An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Text of Barack Obama speech on race, 3/18/08

From the Union Leader:

“A More Perfect Union”

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama

Constitution Center

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

As Prepared for Delivery

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk – to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, “Dreams From My Father,” I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination – where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. 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. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs – to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their 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.

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 the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina – or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

  • Marlowecan
    Hmmm...upon initial reading...a very well-crafted speech.

    It hit a lot of the notes Obama had to hit. I note that Obama did not take the route of some of his defenders in trying to excuse Wright's remarks. This passage stood out for me:

    "the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived in. justice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

    That is pretty strong...and the farthest Obama has gone in distancing himself from Wright.

    Will it be enough to put this all behind him?
  • People who don't want him to be president won't find it to be enough - I don't think they can let themselves say that or admit that. But only someone who loves the treading water part of a deep water swim test would let themselves do that. And if they do, fine with me - their legs will tire eventually.

    My only qualm was a single sentence that had to do with him implying that he is running because most Dems (or maybe he said Americans) want him to. I like my candidates to want to run because they WANT it, not because they're letting the tide carry them. I've sensed this about him before - it always makes me queasy with any candidate - he is not the first and won't be the last.
  • The speech was MUCH better than I expected. And he threw white and black grievances on the table. That is unprecedented in a political speech. I think even if he doesn't win, this speech will live on as one of the best on race in America.
  • Marlowecan
    Just noticed this in re-reading the speech: "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. "

    This is new, I think. As far as I know, Obama has only professed to knowledge of controversial statements...but not direct experience of same before.

    I suspect this is to immunize him against the inevitable video that will probably appear of him sitting in Church when Wright is saying something over the top. Perhaps the Newsmax story did just get the dates confused as they tried to say?

    I also note the appeal to conservatives: "this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. "

    Undeniably well-crafted.
  • Marlowecan
    T-Steel said: "The speech was MUCH better than I expected. And he threw white and black grievances on the table. That is unprecedented in a political speech. "

    I fully agree. I am surprisingly impressed with this speech.

    It will be interesting to see video of his delivery.
  • mikkel
    Jill I know that several people have that concern. Ironically, I would like Obama to win because I think if he does there is a chance that things might change so I don't have to get involved in politics.

    I think there is a core misunderstanding of Obama's personality that is readily apparent to me since (I believe) it is extremely similar. Quite frankly, I think he is an extreme introvert. Our culture is extremely geared towards extroverts, and the typical characteristics of a unconfident extrovert are extremely similar to the characteristics of a very strong introvert and the introvert gets misconceptions because of that.

    Why do I think he is an introvert? I've heard Obama described as an extreme policy wonk that relishes in looking at all the small details and sees how they connect...but the primary thing he does is sit back and listen to every one else talk. His speeches are amazingly well crafted, when he is asked questions in a town hall you can see him sit there and process what he wants to say for a long time and it turns out pretty good, but in debates where he needs a rapid fire answer he is weak. That is a dead give away. I'm the exact same way so I can relate.

    Anyway, how this is relates is that I know exactly what he means. I don't want to be in the spotlight. I like sitting back and listening to everyone and be sagacious. But ultimately throughout my life it gets to a point where no matter what group I'm in, I'm made the leader because people recognize I am the best can reconciling all the opposing thoughts, turning it into something better than the sum of the parts and getting people to agree. Since I also am extremely idealistic and have the feeling of a higher calling (although mine is not religious, it is intellectual) I feel compelled to assume those roles even though it is against my natural temperament.

