March 18, 2008

So, what was the bottom line of Obama's speech?

Lots of eloquent words, but what was the action?

No, he's not ending his membership in Trinity church.

And here's the policy implications he takes from the controversy:

"In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."

In other words, let's just do everything that LBJ did, only more so.

Am I missing something in his speech? Or is that it?

P.S. Man Sized Target has some excellent reflections upon Obama, if I do say so myself.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

59 comments:

tom said...

I thought it was a simple and direct appeal: black people shouldn't be mad at poor white people, and poor white people shouldn't be mad at black people; instead they should both get mad as those damn rich people.

In short: let's move past race hate, and move toward class hate!

Truth said...

"Am I missing something in his speech? Or is that it?"

Well, the excerpt you picked reads at less than a minute and the speech lasted almost a half-hour. You figure it out.

Truth said...

"Am I missing something in his speech? Or is that it?"

Well, the excerpt you picked reads at less than a minute and the speech lasted almost a half-hour. You figure it out.

Roger Chaillet said...

No, you missed nothing, Steve.

He's a master salesman. Folks in sales use "I," "we," and "you" interchangeably depending on what a salesman is trying to accomplish, and where one is in the sales process, for example, identifying the need, qualifying, closing the sale, etc.

He wants Whitey to give him and other blacks money, and for Whitey to acknowledge the error of his ways.

Duh!

Anonymous said...

If Obama actually gets the nomination and gets elected, it'll be the biggest snow job in history. Geraldine Ferraro was right--if this guy were white, he'd be Dennis Kucinich, at best.

Anonymous said...

Whites are going to read that as: give me all your tax dollars (which I'm going to jack up even more) and we won't mug you so much.

A non-starter. A conservative Black candidate who explicitly told Black agitators to drink a cold glass of STFU and preached personal responsibility ala Cosby with a tough on crime persona could quite possibly clean up among white men.

Instead Hanson, Derbyshire, and Steyn are all right. This guy Obama is so disconnected from average people, and particularly average white people, that he has no clue. He used the words "Hegelian discourse" or some such garbage. Leaving most people thinking "Huh? Some kind of Communist radical?"

This guy will drag down the Blue Dogs. And I'm starting to think most of the safe Dems want that. If you're Pelosi wouldn't you want a smaller party where you don't have to compromise than actually winning?

But ... most white guys hear/see the speech and figure he's going to ask for more money for Black people to be on welfare and not rob them so much. A non-starter, particularly NOW. In a Recession/Depression.

mnuez said...

You know it totally sucks to belong to a Party of One. If only I had some intelligent allies out there with whom I could get together like you guys do (or in larger crowds like standard-issue Righties and Lefties do) I'd feel so much less alone. Alas however, all of my intellectual allies (of whom there used to be legion) are dead. Orwell, Hecht, Gandhi, Einstein, Wells and practically every major intellectual of 3/4 of a century ago saw things similarly to how I currently view them but their fleshy hosts lie rotting away in some forgotten field and I stand here alone (with none but society's morons as company) as I speak (what I regard as) some obvious truths to which none will listen.

I'm about half-way through Obama's speech (which I highly recommend listening to for yourself http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3550385995624519622&q=obama+duration%3Along&total=312&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=2 ) and I hear him uttering the nonsense about how today's Blacks suffer poverty and yadda yadda yadda because (and only because of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. What bullshit! Does The Obamessiah know nothing about IQ and the Wealth of Individuals? Does he not recognize that Capitalism is a discriminating uncle? Is it not insanely obvious that slavery itself can be largely accounted for in the genetic laboratory as it maps its manifestations on the pages of human history?

Cut-throat capitalism is the enemy. And not just of "the black community's" but of many of YOU DEAR READERS yourselves (which is not a cue for the more financially successful to pipe in with "not me!"s - if "not you!" then you're obviously not a member of the group of folk I'm referring to here, ey?). Cut-throat capitalism is Darwinism and Nazism at its best (though by rules that, for the most part, in a funny irony benefit Jews more than anyone else). It's the Cut-Throat Capitalism, Stupid.

But why keep shouting on at people without ears? Power is universally respected, admired and intellectually considered and being as I happen to currently have less power than do the stupidest of political philosophies, I realize that my words have the force of a rat's fart. I write then, perchance, for posterity? Hah! Vain fantasies. Writing - no matter how brilliant and cutting - within the threads of bygone blogs is like writing in water. Have a look: http://mangans.blogspot.com/2008/03/global-warming-regime-freedoms-greatest.html#c1682813075586696836

mnuez

Desmond Jones said...

