My problem with Obama’s Speech on Race

[Tom Rinaldo]

Timing is everything, and the timing of Barack Obama’s statement was wrong, profoundly so, even though it’s content was profoundly right. The speech was late in coming, but much better late than never. Obama’s timing was wrong in a political sense but also in the much broader social context of the signature rational for his presidential quest; Obama’s pledge to bring Americans of different walks together as a people.

To begin with, Barack Obama fumbled the ball when controversial tapes of his long time Pastor Reverend Wright were first sprung on national TV. His initial reply, emphasizing that he previously knew nothing about Wright’s most provocative comments because he wasn’t actually sitting in a church pew when those sermons were given, was technically true at best. It was also a deflection from the real issues being aired, and an irresistible invitation to the nation’s media to prove him wrong, reminiscent of Gary Hart when he foolishly dared the media to prove he was having an extra marital affair while he ran for President.

There was no excuse for Barack Obama not better preparing for this moment. Knowing how Willie Horton was used as a dagger to the heart of Mike Dukakis’ Presidential campaign, surely Barack Obama knew sermons containing Reverend Wright’s racially explicit preaching, shown in videos his church openly sold to the world, would be mined for damaging politically content by those who bear Obama no good will. An aid to McCain’s campaign has already been ousted for stitching together inflammatory snippets of Wright’s most controversial preaching for a planned hit on Obama. It was all quite predictable.

It’s unlikely Barack Obama would have fumbled his first response to the Wright tapes release had he consciously chosen to get out ahead of the issue to begin with, by preemptively fully dealing with his two decade long relationship with Pastor Wright before he was forced into crisis response mode. He didn’t though. Why not? The answer I believe lies in an early tactical decision made by Obama’s campaign to position him as a post racial candidate for the primaries.

But that decision clashed with the core insight of the speech on race Barack Obama just gave. We are not living in a post racial America, nor do we live in the segregationist past. That is the heart of the speech Barack Obama delivered. It explains many of the awkward moments we all on occasion witness, and the seemingly contradictory thoughts and actions of essentially good people navigating complex social changes. Obama explained it well. Neither fish nor fowl, not racist nor post racial; we are a society in the midst of a positive transition, overall making progress, still weighed down with some baggage from our past that can’t be simply ignored, carried by people who can’t be simply condemned.

Obama’s speech was important. It was honest and healing in its overall effect. It was a speech very few Americans could have given, that virtually any Americans can benefit from hearing. But it was long overdue. By previously running a campaign that avoided any focus on race, Barack Obama temporarily leap froged the issue he was always fated to address; the lingering racial divides, justice imperfectly served, and the unvanquished suspicions and grievances that fosters.

Obama’s greatest hope and biggest promise; furthering America’s unity as a people, is linked to progress in this realm, and his political quest now is linked to that progress as surely as Jackie Robertson’s skill at baseball linked him to the civil rights struggle in 1947. Obama delayed fully answering this aspect of his calling. In an irony for a politician accused of pushing words instead of action, Obama’s action in announcing as a viable Black candidate for President had a profound and positive racial impact, but the healing power of his words in that same arena was unfortunately delayed in coming.

In his speech Obama correctly observed that his campaign placing a mixed race African American on the threshold of winning the most powerful job on Earth is a real marker of our society’s racial progress, but it goes far past being a mere marker; Obama’s campaign is a dynamic process playing out in real time toward an uncertain conclusion. Win or lose, Obama’s candidacy has the potential to actively drive America’s racial progress forward dramatically. But it also has the potential to significantly set it back. Glass ceilings don’t dissolve; they shatter on impact, leaving jagged edges exposed in the process. And those have the potential to wound.

It was realistically impossible to avoid Race in this election, but facing it did not have to further divide us. Yet to an uncomfortable extent it has. Rather than helping us embrace the progress our society has made, this primary season gave voice to a litany of complaints about progress not yet realized. A problematic die got cast when the Obama campaign actively resisted Obama being viewed as the black candidate for President. It came from an understandable concern, a fear that being seen as “the black candidate” would make Obama less trust worthy to whites who in most places make up the large majority of voters. But since he literally isn’t just another in a long string of white Presidential candidates, embracing a post racial identity became Obama’s only other option,

So there was no major early campaign speech about race relations in America delivered by Barack Obama. And the potential controversy about Obama’s long term relationship with Reverend Wright and his Afro Centric ministry was not preemptively defused. Instead Obama ran an early campaign that sought to transcend race, an option admittedly that most white politicians in America have by default. But in Obama’s case that meant underplaying the obvious, that Barack Obama is the first black man in America with a very real chance to be elected President, and what that actually means to America.

For Democratic partisans outside of the Obama camp, public references to race, even where race has an obvious and relevant electoral connection, became risky lest they be construed as race based pigeon holing of Barack Obama as “the black candidate”, employed to his perceived disadvantage. The margin for error in comments became narrow and brittle, the thought police grew active, charges and counter charges flew, and overall bitterness grew. Race came close to becoming the third rail of 2008 Democratic primary politics, more than likely to harm anyone who touched on it.

Prior to Barack Obama delivering his speech on race relations in America, fierce partisanship regarding his Presidential ambitions dampened most chances for mutually respectful discourse about race in America between Democrats of differing allegiances. The truth is that under any circumstances it is difficult for most Americans to calmly discuss race outside of their closest circles, with forgiveness implicitly extended to those who misspeak or misstep, let alone those whose meaning simply gets misunderstood in the midst of an attempted dialog.

And in a politically charged climate where even indirectly racially related comments tend to be viewed in the least favorable available light, dialog quickly becomes poisonous. If the standard we must be measured by now is post racial, it’s no wonder we periodically fall short, our social healing is incomplete, and many sharp edges remain. As Barack Obama poignantly expressed while discussing Reverend Wright’s emotionally charged words; we are getting closer, but we simply aren’t there yet.

We aren’t there yet when Barack Obama attempts in his speech to explain his compassion for human frailty regarding racial issues by describing his White Grandmother’s fear of unknown Black men on the street, and that is immediately seized on in the media and by some opponents as evidence of Obama being disrespectful to his loving white Grandmother. We aren’t there yet when Barack Obama makes an off the cuff, in some surface way less than flattering comment about “the average white voter” during a radio interview, and that is twisted by the media and some of his opponents into evidence of Obama’s own racial prejudice. And we aren’t there yet when Hillary Clinton making reference to the importance of LBJ to the completion of Martin Luther King’s life work gets twisted by the media and some of her opponents into her being disrespectful and unappreciative of the contributions King made to America, and an inability of black people in general to accomplish much of anything without white help.

