“Audacity of Hype” campaign soldiers on
|
|
In what will certainly be the most talked about speech of the week, and could finally sink Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Sen. Barack Obama delivered impassioned remarks on the state of race in America, the pursuit of happiness, and his relationship with his long-time spiritual leader, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
The speech, in and of itself, is remarkable. After reading it, I couldn’t help but say, “wow!” It is full of moving rhetoric and soaring language, the likes we truly haven’t heard since Ronald Reagan.
For folks prone to being swayed by speeches (and for the left who will swoon because of all the political red meat it contains), this speech is a home run, and may even go down as a seminal moment in U.S. history.
But, at the end of the day, if you really look carefully at what Obama is advocating, you might want to think twice about your emotional response to the words.
This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
Expanding the federal bureaucracy to the local level in the form of education reform.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
The federal government has the answers to the issues facing the medical community.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
Protectionism.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
Isolationism.
Great speech — really scary policies.
Leslie Carbone has a unique take from Obama’s speech. She says that there was a lot of talking about the suffering of the black community at Trinity, but not a lot of focus on the cross.
DJ looks at the “new packaging” of old ideas and Marxist elements of Obama’s speech, and Obama’s subtle redirect to an “acceptable villain”…
For starters, Obama asks African-Americans, other minorities, and poor whites not to end their feelings of hatred and resentment, but to point them in another direction - towards an “acceptable” villain. Thus, Obama is just as divisive as his would-be critics, but since the division is one of class rather than race, it sounds (to some) to be unifying and healing. It’s not.
Mike at Write Side looks at things a bit more scripturally.
And, Reagan’s GOP notes that Obama states that the primary reason the Reagan coalition formed was based on race.
Bill Clinton didn’t say ” These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love” about Sister Souljah.
Obama attacked “talk show hosts and conservative commentators” but defended Rev. Wright?
Obama criticized “politicians who exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends” but didn’t say a word about the politicians of the left who have exploited racial divides their entire careers?
There is no doubt that Obama still defends the indefensible; I wonder how he feels about Don Imus? Selective sensitivity on the part of our friends on the left, perhaps?
[...] REACTIONS: J.R. at Bearing Drift and Leslie Carbone also weigh in (this list will likely lengthen as the day goes [...]
I got an email from a loyal BDO reader. I posted it yesterdsay because it was perfect. The quote from it was:
“Funny, we are now being told by Rev. Al, and ALL the “Black community” leaders that we are taking the many, many statements by Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. out of context when compared to his many sermons.
I’m just thinking that the same people didn’t think twice about taking 45 seconds out of 3 hours per day, five days per week for 30 years from Don Imus out of context!
Call me crazy, but…………………………………”
This speach will in the end probably be the one that finally does him in. He seemed up to playing the race game quite well today, making up all the excuses in the world for his association with the racist minister.
Obama should have “thrown him under the bus” in order to survive this, anything short will now make him the “race” candidate the guilty bleeding heart liberals can follow but not independents and Republicans.
[...] Bearing Drift: “Audacity of Hype” campaign soldiers on [...]
JR - obviously, I could not disagree more. I loved the speech and the policies he outlined. But then, perhaps that was the “red meat” you mention that I enjoy. I won’t get into a specific defense of each point, as to do so will serve no purpose.
But, I will state that to compare Obama’s beliefs/ policies to Marxism is as empty as to hear the left compare McCain to a fascist. They are simply words that have lost all meaning because the true context has long since been extracted.
A couple of random thought on Jim’s original post:
re: education - not sure how you’re reading into that - we already have a federal dept of education, under which those responsibilities would fall. he’s talking about the failure of an existing system, not the creation of a new one. Personally, i find it kinda funny to see a conservative criticizing a politician’s citing of the failings of our public school system :). Just to play devil’s advocate - if obama were a huge proponant of home schooling, he could say the exact same thing, word for word. Thats what drives folks crazy sometimes - people can read whatever they want into some of his stump statements.
re: medical - again, i see this more as a diatribe against the ‘villianous special interests’ than a call for more govt intervention. On a side note, i recently attended a presentation where a health services executive pretty much stated that he saw the eventual move towards a nationalized or single payer health system in the US as the only likely solution. Kinda unexpected from that source.
protectionism - correct, this does ring of protectionism IMHO. but economic policy is a spectrum, not a defined point. Personlly, i’ve felt that, in most cases, the closer to you get to an ‘ideal ism’, the worse it actually works. In recent years we’ve been rapidly moving from the original protectionism of the lincoln republicans to free trade - and we’ve seen its good and bad impacts. maybe a little re-evaluation instead of blind adherence to the ‘ideal’ of free trade is not a bad thing.
isolationism - technically, if i read it as you do, its more non-interventionism, as isolationism involves more than military policy. but of course, i don’t read it that way. he’s referring to one instance, one conflict. Thats like saying that Treas Sec Paulson is pushing nanny-state socialism because he orchestrated the bear-stearns bailout. now, if he sounded like ron paul on this, maybe you’d have a better platform to stand on, but this really reaching.
