During the 2007 holiday season, I found myself in a discussion of presidential candidates with a good friend and mentor, a staunch Democrat who's opinion, born of years of often thankless public service, I give substantial weight.
She expressed concern about Senator Obama; that, if elected, his relative youth would lead to near immediate evisceration by the mindless, inhuman machine we've come to accept as politics. He'd get knocked down quickly and may not recover.
My response at the time or, rather, on the way home in the car after the prescient moment had passed, was that I didn't care if he got knocked down. I expected him to. What I cared about was whether he'd get back up, point to his black eye, and have the courage to risk another punch by reminding us of why he took the first one.
"This is why they hit me," he'd say. "This is what they're afraid of." And, at least in my imagination, everyone who'd ever taken (or thrown) a punch in fear would have to pay attention to not just the violent result but their own enabling of the circumstances that led to it. For people of conscience, the type of avoidance and oversimplification I see almost daily in dealing with local issues would at the very least no longer be an option justified by a national example.
Quite frankly, I wasn't sure if he'd do it when the time came. I just couldn't shake the feeling that he was the only candidate that might.
Yesterday, Obama reassured me in a way that no candidate for the presidency in my adult life has ever even attempted. Pundits and paid consultants will spend the next few days excerpting, spinning, and explaining what they think or we should think he meant and how that meaning could impact the polls.
Here, however, are the words themselves in their entirety, presented because they deserve a position in local discourse well beyond the confines of a single election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
because they deserve a position in local discourse well beyond the confines of a single election.
Agreed.
Obama's performance yesterday was stellar. I believe he won the Presidency with that speech.
If anyone compares the lame offerings and muddled source shown in speeches by the Current Occupant, it becomes apparent how much we have given up by accepting something at or below the lowest common denominator.Further, it gives me hope that as far as this nation has sunk, all is not lost.
thanks for your analysis.
The carpet too is moving under you...
for whom?
John, I feel quite the opposite. I think he lost the nomination with that speech. No doubt he can deliver an address with the best of them, but he didn't pull back from the Rev. enough. People will not understand why he still associates with this man and that will open the door for HRC.
Wow, Daniel Short, the rank and file of the Democratic Party must be shuddering, given your relevant and searing analysis. It is especially daunting, given your track record on issues at this site. You are truly a pundit of our age.
Mr. Faith, the numbers speak for themselves. Obama's unfavorable has growm 8% in the last week and he has lost a net 3% in the national average. The Clinton Machine will sway the super delegates in the end. Obama will be convinced that the number two spot is where he needs to be. Being the only conservative that comments on this blog, I expect my track record to not be spectacular in your opinion - but thanks for recognizing my up and coming pundit prowess.
Daniel:
You say Obama didn't pull back enough from the Rev.
I think he explained that he could no more pull back from hinm than from his caucasian grandmother.
I'll agree separation is called for. But the separation needed to win the presidency is Mc Cain's from Bush. Let's do the math: W (2000-2004) + W (2004-2008) + McCain carrying on the Bush legacy toward Iran (bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran) that's three Ws or is it WWIII?
That's the problem, Daniel. You're still operating under the false assumption that your Republican leanings are what have led to less than stellar reviews.
That's simply not the case. You may not have noticed, but the senior editor this morning quoted from The Economist, calling it his favored news magazine. It's also one of mine and that of many other regular NAC readers as well.
The differences here have little to do with the limits of crutch-like labeling but rather the quality of argument presented.
You can continue to limp around pretending that you're mistreated due to your conservative attitude OR you can actually enact the conservative principle of taking responsibility for yourself as expressed by Senator Obama and make an effort to improve the caliber of your rhetoric.
Choosing the former may lend to characterizations of hypocrisy given your recent railings against those who don't follow the principles they espouse, but do what you like.
Not this time, Daniel. Obama's message about race is too important.
If you want to engage the substance of what he says, fine. If not, stop typing and listen to what he is saying. It is a message bigger than partisan politics.
Jeff, I admit that I don't read the Economist much. What about my remarks seem to play into partisan politics. I have never mentioned McCain or race in my comments here. Obama railed against Imus and said he would fire anyone on his staff that held radical views like that against any race. All the while he sat in the pews soaking in the same racial aggression he now says does not belong.
Now tell me there is no bias here about my leaning to the right. My arguments are informed and facts are provided when they need to be. You may not agree with my analysis, but that does not mean they are primitive or parroting.
I see by your comment that you have read my most recent posting and left no comment. I am a big boy Jeff. You can't hurt my feelings by telling me to read your liberal rags every month before I am qualified to respond to the things that are written here. I tell it from my heart and mind, not what I read in the European posts. Senior Editor, please.
My arguments are informed and facts are provided when they need to be.
You can't hurt my feelings by telling me to read your liberal rags every month before I am qualified to respond to the things that are written here.
You don't really have any idea what you just said, do you?
I'll stop here. Going any further would be a further distraction and bordering on cruelty.
Maybe I should have stated that sources are quoted when they need to be. But, please continue if you wish.
