of the Dean Scream ended any chance he might have had at a comeback. He would have raised more money; hell, he probably did. And yes, it would have been an uphill battle. But the nomination was by no means already lost just because he lost Iowa, though in retrospect that was the BEGINNING of the end.
[ Parent ]
Agree 100% (4.00 / 1)
Whether fair or not, there will be no putting the toothpaste back in the tube with some voters.  Obama's ability to win the general will come down to his ability to leverage a very significant overall Democratic advantage on the economy and a smaller (and declining) advantage on Iraq.  A more ideological campaign isn't incompatible with the change message, but he is going to have to get sharper, especially with his criticisms of McCain.

In the end, Iraq will still be important but its going to be about the economy (stupid).  The nature of a recession is such that its effects are not felt or fully understood by people into you're a decent way in.  Eight months from now, that many more people will have lost their jobs, had their houses foreclosed on, or seen their 401Ks decline.  That many esteemed economists are predicting the worst crisis since the Great Depression is an absolutely stunning fact, yet the electorate still hasn't really comprehended the magnitude of the problem.  Its been amazing that, correspondingly, the whole issue has yet to really penetrate the election.  But that is definitely going to change.  Its going to be an election about the economy and Obama's best hope will be to get a lot sharper in his ideological differentiation and criticisms.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

Yes but... (0.00 / 0)
Whether fair or not, there will be no putting the toothpaste back in the tube with some voters.  

The trick is finding out what percentage of the vote we're talking about here. Obama, after all, has a little room for error. This is likely to be the biggest scandal he faces between now and the convention so the difference between permanently losing, say 5 and 10% of the vote against Hillary from here out could prove the difference between him riding this thing out and her coming back.

[ Parent ]
McCain will make gaffes, too (0.00 / 0)
McCain has proven this week and previously that he is not the most disciplined candidate.

McCain has as many holes in his swing as either HRC or BO.

Has this damaged BO?  I'd say probably.  But given the timing, it's a bruise, not a wound.  

Obama finally runs into the Republican machine (0.00 / 0)
There was some talk of Obama's pastor over a year ago, but no Democratic candidate was going to push an African American church based attack on Obama. And while Republicans were happy to feed Obama attack lines on Hillary (Bob Novak), they didn't want to roll out their Obama line until there was some clarity on a Democratic nominee.

But they were running out of time, and since Obama appeared to be in a solid enough position it made sense for the Republicans to start their attacks. Given the damage just one attack has done, they might have moved too soon. They don't want to knock him out yet.

In any case Obama's speech should make clear that he is not going to tack toward an ideological campaign. He is still focused on winning over independents and evangelicals, he doesn't get how tenuous his hold on those voters always was. The Republicans know how to jerk their chains.

I will make 2 purely political/elelctoral points (4.00 / 2)
I think the VIDEOs of Reverend Wright have severely undermined if not outright destroyed Barack Obama's ability to win in the general election.

No speech however wonderful....and there were wonderful, stirring things in his speech..... could completely erase the impact the videos of Reverend Wright will have on the middle of the road voters whom Barack Obama has been  relying on to propel him and other down ballot candidates to a win in November.  

I don't think the Sermon on the Mount can undo the continuing, corrosive impact that the videos will have as they keep getting aired from now to November.  There are lots of reasons the videos should not matter...but there is no gainsaying that they will matter.

He now does have to rely on the the Democratic base to win in November....and Chris is right he has to appeal to this base.....But to be provocative ....if the Democratic party still had as many closed primaries as they used to have then Obama would have needed a strategy to appeal to the liberal, progressive base of the party to get the nomination.  I think we would have had a more progressive conversation from the start which would have had an even more salutory effect on the moving the the political discourse in this country toward the left.

Let me make one point almost no one in the press will make.  The speech was admirable in trying to "explain" black anger to white people...and it both admirable and calculated that he didn't throw Rev. Wright under the bus.  It would have spoken badly of his sense of loyalty after 20 years to have done so, but one should also note that if he had done that then the 80-90% of the black vote he's also been relying on would plummet.  The man is indeed a politician.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

What? (4.00 / 1)
He now does have to rely on the the Democratic base to win in November

In the last four presidential elections the democratic nominees could only rely on the democratic base.  Do you really think many republicans and independents crossed over for Clinton (#1), Gore, or Kerry?  I don't think HRC will have a better chance of getting republicans and independents, either.  And the way our country is ruled by the MSM, a truly progressive candidate can't make it past Super Tuesday.

