Megan McArdle (March 18, 2008)

Right after he comes within 5 in Pennsylvania, you'll have your wish.

Posted by Jared | March 18, 2008 5:31 PM

His speech today was brilliant precisely because it didn't play to either side's desire for an easy scapegoat.

Except, as you mention, for the oldest scapegoat in the book, Johnny Foreigner. I guess at least it was mostly a side reference.

Posted by John Thacker | March 18, 2008 5:34 PM

"I want him to recognize what a great contribution immigration continues to make to our society, including Barack Obama himself."

when's he going to even mention someone like George Washington Carver?

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/carver.htm

Posted by MEH | March 18, 2008 5:40 PM

In my opinion, Obama did not hit the home run needed to either diffuse the Wright issue or salvage his candidacy.

The Reverend Wright’s statements go far beyond the racist, and include condemning America as intrinsically corrupt (“God damn America”), to speaking from the pulpit just days after the 9/11 attacks and blaming the atrocity on American policy.

Reverend Wright is also on church video tape simulating sexual intercourse FROM THE PULPIT while screaming that President Clinton “screwed” blacks “the same way he screwed Monica Lewinski”.

Obama promised yesterday, as he ducked reporter’s questions about Wright at a PA press conference, that he would answer everything about Wright and his relationship to him.

But aside from offering slavery and “Jim Crow” as an excuse for Wright’s bitterness, and repeating the same disavowal of non-specified remarks by Wright he has been parroting all week since the scandal broke, Obama offered nothing new. Nor did Obama explain which SPECIFIC comments by Wright Obama was aware of and PRECISELY when.

Obama’s candidacy is a fraud. He promises the new politics of reconciliation, but his wife Michelle admitted she has never been proud of America until 2007 and hates corporate America. God knows what Obama says in private moments with Wright, his wife, and former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers (who told the NY Times in 2001 that he does not regret the bombings) about the country he seeks to lead.

Posted by StephenG | March 18, 2008 5:42 PM

Barack Obama's speech left me moved and grateful, and in awe of his intellect and ability to communicate even on very sensitive matters.

I keep remembering Oprah's comment, something like, "I don't support Barack Obama because he's black, I support Barack Obama because he's brilliant!"

Posted by Paul T. | March 18, 2008 5:44 PM

I have the hope that, somewhere, the real Megan is in hiding, and that an impostor has taken her place. That would be the only way to explain this exercise in hagiography from a previous model of rationality and evenhandedness.

I don't know what's more mockable here: the idea that a politician comparing his own grandmother to a racist demagogue is both honest and respectful, or the idea that we, as a country, should be "unified". "Unity", as I take that word, means the absence of difference of opinion on some set of issues. As a free-marketer, I would think you would be all for diversity of opinion on political issues, and in fact would fear a situation when public opinion was tightly focused around one viewpoint - after all, what if it was the wrong one? And how could we tell?

Posted by Floyd | March 18, 2008 5:44 PM

It is sad how easily seduced you are, Megan.

You don't bring us together by rejecting the hatred and bigotry while sending your children to listen to the racist week after week.

When this speech is given, mutatis mutandis, by some one who attended some white racist congregation for 20 years, loves its bigoted leader (though disagrees with some of his more inflammatory words), what will you say then?

Posted by JohnF | March 18, 2008 5:52 PM

I don't want him to unify us against foreigners who benefit from outsourcing, foreign companies which outsell US firms, rich people who aren't sufficiently philanthropic, corporations which make profits, CEOs who have golden parachutes, and the miser who thinks others' health care and education is not his problem.

Unifying us to thoughtfully consider, at our own leisure, the merits and demerits of our prejudices is a fine goal.

Posted by Garrett Schmitt | March 18, 2008 5:55 PM

As a French Canadian who closely follows U.S. politics, I long ago gave up on hoping that an American President could be a true, open internationalist; cheezy nationalism seems to run too deep in American culture.

Yet Obama gives me an unexpected faith that the voices of American reason, humanism, peace and progress might for once outnumber and out-vote their small-minded compatriots -- to everyone's benefit. To us voteless onlookers, Obama, might even make up for the decades of crooks, actors, teenagers and chimps you've chosen to lead our world just because they pushed the right sentimental buttons with enough deeply gullible voters in enough deeply gullible states.

If America wastes this rare chance to forego jingoism and elect a smart, honourable and open minded President, I suspect I won't be the only foreigner who writes Uncle Sam off as heading towards inevitable decline and irrelevance.

We all get the politics you Americans deserve. This time I'm hoping America's better, smarter, more open voters will fight hard enough to deserve better.

Posted by Jacques Wilson | March 18, 2008 5:57 PM

Wright's rhetoric is apparently boilerplate Black Liberation Theology. Most people who attend churches where this is a fairly common thread aren't going to feel as if it's particularly remarkable, and it's not. Born in the heat of the civil rights movement in the 1960's, it expresses feelings that are real enough, and, withholding judgment on whether they're still appropriate, certainly were forty years ago.

The disingenuous screaming for "what did he know and when did he know it!?" is cynical nonsense being tactically deployed by the same old partisans who scream for effect in response to every triviality that comes to light regarding every Democratic candidate for high office. One easy way to measure this is to read The Corner, Malkin, et al... and compare that to reaction anywhere else, from left- to non-partisan. The phrase "right-wing noise machine" is no distortion of reality.

Posted by AemJeff | March 18, 2008 6:02 PM

Jacques,

Keep hoping in vain. If the screeches from National Review and the above comments are any indication, they are plenty of dumbasses who are going to hate on Obama no matter what he does or says.

Posted by RICKM | March 18, 2008 6:04 PM

Well done Megan. Sometimes it is refreshing to hear some unvarnished enthusiasm. It was indeed a great speech. Of course he can't get too far ahead of the electorate--politics is after all the art of the possible.