Jeff, I admit that I don't read the Economist much ... You can't hurt my feelings by telling me to read your liberal rags every month before I am qualified to respond to the things that are written here. I tell it from my heart and mind, not what I read in the European posts. Senior Editor, please.
(1) Do you know what The Economist is, and where it stands?
(2) If so, is it indicative of one or the other "national" or "continental" points of view, or does it espouse universals not grounded to one or the other political affiliation?
(3) Did you place "heart" before "mind" intentionally?
(4) Do you really believe that humanity can learn all it needs to know about life by trusting 2,000-year-old texts?
(5) Are you confused about what "senior editor" means, or is it another of your attempted gags?
Thanks.
1.Yes. 2.It does not espouse universals, all publications have a leaning and a publication that reports on world governments naturally leans left. 3.Not intentional, but I rely on both. 4.Yes 5. No - just another sad attempt, I know.
Interesting to note that the most recent post is bubbling over with wordy comments by the intellectuals that read the Economist. (Another attempt)
So, why is it that people who are intelligent and open to discussion become "intellectuals" in the obvious perjorative sense?
Why is something like "The Economist" deserving of your "left" epithet when there's almost nothing in the facts to support it?
Why do you and certain others over at your own blog mouth the words "hate the sin and love the sinner" in the midst of ad hominem attacks on the "sinner"?
We're all free to resort to the heart when we feel the need; so be it. But in formulating reality for the benefit of a world with vastly different hearts (not the physical pumping sense, mind you), shouldn't we be using the minds and heads more than we do?
In the public realm, it is necessary to report on the sinner, all the while maintaining a never ending love for mankind. The public official represents others, and his or her transgressions ought to be brought to light. Failure to do so will result in the sinner's thinking that future decisions along the same path are acceptable, when clearly they are not. I use the word hypocrite with hesitation, for I know one day my own words will likely be taken out of context and that label will be applied to me. However, in the situations that I posted about, the shoe fits.
Obama’s speech took me by surprise, it truly did. It revealed something about Barack Obama that startled me because he has something very few people running for the Presidency have. Character. He actually has character.
He distanced himself from Wright’s comments. Frankly, I’m reading his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” and it’s obvious that Obama and Wright are not on the same page on many things. What Jeremiah Wright had to say was not reflective of Barack Obama’s worldview in the least.
But in distancing himself from Wright’s comments, he did not distance himself from Wright. Wright was and is a person who Barack Obama has loved and continues to love and his relationship with Jeremiah Wright is more important than winning an election. This is a sign of character we rarely see. It is far more common to throw someone inconvenient under the bus than to continue to love them.
What I find tragic is this. I think that Barack Obama truly is trying to lift the national conversation above the normal fray of hate politics and ‘gotcha’ politics. He’s trying to lift it higher than Rush Limbaugh or even Jeremiah Wright. The tragedy is that I’m afraid he won’t succeed. We generally elect what we deserve and the population generally seeks out that which drives lower than that which rises higher.
Thank you, John. I was wondering what you might think about it given some of your earlier concerns.
The disappointing (tragic?) part for me is that little of the conversation in the media or otherwise has had to do with, as Brandon mentioned, the substance of what he said. Poll calculations- no dialogue.
As you say, we'll get what we deserve.
I was fairly well amazed at not just his character, but his ability to tap into what so many others and I have felt about racial tension. His understanding of the subject matter was easily identifiable.
I just keep thinking about how that ability and attitude, rather than "shut up or we'll bomb you", may lead to a very different kind of foreign policy and approach to domestic issues.
What's really tragic to me is the number of folks I've already talked to who threw their hands over their ears as soon as they heard the word race.
I wrote about Wright on my blog.
Something that is troubling about what Jeremiah Wright has said, and I do mean to go far further than the '3 minutes' of this man people have been exposed to, is that there are still serious issues with race. Obama has been far more eloquent and subtle and not as angry as an older generation, ala, Wright's may be. But there is still a racial divide in this country that people are afraid to acknowledge even exists.
When Obama used the reference of his grandmother I teared up. I grew up in the suburbs of NYC and Archie Bunker was NOT really a fictional character and the northeast is often portrayed as something quite different from what it is. I sat at the dinner table and heard 'Archie,' aka, Dad, go on racial rants. My Dad was a hard working, fine man in so many ways, but I know what he'd be calling Barack Obama now. And it wouldn't be remotely civil. I'm in my 50's and don't believe myself to be a racist and am emphatic about equal rights for all people, no exceptions. But I'm only the first generation away from it, and "It" still exists.
Ditto your entire second paragraph in reference to the people I regularly encountered growing in Southern Indiana.
It's always been and still is a question of how much to say and when to say it when the person espousing the racism is a long time and sometimes lifelong acquaintance, friend, or family member, many of whom were the primary people responsible for teaching me so many other valuable life lessons and generally aiding my development as a youth.
When Obama talked about his inability to disown, I and I'm sure many others knew firsthand what he felt and meant. If I were to disown all those who'd uttered racist, sexist, or homophobic sentiments in my presence, I could no longer communicate with quite possibly a majority of people who've had an impact on my life, even if I narrowed the separation to those who did so consistently.
That frustrates and saddens me to no end but it doesn't make it any less true.
Post a Comment