Senator Barack Obama delivered a speech/sermon Sunday at the Ebenezer Baptist Church where Martin Luther King once presided. The speech was a call to unity in the face of injustice, for closing what Obama called the "empathy deficit," and equally important, for self awareness. The contrast between this speech and Obama’s recent comments on Ronald Reagan and Republican "ideas" is striking.
Obama first lays out his main premise:
Unity is the great need of the hour – the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it’s the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.
I’m not talking about a budget deficit . . . a trade deficit . . . a deficit of good ideas or new plans.
I’m talking about a moral deficit. I’m talking about an empathy deficit. I’m taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother’s keeper; we are our sister’s keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.
We have an empathy deficit when we’re still sending our children down corridors of shame – schools in the forgotten corners of America where the color of your skin still affects the content of your education.
We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can’t afford a doctor when their children get sick.
We have a deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others; when our children see nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree today, in the present, in the twenty-first century.
We have a deficit when homeless veterans sleep on the streets of our cities; when innocents are slaughtered in the deserts of Darfur; when young Americans serve tour after tour of duty in a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.
And we have a deficit when it takes a breach in our levees to reveal a breach in our compassion; when it takes a terrible storm to reveal the hungry that God calls on us to feed; the sick He calls on us to care for; the least of these He commands that we treat as our own.
So we have a deficit to close. We have walls – barriers to justice and equality – that must come down. And to do this, we know that unity is the great need of this hour.
Having laid this foundation, note, as Pam Spaulding does, where he takes his audience:
For most of this country’s history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man’s inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays – on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.
And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.
Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. . . .
So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scape-goating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others – all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face – war and poverty; injustice and inequality. We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.
What must Americans do?
But if changing our hearts and minds is the first critical step, we cannot stop there. It is not enough to bemoan the plight of poor children in this country and remain unwilling to push our elected officials to provide the resources to fix our schools. It is not enough to decry the disparities of health care and yet allow the insurance companies and the drug companies to block much-needed reforms. It is not enough for us to abhor the costs of a misguided war, and yet allow ourselves to be driven by a politics of fear that sees the threat of attack as way to scare up votes instead of a call to come together around a common effort.
I’m not sure what to make of the last sentence — it sounds like a dodge. But this is definitely not Ronald Reagan or Republican ideas. The unity Obama is calling for does not sound like DLC centrism; it’s more like a precursor to struggle, not only against our own weaker instincts but against powerful beliefs, institutions and interests. You can read it as class struggle, even ideological struggle.
Does he mean it? Can he deliver? Of course, those have been the real questions about Obama all along: is he real, or are we so hungry for leadership we’re willing to read whatever we want into his rhetoric?
Update: Paul Krugman’s take on Obama’s comments on Ronald Reagan’s legacy.
Update 2: Here’s the video of Obama’s speech.
Related posts:
- Doug Hoffman’s Cunning Plan to Reduce the Deficit: Cutting Earmarks, Taxes
- Republicans: Gender, Ethnicity and Empathy Shouldn’t Matter for Judges, Unless They’re Conservatives
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Michael Huttner and Jason Salzman, 50 Ways You Can Help Obama Change America
- Offshore Banking Business: Obama’s Rich Donors Threaten Him over Closing Foreign Tax Havens
- Gingrich on Sotomayor’s Empathy — Once More with Feeling!





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

I have a dream that freedom will ring on Jan 20, 2009.
ZED! and…ah….Go Giants!
I just do not get the impression that he really understand DC and what he would be up against. That could be very very dangerous…
or he understands it too well.
Actions have more meaning than word and when it came doing something about
homophobia –Obama’s record is not that good
I read the last sentence as a call to stand and fight against those who use the specter of September 11 as a rationale to torture and eavesdrop without a warrant and suppress dissent.
It’s an impressive speech. Thanks.
I got to see a good portion of that speech last night and I too noticed the striking difference between his comments in “the Reagan interview” and the rhetoric he was using in the speech. It’s an incredible contrast and I’m not entirely clear on what to make of it. I hope the speech was genuine, because if it was, this could turn out to be a very different race than I’d believe it was.
Good morning Scarecrow!
Man, with grammar like that, I should run for president.
For the first time in years, I heard the entire MLK I Have a Dream speech in its entirety, on the Imus show. In the annals of our national history only a handful of speeches resonate thru the ages.
In other years, the I Have a Dream resonated most with me. Now it’s the We Cannot be Satisfied….
twc1@6 — yes, I think that’s what he might have meant, but we have to read that into it — why not be clearer, when we know those issues are at stake.
Good morning everyone.
Barack Obama’s speech was a fitting tribute to the late Dr. King.
This morning I found myself thinking about the first time I came to know of Dr. Martin Luther King. I had arrived in the early Sixties as a young Irishman in Bible Belt country (North Louisiana). One of the first things I noticed was the large roadside billboards claiming to show King attending a meeting of the Communist Party.
It would be difficult for people who are not familiar with what was happening at that time in the Deep South to fully understand the hatred and bigotry directed towards Dr. King. I was not one bit surprised when I heard that he had been shot in Memphis, Tennessee.
I can well understand why the African American community would be defensive about any statement that seemed to diminish the contribution of Dr.King…even if that statement came from someone who is considered a friend of the African American community. Put simply, Dr King put his life on the line.
Again, Barack Obama’s speech in Atlanta yesterday morning was a fitting tribute to an extraordinary man.
Good morning, Scarecrow. A lot of “I hopes” & “if he means thats” attach themselves to Obama’s rhetoric. Frankly, I’m never sure what his words are in aid of except getting the nom, be it the speech quoted above or his Reagan praise. Still want John Edwards to stay in as long as he can to guide the frontrunners…
In honor of Dr. King on his commemoration day:
MLK Jr.’s Last Speech
Good Morning Scarecrow
Scareccrow, I wish you could answer your questions.
Forgive me for this in advance, but other than the fine sentiment, doesn’t the following statement sound a bit, um, packaged?:
Let’s see, Florida has it’s primary on Jan.29. How to reach the South Beach boys, the Friedman’s of St. Pete and the landscapers of Miami. Hmmmm. I Know! A speech for MLK day. That’s bound to get attention.
Yeah, yeah, they all do it. It’s just surprising that it’s so unartful and obvious.
Kirk did some research and posted a comment on the Obama foreign policy team.
The team blue approach is looking like a “kinder gentler” team red team approach.
Pam Spaulding’s take on that issue:
I don’t think you can accuse Obama of pandering to one group when he’s chastising another whose support he also needs in every state.
I think with Obama making this speech while previously praising Reagan, who instituted policies that hurt blacks, women, and the poor, while enhancing the rich just doesn’t ring true. Considering that he’s indebted to the Insurance industry, Securities and Interest, the Pharmaceutical industry, and the Oil & Gas industries, I have a hard time believing that he is for the “common folk”.
And ditto that for Hillary Clinton. She’s no Shirley Chisholm.
