Will Obama's Speech Be Enough to Win the Nomination (and the Presidency)?

by: tremayne

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 23:49


Most political pundits agree that Barack Obama’s speech on race yesterday was exceptional. However, it was not a simple speech and one criticism of it is that the nuance in it would be lost in a television news environment where short sound bites rule.  In fact, taken out of context, Obama provided several sound bites that could be used to confirm the narrative of “angry black man.”  Hillary Clinton may not use those sound bites. Even John McCain may avoid them if Obama is the Democratic nominee.  But “Swift Boat” style groups supporting McCain are a different story.

The speech aired on a weekday morning. Normally, this would mean that a very small percentage of the electorate would ever see it; most would only see short clips on the news or short quotes in the newspaper.  But this campaign may be different.  So far already, this YouTube version (also available directly from the Obama site) has been viewed 1.6 million times.  Links to this video have been prominently posted at most major political blogs.  Will this make a difference?

Many people think so. There is also some data to back up this point.  A recent report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project (2008) found that almost twice as many people reported regularly learning about politics from the Internet since 2004: about a quarter of those surveyed overall. For younger people, not surprisingly, the Internet is now the number one source of campaign news. And there’s this:

 

Compared with the 2000 campaign, far fewer Americans now say they regularly learn about the campaign from local TV news (down eight points), nightly network news (down 13 points) and daily newspapers (down nine points).

 

Nevertheless, traditional media still claim a dominate position and certainly television advertising remains a powerful way to reach those voters who are less politically attuned.  We don’t have to look back very far to see what creative editing and creative use of facts can produce. What do you think?
tremayne :: Will Obama's Speech Be Enough to Win the Nomination (and the Presidency)?

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Will Obama's Speech Be Enough to Win the Nomination (and the Presidency)? | 42 comments
Much better today (0.00 / 0)
Things are much better today than they were in 2004. It's very good to see more and more people leaving the TV networks.

But I don't really like this framing: "Will Obama's Speech Be Enough to Win the Nomination." This primary is almost over. Most states have voted. Obama has a solid pledged delegate lead. Dramatic things would have to happen for him to not get the nomination. It's not a tie ballgame at halftime (which is how all the networks portray the race). We're in the last minutes of the fourth quarter.

What I'd like to see (0.00 / 0)
Obama-supporting young people sending either the pdf version or the You Tube of the speech to their parents (andf grandparents) and talking to them about their own expereinces with peole of other and many races.  This is indeed a time for dialogue.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Good Idea. ! (0.00 / 0)
This is the right time. As Obama says in his speech we have to start solving our problems together, and that means putting stuff on the front burner. His speech opens a lot of places for dialog in these times in a respectful unambiguous manner.

Much like consciousness raising groups, this could be not only good for taking race away as a barrier to solving problems, but as venue for cross generational progressive foundation building in the long term.

Go for it Obama- 'nauts or 'logues or 'ites or whatever silly term his supporters endure today. Start the discussion with grandma and aunt Patsy, and uncle Poppy, save America.

Engage the cheerleader, save the world.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
The attack machine (4.00 / 1)
I think the one thing we forget about the Republican attack machine is that while it can be brutal and efficient it is also a dog with no leash and it can over-reach, as it did during the Clinton presidency. What's exciting about the internet is that it may have increased people's literacy about the kind of selective distortions that involve pulling Obama's words out of context -- now people are more suspicious, and have instant access to that context. I think it is a mistake to assume that the attacks that will be made if Obama is the nominee will all be devastatingly effective. They may disgust people, and put McCain in a very difficult spot.
i can only speak for myself (0.00 / 0)
I already voted (for Al Gore in New Jersey), and have been (and am) neutral on Clinton vs. Obama, but the speech definitely made me want to want him to win the nomination, if that makes any sense. So it may help him with liberal fence-sitters like me who still have votes to give (I have no idea what that percentage is).

