Obama Gives a Presidential Speech About Race
Addressing the Wright controversy, he treats Americans like adults
Assuming Barack Obama goes on to claim the Democratic nomination, there is little doubt that voters, particularly white voters in swing states, will by the end of the fall campaign know the name Jeremiah Wright like they once knew Willie Horton. The vaunted “Republican attack machine” will see to that—if Mr. Obama’s own foes within the Democratic Party don’t first do so.
But just because his enemies try to undermine Mr. Obama by linking him to his former minister’s inflammatory words doesn’t mean they will succeed. And Mr. Obama’s speech on race on Tuesday, carried live by all of the cable news channels and sure to dominate evening newscasts and morning newspapers, has made it far less likely that they will.
For one thing, he delivered an address that was specific in its condemnation of Mr. Wright’s well-publicized sermon and also sophisticated in its exploration of America’s racial journey and the contradictions it has fostered within people. Accordingly, Mr. Obama managed to insert some distance between himself and the caricature of Mr. Wright that has emerged while also avoiding any charges that he was simply engaged in damage control and pandering.
But the bigger and more basic reason the speech was a success is that Mr. Obama, like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan before him, has something powerful and rather rare working in his favor: Most Americans instinctively like him and want to give him the benefit of the doubt. And Mr. Obama delivered for them on Tuesday.
The threat of the Wright controversy, of course, has been that it might strip Mr. Obama of his status as a racially transformative leader, a black man with the ability to win in non-black areas, something that general-election polls show him doing against John McCain. Past black presidential candidates, most notably Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, never demonstrated this potential, because—fair or not—most white voters believed (and still believe) that they were and are excessively focused on race and too quick to cry racism.
The Jeremiah Wright that the masses were introduced to through the YouTube clip that will forever define him seems, to the average white voter, like another polarizing black leader of the Jackson and Sharpton mold. Thus it was necessary for Mr. Obama to reassure, in unequivocal terms, the white voters who have been so receptive to him from the start of his campaign that they have been correct in not tuning him out the way they’ve tuned out past black candidates.
He certainly tried.
Mr. Obama, in his speech, said that the Wright the public had met harbored “views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation—that rightly offend white and black alike” and that could “widen the racial divide.” He also said that Mr. Wright had expressed “a profoundly distorted view of this country—a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America.”
More than that, he charged that Mr. Wright’s comments reflected an ignorance of or a refusal to accept America’s racial progress. “He spoke,” Obama said, “as if our society was static … as if this country—a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old—is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.”
Those who listen to or read about a speech like this will invariably hear and see what they want to. But that’s likely to be good news for Mr. Obama, because many Americans—and, certainly, most Democrats—want to like him and want to believe in him. Most of those Americans, upon being introduced to Mr. Wright through his YouTube clip, reacted with reflexive hostility. But Mr. Obama, with his speech, gave them reason to believe that he reacted the exact same way—that he is, therefore, exactly the kind of person they have long believed him to be.
Just hours before he gave his speech, a new Gallup poll was released that found that 62 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama, with only 33 percent viewing him unfavorably. (By comparison, the spread for Hillary Clinton was 53 to 44 percent.) Other data also confirms the unusual personal goodwill of most Americans toward Obama: An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll earlier this week found that Mr. Obama scored significantly higher marks than Mrs. Clinton in areas like “honesty and straightforwardness” and on whether he has “high personal standards that set the proper moral tone for the country.”
Because of their experiences in most recent elections, there is an inherent pessimism among Democrats about the fall campaign. The “Republican Attack Machine,” they have come to believe, can and will carve up anyone their party puts up. Not surprisingly, the Clinton campaign has been exploiting this insecurity. Whether they say it or not, they clearly hope Democrats will treat the Wright episode as reason to fret over Mr. Obama’s general-election durability.
But what Democrats forget too often is how easy they’ve made the Republicans’ job in past elections. Neither John Kerry nor Al Gore nor Michael Dukakis nor Walter Mondale nor Jimmy Carter (the 1980 version) ever inspired any kind of personal affection from the electorate, the kind that would win them the benefit of the doubt when the mud started flying. But Mr. Obama does. And it’s why his response to the Wright matter, risky though it may have been by conventional standards, was a powerful one.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
wow, no obama supporters showing off their obama speech afterglow? must be out for kool-aid
Is Obama just better at delivering speeches, rather than answering direct questions, or even no longer attending this church? The speech was nice, but is he going to spend time thinking out all his answers to embarassing questions, or is he just not going to answer any directly? Can he answer direct questions without the "hamina hamina" factor?
