3 Comments »

1. 1 McClum

   March 21, 2008 @ 1:52 pm CET

   It may be fun for some to act like Rush, but its not productive. We need serious, thoughtful discussion of the issues. Otherwise were just playing a game.

2. 2 C Stanley

   March 21, 2008 @ 2:35 pm CET

   I agree with a lot that’s being said by all those commenters. That said, I agree with their criticisms as well as their praise, and often wouldn’t go as far with the praise because there are other criticisms that lower my overall opinion.

   What I find praiseworthy about the speech:
   1. He opened a real dialogue about race in America
   2. He acknowledged white concerns as real (though some parts of the speech contradicted that, so it ended up feeling more like he was attempting to tell white people that he understood them even though we later get a glimpse that shows he doesn’t quite get it…more on that later.) That he even did that at all, is huge, because I don’t ever recall a black politician doing this- and on top of that, he basically acknowledged that conservatives have a point when we say that welfare has created problems that exist today in the black community. A bit more on that would have been even better!
   3. Rhetorically, it was a pretty good speech (we already knew he could speak well, but this was certainly no exception and probably one of his best speeches.)
   4. Like Noonan, I like that he doesn’t talk down to people or try to insert soundbites into a speech like this.
   5. Much of what he said about the way history explains black anger (and the parts about white resentment) is accurate, and I have no problem conceding that this is important context for understanding views of Wright and his mentors and followers.
   6. Likewise, I have no problem seeing why understands Wright in that context.
   7. And, no problem understanding the personal feelings.
   8. And, no problem understanding that Obama saw Wright’s good side and the way his preaching inspired a lot of good works in black communities in Chicago.
   9. I liked that he clearly stated that certain views of Wright were wrong, distorted, and divisive.
   10. I get that he’s saying that Wright is of an older generation that can’t move past the anger.

   What I didn’t like about the speech:
   1. Lots of deflection. Juxtaposing Ferraro with Wright was just wrong. Likewise for poor Grandma (that story and the background info that’s been quoted from his book actually makes me ill.) Pretending that his staying in this church is just like what all of us do in our own churches ends up eroding the message where he clearly stated how wrong and divisive Wright’s comments were. You can’t condemn those comments unequivocably and then equivocate by drawing an equivalence where there is none.
   2. This is probably the biggest part for me: he never clearly admitted that he was wrong to have waited till now to speak out against Wright’s inflammatory rhetoric. The words sound right now, but put in context of his actions over 20 years they sound, once again, like he’s telling us what we want to hear. And I say that, believing that he probably does believe the words- but he obviously lacked the courage of his convictions to act on them. Particularly because he spoke about how important it is to move beyond the anger and division, he comes up really short when you examine whether he even attempted to do that at all at TUCC.
   3. I didn’t like the Democratic/liberal boilerplate solutions, of course- but this is who he is and if he’d suggested otherwise he’d be pretending to be something he’s not, so I’m not going to fault him on that. It’s just that this is obviously one reason the speech didn’t work for me.
   4. Overall, just too much excuse making. He can’t disown Wright or Grandma. OK, but no one asked him to do that. What he needs to have done is to disavow the racist philosophy, to stand firm in not making excuses for it. He seems to think that he’s generous enough to forgive Granny for harboring racial fears, so this means we should all also forgive Wright. To me, it should be the opposite- whenever racism in any form is present, we should call people out on it. Of course the part about his grandmother just doesn’t fit anyway- the anecdote he told was that she was afraid of a particular black man, and his grandfather inferred from that that she had no cause to fear him other than that he was black. Never mind that he was intimidating her, no, it had to be that she’s a closet racist. Pfft- what nonsense.

   In short, I feel the speech fell short because actions haven’t matched words and because the words themselves didn’t go far enough. When you condemn but then also excuse why you haven’t condemned, the condemnation itself gets watered down.

3. 3 C Stanley

   March 21, 2008 @ 2:49 pm CET

   I meant to add a few thoughts about TUCC.

   As I said above, I can understand Obama’s argument that he felt there were good works in that religious community. Good fruits, so to speak. But I think what he needs to still answer is whether he also saw harm from the racism and antisemitism and antiAmericanism that was being preached. He also needs to answer questions about his belief in separation of Church and state, particularly since his pastor clearly has crossed the line of campaigning for him from the pulpit.

   But back to the first part; Obama seems to be saying that he now believes that it’s really important for black Americans to move past the angry divisive politics of the older generation- but he never explains why he seemingly believes that TUCC is doing that. The old pastor is retiring, the younger assoc pastor will become the leader. OK, but forgive me for wanting to know whether this new leader is really of a different stripe- or is he crazy cousin who can’t help but still have anger because he learned it at the feet of crazy uncle Jeremiah.

   And aside from that- if Obama was aware of controversial remarks and also aware that the divisive remarks are harmful, then why no admission of remorse for not having spoken up sooner? Either he believes that the ends justifies the means (meaning that if the black separatism being preached at TUCC led to people doing good things for their community, that it was all good in the end) or he doesn’t believe that racism against whites can be justified in that manner. I feel the need to know which is a more accurate statement of his beliefs.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.