I can understand people having other preferences or reservations about Obama, but it is sad to see the cynicism, which is truly corrosive--it's why Obama's run is so exciting to some of us, and long, long overdue.

Posted by Chris Dornan | March 18, 2008 6:12 PM

Megan, please correct me if I'm wrong, but when has Obama ever vilified immigrants? I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with calling for our own government to at least in some way favor companies' hiring Americans as opposed to growing foreign operations, just as foreign governments work to incentivize such overseas investment by U.S. companies in their own countries. But he has time and again, in debates with HRC and elsewhere, said that immigrants should not be a scapegoat for joblessness, among inner-city blacks and elsewhere.

Posted by TH | March 18, 2008 6:23 PM

I hopefully don't need to point out that, yet again, Jane Galt has no idea what she's talking about.

Obama is quite a supporter of all TypesOfImmigration, even going as far as doing things like this or this: tinyurl.com/2vjlqc (compare the language here: tinyurl.com/2mfp3c ).

If The Atlantic wanted to do some real reporting, they'd ask some questions about this: tinyurl.com/2xjjrc What exactly did they discuss?

Or, they'd ask Obama why he had to speak in code when he came out for Bush's SPP, aka "NAFTA on steroids": tinyurl.com/23nfhb

Needless to say, The Atlantic has shown no interest in doing any real reporting, featuring "voices" that continually show how little they know about this topic, including our host who had never heard of "comprehensive immigration reform" until a few weeks ago.

That term - when enclosed in quotes - has over 380,000 google hits.

Posted by TLB | March 18, 2008 6:30 PM

plenty of dumbasses who are going to hate on Obama no matter what

As Obama said, we are making progress. Jeremaiah Wright may find that difficult to acknowledge, just like the posters above. But time will leave them all behind.

Posted by Creamy Hussein Goodness | March 18, 2008 6:31 PM

RICKM wrote: they are plenty of dumbasses

Priceless.

Posted by anony_mouse_ | March 18, 2008 6:41 PM

When this speech is given, mutatis mutandis, by some one who attended some white racist congregation for 20 years, loves its bigoted leader (though disagrees with some of his more inflammatory words), what will you say then?

Several grafs of Obama's speech were devoted to explaining why these situations aren't at all parallel. Wright, after all, probably formed his political views around the time when Ross Barnett was giving his "I Love Mississippi" speech.

As a French Canadian who closely follows U.S. politics, I long ago gave up on hoping that an American President could be a true, open internationalist; cheezy nationalism seems to run too deep in American culture.

As an American who grew up in Quebec during the 90's, I felt exactly the same way about La belle province.

Posted by Raghav | March 18, 2008 6:57 PM

"As Obama said, we are making progress. Jeremaiah Wright may find that difficult to acknowledge, just like the posters above. But time will leave them all behind."

Amen to that!

Posted by tg | March 18, 2008 7:03 PM

"As Obama said, we are making progress. Jeremaiah Wright may find that difficult to acknowledge, just like the posters above. But time will leave them all behind."

Amen to that!

Posted by tg | March 18, 2008 7:03 PM

TLB write: TypesOfImmigration

What the hell is up with your style? What is with putting a bunch of random words together all the time? Are you just crazy or is your space bar an asshole? You want to know why people don't take you seriously and treat you like the nutjob you are? It's because when you write like this, you sound like a conspiracy theorist.

Posted by Reality Man | March 18, 2008 7:05 PM

Barack Obama is an intelligent, charismatic, eloquent man.

He's demonstrated that again.

Doesn't mean he's a man of good character. Duke Cunningham was a damn good fighter pilot and a great guy to be around. He was still a crook, and in his own way Barack Obama is just as dishonest.

Posted by secret asian man | March 18, 2008 7:05 PM

Having read his speech instead of listening to it, I guess I wasn't swayed by his delivery. I don't really care "what exactly he knew and when"... the fact is that he can't possibly have been so close to Reverend Wright for 20 years without knowing him. So Obama is apparently happy enough with the bitter, angry, racist, America-hating Wright to consider him a religious mentor and to have him perform his wedding and baptise his children. You don't do these things with someone who fundamentally disagree with on important things like hating white people.

Obama did not explain why Wright is so important to him in spite of being a racist demagogue. Nor did he justify choosing him as a religious advisor for his campaign. Nor did he even distance himself from Wright. He criticised some of the things he said, as though words just pop out of his mouth sometimes or he just says stuff without thinking. Reverend Wright is a preacher at a big, popular church. He's not just making stuff up for his sermons. He thinks about what he is saying. He means what he says.

Reading about Obama's past in Chicago and some of his activities, I can't imagine how a real liberterian would be willing to support him in any way. He's a radical leftist and an opportunistic politician. He's not going to unify anyone, he's not going to bring meaningful change, but he does bring people (unjustified) hope that he'll do something wonderful.

I don't particularly like any of our current Presidential candidates. While I lean Right more than Left, I agree with both sides on some issues and neither side on other issues. Regardless, a President Obama will be a disaster for this country. Not only that, but his image is a total fabrication.

It is sad to see a historically sensible Megan McArdle (and other intelligent people) being suckered by this guy.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | March 18, 2008 7:06 PM

Is this post title an Arrested Development reference?

Posted by Reality Man | March 18, 2008 7:08 PM

I could be completely wrong here...

In general, you provide careful, methodical, fair and insightful analysis.

However, I feel that you give Obama the benefit of a lot of doubt.

I feel that he is a Rorschach that you choose to view most favorably.

I feel that your strongest argument is that you believe he will make others feel the same way you do. His mantra of hope and change will therefore be self-fulfilling.

I think that my feelings-based comment may not be persuasive.

In my opinion, I feel that Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Newt Gingrich treated many issues with more "thoughtful, brutally honest, and deeply respectful" treatment.

