Comments on Thoughts on Obama's Speech

Works for me - and I'm the target audience, you apostate heathen.

Obama gets votes because he doesn't underestimate the intelligence of the average American. Americans act stupid when they are treated like they are stupid. If you give the average person a chance to act maturely, they will act as such.

This is the only way. He can't run from Wright. I hope it works.

One of your better entries, Eli. Excellent thoughts.

One of your better entries, Eli. Excellent thoughts.

Yesterday I was mocking the Chicago Tribune on the Slog for telling its readers that Chicago invented the bike slang term 'dooring.' I think if you spend enough time talking to other journalists you get infected with their contempt for people and you start to believe we are a nation of morons.

But even if you really do thing the voters are stupid -- and for some reason Pennsylvania voters are considered particularly dumb by their betters in the media -- I don't see how anybody who has been saying Obama is for dummies can now say he's too intellectual. Or maybe you can say that: if his campaign can be both too intellectual and too lowbrow, I would love to have it explained to me how is that possible.

wow. i thought i was hopelessly cynical about the american voter, and americans in general, yet i find myself strangely filled with faith or something in the intelligence of a people who have no credit in that department. i think obama has converted me. he's actually attempting to build a historical context around wright's rhetoric while simultaneously explaining the mindset of your average white american as well. and legitimating both positions. this truly is genius, and extraordinarily subversive to the political status quo.

Great post Eli. I love how Obama thinks. I can't want to see what he will accomplish when he is President.

Obama’s campaign is not just a bet on the ability of a black candidate to inspire voters across the lines that demarcate traditional racial, ethnic, and class divisions. It is a bet on the ability of the average American voter to rise to the level of his rhetoric.

The latter may be a far bigger bet than the former.

Speaking as a former resident of both Portland and Seattle, and a current resident of rural Iowa ... if you ever wondered where so many people in flyover country get the 'big city elitist liberal' misconception, look no further. Yes, it takes a great big wrinkly brain to make Obama-caliber smart-talk. But you needn't be a genius to get what he's saying.

This kind of nose-thumbing from the progressives is, in general, a turn-off to voters. A little optimism and a little credit will go a long way, as Obama's candidacy is already showing.

If we are unable as a country to understand or accept Obama's speech, then we deserve whatever misfortune comes our way...

Incredible speech. How anyone can look at Hils next to him and conclude she's the better choice is mind boggling.

Great speech. I wonder who wrote it.

after 8 years of being talked to by a chimp, i think even average americans who don't catch all the intellectual nuance are going to be inspired and comforted by the thought that someone who is smarter than they are will be in the oval office making decisions about war and peace.

that's the only problem I have with the latter part of your analysis. the american people have seen what a simpleton does when they're in charge. the positive spin on the speech is that you don't have to make the voter understand the complexity of race. they only need to know that YOU (the candidate) understands the complexities and, to quote pulp fiction, "is on the muthafucka".

great post eli.

this speech isn't that hi brow. it's not difficult to understand. yet it still has substance. that is an art indeed.

and for those who are to dumb to get it, it will be explained by the press. in a sound byte. in many cases, those will be good sound bytes from the press who liked the speech.

or, like yahoo, and msn, they might focus on the "anger" talk in their headlines. which would be bad, but still not overly intellectual.

kerry seemed too intellectual, even when he wasn't saying anything deep. there is a difference between talking down to someone (because you believe the average american is an idiot), and giving someone a complex argument explained in commonly understood terms.

I should say, Eli, that at least you admitted that it didn't reach you per se.

Not all of us grew up elitist, and when I look at the people that tend to back Obama, I see a lot of working class and middle class white men, and middle-aged ones, and then I see a very diverse group of everyone else.

It's not just one group - it's many. And they like not being treated like morons like McCain/Bush does, or treated like they have to vote for somebody cause they "deserve" it and we should just let the Beltway insiders run it, like Clinton does.

Obama speaks to all of us. And speaks of the future and the 21st Century, not the past and the 20th (or 18th) Century.

And that's what we need - and want.

Who is Obama talking to? Everyone! Which is exactly why I like him.

How long are you guys going to discuss this? Obama gave a good speech. He has opened the door for an honest & frank discussion on race. Frankly, it's time for the GOP to take advantage of this opportunity and finally work to get the black vote. Now, are you ready to move on?

OK Eli, you asked for it. You are elitist and a Clinton-style cynic. Both Gore and Kerry had the same attitude, tried to "dumb it down" and appeared completely ill-at-ease and disingenuous by doing so, not to mention insulting the intelligence of the common American. Politicians should talk to the people in the way that is natural and right for them--with Obama that's with intelligence, nuance, and a well-reasoned argument--and allow them to step up.