What's up with Charles Murray?

Born Again Democrat said...

I agree that that was the weakest part of his speech. More money for education, in particular, will not solve the problem. One idea I have proposed is web cameras in every classroom; that way you could document serious student mis-behavior much more effectively, which is the key to re-establishing class room discipline; and you could also document incompetent teaching where it exists, which is the other major problem dragging down our schools, from what I have been able to tell.

Ralph Phelan said...

Ambiguity remains:

[1] I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.

but

[2] In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people

I still don't know whether the proposition that the US government created AIDS yo kill off black people is covered by 1 or 2.

Someone should ask Obama flat-out whether he believes it. He'll be stuck either looking like a nut to white people or a sellout to his black base.

Between that and his grandmother, Obama's got some hard questions waiting out there.

I remember how Kerry retreated into a cave and didn't take a single hostile question between when the Swifties started running their ads and the actual election.

That's gotta be even harder to pull off when you have to start hiding before the primaries are over.

Anonymous said...

It looks like Obama is still using the same arguments, ideas and even “life events” he used for his first book, 13 years ago.

In the end I’m tempted to describe Obama by using that old Gertrude Stein line about Oakland: there is no there there.

Reg C├Žsar said...

Mr Phelan said:
I still don't know whether the proposition that the US government created AIDS to kill off black people is covered by 1 or 2.

Someone should ask Obama flat-out whether he believes it.


If the idea that the executive branch created a way to kill 250,000 black children is insane, how much more so is the idea that the judiciary branch created a way to kill 12,000,000 black children? The second notion is 50 times as extreme. And it is reality, my friends.

As tricky and nutty as Obama is, let's not forget, or interfere with, the great service he is doing for his country: retiring the Clintons. His meltdown can wait.

Garland said...

Charles Murray:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjI3MWMyOGFkNmQ2MGFjNzRhYzYwMGVhZWJhMjcyOGM=

robert said...

One odd feature of this controversy that I haven't seen mentioned is that Jeremiah Wright is even whiter looking than Obama. I come away feeling compassion for Obama's apparent identity crisis, and wondering whether Wright appealed to him as an older sufferer. Wright's parents both identified as African-American, however.

headache said...

"In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed."

Well, wadya know: more AA! This could all be believable if it were the first time Europeans made contact with blacks. But the opposite has been proven again and again. How many more countries must be trashed before the liberals will let off?

Anonymous said...

ManSizedTarget obviously worships corprations and multimillionaires like his fellow paleoconsrvatives do.
The corporations and the very wealthy are fleecing ordinary Americans.

I am not a Barack Obama supporter. But I do believe his economic progressivism will appeal to many ordinary White Americans.

Has Marcus Epstien repudiated reactionary economics.

On economic issues, Libertarians and Paleoconservatives are completely out of touch with ordinary Americans.

Ralph Phelan said...

web cameras in every classroom; that way you could document serious student mis-behavior much more effectively, which is the key to re-establishing class room discipline; and you could also document incompetent teaching where it exists

The problem is not identifying these things when they occur, it's the lack of will to do anything about them.

Time was "serious student misbehavior" could result in a paddling or being sent to "reform school." Now the teacher has no recourse, and that's the real problem.

Svigor said...

One idea I have proposed is web cameras in every classroom

This is a great idea, but there are at least two main reasons why it wouldn't work:

you could document serious student mis-behavior much more effectively

Which would bring down the boom of "disparate impact" like never before, bring out the army of sociologists for studies about "racist white assumptions" vis-a-vis standing in the aisles bumping and grinding, loud talking over the teacher, and the rest of the panoply of antisocial black behavior; i.e., lots of crapola about how it isn't really antisocial or disruptive.

And:
you could also document incompetent teaching

Yeah, the NEA & co. are going to sit still for that one, really! Here you just get more "disparate impact," plus lots of plain ole cronyism/unionism.

Most likely, the NEA & co. would neuter the plan by putting their foxes (commissars) in charge of the henhouse.

Anonymous said...

The blogs are having a field day with this speech. Here's a line by line rebuttal.
http://benhawken.blogspot.com/2008/03/obamas-big-speech.html

William said...

What's up with Charles Murray?

