[The speech has generally been deemed a "race" speech, but I have just checked the religion blog on my blogroll -- it has yet updated a report on an interesting home schooling case in California -- and its coverage rightly notes it is also a speech about religion. A preacher after all was the proximate cause and religion has an important part both in Obama's life/career as well as the speech itself. The blog's call for discussion and debate, hopefully across the divide, is on the money too. I also reaffirm my endorsement of the Eboo Patel book referenced earlier.]
Let's stop the "greatest speech" business ... that is putting a lot of pressure on the thing. Others can try to defend that claim, with mixed success, but really now -- it is a bit too soon to say that, isn't it? Let it settle some. Plus, it isn't the Gettysburg Address ... we can point out to an imperfect or two and still think it a great speech, if we don't saddle it with too much praise. Anyway, there was various negative reaction, including from a couple of the boobs I'm stuck with seeing in the NY Daily News on a regular basis. I caught a bit of Imus, by chance, and not only did he not like the comment about his grandmother, but the reporter/analyst on was talking as if (yet again) Obama was in trouble. And, one black reporter thought the speech divisive -- he should have gone above race.
I am sick of this "Democrats (or a certain Democrat) are in so much trouble" stuff. Atrios and others make fun of it -- whatever comes down the pike, it hurts Dems, but helps Republicans. We are facing perilous economic times, but McCain himself admits he is weak on that subject (his comments about Iran suggests -- as if we don't know from his Iraq views -- he isn't so strong on foreign policy/military matters either ... Talking Points Memo covered the topic of late). I also am not too strong on fiscal matters; but, hey, I know my limitations. I am not running for president. As to the other matter, the "I'm sorry" brigade over at Slate on Iraq deserved Glenn Greenwald's scorn earlier this week, but it's better than not doing so at all and furthering the wrong.
What him worry? See Media Matters. And, someone (pretty even-handed overall) noted me that his actively supporting Hagee seems the same as Obama getting in trouble for the Nation of Islam's guy on his own supporting Obama. So, why not toss in a speech worthy of respect into the mix? As to his grandmother, damn him for admitting that we are imperfect! We can't criticize the people we care about in any way! We cannot examine our imperfections, reminding us even the best of us have and must face them. It is a struggle sometimes to fit all of the aspects of the problem together, but I do find that things often tend to be pretty inter-connected in some fashion. The "personal is the political" -- our own lives often is a good place to look to face up to issues of the day.
Now, to be fair, Joan Walsh is at least partially right that his use of the grandmother was a bit dubious. He might not have had a suitable sense of perspective, or used an inexact comparison with the added sensitivity of use of a family member. I'm okay with that -- as I said, this "historical" (to use her word) speech was not perfect by any means. Even someone as skillful as he, will have missteps. The idea is to read the speech as a whole and determine if it is on the whole true and powerful, while realizing that our soundbite culture makes choosing words and phrasing very important -- even if the consequences can be blatantly unfair. Overall, I stick by my sentiment -- the basic point that even those we love and respect can be tainted by "x" and his comments that even those who are wrong tend to be guided by real concerns sorta fits that too.
The desire for Obama not to mention race -- race? we are all of the human race -- is a bit much too. Like Justice Blackmun said in Bakke, we need to be race conscious to face the problem. We cannot just ignore the problem and hope it away. We aren't that audacious! We need not all agree how well Obama did it here, thus my desire to stay away from this "best speech ever" business, but a good attempt is appreciated. This also allows for imperfections and possible missteps (see, e.g., his reference to what a common white person might believe -- perilous, if more true than we might like -- phrasing) too. We are imperfect people. Perfection is for gods, and rarely for them at that.
This in part answers those concerned that he stuck by the minister for so long, or even didn't leave the church. Tossing the baby out with the bathwater. They might look at their own lives and churches too. But, to the degree that we aren't dealing with St. Obama, well this former Edwards supporter knew that already. The idea that there is another serious candidate -- other than third party protest candidates (of better quality than Nader) is silly though. McCain? Oh please. Hillary? We have went there already -- she isn't a credible choice any more.* Good thing that Obama still has a lot of good points. Let us not be scared by the "oh no, he's toast, it's President McCain time" ... how f-ing tedious that fraidy-cat tactic gets after awhile. Measured concern, sure. Not quite the same.
Some are upset he did not supply detailed solutions. This is a general concern, though his campaign has the same detailed plans as any -- see his website and so forth. But, on some level, this does miss the point. His overall concern is making it possible to provide solutions, to develop a framework that better allows it. Facing up to the problems, doing so in an intelligent way, and being able to work with diverse groups are all necessary here. The discussion of the problems of race in America is part of the mix -- an eloquent expression of the problems with a deep faith that we have the means to find solutions, while realizing our own limitations. Sure, the details matter -- it helps I support him more than the others on some of them -- but given the limits of the office and the important of the medium (so to speak), only up to a point.
I'll take somewhat imperfect expressions of such sentiments. They are special enough to understand why so many swooned. Glenn Greenwald was right a few days back to be worried too many are too simplistic and knee-jerk to be have a speech that treats us like intelligent adults, but he was right to do it. It's a risk, like trusting anyone (like a parent trusting a child) with responsibility, but you have to do it to obtain success in the end.
---
* The sleeping girl in HC's infamous 3 A.M. -- now 17 -- has a bit more perspective than some HC supporters. (This one is a bit extreme, but the vitriol and imho unfair attacks ares not totally unrepresentative.) TPM has suggested she has no real chance, but there are enough HC supporters (the "most Dems like each about the same" brigade a bit full of it) with strong feelings against Obama to suggest why it is still -- unfortunately -- going on.
I think the speech might help some wavering superdelegates as will time as we see happened with Bill Richardson, who after all worked in the Clinton Administration.