[ Parent ]
It's not October (0.00 / 0)
I think this is an alarmist interpretation, true only if this were October.

And this discounts the possibility of equal gaffes on the other side.  

[ Parent ]
Values and the Progressive Mandate (4.00 / 1)
Chris,

Like yourself I like to read policy specifics which I can then analyze.  I'd like to know, for example, how many mpg's does Obama see Cafe standards increase between now and 2015.  I'd like to see how he plans to meet fuel consumption demands without opening up, say the Arctic Reserve.  I'd like to know what he sees as the balance between funding for highways vs. public transit.

That's the kind of information that puts me in my comfort zone.  But, I'm in the minority on that count.

I've recently read Bernie Horn's "Framing the Future."  I think he makes a convincing case that arguing policy specifics doesn't win you an election.  Arguing values does.  This is what Obama is doing, and this may be the best way to win back the White House.  I believe this is what you mean when you say: "Sunny talk of leading America in a new direction of hope, unity and optimism is going to appeal to voters."

Now, I may be reading too much into your statement about "running a more ideologically focused campaign."  I'm just having difficulty coming up with an example of being more ideological without going in the direction of policy.  An example of being ideological while still being sunny.

Hey, I'm a geek, but I still like sunny.

Couple of things (4.00 / 2)
It would seem incumbent upon white non-racist Dems to push back hard on this but so far Huckabee has done a better job than any Dem I've seen.

Also, it seems to me that Obama is running a progressive campaign without the labels. As he must because progressive causes are easily re-labeled "black causes" and it's readily apparent that numerous factions  have been trying to put him into that box from day one.

Will it hurt him in the primary? HRC can't get the nomination without destroying the party so I hope not.

In the GE it might but I'm guessing not as much as Mr. 100 year war will hurt himself whenever he opens his mouth.

He doesn't need any big changes (4.00 / 4)
Part of the appeal of his speech was the fact that he is at peace with the decisions he has made and the campaign he has run. Throughout his speech there was an implicit tone of 'this is who I am, like it or not and come what may.' To me at least, the implicit corollary to the 'I could no more denounce Rev. Wright...' statement was 'although I know it may cost me some votes.'

He needs to stick to his guns and ride this out. If Wright ends up being enough reason for the Democratic collective to dump him in favor of Hillary, then so be it.

Making wholesale policy changes for short-term political gains is the LAST thing Obama should be doing.

Isn't that kind of authenticity (4.00 / 2)
Having strong views, being comfortable with and being able to articualte them with conviction precisely what we have been saying for 43 years we want in a candidate?  

I just don't get most of the the criticism.  This was the best speech on race since (or maybe including) LBJ on why the Coingress should pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Because it's right, and it is our future calling, and the country depends on us doing this.  Maybe there will be a setback (not for LBJ, but for the victims of Nixon's "Southern strategy" in 1968 and 1972), but this is where we need to go, and doing otherwise is just too cynical and too defeatist for me.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Obstacles happen (4.00 / 1)
People are just not going to see a video of Wright, then see Obama, and say, "They're the same!  I'm going for McCain!!!!"

Will he lose some voters?  sure.  He might also gain some other voters..now...or later.

So premature that all the "experts" on the blogs are weighing in with definitive slams.  Jeezus, this is March.

Bill Clinton was written off for dead after Whitewater talk.  He was so dishonest, he couldn't win, he lied about his affairs, etc.  

[ Parent ]
need "more than a feeling" (4.00 / 5)
"in this particular case, I think it is more likely that Obama has suffered some lasting electoral damage."

I hate to say this, because I like your work on OpenLeft, but you've really given no evidence for this. You have a downturn in the polls, which you correctly note could be anything for a tick to an unstoppable slide, but the rest of your post is just a theory about what white people think.

Actually, not "white people" -- more like "white people not like us." I personally don't fear a Nat Turner rebellion by black people, nor do the commenters you cite in lieu of actual evidence like an opinion poll, nor -- actually -- does my family (whose TV is stuck on Fox News.)