We aren’t there yet, and that’s OK, as long as we keep moving forward and don’t slip further behind. It worries me though when two white politicians who for decades fought in the American south, and in Washington DC, for the rights and dignity of African Americans citizens become identified as racial villains in the eyes of many of their fellow Democrats. It worries me also when the contents of one of the most profound speeches in a generation calling for and pointing toward racial healing in America, gets spun against the man who wrote it as evidence of his prejudice by many of his fellow Democrats. We have to turn this around, all of us. We choose to want a nation where an African American male and a Caucasian woman can compete against each other to become President of the United States, knowing only one can win, believing the one who loses won’t lose because of their race or gender. But that can never happen if we insist on thinking the worst of those with whom we don’t completely agree.

[lligrd]

1. Obama Is Not About Race

Why should he have had to address it before being forced too? I found the whole thing absurd and think the next generation will find it even more absurd.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. For the very reasons he gave in his speech he needed to address it

Very few people are "about race" when it comes down to it, all of us just want a good and productive life, the pursuit of happiness and all of that. But racial tensions exist anyway. Obama set a noble bar and I give him credit for that. He campaigns on a pledge to help bring America togther, and racial healing is a big part of that.

He is faced in his own life with a deep and complex relationship with Reverend Wright who I suspect he for good reason in many ways honors and respects, yet this in many ways great man and pastor periodically gives voice to sentiments that Barack Obama strongly rejects and disassociates himself from. The wounds of racism are not all healed.

But if you need a pragmatic reason than look no further than the reason why Obama felt he needed to give his speech. Whether or not you feel there is any merrit in the controversy, there is a huge controversy around what Wright has spoken, that controversy is dividing people and that controversy threatens Obama's chances to become President. Obama dealt with it in the best way he felt he could, by openly addressing the issue of race in America. My point is this was always coming, it was only a question of when. I think for many reasons sooner would have been better than later, but I am very appreciative of the comments Obama finally made on this subject.

[Drachasor]

3. I'm not sure the country was ready to listen before his speech though

A good speech is as much about when it is given, the context, as the actual speech. America was ready to hear about race at that point, and ready to listen to Obama talk about it. I have sincere doubts that would have been the case a year ago or more. So I have to profoundly disagree with you regarding timing. Only when the issue of race was brought to the forefront of the campaign as an issue, could it be properly addressed. At any other point it would have been seen as a bizarre thing to be talking about, especially when we have so many other pressing issues (and race did not seem to be one of them).

[lligrd]

6. Exactly And When Called Upon To Do So

he was up to the challenge. If fact, he surpassed it. Obama gave us the choice of it being about race or not, this time. I choose, not this time!

[earthlover]

11. Obama's campaign has been more than a campaign for black America....

Always has been. Early on, the Hillary campaign tried to paint Obama as the black candidate. He has resisted such stereotyping. He has tried to transcend race and talk about a United States of America. If he had portrayed himself as a black candidate, he would never have gotten this far in the first place because it would have negated one of his central messages. So I disagree with you that he was wrong not to make his race speech earlier. He was prepared to make it when the issue came up. And he did.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Of course Obama is not and was not "the black candidate" running

to the exclusion of him possibly being the most able candidate running from any and all perspectives. I do not think Obama would have by necessity been ghettoized as "the Black candidate" had he more openly talked about race in America earlier.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. This exact speech would not have been called for a year ago

Obviously it was crafted to deal with specific breaking circumstances, and those circumstances did heighten interest in what Obama had to say now. But those very circumstances forced Obama into damage control, and as fine as the words he spoke in response were, some damage has already been done, and not just to his campaign for President. Race has been near to the forefront of this campaign since before the Iowa caucus, and arguably sharing the center stage with some other issues since New Hampshire voted. Tensions have festered and now they have become potentially polorizing. Unity is further from us now than when this campaign began. I believe more and better options for dealing with race in this election were available to us earlier in this contest had it been faced then beyond merely deploring the presense of racial issues in this election cycle.

[JoFerret]

55. And for your thoughtful commentary

....thanks

[JoFerret]

18. Who forced him now?

I don't think you bothered to read the post at all. Your "response" is irrelevant to it.

[NickMorgan]

4. check it

Gotta say, this looks like a thoughtful, well written post, but I can't muster the stamina to barrel through its many long paragraphs!

[FrenchieCat]

8. It is well written, but the logic of the piece is not well founded.....

Tom is an extremely wonderful writer, but as a Hillary supporter, he has finessed an objection, but the objection is his subjective point of view that makes too many assumptions in that Tom is the one to have decided when the speech should have occurred, as opposed to when it occurred.

Tom believes that the speech should not have been made in response to the Wright Propaganda sliced and diced propaganda tapes....that is should have been more natural. That because Obama is of mixed race, that it was his job to give a speech on race precisely because he was a candidate running while Black....and to give the speech, even if no one asked.

[FrenchieCat]

5. I have to dismiss you entire article......

You lost me when you determined that Obama's timing was wrong right off the bat based on your own thoughts and feelings.

Do you know Rev. Wright? Because if you did, you would not have believed that the tapes that you saw depicted the real Rev. Wright. Nor would you believe that there would be the uproar that there was.

If you don't recall, Obama clearly stated that he had not known about those "offensive" comments in advance.....until he saw the footage. That must have been true, which is why he wasn't as prepared as you would have recommended.

In other words, there wouldn't have been any reason to have prepared for damage control, if he didn't know there was anything really all that damaging.....which is why you are judging him has being late.

I go to a church where the pastor can get a bit heated on occasion. If I ran for office, even the highest office in the land, why would I feel like I had to know every single sentence ever uttered by my pastor before making an assessment as to whether I could run for office....especially if all that I had ever heard wasn't all that bad?

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Fairly or not, there already was talk about Rev. Wright being controversial

in the press over a year ago. I have not made a negative post about him here or anywhere else since this issue errupted. I do not view Wright as negative or a racist, and I don't think Obama should have left that congregation or his ministry. But Obama himself admitted in his speech that he knew some of the views that Wrigth held were ones that he strongly disagreed with, and his campaign previously clearly finessed how closely Wright would be linked in public with it. I guess we simply disagree on whether Obama should have known that his relationship with Rev. Wright needed to be preemptively discussed, in a media interview if not in a speech. I do think Obama could, should, and possibly did see this day coming, and perhaps was forstalling dealing with it until he had secured the nomination.