Yeah, I didn't get that either. The best I can figure is that Obama's race speech is a helluva lot more coherent than any race speech that would've been given by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Louis Farrakhan (though in ways a lot less honest). I wish/hope Murray elaborates on what he means when he calls it "brilliant."

As tricky and nutty as Obama is, let's not forget, or interfere with, the great service he is doing for his country: retiring the Clintons. His meltdown can wait.

Obama may have saved himself the Democratic nomination only to get crushed in the general. OTOH, he'll still lose Pennsylvania and probably West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana.

What'll be interesting is to see how he does in North Carolina, with a large black population, and in Oregon, a typical bobo Obama state. If Obama fails to win typical Obama states his superdelegates would probably abandon him for Hillary.

And the superdelegates should abandon him. If their only job is to "validate" the popular vote then why have superdelegates anyway?

The best thing you can say about Hillary is that she's winning the votes now (white women, labor) that Democrats need in the general. Obama's getting the votes Democrats always get anyway - blacks and city-dwelling whites.

More money for education, in particular, will not solve the problem.

DC currently spends nearly $15,000 per student on education. New York and New Jersey both spend around $13,000. At the height of the Judge Russell Clark dictatorship, the schools of KC-MO spent around $12,000 per student. None seem to do much good for black graduation rates.

How many black kids are currently in schools across the nation? Perhaps 8 million or so? If Obama raised annual per pupil spending just for black kids by $5,000 a year (how would he get away with that? could he exclude Hispanics?) it'd cost taxpayers $40 billion a year. That's not counting the cost of building all those "ladders of opportunity" plus whatever else he intends to do.

That's at a time of recession, and declining US competitiveness. The sad thing is that if the US really wanted to increase its global competitiveness we'd spend less time and money focusing on the kids at the very bottom, who either can't or don't want to learn, and spend more on the kids in the middle, who would benefit more from the extra help.

In fact one of the best ways to help kids in the middle would actually save money - kick out all those kids at the bottom who are a distraction in the classroom and make them get jobs or go into Voc Ed.

Anonymous said...

"In other words, let's just do everything that LBJ did, only more so."

That's what I've been saying about this clown from Day One. HE'S going to make the Great Society work after forty years of failure? How?

No answer.

Anonymous said...

Enjoyed your article on Obama.

Here's the one aspect of the story that most seem to be missing.


Obama is an educated man. He understands the core tenants of Black Liberation Theology and HAS CHOSEN to practice it for over 21 YEARS as his personal faith (as has his wife) and adopt it for his children.

The Larger story centers on the 'faith' and what the core tenets of that faith are, not merely one of MANY messengers----Reverend Wright.

The "black liberation" theologians James Cone and Dwight Hopkins pioneered the religion that Obama's church espouses, and which Rev. Wright both adheres to and preaches.

Some of the main points of this 'Cult Theology':


Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]



In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:

In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors ... Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone].



1. See William R Jones, "Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology", in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).

There are some serious issues to be addressed about WHY Obama chose to join this cult---the main message of which appears to be hatred. He's in it now, and has been immersed in this core doctrine for over 20 years.

splitting headache said...

"It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams"

Well now, isn't that exactly the problem? In South Africa, the fulfilment of black aspirations (providing … ladders of opportunity) has caused about 40-50% of the white work force to lose their jobs.

I guess that in the US AA is causing substantial harm so a sizable proportion of lower to middle class whites, and certainly cutting off quite a few talented whites from good varsities and ultimately meaningful careers.

So far AA has been a zero-sum game with whites paying the tab. And under Obama, we are just going to get MUCH MORE of this disaster.

Lucius Vorenus said...

Anonymous: Whites are going to read that as: give me all your tax dollars (which I'm going to jack up even more) and we won't mug you so much... But ... most white guys hear/see the speech and figure he's going to ask for more money for Black people to be on welfare and not rob them so much. A non-starter, particularly NOW. In a Recession/Depression.

My three main impressions at the time [listening to the excerpts on Laura Ingraham's show] were:

1) Logically, much of the speech didn't make any sense.

2) Throwing Granny under the bus was pretty appalling [especially seeing as how she was the only adult who ever showed any sense of responsibility to him throughout his entire childhood and into his formative years].

3) There was, as you indicate, an implicit threat of extortion in his remarks, which could be interpreted rather straightforwardly as "Pay up, Whitey, or else me and the homeboys will burn your store to the ground."