Before we start criticising Obama for telling uncomfortable truths that anger racists, let's wait and see how racist the voters turn out to be? Can we give the country a bit of credit before declaring defeat for progressives?

Faith based politics (4.00 / 3)
Everyone seems to have an opinion as to alleged damage inflicted by the Obama-Wright connection and whether THE SPEECH compensated for it.  

For my part,  I'm skeptical as to whether there is the slightest basis in fact for the confidence of those making these and other predictions along these lines-pro or con.

Given this fact, the real question for us is how do we operate when simply can't know what the likely consequence of this or that political calculation will be.

The answer, which was proposed in the previous thread, is you simply stop making political calculations.  That is, at the risk of perpetuating an overwhelmingly banality-you try to do what you know, based on the evidence and your instincts, is the right thing to do.

And so, for example, you own up to the fact, as Obama now seems to be doing, that the bipartisan political and economic consensus of the last decades was a kind of petri dish which would virtually insure that black, white and brown people would end up at each other's throats.  

This also means, in confronting the grievances of the ditto heads and Rev. Wright, that you don't view them as individual, non-interactive pathologies but as two symptoms of the same underlying conditions which made this state of affairs inevitable and self-perpetuating.

Expecting that this kind of politics will be a winning politics involves a leap of faith, but so is the political calculation that appealing to voters' most vile, selfish and debased instincts is a winning strategy.

Any kind of political calculation is faith based.

It is a question of where we want to stake our faith.

Hear, hear! (4.00 / 1)
Good coment.

When in doubt, just do the right thing.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Character (4.00 / 1)
If you are going to be taking a calculated risk anyway, might as well do the right thing.  I think we've seen this instinct from Obama before and it certainly raises my hopes on an Obama presidency.  It is certainly an instinct I'd like to see rewarded.

You know what, those comments from the Clinton camp that he isn't ready to be CiC but might be August may turn out to be true.  I think all of us realize Obama is the high risk/high reward candidate and that he'll certainly have to grow into the job (as, in reality, all presidents do, though some never get there).  In many ways I think this crisis has helped him in that growth.  It is good to see.

[ Parent ]
growing (0.00 / 0)
I wish i had the time to look back at the various challenges O has faced in this race. not too many come to mind. challenging Clinton alone was a big deal, and he did it head on by being himself, not by directly challenging Clinton. So that was impressive, though he had Edwards to help as his attack dog. But basically he had been wacking line drives and doubles for months. Feared. Issue challenges that come to mind are recent - NAFTA and Write. NAFTA he popped up with a runner at third. That was terrible, and he didn't even swing hard. But this, he was pitching to Reggie Jackson in game seven and he K-ed him. (im enjoying this baseball metaphor so bear with me). Pretty damn impressive and this is the first year Obama has been on the national stage for a prolonged time. This is a hell of a rookie season, and I think he has unimaginable upside. Unlike the hand wringers I think Nov looks good for Obama. He's going to get ever better at this, a lot better.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Maybe the speech was too good (0.00 / 0)
I personally have a lot of problems with it, but to the talking heads it's the beginning of another interminable "national converstion on race" to be moderated by Barack Obama.  Not the kind of thing you want to do when you're running for president as the economy is in free fall.
At the same time of this posting, (0.00 / 0)
DailyKos has a rasmussen report showing a rebound for Obama in the polls.  Well which one is it?  Or do the voters actually get to decide who they want for their nominee?
Why do we remember the "I have a dream" speech? (4.00 / 4)
Chris, et al., there are points you make that I agree with, points that I could get into all sorts of tits for tats with, but I don't care.  The speech did that.

We don't remember King's "I have a dream" speech because it was a good move for the presidential campaign, because of the bad press he was getting, because of the ins and outs of the civil rights movement at that movement.

WE REMEMBER IT BECAUSE HE WAS MAKING A FUCKING STATEMENT THAT WILL RESONATE THROUGH THE AGES !!!  (pardon my shouting)

Try thinking big for a change.  The shock waves of this speech will be felt for a long time to come, and the good bloggers are responding like the dinosaurs who see the flash in the sky and say, "Comet?  What comet?"  We have been so beaten down by the sickness of the political discourse in this country that we can't savor the moment.  Glory in its beauty.