[goletian]

7. this was the best time for him to address race, it was the most relevant when he did it

whats he gonna do? wave at the people discussing foreign policy, the economy, healthcare, etc. and say, "uh, HI, i wanna talk about race in our country!" people would accuse him of trying to distract from real issues, like... foreign policy, the economy, healthcare, etc. his timing was perfect. race was front and center, and it was caused by americas ignorance on issues of race. i think his timing was perfect. he saw the opening, and he took it. had he chosen any other time, it wouldve seemed out of place.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Aye......

That is my conclusion as well.

And as important, he, as I...felt that he was simply a candidate running while Black. He never was out to make his (mixed) race the issue. That's what other people that shall remain unnamed decided on. Of course, once Ferraro decided to announce that he was only winning because of the mere fact that he was Black....I'm sure he may have started thinking about writing a speech.

[goletian]

10. that too, he was trying to keep everyone focused on the issues, not his color - nt

[elizm]

12. “The time is always right to do what is right.” MLK, Jr.

“The time is always right to do what is right.”

~~Martin Luther King, Jr. (American Baptist Minister and Civil-Rights Leader. 1929-1968)

[susankh4]

13. Timing is everything and Obama lucked out on this one.

As it is... it came at a time that hurt him, but will eventually boost him (I think) in the Dem. primary.

Had it come during the GE..... it woulda buried him. And it still may, if/when he is in the race against McCain.

[TexasLady]

16. I agree with FrenchieCat on one thing

that he had to make the speech at ALL is what makes this so ridiculous. I just heard talking heads call McCain's Halloween and Al Queda SCREW ups 'hiccups'. Hiccups?

Then again, I'm sure there are lots more eloquent and heartfelt words and speeches, where these came from. and on being typical... As a white person, I felt no sting. Just a little wince, because when I heard it, I could see all my repuke family members jumping on it as soon as it left his mouth. More of an 'ohh shit, they'll love THAT one.'

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Racism is itself ridiculous. That is where all logic breaks down, but it exists n/t

[JoFerret]

17. Excellent. Thank-you

I hope people read it

[blm]

21. BALONEY, Tom....He planned to make this speech in the GENERAL when the greater attention

would be focused on his words.

This is HILLARY'S fault that it was pushed forward before it's time.

Your too late theory is horseshit, no matter how much I like you personally.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. I don't mind your strong disagreement, I don't take it personally :)

We do disagree though. This isn't a matter that could ever be laid to rest by a single well delivered speech during the General Election. A positive ongoning dialog needed to be encouraged, and in my opinion it wasn't, more to the contrary actually. An ounce of pervention is worth a pound of cure, and now the illness is upon us.

[blm]

25. That dialogue should've started as the KNOWN nominee in April and be well into it by May

and June. Hopefully over by July.

There shouldn't have been another Dem faction throwing rotten tomatoes at the entire issue and twisting the dialogue instead of HELPING the party and the country HAVE the dialogue comprehensively.

Hillary wanted this issue to cause Obama to implode - and shame on all of you who are furthering that cause,

Obama is risking his life to make this bid and YOU ALL KNOW IT. Hillary camp is acting like they are just waiting for the bullet to be delivered.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. It actually took hours for me to write this OP

because of the complexity of my feelings regarding this campaign to date and the difficulty of trying to tie it together someone without making it just a nother partisan candidate thread.

So I will only add this to what I wrote initially. I closed with two examples of Barack Obama having his true intent twisted when he referred to racial matters for a reason. The issue is still charged in America, and the broad range of intense reactions to so called "pastorgate" give evidence of that. Any attempt to single handedly pin, either directly or indirectly, virtually every emergence of racial tensions that have flared during this primary season to malicious intent or actions on the part of the Clintons to me more likely reflects a malicious intent on the part of the accuser. Reality is far more complex than that, and both Hillary and Bill Clinton, along with Barack Obama, have at times all been victimized by racially based negative assumptions made about them.

[blm]

31. And instead of joining together to HAVE the dialogue furthered meritoriously, what do we have?

Look at the loyal Clinton posters who throw gas on the flames here and around the blogosphere and the airwaves in hopes that the flames will somehow bring Obama down in a spectacular way, knowing fiull well that is the ONLY way Clinton can become the nominee.

For over a month now, Tom, Clintons have KNOWN she has no way of attaining the math she needed and they only had the option of forcing Obama to fall in a big way - and THIS is what they chose to magnify to force that fall.

The country DID need to have this issue addressed comprehensively, fairly and honestly - and now look what the forcing of it is doing to our own party. The issue needed ALL of our strengths behind it - not USING it for individual opportunism.

And it's not like Clintons haven't done this before - validating the distortion of an important issue and the smearing of a good Democrat for personal political gain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[shellinaya]

22. There were a lot of things wrong with his speech!

First of all, he only mentioned two races -- black and white! What about the rest of the country? There's a lot more in American than black and white.

I don't understand the gushing over that speech. Obama could have stopped the racist comments about Arab-Americans, Muslims, Hispanics, Mexican immigrants, immigrants of all kinds, if he'd only been more inclusive and said the word. People fall at his feet hen he talks, doesn't he know that? I mean, they literally faint.

Personally, I think he'd be a horrible failure as a president because he only sees black and white, not everyone else. Did he mention Asian Americans? Hmong and Somali immigrants? There are some problems in some states with these people not being treated well. Does he even know that? Did he mention Palestinian Americans or Iraqi Americans?

Of course not. To Barack, you're either black, or a "typical" white person like his dumb grandmother.

He could have done so much with that speech and he completely bailed. He could have talked about Mexican immigration and the low wages they receive and that crazy fence they are building on the border due to racist attitudes. instead he had to defend that bigoted pastor of his. Is this the "judgment" Barack would exhibit as president? We don't need judgment like that. We need someone more all-inclusive than he seems to be.

His "race" speech sucked.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. I agree in one respect

By waiting to discuss race directly until he became embroiled in a race related controversy, Obama was limited in the scope of the issue he could address. It was one part damage control for every part of healing. Many of the concerns you raise could have and hopefully would have found voice in a speech that was not necessitated by Obama's sudden pressing need to defend his association with a spiritual mentor who had instantly become very controversial.

[Bonobo]

26. Tom, I read the entire piece you wrote twice. I read it slowly and thoughtfully.

Here are my conclusions:

You are a man in enormous doubt and conflict. I know this from your contradictory expectations of Obama that you clearly have. In your OP, you stated essentially that there were two "preemptive strikes" that he should have made in order to run a better campaign. Now, before I show you what is wrong with that, let me observe first that I don't think anything in your long OP rose to the title of your thread which was "My Problems with Obama's Speech On Race". It didn't sound like you had ANY problems with the speech itself. Rather you thought it was brilliant. Your complaints seem to be with our society.