But your mileage may vary.

Posted by Stephen W. Stanton | March 18, 2008 7:13 PM

Wright, after all, probably formed his political views around the time when Ross Barnett was giving his "I Love Mississippi" speech.

Well then I look forward to my dotage, when I can rant and rave about John Kerry's dishonorable discharge coverup or Halliburton's profiteering or Bill Clinton murdering Vince Foster or hanging chads or whatever grabs my fancy at the time, chant "God damn America" for all these sins.

Posted by Rob Lyman | March 18, 2008 7:14 PM

Raghav,
As an American who grew up in Quebec during the 90's, I felt exactly the same way about La belle province.

I knew I was walking into that one. But let's face it: our cheezy nationalism barely impacts us, much less the whole world. Canada is still one country, Quebec has after some difficulty peacefully found it's place, most of us are bilingual now and reasonably happy and prosperous.You couldn't pay me to live in the States -- well, maybe NYC for a couple of years.

In any case, our leaders have pretty much all been internationalists - of necessity. And most Canadians are nationalistic one day a year, if that. Your President impacts the world for chrissakes, not just some backwater like Quebec or Canada. He should know something about it.

I for one won't start resenting the U.S. if it justifiably tries to protect its own workers; but I do care when it encourages its corporations to treat the world like a larder for American consumption. As far as I can tell, Obama has seen first hand what that attitude does to places like Indonesia. And he didn't like it.

If only I could vote for him.

Posted by Jacques Wilson | March 18, 2008 7:33 PM

I knew I was walking into that one. But let's face it: our cheezy nationalism barely impacts us...You couldn't pay me to live in the States -- well, maybe NYC for a couple of years.

You could probably pay me to live in the fifty-first state, since metric roadsigns are easy enough to adjust to and the old Canadian bloodlines have an inexplicable tendency to produce hot women. It would get kind of boring after a while, though, since so many of the talented Canadians have already moved to the US in order to access enhanced economic opportunities.

Any others you'd like to 'walk into', be my guest. Also, based on your comments, I'm not sure you've ever even met an Albertan.

Posted by anony_mouse_ | March 18, 2008 7:41 PM

In general, you provide careful, methodical, fair and insightful analysis. However, I feel that you give Obama the benefit of a lot of doubt. I feel that he is a Rorschach that you choose to view most favorably.

I think you’re right about that. The last time that Megan endorsed a presidential candidate, she actually went through issue by issue where she agreed or disagreed with each candidate and what she thought they would actually try to do and accomplish on each issue.

This time around it’s pretty much consisted of (a) she liked one of Obama’s economic advisors who seemed to have no influence on him and was recently chucked under the bus, (b) she doesn’t like that John McCain is a product of a military culture, (c) John McCain may have said that there is “strong evidence” of a possible link between increases in autism and vaccinations and (d) Obama’s speech today.

That’s it.

No mention of controlling federal spending, entitlement reform, health care reform, anthropogenic climate change, foreign policy, free trade or the myriad of other issues that she routinely blogs about and which she went through in 2004 when she decided to vote for Bush for the first time.

Posted by Thorley Winston | March 18, 2008 7:49 PM

Mousy,

This is what I'm saying ... even crazy assed Texas-style Albertan nationalism barely has an impact. As for enhanced economic opportunities, there's no doubt if your purpose in life is to chase after obscene amounts of money, America's your destination. But gee shucks, I'll just settle for a decent quality of life and les filles. I'm kinda French that way. BTW, you can keep Celine Dion and her McMansions. Gives me the creeps.

Sorry for getting off topic.

Posted by Jacques | March 18, 2008 7:56 PM

Jacques Wilson: Yet Obama gives me an unexpected faith that the voices of American reason, humanism, peace and progress might for once outnumber and out-vote their small-minded compatriots -- to everyone's benefit. To us voteless onlookers, Obama, might even make up for the decades of crooks, actors, teenagers and chimps you've chosen to lead our world just because they pushed the right sentimental buttons with enough deeply gullible voters in enough deeply gullible states.
If America wastes this rare chance to forego jingoism...

You must be one of those tolerant, inclusive and sophisticated progressives we keep hearing about. Welcome to this blog. We look forward to your commentary, which is revealing and illuminating, albeit about yourself. Unlike you, we will not generalize about your countrymen.

Posted by Kevin P. | March 18, 2008 8:08 PM

What Kevin P said.

Posted by Thorley Winston | March 18, 2008 8:18 PM

TH is right. Obama explicitly admonished us NOT to fear foreigners, but rather our (presumably domestic) employers.

"This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit."

Posted by Matt B | March 18, 2008 8:20 PM

Thanks for the most kind words of welcome.
And what can I say, I'm Canadian. We all generalize about ourselves.
I'll try to stick to topic from now own. Just wanted to point out that this Canadian, at any rate, has been given hope by not by Obama's rhetoric, personality or even his policies; but by his seeming calm, intelligent openness and apparent competence.
BTW, why don't we hear anything about good old boring competence in this campaign? I know it 's a boring (dare I say a Canadian) question but shouldn't it count for more when choosing a president? Shouldn't the candidates talk at least a bit about how they are going to run things and with whom? I want to know who's on the short list for state.

Posted by Jacques | March 18, 2008 8:25 PM

did you watch the same speech i did? when did he scapegoat "foreigners"?!

Posted by jb | March 18, 2008 8:27 PM

Sorry, I didn't see it. He started off well by describing a vision far more generous and accurate than is the norm for leftists. But he immediately wasted it by downplaying Wright's racism.

Posted by mj | March 18, 2008 9:07 PM

I still don't get it. I read the speech, and it didn't get me hot or make me cry. Perhaps listening to it would evoke a more emotional reaction, as Obama is supposed to be a gorgeous orator. But if we're supposed to evaluate candidates on their ideas and their positions, having too silver a tongue seems like a bug and not a feature.