I'll worry about the campaign tomorrow.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

I agree (0.00 / 0)
I wish Chris or Matt would have posted their reaction to the speech itself, before getting into the ramifications.  Moments like yesterday's speech occur once in a generation.
[ Parent ]
My two cents: (4.00 / 1)
John Kerry was a pretty lame nominee and managed to lose to GWB by the skin of his teeth with full turnout from the GOP base.

Obama has shown that he can raise more money and turn out more democrats than Kerry did, and honestly, after 5 years of Iraq, are the Hillbots going to stay home? I don't think so.

He's running against a guy that the GOP base still doesn't like very much.

Wright might give McCain some extra indies, but, in the end, the majority of Americans hate Iraq, want to like Obama, so this is much ado about nothing. Stuff like Wright will come and go, but Obama will always be able to respond in a way that  voters can still like him. Unlike Kerry, where the reaction (none) confirmed the suspicion.

Obama's massive base turnout + McCain's weak base + split indies = Obama win.

The beginning of the end (0.00 / 1)
People need to face up to the reality: Obama is damaged goods.

The only reason anyone thought he could win in the first place is because he was seen as "post-racial." Those days are over.

With almost every issue - Iraq, the economy, health care - favoring us, the GOP's only hope was to make this election about something else. Their wish has come true: now it will be about race.

A lot of people around here are in serious denial. They think because THEY don't find Wright's sermons offensive, and because THEY were brought to tears by a 37-minute speech that almost no one will ever hear, that this whole thing will go away. It's wishful thinking.

When Obama loses Pennsylvania by ten or fifteen points, it will become all the more obvious that his days as a viable candidate are over.

Time is running out. We can nominate the only other candidate remaining in the race, or we can lose the election.

The die-hard Obama supporters may trash me for this, because they've lost the ability to think logically about this campaign. But people who are still interested, first and foremost, in taking back the White House, need to recognize that Obama is a sinking ship, and not let the party be taken down with him.

Actually... (0.00 / 0)
  If Obama loses PA by only 10 or even 15 points, it will be a remarkable achievement -- that's how far down he was in the state BEFORE Wright. If that happens, it's actually an argument for him sticking around.

 I'm angry at the Obama campaign for not gaming this correctly. Were they really so naive to think that Wright wouldn't come up? That said, I do wonder why Wright was rolled out BEFORE Obama clinched the nomination. Wouldn't the Republicans have preferred to do it when the Democrats had no fallback available?

 The problem is that Hillary won't win either. She'll offer almost NO contrast with John McCain (has she said boo about his Mideast gaffes?), and as Truman said, if the voters have two Republicans to choose from, they'll pick the real one.

 I see Al Gore as the only way out of this, to be honest.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
hehehehehe, you said "Gore". (0.00 / 0)


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Tend to agree (0.00 / 0)
We are on the edge of being royally and truly fucked.

If Hillary wins, she could put Obama on the ticket, which would help, but I have to wonder whether he would even accept it.

Best case scenario: brokered convention, no candidate, Al Gore swoops in as a deus ex machina. THEN we would win by a landslide. Right now, we've got two weak candidates who are making each other weaker by the day.

[ Parent ]
Relax (0.00 / 0)
Nothing is fucked, dude.

It is March.  Obama sucked the life out of the Wright story with his speech yesterday.  Iraq and the economy will have legs, this story, while hitting Obama, is probably over and done with.

This is being blown way out of proportion.

[ Parent ]
The power of the speech (0.00 / 0)
This is the first two posts on my reaction to the speech, and it is a personal one:

I have been an Obama supporter since he first ran for the Senate.  I've phone banked, donated money I out of my student loans, and volunteered in Chicago and New Hampshire.  I grew up in a right-wing Republican family in Henry Hyde's old Congressional district, IL-6.

