WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE "THE SPEECH"?
I would like to hear what our readers thought of "The Speech". Please submit your comments.
posted by UMRBlog @ 09:14
19 comments
UMRBlog
The Upper Mississippi River Basin:Life, Worship, Sports, Transportation, Golf, Politics and other bizarre behaviors in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The Quincy area has a history of tolerance. We seem to suffer fools gladly.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
About Me
- Name: UMRBlog
- Location: Upper Mississippi River Basin, Tri-State, United States
Christian, Father, Husband, Brother, Uncle, Veteran, Threat Assessor, Both Illini and Hawkeye Grad, Democrat, "Sticker", Friend, Neighbor, Cub Fan, Bear Fan, Outside the box thinker, Multitasker, Golfer, Believer in Civility and Good Manners until some butt makes it impossible, Throws Right, Bats Left, Good Power, Good Arm, Good Glove, Bad Speed, Hold Doors and Chairs for women,
Previous Posts
- CRAZY EIGHTS
- UMRBLOG'S MODEST PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE THE NCAA TOU...
- WHOOOOOOOOOO, PIG, SOOOOOIE
- GIVE IT A REST: JEREMIAH'S NO BULLFROG
- ALTERNATE REALITY: THE FEEL GOOD WAR
- FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN FACE THE "FOUR CORNERS" OFFENSE
- THE FIVE STAGES OF CANDIDATE INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY
- SCOREKEEPER-IN-CHIEF
- WHICH IS WORSE?
- HELPFUL AUBURN COMMENTS--COMBAT VETERAN AS UNSTABL...
19 Comments:
Man, the thing that continues to bite me freestyle is that we are not a union. As long as you have a left and right, YOU ARE DIVIDED.
Political parties are about as childish as a freaking clubhouse.
Sounds to me like what you want is not "union" but rather "mindless automatons all agreeing on everything with no individualism".
Union doesn't even begin to imply that we all agree on everything. It does imply that we can work out decent compromise wherein most everyone benefits.
In that respect, modern political parties have totally messed up.
1208
It sounds that way because you want it to.
Gee, I thought I asked nicely for comments on the speech. It'd be nice to rec'v some.
BObama is a shuck-and-jiving community left wing organizer on the make. No savior.
I hope you really don't know the meaning of "shuck and jive". On a day when we're asked to go beyond identity politics, it's a pretty pronounced clanger.
Today, the expression has expanded somewhat from earlier usage, and is now sometimes used to mean "talking pure baloney". The original meaning of deceit remains in his speech.
What was deceitful about it. Let me ask that a different way. What assertions of fact were, in fact, not factual? I'm not arguing you're wrong. I just want to know your focus.
Are you saying it was deceitful because it was inconsistent with his earlier explanation (I wasn't at church any of those times vice I was at church but I didn't inhale.)or is it something else.
I'm really trying to get a feel for how human beings took this speech.
TYFCB
Well, the speech was free and properly exercised. He had a great audience.
I like B as well as the others. All in all, they're like operating systems. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.
He was inconsistent, however,the question is how did Obama handle these disagreements [with Wrtight]. Did he, in his own head, say to himself, “Well, I don’t agree with that.” Or did he do more — something he carefully doesn’t answer. Did he challenge Wright in private? He doesn’t say. Did Obama, a public figure, challenge Wright in public? Well, we know he didn’t. Did Obama, a sitting state and federal Senator, publicly disassociate himself from one who prays for America’s destruction? Not only did he not do so, he had Wright as a core member of his campaign team up until last week, when the guy was conveniently flushed down the memory hole. Obama’s “disagreements” can’t have been that strong. He’s lying.
The right wing will call it drivel and the Obama supporters will call it the greatest speech since "I Have a Dream." I thought it was fine but not something that will be remembered past tomorrow mornings news.
When did Pastr Wright pray for the destruction of America? I watched the clips and don't remember him saying that. Funny thing about his rant was it was eerily similar to the words of Ron Paul. A true conservative.
If you're looking for some comfort that Barack Obama wasn't trying to play it both ways-endearing himself to extreme and paranoid fringe members of Chicago's African-American community while preaching racial unity-his speech today won't help.
Notice how he now limits to "conversations" those instances in which Wright did not deride other racial and ethnic groups? I think the truth, buried in all this rhetoric and gloss, is clear: Obama sat there in church for twenty years, listening with his kids to a preacher vilifying his country, white people in general, and the state of Israel, and lacked the moral gumption to leave. I think the halo has slipped.
6:12
You should watch them again. He said, "Not God Bless America, God DAMN America!"
I finally got around to listening to the speech online this morning. I thought it was good. Seemed to me that he did a good job of addressing the racial resentments and suspicion that still plague this country from all sides. Addressing them is not the same as solving them, of course, but it's an important step.
I also note that all three candidates have various nitwits around them, and while using the statements of associated nitwits to drag down the candidate is a time-honored practice in politics, it's also a practice that drags down the level of debate. I'd prefer to stick with what Clinton says rather than what Ferraro says, what Obama says rather than Wright, and so forth.
As the guy said, "We can play Rev. Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words.
We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change."
I appreciate rec'ing your thoughts. The one place where I get a little tripped up is this. If race is a mere distraction, then why are we giving a "major address" on it?
TYFB
The election process is just a "battle of the bands". A popularity contest with band members families as judges.
it's just a big spin doctored joke with millions of freestanding spectators.
I guess what I heard in the speech was not a statement that race is a mere distraction, but a wish that it was. But since it's not, then you gotta talk about it.
Bent,
That's a fair point but I think it fails when he insists that the power of black anger cannot be ignored. That's an acknowledgment that race is a barrier. Curious coming from the "Post-Identity Politics" candidate.
Always appreciate your input.
TYFCB
Post a Comment
<< Home