Anyway, the two pre-emptive strikes you called for:
1) That Obama should have predicted the Wright controversy and dealt with it (ie Kicked Wright to the curb way earlier?) before the campaign started. and
2) That he should have made a pre-emptive speech about his race rather than try to pretend like he wasn't the Black candidate.

Well, as to this: 1) Obama DID know it might become an issue, but as he said, he knew that Wright was soon to retire and also, since they are close -almost like relatives- he did not want to kick one of his own to the curb. That is his MINISTER. Very, very serious bonds here. That Obama would not sacrifice such a relationship for political gain or safety speaks volumes about him as a person and thus, he should not be criticized for it.
2) As to making a speech about race, I do not see why the burden of this should always be upon black people to do such a thing. You simultaneously seem to demand that he self-identify himself as the Black candidate and yet at the same time move above just being the black candidate. It is an impossible demand.

As to your OP itself, I took notes while reading it and would like to share some of the thoughts I gained while doing so.
-You started out with the claim that the problem was one of timing. This is the "pre-emptive" points that I addressed above and I do not think you made much of a point, least of all a criticism of the speech (which was the title of your OP).
-Then you introduce the idea that we are not, in fact, a "post-racial" society and therefore the nucleus of Obama'a campaign is somehow invalid.
-Then , I think you make the most revealing statement of your entire post. I think it shows that you are afraid of taking the temperature of America. It reveals your deepest fear of the Obama candidacy,namely that a test of America that will show that hope was nothing but a foolish dream. Here's your quote:
"“Win or lose, Obama’s candidacy has the potential to actively drive America’s racial progress forward dramatically. But it also has the potential to significantly set it back. Glass ceilings don’t dissolve; they shatter on impact, leaving jagged edges exposed in the process. And those have the potential to wound.”"

Tom, It seems to me that you are bemoaning the fact that we are not yet a "post-racial" society. It seems to me that you do not think we are yet the society capable of having a non-White male running the country. You may be right, but it is PRECISELY THAT that Obama is putting to the mandate in this election and we must rise to the challenge. Obama is acting and talking as if the American people are intelligent and good and far more capable of seeing through the propoganda that the media vomits upon us. If his belief in the essential goodness and fairness and even astuteness of Americans is warranted, he will win and win big. And in the process, he will tear down the punditocracy, the media monopoly and a lot of the old power structure.

Show some hope, Tom. Let's work together for a different America, man.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Thanks for taking my OP so seriously, and for your thoughtful reply

You are indeed right that I have no significant complaint about Obama's speech not related to timing, and yes I think in large part it was brilliant. The OP title was provacative and could possibly be called evasive in that regard, but in no way untrue, and I moved quickly in my first paragragh to establish that I thought the content of his speech was both profound and positive, and clarified exactly what my problem with it was.

I also appreciate the question mark you included when you speculated what I thought Obama could have done earlier, i.e. when you said: "Kicked Wright to the curb way earlier?" That was intellectually very honest of you not to leap to a definate conclusion. In fact I do not think Obama should ever have kicked Wright to the curb, and I made a point in another post to this thread of noting that I have not made a single attack on Reverend Wright or the fact that Barack Obama continued to maintain his connections to him. In his speech Obama did not kick Reverend Wright to the curb, and far from condemning him for not doing so, I strongly applaud Obama for the sensitive and deeply personal manner in which he dealt with the honor he shows Reverend Wright while simultaneously strongly rejecting some of the opinions his pastor voices. To me that was part of the magic of Obama's speech, the sensitivity and compassion he showed for those who have been burnt by the flame of racism in one way or another.

The OP was a very difficult one for me to write because my feelings on all of this are complex and not easy to hold onto in a single coherent context, let alone put to written word. Obama should not have to be both a Democratic candidate for President and the Black candidate for President. And no one should suffer from the effects of racism in America. The burden of addressing racism in America certainly should not fall solely on the shoulders of Black Americans, and fortunately it hasn't, though that burden indeed has disproportionately been bourn by Black Americans. There is a a grace turned at times to bitter irony about this contest in the fact that Bill Clinton in particular is a white American who has given constructive speechs on race relations in America. His administration appointed record numbers of minorities to important positions, he went to Africa and apologized for slavery, he located his personal office in Harlem upon retirement, etc.

But it is not historic for a white to be on the verge of getting elected President, and it is historic for a black to reach this point. It changes our focus as a nation to be a part of this history unfolding. It is a unique until now moment in our history, and it offers us unique opportunities, and yes some special risks.

I did not mean to imply that the nucleus of Obama's campaign is invalid because we have not yet reached a post racial America. Obama's campaign itself, as he himself noted in his speech, is part of the process of our someday reaching a post racial America. In his speech Obama acknowledged we are not yet there but there was no lack of hope in having to make that acknowledgement, just like there was no lack of hope when Martin Luther King Jr. said "I have seen the mountain top" while acknowledging that he personally might not live to make it to there personally. It is exactly the turning of a checkered present reality into a basis of hope for a uniformly bright future that is the power of what both King and Obama talked about. Both speeches were extremely hopeful but neither failed to achknowledge the challenges we still face. They both started firmly grounded in an imperfect contemporary reality, and it is always hopeful to know that someone who has his eyes open to the true challenge is still confident that we have the ability to meet it.

I need to be some place soon and am running out of time to write for now. I think America has reached the point where we can elect a Black President, and that President may be Barack Obama. I mentioned Jackie Robertson in my OP because of the ground breaking role he played in breaking a significan prior race related barrier. Jackie Robertson wasn't a civil rights activist, he was a baseball player. There was no fair reason for him to carry the weight of societal oppression onto the ball field when he suited up for the Dodgers. He wasn't there to make speeches, he was there to make double plays, but he carried that burden anyway. When Branch Richey signed Robetson to a major league contract he looked at his baseball skills, and he looked at his interpersonal skills also, because he knew Robertson would not only be competing for the Dodgers in a professional sport, he would be walking through a door that no one of his race had walked through before. If the intergration of baseball had been handled in a less sensitive way by a less centered person, it could have led to riots. That is all I meant about the danger of shattering glass ceilings. They must be shattered but the act of shattering them is not toatlly free of danger of increased divisiveness in it's wake.

Gotta run, will check back later.

[Bonobo]

40. I guess I'm left not really understanding what the source of your objection to Obama is.

You sound more and more like a supporter to me.

