comment #1

gansibele says ...

Props to him, it was a fantastic speech, no pandering, no mollifying, straight up telling it like it is. Those issues are radioactive for a black politician to talk up.

comment #2

EOTW says ...

Is there anything this guy can't do???? It boggles the mind.

I read just tonight that when he takes a step on the ground, little flowers grow up where he stepped.

Joy to the world! The golden age has arrived.

comment #3

Chicago48 says ...

I fear for Obama...that he might be creating a cult following instead of a political following.

comment #4

MovieBob says ...

Zuh? Obama? Saying something of actual substance?

I'm a little afraid. If I look in the mirror right now, will I be a woman? Is my dog a cat now? I'm gonna lay down...

comment #5

dangovich says ...

Let's see, two posts about Obama's cult-like supporters, one about how he utters empty platitudes.

I'm starting to believe this is all you guys have.

comment #6

Josh Massey says ...

"...that he might be creating a cult following instead of a political following."

You're speaking in the present tense. I don't think you that's what you should be doing.

comment #7

EOTW says ...

*Crossing figners hoping Obama takes a Mideast trip. SUCH a great idea.*

lol

comment #8

JHRussell says ...

Bill Coisby has been ringing this bell, and actually doing something about it, for years - where are the "props" for him?

Why is it that white people are the ones who respond so favorably to this stuff? It is pure political pandering coming from Obama...you are being duped if you fall for it.

comment #9

JaySmack says ...

JHRussell's got it exactly right. If you want to get white people to beam, and strut and say, "Right On!" just criticize blacks or say racism isn't all that big a problem.
Obama did all both and the media is prasinig him as the second coming. Not realizing black politicians figured out this strategy as a way to swing white votes a long time ago.

Ken Blackwell, Corey Booker, and Michael Steele used these tactics to great effect in their campaigns. It's the blackjack that never misses--play to the ego of the "hard-working" electorate.

This speech was aimed at whites, particualrly white males, to get them to cream their shorts and warm to Obama.
And it's clearly working. A couple more speeches like that and he'll have the general election sewn up.

comment #10

Joe M. says ...

We white folks readily employ the ol' "poor white trash" line when we're criticizing our own lazy underachievers. It may be a smart political move on Obama's part, but it's a smart political move because- rightly or wrongly (and it's probably a little of both)- blacks have lots of lazy underachievers among their group, too, but there wasn't a mechanism before to point that out that didn't generate cries of racism. Thanks to Cosby and Obama, now there is. And it's going to resonate. After all, why should any one group be exempt form criticism?

comment #11

Mgmax says ...

The question is whether he'll have to apologize for having made a gaffe (in the Kinsleyan sense: "when a politician accidentally says the truth").

There is no dysfunction in the black community, and we need more government programs to cure it, has basically been the message for so long, I'm glad to see any pol say anything else, frankly.

comment #12

Josh says ...

The militant blacks will turn on him fast for this

comment #13

MovieBob says ...

dangovich
"Let's see, two posts about Obama's cult-like supporters, one about how he utters empty platitudes."

Speaking only for myself, it's a matter of consistency: I've spent EIGHT YEARS being disgusted at Bush's platitude-strewn, fundamentally empty, obnoxiously religion-tinged stump speeches. I'm just as horrified as all my liberal aquaintances at the Jesus Campers treating him like a messianic icon. I've yet to recieve a satisfactory answer as to why I SHOULDN'T react the same way to Obama pulling the same schtick.

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

Bob: "Obama? Saying something of actual substance?"

He should rant against gay marriage or brag about dodging sniper fire.

"I've spent EIGHT YEARS being disgusted at Bush's platitude-strewn, fundamentally empty, obnoxiously religion-tinged stump speeches. I'm just as horrified as all my liberal aquaintances at the Jesus Campers treating him like a messianic icon."

I think the difference is that Obama can read and write.
And people aren't just kissing up to him, because they want to feel superior to the rest of us.

Russel: "Bill Coisby has been ringing this bell, and actually doing something about it, for years - where are the "props" for him?"

Cosby tried to guilt-trip the black community, while Obama's just addressing the issue.