The fact remains Obama was seen at this church, nodding his head in affirmation to Wright's diatribe, never stood up and said ANYTHING in opposition. That is tacit approval of the content in my eyes, one no speech is going to dissuade.
Obama and his Gold Dust Twin, Reverend Wright, have reduced the campaign to a minstrel show, with Obama playing Mr. Bojangles.
Pat,
Please provide a link to video where "Obama was seen at this church, nodding his head in affirmation to Wright's diatribe." (I don't really expect that you're able to provide one, because I doubt one exists.)
Thank you.
Oh, and as for Obama answering direction questions, well, as regards Jeremiah Wright, he did just say that several days ago, during a rather long interview he did with The Chicago Tribune, excerpted here:
----------------------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obamafullwebmar16,0,6442...
Tribune: The issue of [former U.S. Rep.] Geraldine Ferraro's comments on the role your race has played in this campaign. Then comes the video that has comments that your pastor Jeremiah Wright has made. How are we to look at these, what's the best way to look at this and in what context do you put them to the American people?
Obama: Well, you know, I think they're separate issues, but there is a relationship. I think you're touching on something that's worth talking about. I think, with respect to Geraldine Ferraro, I don't think what she said was racist, and I was asked about this and I said I didn't think that was what it was. I do think that what she said was wrong.
The implication was that I was an affirmative action beneficiary. I think you can make an argument that my race might have played a role in my selection for the 2004 convention, but it doesn't account for the fact that it was a pretty good speech. I think that my persona obviously includes the fact that I'm an African-American, and so to the extent that how I talk about issues of race and how I present myself is attractive to some voters, I think is undeniable.
To suggest that I could have gotten through the gauntlet of the last 13 months against very experienced, very savvy, skilled politicians and find myself in the lead for the Democratic nomination, including against the dominant political machine in the Democratic Party over the last 20 years, seems pretty dismissive.
And not just dismissive of me, but dismissive of voters. This idea that, "Oh, you know, let's get a black guy in there," I think just doesn't make sense. So I think that it was looking at an issue through a racial lens that doesn't make perfect sense. I mean, she could have made a subtle point about the role of race in my candidacy that could have been interesting. This wasn't it. All right, so that's Geraldine Ferraro.
Rev. Wright. He preached his last sermon, he's now in retirement. I've put out a statement today. Ill be honest with you, this is somebody who I've known for 20 years. I basically came to the church and became a member of the church through Trinity [United Church of Christ] and through him. He's the person who gave me the line "the audacity of hope." He is somebody who is a former Marine, a biblical scholar, has taught and lectured at major theological seminaries across the country and has been very widely regarded and admired.
And, you know, he hasn't been my political adviser, he's been my pastor. And I have to say that the clips that have been shown over the past couple of days are deeply disturbing to me. I wasn't in church during those sermons.
The things he said and the way he said them I think are offensive. And I reject them, and they don't reflect who I am or what I believe in. In fairness to him, this was sort of a greatest hits. They basically culled five or six sermons out of 30 years of preaching. That doesn't excuse them, and I've said so very clearly, but that's not the relationship I had with him. That's not the relationship I had with the church, and if I had heard those kinds of statements being said, if I had been in church on those days, I would have objected fiercely to them, and I would have told him personally.
When some of these statements first came to light was right around when I was starting to run for president. He was a year away from retirement, and the church itself is a pillar of the community and a well-regarded, well-known church. I suspect there are members of the Tribune family that are also members of Trinity.
It is not what's been painted as this separatist church or what have you, it is a very traditional African-American church on the South Side of Chicago. And most of the reverend's sermons are the sermons of a traditional African-American pastor. And so my view was that it would not be appropriate for me to distance myself from the church. I put out a statement saying I profoundly disagree with these statements, and the fact that he is now retiring makes me not want to simply discard him. He's like a member of the family, he's like your uncle who says things you profoundly disagree with, but he's still your uncle.
Tribune: Geraldine Ferraro, she's asked to leave, she leaves the campaign, she should have left. And some people see that, legitimately so. Then how should we see . . .