:wtf:

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. For one thing I am not an opponent of Obama

nor am not a fanatical supporter of Hillary Clinton. I am glad to give praise, for example, to the speech Obama just gave on race in America because I believe it legitimately advanced to cause of racial justice and equality in our nation while promoting cross racial understanding. His speech did not have to be perfect for me to strongly praise it, because seeking perfection is a recipe for disillusionment. I have long said I would strongly support either Hillary or Barack as the Democratic nominee for President, and I stand by that statement now. Both of their campaigns disappoint me at times, and the Primary process itself is by nature adversarial and as a result unsettling.

My own read on both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that there is idealism remaining in both of them heavily tempered by pragmatic considerations regarding what must be done in order to achieve and successfully wield the power needed to implement programs. They have been dealt very different political hands to play but their goals are very similar. Clinton reached for the seasoned insider brand and Obama seized on the insurgency label, and I have seen both sides engage in hard ball political tactics to win. If I can support Hillary Clinton for President I can support Barack Obama for President. I do not accept the popular contention that at their core they are so different.

So my basis for deciding between these people as to whom to support is not deeply rooted and dramatic. The fact that Obama is an African American and that Clinton is a woman for me are two of the most compelling arguments I can embrace for supporting either of them in turn; crossing either threshold would be momentous for America. If I have a core objection to Obama it would probably be described as a nagging concern that he ran for President too soon, and that opens up another can of worms to discuss.

It is not just a matter of his experience - which is somewhat a concern of mine; it also entails public perceptions of his experience. And from there I move to his being so new on the national public scene that positive perceptions of Obama are less rooted now than they would be of a man with a longer national track record. A sudden new Revelation about Obama's past, like this focus on the church he attends, is more likely to make some voters question whether they ever knew the real Obama in the first place, since they never knew him long or well before this campaign. And since Obama never dueled with the national Republican Party before in a high stakes spot light, I remain agnostic on his abilities to do so effectively over a prolonged period. So you will find me repeatedly comment that it is very illuminating to watch how OBama handles this contest for the Democratic nomination.

I am not blind to the upside that Obama represents, but I do look at how divisive this campaign has become and how his side has participated in it. And Obama is the one who sells himself as a unifying agent of change to make up for his relatively thin resume. Unlike most DUers I see the scales more closely balanced as to who is or is not acting angelically this primary season. It has been a very odd election cycle. Initially Obama really wasn't being vetted, and that did force the Clinton campaign to push some controversies toward the public spotlight that ordinarily a robust press would have done instead. Whatever one things of Obama's associations with Rezko, for example, it clearly were at least "news worthy" by conventional standards, but little was said of it by the media until Hillary raised Obama's connection to Rezko in a national debate.

I come across more partisan for Hillary on DU than I really in truth am, though yes I do support her over Obama for the nomination. But there are many voices on DU defending and advocating for Obama and relatively few for Clinton. Whoever wins our nomination will need to unite our party behind them. Yes there are attacks from both sides but the attacks on Hillary truly regurgitate the worst things that the Radical right has ever said about her, and no accusation is too wild to be made against Hillary here that it won't receive 30 recommendations to the greatest list. Too often it feels like a lynch mob on DU against her or perhaps I should say a witch hunt, to keep my metaphor more politically appropriate. That does not help our parties chances in November no matter who we nominate.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

29. your opening sentences says it all.....k&r

[anamandujano]

30. My problem is that he sought to excuse Wright for his attacks by

equating them with Ferraro and his white grandmother. He also spoke down to white people, as if not enough of us understand race problems in America, as if he has to clue us in. I'd say the lion's share of Americans sorely feel their inherited guilt over the nightmarish treatment of blacks by our ancestors. If whites had not stepped up to the plate, we all know things would not have progressed as far as they have. Needless to say, there is a long way to go, but why excuse those who work in the wrong direction?

Add to that the fact that the Obama campaign instigated and profited from labeling the Clintons racist.

Did Obama intercede to stop the press onslaught against the Clintons for mischaracterized twisted words? NO, he let it go. It went on a long time. His campaign piled on that fictitious view whenever they had a chance. So, I don't feel as incensed as you do over the media's jumping on his words typical white person and the like. The problem for me is that Obama gets to speak his mind and Hillary has to examine any word before she speaks for fear of being further piled upon.

Your essay is very well thought out but I feel too forgiving of Obama. The speech never would have been given if it hadn't been necessitated by damage control. I think that is very important. He and his pastor (and his wife) have harbored these feelings for a long time but he only speaks of them in an attempt to save his campaign. So, it was not really a problem of timing but a problem of political expediency (existence vs. non-existence).

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. Because minds and ears have been closing at an alarming rate on message boards

and most of those who frequent these boards lately support Obama for President, I intentionally closed my essay by citing two examples of Obama's words on race getting twisted out of context to attack him and only one of that happening to Hillary Clinton. The dynamic is the same even if the perpetrators and their motives differ depending on who gets smeared. And it is a point I choose to make that the effort to force a color blind political debate on a racially aware public was bound to lead to accusations being hurled over who was to blame for references to race, real or imagined, being raised during this electoral contest.

The simple act of acknowledging race in the context of this election was quickly automatically defined as "playing a race card" with someone always having to be at fault for that occurrence. It was a set up for polarization, and I have my own feelings about who benefited and who didn't from that dynamic, which I think could have and should have been avoided.

[spooky3]

41. Both you and Ana have made some excellent points and I thank you for them.

[EFerrari]

32. Your problem with Barack's speech is that 1) you overlook

the larger goal of the speech and 2) that you seem to believe both sides are equal a la Fox News.

Obama could have just covered his @ss. He chose not to do that in favor of a more holistic frame for this over arching issue in American culture.

And that you ignore the Clinton campaign's attempt to court blue collar workers with fear of black voters, of a black candidate, of blackness itself, detracts from the honesty of your argument.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. I kept the more blatantly partisan aspects of this discussion out of my OP period

Because I know that we already are becoming polorized among ourselves over race in this race. I didn't comment on the ways that I think racial polorization was politically used in South Carolina either.

[EFerrari]

35. I respect your thoughtfulness but no, you didn't entirely

keep partisan considerations out of your essay. I'm not sure who could, really.

Obama could have gone on stage and apologized and distanced himself and moved on to other topics.

He didn't do that. He didn't panic and he stayed with that difficult moment. He tried to speak to our founding flaw. He spoke to our history, to his own experience and to his vision of progress. That the video of his speech is now the most viewed in the world is testament to how hungry this country is for reconcilliation. And, to his courage.