As for the general election, I still think Reverend Wright is a huge negative no matter how eloquently Obama speaks. But the excellence of the speech makes me care less about that problem, and more about how we're gonna overcome it to get this flawed-but-remarkable politician into the White House if he ends up with the nomination.

Although I'm really hoping for an intractable tie that produces Gore as a compromise candidate. A man can dream.

Was Wright wrong, Mr. Obama? (0.00 / 0)
Wright, in a rather feverish way, was saying much of what Gravel and Paul had been saying.

I don't think there is any harm in examining the extent to which American foreign policy has made many hate us. It may have even caused some to react with violence.

I think some soul searching along these lines is healthy.

So Obama distances himself from the man and the issues.
He "condemns".. "the statements that have caused such controversy."
He says Wright presented a "profoundly distorted view of this country".
Obama says that Wright's views "are not only wrong but divisive."

He gives a speech about race.
He poses with the flag and says God Bless America.

My hero.

Which statements did he condemn? (0.00 / 0)
I didn't hear him specifically say which ones. Did he?
[ Parent ]
D-uh! He condemned (0.00 / 0)
the ones "that have caused such controversy."

That means any of Wright's comments that is labeled controversial automatically comes out pre-condemned by Obama, while the non-controversial ones he still supports.

Pretty slick, actually. Of course, you can certainly understand Obama's reluctance to repeat Wright's assertions, and especially his desire to avoiding quoting inflammatory language he disagrees with on camera.

As always, one's interpretation of of Obama's words is powerfully shaped by ones attitude toward the speaker and one's pre-existing agenda. If Obama appeals to you, then you probably thought this speech rocks. If you oppose him or are suspicious of him, then you'll be looking for cracks in it. I think we all need to accept that peoples reactions will be shaped in these ways and not get too worked up when it happens.

[ Parent ]
I agree. He allowed people to think what they (0.00 / 0)
wanted to think. If you found certain comments offensive then you'll probably conclude that he did to and condemned them. However, as most Democrats know and admit (unless a black guy says it apparently) America is imperialistic and oppressive (and that's what we're trying to change) so I'm guessing he actually agrees with that. Disagrees with the AIDS comment, though he understands where it comes from (Tuskeegee & CIA/crack connection). Agrees with the blowback argument, which isn't controversial at all.  

But that's just a guess.  

[ Parent ]
A guess (0.00 / 0)
That's the problem.

The press is telling us about how impressive the speech was, but we are left to guess what he is actually saying.

He cloaked his ambiguity about what kind of stance to take about foreign policy and "patriotism" by talking about race. And most everyone went for it.

[ Parent ]
Well he should have talked about race (0.00 / 0)
He also made a foreign policy speech today so perhaps that makes some things more clear.

As a black man I operate in a world where the default is "white". If I have to let white people think what they want so they'll be less threatened by my words that's fine. I know what I mean.  

[ Parent ]
Explain please. (0.00 / 0)
If you express yourself clearly why would "white people" have to turn things around to feel "less threatened"? Generally it is assumed that white people feel more threatened by black people who express themselves forthrightly.
Rev. Wright is a good example. White people were the ones to get in an uproar.
And Obama distanced himself from the things that upset them.
[ Parent ]
Obama let white people think what they wanted to (0.00 / 0)
think. Just like I do on a daily basis when I'm talking politics or something like that.

White people are threatened by African-Americans no matter what. It's called implicit racial bias and is a well-documented phenomenon.

So, for example, when I say "yeah Wright went off the deep end", White folks I talk to, who are liberals, assume I'm talking about everything he said. But I'm not. I agree with much of what he said.

Allowing people to assume I mean something that I do not is a pretty regular occurrence for me and America forces me to operate that way or I'll be vilified.  

[ Parent ]
He condemned the ones based on stereotypes (4.00 / 1)
He condemned the that America is completely racist and can't change.  He specifically applauded that part of Wright's preaching that encouraged black people to take responsibility for their situation and their community, to help each other and help the whole community.  