I read the speech, but i’d like to actually see the full thing, as his delivery is always half the impact. So far all i can find are snippets.
J.R.,
One of the main reasons that J. Wright has become an issue is because Obama is a blank slate and McCain is not. That’s because McCain has an established public persona. We know who McCain is and what he believes and no comments by his supporters will change that.
Obama is a different case. He is a blank slate. He is for change, hope and the future. Now there’s a platform that you can get your teeth into.
He’s for not invading Iraq although he’s considering invading Pakistan. Set the wayback machine Sherman.
I’ll bet if asked that he’s for motherhood and if pressed will swear his undying love for apple pie.
And he’s sticking to that.
So if a candidate whose acolytes faint at his mere words is such an enigma, we have to look at the people he surrounds himself with to get an idea of his values. So we look at his skinny but telling voting record. We consider the fact that he is part the Chicago political machine, not a bunch of nuns. His beliefs are reflected in his wife’s less guarded comments. So we get Mr. Rezko and his land purchase and the Reverend Wright and his anti-white anti-Semitic rants. And today we get a speech, which I have read in full, in which he contradicts what he told an interviewer just yesterday about what he knew about Wright’s sermons. A speech in which he manages to both disavow Wright while embracing him. A very neat trick. Anyone who has followed this saga can conclude he gives a great speech, as long as someone gives him a good script. I wonder who wrote it?
Obama has become the Democrat’s nightmare; derailing the second coming of the Clintons. I hope for the country’s sake he does not become America’s also.
Jeremy, Cspan’s website has the whole video.
Jeremy,
Thanks for adding your thoughts.
Really, I only have so much time to blog so sometimes I will use the occasional sweeping generality. This was one of those occasions. I was just trying to make a point.
Seriously, your comments do add value. However, I do stand by my generalities because there is a strong degree of truth in them.
Obama’s answers to our most pressing problems seem to focus on what government can do. When he get the crowd into a frenzy saying “Yes, we can!” What I am hearing is, “Yes, we can…get the government solve these problems.” In other words, as you have directed at me, I level the same accusation at the Obama campaign. In a desire to make a slogan and appeal to emotion, they disguise the big government proposals they have to address our most pressing issues.
Anyway, that’s my perception.
As for Ragnar — I didn’t call Obama’s proposals Marxist…that was another blog. So you might want to leave the comment there.
Brian - thx for the tip, oddly i didn’t of checking there first.
Jim - I thought you had infinite time to blog :). Seriously though, responding to the actual words was just an easier platform to air my initial thoughts. I know you’re not so much a black-and-white guy, but there are some folks here who do have that tendency in their world-view.
You know, the “yes we can” thing is really quite interesting, if you think about it. To some, “we” can mean the people through the actions of govt. But to others, “we” could mean the ultimate embodiment of personal empowerment and responsibility. Like many of his campaign sentiments, its an emotional appeal, and an appeal is exactly what it is. One of the strongest motivators is the desire to feel needed. And in the simple phrase “yes we can”, there is the subtle implication that “we” must include me and you in order to succeed. Kind of the Uncle Sam “We Need You” campaign. In me personally, it somoehow manages to play the tunes both of suggesting a need for personal responsibility and involvement, while at the same time, requesting assitance in something bigger, something more altruistic than self interest. And ultimately it comes down to the different roles of a president - to govern, to lead, and possibly to inspire.
I know this may not jibe with the perception of a “liberal democratic”, but do bear in mind that govt focus does not have to mean bearacracy and regulation. Take the president’s council on physical fitness, a long standing attempt by govt to help address a national concern through active involvement, but not regulation and control. And maybe its just some carrots thrown out to keep the independants/repubs who may be wathcing happy, but in many of Obama’s speeches (including the one i attended), you’ll find atleast one diatribe on the role of personaly responsibility, and how we as people need to “step up to the plate” to solve our problems.
Jeremy, you’re welcome. CSPAN is a goldmine for political types.
To Jim’s point, I’m not sure one diatribe about some amorphous “personal responsibility” in 45 minutes of government programs makes me feel a whole lot better.
By the way, do you consider the president’s council on physical fitness to be a smashing success?
Obama’s website touts his “yes we can”
Civil rights - all government proposals
Economy - more federal funding
Education - more programs and more funding
Energy - 150 billion dollars of new government spending, plus a scheme I call “environmental abuser fees” - clamp down on carbon emissions and then auction off “credits” where they can “buy” artificial compliance.
That’s only up to the E’s. By the time we get to Z, how big is this government going to get, and who’s going to pay for it all?
Hey, i didn’t state he was the Pete Egoscue of govt solutions. But he does at least call for a level of personal responsibility, something that Libs are often cited as “not believing in”.
And no, considering our diabetes rates and general health, and that the council AFAIK has been around since eisenhower, i don’t consider it a success. but it is an example of long-term govt focus on an issue that didn’t involve mandates and regulations.
As for who will pay for his plan, since Obama is a Democrat, i would imagine we will pay. If he were a “foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution”, our grandkids likely would.