Thanks for that link, tw3k. I’m backreading FDL catching up this a.m. & missed it while skimming.
Obama’s oratorical skills are powerful. We all know that. But, I still think he’s blinded by this vision of unity to see how powerful, amoral, and determined the other side is. He believes his own rhetoric. ‘Let’s just show them the fairness of our proposal and they’ll be convinced’ seems to be his viewpoint. It doesn’t work like that. Hillary knows it. John Edwards knows it. Obama does not.
I am not against Obama. If he is the nominee, I will work my tail off to get him elected. But his speeches are the only thing he has going for him. His remarks during debates and in media interviews do not inspire me.
You make a good point about his rhetoric allowing us to read what we want into it. But I do hunger for our leadership to come out and say hatred is killing us (literally) and hatred is creating rings in our noses so that we can be led around by those willing to exploit the worst in human nature.
Hatred is for losers. Hatred never built, never succeeded other than created whole lakes of blood baths. I applaud Obama for coming out with this speech even though it might seem a bit timid, a bit tepid, it is 100 degrees warmer than the majority of our leadership including the idiot dems in power in dc.
as we’ve watched the Democratic debates, to me Obama got smaller with each one.
Obama is indeed all thigns to all men. He’s a Liberal AND a regan Democrat. He’s a homophobe AND he opposes homophobia. He’s black AND he’s white (check out the speechwriter.)
There is only one thing I wish to hear from him:
“I am a false prophet and God is a superstition!”
Meanwhile. . . Krugman Kicks Obama in the Cojones!
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clearer. He does have to mend fences and homophobia and anti-semitism in the black community do need to be addressed.
It’s just that the combination of all of three issues in one sentence stands out like a big neon sign. His speech is bound to get attention because of the occasion and so why not campaign at the same time? I don’t see it as pandering so much as announcing who his target groups are going to be. These are the groups he needs to win over in Florida. He’s already gotten off to a bad start in the gay community, retired Jews are probably Hillary voters and the Nevada caucuses show where the immigrant population is headed. Unfortunately for Obama, Florida is chock full of these three groups.
I have this feeling that Obama is in real trouble in Florida and he just admitted to it.
I’ve never seen any indication that Obama is homophobic. I’ve seen indications that he’s not as *bothered* by homophobia as I would like, but I’ve never gotten the slightest indication that he, himself, is homophobic.
Sure! I already posted this link to today but kirk’s comment makes a good segue for this article on US foreign policy.
I am so with you on this. I will work my ass off to get him elected if nominated. But he doesn’t inspire me at all. And some of his supporters remind me of that throng who followed Brian around in Life of Brian, worshipping his gourd and following his example of walking around with one shoe on.
I read Krugman’s article, and I have much respect for him. What he says here is Obama’s point:
“Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan.” Obama wasn’t praising Reagan’s ideas; he was talking about his skill at changing the narrative. That’s what Dems need to do.
He was opposed to the AUMF and to both bankruptcy bills, unlike Clinton. Edwards voted for the bankruptcy bill.
Good morning Scarecrow
I don’t see how having Reverend Donnie McClurkin at one of your events embraces me as a gay male. Yes I do know he’s distanced himself from all of that so in other words, he called the ambulance after he threw me under the bus. Thanks.
He plays the Reagan card while talking to a conservative newspaper editorial board for endorsement, yes I know that politicans have to suck up and do that (suck up that is). His calculation going in there was to invoke St. Ronnie of the right. At his level of campaigning his remarks should have been prepared. And if not, that’s even a worse case.
He ducks a vote (one of many) and criticizes Hillary for voting the wrong way, all those present votes, and he ducked campaining for Lamont, THE anitwar candidate of 2006, embraces the warmongering Liberman, and positions himself as being antiwar.
I know how Hillary calculates and operates. As she says “look at my record.” And now I’m seeing how Obama calculates.
He’s a smart, calculating man, looks good on TV, produces great sound bites. A true modern politician. He seems to be drawing a lot of young people into the party and building the ranks. That is something new and very fortunate for Democrats. I hope he has the ability to keep them, not alienate them.
I will vote for him as the candidate, despite the tire mark on my back because of the Supreme Court appointments.
After being the target of hate and bigotry all my life, including physical violence, the thought of having more right wing appointments is enough to make me vote for someone who isn’t my first choice. It’s my hope that will be a firewall against any future erosion of right in this country.
I think that is for me the very bottom line. It doesn’t matter who the Democrat is versus who the Republican is.
It will boil down to a choice of another Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stepehen Bryer replacing Justice Stevens or another Alito, Roberts or Scalia or Thomas.
It is that simple.
-G
Obama campaigned with a virulent “ex-gay” singer Donnie McGurkin.
This is some fine rhetoric, but given past actions by Obama, it’s just words. So far, anyway.
and that takes us to that sage advice “Always look on the bright side of life < insert whistling here >“
which I’m working very hard to do these days.
you make a powerful statement, MM
Another great link, tw3k. Thanx.
your welcome!
Sorry for the OT, but I had to share. According to cnn.com, ‘Gen. Butt Naked’ says he caused 20,000 deaths. Seems he gassed them.
Dr. King would have never voted ”present” and would’ve never campaigned for that dixiecrat in connecticut….the content of his character indeed.
I can’t trust him on the homophobia issue. The man not only continues to refuse to denounce the support of McClurkin, but now he has a homophobic bigot campaigning on his behalf in SC.
Rev. Caldwell runs Metonia Ministry:
http://www.kingdombuilders.com…..PID=236324
Caldwell will campaign on Obama’s behalf in SC:
http://www.chron.com/disp/stor…..69706.html
That’s going to make the Decider jealous.
CORRECTION:
Caldwell will campaign on Obama’s behalf, whether it’s in SC or not I don’t know.
“Unity is the great need of the hour – the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it’s the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.”
Obama is either an idiot or an agent of evil. How do you achieve unity with a group that is adamant about impoverishing most of the country while enriching themselves and their benefactors? Republicans DO NOT compromise, they pillage, rape, and demand or coerce allegiance. Contemplating unity with them is deeply evil.
I felt that Obama, in the heat of the campaign allowed, campaign supporters too much leeway. He should have been quicker and more forceful in disassociating his campaign from homophobic remarks by a supporter.
I agree whitebeard, not that Obama is an agent of evil, but that he just doesnt get it.
Oh the human species, what a treacherous lot. That is one of the most disturbing news items I’ve ever read.
-G
The video of Obama’s speech is also available.
I am of two minds about these remarks by Obama. Before getting into that, let me say that I have only read them, not viewed the event — and that’s a huge difference in how one receives what Obama said.
OK . . .
First, the man can speak. After 8 years of a president who can’t string two sentences together, I am longing for one who can speak like this. Wow.
Second, though, and more troubling, is this: As I read this speech, it had the feel to me that Obama was setting himself OUTSIDE of his own remarks. That is, it appeared to me Obama’s message was all one-way: that what he was saying didn’t apply to him. As a preacher, if I tried that, I’d get tossed out on my ear — and I’d deserve it.
