I’m underwhelmed.

Why not on primetime or on a weekend?

Most people will never see the whole thing because they’ll be at work.

He wants them to hear that it was a transcendent turning point.

very enthused.

The CNN audio sucks, he needs a spit filter on the mic (or to stand back from it) because he keeps breathing on it.

OMG - He brought up Hillary “playing the race card.”

that you can barely hear.

Only more boring?

Ah, here comes the generation suck up. Sure all those old Hillary voters are racists, but you aren’t. Uh huh.

Mustard and relish sandwiches?

That was his “big close?”

OxyConObama likes to call himself a uniter, just as George Bush likes to call himself. But Obama is really a divider who shamelessly plays the race card for his own political gain.

Concerning Geraldine Ferraro’s comments, a uniter would have said “Geraldine Ferraro is a fine person and Democrat. Let’s not go overboard with our assertions here. Calling someone a racist is serious business. Why, I have even said the same things about myself that Mrs. Ferraro has said and I even posted them to my Senate website.”

See examples here:

Mr. Obama has pointedly acknowledged that he benefits from his race, noting last year that a new white senator from Illinois would hardly have stirred comparable interest or intrigue. So Mr. Obama has embraced his role, but he has strived to be defined by more than color alone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/washin…

Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?

http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/

Now, a cinical divider who is shamelessly using the race card and seriously trying to destroy a good person by branding them a racist for the rest of their lives, would say this:

Obama Calls for Censure of Ferraro
Updated 5:34 p.m.
By Peter Slevin
FAIRLESS HILL, Penn. — Barack Obama called on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to censure former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro for saying that Sen. Barack Obama would not be doing so well in the Democratic contest if he were a woman or a white man.
Obama called Ferraro’s commentary “divisive” and “patently absurd.”

“I don’t think Geraldine Ferraro’s comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive,” Obama told the Allentown Morning Call on Tuesday afternoon.

“I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd. And I would expect that the same way those comments don’t have a place in my campaign they shouldn’t have a place in Senator Clinton’s either.”

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail…

Lastly, do I need to mention Obama’s convenient outrage at racism, considering that he only accuses his opponent of racism while he’s been listening to Rev Wright for 20 years?

[UPDATE OxyCon, preview is your friend, mkay? Others need to read this page as well.]

is he failed.

He needed to hit a home run, and he singled.

Now the spin begins.

CNN’s bloviating gasbags are knob slobbing.

I am on the other hand one of those people who thinks that Rev. Wright’s comments shouldn’t be attributed to Obama, just like Ferraro’s comments shouldn’t be attributed to Clinton.

I thought it was a good speech, although the hypocrisy of Obama in crying “uncle” on the race card, after he’d so shamelessly denounced Hillary’s “proxy” Ferraro.

As I just told an Obama supporter, I’m not behind Hillary because of electability, which is an argument I’ve heard from the Obama campaign a ton over the last couple of months. But it is clear now that Obama is not nearly as electable as he claimed, and I frankly do not believe he can win a general election. The GOP will not let up on this Wright stuff, nor will they let up on the hypocrisy of his saying one thing, while doing another, or saying one thing, while his campaign says another.

I have a new moniker for Sen. Obama: Sen. Paper Tiger. He’s ferocious until the wind starts blowing a little bit, at which point he starts flying away. Which is why his supporters must be so protective of him.

-Many only hear the cadence of that boomin bariton and are ’transformed.’

-I, on the other hand, just received a survey letter from the DNC about the 2008 presidential campaign with various inane questions and a call for money. You can bet that they will hear my undiluted opinion with no money.

-As a 59 year old white woman that is not uneducated or poor, I am still mad as hell and unforgiving (I can hold a grudge forever-I know, not nice-but, tough).

I don’t think this changed anything despite the inane MSM talking points. By the way, has anyone on this site ever heard anything from a pundit that you didn’t already know or surmised on your own?

-My sister (another pissed off older white woman)just called me from Greensboro, N.C., saying that the newspaper there had a report today that BO was supposed to have an event there but it was cancelled because they could not guarantee his safety.

The paper came out with a “correction”. They said Obama cancelled because of a scheduling conflict. http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll…

Which means the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) at this point is going into fluff Obama mode. Now, the MCMers sometimes turn on a dime like aa school of fish chaning direction en masse, but I don’t think that will happen until the general election. Which will be McBush time for them.

Quinn said Obama laid out the need for discussion and now it should begin.

With whom, dear lady?

I will say that is supported by our history and by historians.

David Gregory on MSNBC right now saying there is a racial divide opening up over the Wright remarks, showing up in polls in PA-and Obama had to make a statement to try to stop this story ASAP.

Condemn but hold Wright close? Risky, but courageous of Obama to stay with Wright and the congregation, says Gregory.