The intended audience is not those middle and working-class white voters. At least not directly. The intended audience is the national political media, along with the most highly motivated Democratic voters, the blogosphere and other voices that shape the overall perception of the campaign. These are the people who do care and about the intellectual and narrative force and need to be refreshed by it after seeing so much of the brute rhetorical force of Obama's stump speeches.

I agree with the sentiment expressed by brad@2, Mike@9 and even WA @ 10. But, also, I think it's fair for the Obama to speak to the media and depend on them to distill this 40 minute speech that, admittedly, relatively few voters will watch in its entirety.

Since so much of this campaign has been about the narrative of which campaign is up or down (how else to explain that so many people think that Hillary can still legitimately win the race for the Democratic nomination when Obama is so far ahead in delegates), it's smart for the Obama campaign to have directed this speech to the national political media. It is the media that will watch the entire speech, parse each and every word and establish it's relevancy in the context of the overall narrative of the race and then disseminate that interpretation to the public through the Internet, TV, radio and word of mouth.

Based on the media's reaction so far, I think the speech will succeed in allowing Obama to transcend this controversy that has stalled his move toward the nomination and regain some of the footing that he's lost in the last 10 days.

I don't want a Republican in office in 2009.

Barrack's speech may be the best ever, but it won't be run in 30 second bites.

What I would like to see Hillary run the most exploitive ads on this subject showing Obama with Wright saying what a great guy and inspiration the pastor has been for him moving to Wright screaming god damn America and we how brought on 911 with the image morphing into Obama with a voiceover asking if this man's judgement (Obama) could be trusted in the WH.

If he can stand up to the full strength Republican style attacks, he will win in November. But we know that will never happen because that would tear the party apart.

Damn--I want a President who can speak.

In complete sentences, even!

sugamama @12

If you'd read either of Obama's books (for which he used no ghostwriters), you'd know by the tone of his speech that he wrote most or all of it himself. I understand your cynicism, but in this case it's misdirected.

The only people who will hear the whole thing are nerds like us (I thought it was great and even surprising) and the media. Let's hope he shut them up for a while.

I'm reminded of that old Adlai Stevenson quote..

Some dude: "Mr. Stevenson, you have the vote of every thinking American."

Stevenson: "That may be so, but I need a majority to win."

@21 McG

Wouldn't you be happier if you just joined the Republican Party, instead of always trying to talk Democrats into campaigning like Republicans?

yup, you're an elitist or a Clinton-style cynic

i'm reminded of a wise old saying--if you always talk to a child as if s/he is stupid, they will either disrespect you in kind, &/or they will become stupid. if you always speak to a child as if he/she is intelligent (even if they are not), they will respect you & they will become more intelligent.

"A corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many."

I'm shocked that he finally mentioned CLASS issues and addressed abuses of corporate power. Hope it's not some rhetorical flourish but that we can expect more to come.

elenchos Home Depot has a sale on sand why not buy a few bags and put it in a Ballard park for free use of the deluded.

The idea that my points somehow hurt Obama's national campaign is ludicrous. Why shouldn't the Obama supporters get a taste of what Sept-Nov will be like? Why shouldn't they know that much of the Obama campaign is a fairytale.

Had the media given as much attention to Obama's issues as they did to Edwards' hair cut, maybe we would have a three person race today.

Obama's problems not withstanding I would favor a Gore/Obama ticket at this time. Calling people Republicans that vote Democratic year after year (I did vote against Dixie Lee Ray) is also brilliant.

Obama has built his entire campaign on the idea that Democrats are not as disinterested and cynical as Clinton (and every other national politician) thinks they are. If he fails, it will be because he was wrong to hold that idea.

McG, even a DLC Democrat should know that negative campaigning hurts turnout, and Democrats need high turnout to win. Every single negative attack turns off a few more voters, and that saves work for the GOP voter suppression squad. You're making it easier for them to win. That is not ludicrous.

Right now nobody is paying attention to McCain and we could be blanketing the news cycle with a discussion of Democratic issues. Instead, you want negative ads and negative talking points. And why do your candidates keep losing? Oh, it's the media's fault.

You should retire from this. Clinton's presidency was your shot and your team blew it. Bow out.

@6,

Obama's not wonkish, or at least his campaign isn't. I think a lot of people, especially liberals, associate wonkishness with intelligence, and many people, especially liberals, think that wonkishness wins elections.

Obama is really amazing. He's smart enough to neither bog his campaign down with specifics nor talk down to the American public.