The more descriptive parts of the speech were interesting. The basic discussion of black anger and white resentment was honest. I was disappointed that he threw his grandmother under the bus, the woman who raised him as a son when he was an adolescent, by equating her to Wright. Why not his father, who could charitably be called a drunk and a cad, and who seems to be by his absense largely responsible for Obama's own conflicted feelings about race?

I was not impressed by the ideological aspects. We are united across races by our problems with the health care system? The problem isn't black and white racial divides but the corporate looters, Wall Street fat cats, lobbyists, and "special interests" x 2? Replace race consciousness with class consciousness? This is a new kind of politics? And I say this as one who agrees that the Constitution was indeed "stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery."

Posted by AT | March 18, 2008 9:08 PM

Megan,

I would love to sell you a broken down used car. You fell for the old bait and switch.

The controversy is about Black Liberation Theology not overall racisim. I have dated enough career oriented black women to know they won't go near a BLT church. BLT is about more than race, it is about a bizarre world view that includes a "goal" of anti-achievement for the black middle class. A college education is looked down on etc.

For Obama to attend this church requires a much more detailed response then "It's time for America to deal with racisim". No. It is time to find out just what Obama found attractive about this BLT church.

If anything this episode gives us a view of Obama's bait and switch capabilities. One wonders in what manner he would pull B & S as president.

Posted by Sidney | March 18, 2008 9:45 PM

Yes, this was, in fact, the single best, most honest political speech I've ever seen. And I read most of it -- only saw a few clips from the delivery. His understanding of the reasons for white working-class anger at affirmative action was just penetrating, empathetic and clear. This is a problem that's evolved between two mutually suspicious communities, white and black, and Obama is doing his damnedest to speak to both of them. Of course, for extremists, there's always political hay to be made by attacking the mediator, as we're seeing now on this thread.

I attended a synagogue for my first 18 years at which I routinely heard bigoted anti-Christian sentiments during my rabbi's sermons. Ultimately, the congregation split over the rabbi's homophobic refusal to allow a lesbian woman to read from the torah. But if some Christian jerk came up to me and demanded that I renounce Rabbi Abramowitz, I'd tell him to go stick it. One would hope that more people in America would realize how stupid this whole ginned-up issue is.

Posted by brooksfoe | March 18, 2008 10:43 PM

I don't want to be unified.

I don't want to be led.

Honest? Wright didn't just start recently taking his positions due to onset of senility (and Obama's attempts to insinuate otherwise are lies). He's been this way for decades and dishonest Obama knows this.

Posted by Randall Parker | March 18, 2008 11:02 PM

That's all well and fine, brooksfoe, but suppose Pastor Schicklgruber is advocating making lampshades out of Rabbi Abramowitz's flock?

Wouldn't it be kinda nice to have Pastor Schicklgruber's parisioners follow some Jewish jerk's suggestion to renounce the Pastor's views?

Posted by Occam's Beard | March 18, 2008 11:04 PM

I think you're reading too much into that comment. There is truth to shipping jobs overseas. There is truth in a competative disadvantage that American worker's have for a variety of reasons. I have him say that American's are up for the competition.

I don't think I've ever heard him say that we need to throw the treaties away.

My readings of his policies and his statements tell me that he's a prudent man who won't do anything silly like calling for a "time-out" on trade.

I also think there is nothing wrong with reviewing trade treaties made over ten years ago. Which is at the core, the only thing he really promised to do.

Posted by Kenneth Payne | March 18, 2008 11:05 PM

Oh, and you "TEH BEST POLITICAL SPEECH EVAR!!!11!" kids definitely haven't heard enough speeches.

Or, maybe you have, which makes me nervous.

Posted by AT | March 18, 2008 11:06 PM

Jacques Wilson: Bonjour. Je me crois que vous avez enlevee votres > d'une commercial de Molson. C'est vrai?

Posted by TLB | March 18, 2008 11:11 PM

brooksfoe - Agree, but that will happen at about the same time we'll grow up enough to have a presidential candidate who can say "I respect the right of Americans to worship freely, but I don't attend any church because, frankly, it didn't offer me anything I couldn't get on my own."

We might be waiting awhile for either.

Posted by Michael W | March 18, 2008 11:12 PM

Wouldn't it be kinda nice to have Pastor Schicklgruber's parisioners follow some Jewish jerk's suggestion to renounce the Pastor's views? - Occam

1. By "Schicklgruber" you mean Hitler, so according to normal rules you're out of bounds.

2. But I'll let you take a Mickey. First, Obama has denounced his Pastor's views, over and over and over, and does so again, at length, in this speech. He hasn't "renounced" them, because you can't renounce what you never agreed with. I don't really see why he should have to denounce Wright's comments at all; I haven't watched much of them, but what I've seen strikes me as routine misguided ethnic-nationalist extremism (not "racism", as most people keep misstating), and the kind of thing Obama and any other responsible leader obviously eschews.

And that's the second point: Wright didn't advocate making lampshades out of anyone. He said the power structure in America is white and historically discriminates against blacks. Which is true. And in decrying this fact, he said "God damn America." Now, in a Jewish congregation, references to ongoing discrimination against Jews by the bloodthirsty goys (who, by the way, are superstitious, possibly genetically inferior, have low levels of education, and are irredeemably anti-semitic) end on a note of "God bless America," because America has done pretty well by the Jews, notably at protecting us against Christian Americans. But America hasn't done well by blacks. That, certainly, should not be a controversial point. How surprising is it that a pastor coming from that community should occasionally cuss out the US of A?

I mean, really, are we children? We can't handle hearing anyone cuss us out or make a crack at our expense? In a Dutch election you could have politicians calling their own countrymen "f*cking cheeseheads" and it'd be no problem.