Gregory asks how white men will respond to this delicately balanced stand of Obama’s.

Odd, but I don’t really see him as a risk taking candidate.

Is it possible that his church/Wright knows something about him that prevents his jumping overboard?

I mean, we’re all racists, right, to what’s to talk about?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

She now says it was not a particular security concern, just the same security concern any appearance by a primary candidate would face.

She is, apparently, an Obama backer.

Q. Who has your vote for president?

A. I think I’m going to vote for Barack Obama. I feel an energy, a hope, and I connect with a spirit that is just phenomenal. (Q&A from the News & Record)

You can easily predict the MSM reaction to Obama it’s an Obama rule that Obama backers never want mentioned because it might lead one to question his electability and awesomeness. Nevertheless here it is:

1) When the press believes Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is dead (the week leading into the March 4 primaries), they dump Obama for their true love John McCain.

2) When the press believes Hillary Clinton still has a shot at the nomination, they fluff Obama.

In other words, with the media it is as it ever was, for better or worse, all about the Clintons. Obama just thinks it’s about him.

In other words, with the media it is as it ever was, for better or worse, all about the Clintons. Obama just thinks it’s about him.

the race card next?

Well, we know who, but when will he play it?

this is a crock, and O knows it.

“America needs to move on” bec his political ambitions are threatened—no other reason.

And he admitted lying and called Wright family, which makes the coming GOP “God Damn America” ads even more devastating.

He didn’t say anything and was meta—he always says what we need to talk about instead of simply talking about it. Let alone action.

The comparison to Ferraro was simply nasty—plain and simple. Very very low, and jarring in the midst of his “come together” bla bla bla.

that struck me.

Slavery ranks with the greatest evils ever committed by these United States, more than arguably taking the #1 slot.

My point is that the original original sin is an inapt thing to compare it to.

Adam and Eve sought knowledge (or tasty fruit). Sicko YHWH punished women ever since with painful labor and subservience to men. The punishment, not the crime, was servitude. Just one of a great many Bible tales with an immoral moral.

as one blogger points out Obama lied about not hearing these sermons.

I’m not sure Obama is lying about not hearing the sermons. I think he may just be hoping people hear what they want to hear instead of focusing on what he actually said. What he said seems to me to be quite narrow - “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.” So he has denied only hearing the specific statements that have caused the recent controversy. To my knowledge, he has not denied hearing anything else said by Wright, whether similar or not. So, as I read it, it’s actually a very narrow denial. Which I’m sure Obama hopes people read broadly, but which can be strictly construed should the time come when he needs to do so.

Pretty typical political spin, IMO.

I don’t have that much of a problem with Wright. I’m much more upset about Obama smearing other Democrats as racists than I am by anything Wright has to say or Obama’s relationship with him. While I admit that there is some karmic justice in Wright coming back to bite Obama in the ass, I can take no joy in it. It merely exacerbates the racial divide in the Democratic party. So I can’t enjoy it even if I primarily blame Obama for the divisiveness.

to go with Richard Nixon persona. Well this tells me Plan A, a blog on the Huffington Obama, did not work to curtail the damage. Plan B was media interviews on three venues, the friendly confines of Keith Obamamann, the neutrality of Anderson Cooper and the not so friendly confines of Major Garrett on Fox.

So now Plan C, a Romneyesque speech on race (and faith?) in America. Conveniently the Reverend Wright is in Africa sent into exile for the duration of this campaign. An inconvenient pastor.

And all this still in light the story has not quite achieved full penetration. Only 2 in 3 voters is aware of who Reverend Wright is or his relationship to Obama. As that number grows, Obama’s numbers are likely to further tank. The question is: is Obama better served by confronting or ignoring in hopes that Bear Stearns or whatever the crisis du jour is takes off some of the heat? I think he is damned if he does and damned if does not. The damage is done, the next question is: is it fatal?

And of course there is still Plan D, the resort of always change the topic by attacking Clinton’s ethics. More of the same from he who pretends that is “new and different” and “above it all.” If he is as he once said in a race against cynics, then it appears that the cynics may have just pulled ahead.

The margin is now 26 points in Pennsylvania. In the national favor/unfavorable view polls he is down 11 points in 2 weeks, 4 points alone since the weekend. That’s a trend he can’t stem with one rather sad speech mostly in the passive voice. Mistakes were made. Well who made then? Certainly not little ol’moi. I’m infallible, don’t you know?

Obesa cantavit. Past simple tense. Latin for The Fat Lady has sung. Here’s the simple passive. Aria fut cantate per obesa. Don’t they teach rhetoric in American high schools?

Obama says:

“The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.”

Which is interesting, because IIRC Wright sold tapes on the church web site, and that case is left out of Obama’s (non-denial) denial. Didn’t he listen to tapes of Wright at Harvard? Or do I have my chronology mixed?