As Eli very aptly points out "Obama’s campaign is not just a bet on the ability of a black candidate to inspire voters across the lines that demarcate traditional racial, ethnic, and class divisions. It is a bet on the ability of the average American voter to rise to the level of his rhetoric." I think he's spot on. The fact that Obama is the first legitimate black Presidential candidate is significant but obvious, and frankly it has no bearing on my decision to support him. That he is willing to advocate for and galvanize an elevation of the political discourse in this country is what truly inspires me and makes him stand out so significantly in comparison to the politics as usual game of the Clinton campaign. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is an exceptionally intelligent woman, but she sells out her intellect by pandering to the stupid/ignorant with meaningless sounds bites and quick hit attacks. Such tactics may be effective with "Average Joe" American voters, but at the end of the day what does your experience and intelligence matter if your policies and platform have been tailored to the will of an uniformed public rather than to your true understanding for the complexities of the issues facing America today.

For the record, I think an Obama Presidency would carry with it a huge risk of being rendered Jimmy Carter style ineffective. But I also think it has the potential for an upside that none of the other candidates can come close to matching. To successfully raise the discourse of American politics to where Obama is trying to take it would change everything and would bring a new level of accountability to all elected officials, putting them on notice that the public does in fact have a tolerance for the necessarily complex policies needed to solve complex problems. This is precisely why I will ultimately be crushed if Obama fails to win the nomination and eventually the Presidency, because such a turn of events would not only mean we would miss out on the leadership of one of a very few politicians to have ever inspired me, but also because of what it would say about the American voters and their preference for the anti-intellectual game of politics as usual. And if this ends up being the case, the people of this country deserve the declining future that will await us under the stewardship of such leaders.

@12: FWIW, Ambinder says Obama wrote it.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/speechwriter_of_one.php

@30 but we should pay attention to mccain! did ya hear what he said today? are people really going to believe he is strong on forign policy?

"Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran.

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda...

McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

Obama is speaking here to the superdelegates. He is focused on winning, and the superdelegates are the current voters, this week, next week, up through the convention if necessary.

Obama is giving us all the benefit of the doubt. He believes that Americans are capable of hearing intelligence discourse and responding with intelligence of their own. That's a huge risk to take, but it's also a challenge to voters to prove him right.

And 27 is right--this controversy has finally got Obama mentioning class, and that's a good thing. As someone who supported Edwards until the day he dropped out, I've noticed that piece missing from the Obama campaign. I'm glad to hear someone picking up that truly populist banner rather than the knee-jerk anti-NAFTA lunch-pail demagoguery that typically stands in for it.

After donning protective clothing, I went over to the Fox News website to see how they're trying to spin it. While they do a little bit of trying to push that he "refuses to disown" his minister, even their article on this speech was mostly positive. In fact, as I was reading the article, I couldn't tell if the writer was being won over as he wrote it or just hoping noone would read the whole thing because it went on, the more clips you got from his speech and the more positive the article became. If they're going to find a way to turn this around, they haven't yet. Obama looks to be winning this round. I think we've just seen exactly how Obama deals with negative campaign tricks, and the answer is "effectively".

Bill @19 - now my feelings are hurt ...

And every time I hear McCain/Bush 08, @34, I just hear "Hundred Years War".

Sorry, but add that massive debt to the $35 BILLION bailout of rich fat cats at Bear-Stearns today and you're talking massive middle class taxes to pay for the ultra-rich to get richer.

And the nation to become poorer.

Forget Fox, go read the responses on the NY Times blog to the speech. Half the responses are out and out race baiting and paranoid accusations from Republicans and Clinton supporters (nothing more attractive than white women claiming that Obama is playing the race card). Sure, the other half of the posts may be fawning pro-Obama praise, but the racism is deep and painful. This is going to be an ugly, ugly election.

elenchos - so the endless negative attacks on the Clintons put out by the Obama campaign and its supporters doesn't impact voter turnout but just pointing out how the Republicans will use an issue will impact turnout. Interesting.

The Republicans have run this country into the deep red (is that why they call them red states?) and undermined much of regulations such as banking not to mention ruling by fear and ramping up the old military industrial complex and the only significant defeat since 1964 of them was by the Clintons.

Push as many of us away that cheered well into the night in November of 1992 - damn the old 60s activists - pretend the polls mean nothing - hope that the Republicans run their worst ever campaign - deny, deny, deny.

McG, I hope Obama does not make any of the kind of attacks that you advocate.

Pretending that you are "just pointing out" what the Republicans would say is dishonest. It's one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book, and you should stop.