In fact, Obama’s words seem to conflict with the way he has functioned as a US Senator:
There was a bill last fall — one of the war-related bills, IIRC — where there was all kinds of speculation about which way both Obama and HRC would vote. The clerk called the roll, and the first group of Senators who were already in the chamber cast their votes. As always happens, other senators came in from their offices and committee meetings, and cast their votes. Standing in the well were Obama and Clinton. I don’t know if they were waiting to see how the other voted, or which way the final bill would go, but both waited until the very end to jump in with their vote.
Driven by the politics of fear. I don’t know which it was — fear of the GOP or fear of their Dem opponent — by they were driven by fear.
“Tinkering at the edges” is what comes to mind when I think of Obama’s performance in the Senate. When I think of Senators who speak their minds, who stand up and say what needs to be said, who are concerned with more than tinkering around the edges, Obama’s name does not appear on that list.
Dodd and FISA. Feingold and Warrantless Wiretapping. Leahy. Whitehouse. On the House side, there’s Henry Waxman.
If Obama wants my vote, he’s going to have to back these words up with deeds and speeches in the Senate and votes there as well. As I said, I’m of two minds with regard to that speech. It’s up to Obama as to which mind ultimately gets my vote.
…and ehr.. @ 24, thanks for the link. Krugman said it well.
Many thanks! I can’t take the time for it now, but finding that was on my “to do” list for today.
“empathy deficit” is a nice idea – very true – but it will resonate with so few voters its more likely to be a detraction than anything that helps him or the country.
This highlights a fundmental, disconcerting element of Obama. He says and does all kinds of things, some good, some bad. His wild swings such as from praising reagan – the ultimate empathy debtor, to identify the “empathy deficit” of America leads one to suspect that he neither knows the meaning of what he says nor believes in it.
.
I just noticed John Voight on the dais with Rudy Giuliani at an event in Florida.
Damn liberal Hollywood.
-G
The ‘workhorse/showhorse’ analogy that HRC used is appropriate. She did not characterized Obama in any way, she said she was strictly talking about herself being a workhorse. Well, we’ll see how the FISA debate plays out. I’m hoping Hillary shows up (and I think she will). I don’t think Obama will. One of his oratorical masterpieces against warrantless wiretapping/telecon immunity would be such a boost to Dodd, but I don’t think he’ll even join the debate. I hope I’m wrong. I would love to be enthusiastic about Obama.
Kudos to Obama for mentioning “Scooter Libby justice” in such a high profile speech!
This Raygun comment obsession here is getting tiresome. Anyone who keeps mentioning that must not be voting for anyone of the “leading” three Dem candidates, since Edwards and Clinton have said much more complimentary things about St. Ronnie than what Obama said.
Obama can do no right apparently while Edwards is the great Liberal saviour, or so it seems. Edwards’ tough talk appeals to me and seems necessary, but there’s a lot that he’s said and done that would allow me to vote for my second choice – Obama. I was especially interested in Russ Feingold’s comments:
http://www.postcrescent.com/ap…..70560/1036
And, he once said something positive about Raygun (no time to find link). Gasp!
let me post the rest of his speech on ML King that hasn’t been posted in the article, but is on Obama’s website:
[Mod Note; Edited by Mod for length. To help keep the FDL servers running smoothly, please do not post entire articles — include a link instead. Thank you. ]
Amen. Fabulous post Raven.
Yep. Actions speak louder than words and for all the pretty words, very few actions in support of them.
See @ 39..Rev Caldwell was with McClurkin on the SC campaign tour.
I will only vote for him if he stands in front of me and everyone else and says out loud that he will prosecute those who have committed treason against our country during the bushco administration. If his vision does not include accountability. He’s lost me. Our integrity is at stake. Our democracy has been beaten. It’s time to get a protection order, not make up. If he tells me he will hold them accountable and does not dodge this question. He’s got my vote.
That speech…at least what I’ve read of it….ranks right up there with some of the great speeches in the days of the movement…
and yes….the question hangs heavy over Senator Obama’s head (especially in light of his recent comments) “does he really mean it?”. Where will he take it?
I’m not ready to relinquish my skepicism yet…..I need a longer courtship with truth before I yield “the chastity of the intellect” (per Santayana) to Mr Obama.
hizzhoner
Obama’s speech writer followed instructions…coopt Hillary and John’s talking points…add MLK’s legacy and give your supporters munition. It doen’t have to be rational he is going after the sucker vote.
All things to everone is being nothing to noone. It is not a stance it is a mouth full of …non promises that will not be kept and it is not a progressive agenda…it is more feel good speech. Aside from that he does honor to the King legacy and holds firm on the goals of equality. He is a good politician. I would like to see unity on the campaign trail for openers.
Elliott, goldberry, Ehrenstein (or others): How much do you think the current Jewish opposition to Obama is based on the Haaratz/Israeli war issue? how much to the post-60s antagonism between Jews and African Americans over 1) black opposition to Israeli continued support for the South African apartheid government; 2) African-American support for Palestinians? In the Civil Rights era, part of the real momentum was the coming together of both groups – and others (among these churches). Do you see any way of bringing us back together.
Obama is the finest political orator of this generation.
He is an agent of Evil.
Does this mean you will not vote for Hillary either?
i remain a John Edwards supporter. as long as he is still in the race i’m supporting him. that said,
some people seem to forget that Obama is really new as a practicing, national politician. he’s not going to be able to control everything that goes on in his campaign. he’s not going to be able to see every thing that he needs to do and how to do it. he’s not going to be able to react to every mistake he makes and rectify them in a less than awkward way. we know the style and tone that he uses. there will be no major changes. his style of campaigning is based on keeping his hand close to his vest. he, obviously, doesn’t want to make specific promises. there’s nothing new in running a campaign this way
the thing i would like to know is who is behind him? on who does he rely besides his wife? of whom will his staff be composed? his cabinet? we probably won’t find that out either but if we could it would reveal far more than the rhetoric of his speeches.
Alas, she has become a shill for Clinton, so I don’t read her anymore.
No, that’s not it, it’s just when you mention Scooter Libby justice I can’t help but recall that Robert Bauer, general counsel to Obama’s campaign, argued for pardoning Scooter Libby.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com…..t_145.html
I haven’t seen him lead the troops against the right on any legislative issue. Instead, he either defers to the establishment or goes to the right. The fact that it took him so long to finally refuse to give Bush a blank check on the war left me cold with him. He has the same voting record on Iraq as Clinton and yet his entire campaign is based on him being different and “hope we can believe in.” I want actions, not just nice speeches.
Calling out any group of one’s peers as homophobic and anti-Semitic IS a big deal – and important for all of us!
No.
Togetherness is overrated. I don’t wish to be “together” with my sworn enemies. I don’t wish to be “together” with people who want me dead.
I’ve come to the painful conclusion that in order to run a successful campaign for POTUS you have to attempt to be all things to all people. It’s just a fact. Until we have meaningful campaign finance reform that’s the state of it.