William said...

Stanley Kurtz at NRO was quoting a line from a Newsweek article:

Last Friday, in an effort to gauge just how "out there" Wright’s sermons are in the context of the African-American church tradition, NEWSWEEK phoned at least two dozen of the country’s most prominent and thoughtful African-American scholars and pastors, representing a wide range of denominations and points of view. Not one person would say that Wright had crossed any kind of significant line.

If this is what the most prominent and intelligent blacks believe is acceptable, what does that say about any chance for real race "reconciliation" in the furture. It is plainly impossible to negotiate with a psychotic, or to ever satisfy his demands.

In so many ways, as to what it says about Obama, and what it says about the larger black community, this story is far more significant than just a presidential candidate embracing a racist preacher.

Cabrolet said...

The "bottom line" was the entire speech revealed the real Obama and that's not good. He blew it...no matter what the spinners say. What a damn liar.

He compares his own grandmother to that psychotic Reverend because she's afraid of being mugged?! Nice touch.

Check the comments around the net. Mainstream liberal-biased outlets like USA Today are being deluged with anti-Obama clarity. Huffington Post blocked comments on their "reaction to the speech" thread.

80% of the MSM is in the tank for Obama whether it's print or TV or web and he still is going down on this. And it's his own fault.

The journalists who came out with "rave reviews" are demonstrating their lack of judgment. Many are homosexuals with man-crushes like Sullivan and Anderson Cooper. What a fiasco. Meanwhile Hillary is breaking big in Pennsylvania.

This is akin to the immigration impasse between the Elites and the People. Our craven, courtier press just doesn't get it. But the regular folks get it.

Goodbye, Barry Milhous Obama, you smiling black power Marxist, you.

Robert said...

Strikes me that the problem a lot of blacks have is not being able to face up to the fact of their IQ deficit, as a group. As Steve has so often commented, their (mis)behavior and (lack of) accomplishments is about what you would expect from a group with a similar average IQ, especially when they are aggravated by a bunch of clueless white liberals. So, if you are black and you can't accept the IQ answer for why blacks are underperforming and violent, you have to find some other excuse, such as blaming Whitey, like the white liberals do. The absurd Wright-ian conspiracy theories are all that is standing between you and an unacceptable reality. And this strategy works so much better when you have an intelligent "clean and articulate" spokesman like Obama out in front. The only problem is, reality always wins.

Anonymous said...

The choice will be Obama or McCain. Somebody please tell me why I am supposed to prefer McCain.

migraine said...

Steve,
isn't the deal with Obama that he has features which whites generally approve of (good speech, good language usage, tall, European-looking, apparent intelligence) but still sorta fits into the hood because of his heritage and skin colour; so the MSM can project all their most salacious superficial multicultural fantasies onto him, and when we refuse to join the party they make us feel bad by calling us racists?

I cannot believe the press is really scared of being called racist because deep down they resent most pols, hold little real respect for blacks (or whites) and consider themselves kingmakers in all western countries. It’s not as if the journalists are competing against each other for real estate in the hood. All of this is more about the self-image of the MSM than about blacks or Obama.

Anonymous said...

New rule of thumb: When the number of good lines about the speech far surpasses the number of good lines in the speech, you know Obama's in trouble.

My favorites, so far:

"Obama - I smoked Pastor Wright's sermons, but I didn't inhale" - from an anonymous commenter here

"The throw your grandmother under the bus speech" - Rich Lowry at NRO

"This country's great only as long as it elects me" - Kathryn Lopez at NRO

"It isn’t nice to save your fanny,
By sacrificing dear old granny.
No crazy uncle, I’ve got news,
Is someone who in fact you choose.
But grave indeed must be the error,
Of charging Sam with bio-terror.
There’s the uncle needs respect,
Only then will we elect."
- from Stanley Kurtz at NRO


That's really just a few of them, and they're piling up fast.

Freitag said...

Black people are angry. This is news? Really, Steve, the Obama bashing is getting tired. If he gets nominated, then, sure, bring it on. But right now you're wasting your breath and your readers' time. I really don't think your views have much resonance with Democratic voters so you're not changing minds. And if Clinton wins the nomination Obama quickly gets relegated to the "where are they now" file, and future blog historians will be bemused by the amount of time and spaced you've wasted on this.

Lucius Vorenus said...