Posted by brooksfoe | March 18, 2008 11:38 PM

AT: I still don't get it.

Other people do.

Watch it now, or watch it years from now. This one's going to go down like JFK's speech on Catholicism.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | March 18, 2008 11:55 PM

Brooks, that's some major league dissembling.

If Wright had said, "God damn the Jews, they had the Inquisition and the Holocaust coming" you'd be up in arms - don't deny it. It's precisely analogous, particularly since, according to Hugh Thomas, the slave trade was financed by Jews (starting with Portuguese conversos), lending at interest being forbidden to Christians of that time.

I'm just now reading about some "routine misguided ethnic-nationalist extremism." Last night's chapter dealt with Lebensraum. No mention of lampshades - yet.

Posted by Occam's Beard | March 18, 2008 11:55 PM

Watch it now, or watch it years from now. This one's going to go down like JFK's speech on Catholicism.

You may be right. We'll see. I don't predict history, which helps explain why I'm not an Obama booster. It will help if he wins the nomination and the election first. Otherwise, he's like that team that had an 18-0 season then lost the Superbowl. They're from Worcester or something.

Posted by AT | March 19, 2008 12:07 AM

As a European citizen living in the United States I thought today's speech was inspiring, honest, and showed back bone, something Democrats have needed to do so badly - and if it is all a game, so be it. After seven VERY long years of observing American political indifference, this man is the first sign of hope, for this country and for the relationship of the United States with the rest of the world! I am in awe how he gets people excited, here and across the ocean. He is eloquent, diplomatic, articulate. What a refreshing change this is.

Posted by christiane dechert | March 19, 2008 12:12 AM

This is just another example of how Obama isn't different, though. He is part of a typically anti-White, anti-American BLT church. He has been for 20 years. He has been influenced by his racist preacher to the point of naming his book for one of his speeches and appointing him as an adviser to his campaign.

If you read some more about his career in Chicago, you'll see that he is just another career politician, no more honest or sincere than any other. Probably much less so than McCain.

It's not "obvious" that he eschews the views of a well respected pastor at his church who he practically considers family. You don't choose your actual family, but you do choose your church, your pastor, and your adopted family. He didn't grow up in that church, he joined it specifically because of Rev. Wright as an adult.

The sad thing is how taken in so many people seem to be, calling him brilliant and different and a new hope, etc... His policies are very similar to Clinton's and in many ways typical Leftist Democrat. They are quite anti-Libertarian.

I expect Democrats to support him, but I'm baffled by Libertarians who do so. As a moderately conservative with libertarian tendencies, I find the thought of him being President to be terrifying. McCain isn't even that good, but he'd be better.

And yes, I did read his speech and yes, I have read his issues on his website.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | March 19, 2008 12:16 AM

I love you Occam. You just Godwinned twice in one thread.

GENIUS!

Posted by NutellaonToast | March 19, 2008 12:18 AM

Occam, you are way, way into Godwin's Law territory here. And as usual, that territory is full of poor analogies.

In fact, if Wright had said that, I wouldn't be "up in arms," because, as a Jew in the US, I don't really feel threatened by black anti-semitism. It's the anti-semitism of the majority culture that's threatening. For the same reason, I'm not really that interested in Farrakhan. He leads a tiny cult, and I don't care about his bizarre beliefs or demand that people denounce him.

Most of the people with bizarre, threatening views in the US are minor, fringe figures. Except for people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, this Hagee guy, Tim LaHaye, and arguably Bill Donovan (though he too seems to be one of those ultimately hapless guys who unsuccessfully tries to rally a disintegrating bloc through extremist showboating).

What I find the most objectionable of all is the resentment and anger of the majority culture when it hears itself maligned by someone in the minority culture. Because that is the resentment-based extremist majority nationalism of the Black Hundreds or your friend Schicklgruber. For a Jew, the Cossack isn't Wright. The Cossack is that white dude saying, "Whaddayoo, hate America? Hate white people?" He's the scary guy; he's the one who's ultimately going to be forcing you to spit on a magen david and swear fealty to the Tsar on a Christian Bible.

Posted by brooksfoeb | March 19, 2008 12:20 AM

Christiane:

As a European citizen

Yikes! Did the Germans take over the place again?

Anyway, can we agree that we shall each merely express our preferences for political outcomes in each other's countries and not imply that they must vote a certain way or else their national character, honor, and intelligence are forfeit?

Posted by AT | March 19, 2008 12:38 AM

Earnest Iconoclast: One does not measure a person by one aspect - although Wright's speeches were incendiary, he is also reputed to have done lots of charity work, built the community, emphasized self-reliance, etc. I have family members who are genuinely nice, generous, giving people who are also anti-semetic. Many people do - which is why Obama's speech resonated.

BTW, perhaps a non-sequitor, but speaking of Liberterianism, didn't Ron Paul basically say the same thing about 9/11 (albeit much more tactfully)? That is, that terrorists don't hate us because of our freedoms - they hate us because of our imperialist policies? He was also right.

Posted by pommarg | March 19, 2008 12:46 AM

Obama made a good psychological point that people who experience shame may relieve it by demonizing others. Black anger in Chicago may have been celebrated for awhile; Hubert, my Irish-Americn grandfather, was mugged for his WWI bonus money as he was passing through there. This anger can be a kind of narcissistic manipulation. As an example of narcissistic manipulation, Jack Kerouac wrote of riding on a bus across America and a 'young virgin started talking to me, and I didn't talk to her for 2 hours until I had her and then I began to tell her about herself,' and she was eager to yield herself to him. In his method, he made himself unapproachable until her neediness and his grandness was accepted. This is how the accused 'racist' is to deal with the anger instutionalized in the black community and celebrated by Jeremiah Wright. It is, however, not the way to racial healing just as stealing from my grandfather probably primarily led to more shame.