    However, as long as I have enough time by myself to internalize my responsibilities and how I want to project myself, then I am completely fine, and once in the role I fully embrace it. Also, when I get to that point, I am able to be quick on my feet and come up with new thoughts quickly because I'm so secure in my base (I think this is another reason why Obama is good in town hall questioning where 90% of what he says is planned, he can devote all his energy into the 10% of the new questions).
  • Awesome speech. Well done. Those who are against him won't let Wright go, but there is no way they can suggest that he carries those views so he is no different than anyone else who has a family member or loved one who says batshit crazy stuff about race.
  • stephen1947
    Jill - I hope you're able to accept a both/and - if a person professed to be running solely because s/he wanted to - that would be arrogant in the extreme, or at least perceived to be, as some benighted AP commentator proved yesterday. We can tell by the work that he puts into it that Obama wants to run. His campaign has consistently been about what we can accomplish together, not what he can do for us. Why does he have to explicitly say that "I want this" before you are satisfied?
  • Wouldn't say better than I expected but do believe he'll change minds - both because of what he said, how he said it and the way he presented both. I wrote in a comment on my own blog yesterday that I wanted these candidates to LEAD damnit! :) I think this speech shows real leadership because he has taken an issue that wrankles so many and he translated it into universal experiences. Again, the only way to reject what he's said is to not be listening in the first place.
  • I can see what you describe. May very well be true re: the introvert. Again, my only concern in any scenario that requires very focused and quick decision-making is, how does that get done. I am raising that QUESTION, not that I believe that it can't be done or that Obama can't do it and so on - I'd just like examples of how he manages it. You can give examples of how you manage it too. :)
  • Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that he has "to explicitly say that 'I want this'" before I'll be satisfied.

    First of all, I don't take my ideas so seriously - that is, to think that others should use them as measures.

    What I do notice, when I'm assessing, is the desire and passion - how far with they go (and some would say that Clinton wants it TOO much - that's a problem too of course).

    I had this experience with Paul Hackett in Ohio who ran against Sherrod Brown for the US Senate against Mike DeWine (who was ousted by Brown). I knew, just KNEW when I met Hackett, heard him speak and the things he was saying, that this was just not 100% from him. He was being carried by a tide similar to the one assisting Obama. And he did eventually drop out and tipped his hat to it not rising to such a priority for him (winning the seat). He is a great candidate in a voter's mind and maybe in a campaign's mind. But there was just something holding him back - you could sense it - well, I did.

    So, I'm only describing what I heard, how it sounded to me and what it does to my thoughts about Obama as the Dem. nominee.

    I am saying that he has to want it. Whether I hear that or see that isn't nearly as important as him knowing it. That's all.

    Hackett? i didn't see it and after he left the race, it sounded as though he didn't either.

    Obama - I see it most of the time. I'm saying that that line struck me - because I've heard things like it before.

    That's all.

    I still wish Joe Biden were running. :)
  • aba23
    "I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together...."

    Personally, I'm much more comfortable with the idea of desiring the office to initiate a course correction back toward those small-d democratic principles--those essentially communitarian ideas--that are crucial to a successful representative democratic republic. This is how I read the Senator's explanation of his ambition for the presidency. This was reaffirmed for me the other day listening to a Michelle Obama speech that focused on the kind of civic empathy that was so central to Obama's words at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

    Today's speech was that of a constitutional scholar. The United States continues to be an experiment with an undetermined outcome. Can a pluralistic society give voice to all of us and yet reconcile our differences sufficiently to adequately govern this large nation? Without the foundation of a people who can see beyond our own interests to, at least occasionally, overcome such factionalism, one might have to think about conducting a different experiment.
  • mikkel
    Jill it is definitely a valid concern, but I doubt you'll ever get an explanation. First of all, I doubt too many people have either the time or the insight to even pick up on it, so it won't become an issue. Also it goes to the heart of personality that only a few in his inner circle could probably answer.

    Although I have to say that there are very few times in history where there has been a crisis that required immediate decision making from the President. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest I can think of. Most of the other times (9/11, Pearl Harbor, etc.) have systemic locks in place to reduce the amount of pressure on the very top levels of government for at least a few days. Those locks might get tweaked under each president to reflect their worldview, but at least it opens things up for more contemplative decisions.

    I also think it is basically unknowable how a person is actually going to act under such pressure.
  • Aba23 re: speech of a constitutional scholar. So funny you write that because not far into the speech I said to myself: he went back and looked at his work as the editor of the Harvard Law Review. And he constructed as iron-clad a case as he could for getting a message across that includes as many points, made as universally as possible that both defeats the accusers and persuades the unswayed.
  • Agreed re: unknowable how someone will act under certain kinds of pressures. But as a voter, wanting to guess is a big thing. :)
  • mikkel
    aba23: In a way I think the Audacity to Hope is extremely personal to him. Like you've said, as a constitutional scholar, the core fabric of America is extremely important to him, and on a personal level he has to hope that the core fabric is capable of leading to a country that succeeds in actually fulfilling its promise.