In addition, you tried to gloss over the race baiting out of the Clinton campaign as if that activity was equally sported by both campaigns. That is simply untrue. That the Clintons chose to engage in race baiting is a source of profound sadness for their former supporters and it seems unlike you to try to "paper" over that.

Obama had no incentive to pull race into this race. Apparently, the Clintons thought they could benefit from doing just that.

Those are the facts. And the Democratic Party will suffer in November from the Clinton's heedlessness.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. I agree with you on about what Obama did with his speech

That is why I called it's content profoundly right. But it's not true that Obama had no incentive to pull race into this race however. He certainly did in South Carolina after losing in New Hampshire, and Obama greatly benefitted by the negative racial spin applied to comments made by both Bill and Hillary Clinton. I mention the MLK/LBJ example in my OP, and the Mayor of Atlanta blasted efforts to call Barack Obama's quest for the presidency "a fairy tale" with Bill Clinton sitting in the audiance, taking the actual words Bill Clinton used completely out of their original context and injecting a racist angle to them instead.

I think it was a brillinat primary season strategy for Obama to automatically equate real and imagined references to race as "race baiting" or "playing the race card" againstg him, as if it were dirty politics to notice that he was an African American. While Obama ran as a post racial candidate he knew full well that the public, even the Democratic electorate, is anything but uniformly post racial. White Democrats harboring racial issues, or anti muslim issues, were unlikely to personally associate themselves with his campaign, but some predictably would chose a Democratic candidate to support in 2008 none the less.

It's a big country and a national campaign involves tens of thousands of staff and supporters at every level. I suspect the Obama campaign anticipated that some ugliness was inevitable because racism is still very much a part of our society. It was bound to errupt, there were bound to be anti-Obama attack emails circulating for example. And when they did sometimes they would bear the fingerprints of Democrats supporting someone other than Obama, since those predisponsed to feel that way would not have chosen him as their candidate. Obama, rather than being injured by those references in the Democratic primaries, was positioned to turn them to his political advantage against his opponents.

And now when a racial controversy touches Obama, like it has in regards to Wright, he has thousands of supporters preconditioned to believe that Clinton is to blame for all of his woes. Which most definately has helped him in this primary campaign.

[EFerrari]

37. Tom, if this is what you really think, I can't help you.

"I think it was a brillinat primary season strategy for Obama to automatically equate real and imagined references to race as "race baiting" or "playing the race card" againstg him, as if it were dirty politics to notice that he was an African American."

[bettyellen]

38. instead of this patronising bullshit, why don't you explain what happened in SC?

BO started all this by refusing to defuse the issue- just when it he needed some votes. You may not like acknowledging it, but he allowed that card to be played. Very clever to be acting above it all, while your surrogates drag people in the mud.
His campaign started the ugly with the fairy tale racist bullshit. Like Mc Clurkin, BO is happy to feed off the worst of some voters fears.
Just like the rest of them. Change that isn't. I am literally going to have to hold my nose to vote for either of them.

[EFerrari]

39. "BO started all this by refusing to defuse the issue".

If you're refusing to defuse an issue, you didn't start it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. I have at times in the past made an analogy about a specific aspect of Obama's political skills

It's baseball once again. A few players are known for their ability to stand still in the batter's box and allow a wild pitch thrown by the opposing pitcher to strike them, so that they can be awarded first base by the umpire, rather than moving to get out of the way of the pitch. It's an interesting analogy because it often involves cases of inside pitchs thrown that slip away from the pitcher and end up sailing a few inches further inside than they were actually intended. Typically the batter leans back and the pitch simply counts as "a ball" (this analogy won't make sense to anyone without a basic understanding of the rules of baseball). But by letting the pitch strike him instead, the batter makes it on base.

The batter didn't start it. He didn't throw that pitch slightly off target, but some batters know how to exploit an honest error by the pitcher to their advantage by taking "the hit" and allowing the umpire to cry foul and advance him one step closer to reaching home plate to score for his team. Inside pitches are a legitimate part of baseball strategy, they are thrown to keep batters off balence preventing them from becoming too comfortable at the plate. They are also sometimes thrown to exploit a possible weakness in some batters skill, the ones who have trouble getting their bat around in time on inside pitches. And while most major league pitchers have amazing accuracy skills, they still sometimes miss their mark with a pitch by several inches to a foot, and strike a player who they didn't intend to strike.

But the analogy becomes more complex, because there are rarer times in baseball when the pitcher may actually attempt to hit the batter with a pitch even though the batter will be awarded first place if that happens. Typically that is when emotions are running high for one of many possible reasons, and sometimes that leads to a brawl on field, and sometimes fans respond by throwing items from the bleechers at players on the "offending team" etc. That is when things get most out of hand and dueling accusations are made and retalitory pitches get thrown at other players.

If Barack Obama was content to get hit by a poorly aimed pitch in order to reach first base when his team needed a run, one could say his role was passive. And if that fired up his team to get angry at the opposing pitcher and kick it up a notch, that too could bring advantages. But if one saw the game being played spinning out of control with grudges and counter grudges accumulating that might lead to real violence on the field, a decision to defuse that spiral might be in order instead.

Obama elequently explained how wild pitches sometimes happen in that speech he gave. And in it he explained why Reverend Wright did not deserve to be ejected off his team. But many Clinton supporters believe that Obama was more than willing to let Bill and Hillary Clinton get thrown under the bus instead of Pastor Wright, despite their life time of service to promoting civil rights for all Americans. It began with that fairy tale about LBJ.

[EFerrari]

43. What Clintons are you referring to?

The ones that pushed "welfare reform"?

The ones that pushed NAFTA?

The ones that pushes 3 strikes?

You may honestly believe the Clintons advocated for the black "community".

The most they did was to show up at black churchs -- much like TCC -- and ask for money and votes.

That may be a bitter pill to swallow but it happens to be true.

[bettyellen]

44. he certainly allowed race on the table- waited a week till it benefited him.. and ONLY then

had something to say about it.
that was very wrong.
he should have said something, but he had too much to gain by allowing the slurs.

[EFerrari]

53. Did he also "allow" Shaheen to accuse him of being a coke dealer?

Or, did he force Bill Clinton to call him a mugger or to question his patriotism and "all that other stuff"?

There is incident after incident out of the Clinton campaign. And Obama doesn't write their talking points. How in the world can you hold him responsible for their bullshit?