We are in desperate need of moral leadership, but it’s not going to come from our government. There has to be a righteous cause, a leader like Dr. King, and the people behind it. Sadly, I don’t see any of the many crises facing our nation to be righteous enough, in the eyes of the average American, to start a movement for change.
Do you consider American blacks to be your sworn enemies? When/where did they swear this enemy perspective? Why are you so angry?
Then tell him to come back once he’s taken the training wheels off.
That was for Ehrenstein47 just above.
agreed, this is the Presidency.
One thing some folks seem to forget is that Dr King, while using wonderful words in speeches such as the “I Have A Dream” speech, had already backed those words with many leadership actions. He had the actions supporting the words before he spoke so eloquently.
So far, Senator Obama has only the words without the actions to make the words meaningful. Leadership is far more than words.
Wow. Kirk Murphy certainly did his research on that. I’ve quit reading The Nation for the same reason I quit Huffington. They hate Hillary.
Dr. King was LOATHED in his time by great numbers of his own people. This fact has been obscured by the Legend of Dr. King which has transformed him from a “dangerous radical” that J. Edgar Closet Queen wanted dead (and there’s evidence to suggest that he allowed the assassination to happen) and the Parade Float we now worship like secular saint.
Why aren’t you?!!!!
Beautiful words. But who wrote them?
That is not a condemnation!
As has been stated by others, the real problem is dealing with the snakes that are now in power. Like all psychopaths, they can’t be trusted to be partners in compromise, they have no problem with pretending to go along until your back is turned or they re-gain the advantage. And when they are losing a point; they project and accuse you of not compromising.
Anyone who was married to a hardcore alcoholic (like I was) knows these tactics well.
You can lead sincere but mis-informed people by example, doing the same with the Repug “we deserve it all” type is just naive and dangerous. You can show a kid that there is no reason to fight if you can talk about it, but the bully will pretend to learn and then sucker punch you once you let your guard down. The Russians proved that to us time after time during the last half century.
In short, as much as I loved the speech and agree with the philosophy, it is dangerous to assume that the psychopathic repugs are going to be impressed or can be trusted to compromise, even from a minority position.
If that is Obama, we need someone a little more street smart.
And you think Clinton’s backing of the Flag bill and lack of leadership in countering the Bush administration is leadership? OK then, you can have her.
A speech commemorating the legacy of King is probably not the best occasion to voice support of specific legislation. So, what’s he doing today? Or tomorrow?
MLK’s Letter from Birmingham jail:
http://www.historicaltextarchi…..8;artid=40
People are all too tempted to dismiss the tremendous fight King waged on behalf of justice when others told him to wait, assuming racists would listen to reason. Read the rest of his letter. King was most livid with “white moderates,” whom he felt were complicit with the brutal injustice of the status quo.
Ehrenstein47 January 21st, 2008 at 6:54 am 72
“some people seem to forget that Obama is really new as a practicing, national politician. he’s not going to be able to control everything that goes on in his campaign. he’s not going to be able to see every thing that he needs to do and how to do it. he’s not going to be able to react to every mistake he makes and rectify them in a less than awkward way.”
Then tell him to come back once he’s taken the training wheels off.
___________________
barring acts of god/nature we will have either Hillary or Obama to vote for, unless you decide to go for McCain or Huckabee. who will it be for you?
i will vote for Obama or Hillary. i won’t like it very much but i will do it.
Anger without thought and desire for a better outcome that benefits all of his does NOT help to bring about a resolution.
This can go on forever. Obama addressed the Libby conviction at the time:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/…..pardon.php
Did you know an Edwards adviser, “Mudcat” Saunders said the same stuff?
http://firedoglake.com/2007/06…..ouldnt-be/
You can find things like this about any candidate.
From my vantage that might have looked trite – like he was trying to milk the King legacy. Far more powerful (and difficult) to speak from the pulpit.
Yes he did and I appreciate it. As far as I’m concerned if you dislike one candidate you should dislike them all. They vary very little in detail.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..14339/3667
Did I say that it didn’t?
Yes. I think people forget that King was holding america accountable to it’s constitituon and ideals. He fought and fought hard. He brought us together on what america stands for and showed how the fight was for all of us. If Obama can do that he has me, but he has shown no fight. (yet)
As to will I vote for Hillary. Hell yes. I know that she and Bill have been waiting for the moment of accountability for this vast right wing conspiracy. They have haunted them for 20 years. Her tears, when she said it was personal were all about that as far as I am concerned. I think both she and Bill are afraid to show their hand. And they have earned that fear. Now, I admit this is supposition. This is based on my knowledge of what that vast righ wing conspiracy did to them in regard to white water, and many other issues. She will fight back. I have no doubt about that.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man and a great leader but he never ran for elective office or served in Congress. whether or not he would have remained consistent and without blemish in that pit of vipers is something we will never know.
being a politician requires that one makes all sorts of compromises. it is not possible to be a politician with making compromises. all of our candidates have done so. there is not one politician in this country who has not made many compromises.
“One thing some folks seem to forget is that Dr King, while using wonderful words in speeches such as the “I Have A Dream” speech, had already backed those words with many leadership actions. He had the actions supporting the words before he spoke so eloquently.
So far, Senator Obama has only the words without the actions to make the words meaningful. Leadership is far more than words.”
So whose leadership do you find more compelling? Who are you supporting?
I think Obama’s decade of organizing was critical in leadership and other terms. Alas, and sadly, the reason the Republicans have been in office all this time is because they knew the importance of organizing – and did it well. This is also behind Dean’s 50 state strategy (which Clinton and the DCC opposed). It is also the strategy behind Act Blue and so much we do here.
i’m supporting John Edwards. he’s far from perfect but he’s the best thing we’ve got.
those words and $5 will get you a shitty cup of coffee at S**rbuck’S.
None of the candidates will stand up and promise to go after the evil-doers in the current administration. You have to be able to read between the lines to see who really understands the problem, and wants to deal with it. I don’t think Obama understands, the unity stuff argues against him on this point. I like Edwards, because I think he gets it, and maybe HRC does as well. Maybe we’ll learn more when we have a candidate.
I wish I’d gotten to this thread earlier. Here is a game: count the direct and close Biblical references in the Obama speech. They feel pretty natural, and it is certainly appropriate in this setting, but there are a whole bunch.
Hate to tell you but I’m not all that big a fan of Edwards and a lot of his positions anymore than I am of Obama or Clinton, so using Edwards’ positions as a baseline for comparison does not particularly move me.
I will hold my nose and vote for any of them as the Democratic Party nominee in November 2008 and pray that their actions as President are more progressive than their words and actions to date.
What I will not do is sit blindly by and accept as gospel all the words of praise without any snese of actions.
Obama has had an opportunity to show leadership by standing up with Senator Dodd on the FISA issue and decided that campaigning is more important.
During his tenure as an Illinois State Senator he had too many times when he ducked controversial votes by voting “Present”. I don’t care if he did have permission of the leadership, it is an act of cowardice.