    I really liked how he turned "to form a more perfect union" as a continual movement instead of the historical reference that it was just talking about the Articles of Confederation. It is a nice bridge between the dowdy Constitution and the soaring Declaration of Independence. Does any one know what he said is historical?

    This also plays into what they have said a few times that if he loses he won't run again. If he loses he might think that he has no better way to communicate how the core fabric can lead to better government, so he isn't the person that's needed (or he might conclude that America the idea is not built strong enough, but I doubt he'll think that).

    I've always said that the main knock against him is that it might take 20-30 years of working on these issues on a community level to be ready for a president that embodies them.
  • mikkel
    "I've always said that the main knock against him is that it might take 20-30 years of working on these issues on a community level to be ready for a president that embodies them."

    Of course the corollary is that Clinton says that problems we have now are so big that working on the structural issues of what America means should be put off. That is the core disagreement between them that I think could be explicitly stated.

    I just have to admit that I am slightly depressed by the reaction to his speeches and her speeches. At this point in the game, it seems like the vast majority of media and people sniping on the internet are all talking about whether it was good enough to get the charges against him to go away; or whether she found a good line of attack; or whether they project themselves as Presidential.

    Very little outside of some conversations on this blog actually talk about what their visions mean to the country on a core level and how they will potentially affect American society 10, 20, 30 years down the road.
  • Marlowecan
    Mikkel said: "I just have to admit that I am slightly depressed by the reaction to his speeches and her speeches...it seems like the vast majority of media and people sniping on the internet are all talking about whether it was good enough to get the charges against him to go away...very little outside of some conversations on this blog actually talk about what their visions mean to the country"

    Mikkel, maybe that is because rhetoric is nice (that "vision thing" in the words of Bush Sr.), but the real measure is whether someone can actually make things happen. The jury is still out on Obama on that score (haven't we all known inverts who were the "real deal" and extroverts who were empty, if attractive, suits?).

    There is a great piece by R. Schlesinger at The Politico on precisely this dichotomy re JFK:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9079....
  • Marlowecan I agree that an important measure is whether someone can make things happen, but particularly with an issue like race or gender inequality, being able to say what is going on in a way that the broadest number of people can understand what you're describing is a real accomplishment. Sometimes, action is overrated.
  • Marlowecan
    Further...for example, HRC - in her short time in the Senate - won respect from both sides of the aisle for her capacity to work with others.

    Senator Obama, in contrast, gives much better speeches than HRC about unity...but has not her demonstrated record of working with others on the other side of the aisle.

    He is clearly a powerful speaker...but perhaps Clinton or McCain (who also has a bipartisan record) would be better at getting things done. Think LBJ's greater success re civil rights than JFK's.
  • Marlowecan
    JillMz said: " being able to say what is going on in a way that the broadest number of people can understand what you're describing is a real accomplishment"

    Good point. This is undeniably true. However, HRC needs to shift this ground. Against a rhetorician of Obama's ability...she needs people to see this as a contest between action vs. speaking (even if this is not a fair representation of Obama).
  • mikkel
    Yes that is of course the heart of it. But the great leaders in history are not great leaders simply because they rose to the occasion and confronted their challenges competently, but because they changed the underlying fabric of their society for a generation.

    Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Reagan were not necessarily the best presidents when it came to managing the country (just like Julius Ceasar wasn't the best Roman leader) although they were good enough to not fail.Their main contribution was how their vision changed society even after they were out of office.

    Clinton, Bill and perhaps Clinton, Hillary will never go down in history on the same page. At best they will be regarded as an Eisenhower...a good President and even maybe a great person, but people that merely played the hand that they were dealt with.

    I think it's obvious that's what Obama wants to be. The valid comparison is not whether he is "going to get things done" like a Clinton (in fact he might get far less done) but whether he will start the machine of change. After all, JFK didn't get a whole lot done but he certainly presided over the policies of LBJ and Nixon. (Then Carter ruined it, just like Bush II seems to have ruined Reagan's momentum.)