In fact, one of the things he did was to show how the more controversial ones ("God damn America" and statements that might seem to depict black people as victims without responsibility or whites as incapable of change) were not only wrong but actually at odds with the totality of Wright's message and life, which has been one of service to America and to his community.  

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

[ Parent ]
Did he condemn statements about imperialism (0.00 / 0)
or oppression? I don't recall hearing him disagree with those. Not that any Democrat should.  
[ Parent ]
¿Quen sabe? (0.00 / 0)
Who knows what he condemned?
He didn't say.

All he said was that he condemned "the statements that have caused such controversy."
He said that Wright presented a "profoundly distorted view of this country".
and that Wright's views "are not only wrong but  divisive."

I agreed with many of the Wright's statements that "caused such controversy" - especially the one that pointed out that America's foreign policy had practically invited a violent response from the Muslim world. Ron Paul said much the same thing. So did Senator Gravel.

Either Obama agrees with this assessment - which I think is so obviously true - or he doesn't.

Or he does agree with it, and says the opposite.

[ Parent ]
Too early to tell (0.00 / 0)
The nomination will likely be considered over after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, should Obama win those handily. If today's poll shows Obama's low point, I think he survived this onslaught intact, possibly stronger.

To say that this speech could get him the presidency is a bit much.  I will say that he probably diffused any Jeremiah Wright issues yesterday, which will go a long way toward preventing swift boating in the fall campaign.  I think the biggest mistake the Right made was coming out with this now, instead of in September or August, when the damage may have been irreversible.

We are, as Democrats, at an advantage, this cycle (0.00 / 0)
possibly longer.

But Obama isnt a shoe-in. No one is. The rethugs are good at smearing and stealing elections. The level of spittle and dried blood will not decrease. They own most of the media. They have enough crap to fill their splatter guns for years. They are at a disadvantage, on the outs, and shown up as fools, but they are not in jail, they still run the dern country.

Barack Obama has won this primary and he has shown he can not only withstand the howling drivel that represents discourse during an election, but he can, as others have said, "use it as an opportunity."

I mean damn. Thats good. And for the people who have been waiting for backbone and spine from their progressive leaders that is better than a simultaneous orgasm. Obama threw down and won in the middle of a shit storm.

Damn. .. .  . (!)

Can he win? Best chance we got and best person for the job.

I imagine this is what it felt like to support FDR that first year. He was covered in filth by his opponents, and some feared his inability to win. "I welcome their hate," FDR responded.

I imagine this is what it felt like to get behind a catholic for president.

This is history and its glorious. It's just sinking in tonight across the country and the chattering class how good a man this is, how good a candidate. It is just being understood, this man deserves to be president.

We deserve to have Obama our president, it is an honor to point that out.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
The latest polls don't show that Obama will win NC handily. (0.00 / 0)
In fact, he had a one point lead in one poll. He took a serious hit with white voters there after this Wright stuff came out.
[ Parent ]
Obama usually does better than polls predict! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
What is wrong with us ? (4.00 / 5)
I refuse to let the fact speeches can be sliced and diced by swiftboat Republicans be the criteria on which we judge our politicians or how effective they are ! I refuse to live in fear of what the Republicans will say or do about the nominee my party chooses.
Let's grow some balls ! It is undeniable they will use Wright. And we will fight back and we will win.
I have had enough of letting THEM decide what is acceptable or not. And I will certainly not let fear of the Republicans make us choose a candidate that will not be the best President.
Exactly. (0.00 / 0)
Damn.....(!)

This man deserves to be President, it is an honor to stand shoulder to shoulder beside him.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
I agreed with you and then I added a separate opinion. I did not mean to imply you support or dont support Obama. Sorry if I left that impression.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Two things (0.00 / 0)
1) I support Obama 1500% but suggesting I support Hillary is not an insult in my book so don't worry :) Even if I did, my point would still have been valid.  
And I actually didn't take it that way anyway ! :)

2) And I appreciate your support of what i said. Thanks

[ Parent ]
Obama/Gore will not happen! (0.00 / 0)
Gore would never agree to be VP again.
[ Parent ]
You may be right. (4.00 / 1)
Ha ha. I think its a grand idea however, and I have argued for it.

