Obama Makes History

Wow! This is so great! I love this speech- it will go down in history for sure!

check out my video "Obama-Mobile"

www.obamamobileusa.com

I agree that this is a major "cut down" of Obama's speech. From what I have heard I think that Obama is the man that would lead this nation into the right direction. I think that the comment about him running for President to test affirmative action is just crazy. Although he is the product of a black father and white mother he is no different from anyone else on this Earth. Obama is a very intelligent man who I admire very much. He takes all that running for candidacy throws at him and he throws it back. If he wins he will be the first black President of the United States. Yes I think that it is a scary thought but at the same time it is showing that we as a nation in susceptible to change. Go Obama Go!!!

obama is going to win president fuk clinton she sucks

Okay, so I love hearing Obama speak and have tried to listen to most of his speeches, to me, this isn't much more than an abridged form of speech one might be able to find at CNN.com.

I love the text, as it does add to the speech and give the video somewhat of a voice, but, I don't think it's enough of a voice, and I'm reminded of the first rule of video, "show, don't tell."

To spice the speech up, instead of just leaving the shot on Obama giving the speech, I would cut it up with relevent stock footage or found footage that conveys what he is trying to say with his speech. A bit of music would help too; it does take away some objectivity, but it adds a voice.

I don't believer you really fell asleep, or if you did, you are not really a supporter. Not only Obama's friends, but many of his harshest critics are stating that this was a truly great speech, "one of the greatest speeches of an American presidential candidate since Lincoln's House Divided speech or his Cooper Union Address. addressesince." And yet it is not flowery, empty eloquence. The language is for the most part simply and startlingly direct and honest. Obama talks to us as if we are adults, some have said. "It's refreshing to hear a politician who assumes we are intelligent enough to follow an argument through several paragraphs." But history will judge. (Oh, and I like some of the posts above about the humility expressed in the speech.)
Obama did not run for president as a black man but as a person who happened to be black. He would gladly have kept it that way, but the seemingly racist Wright tapes forced him to clarify himself on this issue. What many thought was impossible for Obama and would prove his downfall as a candidate, he turned to his advantage.

Here is the link to the video of an inspiring speech on the nonviolent movement for justice of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by his son Martin.

Make sure to hear the rousing end of Martin's speech in Israel last summer. Where is the media coverage of these words to action grounded in love and light.

Remember, this man lost his father and his maternal grandmother and uncle to violence at a young age, but he urges all to us to commit to peace and to build the beloved community, his father so brilliantly articulated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rre0qU2l36U

the point should be what it is about mr wright that is reflected upon the man that cld be president. is it something we shld commend obama for or condemn him for? that he loves a man who he is indebted to but chooses to take the good things about him. the most hurtful of things is that this man is going to be judged for 30 min. snipets out of 36 yrs of service. is it a surprise to pple that there are black plle out there who harbor unreasonable or even unacceptable reasonings about white plle? the question should be what this has got to do with obama. what has he done to but be a leader who strives to cross racial lines: the opposite of what this man that he loves advocates. should we not commend him more bc he can discern what to take from the rev. and what to shun? obama understands what a lot of the younger african americans have not experienced interms of the very painful past. that some older generation african americans witnessed the worst of racism. that they can be the most distrusting of a govt. that continues to further policies that have a deep imbalance along racial lines. obama can see this unreasonable and unacceptable behavior and take it for what it is. and be able to distance himself from it.
pple are acting as if they do not personally know of someone who is as complicated as the rev. but also a good man.
fox news channel: the only place where one can belong two religions at the same time!!!
the ironies of all ironies is that we took a cue from sean hannity of all pple. cause he really believes hillary is the better nominee for democrats, right?
i am glad this happened. the more i love barack obama. the more i love him!!!

There was so much more to this speech. I feel it was cut up poorly.

It is astounding to see how unfairly and viciously some radio and TV commentators are reacting to Barack Obama’s speech on race. It is simply inexcusable to say, as they do, that Obama “threw his own [white] grandmother under the bus.”

Rather, contrary to what everyone expected, he didn't throw anyone under the bus, neither his regrettably hate-filled pastor, nor his own partially prejudiced grandmother who herself admitted that she sometimes struggled with such feelings (as Obama makes clear in his book, Dreams of My Father). He didn't throw racially resentful blue collar workers under the bus, nor did he throw angry unemployed black radicals, nor you or me under the bus.

Instead, he pointed out that we are all part of this wonderful but in some ways still flawed America, and that there are legitimate reasons for some of the hurtful black and white anger that divides us -- anger which, nonetheless, we should all strive to overcome.

\Never since Lincoln has a politician spoken to our nation with greater candor, dignity, and truthfulness. Obama stands tall above all the carping talk show hosts who -- resentful at being confronted by a person so utterly sincere, honest and, quite simply, good -- try in vain to pick him to pieces.

His speech will stand the test of time because it represents something new -- not politics as usual, but something that lies at the root of all right-minded religion. I begin to wonder if America is worthy of this person of such uniqueness, stature, integrity, and amazing magnanimity.

Rev. Jim Boswell

I for one think Americans are lucky. Lucky because they had King, X and now Obama - not because they spoke about race, but because they were 'allowed' to speak on race issues. In the UK, if you speak on race issues you have a 'chip on your shoulder', if you disagree with the way black people are represented or spoken of by white people, 'you have a chip on your shoulder', if you dare to say see me as a person but allow me to be a black person too interpreting my own existence, not being defined by you, then 'you have a chip on your shoulder'.

It is this way in the UK - we never had a civil rights movement here, or a member of parliament that ever got anywhere close to being PM in the UK and you know what I doubt we ever will.

So, whatever the outcome of this speech, no matter how much and how little was shown here. It is historic because despite the obvious prejudices of your country between one race/culture and another - your country is moving towards a situation where to use King's words black people are 'free at last' to be whom ever and whatever a young black person wants to be. All they need is will, change, hope and courage and by the looks of things, in the States at least, change is coming.

I ask when will black people have this experience in the UK?

This is yet another example of wagging the dog. Barack's speech was clear and presice on his stands, but it took the comments of a few conservatives to derail the message and focus on things that just don't matter when it comes to his ability to govern this nation. So keep it America. You're blowing your chance for change and move on from your ignorant past. Someone once said that if you don't learn from history you're bound to repeat it ...here we go again, and again, and again.

ok, it was a good speech.

and you're right Krag,
Obama pointed out a lot about the divisiveness that race has played in our country's narrative. I stand corrected for my ignorantly narrow view of the American public and the issue of race in shaping people's perspectives.

Maybe i assumed race played no real part in anything because I come from an all white upbringing. People of other races have never done me any wrong, so it's never been an issue for me personally.

I also highly applaud Obama's defense of the pastor and his attempt to shine a broader more humanely comprehensive light on the character of the pastor than the Media has allowed.

in that sense, he has elevated the conversation. But if we are to take the message seriously then we must reform Media.

OK WAIT

someone informed me that the speech is longer than the 9 minutes I've seen.

Let me look at the full version....... pending judgement.

No, you're right Stephen it's not a very difficult subject. What was I thinking? There really haven't been any divisive racial issues in the history of America. I must have confused this with another country.

Lots of people. Me and many others.

Though I'm sure your statement would have been a big hit. Somewhere Obama's speechwriter wrings his hands and worries about his 401k.

wow - Obama's white grandmother was a racist ? she was afraid of black men on the street ? did i hear that correctly ? man , Obama knows what's up - i mean , the man's grandmother was a racist - and she is part of him . ok- i'm sold , Obama can't be a racist - the man is so ethically solid that even though he calls himself black ( right ? ) , he still loves his racist granny . hillary cannot top that one .

Krag, you call it "a very difficult subject." For whom, might I ask?

Here's how I would have responded if I were Obama:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm NOT going to give you a lecture on the nation's racial disphoria, since race is NOT an issue for me, nor will I thrust it under the limelight for scrutiny during a political campaign. Our time is precious and we have more important things to be worrying about these days."

End.

Seriously though. I think this country needs a major change. Much more than we did in 1992. Sadly 8 years of W has been much much worse for this country than the 4 we got with his daddy. I think the Clinton's (both of them) were, on the whole, very good for the country. But this isn't a fraternity. There shouldn't be a legacy policy. We should choose who is best for right now. And I would argue that the Clinton style of politics, win at all costs...throw the kitchen sink at 'em...if they're not with us, then f*ck 'em...politics as usual might not be what's needed at this critical time. I think we can and should try for something better.

You might not. You might think it's exactly what's needed. I can respect that even while I disagree with it.

Here's what I can't respect. I can't respect slapping the label of racist on somebody because of something their pastor said. I can't respect guilt by association. And I can't respect the mischaracterization that he somehow disgraced his Grandmother by having the courage to talk about how he loves her despite some flaws she might have. A situation that has rarely been talked about in politics at all let alone Presidential politics. And one that I would guess more of us have in common than we'd like to admit.

Not only is that mischaracterization untrue. It's low and cowardly.

Someone once said that Obama is not a perfect man and that his campaign itself is not perfect either.

Oh yeah, that was Obama himself who made that observation (in this speech)

Someone also made the astute observation that the complexities of the racial issues in this country cannot be solved by a single candidate or in a single term.

Yup, those were Obama's words too (in this speech)

What an arrogant jerk, right?

Cult of personality! The infalliable leader fooling his minions by claiming.....he isn't perfect and can't solve all our problems? Huh. That's not usually how egomanical cult leader operate. Maybe I'm not quite seeing the "manipulation" and "lies" that Obama is using to "trick" me into thinking he is an intelligent, empathetic leader.

Who says I didn't like the Clinton years?
*He asks as the subject is changed*

I don't think Hillary is bad...only that Obama is better. And I don't need to tear her down to feel that way.

But if you're going to argue that things were perfect back in the Clinton administration, you've got your work cut out for you. I seem to remember having to express some disappointment in a politician who I supported back then too. Hmm...what was that about?

It's only a disgrace if you think he threw the Pastor under the bus. He didn't. But keep telling yourself he did...maybe that will work.

Like I said, I know this makes you crazy because it's what you expected him to do. Probably because it's what you would have done. Maybe that's why you're having such a hard time getting this.

Um...yeah. I know what I wrote sf. But thanks for the quote.

I expressed disappointment. He made up for it with his speech. Is that blind support? Doesn't seem that way to me. But I know how you're all about throwing people under buses...so maybe that's what I should have done, huh?

As for "catching" him in a racist church. He was no more "caught" than it was a racist church. Maybe a few things your spiritual leader says over the course of 20 years define who YOU are. But I don't think that goes for everyone in this country let alone that church. But hey...good job on "catching" him at that church Sherlock. Where did you find the clues?

And to your last point, Obama wasn't running for president of his church. He had no obligation to change it or the Pastor. Yes, he could have left. I accept his explanation for why he didn't. I understand it because I have had similar experiences. I love people who hold views that I don't agree with. I bet you do to...only you'll never admit it. I wouldn't want to be judged by their words any more than you would. I'd prefer you judge me on what I say and do.

But we can keep doing things your way. Guilt by association. Divide and conquer. Politics as usual. I mean it's working out so well for us now...why change?

No problem Jan. I'm serious when I say I'm a fan. You have educated more than a few times on this site and I always take what you have to say very seriously. And I understand your cynicism even if I don't share it (at least not yet anyway...there is still a long way to go).

I look forward to you next post...as always.

sfgaffer. Here's the quote:

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.

Huh. Where is the bus exactly? I can no more disown them. They are a part of me.

Those Rush Limbaugh zingers only work when it's a one sided radio show where only people who agree with you are allowed to speak. Nice try though.

I think Obama was less than forthright about what he knew and when he knew it concerning Pastor Wright. I wish he had made this speech Friday night, as opposed to Tuesday morning. But he has answered the question. He has placed the Pastor's comments in context. Both his personal context and more importantly a national context. He has also rejected and condemned the comments without throwing ANYONE under a bus. For me, that more than makes up for being a couple of days late with a full explanation. It might not for you...it clearly doesn't for Jan. That's okay.

I know it drives you a little crazy because you thought this was the end of him. And then he went out and did something you never expected. He spoke truth about a very difficult subject. He admitted fault but never kowtowed (I suspect that's the part the bothers you the most). He turned a crisis into an opportunity. In short, he acted like a leader.

And now you're the one who looks small because all you can do is take cheap shots like you did above. It must be maddening.

He didn't throw his grandmother under the bus sfgaffer, you have to put his statement in the context of what he was talking about. He was making a point that he's both black and white and has heard things that make him cringe on both sides. He said his grandmother loved him more than about anything in this world and dispite what he heard he loves her anyway. It was an honest statement and an excellent point based on the subject.

Krag: he sat and listened to that preacher for twenty years. Again this speech to me was then the words he had to say. Sorry I can't agree with you on the motivation for them or the connotation. There have just been too many instances of late where he has said one thing and it has been proven to be opposite and he has had to backtrack. In all honesty though, I think it stinks that the political process works this way, and will concede that if I am wrong about him I will be the first to admit it. But thank you for your civil responses.

Chique: I am not a "Hillary" person. I suppose you buy into your own memes as well then. In this particular election I was and still am an Edward's person who is disappointed that I had my choices selected for me in order to give the Democratic party their "first" one way or the other. It was set up purposefully to bring us either the first black president or first woman president. I don't really believe policy was even something they really considered, since they both are similar in policy. I am more upset at that actually and how that is played up in the media as well, because once again I feel like I am being played, and I don't appreciate it.

Jan I didn't answer your questions from your third graph because I don't work for you or the Obama campaign (and also it's not the topic of this thread). If you want the answers to those questions, do a little research and find them out. Something I know you do because you are one of the most informed posters on this site. You almost always back up what you say with citations. It's one of the things I respect about you (your honesty, passion and obvious intelligence are some of the others).
Which is exactly why I am so disappointed in your continued mischaracterization of this speech. You admit that you haven’t read or listened to the entire speech, but then rail against its failures. You don’t need me to tell you how that comes off. To say it conotated that all whites are clueless and all blacks are angry is downright crazy. He is saying just the opposite…something you might know if you bothered to read the speech. Then you dismiss the whole speech as merely damage control without acknowledging the fact that there were certainly less risky things he could have done to control the damage Pastor Wright has done. But no…admitting that this speech took courage would be admitting that speeches can be a form of action. That words matter. And we can’t have that. That conflicts with the playbook.
Lastly, you have slammed me several times on this site for getting swept up in the “emotion” of Obama’s oratory. It’s one of your favorite lines (and not without some truth I would admit). But who is being emotional here? You are practically foaming at the mouth over a speech you haven’t even bothered to listen to in it’s entirety. That seems pretty emotional to me.
However…I do hope that you are not “done” as you say. I am a fan.
Most of the time.

Nice analogy adavis.

No, because I haven't. Are you implying it? And actually, I never bugged you about your opinions of Clinton. I think the rest of us deserve the same courtesy.

Maybe we should first define what exactly constitutes a health skepticism of a politican -- that way we'll be better able to determine when we've crossed over the line from normal skepticism to outright irrational dislike?

I'll be the first to admit that I have a slightly irrational dislike of Hillary Clinton. No, she really isn't THAT bad. She even has some excellent ideas; I just really, really don't like her. I admit that on occassion I've been just as critical and dismissive of Hillary (even when I slightly agreed with her on some topics) as some people here have been of Obama. Admitting it is the first step to recovery and I do feel better.

Any Obama "skeptics" willing to admit that they may possibly have strayed from a healthy skepticism of Obama as a Presidential candidate to just a little bit of irrational dislike/paranoia about him?

Just make sure that in your desire to quench that thirst that you look at the water first to make sure it isn't toxic before drinking it.

that sounds freudian.

Everyone keeps saying the Obama is "just" a good speaker. Lest we forget that it takes thoughts to procure words, and words to translate into action. When you hear him speak you know in your heart that he is not spinning, he's not b.s., he's not reacting. He's responding-honestly and with dignity. He's not Christ incarnate, he's a strong leader. And it's been so long since we've seen it that so many, including the media, don't know how to react when it's in your face! When you're thirsty, I mean just ran five miles thirsty, and someone hands you water, you gulp it down! You're so thirsty for refreshment, you just want to guzzle the whole thing. We're so thirsty for leadership, everyone is so happy Obama even exists. If that's what makes him a media darling...so be it. I'm thirsty.

To krag: yes, the questions I raised in the third paragraph were tough and interesting, yet you didn't discuss them. You simply decided to rail a bit on me for my opinion which was not hateful but honest. I did read most of it and to me it connotated that white people were clueless about what black people have gone and go through, hence their 'concerns' (which is not true of all) and that all black people are angry ( which is not true of all.) And what about the gay community? Women? The poor of all races and creeds? Other groups that are discriminated against? Where are those discussions? That is why this speech in my view was geared directly to repair damage done by those videotapes as that was really the focus of it. That is not hateful to say, nor is it hateful to state that I do not find him to be a MLK jr. but simply a 'politician' doing what he has to do to get 'elected.'