    The other obvious argument is whether Obama's vision is noble or whether it is like Huey Long...who both had an extreme effect on his jurisdiction's history and was frighteningly competent in getting his vision implemented. It was just wrong.
  • Marlowecan
    Mikkel...great comment and historical context.

    Who today remembers Huey Long? RR is ancient history to kids.

    But I have a soft spot for the competent, if not flashy, leaders. Truman, I admire, for example.

    I was struck, reading a bio. of Churchill lately...that the President Churchill most admired was not FDR (despite their close association) or Eisenhower (whom Churchill distrusted as a cold fish), but Truman.
  • Well - let me add this - if we as voters take the charge coming from at least the two Democrats at face value - that it's up to us, that they need us, as partners and so on, then it is also up to us to send them messages once they are in office re: what we want, don't want and so on. They are the leaders, of course, but they can't change or more history if we don't want them to.
  • mikkel
    Marlow I lived in Louisiana for 8 years. I was thinking that of every one I named, his impact on that state is far longer. He basically has had as long of an impact as rulers did in ancient times.
  • Ok - this is awful - I remember Huey Long most for the Long House Office Building on Capitol Hill and for Sean Penn's performance in All the King's Men. :)
  • Slamfu
    Great speech, and another glaring reason why Obama is doing so well. They keep tacking on negatives to him, and he turns around and expands his lead each time by tackling it head on. Thats the kind of politician we've been waiting for.
  • PaulSilver
    Just listened to the entire speech...The best I ever heard in terms of combining eloquence, poetry, history, hope, and candor. Breathtaking. I hope it become required viewing in schools.
  • Holly_in_Cincinnati
    I have read the entire speech and am not impressed. The best thing Sen. Obama can do for the Democratic Party and the USA is admit that he is not qualified to be President, drop out of the race, and promptly endorse Sen. Clinton.
  • heh heh... is Holly really a writer here? :-)
  • stephen1947
    Holly probably wouldn't be impressed by the second coming of John Lennon either...
  • lurxst
    That was a well crafted speech and Obama is a very effective speaker, unlike many recent politicos. Too bad the MSM will not let you hear it. You will hear the talking heads repeating their (wrong) interpretation of it while simultaneously playing the loop of Rev. Wright's comments over and over again. This kind of high-mindedness and vision is anathema to the corporate owners.

    It is only among the first tests for Obama, I am sure they will come up with many more smear attempts and fabricated scandals before November.

    Best part is, can't you just savor a Obama -McCain debate? McCain is a twittering old fart compared to Obama's soaring rhetoric. Our corporate masters know this so they have to do everything in their power to convince us that with Obama there is "just no there, there," before the debates begin.
  • DLS
    "Who today remembers Huey Long?"

    Hillary Clinton's protege in Louisiana! [grin]
  • JSpencer
    I was prepared to be less than moved, as I have fallen victim to much cynicism over the past couple decades. But as I watched the speech I came to the realization that what we have running for president here is a man with a clear understanding of what so many Americans seem to be confused and disillusioned by when it comes to race issues. I sincerely hope people who make judgements about Obama do so only after seeing or reading a transcript of this speech.
  • StockBoySF
    I think it was an excellent speech which was from his heart- not a political calculation, though it may have been born out of political necessity.
  • Anna
    While reading the transcript of this speech, I felt so proud to be an Obama supporter. This is a man who has earned my deep respect. Funny thing about respect though...it is earned but can be lost. Holly used to be one of the writers here that I really respected, even when I did not agree with her. Her latest contributions regarding the election, have made me lose all respect for her and her response to this speech was the final straw. Sadly, I now see her as no different from Michelle Malkin except for the D in her party affiliation that she claims to have. She just can't resist to say about this speech "la-la-la not listening la-la-la, vote for Hillary!". Very, very sad.
  • bmdilorenzo
    Obama sucks!
  • bmdilorenzo
    Obama Sucks and You Suck... Die
  • bmdilorenzo
    Amen
  • Holly_in_Cincinnati
    This email address is protected by EarthLink spamBlocker. Your
    email message has been redirected to a "suspect email" folder for
    Holly R. In order for your message to be moved to her Inbox, she must add your
    email address to a list of allowed senders. She cannot do this until you send
    her a message.

    https://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/addme?a=h...
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC