Obama's speech just ended. I think it was a great speech, actually, and will probably stanch his political bleeding. It was about the best speech he could have given. Here's the full text of it. My first impressions on why the speech was effective:
1. Obama denounced Wright's views and said that people are right to have been offended by them. In other words, he didn't chastise his audience for being offended by what is patently offensive.
2. He said that there's more to Wright and Trinity UCC than those objectionable views, and anyway, these people are like family to him, and he can't disown his family any more than he can disown the black community, whose entire experience -- the good, the bad and the ugly -- are present in the body of TUCC.
3. He explained the context of Wright's views -- that Wright comes from a generation that had lived through terrible discrimination -- and said that Wright's mistake was twofold: a) to believe that the worst of America is the essence of America, and b) to believe, falsely, that American couldn't change. One of the most effective passages of the speech was this one, following his statement that the black community has to take "full responsibility" for charting its own destiny:
Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; 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. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
4. He recognized that whites have legitimate grievances and anger too, and that we can no more ignore or dismiss their viewpoints and feelings than we can do the same to blacks -- not if we want to make real progress.
5. Most importantly, he said we can allow ourselves to get distracted by people like Wright, or we can work hard to see what we have in common, that shared humanity that transcends race. Shared struggles, shared sufferings. I thought it significant that he began his speech by talking about himself and his own family, how racially complicated they are, and how his wife has in her "the blood of slaves and the blood of slaveowners" -- a symbol of our complex history, and how our destinies are bound together. Whether we like it or not, we are family, and we can't disown each other.
Now, I'm still not voting for Obama, who is a conventional liberal, and I believe the latter part of his speech was thoroughly conventional left-liberal politics, blaming right-wingers for "exploiting" racial anger when he'd just got through saying that whites have some reason for being angry. That's why I don't think he would actually govern as anything but a liberal in terms of race. We will hear lots about coming together, yadda yadda, but we'll have more affirmative action, more funding for failing schools, and more of the same. I still don't think he was right to have associated with Wright, and I still think his wife is bad news.
But that was a magnificent speech. I don't know that I've ever heard a politician give a speech about race in America that was so honest in describing the situation, being fair to both sides, and showing the way forward. It was a speech only Barack Obama could have given. I do think that he's probably put this issue to bed for most voters. There was a lot of humanity in that address, and I think folks will respond to it.
The problem is that the Wright sermons are like cluster bombs when you hear them -- and we certainly will hear them later this fall, if Obama is the nominee, thanks to the 527s. It will be hard to hear the reasoned, humane voice of Barack Obama from March come the fall, versus the crazy, rage-filled voice of his spiritual father. Bottom line: I think Obama's probably stopped his slide for now, but this issue is by no means over as a political liability for him. Still, his acknowledging the legitimacy of white anger was an important concession, and will do him a lot of good politically.
UPDATE: I should point out that these are only my first impressions, and that I'm about to dive into a couple of big projects here at the office. I'll come up for air later today, re-read the speech, and probably weigh in again. I find myself troubled still by the fact that Obama stuck with Wright's race-baiting for all these years, but I'm going to re-read Obama's speech later and think about it some more.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Actually, there is some evidence that physical height correlates with intelligence, presumably because both are linked to good childhood nutrition.
;-) So, Marian, does that mean I can bank on my being 76 inches tall?
Here's a statistics clue-by-four for the audience-at-large: demographic comparisons are valid so long as the analyst is (painfully, if I have my way) aware of the limitations of the collected data.
Just as an example: the forward hump of the bell curve for Asians is measured for the geographic United States or it fails as a valid comparison point for other demographic groups in the US. Lacking an explicit dataset for all Asians, one can only validly look at IQ data for the US, not for all Asians.
"Who said IQ justifies discrimination? I can see that you take IQ itself seriously since you're seating the East Asians at the front of the proverbial bus, along with the Ashkenazi Jews, I presume."
I'm Sefardi, so the Ashkenazi stats don't matter to me except as they pertain to my husband. And I'm just using the Bell Curve, not taking it seriously, since I don't think its authors take their own findings seriously.
The fact the you had 3 responses to your blog says enough.
What exactly are you afraid of? Are you apart of Fox News?
Your heart beats faster when faced with the truth doesn't it? Rod, open and expanded your CIRCLE, it sounds like it is lacking diversity.
It is actually funny to hear so many (white) people call Barak Obama a racist, because of what his Pastor said and how He (Obama)should have left his Church. I wonder what would happen if we had White Christians leave their Church if what their Pastor's said was racist. Did we tell Pastor Haggee congregation to leave their church when he said Katrina victims suffered because of their sins? And what about Christian leaders who blamed 9-11 on Gays and Lesbians. Did we ask them to leave their church. What about Pastor's who sinned with Gay prostitutes, what happened? I tell you what happened. Christian leaders surrounded that family with prayer, James Dobson came to the rescue and counseled the couple. When White Christians get in trouble they help each other. But don't let Jesse Jackson commit a sin, he's a hypocrit, and Rev Wright is a cult. If we would hold white christian to the same standards, the white church would be empty.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.