What I see in Obama is a politician out of the Chicago machine and nothing more. As I say, if he is the Presidential candidate of my party, he will have my vote but I quit giving my love to politicians decades ago. All that does is give me a broken heart.
Compromis/dealmaking is not moving across the aisle to the right. At some point the Dem party has to have a platform to stand on with planks. That is what is most important and what is missing from the leadership ie Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, Emanuel you have to have an agenda.
They asy they do…but it does not include protecting the constitution. stopping the was, Habeaus or the bill of rights.
Now is the time to unify behind and tell the american people what voting dem means to them. I heard it from Edwards. We need a new deal not reganomics or bushonomics. ‘The have to dance with those that brung you.’ as Molly Ivins a very wise political comentary said.
Obama and Clinton will do the dance.
Dakine do you think that Hillary will show more leadership on FISA and other issues? My view is that the DCC leadership is putting heavy pressure on ALL the dems on FISA. Disgusting, but that seems to be what is happening.
There are a lot, too many for my comfort.
Right on. The real skill I think is “killing them with kindness.” You pick battles wisely, and get them to agree with certain things that they don’t even realize will create massive change.
I was just reading about Ben Franklin doing this with the Treaty of Paris. By compromising on some of Britain’s demands, Franklin got Britain to agree to all kinds of stuff that seemed innocuous at first, but ended up changing the world. Britain never knew what hit ‘em!
Time will tell if this is Obama’s thinking or not, provided he’s elected of course.
First off, there are two different orgs, the DSCC for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee and the DCCC for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. There is also the DNC but there is no DCC.
Second, I am no more enthralled by many of Senator Clinton’s positions and actions on FISA and other bills than I am Senator Obama’s positions.
I’m just pointing out that Senator Obama has not been exactly in the forefront in leading on ANY of the issues of importance to me. It’s a reality I have learned to deal with over the years, swallowing a lot of crap from the candidate(s) of my party, at all levels.
Well, Remember Bush’s moronic distortion of the old saying, “fool me once shame on you; fool me twice….?”
Obama is using a strategy called “Democrat for a Day.” It began in Florida, was tried in Nevada, and now it’s moved on to California. The argument is that Republicans can register to vote as a Democrat for a day, give Obama a boost in his nomination campaign, and then re-register as Republicans for the general election. In sum, Republicans get to choose the Democratic nominee, then vote for a Republican in the general election. Of course, many Republicans would see this as an opportunity to select a Democrat who would lose to a Republican in the General Election.
And, is there a pattern emerging here? First McClurkin, then Obama’s own spiritual advisor linked to Farrakhan, now this:
Yet another black fundamentalist homophobic preacher enlisted to campaign for Barack Obama on the campaign trail:
The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, spiritual adviser to Bush, has endorsed Obama and is coordinating with Obama’s campaign. Who is Rev. Caldwell?
Caldwell heads a ministry called METANOIA that is essentially a de-gayifying programs for youth:
http://www.kingdombuilders.com…..PID=236324
Houston Chronicle has the story on the endorsement:
http://www.chron.com/disp/stor…..69706.html
Thanks Dakine, honestly. And let me throw in the extra C that I left off.
Hillary was trying to make an issue of this in regard to pro-choice bills. Planned Parenthood of Il has come out strongly for Obama on this saying it was a strategy they developed together, and most importantly – it worked really well!
http://www.time-blog.com/swamp…..esent.html
Results are good, right?
Thank you for the welcome historical moment and refocus on the issue of the common fight vs. racism. On which see a front pager by Meteor Blades on Dkos at this moment.
As for Clinton/Obama issues, there are opinion from African Americans on the subject in the Kid Oakland Diary linked in my comment to MB’s front pager.
I am staying neutral in this page because I fear the lake is becoming agitated by the same forces that is making DKos an unpleasant place to be.
Our party is the progressive netroots. we need respect and civility in our differences if we are to have an impact.
Amen, I’m w/Edwards to the end of his campaign.
5$ can also get you a 1 lb. bag (ground & fragrant) @ a NotStarbucks up here in Seattle, home of great, cheap coffee apparently, where I have to get ready now for an early b-fast meeting on this business trip.
Try to read you all later…
If we consider that the whole government has been mobilized to support goopers/punish Dems, it can be argued that speaking too plainly about punishment and accountability could trigger the repug gestapo into action.
That doesn’t help us pick one of them, but I don’t know that that is a wise platform to stand on as long as the DOJ, IRS, FCC, etc. are now enforcement branches of Darth’s government.
Better to get in, and THEN address those problems.
Bravo.
The problem with Obama is he can give a fine speech–like maybe an antiwar one–and then his opposition just disintegrates into more funding for the war and what have you. BlackAgendaReport.com had a comparison between Martin Luther King, Jr’s legacy and Obama, with Obama coming up waaay short.
On Democrat for a day: Kos also asked Dems in Michigan to switch over and vote the Republican ticket. Goose and Gander. On the homophobic preachers, This is why I am so impressed with Obama coming out against black Homophobia from the pulpet yesterday. That is the sort of thing that will send a message into the church community more generally (black AND white).
Yup!
Absolutely. That’s what’s so exciting to me about having Blue America now. No matter what happens at the Presidential level, we can all rally around those candidates. Plus, that happens to be where we have the most impact at this point, so it’s all good!
Mui – Obama spoke against going into Iraq originally. Unfortunately Clinton (and Edwards) did not.
ditto. We need a “Howard Dean” to push John Kerry further to the left.
Originally yes. And then * crickets*.
What I can’t figure out is why the third world state of Florida, under BushIII (Jeb) no less, tried to outlaw that exact tactic of crossover primary voting. That must mean that the repugs used it and are now afraid it will be used against them.
Great.
True, alas, but the Dem leadership probably would have cloppered him. I do think that the Dem Senators and Governors who are supporting Obama are by far the stronger group in terms of what I stand for (including Leahy).
Interesting point!
His “present” votes were not indications of “cowardice” at all, but cleverness. They were part of a strategy allowing the bill’s supporters to neutralize would-be opponents by enabling them to vote “present” as wel. In essence, these votes enabled Obama and the bill’s supporters to take advantage of the cowardice of members of the opposition and turn them into non-factors — it was making them duck. Obama was a clear supporter — he could have easily voted “yes” and garnered the political credit. But by working this deal, he advanced the cause by letting an opponent duck rather than vote “no,” and taking them off the board for the opposition team.
Which is why he got a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood for those years in the Illinois Senate.
Neither Obama NOR Clinton are agents of evil. This is the sort of thing that Rush Limbaugh would say. Compare either of them to Cheney, Addington, Perle, Gonzalez and the whole Bush crew. That is evil!
Originally yes. And then * crickets*.”
So whom do you support? Clinton? Or Edwards? Both of whom authorized the war, and neither of whom has voted to stop it since?
thank you for pointing this out, all weekend I have been struggling with the Blue primary blues. It really helps to be reminded of things like this.
And the same results could most likely have been achieved in a way that does not reflect so poorly on the candidate. It just makes him look bad for ducking things. He needs to take a stand sometimes, even if in a lost cause. Instead, even if it was a “coordinated” deal with Planned Parenthood, it is just as calculating and cynical a move as anything done by Senator Clinton and the end result is he looks spineless.
“He needs to take a stand sometimes, even if in a lost cause.”
So he should have refused the proposal by Planned Parenthood, undermined his party’s leadership, hurt the effort to pass the bill, and voted “yes” in order to take the credit and position himself most advantageously for a future presidential run?
Nope. He did the right thing.
“Hate to tell you but I’m not all that big a fan of Edwards and a lot of his positions anymore than I am of Obama or Clinton, so using Edwards’ positions as a baseline for comparison does not particularly move me.”
Fair enough. Who do you support?
Obviously, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I see it as being political calculation and hiding and you don’t. I have seen other instances where he pays lip service to a position then ducks it by avoiding the vote or actually making an effort. You disagree.
I have stated that I will vote for him if he is my party’s nominee in November. You will have to live with that as the best you can do from me. I will vote for him, just as I will vote for Senator Clinton or former Senator Edwards if either of them is the nominee instead. None of them are my first choice and none of them excite me. That’s my reality; that I have to pray that the nominee of my party might actually govern in a more progressive fashion than I can see by current evidence.
I support Edwards. His position has changed. Obama on the other hand as seen in the last MSNBC debate has a very confused idea/or maybe trying to confuse us on troops in Iraq.
It seemed to me that all three agreed that the only difference between them on the occupation issue is that Edwards would leave some sort of rapid reaction for in Kuwait, whereas Clinton and Obama were more likely to leave such a force in Iraq. It may be a critical difference, but it’s tactical and not a great moral divide between the three of them.
That is Ehrenstein’s style. Its going over board to say he or I am “just like Rush Limbaugh.” Really. I understand the anxiety when homophobe preachers jump on board a campaign.
Allowing any form of hate speech into your campaign, in this case allowing a featured homophobe onto stage, could be considered evil. This was not a case of someone in his campaign making an off the cuff remark. As the candidate in his own campaign, he should have veto power over who appears at his campaign events. And if he doesn’t, well he just a puppet like who we have now.
And after the fact acknowldegement when there was enough time to ask this hate monger not to appear, and to throw a line in a speech on MLK day whose legacy was inclusion does little to comfort me.
The sting of hate when applied with physical force to your body goes deep into your soul. I’ve done a lot of work to forgive the people who gay bashed me. It just blows me away that someone who is running for President in 2007, who is a minority, who organized community where racial bashing most likely have occurred, and who have felt the same sting on hate applied to them, would allow this guy on stage to pander for votes tells me a lot.
As I’ve said, I will vote for Obama if he is the candidate. Somehow I don’t see embracing homphobic rhetoric as hope.
What I am saying is calling someone like Obama (or Hillary or McCain or Romney) evil is over the top. It is this sort of thing that Rush has tended to do. Calling someone evil, in my book, is not an issue simply of “style.”
I think we agree more than we disagree. I was simply saying that the impact of denouncing black homophobia in a black speech which will receive national attention is a big deal, and took real back bone.
It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not actually. For some people it is evil. And to call it so, doesn’t come close to the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs. The context is 100% different.
Sorry, to call someone like Obama evil is over the top. That sort of crap is what the right wing religious fundies do.
Crosstimbers@129, I agree with Edwards there is a difference. Apologize for the length. Because Obama really befuddles the question.
The Democratic Debate in Las Vegas
See crosstimbers at 129
The significance of the difference between keeping a small combat force in Kuwait to strike within Iraq (Edwards) vs. keeping a small combat force in Iraq to strike within Iraq (Obama) pales in significance when compared to the difference authorizing the war (Edwards, and Clinton) and opposing the war (Obama).
It’s about judgment and foresight. We’re picking the next president here (we certainly hope), not the next regional military commander.
Seems like the solution is the people – but at the same time that is not fair. People have been marching, screaming, crying, polling, and voting (when and where possible) on these things…and Nothing!
There are systemic problems, it would not do well to say Hey, we in Washington will do our thing, just cry out loudly in pain and we may help.
Not only that but Fox has their megaphone and the ”moderate” newssources have thier megaphone and then a bunch of maginalized tiny voices on little tiny soapboxes – but even if the truth were there it would be hard to id and find and hard to hear over the din of the megaphone.
There are also practical problems we have seen such as a massive swing in 2006 and still they vote for all war funding and m-i-c complex or the clear need to find out what went into the energy bill (even ny Cheney to Gore before dick had the chance to work in secret on it again) and all we get is votes for it and the troubles.
So what now people have to march 15 percent more or donate 20 percent more? Seems to me the will and desires are clear in a large majority (surely take electoral collage and the circus of prez race out of it) – on issue after issue the exact opposite of what the people want is done, there are clearly systemic issues that go beyond melting the grinch hearts of people with power and money.
Which is why Obama is currently leading the opposition to the war in the Senate and the country . . . oh, wait.
I agree with you on Edwards’ proposal, it is the better one. Alas, and sadly, Edwards probably will not get through, and so we have a choice it seems of Obama and Clinton, and on this issue they are similar (and the Rethugs – all of them except Paul – are far worse).
Yes, that’s my recollection. I would agree that forces in occupation may very well be the source and reason for problems, so the distinction may be significant. On the other hand, Edwards would retain the force in Kuwait if it weren’t to be used for reaction. Any subsequent involvement could prove as problmatic.
I prefer Edward’s position but think at times it is allowed to leave the impression that all troops would be back in the U.S. and we would have no ongoing middle eastern military postions.
Yes, you have to read the Krugman and consider panding to Regean who destroyed many of us or our hard working parents.
Obama also needs to tie things together and give more direction (yes going in the right direction is the way to go and managable in a small situation but is not sufficient for what is required).
In honesty this is needed by all the candidates but sticks out more with Obama. Ties into all of them: Obama-speeches some insider support, Clinton-tactics and most insider support, and Edward-message and no insider support. So none of them is or can be clear on more details of approach and policy. It seems Edwards will and would if given a chance go to more details, and that Obama and Clinton have no intention of showing details. I suppose it could be that those in the lead never will, but if thats the case how the hell can we let the ”leaders” in the lead say nothing… It a pity the media is into this approach and is eagerly awaiting the outcome of this cycle were we picked candidates on both sides with little more than a nod to issues.
Only my impression, but, the more the details out there, the more the Rethugs will be able to rip the Dems in the General election. It is not good, but that is the way it is. Hence, we have to go on what they have said/done in the past, what kind of vision they offer for the future, and what polls suggest about relative outside support – i.e. independents.
Does he mean it? Can he deliver? Of course, those have been the real questions about Obama all along: is he real, or are we so hungry for leadership we’re willing to read whatever we want into his rhetoric?
These are the right questions. The first is easy. Yes he means it; he feels it in every fiber of his being. It is who he is. When he speaks, the words come directly from his heart — not from focus groups.
Can he deliver? That’s the harder question. The idealist in me says yes. I’ve been a progressive policy advocate in DC for almost 30 years — since the last two years of the Carter administration. The progressive victories during those three decades have been few and far between. I’ve got every reason to be cynical about change. And yet I’ve thrown my lot in with Obama. I truly believe that he has the capacity to transform our politics in way that will usher in a new progressive era.
I’m getting old and tired and worn down by the fight. I’m tired of celebrating infrequent, small victories. That’s the most that Clinton can deliver if she is elected. She would certainly be a million times better than the long nightmare of George W. Bush. But I want more than that. Before I retire, I want to feel like I did when I heard RFK speak forty years ago. I long to move beyond the petty politics of today to a new time when big dreams are once again within reach. The idealism of my youth still has the capacity to trump the cynicism of my experience. But this might be the last time that happens. I don’t want it to slip away…
Choosing a candidate should involve a hard, analytical focus on their past voting record, their past actions, and the way candidates would comport themselves in the future in the oval office.
For example, in this week’s Newsweek, Greg Craig,the Williams and Connolly partner who coordinated Bill Clinton’s impeachment defense, and whose daughter atteneded the exclusive, expensive, private Sidwell Friends school instead of the D.C. public schools with Craig’s daugher, has this to say about Clinton:
The answer to that is easy–she can’t control him now, and she couldn’t control him ever. She needs him to try to attract votes, particularly those of African Americans, many of whom will be voting for Obama.
You’re getting carried away and whatever candidate you back, you owe it to yourself to look at all their comments and I guess I can’t get you to look at what Obama actually said. He didn’t get taped intoning the spirit of the Reagan years. The spirit of the Raegan years including Raegonmics is what we hate here. He simply said Raegan had ideas and they had a chemistry that helped make some of them happen. It’s true. But every one of those ideas were bad ideas, and I knew it when I saw them unfold–and Obama has said so, and I expect you’ll hear him saying more of it after the huge reaction from some of the Dem base.
What is truly funny is the notion that somehow Hillary Clinton, or the now positioned King Maker with his delegates, John Edwards has any more of what it takes to stand up to anyone.
This tired old refrain crops up any time someone wants to discredit Obama and is a lazy substitute for what FDL has not done much of lately–examining the details in the initiatives of each candidate as it gets lured into the lalaland of the distortion of a single comment for a solid week now.
It takes a nanosecond to find the same type comments from Senator Clinton. They were showcased on MTP yesterday, but FDL has not mentioned that, so I will.
It is sad when some of the Democratic base, and I’m very much part of the liberal base of Democrats is so twitchy and finicky that someone can’t praise that another party’s President had a method of change that worked for him, while clearly criticizing the actual ideas.
And it’s amusing to me that those people who are so reactive, have ignored that the only other person in contention to win the Democratic nomination now, Clinton said the exact same thing as Obama did, and it was captured on MTP Sunday morning January 20, 2008:
I’ve just been trying to say–I read the comments on the earlier thread “About the Raegan Thing” and I continue to read headline after headline her that clings to Obama’s Raegan comments that have been qualified in detail where he said Reagan had ideas that were bad ideas by his book that no headliner ever mentions. From being here for months, I know I agree with many people here on scores of issues and despise the same things about the current administration that they all do, including the ones who are awfully outraged at Obama thinking that his comments should be reason to chose Clinton over Obama.
I think this goes back to what I’ve been noticing as a race for President gets closer and closer–every nanomolecule of what they say or have said even before the campaign gets pulled out of context to champion one candidate or another or to be fair, to help make a decision for one candidate and against another, and I think any of us are more likely to make the best decision if you step back, look closely at what they said, and then try to get as much additional information about that candidate as possible. Try to see what else they have said, and try to get details of what they stand for–and getting the details isn’t easy–because the nature of a campaign in my experience is that they don’t want to commit to too many details out of fear they’ll offend someone.
They walk a fine line–we want details and we have every right to get them (not to mention that we all hear a lot of promises during a campaign that take the tricky hard work of getting these ideas through Congress for most of them to happen (not all–Iraq withdrawal would be one). A lot of people have examined their ideas comparing them–like health care, taxes, economic proposals, etc. and found that the devil is in the details that aren’t there.
Teleprompter vs off the cuff. Which is the real Obama?
Obama gets much right in his Jericho address, but there is a disturbing flaw in his rhetoric, his use of King’s legacy, and his wall metaphor. He is a great speaker. He had me misty-eyed at one point. He names many of our problems correctly, but he has no opponent other than abstract issues, attitudes and “division”. He does name insurance companies and drug companies, easy targets, as opponents. Otherwise, the forces stone-walling progress today have no faces or names in Obama World, the wall just crumbles when you achieve unity. Who is putting up that wall of Jericho and keeping it up? It isn’t just internal, within the minds of all of us as he says. King was not opposed to division, he welcomed it as a way to show that his guys were right and the others guys were wrong. King called for unity among “people of good will” but did not expect to achieve unity with the white citizens councils (the KKK dressed up in suits), rather he fought them. Obama lists division between political parties in the same sentence with division along race and gender lines, as something to be overcome. Yet we have an opposition in right-wing Republicanism that thinks bipartisanship, or post-partisanship or whatever you want to call it, means we give them everything they want, after which they dice and broil us, eat us for lunch, and spit out the bones. We’re not going to overcome the war-mongers, religious right, and neo-cons by changing attitudes or by emulating Reagan or distorting history. Who is Obama preaching to? We know who has the most divisive attitudes, who lacks empathy, who tortures and undermines the Constitution, who hates virulently, who wants to dismantle government programs that address the issues he lists, and who wants to use government to favor the wealthy and their lobbyists instead – and it isn’t progressives or liberal Democrats. Listening to him, I want to like Obama and believe in him, but it doesn’t work for me when I listen to my inner voices, the same inner self that he tries to appeal to; it is the classic double bind. I have been around for a while. I saw and heard MLK and even walked with him once. I never felt this ambivalence with him that I feel with Obama.
(Echoing Jane, I’m not saying any of this because I’m committed to another candidate at this point; I’m not.)
I am, for now, just hopeful that Obama is what he seems to promise. But every speech I see of his makes me more hopeful.
The things “progressives” object to seem, to me, to be merely shrewd politics.
I’m an adult, so I won’t be surprised when the real world dents the promise somewhat, as it always does, but if he means what he says – and I see no reason to believe he does not – we have a real candidate here.
America’s divisions are deep and many. I despair when a person of apparent good will, such as yourself, is unable to understand Obama’s basic message. We have apparently gotten to a point where many of us who are probably in general agreement on the things that matter most are still unable to speak the same language. Such is the price of decades that have riven us as a people, continuously dividing us by race, gender, class, ethnicity, party, etc. We are defined by our differences, not our commonalities. And those differences have been magnified as we have adopted patterns of discourse based in anger, animosity and revenge. I’m sick of that game. I’m actually quite good at it. But I’ve been doing it too long. I yearn for something more positive, more noble, more giving and more hopeful. But, as we increasingly speak different languages, that probably sounds like no more than babble to you.
