OT: 2008 Elections

[JackB1]

Here is that sermon that inspired Audacity of Hope:

http://www.preachingtoday.com/sermons/s ... fhope.html

There's absolutely nothing controversial about it. It's a well thought out message of social justice and Christian principles. I can also see why it would inspire someone who was already a community activist when he met Wright.

I did some reading on Wright today, because I wanted to learn more about him and his influence on Obama. Wright's a very popular, influential pastor whose church is quite large and popular (in fact Oprah is or has been a member of the Trinity congregation). He has preached about how important Christianity is for black people, and how important white Christian abolitionists were in fighting slavery. Obama was initially drawn to him because Wright was an outspoken critic of apartheid at a time when the Reagan administration was still dragging it's feet on South African sanctions.

I'm not trying to brush away the criticisms, but I don't think it was the outrageous aspects of Wright's persona that attracted Obama or many of the thousands who attend Trinity. As usual, this story is more complex than the media's OMG OBAMA HEARTS RACIST!!!!

I think he still will get the nomination and I don't think this will derail him for very long.

I also did some research on Wright and I actually can see his point of view on many of his "controversial statements", but I am more mad at Barak for not seeing this coming. Did he really think his opposition wouldn't pick up on this guy and play all his inflammatory remarks all over the place? I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary's people aren't putting together a "Best Of Pastor Wright" Video for YouTube and the media right now. It gives people doubt about his character and once that is implanted, it is hard to erase. I really think this is going to hurt him in a big way. I hope I'm wrong.

[webdanzer]

Obama's speech today:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm

[FatPitcher]

Pretty good speech by Obama today, judging by the text of it on Drudge. This is pretty much what I wanted to hear from him to start with, but it's understandable that he'd ignore it until it actually hurt him.

Of course, I don't thinking that handing out more grants for education, health care, etc. is going to help anything, or that race-based affirmative action is the answer to the disproportionately high rates of crime, proverty, and single parenthood among blacks in the U.S. However, I am in favor of colleges taking into consideration the challenges an applicant has faced up to that point, such as lousy schooling, family problems, socio-economic history, physical handicaps, etc. I think using race as a substitute for those things is unfair and lazy, as I learned firsthand growing up in a poor single-parent family, excelling in school, and watching scholarships and admittance to prestigious universities go to a Nigerian friend/classmate whose parents were exceedingly rich and who had nowhere near the resume I did, as well as to a faux-Hispanic friend whose (white) mother happened to be born in Venezuela.

I'd rather see school choice instead of just handing out more money to schools that are poorly administered. If you work at a poorly-run company, you can always go find a job somewhere else while the company runs itself into the ground. If schools worked the same way, consumer choice (yes, education is a good or service too!) would purge these incompetent school administrations instead of allowing them to perpetuate their reign of failure. Teachers are the same way. Pay the best ones more, and more people who are good at teaching will sign up. Pay the worst ones more than they deserve and make them hard to fire, and crappy teachers will stick around because they know they have it good.

With health care, the simple fact is that we can't afford to provide everyone with complete coverage unless we force people to buy it (especially as more and more conditions become treatable through research, and lifeexpectancy goes up). If people right now decide that it's not worth it, why should we pass laws that either force them directly to buy it or force them indirectly by taxing them what they would be paying for it (or more) and then "giving" it to them, often with less choice/quality than what they could have obtained by cutting out the government middleman?

[JackB1]

Obama's speech today:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm

That was a great speech. I like that he didn't try to run from Wright, but explained why he has stayed with the church.

I am ready to move on......

[RobVarak]

Good speech and a sensational piece of political judo. Rather than turtling to avoid the Wright issue he turned it to his advantage by elevating the discussion to a macro discussion or race. Whether it was the candidate himself, Axlerod or some other advisor, whoever set upon that course should get a strong pat on the back. It was at least 10-15 minutes too long, and the silkiness of his rhetoric was such that it overshadowed the silliness of his attacks on Wall St. and Washington as the "real enemy." But the speech worked on several levels.

OTOH, it was nice to hear a Democrat finally utter the phrase "radical Islam" and also interesting to see him embrace the spirit of the '96 Welfare Reform Act by characterizing the old system as a factor in exacerbating the socio-economic problems of minorities. I'm sure that Bill will appreciate the tacit tip of the cap

Of course one of his conclusions was essentially that if we don't elect him it will be because America is cynically choosing not to confront the racial issues which plague our society rather than a rejection of his stated policies or lack of meaningful experience, but that's consistent with the nature of his candidacy.