It would be seen as a incredibly strong and self confident thing for Obama to do. It would wrap the party around him. It would solidify support for Obama, among the public, the voters -- Change and Assurance.

Why would Gore do it?

It would be service writ large for him to stand to that position.

Gore has said he likes to serve, but he discounts his desire to run a campaign, many are sure the nomination could have been his for example. This absolves him of little more than speeches  and the debate with whomever is slated to be on the ticket with McCain.

The job has a new level of work and involvement that might just suit Gores agenda, which fits well with Obama's and the emerging progressive majority in America. Cheney's VPOTUS is different from Dan Quale and other previous office holders. Imagine what Cheney levels of involvement could do for climate change, for example.

He is a patriot, ready to serve. It is not his duty to do this again, but it would be applauded and respected.

This is decidedly a long shot.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
In the short run or in the long run (0.00 / 0)
Obama's speech won't make the slightest dent on the Republican attack machine's onslaught against Obama over Jeremiah Wright.

Speech or no speech, Jeremiah Wright is what he is:

1. A racist
2. An America-hater
3. A 20 year spiritual adviser and "sounding board" for Obama
4. The man who married Obama and baptized his children
5. Head of the church to which the Obamas gave tens of thousands of dollars

He is a Republican attack machine's wet dream. And, if Obama is the nominee, we are delivering him into their capable and destructive hands. He represents the biggest gimme in the history of modern Presidential politics. He promises to damage the entire Democratic brand for years or decades -- and the more Democrats defend him, the worse the damage he can inflict.

Anybody who pretends (4.00 / 2)
there is not a thousand times more soundbites, slice-and-dice speeches and hazy scandals in Hillary's past that the Republican will be just as happy to bring up are fooling themselves.

But judging from your post, you didn't read/watch Obama's speech anyway so this comment has nothing to do in a thread pondering what the impact of it will be. You are just repeating Republican talking points ("America-hater" ? Lovely)  

[ Parent ]
I'm "pretending" that (0.00 / 0)
Really, your first sentence is just flat-out silly.  I know this is just an ad hom, but still I just don't see how anyone who wasn't in thrall to some brain-clouding idea would say such a thing.  Of course Clinton doesn't have equivalent over-the-top past associations.  She's one of the most investigated human beings in the history of this nation, and since those investigations went down she hasn't taken a poop without first-class legal advice.

I know Obama folks like to ridicule this idea for some reason I don't comprehend, but Clinton has truly been "vetted" about as much as it's possible to be that way.  All they have against her is the old stuff, and I think they'll be laughed out of town when they try to run with Rose Law Firm Records, Part Deux.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
To win Clinton needs every single Democrat to vote for her and for a little less than half of the Independents (and only if those numbers fall in the right states).  The right-wing base will eat up all the old stories, it will stoke them to come out and vote against her.  She may be vetted, but she hasn't been proven completely innocent of any of the previous junk.  

Its what drove me nuts about the Clintons in the 90's, they let all these investigations happen and fought them tooth and nail when it came to handing over records and the like. In the end they only seemed to care that no charges were filed, not that they were exonerated.  The right wing noise machine continued to drum up the same scandals over and over because while they couldn't prove anything illegal occurred, like the Bushies, they hid and obfuscated so much that it looked like something illegal must have happened.  

I just don't see any advantage to Clinton's vetting, since it leads down road people have already traveled and made up their minds about.  Democrats give her a pass, the right will relive it all with gusto, and Independents will reassess and who knows how they will respond when Vince Foster's death get revisited in October.  It doesn't have to be true to stick and the Clintons have already proven themselves to be quite the dust-magnets.

[ Parent ]
Hasn't been proven innocent? (0.00 / 0)
You know, there is not a mechanism in this nation--in any nation that I know of--whereby someone may be proven innocent.  St. Peter's court, should it exist, does not appear to be located in the U.S.

