Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Cleverboy, Mar 18, 2008.
Well done, very moving.
I'm trying to imagine George W attempting to deliver a speech that long in any sort of understandable and coherent manner....
Damn. We need this guy- badly.
He sold me when he addressed the pent up frustration of whites who occasionally lose out due to Affirmative Action with the same vigor he did with the racism felt by African-Americans. To address both sides of the issue as being one problem is (sadly) refreshing.
Crap, I'm not going to be able to watch this until later when I get back from classes. I've been trying to avoid reading the transcript, this stuff is so much more powerful and moving when he says it.
I agree whole-heartedly. That is the most incisive introspective on the issue of race in this country that I have ever seen. He completely understands how we got where we are, and because of that, I think he can help fix it. I've been supporting him since he announced, but now I just want him in the white house that much more. I he can keep the delegate lead and popular vote so that the DNC sees the light.
Ladies and Gentlemen. The next president of The United States of America.
I think...... Barack Obama is Abe Lincoln reincarnated. Honest Barack(?)
Illinois rises again!
YES WE CAN!!!
Impressive. It will be interesting to hear reactions from Clinton and McCain, if there are any. Not much negative they can say about it without making themselves look bad.
Does anyone know who was in the audience for the speech?
The comments on the post are interesting because the same point of contention keeps coming out-- "all talk, no action." DUH! He's a Presidential candidate, not the President. He can't do crap until you vote him in, and that's based on his words.
If you want to look at actions, look at the fact that he's released taxes and a list of all his earmarks, approved and not, while Clinton has not. What you have to do to satisfy some of these people?
Here's his speech on YouTube!
Their argument is that he's making a lot of promises, but he doesn't have the credentials to show that he can make it happen.
On the other hand, Hillary also says that she'll fix healthcare, and has the credentials to show that she failed the last time she tried it. If she's elected she'll fail to do so again. And the main reason for that is because she is such a divisive individual that people will line up to oppose her simply because her name is Hillary Clinton. She could put up a bill that simply says "Give $500 to every member of Congress" and some Republicans would STILL vote against it, because they'd rather lose free money than do anything in support of her.
We voted in the youngest President in history in a time of a lot of uncertainty (Kennedy). People seem to forget that, and what he managed to do for this country, even before he was killed, is quite impressive (if nothing else the space program and keeping us from going to war with the Soviet Union).
True, but to hear some people talk, all he managed was the Bay of Pigs....
more hotair. A good speech does nothing but shows he has good writers. Actions speak louder than words, and his actions of being connected to this man have done that.
He writes most of his own speeches
If we're going to talk about who is connected to whom, both sides arguably have dirty laundry. It's more important to focus on the candidates given both of them have dealt with controversial supporters.
I assume, then, that you're supporting a candidate who has no such connections to anyone who has said something that might be considered offensive by others?
I thought Dems wanted to move past faith-based politics?
It is interesting it only took B. Obama 20 years to realize his reverend is divisive and incendiary.
Are you seriously going to start bashing Barack Obama after one of the greatest speeches ever given?
He freely admitted in his speech that he'd known this for some time. It's quite understandable that he could respect the viewpoints or opinions of someone without agreeing with those opinions in their totality - simply associating with someone or respecting them for certain attributes does not mean that he believes or agrees with everything said.
It would be unreasonable to expect he would simply cut this person out of his life because he doesn't like everything he says. Hell, we'd all have no friends if we did that. He has acted appropriately to reject the statements and remove him from his campaign organization, and I think that's a reasonable step; one that others with similarly controversial supporters haven't always done.
Most people who speak of Obama's connection to "this man" generally have very little idea of who "this man" (Rev. Wright) even is, and nor do they wish to, considering that the first and often ONLY thing they've heard from him is to hear him speaking in ways that racially incite those in the black community.
People have inaccurately called Wright "racist" and "hate-filled", and I completely agree that this is NOTHING but a incorrect charicature of the man. Most of his out-of-context quotes are unnecessarily strongly worded, but parrot words spoken by loads of people ("America's foreign policy brought about 9/11 and not jealousy", "some whites don't understand blacks [woe is me]", or "damn America for its sins")... and certainly don't say ANYTHING about "blacks" being "better" than whites (which is how the literate define "racism"). These snippets speak more to a "bitterness" and dissappointment in a country he expects more from... and a rhetoric that is COMPLETELY objectionable for how it seeks to make its point.
A friend I work with objects to Wright mostly because he despises churches and preachers in general (thinking them all hypocrits). When he tries to quote Wrights comments, he has a profound tendency to MAKE THINGS UP. He can't actually seem to QUOTE the mans statements that he dislikes, he just makes up statements like "white people... something... something..." or "God damn America!" Meanwhile, I'm left asking him if he even knows what Wright was saying. It's pathetic.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright: Anti-American Or A Man Speaking Truth To Power
There was NOTHING RACIST about what Geraldine Ferraro said last week, and there was NOTHING RACIST about what Rev. Wright has preached ON OCCASSION from the pulpit. All the same, the remarks are divisive and unproductive. A LOT of people need to get off their high horses and get real.
So that's how he preaches every Sunday? I didn't know you attended that church. Sigh.
The biggest problem I heard, was when he said statements which could be considered controversial. Is that an affirmation of the remarks? No. It also is not condemnation of them, either.
You've taken that remark completely out of context. Specifically, he said:
Sounds like a condemnation to me. What more would you like him to say?
I don't think its bashing. Its a legitimate point that will be brought up if Obama enters the big race. Overall I think Obama did a good job of dispelling any questions about him and his pastor.