Obama: I think people should raise legitimate concerns about it. And the fact that he's retiring, and we've got a young pastor, Otis Moss, coming in, means that people should understand the context of this relationship. That this is an aging pastor who's about to retire and that I have made and will make some very clear statements about how profoundly I disagree with these statements. I don't think they are reflective of the church.
They're certainly not reflective of my views. I do think there is an overlap in the sense that there is a generational shift that is taking place and has constantly taken pace in our society. And Rev. Wright is somebody who came of age in the 60s. And so like a lot of African-American men of fierce intelligence coming up in the '60s he has a lot of the language and the memories and the baggage of those times. And I represent a different generation with just a different set of life experiences, and so see race relations in just a different set of terms than he does, as does Otis Moss, who is slightly younger than me. And so the question then for me becomes what's my relationship to that past?
You know, I can completely just disown it and say I don't understand it, but I do understand it. I understand the context with which he developed his views but also can still reject unequivocally. . .
Tribune: You reject his views, you won't reject the man. Is that it?
Obama: Yeah, exactly. And this is where the connection comes in. I mean, I do think that Geraldine Ferraro, the lens through which she looks at race, is different. . . . She's grown up in different times. The Queens that she grew up in is, I'm sure, a different place than it was then. Just as Chicago is a different place than it was then.
So part of my job is to see if I can help push the country into a different place with a different set of understandings. But as I said, it doesn't excuse what the reverend said, and I'm very troubled by it. And if, as I said, if I had heard those sermons, if I had been there when those sermons were taking place, I would have raised that with him, and if I had thought that that was the message being promoted on a consistent basis within that church, I don't think I could be a consistent part of it.
this was one of the most courageous speeches given by a politician running for office... right up their with the speech kennedy gave defining the separation of church and state.
to put the traditional 'spin' on a speech that was totally true... no obfuscation, no prevarication, no triangulation is a big mistake.
obama is who we need to pull this country together, end the war and restore our reputation on the world stage.
I think Obama is toast after this. Those rants by Rev. Wright will be seen all this Fall during the election.
It's going to turn off a whole bunch of people; independent minded people who might have voted for him.
Then you have 25% of Florida Democrats who say they will not vote for the nominee this November if their delegates aren't allowed to be seated.
A tremendously important speech. And he's the only one who could have delivered it.
As a sitenote, I think Hillary's reaction was weak and I don't sincerely believe she hadn't read it, but knew she couldn't compete with the Obama gravitas.
Sorry, Pat; you're wrong. The NYT and Bill Kristol were forced to retract and apologize for promoting that allegation. The Obama Campaign and many other people documented and proved Obama was nowhere near the church on the day he suposedly "nodded" his head.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/kristol_bungles_key...
Obama seems to be caught between--ahem--Barack and a hard place.
He's either too black or not black enough.
He's all show and no substance--except when he's too much a policy wonk. His appeal is simplistic, except when he delivers a subtle, carefully-thought speech on race, when he's accused of not appealing to the knucklehead vote.
He's too associated with his pastor--unlike McCain, who gets a free pass for associating with hate monger John Hagee and kissing up to the late Jerry Falwell after previously labeling him an "agent of intolerance."
Obama is labeled as not having enough foreign policy experience, while McCain embarrasses himself on his mideast trip to the point where Lieberman has to take him aside to correct him.
The more people say against Obama, the more I like him. He probably won't win, however, because he won't pass the true test of an American Presidential candidate. In the end, Americans will choose which one they'd rather have a beer with.
I am tired of being called a racist because I question Obama's patriotism. This is not a race issue, despite the efforts of Obama to make it so, this is an issue of patriotism. It is justified try to understand how a Presidential nominee feels about the country he will represent to the world. Can we not question how a President will talk to enemies if he starts the process from the viewpoint that America is the cause of so much that is wrong with the world? The media and Obama is making this about race and they are missing the point. We are going to have a black Presidential Nominee that has won in white dominated states. We are past the race issue. What will cause people not to vote for Obama is not his skin color but rather his views about America. The real issue is this: How does Obama feel about this country? How do his words conflict with his actions? Who does he choose to befriend and why? How much will he stand up for us in the face of the world and terrorist if he won't do it with his own pastor?
These questions would be valid if the pastor wasn't a pastor but rather a close friend or if he was white. Race is not the issue, and the media is ignoring the real issue by talking only about race. In the meantime the media is causing the very strife that we need to move beyond. We can only move past the race issues by focusing on the words of the pastor and not his skin color.