I'm actually tired of speeches. I'm tired of being preached to by candidates. I'm tired of being called a "hater" as if not liking or trusting the motivations of a "politician" and expressing that is taboo now. I am frankly tired of the Obama lovefest going on all over the media and on the Internet, to the point where I have seen blogs actually calling him the "Messiah." It is things like that that make me wonder just what people expect of him....and what if he can't deliver? However, Dick Cheney said today that his speech was "important", so I guess that clinches that he is "in" now.

I am an honest person and I see nothing about his experience level or his character besides his words to convince me that he is anything more than a politician, and that goes for Hillary Clinton too.This is about ego to them all, and I am also tired of being expected to just melt into a puddle everytime somebody gives a speech without any policy or specific steps laid out to get us there. Make of that what you will. As Stephen stated so correctly, I am also so done as it is apparent who the medis in this country wants as well, which also makes me wonder. I'm just tired in general of having my candidates picked for me by the media and the party elitists.
And anyway, after reading this,

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/18/voting-machine-maker-to-princeton-resea...

it is obvious the election results will once again be vulnerable because the one thing we and those candidates should REALLY be having a discussion on is swept under the rug.

I agree with what some have said; that this is damage control. His pastor was his pastor for many years. He had a pretty large part in the Obama family. To think that Barack Obama doesn't believe at least a little with what the pastor said....I highly doubt it. This pastor made these comments in public and now Barack Obama doesn't want to be associated with it.

I find it funny how after years and years of hearing from this particular pastor, Barack Obama NOW decides that he doesn't like what he's hearing. If Barack Obama disassociates himself with this pastor now that there's so much on the line, it makes a person wonder just what else Barack Obama believes. Especially the stuff that he doesn't want us to hear.

There's a difference between giving a vaguely worded political speech (see every politican in the last decade) and what Obama actually accomplished.

THAT'S what people are excited about.

He didn't go for the easy platitudes or the safe, vague generalizations that something, somewhere should maybe/possibly be done by someone about race relations in America. He didn't something I think was pretty unique.

When he directly acknowledged that the fears of white americans are actually legitimate -- that was unique. Especially coming from a black man. He said that the healing must begin by acknowledging that the subtle racism black Americans experience (in terms of housing, police action, code enforcement, schools) isn't "just in their heads." Fair enough. He then went on to explain that the anxiety the white middle class experiences when they talk about job loss or rising crime is also legitimate and needs to be equally addressed (though he allowed the causes of those anxieties are being manipulated by the media and politicans for political gain). That's unique. He said both black and white concerns are legitimate.

The way he skillfully married the anxieties and challenges of poor black Americans with poor white Americans was -- as far as I know of -- a FIRST by any politican in the last decade (if not longer).

"Healthcare isn't a black problem or a white problem -- it's an American problem."

This is what is so unique about the speech is that he elevated it beyond black/white or male/female -- these issues such as afforable housing, job losses, fair treatment by the police, healthcare are issues that effect ALL Americans across the country.

What's odd about the critics is that they seem to be trying to make the claim that his speech is somehow "invalid" because Obama has never had a cross burned on his front lawn or had his legs broken by the KKK and therefore he somehow "doesn't really understand what he's talking about."

What was unique about the speech was that he elevated it out of a "black problem" or a "white problem" and reframed ALL the issues as American problems.

He totally reframed the entire debate and forged a unifying theme that ALL of us can support.

He didn't say, "We need to raise taxes to give black children better schools."

He said we need to make ALL schools for ALL Americans better.

He didn't say, "Blacks don't have the same access to quality healthcare whites do."

He said both blacks and whites and hispanics and single Mom's are ALL being hurt by the broken healthcare system and we ALL need to work together to fix it for mutual benefit.

I can't recall a single politican in recent memory that has ever framed these issues as American challenges as opposed to the more traditional framing of them being uniquely "black" or uniquely "white" problems.

"no one has addressed this openly before" (politically) . . . you know what I meant Stephen.