Anonymous: In the end I’m tempted to describe Obama by using that old Gertrude Stein line about Oakland: there is no there there.

Yeah, back when the whole "Why doesn't Obama have a paper trail?" question first arose, the one obvious explanation was that for decades he had been planning a stealth candidacy, but I think I pointed out that the other obvious explanation was that maybe he just wasn't intellectually capable of leaving a paper trail.

And the more I hear from the guy, the more I wonder if it wasn't the latter.

David Davenport said...

A non-starter. A conservative Black candidate who explicitly told Black agitators to drink a cold glass of STFU and preached personal responsibility ala Cosby with a tough on crime persona could quite possibly clean up among white men.

Wouldn't get many black votes, though. Can't win the Democrat primary with insufficient black votes.

One idea I have proposed is web cameras in every classroom; that way you could document serious student mis-behavior much more effectively, which is the key to re-establishing class room discipline; and you could also document incompetent teaching where it exists, which is the other major problem dragging down our schools, from what I have been able to tell.

You are naive. The teachers' unions and the ACLU would fight that. Maybe they already have in some locales.

Veracitor said...

Nothing helps Obama "feel black" more than insulting his white family (you know, the family that actually cared about him).

Obama's policy proposals (tax & spend, nationalizing healthcare) are conventional though, of course, reprehensible.

But his starving- little- girl story ("mustard and relish sandwiches" because medical costs took all her family's food money) sounds even more bogus than John Edwards' 2004 coatless- little- girl. Of all America's welfare benefits, probably Food Stamps are the easiest to get. Any family that can't even put some surplus cheese into each sandwich is suffering from stupidity, not poverty.

Danindc said...

The mustard relish sandwich bit has to be bs. It's impossible to not afford bologna. I can see his mind working- what two condiments together would be the grossest....ketchup and salt... mayo and cinnamon...got it mustard and relish....they will have to vote for me.

The cameras in the classroom is a great idea although I think we should have cameras everywhere....yes, even your bedroom....especially your bedroom. There really should be more use of cameras in all seriousness.

Anonymous said...

How about this - Obama will leave his church, once Evangelicals start believing in evolution. Or are some houses of worship more dangerous than others?

David said...

One idea I have proposed is web cameras in every classroom; that way you could document serious student mis-behavior much more effectively, which is the key to re-establishing class room discipline

Didn't have these problems in, say, 1953. What changed? Who changed it?

Are schools zoos, full of beasts who should be monitored 1984-like for every twitch of their facial muscles? Johnny is sneak-reading a comic book behind his school book! Dose him with the appropriate psychopharmaceutical now! Ignore Tyrone being loud and raising hell on the other side of the room. That's his culture, and we must respect cultural differences...

Anyone who doesn't homeschool is near-abusing his children, in my humble opinion. Let's also tag public school kids, built barbed wire around the school, and put armed guards in the halls...wait, we already do that. Prepares them for the prison life?

Anonymous said...

"So, what was the bottom line of Obama's speech?"

More!

SKT said...

I'd like to see someone tackle the angle of Obama as a self hater. He's not black, but half black, half white. I think people forget that. And it's obvious that he hates his white half.

jody said...

The problem is that Barack himself embodies the european-african dynamic.

The european half of his family did almost everything to raise him, the african half of his family did almost nothing. Then he grows up to decide that europeans owe africans.

This is a common occurance in the interaction between europeans and africans, and is one of the main stumbling blocks when they communicate. Whites do everything, blacks complain that it's not enough and demand more, so whites turn around and do more for africans, which leads the africans to complain again and demand MORE, and so on.

Sideways said...

CNN's cover story for the moment:
"Obama: Wright flap has 'shaken me up'"

The people who said it looked like Obama just didn't get what was wrong with Wright are looking correct.

Anonymous said...

Sailer is definitely not wasting his time by criticizing Obama. Criticisms Sailer has been making for months are finally starting to show up in the MSM. They are acting all shocked that the angry left has said offensive things ... because the MSM is led by leftists too dippy and cheerful to believe there is any shred of negativity on their side. Without the Sailers and Austers it would be for the historians of the 2030s to look back on this era and say, "Certain documents indicate that there was a militant anti-white preacher that President Obama had a strong relationship to, before he was even a Senator. Had these claims been brought to light it would have cast grave doubt on Obama's campaign, and perhaps foreshadowed the manufactured strife of the 2009-2012 era."