EVEN IF MR. O WAS NOT IN ATTENDANCE WHEN SOME OF THOSE PARANOID STATEMENTS WERE MADE, HE WAS A MEMBER OF THAT "CHURCH" FOR OVER 20 YEARS. TO CONCLUDE THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS SAID STRAINS CREDIBILITY. MORE IMPORTANTLY IT CALLS INTO QUESTION THIS GUY'S JUDGMENT FOR STAYING WITH A LUNATIC "MENTOR", OR AT LEAST NOT HAVING A HEART TO HEART. SORRY, MR. O QUALIFIES AS JUST ANOTHER OPPORTUNISTIC RANK POLITICIAN.
This speech makes me so proud.
Wow, a truly beautiful and courageous speech, and history in the making.
I felt like I was listening to Bobby Kennedy in Indianapolis in '68.
Remarkable not only in its courage and intelligence, but also in its humanity. He refuses to throw anyone under the bus. People are flawed, America has race issues, and we need to come together.
Senator Obama has so much dignity and intelligence, he makes his attackers and cynics look very small-minded.
In some sense, Obama has in this very speech, already served his country well. This speech is what his campaign is all about -- moving past division, showing leadership, healing and unity and courage.
Bravo, for a beautiful speech that makes me PROUD to be an American!
Thank you for this wonderful speech which America needs to hear.
Obama's mother: Freespirited wanderer
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14obama.html?_r=1
The Obama I know (Chigaco Tribune)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,7185898.stor...
This speech makes me so proud.
Wow, a truly beautiful and courageous speech, and history in the making.
I felt like I was listening to Bobby Kennedy in Indianapolis in '68.
Remarkable not only in its courage and intelligence, but also in its humanity. He refuses to throw anyone under the bus. People are flawed, America has race issues, and we need to come together.
Senator Obama has so much dignity and intelligence, he makes his attackers and cynics look very small-minded.
In some sense, Obama has in this very speech, already served his country well. This speech is what his campaign is all about -- moving past division, showing leadership, healing and unity and courage.
Bravo, for a beautiful speech that makes me PROUD to be an American!
Thank you for this wonderful speech which America needs to hear.
Obama's mother: Freespirited wanderer
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14obama.html?_r=1
The Obama I know (Chigaco Tribune)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,7185898.stor...
Look, Fox News, Karl Rove, ABC News and the Clintons are all laughing there asses off. They know the vast majority of you people that support both of there campaigns are historically un-educated. Look at how they distracted all of you from the real issues of this country.
You see the key to this whole thing is they know they can play on your fears. Obama does not play by there rules. He is major threat to the way Washington has done business for the last 58 years. That’s why they killed Kennedy and his brother Bobby, they did not play by there rules. Obama is threat all right; they know if he gets elected, all he has to do is go to the people and pressure them to make changes. There scared they want to get rid of him any way they can. And all of you are eating right out of there hands, they are continually feeding you garbage and like lost sheep and you follow along.
Can you imagine no corporate lobbyist in Washington not getting special favors? A government doing what the majority of people in the United States wanted? Yeah Obama is threat to the way things are. Fox News, Karl Rove, ABC News and the Clintons are all laughing there asses off. Oh well I hope your kids are ready to get drafted and all of you are ready to pay 12.00 a gallon for gas and we may have to deal the next great depression. Dick Morris knows politics he just needs to get to the heart of the matter.
If Barack Obama's relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. was an isolated issue Tuesday's speech would have settled the issue.
The problem is that Barack Obama has surrounded himself with people who clearly harbor anti-American views such as members of the Weather Underground and unrepetant terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, or those who seem to harbor anti-American sentiments such as his ver own wife, Michelle Obama.
With so little political history, all we have to go on is Barack Obama's word and what we can find out about his preferred associates. His words are pretty but when we examine his life choices and relationships, those he has chosen to associate and work with we discover that there may be strong anti-American undercurrent present across all facets of his chosen world.
Mace just said, "Look, Fox News, Karl Rove, ABC News and the Clintons are all laughing there asses off. They know the vast majority of you people that support both of there campaigns are historically un-educated..." I tend to distrust the comments of one who speaks of persons who are "historically un-educated" when he or she doesn't know the difference between "there" and "their"!!!!