But, then again, a lot of Americans don't know that the Clintons were completely exonerated for Whitewater, for reasons Bob Somerby has explained in a detailed, cogent and highly entertaining fashion.  Go to the link, read, it's good.

Marc Rich pardon?  U.S. Attorney investigated, found no evidence of wrongdoing, and in fact Ehud Barak and Shimon Pares personally lobbied Clinton for the pardon, and Clinton fully discussed it with his staff before approving it.

Travelgate?  A BS non-event trumped up by the media.  Filegate?  Fully explained.  Rose law firm papers?  Exculpatory.  

From The Carpetbagger Report:

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline recently admitted to having a poor memory. "I may be missing someone," Mirengoff said, "but the only high-profile administration offical [sic] I can think of who has faced criminal charges or had to resign in the face of scandal is Scooter Libby, who worked for the Vice President and who is not accused of corruption."

And with that, the Josh Marshall, Justin Rood, and the TPM crew was off. As of this afternoon, they've come up with quite a list. It's still being updated, but at last count...

* nine Bush administration officials fall under the "indicted/convicted/pled guilty" category;

* 13 Bush administration officials fall under the "resigned due to investigation" category;

* and three Bush administration nominees "failed due to scandal."

Restoring honor and dignity? I don't think so.

As long as we're on the subject, though, I think it's worth noting that the Bush gang, at least so far, can't hold a candle to Reagan when it comes to scandals, indictments, and resignations.

In all, 32 Reagan administration officials were convicted of crimes in various political scandals under the president's watch, including Iran-contra, arguably the most serious White House scandal since Watergate that nearly led to Reagan's impeachment.

* * *

And what of our friend, Bill Clinton, who was rumored to lead a scandal-plagued White House? The only Clinton official indicted or convicted, after all of those multi-year, Republican-led investigations, was Asst. Attorney-General Webster Hubbell, who was convicted of embezzlement - a crime he committed before joining the Clinton Administration.


[ Parent ]
How is Wright a racist? (0.00 / 0)
I haven't read every one of the comments he's made verbatim, but I haven't seen a single comment that I would consider racist.  Yes, he believes in black liberation theology, and he talks about white racism.  And his politics seem more similar to Noam Chomskey's than anyone in mainstream politics.  And he believes some nut-baggery about AIDS.  None of those could be considered racist.  And none of this is that far from the norm for an African-American preacher.

[ Parent ]
Talking about White racism, imperialism, and oppression (4.00 / 1)
means he's a racist.  
[ Parent ]
Wright's not a racist. He's just not . . . (0.00 / 0)
particularly smart on race.

Wright's rhetoric makes white people who are defensive about racism extremely uncomfortable  and angry.  They are the ones saying that he is racist. Wright's rhetoric makes black people who want to feel like victims comfortable and angry.  They are in a cul de sac.

Obama's criticism wasn't that Wright's comments were incorrect, but that they took the state of race relations in America as static.  That progress hadn't been made.  That things aren't improving. That things can't or won't improve.  That is both inaccurate and unproductive.

Obama is trying to build a majority and do it in a way that moves both whites and blacks forward on race.  Encourage blacks to wallow in victimhood won't do that.  Neither will making working class whites who have to scrap and scrape to get by feel like you take them to be your oppressor.

When I went to watch Obama's speech last night the first thing I came across was Wright's Hillary Ain't Never Been Called a Nigger speech.   The comment thread is depressing, disgusting bile.  I don't think we can win those people over, they are active racists.  I am not offended by the speech, I think it's tactically dumb.   But most apolitcal white people who aren't pro-actively anti-racist are going to be made to feel defensive and turned off by it.   They are going to think, "I didn't own slaves and I didn't crucify Jesus, so get off my back."

[ Parent ]
Yeah that'll go over with us black (0.00 / 0)
folks who agree that White America is oppressive and imperialistic. I guess Lincoln and MLK were America haters too. Shit. Better take back their holidays!

