Man, That Fella Can Talk

[Sir_Galahad]

I tell ya, if he weren't such a liberal Obama would have my vote. I like the way he talks but not how his past actions dictate what his future actions would be.

[silverscreenselect]

He admits he lied about now knowing about Wright's speeches before. He still refuses to renounce the man because it's like renouncing the black community and the guy's done a lot of good things (and Mussolini made the trains run on time). He equates the statements of Geraldine Ferraro, a peripheral figure in the Clinton campaign who rather abruptly left the campaign as soon as her remarks became known, with those of a man whom he held out to the world for twenty years as his inspiration and spiritual mentor.

I don't doubt the mainstream media types will claim this puts the whole Wright matter behind him. They were willing to give him a pass the last three times he tried to put the Wright matter behind him.

The reason this issue is still a problem is because it rubs most people the wrong way. Saying "I can no more disown this man than I can disown the black community" is an attempt to in some way equate Wright with whatever legitimate grievances the black community has.

This speech will probably solidify his support in the black community for standing up to white criticism, and it will play well to white liberal guilt which he has used over and over again in the primary. But it won't wash with the general public and it doesn't say much for his judgment.

[nitrah55]

I always felt the same way about Reagan. In fact, in my lifetime, Reagan is the only guy I ever thought was running for President because he wanted to help the country, not because he wanted to be President.

And it seems to me the rap against Obama is the same one that people used against Reagan- not big on specifics, but more of a vision guy.

Whether you agree with them or not, the vision guys tend to get what they want to get done in the White House.

[Rexer25]

I tell ya, if he weren't such a liberal Obama would have my vote. I like the way he talks but not how his past actions dictate what his future actions would be.

I don't understand why that bothers you so much. Romney's past actions were 180 degree from what he proposed in the campaign, and you supported him.

[TheCalvinator24]

The big problem with that is that I don't want Obama to get done what he wants to get done.

[gsabc]

I always felt the same way about Reagan. In fact, in my lifetime, Reagan is the only guy I ever thought was running for President because he wanted to help the country, not because he wanted to be President.

And it seems to me the rap against Obama is the same one that people used against Reagan- not big on specifics, but more of a vision guy.

Whether you agree with them or not, the vision guys tend to get what they want to get done in the White House.

Obama has not struck me as a Reagan type. I didn't and don't like Reagan's policies. However, I admired him as a superb manager and CEO of the country. He knew his weaknesses, and hired or appointed experts in those areas to advise him. It was his guidance, vision if you will, and his ultimate decision, but it was his ability to bring in the best possible data with which to make those decisions that won my admiration. I'm not seeing that with Obama yet.

[nitrah55]

I'm not seeing that with Obama yet.

One argument in favor of having these God-awful interminable election campaigns is to allow people a long look at how the candidates handle running a massive enterprise.

Right now, if I had to rank the candidates solely on how well they run their campaigns, I'd have to go:

1. McCain (dead in the water last summer, got back to basics, voila)
2. Obama (taking as much as the Clinton's can dish out)
3. Clinton (a poor third, she should have had this locked up a month ago, and when she did not, she had no Plan B).

[Sir_Galahad]

I tell ya, if he weren't such a liberal Obama would have my vote. I like the way he talks but not how his past actions dictate what his future actions would be.

I don't understand why that bothers you so much. Romney's past actions were 180 degree from what he proposed in the campaign, and you supported him.

Some yes, some no. The actions I thought were important to me overshadowed the actions I felt were not as important. His success as a businessman and the apparent ability to run the country as a business were one of the most important factors to me. I feel that if this country were run more like a business (by a competent CEO) a lot of the other problems within would eventually iron out as a result. Continuing to tax and spend, IMO, is not the way out nor is continuing to throw more money at bad situations. Continuing to throw money at bad situations has never proved to cure the problem. Our current school situation is just such an example. I felt Romney was most qualified in this respect to run the country.

I still feel the remaining three candidates are of the tax and spend variety.

[Jeemie]

The big problem with that is that I don't want Obama to get done what he wants to get done.

I was just about to say the same thing.

He's plenty specific about what he wants to get done if you go looking for it.

[15QuestionsAway]

...He still refuses to renounce the man because it's like renouncing the black community...