My father gets his news from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page.  He's a conservative of the Fred Barnes/Paul Gigot mode.  Staunch business conservative with an "American Greatness" type bent.  That has softened a bit in the Bush years, but he is firmly against high government taxing/spending, and a strong admirer of Ronald Reagan.  He grew up an idealistic liberal who marched against the war, but the late 1960's and 1970's economic and social chaos, along with Milton Friedman economics, led him into the Reagan coalition in 1980.  From there, he supported the Gingrich Revolution in 1994, and Bill Clinton's Impeachment in 1998, and voted for Bush twice.  (Although he has buyer's remorse for 2004).

Before Obama's speech yesterday, I was talking with him on the phone about the Jeremiah Wright controversy.  He was taking the conservative line, e.g.: this says a lot about his character, it raises questions as to whether he is anti-American, this guy is a radical, etc.  He also raised Michelle Obama's comments about being "proud to be an American," and what it says about "character."  Needless to say, this is not someone who is part of the Obama coalition, and was not ready to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

After the speech, he called me, and was floored at the substance of the speech.  He said it was incredibly sincere, and took "a lot of balls" to get up there and say what he did.  He was impressed, and reassured.  Although he will likely vote for McCain in November, the fact that this speech swayed someone pretty far on the right wing to praise was remarkable.  Especially since this speech was honest, and didn't gloss over the problems and challenges we face.

My point in posting this is that maybe we expect too little out of the electorate.  All over the 'sphere, I have read that "the elites" loved the speech, but that "the people" probably wouldn't buy it.  That someone who isn't even part of the Democratic coalition, and actually takes people like Gigot and William Kristol seriously, came away satisfied bodes is telling.  This is not representative of the electorate as a whole, but it is a sign of hope that maybe Obama did what he needed to do yesterday.

I guess only time will tell.

I think Obama is done (0.00 / 0)
   I hate to say this, because I do support him and think he's our best hope for reforming both the Democratic Party and the DC elitocracy, and because I believe that, unlike Hillary, he'll actually challenge John McCain and offer a contrast to him (like he did today on Iraq). But I don't think he comes back from this, as great as the speech was.

 Yes, it was an epic, intelligent, historical speech. But I just think its true point and purpose whooshed right over the heads of exactly the voters Obama needed to win back post-Wright. I had dinner with my wingnutty family last night, and the theme I kept getting from them was the they thought Obama had been someone worth admiring because he was a nonthreatening black man, but now he's no longer quite so nonthreatening. That was the purpose of the endless Wright tape loops -- to remind those who might have considered voting for the black guy that he's just another crazy n-word. So I'm basically echoing Chris's observations here.

 Yes, the speech was well-received by the punditry. Concession speeches always are. How much airtime did his very  strong Iraq statements get today? That's what the Wright thing did -- the media now has an excuse to ignore him.

 I guess the takeaway from this is that no matter how well-oiled Obama's campaign operations were, they obviously didn't have a game plan for what to do when the Wright tapes came up. And that DOES speak to Obama's relative naivete --- did he really think the opposition would steer clear of them?

 I'm still adjusting to having two Republicans running for president this fall. We came closer than ever this time, but charismatic figures like Obama don't pop up every year. What a waste...

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

the media, ignore him? (0.00 / 0)
as if.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Obama has a strange blindspot (0.00 / 0)
... with respect to Rev. Wright.  He should have been laying the foundation to cut ties with him the second he started thinking about running for president.  He cannot be elected with this guy as his virtual running mate, and I just can't believe he didn't realize it. Wright himself apparently realized it, predicting that Obama would have to distance himself. (Not that it stopped him from continuing to make provocative statements; some friend this guy is.)
[ Parent ]
Obama pivots toward progressivism (4.00 / 1)
This post will focus on the progressivism in Obama's speech yesterday, and the possibilities it opens up for him.

The initial reason I supported Barack Obama was his honesty.  It was how he ran his initial campaign for Senate.  It was clear in his first book.  That became muddled as he began his presidential campaign.  His rhetoric was stirring, but Obama was always a bit more cautious than John Edwards, a bit more hesitant than progressives wanted him to be.  This was the Obama who praised Ronald Reagan, decried "anti-military 70's style love-ins."  Gradually, I've noticed a shift, and it was no more pronounced than yesterday.  Compare Obama on Reagan from his interview with the Nevada Sun Editorial Board:

http://www.breitbart.com/artic...

"Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it," Obama said.