Posted by Michael | March 19, 2008 12:53 AM

Obama's speech was indeed brilliant and exhibited a level of intellectual depth not usually seen in politics.

And notice the critics...Limbaugh...Hannity...Gingrich...they all want to steal our hope. Keep in mind these people would have all criticized Martin Luther King mercilessly if they had been on the air during that time. These people would have criticized mercilessly people like JFK, RFK, FDR, if they could have...

And as for Hillary, she goes along with them if it serves her political career. I wonder how many Clinton aides have been working the phones today to try to get the media to not play up Obama's speech as well as it deserves.

Posted by cm | March 19, 2008 12:58 AM

I'm not afraid of black racism nor am I afraid of Wright and his church. I don't feel threatened by them. I just don't want a President who is influenced by someone like that. I also find his ability to lie smoothly and convincingly to be terrifying. He tells everyone exactly what they want to hear. I've read his policies and they are a mixed bag of reducing taxes and spending money on more and more programs. And mandating equality (yeah, that works... why didn't anybody think of that before?). And magical wand-waving to make government intervention somehow able to improve existing systems.

The more I learn of Obama's past in Chicago, the less different he seems. He's a devious, sneaky politician.

Martin Luther King didn't preach hate for Whitey or the evil of government conspiracies.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | March 19, 2008 1:13 AM

Jacques,

You couldn't pay me to live in the States

You couldn't pay me to let you in.

If only I could vote for him.

Maybe you could talk him into moving to Quebec and running for office there. Vote for him all you want in those circumstances!

Posted by CP | March 19, 2008 1:16 AM

"But what if he said bad things about jews?"

Well actually, Wright is a vicious anti-zionist, but hating Israel is Super Cool on the Left. Plus, Zionism is racism, so anti-zionism is anti-racism. Those are Anti-Racist(tm) Katyusha's, Anti-Racist(tm) bricks through the synagogue window, and Anti-Racist(tm) boots to Chaim Goldfarb's skull.

I am devastatingly disappointed in Megan. Sullivan is the emotional schoolgirl on this website, while Megan provides cool, thoughtful, intelligent analysis. I guess DC really does rot your brain, as does hanging around with the communist youth front of Yglesias et. al.

If you want to give a conciliatory speech on race, give a conciliatory speech on race! Obama instead decided to use the leftist trope that being afraid of groups of young black men is evidence of deep seated racism as he threw his dead grandmother - the woman who raised him while his mother was off being irresponsible - under the bus. Nearly everyone is right to be afraid of groups of young black men, because they are groups of young men and are hence a boiling cauldron of testosterone and adrenalin with a significant risk of violence and criminality. 6 men between 14 and 30 hanging around on a corner or in a subway station - unless impeccably dressed in suits without a detail out of place - need to be treated as a threat by anyone.

This speech is evidence of the Angels sitting on Barack's shoulders if you were already a convert of the Obamessiah. However, it falls flat for those whom it needed to convince. For someone who went to church so much, Obama never learned the dangers of preaching to the choir. Yet another reason why Wright and Trinity were a deeply flawed choice!

Posted by Hey | March 19, 2008 1:26 AM

I also find his ability to lie smoothly and convincingly to be terrifying.

You are extremely persuasive in one regard:

You are definitely terrified.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | March 19, 2008 1:32 AM

"As a European citizen" - Yikes! Did the Germans take over the place again? -- AT

Christiane is entitled to say anything whatsoever about American politics. If it were me, I would begin by noting that AT's above comment evidences both ignorance about Europe and a streak of bigotry. And that these attitudes, and the unawareness of Americans like AT that they possess them, are among the things that have rendered Americans less than popular abroad in recent years.

Posted by brooksfoe | March 19, 2008 1:57 AM

I agree, it was a good speech. But he still should have chosen a church more in line with Martin Luther King, Jr.

I really don't think it's unreasonable for me to say so. I mean, we celebrate MLK Day for a reason. We will never celebrate Jeremiah Wright Day, nor will we celebrate anyone like him. It is neither possible, nor desirable.

Posted by Michael J. Totten | March 19, 2008 1:57 AM

Nearly everyone is right to be afraid of groups of young black men

followed by

However, it falls flat for those whom it needed to convince.

You're going to need a lot more than a speech, Hey.

Again: if I'd had one Christian grandmother, and she had occasionally said things like "There are so many Jewish bankers, and they use it to influence politics," I would have been deeply upset. Even though the statement is perfectly true, it's still a dangerous expression of racialized sentiment. And I would tell her, "Grandma, you can't say things like that." But God knows I wouldn't disown her.

This is what Obama's talking about. He's a black man, and his grandmother is saying she's afraid of black men. Does she mean she's afraid of him? Does she not think of him as black? Can't she see the position she's putting him in? Naturally, he's going to tell her he can't agree with that kind of racial stereotyping. But he's not going to disown her. She's his grandmother. If you listened to that speech and thought he "threw her under the bus", you need to listen more carefully in the future and try to understand what people are actually saying.

Posted by brooksfoe | March 19, 2008 2:14 AM

Funny how people like "Hey" feel like they are the ones that Obama needed to convince. No, you're not. If you believe that Obama is a stealth Black Panther because his pastor sometimes rants about white people, you weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

In fact, I would say that continued outrage over statements that Obama didn't make and doesn't agree with, makes you something of a hack.

Posted by Laurens | March 19, 2008 2:21 AM

I want him to unify us for some better purpose than keeping the world out. And it makes me mad that he doesn't, because I feel like if anyone could, it would be him.

Don't worry, he will disappoint you just like all the others. It's what Presidents do.

Posted by thoreau | March 19, 2008 2:56 AM

If you listened to that speech and thought he "threw her under the bus", you need to listen more carefully in the future and try to understand what people are actually saying.