In any case, I don’t give two shits about Wright, who is, as I keep saying, far more sane than, say, Henry Kissinger, but I do care about Obama’s words. Especially the words that are carefully parsed. Like these words.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

A commenter on another blog made a valid point. How can someone who uses the race card against his opponent’s campaign be the one who is able to transcend race?
If you watch all of these pundits, it doesn’t matter which channel, they are all covering this election as if they are judges for “American Idol”. The way they are rating Obama’s speech, and not just this one speech, is really pathetic. It’s like they wait for an Obama speech, then most of them give their 5 second review, and it’s off to the next round.
Who will be the winner of this “American Idol - The Next President”.

Seems like it’s pretty clearly a non-denial denial to me. My question is whether he’s stupid enough to falsely deny being there. He was clearly not in church for one of the sermons, but the other one - the anti-Hillary one - was, I believe, Christmas Day 2007. Does a politician running for President skip church on Christmas day? It’s possible if he had a sick kid or something and certainly one would think that had Obama been in the pews as his pastor went after Hillary, someone would’ve noticed, but politicians *cough*Eliot Spitzer*cough* have done stupider things than lie about such an easily checked matter. The narrow denial is only useful if it’s actually true.

I think we’ll know whether Obama has put this behind him if the calls for him to release his schedule go away.

On many levels this is an incredibly stupid controversy. It would be ironic if after everything Obama has skated on (race card, negative campaigning, sexist dog whistles), this crap is what does him in. Frankly, I’d rather he had been called out for his faux Harry & Louise bullshit. That was something to get truly angry about.

this whole thing is chock full of lies.

I’m watching MSNBC—they’re surpassing Bush in the flight suit tonight—really over-the-top appalling.

Not one mention of the admitting he knew all about it—which is something all America believes—and the GOP will kill him with in the fall.

The big question is if the superdelegates will be reassured by this.

this speech would have been much more impressive if he’d given in during the South Carolina controversy — but at that point, he thought casting the Clinton campaign as racist was a good idea.

This is just damage control, pure and simple. Those who call it a “Checkers” speech are dead right… except that Checkers never said “God Damn America”

entirely bad i thought. We don’t have to move beyond anything to solve problems in this country—esp problems that are matching what FDR and LBJ solved and that are under renewed attack and erosion.

We only need leaders who will fix things and solve real problems. Class injustice and the loss of jobs and opportunity are all totally fixable—no matter how racist people are or aren’t.

knowing all about it, etc—the GOP will have a field day with both Wright and Obama’s flip-flop/lie.

Am I to understand that Wright went after Clinton on Christmas day?????????????????

wow, of all the things you could talk about on Christmas. none of this nonsense of the miracle of the Christ child.

and minimize the fallout, and namedropping Ferraro, who was guilty of talking about it too and viciously attacked by his campaign (as were many others attacked and silenced)….hmmm.

Lord, it was unbearable to watch..
He was positivly drooling and gushing over Obamas speech. “Lincoln, best speech since MLK, He’s one of you, he’s one of me”!
He had a total Obamagasm. It was embarrassing.
Joebasic
Recovered DU member

I’m sure they’re savvy enough to know that the hype was going to be a zillion times better than this clunker of a speech.

People come home, they hear the drooling heads, and the legend of this transcendent speech gets etched into granite. Much easier than writing a meaningful and rousing speech, despite the extraordinary opportunity the subject matter represented.

Slavery ranks with the greatest evils ever committed by these United States, more than arguably taking the #1 slot.

I would have thought it was genocide.

-You know, he really is burning alot of bridges.

He better hope that he never needs Ferraro or any of the others that have been slandered as racists.
Clintons especially -I personally would not help someone who has branded me like that.

Do you refer to the treatment of Native Americans? Yup, that’s right up there.

The point I was hinting at is that Obama’s discussion of race is pretty typical, and, as usual, tends to cast it in shades of black and white - literally. To say that slavery was the “original sin” ignores centuries of European genocide against North and South American indigenous peoples, and, frankly, we also know that Obama is not talking about Indian slavery, which predated African slavery in the Americas by more than a century. He’s not talking about the economic “enslavement” of hundreds of thousand of Chinese to build railroads or millions of Mexicans to pick row crops. In this entire campaign, racism has been portrayed almost exclusively in white-black terms, with the exception of those brown Latinos whose “racism” prevents them from voting for Obama (see dKos during California and Texas primaries.)

Non-AA people of color are always stuck on the bottom of the discussion totem pole, as if our issues are secondary because we didn’t suffer the agony of institutional slavery - and yet, neither did Obama. But he has adopted the binary dialogue of many African-Americans and whites in this country, a dialogue which is increasingly alienating to the rest of us. Speeches like this don’t make that any better, whether or not you toss us a bone by mentioning our ethnicities once in those 20 minutes.