And if we're expecting one individual regardless of who ends up as President to solve our problems without our involvement, support and help - "we" will have failed the world entirely. We the people usually don't have the staying power - we just want to go on with our lives and leave it up to the system in place to fix it. Pretty much how we got ourselves into the mess we're in now. Whoever gets into office is going to need at least the first 4 years to get started.

Peace . . .

Chique,
no one has adressed race before? really? I dont know about you, but I've grown up in a society that apparently CANT STOP TALKING about race.

I'm so done with this year's campaign. I voted for Obama in the primaries, I'll vote for whoever the standing Democrat is in the general. But if the massive energy overhaul that is needed in the world's current infrastructure doesn't happen at the behest of our next president, whoever it is, He or She will have failed the entire world entirely.

Stephenthomson,
You make a good point about Big Media and I agree that very generally it seems like they do prefer Obama. At least at this snapshot in time (I remember hearing the word "inevitable" not that long ago). But I wouldn't let that push me away from Obama any more then I would allow the MSM to narrow my options on anything. We all have control of where we get our information.

It's just a damned speech, but it's a good damned speech on a topic no one has addressed this openly before and it's about time.

I agree completely that MSM on each station has it's own take on this and they're all coming from different points of view and all trying to control the outcome. They've jumped on Ferraro, on Rev. Wright and on this speech by Obama to the point of total overkill. But I think most of us are intelligent enough to see it for what it is because that kind of BS started back in 2000 and hasn't slowed since. The media's agenda is geared toward sensationalism, slanting to their point of view and making money and it would take an idiot not to realize that.

Jan. I don't want to call you a hater...so please don't make me. The third paragraph of your post poses really tough and important questions that should be asked and answered. Unfortunately the 2nd graph is so filled with irrational hate and blatant misrepresentations that I'm afraid many people won't get past it.

When did Obama say he is speaking for all blacks or all whites for that matter? When did he say he was the only one who can solve these issues. If you listened to his speech you would have heard him say just the opposite. In the speech HE makes the point you do that great progress has been made. HE makes the point that the people who fought for civil rights (Pastor Wright included) made it easier, even possible for him to follow. HE then goes on to point out that he and his imperfect campaign can't hope to solve any of these issues alone. Did you miss the point about the campaign worker? He didn't say I, Barack Obama, am bringing people together. He said Ashley (the campaign worker) and people like her are bringing people together. Egotism? Please show me where.

Jan I respect your point of view even as I often disagree with it. But when you blatantly misrepresent what he's said like this, I can't help but be reminded of how Hillary consistently distorts the facts and spins misleading information for simple political gain. Kitchen sink win at all cost politics. I’ve had too much of that for the last 7 years. I’m ready for a change.

I like Obama and everything, but this is ridiculous. Everywhere, on the nightly News, on Current, on the Radio, this particular speech is being billed as some kind of great heroic feat that Obama "takes head on".

It's just a damn speech.

He's given lots of them. Like Jan says, Obama is no MLK, and one could even speculate that the "tide" of racist tensions in the campaign is conveniently positioning the issue of race as a hurdle to be triumphantly overcome, and in doing so presenting Obama as a hero.

After the 'event' of this speech, It is VERY apparent who Big Media likes.

So my question to you the common American is, how do you feel about that? How do you feel that your options are being narrowed for you? that Media - the horse shutters of reality, the bowtie of the Nation - is painting you a picture and calling it a photograph?

"It was only a damage control speech anyway. Had those videos not surfaced I doubt he would have given it at all." - Janeforgore

I don't mean to be a hater, but there is a fine line between a healthy skepticism of a public figure and, well, a kind of disconnect from reality.

Martin Luther King Jr was cheating on his wife -- was THAT the reason he gave the "I Have A Dream Speech"? Was it just smoke and mirrors to distract people from the fallout should his indiscretions be revealed? I mean, sure, he gave a good speech that day -- but what was his REAL motives?

Sounds silly to think that way, right?

Here Obama is running for office and gives what everyone universally agrees is a very thoughtful, substantive speech about the problems facing all races and genders in America and people are already dismissing it as a "stunt" or "spin" or mere "damage control."

Little comment is actually made on the content or any of the specifics he touches on -- it's begrudgingly accepted as "good" but then as quickly as humanely possible dismissed as nothing but a gimmick.