In any event he answered the question that I stated several posts above. To me the entire Wright affair demanded that Obama explain why he chose to associate with the minister, and to my mind he did so.

[Brando70]

Good speech and a sensational piece of political judo.

I think whether or not you believe him, you have to say that was a hell of a maneuver. He managed to distance himself from the inflammatory parts of Wright while not tossing him overboard.

It's also quite a contrast from the speechifying of the last 7 years

[Jared]

Yeah....he did a really good job with the speech. Looks like he's going to get a lot of good press from it, and I think he really explained his viewpoints and positions on race.

[XXXIV]

It's also quite a contrast from the speechifying of the last 7 years

You just dont understand that that was all strategory...

[pk500]

This speech was a watershed moment in this campaign for me. Can you imagine either Hillary Clinton or John McCain making such a thoughtful, pointed speech about the scourge of racism upon American society?

I sure as hell can't.

This was Obama's "I Have A Dream." I'm not saying this speech will resonate for decades like Dr. King's speech -- not at all. But Obama's speech rings out as one of the most insightful commentaries on racism in the U.S. by an American public figure since 1963 in Washington.

Count me among the very impressed.

This was an inspiring piece of rhetoric, and it was brilliant politically, too. It basically removes the race card from the Clinton arsenal of dirty tricks because any attempt to inject race into the final primary run by the Clintonites will look very petty after this speech.

She simply can't stack up to this guy in terms of leadership potential and inspiration. She's not even close.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

the silkiness of his rhetoric was such that it overshadowed the silliness of his attacks on Wall St. and Washington as the "real enemy."

Jim Cramer was talking about how the bailout of Bear Stearns had little to do with the "real economy" because Wall Street just pushed papers, not real assets -- that is no physical production.

Then this morning, someone on CNBC noted that in 2006 or 2007, Wall Street made $250 billion in profits, which is more than the health care industry and the tech industry combined.

Financial markets are crucial to our economy but if you think about it, we're paying for some of those profits. The prices of oil and other key commodities are where they are currently in part due to speculation from investors. While they made handsome profits on the run-up to $110 (while demand was at the low point of the year), we pay for higher energy prices, which ripple through the economy to increase the prices of other goods and services.

Wall Street may not be the enemy but their interests are often at odds with the interests of Main Street.

That said, I have no problems with what the Fed did to enable the Bear Stearns sale (Paulson won't call it a bailout), because letting it fail could have caused panic. However, people are rightly pointing out that rich investors' assets are being protected (or bailed out) while the thousands or millions who have defaulted or will default on mortgages are lectured about moral hazard.

Obama could have played the populist card a lot more than he has, given the times.

[Leebo33]

I only read the text, but it seemed like a great speech.

[RobVarak]

Wall Street may not be the enemy but their interests are often at odds with the interests of Main Street.

That said, I have no problems with what the Fed did to enable the Bear Stearns sale (Paulson won't call it a bailout), because letting it fail could have caused panic. However, people are rightly pointing out that rich investors' assets are being protected (or bailed out) while the thousands or millions who have defaulted or will default on mortgages are lectured about moral hazard.

Obama could have played the populist card a lot more than he has, given the times.

We've had this argument before, so I'm not going to elaborate that much, but structuring the argument that way is incorrect. Backing up Bear Stearns didn't just help "rich investors." It directly helped all of those people who invested in Bear Stearns as well as all those who invested in its subsidiaries and the companies in which it owned a large stake. Those people are not all rich!

wco my friend, I sometimes get the feeling from your posts that you assume that every investor is a rich investor and that the only people with large financial stakes on Wall St. are millionaire traders. Millions of small investors were protected with that move as well. Small business owners, professionals, 401k and IRA holders...the entire width and breadth of the economy has deep roots in Wall St. at this point.

The old Main St. v. Wall St. dynamic is as dead as the Great Society welfare state or true laissez faire trade policy.

With regards to your argument about individual mortgators being lectured rather than assisted, that ignores the differences in the economic fundamentals of the situation as well as the fact that there have been assistance programs implemented in the last 8 weeks.

Individual mortgagors are unable to meet their alread-established mortgage payments. Bear Stearns faced a liquidity crisis caused not by the natural progression of their obligations under contract, but by an irrational calling in of debts...an old fashioned run on the bank. The Federal government stepped in to provide guaranties to BS's creditors...most of which will never actually leave Treasury coffers, the rest of which will be paid back by JP Morgan. Apples and oranges.

As for populism in Obama's rhetoric...how much more could he include without borrowing old Edwards speeches lock, stock and barrel? He proposes a soak the "rich" tax policy, and the ridiculous NAFTA "debate" with Clinton is basically a populist volleyball match.

Edit:

Ok, I guess I elaborated a bit much

[JackB1]

This speech was a watershed moment in this campaign for me. Can you imagine either Hillary Clinton or John McCain making such a thoughtful, pointed speech about the scourge of racism upon American society?

I sure as hell can't. PK

I was thinking the same thing.....he showed a lot of courage in not taking the
easy way out and just completely cutting Wright out of the picture. If Kerry had consulted with Obama during the Swift Boat crap, he probably would have been able to avert that downfall as well.

The problem here is that most people will not even hear this speech or read about it and will just formulate their opinion based on the endless loop of Pastor Wright on You Tube and such. I know a few people that just watched those videos and said they couldn't vote for Obama after that. I fear the damage may already be done. I hope I am wrong.

[XXXIV]

It directly helped all of those people who invested in Bear Stearns as well as all those who invested in its subsidiaries and the companies in which it owned a large stake. Those people are not all rich!

Almost all of the EMPLOYEES at my job have a 401k with money in Wall Street. None of them are rich by any stretch of the imagination...but hey...I guess it depends how you define rich... To some rich means having a full time job....

[fsquid]

I thought he said he was the post-racial candidate and that we were past racism?

[wco81]

First of all, I'm one of those investors and I was relieved Monday, feeling better so far today.

The creditors who made the run on BS were mostly hedge fund investors. Most of those hedge funds only cater to millionaires.

So most middle class people are not creditors of any investment bank. They might be shareholders of those investment banks though, either through direct stock ownership or through mutual funds. Those people would surely be hurt by BS being valued at $2.

As for the individual mortgage-holders, guaranteeing their mortgages, which is one of the ideas being discussed, would not be for reasons of fairness but would be as an attempt to triage the damage.

The laissez-faire advocates are saying the govt. should not intervene in any way, letting parties both big and small fail as part of an economic cleansing process. But clearly, the govt. won't let institutions which are too big fail or the failure of which would cause widespread problems.

As for Obama, for all his talk about NAFTA, he's not going to get votes from the manufacturing workers in states like OH and PA, for reasons having little to do with economic/trade policy.

It's too bad though that there isn't a serious debate on trade policy outside of election year rhetoric. The political classes have largely committed the country for decades to moving out all manufacturing, at the behest of multinationals.

[fsquid]

The problem here is that most people will not even hear this speech or read about it and will just formulate their opinion based on the endless loop of Pastor Wright on You Tube and such. I know a few people that just watched those videos and said they couldn't vote for Obama after that. I fear the damage may already be done. I hope I am wrong.

This speech is similar to the rest of his speeches. It is long on focusing with the problems of this nation and short on proposed solutions. Are we to elect him just because he, like any somewhat educated American, can identify the problems we as a nation face? Is that what passes as leadership these days?

[wco81]

When was the last time a candidate proposed "solutions" in the campaign, actually implemented them after getting into office, and the said solution made things better?

There are campaign promises to be sure, but do they solve anything?

Bush promised prescription program and got it passed (with a lot of strong-arming of some congressmen) right before the 2004 campaign.

Is it working well? (Honestly don't know)

[Slumberland]

This speech is similar to the rest of his speeches. It is long on focusing with the problems of this nation and short on proposed solutions.

Policy wonks probably make for better cabinet members than candidates. Especially on the subject of race, would that speech have been better had it included a proposal to legislate the racism right out of us? "Personal responsibility" was a nice phrase to hear worked in to that speech.

Not to say he lacks substance (it doesn't take much digging to find his positions and plans), but shouldn't a leader have the ability to keep our eye on the ball, sometimes with rhetorical flourish? And make sure it's the right ball? I'm not so excited about John McCain's balls. And Hillary's, well...

[JRod]

Well if that speech gets widely reported on, I think it's the moment Obama wins the Presidency.

I think Presidential politics are little trivial tests to find out about the fortitude of the candidate. When Kerry was attacked by the swift boats -- his campaign was unresponsive, weak, and was never able to counter them. In the face of adversity, America saw how Kerry responded to them. That's not to say he would do the same if there was a nuclear threat, but it's America's way to judge a candidate without any real Presidential competency tests.

This is why, I think this test for Obama was important. The ability to respond in a manner that silences your critics, even though this is issue is somewhat trivial, allows America to see how a candidate reacts.


In the speech, I read it quickly, he says too things which I think make it, like PK said, a watershed moment. He silences, the Jesse Jackson, Al Shartpon, types that use black anger to move forward the african american agenda. And he did something else, which I think is brilliant. He also talks about the disenfranchisement of white America, in regards to race.