This is bollocks. Obama refuses to renounce Wright because he has a 26 year relationship with him. He has renounced once again in his speech today Wright's most inflammatory statements.

Frankly, I'm impressed with Obama for not taking the easy way out and throwing Wright under the bus. Similarly, I read the transcripts of Obama and his 92 minute interview with the Chicago Tribune on Saturday. Again, he laid out the situation with Tony Rezko clearly and without throwing him under the bus.

I don't doubt the mainstream media types will claim this puts the whole Wright matter behind him. They were willing to give him a pass the last three times he tried to put the Wright matter behind him.

You've managed to combine a non sequitur and a falsehood in one sentence. The media's hardly giving Obama a pass on Wright. The video has been shown perpetually. And if Obama's tried to "put the Wright matter behind him" three times, it's hardly been put behind him, has it?

I understand where the conservatives are coming from - they don't like what Obama stands for. Fair enough. However, I really don't understand the emnity that hardcore Clinton supporters like yourself have for him.

[TheCalvinator24]

I just read the transcript. It's a good speech, and it may do the intended job (unlike Romney's "Mormon" speech).

As someone with two degrees in Speech Communication, my take on Obama's oratorical skills may be somewhat different than the conventional wisdom. When I first heard him, I was impressed with him as a speaker, but the more I have listened to him, the less I like him as a speaker. This has nothing to do with his political views and positions because I have disagreed with those from the beginning.

His speaking style gets tiresome after a few hearings.

At least to me. YMMV.

[nitrah55]

Part of the transcript from Sean hannity's interview with McCain:

HANNITY: Sen. Clinton claims that Barack Obama has not had the scrutiny that other candidates have had in this campaign.

There is a big emerging controversy about his pastor of 20 years, a man who went on a trip with Louis Farrakhan to Tripoli, a guy that has — his church has given a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan. We now have some of his sermons. He used "g-d America," "the U.S. of KKK of A." "The chickens have come home to roost," he said the Sunday after the attack on this country on 9/11.

He has called him — Barack has said of his pastor, his trusted adviser, he's proud of his pastor. He married him and his wife. He's baptized his kids.

Does that sound like a problem for you?

MCCAIN: I think that when people support you, it doesn't mean that you support everything they say. Obviously, those words and those statements are statements that none of us would associate ourselves with, and I don't believe that Sen. Obama would support any of those, as well.

HANNITY: He's been — but he's been going to the church for 20 years. His pastor — the church gave a lifetime achievement award to one of the biggest racists and anti-Semites in the country, Louis Farrakhan. Would you go to a church that — where your pastor supported Louis Farrakhan?

MCCAIN: Obviously, that would not be my choice. But I do know Sen. Obama. He does not share those views.

And we get sometimes — I don't — a lot of those statements I've just heard for the first time that you mentioned. But I know that, for example, I've had endorsements of some people that I didn't share their views...

HANNITY: Pastor Hagee recently, yes.

MCCAIN: ... but they endorsed mine. And so I think we've got to be very careful about that part.

McCain has just taken Wright off the board, for purposes of the general election.

If it's McCain v. Obama, we will have two class acts running for president. I suppose it's too much to hope they'd campaign together, like Lincoln and Douglas- and like Kennedy and Goldwater thought they would.

[wbtravis007]

15QA said:

I understand where the conservatives are coming from - they don't like what Obama stands for. Fair enough. However, I really don't understand the emnity that hardcore Clinton supporters like yourself have for him.

Rec!

I understand the frustration, but the degree of poutiness is astonishing.

[SportsFan68]

It's been an astonishing day -- people have been talking more about Obama's speech than about Bear Stearns.

The grocery shift supervisor was talking about it with a checker -- they were talking about it at bridge -- they were talking about it in the halls at work.

Somebody called him a force of nature. I have to agree.

[silverscreenselect]

MCCAIN: And we get sometimes — I don't — a lot of those statements I've just heard for the first time that you mentioned. But I know that, for example, I've had endorsements of some people that I didn't share their views...

HANNITY: Pastor Hagee recently, yes.

MCCAIN: ... but they endorsed mine. And so I think we've got to be very careful about that part.

McCain has just taken Wright off the board, for purposes of the general election.

If it's McCain v. Obama, we will have two class acts running for president. I suppose it's too much to hope they'd campaign together, like Lincoln and Douglas- and like Kennedy and Goldwater thought they would.

Obama is no class act. He is a slick charlatan who is still using the race card to his advantage. John McCain for his part is probably very glad that he can use Obama's speech as an out of sorts for some of the own skeletons in his closet.

Obama has never wanted to "move past race." From day one he has wanted to use race to his advantage every single chance he has, and with the fawning adulation of the press, he has gotten a pass on it.

He admitted today that he lied all last week when he vehemently denied knowing anything about Wright's ugliness in his speeches. Yet not one media "analyst" called him out on his lies.

The funniest (in a very sad way) line in his speech today was when he said about Wright:And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted.


So the neglect in black communities is one reason Rev. Wright grew up to become the bitter person he was. So what does Obama do? He helps pave the way for his slumlord pal Rezko to take city money to build some more of those cockroach infested dumps in black neighborhoods. And does he disassociate himself from Rezko who has helped to cause those horrible conditions that Obama hates so much that caused his buddy Rev. Wright to go off the deep end? No, of course not, he lets Rezko help sponsor his Senate campaign and buy his house for him.

Obama has no convictions, no morals, no principles, no goals other than the election of Obama. Liberals who feel he will usher in some sort of second coming of the JFK era should beware because he rarely says anything concrete about what he intends to do and when he does that changes from day to day and audience to audience.

The entire speech today, which he may have gotten away from, was essentially directed to white people: "Rev. Wright and my grandma have done some nasty things and if you want to show they are wrong, vote for me. If you don't you are an ignorant racist yahoo yourself."

Obama probably does wish he didn't have to give this speech today, but although the mainstream media was willing to give him a pass on Wright over the weekend, too many others weren't willing to let him get by. So he essentially changes his theme, knowing full well he won't get called out on his lies by his pals like Donna Brazile and Chris Matthews.

For the record, I don't think Obama shares Wright's views. I doubt he has any real deep convictions (his effort to wrap the stage with every American flag he could was another comical bit of pandering), but he realized at some point that associating with Wright was a good way to build his "street cred" in the black community, and, as with many things in his life, he thought that any problems with Wright could just be ignored or B.S.ed through as he has with Rezko and everyone else.

Obama has had many, many opportunities over twenty years to express disagreement with Wright and never uttered word one until last week. Essentially, his newfound adoration for our country and disgust with Wright's comments arose this week.

Plus, he has two children whom he brought to church with him. Now, I wonder if when Wright started spewing about how America created the AIDS virus whether he took them aside and said, "that's just talk kids, daddy doesn't really believe that and you shouldn't either."

People on this bored have asked why I'm upset about Obama. I feel he is leading the Democrats down a primrose path and they are buying into his blatant lies to their regret a few months from now. What most upsets me is that a lot of people who share my political views are willing to adopt an "end justifies the means" approach with Obama.

Many many politicians would just love, when they've gotten their hands caught in the cookie jar, to be able to tell the press, that we all need to move past this (it's not something that reflects on my character and integrity, it's just racism that I'm opposed to) and look at the real issues. Obama seems to have gotten away with it for now.

One thing this has done has been to cement the right and a lot of independents and Hillary supporters against him. Many Republicans were not vehemently against Obama originally the way they were against Hillary, but that's changing. And I also don't believe that this is the last "unfortunate" situation that Obama is going to have to try to talk his way out of this election. I would think that even if the public buys into this charade, their willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt is approaching its end and the next skeleton in his closet won't be as easy to "hoodwink and bamboozle" the public with.

[Jeemie]

15QA said:

I understand where the conservatives are coming from - they don't like what Obama stands for. Fair enough. However, I really don't understand the emnity that hardcore Clinton supporters like yourself have for him.

Rec!

I understand the frustration, but the degree of poutiness is astonishing.

Why should it be "astonishing?"

This speech is being lauded as having broken new ground in race relations, when it was nothing more than the same tired old "you white guys just do not understand why black anger is justified".

It was neither groundbreaking nor illuminating of where we have to go forward in the future.

I guess Obama just makes tired rhetoric "sound better" than others.

[Bob Juch]

MCCAIN: And we get sometimes — I don't — a lot of those statements I've just heard for the first time that you mentioned. But I know that, for example, I've had endorsements of some people that I didn't share their views...

HANNITY: Pastor Hagee recently, yes.

MCCAIN: ... but they endorsed mine. And so I think we've got to be very careful about that part.

McCain has just taken Wright off the board, for purposes of the general election.

If it's McCain v. Obama, we will have two class acts running for president. I suppose it's too much to hope they'd campaign together, like Lincoln and Douglas- and like Kennedy and Goldwater thought they would.

Obama is no class act. He is a slick charlatan who is still using the race card to his advantage. John McCain for his part is probably very glad that he can use Obama's speech as an out of sorts for some of the own skeletons in his closet.

Obama has never wanted to "move past race." From day one he has wanted to use race to his advantage every single chance he has, and with the fawning adulation of the press, he has gotten a pass on it.

He admitted today that he lied all last week when he vehemently denied knowing anything about Wright's ugliness in his speeches. Yet not one media "analyst" called him out on his lies.

The funniest (in a very sad way) line in his speech today was when he said about Wright:And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted.


So the neglect in black communities is one reason Rev. Wright grew up to become the bitter person he was. So what does Obama do? He helps pave the way for his slumlord pal Rezko to take city money to build some more of those cockroach infested dumps in black neighborhoods. And does he disassociate himself from Rezko who has helped to cause those horrible conditions that Obama hates so much that caused his buddy Rev. Wright to go off the deep end? No, of course not, he lets Rezko help sponsor his Senate campaign and buy his house for him.

Obama has no convictions, no morals, no principles, no goals other than the election of Obama. Liberals who feel he will usher in some sort of second coming of the JFK era should beware because he rarely says anything concrete about what he intends to do and when he does that changes from day to day and audience to audience.

The entire speech today, which he may have gotten away from, was essentially directed to white people: "Rev. Wright and my grandma have done some nasty things and if you want to show they are wrong, vote for me. If you don't you are an ignorant racist yahoo yourself."

Obama probably does wish he didn't have to give this speech today, but although the mainstream media was willing to give him a pass on Wright over the weekend, too many others weren't willing to let him get by. So he essentially changes his theme, knowing full well he won't get called out on his lies by his pals like Donna Brazile and Chris Matthews.

For the record, I don't think Obama shares Wright's views. I doubt he has any real deep convictions (his effort to wrap the stage with every American flag he could was another comical bit of pandering), but he realized at some point that associating with Wright was a good way to build his "street cred" in the black community, and, as with many things in his life, he thought that any problems with Wright could just be ignored or B.S.ed through as he has with Rezko and everyone else.

Obama has had many, many opportunities over twenty years to express disagreement with Wright and never uttered word one until last week. Essentially, his newfound adoration for our country and disgust with Wright's comments arose this week.

Plus, he has two children whom he brought to church with him. Now, I wonder if when Wright started spewing about how America created the AIDS virus whether he took them aside and said, "that's just talk kids, daddy doesn't really believe that and you shouldn't either."

People on this bored have asked why I'm upset about Obama. I feel he is leading the Democrats down a primrose path and they are buying into his blatant lies to their regret a few months from now. What most upsets me is that a lot of people who share my political views are willing to adopt an "end justifies the means" approach with Obama.

Many many politicians would just love, when they've gotten their hands caught in the cookie jar, to be able to tell the press, that we all need to move past this (it's not something that reflects on my character and integrity, it's just racism that I'm opposed to) and look at the real issues. Obama seems to have gotten away with it for now.

One thing this has done has been to cement the right and a lot of independents and Hillary supporters against him. Many Republicans were not vehemently against Obama originally the way they were against Hillary, but that's changing. And I also don't believe that this is the last "unfortunate" situation that Obama is going to have to try to talk his way out of this election. I would think that even if the public buys into this charade, their willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt is approaching its end and the next skeleton in his closet won't be as easy to "hoodwink and bamboozle" the public with.

That's the most eloquent racist rant I've ever seen.

[mrkelley23]

Jeemie. Note that it was not anything directly about Obama that was astonishing, but the reaction of Clinton supporters that travis found that way. The venom in SSS's most recent posts seems to me to have surpassed anything he's posted about Bush in the last 8 years. Which amazes me.

I"m still undecided between all three candidates. I think all three of them represent a big change from the policies of Bush/Cheney, which can only be a good thing for our country.

I watched Obama's speech ( on replay) yesterday, and a clip of an interview on Nightline (since I already knew I was out of school), and I thought he did a relatively courageous thing, by not abandoning the crazy Reverend. He could have, and it would have been an easy way out. Other national candidates have done that recently (think Hillary and Norman Hsu, the Bush administration and Ahmed Chalabi, etc.) but Obama decided to try to walk the fine line and stand by the man while disavowing the inflammatory comments. I'm not sure it will work,, and I"m not sure if I like it, but I can at least admire the sentiment.

[Jeemie]

That's the most eloquent racist rant I've ever seen.

Not at all.

I disagree with SSS on a lot of things politically, but there was nothing AT ALL racist in his "rant".

[Jeemie]

Jeemie. Note that it was not anything directly about Obama that was astonishing, but the reaction of Clinton supporters that travis found that way. The venom in SSS's most recent posts seems to me to have surpassed anything he's posted about Bush in the last 8 years. Which amazes me.

I"m still undecided between all three candidates. I think all three of them represent a big change from the policies of Bush/Cheney, which can only be a good thing for our country.

I watched Obama's speech ( on replay) yesterday, and a clip of an interview on Nightline (since I already knew I was out of school), and I thought he did a relatively courageous thing, by not abandoning the crazy Reverend. He could have, and it would have been an easy way out. Other national candidates have done that recently (think Hillary and Norman Hsu, the Bush administration and Ahmed Chalabi, etc.) but Obama decided to try to walk the fine line and stand by the man while disavowing the inflammatory comments. I'm not sure it will work,, and I"m not sure if I like it, but I can at least admire the sentiment.

I understand SSS's venom perfectly.

I found it not at all "courageous" of Obama to stand by Wright.

How "courageous" is it to fall back on the empty rhetoric of the past- the "Oh- you white guys just don't understand why blacks are angry" mantra?

We're not children Mr. Obama- we understand PERFECTLY why many blacks are angry, and why such anger is both understandable and justifiable.

The problem is- this realization gets us NOWHERE- it's the classic line "Well- my life stinks because my father abused me" line to a psychiatrist. Fine, the abuse happened. Now what?

Blacks' anger is justified and understandable- now what?

What's past is past- on our part, we have to make sure we NEVER do bad things to blacks ever again- or ANY race, group, etc.

On the blacks' part, they simply HAVE to let go of the anger- it serves no purpose to dwell on it.

[mrkelley23]

Now2 I"m not understanding you, Jeemie. Because what you say is EXACTLY what I heard from Obama yesterday. That's why he drew the parallel to his grandmother. She said some things that would be taken as incredibly racist today, but while disagreeing with them, recognized that she came from a different era, and loved her anyway.

Again, I'm not necessarily defending Obama's statements and actions here. But you and others here seem to be taking his words as exactly the opposite of what I did.

Someone else has compared Obama's communication skills as equal to Reagan's, so maybe that's it. Maybe he's just got me snowed the way Reagan used to snow people.

[TheConfessor]

How "courageous" is it to fall back on the empty rhetoric of the past- the "Oh- you white guys just don't understand why blacks are angry" mantra?

Did you actually watch the speech, or just hear the excerpts that Rush Limbaugh played? I watched most of it, including the other part, i.e., "Oh you black guys just don't understand why whites are angry." He acknowledged that blacks and whites both have valid concerns that need to be recognized in order for us to move beyond them and make progress together. At least that's what I heard. Everyone tends to hear what they want to hear.

[Jeemie]

How "courageous" is it to fall back on the empty rhetoric of the past- the "Oh- you white guys just don't understand why blacks are angry" mantra?

Did you actually watch the speech, or just hear the excerpts that Rush Limbaugh played? I watched most of it, including the other part, i.e., "Oh you black guys just don't understand why whites are angry." He acknowledged that blacks and whites both have valid concerns that need to be recognized in order for us to move beyond them and make progress together. At least that's what I heard. Everyone tends to hear what they want to hear.

I heard the speech just fine- I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh anymore. Haven't for years.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

From the net, a summary of the speech

Obama - I smoked Pastor Wright's sermons, but I didn't inhale them."

[wbtravis007]

Man.

I think "someone" (sorry Marley) has taken something, or needs to.