Again, nothing wrong with a healthy dose of skepticism, but some of Obama's critics would roll their eyes in disgust if the guy came up with a cure for cancer!

"Oh please," his critics would snort. "Of course he's curing cancer during an election cycle! What a worthless stunt that means nothing to anyone. I still wouldn't vote for him because I just don't trust the guy. Anyone else notice that Mr. Perfect didn't bother to cure diabetes? Of course not! The media gives Obama a free pass and don't even grill him on why he didn't bother to cure diabetes! It's all rigged!"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far based on speeches it comes down to two words. Obama speaks of "we" and Clinton tells us "I".

Jan: It's amazing you're buying into that "one speech" propaganda from Hillary.

Krag post on another thread: "When asked why she (Hillary) states that she has passed the "commander in chief" test, Hillary's strongest claim (several have been proven to be gross exaggerations) is a SPEECH she gave in China on womens rights. A speech. Really...I'm not making this up. And while it was certainly courageous, can it be compared to Obama's speech on the war?"

Jan: "This speech only will open the breech as now those who hate will only use it as a vehcile to dump on everyone they hate."

Can I assume you prefer that leaving this issue to fester without discussion is a better plan? Status quo? I totally disagree with your negative vision and much prefer Obama's.

I totally disagree this is not a damage control speech. It is a speech that I'm certain would have been made at some point in the campaign, to be run for president with coloured skin and not discuss race, would be the stupidest thing possible. Obama's camp always knew they had to make a speech, the whole Pastor thing just gave them an opportunity to make it the way they wanted to. Its a good speech, and its so nice to hear real opinions rather than sound bytes, a speech full of ideas which when you listen to, you'd be a fool not to agree.

regarding this cut down version ... if curren has the full version, just offer it! I'd cut the cutdown, or say that the cut down is a cutdown about the pastor, and doesn't have the good bits.

It was only a damage control speech to me. Had those videos not surfaced I have my doubts he would have given it. Remember, this is politics. Of course, to those who worship the ground he walks on as if he were Jesus Christ incarnate (and believe me I have seen you tubes by people who believe that) if you dare state that you are either a racist or a hater.

This speech will unfortunately only open the breech for some as now those who hate will only use it as a vehicle to dump on everyone they hate. I have seen it already on some Internet discussion boards. Mr. Obama already stated over the last weekend that he distanced himself from that minister. Therefore, why the need to do this now in the very state where the next primary is happening? Again, damage control. And I am a bit put out by him thinking he knows what all white people and black people think. All black people in this country are not hateful and angry, and all white people are not clueless about what has gone down in this country. It is as if the message is, if you want unity, vote for me. And sorry, but he is far from a MLK as he has been compared to in recent days. Nobel Laureate King spoke from his heart and not because he was a candidate for office and was beaten and jailed for what he believed in. To compare the two to me is patenlty absurd. Talk is all well and good, but where is the action?

Perhaps though, in his next speech he can explain to us why he voted to fund this war he claims to be against so many times after stating he doesn't know how he would have voted if he were in the Senate at the time and why he would vote to confirm those like Rice and Chertoff who have been architects of the very policy he claims to abhor. Then perhaps he can move onto why he bows to the nuclear lobby, the coal lobby, and others then says he is against lobbyists... and then, why his policy on Al Qaeda is really no different than what we have now if he is anti-war... why his health plan leaves out millions, and why he like all who come from that Congress have embraced Bush instead of calling for their impeachment, and have been AIPAC approved. Anyone who claims to understand the plight of blacks in this country who cannot also understand what is happening in the Middle East and continues the same policy of Israel right or wrong, does not get my full trust. And to me, anyone who votes for a candidate regardless of color or sex based on only one speech (and I have heard people say that based on this one speech alone he should be president) needs to learn a lot more about what it takes to be president of this country.

The speech was edited or "cut down" as you put it my friend because Obamas water carriers had to hurry up and focus on his distancing himself from the potential detriment to his candidacy, which is the excess baggage being carried in the form of his divisive "former" pastor (if indeed he is).

Yo. I hate to be a hater, but I thought that this was a very poor cutdown of Obama's speech. He had many inspiring, thoughtful, and contemplative things to say about race -- why is this cut down focusing on his response to the preacher instead of his deep analysis of race in America?