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Shaheen was a very high profile Democrat in a very key state

but Shaheen was still forced to resign over that comment, which was correct. It crossed the line (and I say that even though you misquote Shaheen who never said Obama IS a coke dealer or even that he WAS a coke dealer, but rather that Obama's own memoir could invite some to ask if he ever sold crack in addition to using it - a clear hard foul no matter how you look at it). This was prior to New Hampshire voting, so it was no small slap on the wrist for the man who is married to NH's past Democratic Governor and current Democratic U.S. Senate candidate to be forced to leave Hillary Clinton's campaign over those comments. It was no small sacrifice to Clinton's campaign to cut their ties to him over it. To use my above metaphor Shaheen's comments were an inside pitch that struck the batter that the batter had no chance of ducking. He deserved to be ejected from the game and he was. And as it played out in full, I think the ultimate fallout from those comments hurt Clinton more than they hurt Obama, but that of course is just my subjective opinion.

As much as I honor what Samantha Power has done with her life, her calling Hillary Clinton "a monster" was similar "grounds for dismissal". If Obama had an electoral vulnerability over concerns about his race, Clinton had one over the cumulative effect of her being derided as "a monster" by Republican hacks like Rush Limbaugh over the course of 15 years.

[EFerrari]

62. I hope you notice that I didn't quote Shaheen at all

As an academic, words matter to me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. Fair enough. I agree that you only characterized his comments n/t

[bettyellen]

60. wow. you have just about all your "quotes" and "facts" completely wrong. and i won't respond to BS

i think they spewing of BS you just did, the total inability to stay on topic and address the "fairytale= racism" bullshit, says quite enough.

[EFerrari]

61. That's fine, bettyellen. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. I was responding to your contention that Obama had no incentive

to pull race into the race by exploring how it's entry into the race could play to his benefit in selected instances. I have conflicted feelings about what actually happened to set the course the campaign got set on, and I do not believe that ill intentions from either camp were a built in given. I only get emphatic when some try to claim that all the blame lies with the Clintons.

[EFerrari]

50. As I have posted in another context, the chair of the Independent Womens Forum

put it well. She said, in an appearance on Washington Journal, the Clinton campaign didn't notice Obama was black until he started winning.

The Clintons, not Obama, made a decision to pull race into the campaign -- dating back to when Shaheen was invoking the image of a young black drug dealer. They stood to benefit, he stood to lose. Maybe that's just politics. This isn't a game of canasta, after all. Unfortunately, at this stage in this race, Democrats all stand to lose right along with him.

[Straight Shooter]

46. Well done, Tom.

I think the time for Obama to give a great speech was not on this issue but on the issue of disenfranchisement of voters in Florida 2000, and in Ohio 2004, but particularly Florida in 2000:

Dec. 4, 2000 If Vice President Al Gore is wondering where his Florida votes went, rather than sift through a pile of chad, he might want to look at a "scrub list" of 173,000 names targeted to be knocked off the Florida voter registry by a division of the office of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. A close examination suggests thousands of voters may have lost their right to vote based on a flaw-ridden list that included purported "felons" provided by a private firm with tight Republican ties.

Early in the year, the company, ChoicePoint, gave Florida officials a list with the names of 8,000 ex-felons to "scrub" from their list of voters. But it turns out none on the list were guilty of felonies, only misdemeanors. The company acknowledged the error, and blamed it on the original source of the list -- the state of Texas.

...

Florida is the only state that pays a private company that promises to "cleanse" voter rolls.The state signed in 1998 a $4 million contract with DBT Online, since merged into ChoicePoint, of Atlanta. The creation of the scrub list, called the central voter file, was mandated by a 1998 state voter fraud law, which followed a tumultuous year that saw Miami's mayor removed after voter fraud in the election, with dead people discovered to have cast ballots. The voter fraud law required all 67 counties to purge voter registries of duplicate registrations, deceased voters and felons, many of whom, but not all, are barred from voting in Florida.

In the process, however, the list invariably targets a minority population in Florida, where 31 percent of all black men cannot vote because of a ban on felons. In compiling a list by looking at felons from other states, Florida could, in the process, single out citizens who committed felons in other states but, after serving their time or successfully petitioning the courts, had their voting rights returned to them. According to Florida law, felons can vote once their voting rights have been reinstated. And if this unfairly singled out minorities, it unfairly handicapped Gore: In Florida, 93 percent of African-Americans voted for the vice president.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html

We all remember too well what happened in Ohio. Same agenda, different technique: suppress the black vote.

Jesse Jackson spoke out, over and over:

AMY GOODMAN: Reverend Jackson, Democracy Now! just went to Spain and Italy and on one of the main TV stations called RAI in Rome, the interviewer asked about the election and I said, “Well, really we don’t really know who won.” And his eyebrows raised very high and he said, “Excuse me. Kerry conceded. Haven’t you heard?” Now what about this, Reverend Jackson? What about Kerry immediately conceding?

JESSE JACKSON: The early concession betrayed the trust of the voters. We have a moral obligation and a legal obligation to see that every vote counts and whether Kerry gets the most votes or not, we must break a precedent of fraudulent elections. For the Secretary of the State, in fact, can be the co-chair of a campaign and run the process—that’s like a team owner of a baseball team being the umpire at game seven of the World Series. You can’t be a team owner and be a referee at the same time. You can’t have Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell as chairs of the campaign and in charge of the process. It taints the credibility of the process at the very beginning.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the $51 million that John Kerry has? The largest amount of money a presidential candidate has had after an election. He’s not in the red, he’s in the black. The biggest amount of money any presidential candidate has had in history, well over half what George Bush has. He could use that money for a recount. Instead—the poor Green Party is raising the money.

JESSE JACKSON: You could take a couple million dollars of that money and hire Cliff Arnebeck’s law firm and partners and the Common Cause lawyers who are credible and bright and able lawyers. You could you take a couple million dollars and put a renewed light on Ohio. That can determine not only the outcome of this election but the future of democratic elections. We have to go beyond this matter. We really need, which we do not have, we need the Constitutional right to vote for President federally protected. We do not have the Constitutional right to vote for President. We only have the state’s right to vote. We asked 50 state separate and unequal elections within those states, Ohio for example, 88 counties, each running their own scheme. We must now go to another level. Not only should we count these votes, we need an amendment to the Constitution. We need—all Americans need the Constitutional, individual right, federally protected right to vote for the President.

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/30/jesse_jackson_kerrys_early_concession_betrayed

Speeches are a tried and true method to make people think, or make them feel good about themselves or about those whom they admire, but they carry more weight when there is no pressure to make them, when an individual, doing what is right, stands up and speaks out for those who have figuratively had their voice taken from them. In 2004, Obama had the political creds to make such a statement about the election tampering in Ohio. He failed to seize the opportunity. Perhaps this is why his "great speech" leaves me cold. For all its rhetorical grandeur, it was ultimately self-serving. Jesse Jackson, knowing he would be ridiculed, nevertheless did the right thing.