"I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom," Obama told the newspaper....

n anti-military, you know, 70s love-in kind of approach

Here is Obama on the Reagan coalition yesterday, echoing his fiercest critic, Paul Krugman:

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

And what national politician has ever talked about race this honestly?

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. 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. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And then, he brings it together:

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.

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. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

Then, there's Obama today hitting on Iraq:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...


   If you believe we are fighting the right war, then the problems we face are purely tactical in nature. That is what Senator McCain wants to discuss - tactics. What he and the Administration have failed to present is an overarching strategy: how the war in Iraq enhances our long-term security, or will in the future. That's why this Administration cannot answer the simple question posed by Senator John Warner in hearings last year: Are we safer because of this war? And that is why Senator McCain can argue - as he did last year - that we couldn't leave Iraq because violence was up, and then argue this year that we can't leave Iraq because violence is down.

   ....The central front in the war against terror is not Iraq, and it never was. What more could America's enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations? That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[...]

   Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have made the same arguments against my position on diplomacy, as if reading from the same political playbook. They say I'll be penciling the world's dictators on to my social calendar. But just as they are misrepresenting my position, they are mistaken in standing up for a policy of not talking that is not working. What I've said is that we cannot seize opportunities to resolve our problems unless we create them. That is what Kennedy did with Khrushchev; what Nixon did with Mao; what Reagan did with Gorbachev. And that is what I will do as President of the United States.

"There is a security gap in this country -- a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions. A gap between Washington experience, and the wisdom of Washington's judgments. A gap between the rhetoric of those who tout their support for our troops, and the overburdened state of our military," he said.

Obama targeted as many of his remarks against McCain as he did Clinton, a tacit acknowledgment that an overriding concern for Democrats is who is best able to beat the Republican nominee in November. Obama openly said that Clinton's emphasis on experience as an overriding factor in choosing a president would lead Democrats to failure.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...


"It is time to have a debate with John McCain about the future of our national security. And the way to win that debate is not to compete with John McCain over who has more experience in Washington, because that's a contest that he'll win," he said.
[...]
And Obama touched on McCain's gaffe in Iraq yesterday. "Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties," he said as the audience chuckled.

Obama's speech today will be followed by another address on Iraq tomorrow and how it has impacted the economy.

Hopefully this line of attack continues from Obama.  I, for one, will be very interested to see how he ties the economy to Iraq.

Is this a turning point in the campaign, where Obama started running more progressively?  It's too early to tell, but the signs are encouraging.

Give the American people a chance! (4.00 / 1)
Do we ultimately trust the American people?  From many of the comments here, I think a lot of progressives don't.  Yes, they vote for swine, yes, the media sways them, yes they are racistsexisthomophobicxenophobic idiots example after example after example after ...

But isn't it a fundamental belief of progressives that the reason the world is such a mess is because the rich and the powerful control the police and the media and our jobs and can ultimately impose their will because of their wealth?  Isn't that why the Republicans are constantly scheming to suppress voter turnout?

Yes, the American people sort of elected George Bush (or at least let him get within "stealing range").  But did Al (meet my friend Lieberman) Gore really give them a chance?  Did oh-so-clever-that-he-let-a-coward-like-Bush-beat-him-on-the-war-hero-front John Kerry give them a chance?

The money is there now.  The organization is there now.  And Obama is giving the American people a chance.  That's the beginning, that's the end, that's what matters.

If we don't, at some fundamental gut level, embrace the American people -- like Obama embraces his so-flawed grandmother -- then we should get out of the game. Our time is better spent betting on American Idol.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

People are freaking out (0.00 / 0)
Obama addressed this.  It's over.  Move on.
[ Parent ]
Mandates (0.00 / 0)
Chris, what reason do you have for thinking that any kind of campaign actually creates a mandate that gets legislation passed? I just don't see it. I've seen election after election where what the candidate says during the campaign bears little to no resemblance to what gets passed. Either the executive switches to a different set of priorities, or members of the legislature bottle up the proposals. In the latter case, I can't be sure I blame legislators - I mean, by their logic, they got elected too, so why shouldn't they push their policy preferences against the executive?
Jeremiah Wright and the "Dignified Climbdown" | 75 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox