He gave an entertaining speech that did absolutely nothing to respond directly to his now ever growing significant problem. The simple fact is this. He attempted to play both sides of the issue, in typical politician fashion. He was successful in doing the following things. First he proved that he is just as much a liar as Hillary is. He made statements in the speech that you enjoyed oh so much that were contradicted by him a day later. Second, he failed to renounce his membership in the racist, church based on hate that he has been a member of for 20 years. I think people are fooling themselves if they do not think that is contributing to his current drop in approval ratings.
Heh. This whole thing highlights one of the killer faults about Obama that has given me reservations (I mean, apart from him being a flaming liberal with no real experience): He doesn't seem to be able to think on his feet. Oh, he's OK if he's working from a script--very inspiring. But throw him a curveball and it is almost painful to watch him come apart.
Awww Peter is neg-repping me and resorting to personal attacks again. Yet another sign that, when push comes to shove, you're all argument and no substance. Come on, Spanky. Support your argument. It shouldn't be this hard. I'm happy to let you assume I'm stupid if that's what it takes to get you to back up your assertion. So far, all you've done is deflect and re-direct.
It's not only me who thinks it's a great speech. The vast majority of political pundits agree with me. Outside of Pat Buchannan, I'm not able to find a negative review of the speech from a mainstream pundit. I don't see the stereotyping of whites in it. Perhaps you'd like to point out a line or two?
He'd be a great motivational speaker, or for that matter a preacher like his buddy Jeremiah Wright. I think he could motivate people along the lines of people like Robert Schueller and etc.
Thanks for the quote. It's nice when someone actually follows up and at least attempts to support an argument. Just so we can have a clear debate, can you tell me exactly what you find objectionable about that quote?
The simple fact that Obama talked about racial stereotyping being wrong in his infamous speech, and the next day he does exactly that. He's racially discriminating against white people by saying that ALL of us are afraid of black people. You know.....the whole 'typical white person' part.
I can see how one might take the quote that way, and, indeed I have seen a number of blogs railing against it. It seems to me, though, that those who are offended by the quote are misunderstanding its context. I don't believe Obama is implying that the typical white person is afraid of blacks. I think that he is saying that his grandmother is a typical (unremarkable) white woman and yet she distrusts people who are of a different race than her. In saying this, he was using his grandmother as an example to illustrate that many black and white Americans have been hurt by the negative impact of racism.
BS. He meant exactly what he said. In fact, that 'typical white person' comment was what he made when he tried to clarify why he originally threw his grandmother under the bus. It was racial stereotyping....which makes Obama a hypocrite.
Poor choice of words, to be sure; and I'm not saying that he shouldn't be knocked around a bit for it. Not quite as bad as the old Ross Perot "You People" speech, but he certainly could have been a bit more clear. Still, I don't think he meant what you think he meant, but I can see your point. Would it alter your perception of the comment had he said something like "When my grandmother sees a person on the street that she doesn't know, she has a typical human reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way" ?
Perhaps. Thing is, he had the chance to clarify, 3 times. When the Wright ordeal started, Obama could have said he is resigning from that church, is severing all ties with Wright, and is kicking him off the campaign. Instead he gave a speech, a great speech by all accounts, but he deflected the issue away from his 20 year relationship with a racist bigot. Then he absolutely blew it by throwing his grandmother under the bus, and when asked to clarify what he really meant(meaning he had the chance), he blew it again and basically made a racial driven comment about white people. Not only that, but he completely took away any merit his speech had by being a hypocrite and racially stereotyping white people. Now, had the comment about his grandmother not actually been a sought out clarification in regards to the ORIGINAL comment, I might give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it was a poor choice of words, and hopefully he'll clarify what he really meant. But alas, he did clarify it....and dug his hole a lot deeper.
Wow. I haven't seen contortions like Sexbot's since the Cirque de Soleil was in town. I think if Obama went on TV and said "Whitey is working to keep the black man down!" Sexbot would claim that Obama was actually talking about the baseball manager.
Unfortunately there are a couple of folks who aren't willing to accept that Obama has a problem by his association and support of Wright and the church he is a member of.
Even if that's true, it won't matter. The ironic thing about this Wright debacle is that it makes the prospect of the white dominated pool of superdelegates overturning the popular results and elevating Clinton to the nomination go from being merely a difficult proposition to an environment where doing so is essentially impossible. Even if it could somehow be demonstrated that it made her more electable (something I would never buy). So, whether the Clinton camp is responsible for initially stirring this up or not, they're going to come out the ultimate loser for it, and they may take Democrat hopes for the White House down with them. But I won't cry one salty tear over any of that.
You may be right about the Clinton's. But, at this point, I think that it is wrong to blame Obamas choices and actions on them. It is Obama that chosen to knowingly follow a spiritual leader that holds these views about whites in general. It is Obama that has chosen to support and provide tithes and offerings to a church that awards people like Farrakhan. Nobody including the Clintons have forced Obama to do those things over the past 20 years.
It looks like the speech wasn't the rousing success that some of Barry O's supporters thought that it was. He'll probably wind up getting most of the blacks and Dems back come November but the real serious problem here is the Independent voters, if most of them wind up getting driven back onto the Straight Talk Express then Barry will have a very hard time winning the Presidency.
I think that no matter how you cut it, recent revelations and events regarding BO are going to have a lasting impact on the rest of this campaign. I think that we really will not know the Democratic choice until the convention in August. I also think that recent events has given the Hillary camp just the ammunition they have been looking for a while. Apparently they looked to far back going back to his kindergarten years.
This guy is really the only one who can bring me to listen to a campaign speech - and that includes the country where I can actually vote He walks a fine line here: he doesn't speak to the voters like they were retards who can only understand soundbites, empty promises and prepared one liners. He actually talks to people as if they were adults. I wonder if that can fly after decades of dumbing it down.
I do not see anyone denying that he is good at giving speeches. That doesn't mean he can actually put into action all the colorful things he is saying either. It can fly, but his problem right now is a perception that he supports individuals who want preferential treatment given to one group of people in the US. It also a problem that I'd say at this point he hasn't been active enough in changing.
All candidates are new. I see it kinda like that, but of course I have only second hand experience: - McCain: Bush light. OK, Bush Ultra-light. But he's using the same people and sucks up to the same loony fringes. It's only a question of time until he calls evolution a 'theory ' IMHO. What the US doesn't need right now is more of the same, even tho in its state right now it's unlikely he would start yet another war. - Clinton: IMHO nobody else is as entrenched in the 'Washington System' as she is. I can see that the widespread hate for her would just deepen the cracks in American society the craziness of the past years have created. She is no Bill, that's for sure, and doesn't have the wit and charm to hide her ambition. - Obama: Pretty much a clean slate from what I have read up on him. He gives off the vibes of somebody who can unite what the past has divided and at least create a vision for the country and thus the world. When was the last time America had a vision beyond total paranoia over all those smelly furriners who want to destroy her? In the 60s. Is he a new JFK? I don't know, only time will tell. I so want to love the other half of my heritage. The past eight years almost made me hate it (I have never set foot into Bushmerica even tho my dad lives there). I want to go back and have a good feeling about it - and a President Obama is, in my opinion, the best choice for just that.
One of the problems I see McCain having is his attempts to suck up to his opponents. It also builds dis-trust in believing what he claims. He has been claiming to be a Reagan conservative which is completely false and simply not true. He claims that he supports tax cuts yet he has voted no on every tax cut that has been voted on by Congress over the past seven years. So basically at this point he has some significant credibility issues. I think that truly sums up Hillary's most significant problems especially when she is running for national office as she is now. Obama truly is an unknown at this point. He has barely a single term as a US Senator and then his record in the Illinois State Legislature. Unlike his competitors in the current race, he hasn't traveled abroad much at all. Both Clinton and McCain have made visits to Iraq and Afghanistan visiting the troops and things like that. Obama for whatever reason hasn't bothered to do that. I think that will be one of the things he does have to contend with. People are going to be asking how he can claim to know how to deal with either of those situations without any first hand knowledge of the happenings out there. It isn't as if either McCain or Clinton saw much out there, but there is a perception that they have taken the time to go out there and as such have a better frame of reference for the situations out there. You might be right. But, at this point, in my opinion, he is getting to be too much of an unknown. I really do not like the taste I've received from the recent news about his involvement with Wright. I personally up until that news, preferred him over Hillary. I think that out of the two of them he has a much better chance of being unite people in the country. But, again, that feeling has changed. I do not see some of these recent events being one of a uniter.
Heh. I just found myself a benchmark to measure Obama's handling of this against: David Duke. Now there are a couple places the comparison breaks down: Of course we've all known, thanks to the media, for years that David Duke was a key leader in the KKK. And of course McCain hasn't really ever had anything to do with Duke. But can you imagine if the role was reversed? Can you imagine if, for the last 20 years, David Duke had been John McCain's spiritual advisor and mentor? Can you imagine if it just came to light that Duke was involved in a white supremacist organization? What do you think the reaction would be if McCain let him go from his staff--but then made a 20 minute speech about what a great guy Duke was? What do you think the press would say? What do you think Obama would say?
I can certainly imagine. I also doubt that those who are supporting Obama as they do now would be honest enough to admit the double standard they would employ in the situation you have presented.