[hayu_lol]

48. Outstanding thread Tom...

It reflects the sort of threads we used to share here in DU...and that have gone the way of the Dodo et al.

K&R

[Bonobo]

49. It is indeed, and it bears mentioning that it was Obama's openess that spurred the dialog. nt

[rodeodance]

51. REC

[sueragingroz]

52. America has not yet transcended race... ask Shelby Steele

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3038213

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5038994#5046918

[cloudythescribbler]

54. Maybe right -- but perhaps Obama had different strategic approach ...

I really have no idea what shaped the timing and nature of this dispute. The notion that Obama should have addressed this inevitable issue sooner is reasonable and I believe widely felt, BUT ...

Hindsight is not only better than foresight, but the way I see it, the odds against Obama coming through Tsunami Tuesday as strong as he did were high; I expected his candidacy to be in a weakened position as of Feb 6, but that's not how it turned out. Obama basically went as far as he could in building the strongest record of wins and the broadest base as soon as possible. Remember that Hillary has been well known to America for 15+ years, while Obama is practically a brand new face. So it is not unreasonable that he might have felt that to wait would put him in a stronger position to address not just the Wright issue but the underlying race issue which he correctly pointed out was so much at issue. I am reminded that not long ago, Obama had to parry HRC trying to link him with Farrakhan -- the links being that both are black and Farrakhan had positive things to say about Obama.

Another dimension is that this issue is not something that in a rapid succession of primaries and caucuses is likely to settle easily. Now you have a period from March 12 to April 21, a kind of pause that allows people to consider an issue, and maybe this is really the best timing.

I don't mean to be snarky here. I am not at all sure that this tactical reasoning is right. I do think that Obama has proven himself to be an extraordinary political tactician; the speech hit, for me, just the right balance on the issues. Maybe the timing should have been different, but this was the course selected, hopefully with some kind of strategy in mind. In the final analysis, we have a given situation, and though might-have-been tactical analyses might be interesting, they are useful mainly in helping us understand the strong and weak points of the present going into the future.

I think the whole issue is preposterous -- and the way DUers have hopped all over it is shameful. In the MSM, and by the RW, it's inevitable, but you'd think there would be more discernment here. Oh well -- it's a very hot partisan intra-party battle.

The idea of blaming Obama for what his pastor says -- not only is it not HIS statements, but it isn't the statements of a subordinate that he can be held responsible for. He has sharply drawn the line between his own position and these statements. Hopefully, the impact will have largely passed by April 22.

In the final weeks of the campaign in Oct, these memes (even the flipflop meme in 04) tend to fade as Democrats rally to the party. This didn't happen at all for McGovern, or Mondale. Hopefully, and with Obama's proven political skill in the face of daunting odds, this issue will be largely overcome.

I don't dismiss the importance of this -- but I think Obama will prove a lot stronger than Dean, who was done in by similar stuff.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. Hindsight no doubt is better than foresight

by a country mile. But foresight is a particularly valuable ability for one to possess in politics, much like speed is a highly prized ability to possess in track and field.

For the record, bottom line I agree with you. I do not underestimate Obama's ability to fight back from this controversy; my appreciation of his political skills has grown throughout the primaries, not diminished, despite the political criticism I made of him in my OP. But this controversy remains very serious to his chances of being elected President.

In an odd way, I feel Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made symmetrical tactical errors. Clinton began this primary season putting too great an emphasis on positioning herself to win the General Election and as a result did not place a political emphasis on the type of statements and positioning that would prevent her from losing the nomination. Obama may well have been served best in the primaries by "glossing over" (as in the gloss reflected off a movie star portrayed on a magazine cover) some of the potential controversies that were likely to be exploited against him in a general election campaign, but as a result the issue of his relationship with Reverend Wright and his church now has been raised at a time and in a manner not of Obama's own choosing. And he has to deal with an added layer of suspicion that he was previously peddling a false bill of goods in his post racial appeal to America's voters.

[Iceburg]

57. One of the many differences bewteen Hillary and Barrack

is that when Hillary does speak out, she does so with profound courage and leadership -- she addresses REAL problems -- problems that exist today, not yesterday. Nor does she use the pulpit to address perceived or manufactured problems.

Obama's speech while eloquent,was not an act of leadership, rather defense. It was largely a history lesson, intended to excuse his own difficulty in severing ties with a radical member of his close circle of friends and advisors, and to assuage the wavering supporters who may have been offended by the fringe and radical preachings of Jerimiah Wright.

------------------------------

HILLARY CLINTON, IN CHINA, DETAILS ABUSE OF WOMEN

By PATRICK E. TYLER
Published: September 6, 1995

Speaking more forcefully on human rights than any American dignitary has on Chinese soil, Hillary Rodham Clinton catalogued a devastating litany of abuse that has afflicted women around the world today and criticized China for seeking to limit free and open discussion of women's issues here.

"It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights," Mrs. Clinton told the Fourth World Conference on Women assembled here.

"It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls," Mrs. Clinton said, or "when women and girls are sold into slavery or prostitution for human greed.

"It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small" she continued, or "when thousands of women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war."

-snip-

Addressing the full conference in the afternoon, Mrs. Clinton expanded on a theme that Pakistan's Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, raised on Monday when she told the delegates that violence against women thrives when there is a "crisis of silence and acquiescence."

As Mrs. Clinton recited her litany from the podium, many delegates applauded, some cheered and others pounded the tables.

Continuing with references to domestic violence, genital mutilation, coercive abortions and sterilizations, Mrs. Clinton told the delegates from more than 180 countries, "If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights, once and for all."

-snip-

"I think she spoke from the heart and she spoke with great power," Ms. Maloney said.

-snip-



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDF133DF935A3575AC0A963958260

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. That was a great and profound speech that Hillary gave

And it is entirely appropriate that people revisit it now because for many it has been forgotten. But I do think there was real leadership in Obama's speech also, leadership in addressing some of the difficult matters that he did in the personal way that he did, because America doesn't talk about this enough and it remains dangerous for any politician to directly confront racial divides. But as I've said above, and I'm agreeing with you here in part, some of the leadership potential of that speech was diluted by Obama's need to defend himself at this point from specific poltical attacks that forced the focus of many of his comments narrowly onto his own past behavior in regards to Reverend Wright.

[EFerrari]

63. She addresses real problems like her two opposing stands on NAFTA.

That isn't leadership.