I have followed the US presidential race from England. My candid advise to the american people is to seize the opportunity that this speech provides.
The United States is on the verge of a new and unique begining. It would be heart breaking if you miss it.
Obama proved himself beyond doubt as a true leader. Touching on salient points with grit, sincerity, honesty an pragmatism.
I only wished we had his type here in the UK.
Too many in the media are trying to estimate whether Senator Obama's speech was convincing enough to separate himself from his racist church and pastor. The strategic question that should be considered is did the speech do enough to convince the remaining uncommitted super delegates to vote for him if he wins the majority of delegates. If he does poorer than expected in Pennsylvania, polls continue to show him losing ground to Mrs. Clinton, super delegates might decide she has a better chance of winning the general election.
Congressman Jack Murtha, a super delegate and close associate of Speaker Pelosi who backs Obama, just decided to back Senator Clinton. So far then, regardless of what the media thinks about the speech, it has not helped Obama.
There may also be more shoes to drop for Obama, namely his Rezco problem and dirty politics in Chicago and his relationships with other black nationalists, separatists, Communists and radicals. He is really running two races, one for delegates and one for credibility.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice, for George W. Bush twice, and have been an enthusiastic supporter of Barrack Obama -- until now. Until this speech. To be sure, hearing and seeing the crazy rantings of his minister was very disturbing. More disturbing was learning that this minister was a "spiritual advisor" to Obama. You don't make a crazy man any kind of advisor, even on matters "merely" spiritual. And why didn't Obama give us any warning that this might break? That this screaming, scolding conspiracy buff was lurking just off center stage? It might have at least lessened the shock. And, before this speech, I was more disappointed than anything else. It appeared to be nothing more than a vote-getting alliance with a kookbag who had the ability to sway needed votes Obama's way. Sad, but politics as usual. It was his speech that changed my mind about Obama. Now, in good conscience, I can't vote for him. His speech was dishonest in many respects, most notably in trying to compare the minister's comments to those of Geraldine Ferraro (who's apparently lost a few screws herself), and those those statements of our own priests, ministers, and rabbis with whom we might disagree. Excuse me? Maybe if my priest was Lyndon Larouche or David Duke. Now, I, realize, I don't know who this man is or what he believes.
Two things:
1. Please keep quiet on the subject's of "experience" and "politcal history"...this idiotic country put the lease experienced politician imaginable in G. Bush in the White House for 8 years so what the h*ll does experience matter?!
2. Enough of the "anti-American" crap. The label is such a product of this administration's fear-mongering tactics and propagation of falsehoods that it reeks of ingnorance when utterd by anyone. This is a country built on mix of many different religions, beliefs and races and this should never be overlooked or forgotten.
That was "least", not "lease"....
There, there.
All this money Progressives have spent on education haven't taught people the difference between "there" and "their"?
A guy who voted "present" on controversial issues rather than actually voting one way or another sounds even worse to me than "the way Washington has done business for the last 58 years". It sounds calculated. It sounds rather like not bothering to do business at all. Shunning responsibility, even.
Not excactly what I'm looking for in a president.
A guy whose spiritual leader feeds his congregation on racism and anti-Americanism? Yeah, really not what I'm looking for in a president.
I had been willing to give his wife the benefit of the doubt on the finally proud of my country comment, but now that I see the mentality that fostered it, perhaps not. I'm plenty ready for a black president, but not one with that poisonous rot rolling around between his ears.
Do I think Obama would actually get rid of lobbyists? Do you? Really? (Let's see, what did I do with that deed to my swamp land in Florida... I'll sell it really cheap.)
Am I afraid of Obama? Yeah. He'd be a great leap forward in our Rush to Socialism and nanny statism. So would Hillary. But you know, if I had to pick between the two, I think she's the lesser of the two evils.
My question to you is you claim Obama's words conflict his actions...How do they?...What has Sen. Obama done that conflicts with his words?...look at Sen. Obamas life's work and show me were he was for racisim or hating America? Do you feel that Sen. Clintion conflicts her words by her actions? She says she is against the War but votes for it w/o reading the NIE?... Pres Bush/ Sen MCCain say they want to capture Osama but they favor deploying most of our military where we know he is not? They say they want to capture the terroist who killed Americans on 9/11 but they have yet to ruffle one feather in Saudi Ariba. Sen. Obama has done nothing but tired to bring this country together since his campaign began, he has stated time and time again that it is time for the racial politics to end. If anything Sen Obama's actions conflict with the words of Rev. Wright. Do you want a POUS who says the right things or who does the right things?