The gaping holes in Obama's record are too big for even the MSM to ignore. The web has traction, and the web allows non-mainstream right/libertarians to make their views known. This is where it's at, folks.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, haven't read all the Isteve comments, but...

Anybody suggest Wright was the "Stuff White People Like," uh, "role-model" for the young Obama? I know he's er, half-black, but he's half-white, too. I was going to hedge, but that...simply is, without question, the case. Which means he was invigorated by the rev. pastor's stirring rhetoric, while psychologically burying the hilarious nonsense without articulate justification, because it caused his pride-neurons to ding and flash self-satisfyingly.

Which suggests Obama is not exactly the Otto von Bismarck required to do anything at all substantial in this mess of a government. It's like, what if you DID elect the feeblest University liberal to office, the kind of person who only knows about the "Great Society" vaguely, and won't permit himself to think of the huge, shocking, late-60s crime increase, that's sort of the secret handshake of people talking about the "liberal media"?

I've been acquainted with young, good-hearted "Black Studies" white people, and they typically, flabbergastingly-enough, totally ignore the appalling anti-semitism typical of utterances made by say, 60s radicals. Like Hitchens said about Michael Moore (close enough), "you learn it's simply not worth asking these questions to people like this."

Like Amiri Baraka was a 60s radical hero (check out this hilarious Derbyshire article re:
http://www.nationalreview.com/derby

shire/derbyshire101102.asp), and this article obviously destroys him for all time, forever, without possibility of parole, but he's still "poet laureate," because he generates that noxious glow every iStever wants to extinguish for all time.

William said...

if Clinton wins the nomination Obama quickly gets relegated to the "where are they now" file

Umm...in the United States Senate?

Not exactly a late night infomercial, though they usually have more honest people.

none of the above said...

I thought it was a brilliant speech, probably as close to opening an honest discussion on race as we're going to get from a mainstream politician right now. And that's both praising and damning his speech.

Obama's in a hell of a hard position here. A lot of discussion of black grievances against whites (which include both real and imagined stuff) will alienate a lot of the white voters he needs both for the nomination and the election. A lot of discussion of white grievances against blacks (both real and imagined) will alienate the black voters whose support he's been able to count on since at least South Carolina. Wright's comments left him no choice but to try to thread this needle, and I think he did it about as well as he could have.

I only read the speech, I didn't watch it, so maybe I'm missing a lot. But I definitely didn't get any sense of threat or menace in it. And that's only sensible, because "vote for me or we burn down the 'hood" is a guaranteed lose for Obama.

I wish he could open an honest discussion on racial issues. In some sense, he's the guy to do it, since he's black, but not American black, and since it's really hard to look at Obama and argue that blacks can't get ahead in America. But I don't think he can manage it, because I don't think our society can manage it. An honest discussion would deal with stuff like the relationship between the IQ gap, the huge difference in crime rates, and the wealth/income/school performance gaps. An honest discussion would deal with why it's rational to be more afraid of a bunch of black teenagers than a bunch of white teenagers, and what we can do about it. Or why essentially all the pointless, self-destructive riots in the US are done by black thugs in black neighborhoods.

That's not going to happen. In some sense, it defines Obama's limitations that he can't start that conversation, that he probably won't be able to start it even if he wins the white house. But let's be honest, here--Hillary is more likely to come out as a lesbian and light herself on fire than to start that honest conversation. And McCain is even less likely to do so.

Martin said...

" mnuez said...

Orwell, Hecht, Gandhi, Einstein, Wells and practically every major intellectual of 3/4 of a century ago saw things similarly to how I currently view them but their fleshy hosts lie rotting away in some forgotten field and I stand here alone"

Gandhi, Einstein, and mnuez. Yes, I often hear people mention that trinity. As we are not stupid, mnuez, it has not escaped us that you (a relative nobody) have just conflated yourself with two world-historical figures.

And not very good ones, when it came to matters of state-craft either. Einstein was a brilliant physicist (a genius, even), and by all accounts, a pretty good amateur violinist, and.......not much else. When it came to the affairs of men, he was at sea.

And as for Gandhi. Well, you probably figure you know all about him because you saw that movie. Try reading this, "The Gandhi Nobody Knows" by Richard Grenier":

http://www.sikhs.wellington.net.nz/gandhi.pdf

As you are in love with your own blatherings, you have probably not noticed that many who post here (I am one of them) deeply distrust large corporations, and the very wealthy. I also deeply distrust socialists.