There were other bits, I liked.


I think this is the moment America will look back on and say where he became Presidential. Kind of like the JFK religion speech.

[pigpen81]

Well if that speech gets widely reported on, I think it's the moment Obama wins the Presidency.

I think Presidential politics are little trivial tests to find out about the fortitude of the candidate. When Kerry was attacked by the swift boats -- his campaign was unresponsive, weak, and was never able to counter them. In the face of adversity, America saw how Kerry responded to them. That's not to say he would do the same if there was a nuclear threat, but it's America's way to judge a candidate without any real Presidential competency tests.

This is why, I think this test for Obama was important. The ability to respond in a manner that silences your critics, even though this is issue is somewhat trivial, allows America to see how a candidate reacts.


In the speech, I read it quickly, he says too things which I think make it, like PK said, a watershed moment. He silences, the Jesse Jackson, Al Shartpon, types that use black anger to move forward the african american agenda. And he did something else, which I think is brilliant. He also talks about the disenfranchisement of white America, in regards to race.

There were other bits, I liked.


I think this is the moment America will look back on and say where he became Presidential. Kind of like the JFK religion speech.

I agree on all accounts.....I now want this man to represent and lead our country as Commander in Chief.

What a speech!!!

[Teal]

Well if that speech gets widely reported on, I think it's the moment Obama wins the Presidency.

I think Presidential politics are little trivial tests to find out about the fortitude of the candidate. When Kerry was attacked by the swift boats -- his campaign was unresponsive, weak, and was never able to counter them. In the face of adversity, America saw how Kerry responded to them. That's not to say he would do the same if there was a nuclear threat, but it's America's way to judge a candidate without any real Presidential competency tests.

This is why, I think this test for Obama was important. The ability to respond in a manner that silences your critics, even though this is issue is somewhat trivial, allows America to see how a candidate reacts.


In the speech, I read it quickly, he says too things which I think make it, like PK said, a watershed moment. He silences, the Jesse Jackson, Al Shartpon, types that use black anger to move forward the african american agenda. And he did something else, which I think is brilliant. He also talks about the disenfranchisement of white America, in regards to race.

There were other bits, I liked.


I think this is the moment America will look back on and say where he became Presidential. Kind of like the JFK religion speech.

I agree on all accounts.....I now want this man to represent and lead our country as Commander in Chief.

What a speech!!!

If all we needed in a Commander in Chief was inspiring speeches...I'd agree with you. The man is good at talking, of that there can be no doubt.

What we haven't seen yet is, is he any good at walking the talk? That's murkier water for me...

[fsquid]

One question I find myself asking about the Obama's church thing is this, "If I were going to run for the Democratic nomination of the highest office in the land, wouldn't it only make sense to COMPLETELY distance myself from a loud-mouthed pastor who is clearly a race-baiter of the worst sort BEFORE I began my campaign?"

If Obama clearly doesn't see the inherent problem created with his affiliation with Reverend Wright, then he definitely doesn't have enough political and common sense to become the leader of the free world.

[TheHiddenTrack]

The problem here is that most people will not even hear this speech or read about it and will just formulate their opinion based on the endless loop of Pastor Wright on You Tube and such. I know a few people that just watched those videos and said they couldn't vote for Obama after that. I fear the damage may already be done. I hope I am wrong.

This speech is similar to the rest of his speeches. It is long on focusing with the problems of this nation and short on proposed solutions. Are we to elect him just because he, like any somewhat educated American, can identify the problems we as a nation face? Is that what passes as leadership these days?

Good point. I thought it was a great speech at first but now that I think about it he didn't propose the exact way to fix everything. I mean the least he could do is completely solve racism. Am I right? He gave a 37 minute speech and from my initial observations I can still see color. In fact I just walked down the street and I saw 2 "white" kids. What the f***? I thought I wasn't going to see race anymore after this speech?

He broke all his promises and he doesn't solve anything! He just gets up there and talks and nothing ever changes! Just another empty suite who can't even make the nation color blind. A vote for Obama is a vote for liberal socialist racist LIAR!

[fsquid]

He didn't propose anything. He just made an "everyone is a victim" speech that is common with the left.

Look at his speech. Everyone is a victim. Minorities are victims of ingrained racism or prejudice. Oh really? Care to explain Condoleeza Rice? What about Clarence Thomas? Barack himself? I know many successful minorities. None that I know believe that this nation has tried to incessantly hold them back. Obama goes further and says the white people are victims, too. Whites are victims that they are found guilty for the sins of their forebearers. Great! More victims. And who can save us? Obama and the government?