The Obama brain trust, and Obama who is part of it, are obviously very aware of striking the balance of inspiring voters and achieving delegate momentum and balancing it with specifics. I’ve gone over the “plans” that the candidates have put out–there are a lot of sites and news papers detailing them–and all of them have the requisit lack of details that unfortunately is part of the rubric of “primary campaign promises.”
I expect and hope since Senator Obama is favored to win S.C. Saturday 26th and Senator Clinton is favored to win Florida Tuesday 29th, heading into Super Tuesday Feb. 5, the timing will force more specifics from each candidate. But as precedents from previous years have shown, specifics get hard to come by in a Primary where the framers made it extremely hard for change to take place. Added to that are Democrats in Congress, who haven’t gotten the change message and have been voting Ditto Bush very consistently as Harry Reid is pushing for another major Ditto Bush vote.
I hope people begin to realize what Obama is doing and how that makes him a phony and perhaps a liar.
If I must consider 3 phonies, then at least let me pick the one who does it best, who is consistent, who has shown an ability to execute as well as orate. I choose John Edwards because he says the things I want to hear and he’s very very consistently laid out a vision and stuck to it without pandering to groups who don’t share the same worldview.
John Edwards for President — Leadership we want to believe in!
Spike, one thing that will unite us real fast is the specter of John McCain, or whoever the Repubs run, becoming President, on top of these Bush/Cheney years. I’m hopeful too, and I’m not a purist. I’m going to listen more to Obama and hope that I can whole-heartedly support him. I hope we have a candidate who can be as inspiring as he can be, and he may be the one. We HAVE to win, and I hope we can win with an inspirational agenda to counter all the cynicism and allow people to believe in something again. And no more Ditto Bush.
How many times has he voted to reauthorize it and fund it?
John Edwards was a senator from North Carolina and behaved as such. He had to be that person to win against the Jesse Helms machine in NC. Given the Republican-controlled Congress at that time he performed as he said he would.
Now, you can say he holds different positions and is hypocritical or a phony, but if he executes his plans he’s laying out as well as he can, then we would be in great shape.
Call him a phony, at least Edwards isn’t all over the map like Obama or a Republican-lite like Clinton.
John Edwards for President — Real Leadership for a phony world.
Reagan had nice hair. I think it was on loan from central casting though.
Ronnie gave a good speech (at times, if he could remember it), but he too was an empty suit. Maybe that’s what Obama identifies with. But then, he’s also compared himself to Lincoln, John Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Apparently he thinks highly of himself.
I never knew those people Barack, but you’re not one of them. They all were unique and accomplished.
Perhaps. Did you hear the ‘84 Dem Convention speech given by Governor Mario Cuomo?
Anyway, oratory isn’t everything. Notice how Obama sucks in debates? There’s something missing. Both Edwards and Clinton are good at big speeches, debates and interviews.
Well said.
John Edwards has been saying for a long time that the moral challenge of our generation is whether we can pass along to our children an America that is better than what we had.
John Edwards — Moral Leadership for all of America!
No thanks. That was one of the first items up for discussion about the candidates back in the spring of last year. Some people just weren’t into the discussion at that time.
John Edwards — He understands Freedom of Speech
As time passes and the campaign goes on we see much more about the candidates and begin to realize neither Hillary nor Obama are all they would like us to believe. In fact, their errors, weaknesses and panderings become painful to watch. If you’re going to have a phony let’s at least have one who is really really good at it.
He created a health care plan so good that Hillary copied it almost in it’s entirety.
He announced an economic stimulus plan a month before Bush and Pelosi sealed a deal.
He has focused like a laser on all the key issues of the day and watched all the other candidates, including a Republican Huckabee, catch up to him months later.
He’s talked about a moral challenge to our nation that can unite us with a common purpose — something which we’ve been seeking since the end of the Cold War.
It’s John Edwards.
So, MarkH – Who are you backing?
When the storm comes those who are not moved will be blown away.
Edwards ties it all together and is amazingly consistent and Progressive in his plans.
Clinton doesn’t even pretend any more to be Progressive and everyone laughs when she says she’s an ‘agent of change’.
Obama is much more clearly now pandering to anyone and everyone. Earlier it wasn’t so clear because he was just stealing Edwards best lines to win the Progressive vote. Now that Edwards is down Obama is flailing wildly to win every vote, no matter how unProgressive they may be. If he’s going to be a fake it would be nice if he could do it better.
Two points on this:
1) Edwards was a senator from NC at the time and acted the part. Why? One had to be that way to get elected and to get reelected. I’d guess he got sick of the senate and went back to being himself when he ran for president.
2) Senators have a different standard to uphold than Obama had. There were lots of people against the war and yet I don’t blame any senator for voting either year or nay to Karl Rove’s crazy resolution. It wasn’t put there to get the Senate’s approval. It was put there to make Dems declare their support for the president in a time of war or to declare themselves unfit for the presidency. But, more than that, they received briefings from the administration and were led to believe there were WMDs (nukes). They also had the self-made requirement to ’support the president’ so that if they became president they could expect senatorial support.
In short, it’s irrelevant. Bush was gonna invade anyway.T
I don’t think Edwards has been in the senate for reauthorization votes. Correct me if you can.
Anyway, both were declared hawks and voted as such. They aren’t the only ones who did.
Still, that doesn’t mean the positions either takes now is in any way related to that time. Events have happened, time has passed. We have to move on and both have said they want to do that. Do you begrudge them the opportunity to change with the times?
Are you going to use the Republican talking point that voting for the AUMF was a vote to go to war? You do realize don’t you that the AUMF had caveats which should’ve stopped Bush, right? It was Bush who went beyond the resolution and invaded improperly. Do you deny it was Bush’s fault? Are you really trying to put the blame on the Dem senators who voted for the AUMF?
Obama showed his colors when, after saying he was against the war, he voted for reauthorization. That’s inconsistent.
I have reason to doubt the things Obama, Clinton or Edwards have to say. In some ways it’s very easy to say they are all phonies.
Clinton says she’s a Modern Progressive. Just what is that when you sign onto Kyl-Lieberman and promote a flag-burning bill? She’s a joke.
Obama says many things and no things and leaves a way for anyone to find something in him to support. What are his core values? What has he truly fought for? What has he fought against? Who is he? What sparked the interest in him to become involved in politics? Nobody knows. If he’s going to be a pander-bear and a phony, then could he at least do it better?
Edwards was a NC senator and behaved accordingly. As a presidential candidate he’s been much more Progressive and anti-corp. Which is the real JRE? Frankly I don’t care as long as he executes his plans for the presidency as well as he’s handled his campaign and his senate work. He’s entirely consistent, says what needs to be done (IMO) and gives a pretty decent speech which has been copied by Obama and Huckabee.
If I’ve got to look at 3 phonies at least give me the best one — not the Goldwater Girl or the rookie.