Joe: "If you want to get white people to beam, and strut and say, "Right On!" just criticize blacks or say racism isn't all that big a problem."

If you want to get white people who've never been around black people to beam, then I agree.

"blacks have lots of lazy underachievers among their group, too,"

They also have quite a few talented overachievers who get denied the same opportunities as white people, because there's some sort of issue with quotas not intended for rich people.

"but there wasn't a mechanism before to point that out that didn't generate cries of racism. Thanks to Cosby and Obama, now there is."

I imagine there were issues with racism because those previous approaches were genuinely racist-since those approaches resorted to blaming the community for its own problems, which Obama (and Cosby to a minor extent) does not necessarily do.

Mgmax: "There is no dysfunction in the black community, and we need more government programs to cure it, has basically been the message for so long, I'm glad to see any pol say anything else, frankly."

That's not exactly what Obama is saying, but it's good to know that you think they shouldn't get the same help that Ken Lay and Halliburton got on a daily basis.

Josh: "The militant blacks will turn on him fast for this"

Yes, because they really hate anyone who listens to them, rather than portraying them as part of the problem.

comment #15

dinther says ...

There seems to be a pattern emerging.

Obama has made two, maybe three, groundbreaking speeches in the last year. Truly groundbreaking, in the sense that they were bold - they crossed the line and told truths that few in public life have had the courage to say. The speech in Philadelphia on race was remarkable: first in the sense that he made it; but second in the sense that he turned what any other politician would have framed as demure apology into a forceful exegesis on the state of race relations in America. Yesterday's speech was another example: not as groundbreaking as the Philly speech, but provocative and bold in its own right. Obama has gone where few public figures have gone before, and he has done it in with an authentic voice that transcends race and class.

Yet, notwithstanding these seminal speeches, there remain a few who are so intimidated and emasculated by the possibility that Obama may be President that they will strain for the most petty cavil, no matter how small or irrelevant to Obama's policy positions. McCain dumped his severely injured first wife and cheated on his second, voted for a stupid, unnecessary war, and yet it is Obama's character and judgment that they repeatedly question.

It evinces how utterly desperate Republicans are - that they would strain to find something negative in these remarkable moments. Perhaps the reason that some bitterly deride Obama as being "elitist" and thinking that he is "above politics" is that, in the back of their minds lingers the realization that he, in fact, is.

comment #16

bb says ...

"Props to him, it was a fantastic speech, no pandering, no mollifying, straight up telling it like it is. Those issues are radioactive for a black politician to talk up."

Or maybe it was a cynically calculated move as he transitions into the general election. Obama is searching for his Sister Souljah moment.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

bb: "Or maybe it was a cynically calculated move as he transitions into the general election. Obama is searching for his Sister Souljah moment."

He probably should talk about McCain's illegitimate black baby and visit a school which bans mixed dating.

comment #18

gansibele says ...

Oh please. First of all, few here are more cynical about Obama. But read the speech, this was no political move. It came from the heart.

Second, JHRusell, put away the only-white-people card. I'm Hispanic and guess what, there is a big problem with black fathers and Hispanic fathers and it's glossed over by politicians of all stripes. Yes, Cosby spoke of it and was crucified for it by some and props to him as well (and to Chris Rock, while we are at it). But comedians/actors are not running for election. Obama is. Mgmax is right on the money. And btw, Corey Booker is outstanding... I guess you'd prefer Marion Barry?

comment #19

SaveFarris says ...

"The speech in Philadelphia on race was remarkable"

...Remarkable in that he backtracked on the core tenants of the speech so quickly. Less than 2 months later, both Wright and Trinity United had been kicked to the curb in favor of political expediency. Which tells me that as soon as the usual suspects of racial division (Sharpton, Jackson) start to complain, Obama will do yet another 180 and disown this speech as well.

comment #20

dinther says ...

SaveFerris = Exhibit A.

*sigh* - It is endearing when others unwittingly make my point.

OK, SaveFerris, let's accept your jaundiced premise: that Obama "backtracked" and "kicked Wright and Trinity United" to the curb for the sake of "political expediency." Let's imbue his actions with your cynical worldview, for the sake of argument. Nevermind that he stood by Wright for months instead of taking the "politically expedient" exit and disavowing Wright in Philadelphia - let's assume that you are correct, and Obama's actions are all part of some political calculus.

Even if this were true, how would it, in any way, diminish the substance of the speech in Philadelphia? How would it, in any way, detract from the substance of his speech yesterday?

Here's the point again, SaveFerris, since you apparently missed it the first time: Republicans (and some others) are so desperate to talk about anything other than the substance of relevant issues - whether it be race, the economy, the war, civil liberties - that whenever Obama discusses something of substance, we hear nothing but what you just provided - speculative, wide-eyed prattle about what his hidden motives are, his "character," flag pins, and other nationalistic crap that would make Joe McCarthy blush.

comment #21

Mgmax says ...

Anyone who uses "emasculated" in a discussion of alternative political points of view: Exhibit B.

comment #22

MovieBob says ...

"Cynic" is what a fool calls a realist.

I've no doubt that a HUGE percentage of those harping on Obama's cheeseball messiah routine are just Republican surrogates who never batted an eye when Bush would pull the same thing - but that doesn't make it less true in either case.

We have TWO very good, honorable, worthy men running for President. Both of them have MAJOR flaws. McCains are well-documented here (summary of charges: he's a cranky old man) Obama's not so much. I happen to like the guy, wouldn't have a major issue whatsoever with him being president - but as a candidate? He annoys the CRAP out of me.

Nothing pisses me off more than politicians who think freshman lit poetry will win me over. I don't give a damn about "hope and change." I want to here that crap I'll start going to church again (fat chance.) Tell me what you're gonna do, tell me what it's gonna cost, tell me why I should want it, then get the hell off the stage. The lesson we should be learning from EIGHT YEARS of Bush, 9/11, Iraq and the rest of it is that we need to be MORE cynical about our politicians, not less. They need to be grilled longer, prodded harder and dragged over twenty times the coals.

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

Bob: ""Cynic" is what a fool calls a realist."

So apparently, a liberal who can win over Republicans is foolish?

"I've no doubt that a HUGE percentage of those harping on Obama's cheeseball messiah routine are just Republican surrogates who never batted an eye when Bush would pull the same thing - but that doesn't make it less true in either case."

They let Bush pull the same thing, because they wanted to win, not because they actually liked him.

"Nothing pisses me off more than politicians who think freshman lit poetry will win me over."

We need more illiterate hicks like Dubya.

"The lesson we should be learning from EIGHT YEARS of Bush, 9/11, Iraq and the rest of it is that we need to be MORE cynical about our politicians, not less."

I think the lesson we should be learning is that it's ok to hold them to scrutiny, but only when it counts.

comment #24

Mgmax says ...

"Nothing pisses me off more than politicians who think freshman lit poetry will win me over."

Oh, man, that is perfect. The perfect description of the Obama campaign.

When I heard the word "change" I grab a baby, a fresh diaper and a box of wipes.

comment #25

dinther says ...

Mgmax, two things I don't get.

First, what troubles you about use of the word "emasculated"? It aptly describes a wide swath of the Obama-hating, paranoid, sky-is-falling, Republican males who have conjured up a conspiracy theory that everyone is out to get the White Man.

Second, re: your response to my post. I've noticed that whenever someone has anything more than a half-literate point to make, rather than confront them, you resort to the equivalent of the schoolyard taunt, "I know you are but what am I?" OK, I suppose if it were funny, that would be one thing. But some of your posts are nonsensical. Example, "Exhibit B" - huh? Even given its most generous interpretation, that doesn't make any sense. Another example - you've used "self-parody" in response to a number of posts, when the use of the word in those circumstances was entirely incoherent. And the funny thing is, you appear self-amused by this, as if you think you've scored a major point.

I don't mean to suggest that you're stupid - I think some of your film critique posts (e.g., the recent one re: shamalan) have been spot on. But frankly, some of your comments are evocative of that Apple Commercial where the PC guy repeatedly says, "touche'."