It's particularly dishonest when anyone can scroll up and see that you just said "What I would like to see Hillary run the most exploitive ads on this subject showing Obama with Wright..." You just said you want to see exploitive attack ads. And now you say you're "just pointing out how the Republicans will use an issue." Get your story straight, at least for one day. Change it tomorrow maybe, but just for today try to stay on your message.

And now you're feeling sorry for yourself for being pushed away. Stop with the attacks and the dirt, and talk about issues. Criticize Obama's policy. Maybe then you won't have reason to feel sorry for yourself when you get smacked right back.

This is the kind of smart analysis that doesn't alienate anyone. People who haven't been to college aren't dumb, they just often mistake tricky rhetoric for a dodge. Nothing about this is tricky. It makes me think of the big, cowboy-hatted, certainly Republican Texans who approached my Obama campaign worker friend here in Austin in an icehouse last week, surrounded him, and said "Buddy, I'm a fan. Really. Just tell him to rein that wife of his in a little and put his hand over his heart when they play the national anthem."

I think what Obama is proving, at last, is that the central arguments in our culture and our politics can be had without demonization, something both sides of the divide created in the 60s NEVER learned. About time.

CNN poll today summarized somewhere on real clear:

"both Obama and Clinton are locked in a dead heat with the Arizona senator. If Obama were to win the nomination, he would get 47 percent of the vote compared to 46 percent for McCain -- a statistical tie given the poll's 3 percentage point margin of error. Should Clinton win the nomination, the poll suggests she would get 49 percent compared to McCain's 47 percent -- another statistical tie."

So, "without demonization," we should all agree that neither one is head and shoulders above the other in electability.

The media will turn on him now. He's pointing out that poor whites and poor blacks have more in common than poor whites and rich whites. That will scare their corporate masters.

ok
it read well
and i am sure he delivered the hell out of
but
can someone tell me if he said anything beyond... "race is an issue in this country... black people have anger... white people have anger... oh and dont mind the old man... he's just old, set in his ways and is kinda harmless in his racist anti american rhetoric... thanks!"
what if clinton had someone on her team who spouted stuff like this and then she backed out of it by saying the same thing... reverse it and see how you would feel...

Wow. An honest, intelligent, articulate, nuanced and dare I say humble speech about race relations and our history.

Obama’s finished.

There’s no way in hay-ell that the deranged country that elected Preznit Caligutard TWICE could bear to have this man as our leader.

So long Obama, thanks for playing.

Bombs away, Preznit NUMBNUTS! McCain!

It's exciting to have Obama on the scene. He's clearly the brightest politician in decades. Even if he doesn't win (I worry he's bringing a brain to a knife fight with Hill.) I feel good that this country can produce people like him.

this speech solidifies why Obama is the superior candidate to Hillary. I have to think that at least some Dems will break off from Hillary and support him as a result of this speech. It's smart, honest and inspiring

I think the Republican Party just might got he way of the Wigs. Their policies have bankrupted the country, lost a war, and killed millions in the last eight years. We are just now entering the waste lands, and the worse it gets, the more they will get blamed. The next President of the United States is going to be a Democrat. If it is Obama, we might do OK. If it is Clinton, the Neo-cons will rejoice.

The speech was beautiful. And it also made me yearn for an articulate and intelligent POTUS. And I love Obama.

But I am troubled by the fact that he needs to distance himself from Wright's comments. I may not have heard them all, but the gist of the ones I have heard have been that Hilary, as a wealthy white woman will never know what it's like to live as The Other in this country, and that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated in retaliation for US foreign policy in the middle east. Uhm, they may be uncomfortable statements for some, but aren't they also pretty true?

He has to distance himself from Wright because a lot of white people are terrified by the specter angry black men. At this point no matter what Obama does, he's going to be hounded by the right and the more fantatical Clinton supporters all the way to election day. No one wants to call it racist, but that's exactly what it is. The black man is being posited as the bogie man by conservatives. Obama has to distance himself from the Wright to quell the idiotic fears of terrified Americans. Sadly, that probably won't be enough. The only way Obama is going to satisfy the paranoids is by magically becoming white.

I'm going to feel pretty ashamed of this country if this is what it all comes down to: charges of "reverse racism" from a bunch of racebaiting bigots.

Jay,

I know that intellectually, and your comments are well put. Emotionally, though, I just wish we didn't all have to pretend that uncomfortable realities don't exist, lest we be labled as anti-American.