But there's the issue here. Nobody "heard" that in the speech; some cynic realized it might be a good meme and threw it up against the wall to see if it would stick. Now it's being repeated endlessly in the hope that it and other similar diversions can become the main narrative in the conversation about this speech. It's this season's version of "Swiftboating."

Posted by AemJeff | March 19, 2008 7:17 AM

"We can't handle hearing anyone cuss us out or make a crack at our expense?"

I've never seen so many pathetic defenses of racism. It's interesting how racism goes from the worst sin one can commit to something slightly amusing we should just live with depending on the accused.

Posted by mj | March 19, 2008 8:04 AM

AemJeff: you're right. But I tentatively think that what the Obama campaign has been showing so far is that if you very patiently stay above these kinds of smear jobs, and respond to them directly but with amused ridicule, then they slip and fade.

I mean, yeah: Obama insulted his white grandmother. Right. He came out on national TV and insulted his own grandmother. Does this make any kind of sense? Anybody who's been hearing that from talk radio or other sensationalist "news" outlets needs to stop, think for a second, and then go listen to what the man said.

Posted by brooksfoe | March 19, 2008 8:16 AM

mj: in what sense is the statement "God damn America" racist?

You seem to me to be confused.

Posted by brooksfoe | March 19, 2008 8:18 AM

"if I'd had one Christian grandmother, and she had occasionally said things like "There are so many Jewish bankers, and they use it to influence politics," I would have been deeply upset."

But that's not even close to what Wright has said. It would be more comparable if you had a Christian grandmother that regularly claimed that 'those Jews really made up the Holocaust as an excuse to take over Israel'. Would you, under those circumstances, turn to her as a spiritual advisor?

Posted by Ann | March 19, 2008 8:19 AM

I think that a lot of us are waiting for something important from this guy, and we will be sad about it not happening. All the unity, and feel good speeches from Obama are nice and all.

But eventually you have to stand for something.

How can a savvy politician not realize that aligning himself with a firebrand religious leader won't eventually come back and bite him? Being within that congregation was probably instrumental in getting him elected at the local level... He just didn't think it would bite him at the national level, and he was an idiot for thinking so. If he had changed churches before his going to congress a few years ago, this wouldn't have been an issue at all.

But he didn't. Maybe that shows that he is not as cynical a politician as I think he is, or it shows a stunning failure to grasp how such things would be viewed by a national audience. Maybe he IS very loyal to his pastor even if he thinks his pastor wrong. If that is the case, he certainly allows too much from his pastor. I HAVE had words with pastors on my way out of their congregations when I thought they were allowing their personal views on things to cloud their need to preach to the existance of their whole congregation. I usually had a biblical reference to go with it. Your preacher is, after all, another f'd up human being just like you, and you fail in your responsibility to them as a fellow believer if you don't correct them when you feel it's needed.

The thing is, Obama would have had to have done that years ago. That he didn't either shows that he was part of the congregation for it's connections and political clout, and didn't care what was being preached.

Or he accepts what is being preached, either agreeing on face, or not DISAGREEING.

ALSO? Family and his grandmother, ARE DIFFERENT than who you know at church. You can't change your family. You can stop talking to them if their beliefs are totally opposite yours, and people often do this, but they are still family. Church people are a step outside family even when you are very close to them. If they do something that you are really against, you have to tell them you don't agree, and then break with them. Otherwise you are enabling them.

Coming full circle, Obama was part of a very racist congregation for 20 years. He either agrees with what they are saying, or worse he doesn't care, but any change or distance made would have had to be years ago. If he makes a change now, he is just an opportunist.

Just like when he tries to explain about a racist pastor, and ends up making it a speech about something else entirely. He give it that suave political edge, but does he stand for anything? Is he willing to just say he is wrong, and take his lumps for being wrong?

Posted by SwissArmyD | March 19, 2008 8:34 AM

mj, the problem with your argument is that you fail to distinguish between two very different things. If your ancestors were those with chains around their necks, a lingering, angry reaction is not comparable to the feelings expressed by the descendants of the owners of the chains. If you can't see that, or if you think that in 2008 everything is just hunky-dory for blacks (even despite a viable black candidate for the highest office in the land) then I think you have either a cynical or a benighted view of the world.

brooksfoe, I think one the interesting things about Obama is the competence with which he deals with sort of attack. Let's see if he's good enough to survive.

Posted by AemJeff | March 19, 2008 8:35 AM

No, Ann. Nothing Wright has said is comparable to "those Jews really made up the Holocaust". You know why? Because America, as such -- white America, anyway -- has never experienced a Holocaust. The insult becomes qualitatively different when it refers to a monumental trauma which actually happened to you or your people. "I know you had your wife killed" is just insulting and bizarre if your wife is still alive; but if someone really did kill your wife, then it's a whole different category of hateful.

9/11 was not the Holocaust. AIDS is a holocaust, but it is a holocaust whose greatest victims are Africans and gay men. It is infuriating, wrongheaded and damaging to public health for Wright to repeat the crazy myth that HIV was invented by the CIA to kill black people; but the equivalent of "those Jews really made up the Holocaust" would be "the Africans are responsible for HIV" or "gays are responsible for HIV" -- both of which, of course, are things that people actually do say, without being hounded out of public life. Because those are acceptable majority prejudices.

Posted by brooksfoe | March 19, 2008 8:35 AM

not to sidetrack, though:

"The others used their time to raise doubts about Obama's fealty to Israel. "Senator Obama has said that he commits in his first year as president to meeting with President Ahmadinejad of Iran," Lewis said. McCain, Eagleburger added, "will not talk with the Syrians, will not talk with the Iranians, will not talk with Hamas and Hezbollah. . . . He isn't going to push the Israelis."