And naive ramblers who claim an erudition they do not actually have.

spoon said...

Steve,

NPR interviewed Otis Moss, Obama's new pastor and one of the so-called "new breed" of leaders.

http://tinyurl.com/yujz56

Like Wright, Mr. Moss is also a whack-job.

This is a problem for Obama that will not go quietly away.

Anonymous said...

Obama's main attraction to rich yuppie whites was that he was the Apple Computer of candidates.

Upper class. "Different" and not mainstream. But signaling high status and attractiveness in the holder. It's why Hollywood jumped on first and Scarlett Johannson gyrated around in a video. Even for her in her setting it's all about status.

Now, what is Obama? God Damn America! A "Black" candidate as Black as Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. What does it mark you to support him? Why poor, low income, low status, B-L-A-C-K.

White Yuppies will flee him like they'd flee California Pizza Kitchen if they substituted chi-chi Barbeque Chicken Pizza with a plate of ribs and beans and collard greens.

Obama is not BMW anymore. He's ... a FORD. Horrors!

He's toast. Though likely he'll intimidate the superdels into getting the nomination. It'll be an "or else" threat of riots, etc. Sharpton's already got his camera time booked. I assume this fits the agenda of Pelosi and Reid and Dean just fine. They get a purge without their handiwork on it of guys like Jim Webb, Heath Schuler, etc. The socially conservative white guys get tossed like Lieberman did (too Jewish, too supportive of Iraq, too socially conservative). For the Pure Volk-Marxist debased aristocracy of Reid, Pelosi, and Dean. All inherited wealth btw. Red Diaper babies Derbyshire called them.

As for why McCain over Obama. As bad as McCain is, Obama is far worse in every way. McCain at least WANTS to do good by his country. You can't doubt his actual, real heroism in refusing the early release and undergoing torture as a result. I don't like the man but I give him THAT. McCain picks fights to feel morally superior, often with Republicans. He needs psychically the approbation of the Media. But at least he chose sides with America. Obama fails even that test.

Sort of an aside -- the awful debased state of the Democratic Party and refusal to compete for working and middle class white votes is why we are stuck with McCain. Candidates like Truman, or Clinton 1992, who understood what ordinary working/middle class white people were about would have forced an Ike or Reagan to be chosen. Not McCain.

And it's interesting to see what social isolation, 8 years of the WH followed by 8 years jetting around at Davos, has done to Bill Clinton's skills.

Anonymous said...

I really don't think your views have much resonance with Democratic voters so you're not changing minds.

Hey freitag:

This is the only place on the entire web that the unvarnished truth is being spoken about Obama. Why not go to DailyKos if you want to read more about the god-king Obama?

PS: It is obviously news to many people that blacks are angry enough to blame AIDS on whites

As bad as McCain is, Obama is far worse in every way. McCain at least WANTS to do good by his country.

I can't f'ing believe it. You may have just talked me into voting for McCain! McCain of McCain-Kennedy!

Jesus.

benn franklyn said...

Why no paper trail? Even Obama's books are not much of a paper trail. Like his speeches, full of generalities. He doesn't like "divisiveness."

He certainly throws in a few quips where he thinks there is some moral evil associated with being wealthy, and a moral good with taxing and redistributing that wealth. (No sense that it is the wealthy who are able to invest in the economy run by us the majority of middling types).

He views slavery as "the original sin" of the Republic. Which is fair enough but a little bit narrow.

He is very mushy and noncommittal. But he has a track record of "spooky good luck" in elections. I for one am very surprised at how he swept the primaries. He might be our next president.

He mentions how even Michelle was turned off by the pattern in Africa of distant relatives constantly coming around looking for handouts. No idea whether this reminded them of the same black faces constantly asking for handouts stateside. That's got to be lingering somewhere in the unconscious, you know.

David said...

truth said:

"Am I missing something in his speech? Or is that it?"

Well, the excerpt you picked reads at less than a minute and the speech lasted almost a half-hour. You figure it out.


What Steve did is called thinking. One summarizes and picks out the essential of the material one is analyzing. Do you know how to think?

Seriously. When someone asks you, "What was Obama's speech about?" do you reply by repeating the entire half-hour, word for word? Or do you say something like: "He said racial division is bad and we should work harder to end it"? Or: "He said his pastor's comments are not what his campaign is about"? If you do give these or similar replies, then by your own standards you are engaging in disingenuous omission. You should repeat the entire half-hour, as you imply Steve should do.

