10 thoughts on “The Speech”

  2. “There’s an old…saying in Tennessee…I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says Fool me once…(3 second pause)… Shame on…(4 second pause)…Shame on you….(6 second pause)…Fool me…Can’t get fooled again.”

    We sure are!

  3. The man gave a 30 min. public speech discussing race-relations in the U.S. in an honest and candid way during a Presidential election. No demagoguing, no race-baiting, no throwing his friend or church under the bus for political expediency. If that doesn’t demonstrate courage and leadership and a change for the better in the people that run this country, I don’t know what would.

    Others can continue to think he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing if it helps them validate their point of view. The Right won’t have a chance of beating this guy if he makes it through to the general election.

  4. I liked the speech. I wish there were more substantiative single topic speeches like this by all candidates. I felt I had a better sense of Obama after this speech than after listening to several debates. Probably most coverage of the speech will consist of short sound bites. This speech needs much better coverage to be understood. Therefore I’m not sure that it will benefit either Obama or the country as much as it could.

    I have not listened to any of Rev Wright’s so I’m not sure what Obama was responding to.

  5. I’ve been very wary of the rockstar stuff going on with Obama. I was ready to be cynical when I watched this speech. Instead, I became mesmerized and kept shaking my head in agreement. I felt his speech was truthful, heartfelt, and driven from the man; not just the politician.

    I decided, right then and there, to give Obama another look-see and find myself undecided (where before I was supporting Hillary) in this election. His speech did prove his orator skills but I truly felt he was standing in truth and gave, what I’ve heard and have come to believe, one of the best speeches on race (racism/relations) since MLK.

    All I could say was, “Wow. That was powerful .

  6. He has rekindled hope in me. Magnificent.

    And Ephraim, I wish you didn’t find it necessary to be a troll.

    Perhaps you should read Paul Graham’s essay on How to Disagree

  7. I find it interesting that when I post my opinion I’m branded a “Troll”

    When someone else posts
    “He has rekindled hope in me. Magnificent”
    which is clearly an opinion I’ll bet he won’t be branded as a Troll.

    I suspect that if my post had been the exact same words (“…Magnificent”) that post, too, would have been called Trolling.

    Shouldn’t we both be “Trolls” or both be “Not Trolls”?

    ——————

    The speech that Obama gave was touted by his campaign as an answer to the furor that Wright generated with his bigoted sermons. Obama flim-flammed everyone by changing the subject. In his speech he didn’t address Wright’s bigoted remarks except to say that he wasn’t going to do anything about them. No condemnation, no expression of alarm, no expression of distaste or etc. Instead he said he intends to continue to subject his children to Wright’s hateful ‘sermons’.

    In hindsight, the speech had its intended effect. The furor over Wright’s bigoted remarks has calmed down. I suspect that the next we’ll hear of them will be when McCain forces Obama to disavow Wright during the general election campaign.

    Liberal bigotry should be condemned as forcefully as conservative bigotry.

  8. NewMexiKen, I know you decided to allow all comments, regardless of the attitude of the comment (or the viewpoint).

    But what about comments that are plagiarized, i.e. when someone lifts a passage from another blog and copies it, wholesale, into their comment, without giving credit to the original writer?

    Just wondering.

  9. NewMexiKen tries to provide credit in every case not only to the original author but also to the individual who pointed me to the material or provided the link. I expect the same for what appears here (as indicated at the bottom of every page).

    Jill has an excellent point Ephraim. What of it?

    According to Wikipedia: “An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2] [Troll (Internet) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]]

  10. A few quotes from Obama’s speech:
    —
    “I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.”

    “Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely”

    “Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive”

    “comments that are simply inexcusable”
    —
    How can you say that he gave “No condemnation, no expression of alarm, no expression of distaste or etc”? There are only two possible explanations.

    So, Ephraim, which is it? Are you a liar? Or are you too dumb to check things out for yourself before you spread misinformation?

Comments are closed.