"The others"= "Representing John McCain: former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger. Representing Hillary Clinton: former White House official Ann Lewis."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702440.html

"to raise doubts about Obama's fealty to Israel"

fe·al·ty (fl-t)
n. pl. fe·al·ties
1.
a. The fidelity owed by a vassal to his feudal lord.
b. The oath of such fidelity.
2. Faithfulness; allegiance. See Synonyms at fidelity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English fealtye, from Old French fealte, from Latin fidlits, faithfulness, from fidlis, faithful, from fids, faith; see bheidh- in Indo-European roots.]

If Dana Milbank was as honest, and forthcoming, as Rev. Wright, the idea of 'presstitute' might be a non-starter..

Heaven forfend that Wright has a few ideas that might make the Polity blink and rub the sleep from their eyes.

Posted by MEH | March 19, 2008 8:39 AM

Yeah, it's a good speech. Pretty, pretty, pretty good. It reminded me a lot of the John Kerry's "reporting to duty" speech. I think Obama is almost as good a presidential candidate as John Kerry was.

BTW, Megan, you and your faux-libertarian friends prefer to advocate for high levels of immigration from the point of view of immigrants, and not as something beneficial to the American interest. You argue it is our moral obligation to open our borders in order to help the world's poor.

Posted by Jolly Inquisition | March 19, 2008 9:07 AM

Yep, wouldn't be an MM thread without MEH posting unprompted, off-topic complaints about Israel or central bankers.

Posted by AT | March 19, 2008 9:17 AM

What the hell are people smoking? This speech wasn't delivered out of context. He was responding to the fact that people started to pay attention to his close association with a BLT church. I'm not sure there is a white / Christian equivalent, but it would sink McCain or Hillary if they had the equivalent affiliations.

And then to segue into the normal left-wing stuff. "Mill workers" ... etc.

But I do think he makes a point - we have to keep out those Canucks. Takin' our job's! Full cavity searches for them when they cross the border and let's back out of NAFTA right away; let's make a nice big moat at the border.

Posted by JoshK | March 19, 2008 9:29 AM

""the Africans are responsible for HIV" or "gays are responsible for HIV" -- both of which, of course, are things that people actually do say, without being hounded out of public life."

Brooksfoe -

You have a point that in my example, the 'grandmother' was accusing the victims of being responsible, whereas in the AIDS accusation, Wright wasn't accusing the victims. On 9-11, it isn't the equivalent of the Holocaust, but Wright said that the US asked for it and deserved it. On AIDs, he's accusing whites of deliberate mass murder.

Regarding your comment above, saying that 'the Africans' or gays are partially responsible for the transmission of a disease because they've engaged in behavior that makes them more likely to get it is very, very, very different from saying that it was deliberately invented and spread in order to kill entire groups of people. Your comparison is much farther off than mine was.

Posted by Ann | March 19, 2008 9:33 AM

AT,

I hear ya, it really is Funny.

The point is simple: The creation of Fiat Currency is a powerful tool, like Fire.

Used properly, it, theoretically, at least, can be put to fine service. Problem is, that, throughout our History with it, it has burned far too many in comparison to the few that it has warmed.

Our Ignorance of this fact, seemingly acquired wholesale, is costing us our Liberty, at retail prices.

The Silver & Gold that made our small denomination currency was to aid the vast majority from the vicissitudes of Financial Market mechanics, and provide a check, through reserve requirements, on the creation of Liabilities.

Today, it's a different story..

This current schema needs unending series of Greater Fools to keep from Imploding, I think it may be time, for more of us, to start thinking about what's next..

Posted by MEH | March 19, 2008 9:49 AM

It was a very effective speech by all accounts. It fooled the people it needed to fool.

Obama is a charlatan the likes of which I have not seen in my lifetime. It is shocking how even intelligent and thoughtful people like Megan McArdle are taken in by it, though.

Posted by Yancey Ward | March 19, 2008 9:55 AM

Speaking as a middle aged, middle class white male, the speech was fine and I can live with Wright's rhetoric and opinions. The truly frightening thing about this was the unanimity and response to Wright's comments in the church. The agreement and enthusiasm with which the congregation responded to Wright's sermons shocked me. It reminded me of the time I stood in bafflement when crowds of blacks cheered OJ Simpsons acquital. I think this will considered one of the worst moments, along with Simpson's acquital, in black-white relationships. It won't get any press but people will quietly remember the hooping and hollering that accompanied God Damn America, just like they quietly remember the high-fives that accompanied Simpson's acquital of the brutal murder of the mother of his children.

Obama seems no better or worse than any other politician and I don't care about him any more than I care about Hillary or McCain. What I saw in the sermons was a frightening look into black culture and thought that does not bode well for the future success of blacks in the US.

Obama can't change that. He is riding a tiger he can't control.

Posted by jbb | March 19, 2008 9:59 AM

How in the heck does anyone believe that Obama is going to unite people? He's got a hard left agenda... do they think that conservatives and the Right will suddenly see the error of their ways and adopt his agenda? Or do they believe that he'll compromise with the Right and meet them in the middle? I seriously doubt that his supporters on the Left are excited because they think he'll compromise.

If McCain or Clinton went to a church where the pastor preached that the presence of blacks in society was causing high crime and poverty and pointed out that the numbers of blacks who are poor and in prison proved his point, he or she would be a pariah and would not be electable, period.

Here's Obama on Don Imus:

"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

And here's Obama on Rev. Wright:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

So his pastor who makes repeatedly racist and anti-American comments is okay because he's part of the black community and has some good qualities, too. His white grandmother is okay because, well, she's his grandmother. But Don Imus isn't okay because . . . he's white, I guess.

Oh, and Obama is the one who made the comparison between his grandmother and Rev. Wright. And his defenders are emphasizing the comparison... it's not out of line to see that his grandmother has been lumped together with Wright, even if that's not what he intended.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | March 19, 2008 10:10 AM

Speech! Speech!

TrackBack

Comments (147)