I'm a lower-middle class Pennsylvanian Democrat with a bunch of student loans and a job that has nothing to do with my degree.
I bought it. Granted, I was already signed up for the team, but I hadn't really decided if I wanted to play yet. Obama's reaction to this has helped me make up my mind. I'm not exactly typical for where I live, though. Folks here are kind of worried because, like every Dem, he "wants to take our guns away." Sigh.

He wrote it himself and finished it at 3:30 this morning.
And as for the media jumping on him, I did not see it on msnbc. Tweety, in particular, could not have been more lavish in his praise. And even "Morning" Joe, the only conservative host they have left, was extremely impressed. Joe is pounding the same drum as Eli, that it won't reach the Archie Bunkers, but that's it.

@43 As you so bitterly put it. That was the speech in a nut shell. Still he said a lot "nicer", more eloquently, and embelished why people are angry.

Will this be enough to move average American moron, or the Republican "romantics" who like simple answers for complex problems. And cling to some archaic suburban vision like its gospel? Even though ... it really hasn't ever existed. Or even think they are business savy, when they just screw the market even more and more.

I'm hoping America will prove me wrong, I'm with Eli, total cynic.

@54 Where does this irrational paranaia about gun control come from. I think Democrats have evolved to a point where they don't care about gun control, especially in rural areas.

Derail: Democrats may be evolving, but gun nuts aren't. Witness Arizona's bizarre "Let's legalize concealed weapons in colleges and universities" proposition. On one hand, strict gun control may be untenable and questionable from a rights angle. On the other, gun nuts won't stop their crusade until every American is armed and potentially dangerous. Gun control policy in this country makes no sense at all. It's basically gone from "lets restrict sales and have background checks" to "let's arm everyone!" I don't think the Democrats' lack of a stance on the issue is helpful.

I have to share some cynicism about the long term effect of Obama's speech. If he is the nominee, every intelligent person in the country will vote for him. But it may not be enough. Every intelligent person in 2004 voted for Kerry. Some actually liked Kerry; others voted for him because they thought ANYONE would be better than four more years of Bush. Guess what--Idiot Boy won anyway (yes, I know, voter irregularities, blah blah blah, Ohio, blah blah blah, Karl Rove, blah blah blah...).

Both Obama and Hillary are in a statistical TIE with McCain (per @44 above)??? Neither Democrat is running away in the polls with record gas prices, an unpopular war that a Republican president started, and an economy that will soon teach those of us who weren't born yet in 1933 what life was like back then?? I must confess being a bit pessimistic about the average intelligence of the American voter. After the last eight years we should be cleaning up in the polls, but the best we can do is a statistical tie with the incumbent party. Sheesh...

a. It was not an elitist speech. An elitist speech is rather when one dumbs down the conversation as if the audience doesn't understand.
b. Big brains are everywhere.
c. Living in Seattle doesn't mean shit other than you live with the choir.

So with this speech, I think Obama has offered to raise the dialogue to pre-red-phone levels. So now maybe Clinton could respond with a detailed speech on her own tough topic: her war vote. She has said it was a very difficult decision, but what exactly does that mean? What made it so difficult? How was her vote informed by the first Clinton administration’s bombing of Iraq in 1998, or being a senator for New York a year after 9/11? Sure it would be risky and she might have to say things that, soundbited out of context, might later be used against her. But I would honestly like to know what she was thinking. What do you think, Clinton supporters?

If you look back to political speeches from 30-50 years ago (before the age of 24-hour TV), many politicians used big words and concepts. I read a speech recently by Joe McCarthy from the mid-1960s, and I was stunned by the sophistication of his vocabulary and ideas compared to today. And this was JOE McCARTHY, the nut case anti-Communist.

The level of public discourse used to be much higher, even among the working classes. Ever read a speech by the leaders of the big labor unions in the 1930s and 1940s?

@62
people read back then, and not just some effeminate urbun archopoligo liberal,but EVERYONE ...there wasint else much to do back then

maybe when an Emp blast knocks out all electronics for a generation we may start climbing back to that level...till then were screwed

Who was Obama talking to? Voters.

As David Gergen said tonight, "it was refreshing to be spoken to by a politician like an adult. So often politicians treat us like children."

Meaning: We can handle it. Obama was talking to voters.

eli, it seems like you are confusing class with intellect, implying that rich people are smart and working class dumb.

there are many middle and working class democrats and republicans who would share this sentiment.

"It excites the part of my brain that likes a complicated, multi-layered, well-reasoned-yet-subtle argument that is also able to wrap itself in a compelling personal story. The part of my brain that likes intellectual and narrative force over brute rhetorical force"

obama's speech was magnificent...i listned to it twice while cleaning the house yesterday.