Byron,
Sir-
Is it possible that you didn't have anything to say about the speech itself because you didn't take the time to listen to a speech delivered by your candidates opponent? Whatever your present thoughts may be on Mr. Obama, the speech that he delivered was a good one, perhaps one of the finer examples that we've seen from someone running for political office.
I challenge you to take the time that it takes to read through the transcript or watch the speech and try to seperate your personal hatred of Mr. Obama's supporters from the message that Mr. Obama tries to deliver as well as the christian challenge he delivers to love your neighbor.
I challenge you to move beyond your automatic relegation of your fellow americans to cult status based on their support of a popular presidential candidate. It presents that possiblity that you've embraced attack style politics so thouroughly that you are unable to consider the motivations that draw people to Mr. Obama in the first place which doesn't cast you in a good light and certainly does no favors to the candidate whom you personally support likely with good cause.
Respectfully and with hope for a change in the tone of online discussion.
Good afternoon,
A true historian would not immediately proclaim Obama’s speech as “one of the greatest.”.
With all due respect, I have been listening to “frank” discussions and speeches for 20 years about race in America and around the world(Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Nelson Mandela, etc…..) and this was far from one of the greatest. This was of zero substance.
Thank you,
Kristofer
Right back at O Hack,
I am sorry that you feel that all things are acceptable and nothing can possibly be legitimately labeled anti-American.
Barrack Obama was introduced to the political scene at the home of Weather Underground and unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
The Weather Underground declared and actively pursued war with the US.
The Weather Underground is responsible for over 25 bombings, and 7 deaths, 3 members blew themselves up, and 2 security officers and 2 police officers were gunned down during a Brinks robbery.
On the day planes were crashing into the WTC and the Pentagon William Ayers told The New York Times, "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough."
While I do feel that terms like anti-American are thrown around too frequently, I am not so foolish to believe that anti-American attitudes do not in fact exist.
While I do not know if Barack Obama feels the same as those with which he surrounds himself, I do feel he needs to offer a better explanation of why so many he has associated seems to harbor these anti-American sentiments.
No one is perfect. I believe Mr. Obama stated in his speech that he is imperfect. Why is it so much easier to focus on the negative things than it is to look at and acknowledge the strengths of someone. I suspect that no matter who you are, if you were in the public there would be something the media and everyone else could point to and tear apart. I think it is ridiculous. If you read "Dreams From My Father" by Barack Obama (which was written in 1995) you would clearly see who Barack Obama is. You would understand his struggles related to race, who he is, what he stands for and see that he has held the beliefs he talks about now, even back then. People seem to be discussing issues in a vacuum. Do your own research. Don't just take on what the media says. What happened to independent thinking?
Barrack Obama did little to convince me that he isn't just a slicker, smarter, better packaged version of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Those guys were trailblazers and Obama learned from them where along the way he could smacked in the head by a tree limb or fall down a ravine if he wasn't careful.
Nothing in that speech explained to my why he would spend 20 years in a Church that is grounded in anti-white, anti-American bias and, yes, hatred. Read Michael Medved's column today for more on the public persona of that church and you will see an alarming portrait of an afro-centric, anti-American institution, right to its core.
He must have found Trinity Church a hospitable place and that's fine, but it simply won't wash with the great mass of people.
Ronald Reagan had a 30 year history on the American political stage when he rose to the Presidency. If people liked him, at least they knew what they liked. Bill Clinton could barely attract 45% of the vote and was always a divisive figure who only won the White House because the conservatives were divided by the candidacy of Ross Perot. I resent the suggestion that most Americans instinctively like Senator Obama. After the Reverend Wright controversy fewer people will like him, not more. That will be fatal to a candidacy built on a cult of personality.
Barack Obama needs to go back to Chicago and get some more of that "seasoning" he likes to deride. He is clearly not ready to be President.
More than that, his associations, including Rev. Wright suggest that he would be a dangerous President.
Should Cathloic Church members be considered child molesters b/s their priest molested children?...and once they found out this happened should they be vilified b/c they went to mass with confessed to, and were baptised by this person?...No one blamed John Kerry for what catholic priests do...Why should Obama be blamed for what his priest said?...Of course he was a spiritual advisor he was his minister