Whoever pushes that line won't see a black vote for 100 years.

Interestingly, it's Democrats that seem to be pushing it more than the GOP candidates. Both Huck and McCain defended Obama and Wright. Smart.  

[ Parent ]
Please explain how Wright's comments are racist (4.00 / 1)
His words might make some uncomfortable, but that's more about shattering bubbles of delusion, to my mind.

I'm a well-educated, straight, white, male with a good paying job (not exactly a secure job) and I could not help but applaud Rev. Wright's passionate diatribe.  I think Obama's response was very good - not quite as passionate as I might have hoped - but, Obama doesn't seem to be that kind of bombastic orator.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Enough for nomination (4.00 / 3)
More will be required for the presidency, but that was already true.  It certainly looks like Wright will be the swiftboat of 2008, so it will get much uglier before the end.

From a purely political point of view, the best thing about the speech is it got the press and pundits back on his side.  They love to believe that they are sophisticated enough to understand the speech, even if they are unsure about the American people.  So I think this speech does immunize Obama from the press' participation in Fall swiftboating, which is half the battle.  But the other half will still be very hard, just as it would for any other candidate.

Amen ! (0.00 / 0)
You are saying it more intelligently and succinctly I ever could.
Any candidate would be swiftboated one way or another. Hell ! Swiftboating was all made up ! There does not even need to be a thread of truth to it.

And there is a strong chance the republicans will overplay their hands on this. I mean the video they put out today throwing Malcom X in the ring is already overplaying the race angle of this (which will totally turn off moderates ... when the patriotism angle could be much more dangerous in my opinion).

[ Parent ]
It may be enough to win the nomination... (0.00 / 0)
...but, I doubt it will be enough to win Ohio.

His path to the presidency will need to take a different route.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

How minds are changed (0.00 / 0)
I think we've always overestimated the direct impact that television advertising has on people's political views. I would argue that those views, and the resulting votes, are shaped primarily by person-to-person interaction between members of a community--by discussions each of us has with other people in our monkeysphere. TV ads (and mass media generally) work to the extent that they can shape those interactions, but their power to do so is being modulated by the availability of other, user-directed media like YouTube that can offer countervailing views and evidence, including longer video like Obama's whole speech.

So new media have the potential (for both good or ill) to affect people's political views and behavior, but that potential is only beginning to be realized. Once it becomes apparent, we will have a mighty struggle on our hands as the right pours time, talent, and money into the wingnuttosphere (and into controlling access by denying net neutrality) in an attempt to dominate the political internet as the have come to dominate the MSM.

the impact of the speech (0.00 / 0)
Hopefully it is just the opening salvo in a conversation with the electorate that will continue into the GE. He doesn't have to win everyone over yet but just enough to secure the nomination. Once that has been achieved it is possible that this speech is the beginnng of a new kind of conversation in which Obama becomes a vessel for people to be able to air their grievances on this difficult issue without fear of being attacked with unnecessarily narrow stereotypes. I mean, one of the most important aspects of the speech to me is how he raised the legitimate fears and concerns that white people might have about inner city crime or affirmative action. It is not to suggest that some people might exploit these fears for political gain, but to allow people to voice these frustrations is one of the first steps to a better dialogue. I hope that the speech quiets the Wright "controversy" enough for Obama to continue to the nomination and then on to a groundbreaking candidacy.
[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
And that's why I suggested above that young people send a copy of the You Tube or print version to their elders and discuss it and the issues it raises with them.

My genral impression is that young people today are closer to their parents than was true in the mid '60s to mid '70s, and thus can convey their ideas in a much less off-putting way than was true for us.  We were pretty obnoxious and know-it-all in those days, quite taken with our rebellion.  That had a significant effect on the Reagan Dems, IMHO.  I think today's young people have a much beter chance of being able to influence thier elders in a positive direction.  But then, I'm mostly going by my family and friends' families.  

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

[ Parent ]
Will Obama's Speech Be Enough to Win the Nomination (and the Presidency)? | 42 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