What I wonder is, do all Obama supporters have the intellectual amperage of things one finds under a rock, or only the majority of them?

braindead said...

Well sed david,

The nice thing about Steve's site is that one does not have to regurgitate the obvious, as one would have to at the DailyKos or Freerepublic or any of those other koolaid "conservative" joints. You can actually assume that other visitors are able to think.

A side effect of this is that, even if you are a racist in the modern sense, you find yourself thinking more and not just blurting out the usual dogma or getting frothy mouthed about the latest black antics.

Anyways, to all of you except Mnuez, Happy Easter! (Mnuez, I would also gladly wish you a happy Easter but I have an idea you don't want to hear that)

green mamba said...

"Anyways, to all of you except Mnuez, Happy Easter! (Mnuez, I would also gladly wish you a happy Easter but I have an idea you don't want to hear that)"

Don't assume mnuez is the only Jew around here. Not that I mind being wished a happy Easter...

Geronimo McTavish said...

I second Martin, I would recommend anyone to the Richar Grenier article on Gandhi. It has to be one of the all time great take downs.

Gandhi strides across the screen to be faced with Grenier and BOOM! Close up on all that remains of the liberal god-king - a pair of sandals emitting a few folorn wisps of smoke.

Roll credits.

http://www.sikhs.wellington.net.nz/gandhi.pdf

tommy said...

Anyways, to all of you except Mnuez, Happy Easter!

And a happy Easter to you and everyone else, braindead. I'm an atheist, but I still like Easter. I like Christmas even better, of course. ;-)

Lucius Vorenus said...

Geronimo McTavish: I second Martin, I would recommend anyone to the Richar Grenier article on Gandhi. It has to be one of the all time great take downs.

Gandhi strides across the screen to be faced with Grenier and BOOM! Close up on all that remains of the liberal god-king - a pair of sandals emitting a few folorn wisps of smoke.


One of the ugliest scenes I saw in all of graduate school was one evening when I was out with some people, including a Hindu guy from India & a Jewish guy who was a subscriber to Commentary, and I made the mistake of mentioning that Grenier piece.

Ugh.

Half an hour or forty five minutes later, they were still screaming at each other when I slinked out of the room...

Anonymous said...

"let's move past race hate, and move toward class hate"

As a non-rich white man - I agree!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said re Obama forcing the super delegates to give him the Democratic party nomination:

"I assume this fits the agenda of Pelosi and Reid and Dean just fine. They get a purge without their handiwork on it of guys like Jim Webb, Heath Schuler, etc."

May well be true, but they should be careful what they wish for. The most important thing that the Obama phenomenon signifies is the displacement white latte liberals (whiter people, chardonay socialists, or whatever you want to call them) from control of the Democratic Party. They can no longer count on the votes of their black and brown charges while essentially keeping decision making power for themselves. Obama is the first candidate of color with a chance at real power within the party and he will likely be followed by many more black and hispanic politicians in the future. In light of what has been revealed about Obama and minority attitudes in general, it appears that he and these future leaders of the democratic party may be none to well disposed towards whites or alternative/lefty lifestyles (gays, feminists, etc.), regardless of how obsequeous they are to minority sensitivities and desires, and the latte liberals may find themselves wishing they hadn't alienated those white blue collar democrats they so dispise. On the other hand, even if white liberals are displaced from being the party front men, their money will always be welcome and the smarter ones among them will be needed for the more intellectual aspects of politics, such as legal skills (unless Asians decide to throw in with the NAMs in a big hate whitey fest, which would not be in their long-term interests since NAMs don't generally like asians much either).

Truth said...

Maybe in your opinion, but from where I sit it should be called "woodchipping"

This is the practice of sticking treebranches into a machine with whirling blades designed to turn them into walkway material.

Mr. Sailer posted a 40 second segment of a 35 minute speech, synapsized that particular segment and then comented "am I missing something?

To take the woodchipping anology further, Sport, let's say that you sliped into one of those machines and were turned into dog food. Do you think that your own mother could identify you by a 1/4 section of your left ear?

"What I wonder is, do all Obama supporters have the intellectual amperage of things one finds under a rock, or only the majority of them?"

I wouldn't know; as I've written three times, I think Obama is a typical well-paid Casino shill, my candidate was Ron Paul.