The speech
Well, I thought it was brilliant, but I'm not exactly objective (although I suspect I'm not alone). I've been reading some reaction to the speech, and there were some interesting criticisms that are worth responding to:
1. Not enough sound bites: I've seen this criticism on Talking Points Memo, and it's not a bad point. Since most people aren't going to watch the speech in its entirety, the question is how it will get played in the media. Given that the speech had a lot of nuance, it's easy for important points to get lost in translation. To the extent that the only way to do this issue justice is to take an approach that's not conducive to a bumper sticker slogan, I guess that Obama is just taking a chance here that the sophistication of his arguments will survive the media grinder. Given the amount of time to the election, that's not impossible, I suppose. Of course, it could go wrong (I imagine a headline saying "Obama: Wright is like family to me")
2. He's not winning over Hillary Clinton's voters: Who knows if this is the case, but to the extent that it is, it's not a problem, at least in the short term. Even if Obama loses Pennsylvania, it's really hard to envision a scenario in which either Clinton catches up with his lead in pledged delegates or overturns that lead with a superdelegate veto. I think that the speech was more intended to reassure the people who are otherwise inclined to support him anyway but were concerned about his relationship with Wright and his ability to deal with a political attack. In the long run, of course, he's going to need Hillary Clinton's voters in the general election, but if this speech doesn't do that, it doesn't have to yet. Rather, it can be the start of a long-term conversation with voters.
3. He didn't just repudiate Wright: Obama explicitly said that this would have been the politically safe move, and I agree. I thought his tack was refreshing for several reasons. First, it gave him an opportunity to speak a truth never uttered by a politician: that we've all got associations with people who can be offensive to some degree, but we speak differently amongst ourselves then when we're not. As hard as it is to say something like this, it's hard for me to see the downside now that it's out there. Second, I'm tired of Democratic presidential candidates who go into a defensive crouch every time they fear an Atwater/Rovesque attack. It's nice to see one stand up and draw the line somewhere, let the attack ads fall where they may.
4. He's excusing the inexcusable: I've mostly read this line of attack on conservative sites, and it seems to be written by people predetermined to find unacceptable any speech short of blubbery contrition. I'll grant that my view is heavily biased in the other way, so I suppose it's fair for someone to have that interpretation, however much I disagree with it. Be that as it may, I don't see it as a big political problem for Obama, given that this is the segment of the electorate that's not going to vote for him anyway.
5. Repudiation of Wright's statements may turn off black voters: I feel like I've seen this dynamic in plurality-white cities where white opponents of black mayoral candidates harangue them to repudiate people like Louis Farrakhan (I'm thinking about two cities where I've lived and seen this dynamic, Chicago and New York City). Such calls do not actually have to be apropos of anything that the candidate said. Rather, it's a useful wedge issue for a political opponent to use: force the candidate to disown a black constituency or force the candidate to accept someone white voters find unacceptable. My hunch is that this won't be as much of a problem for Obama. I doubt that most black voters ever thought they would live to see a black president (and there have been reports that a lot of black voters fear that Obama would be an assassination target if he was elected), and my suspicion is that he'll get a lot more slack then a mayoral candidate.
Maybe I'm just being over-optimistic about all of this, but hey, you gotta have hope!
1. Not enough sound bites: I've seen this criticism on Talking Points Memo, and it's not a bad point. Since most people aren't going to watch the speech in its entirety, the question is how it will get played in the media. Given that the speech had a lot of nuance, it's easy for important points to get lost in translation. To the extent that the only way to do this issue justice is to take an approach that's not conducive to a bumper sticker slogan, I guess that Obama is just taking a chance here that the sophistication of his arguments will survive the media grinder. Given the amount of time to the election, that's not impossible, I suppose. Of course, it could go wrong (I imagine a headline saying "Obama: Wright is like family to me")
2. He's not winning over Hillary Clinton's voters: Who knows if this is the case, but to the extent that it is, it's not a problem, at least in the short term. Even if Obama loses Pennsylvania, it's really hard to envision a scenario in which either Clinton catches up with his lead in pledged delegates or overturns that lead with a superdelegate veto. I think that the speech was more intended to reassure the people who are otherwise inclined to support him anyway but were concerned about his relationship with Wright and his ability to deal with a political attack. In the long run, of course, he's going to need Hillary Clinton's voters in the general election, but if this speech doesn't do that, it doesn't have to yet. Rather, it can be the start of a long-term conversation with voters.
3. He didn't just repudiate Wright: Obama explicitly said that this would have been the politically safe move, and I agree. I thought his tack was refreshing for several reasons. First, it gave him an opportunity to speak a truth never uttered by a politician: that we've all got associations with people who can be offensive to some degree, but we speak differently amongst ourselves then when we're not. As hard as it is to say something like this, it's hard for me to see the downside now that it's out there. Second, I'm tired of Democratic presidential candidates who go into a defensive crouch every time they fear an Atwater/Rovesque attack. It's nice to see one stand up and draw the line somewhere, let the attack ads fall where they may.
4. He's excusing the inexcusable: I've mostly read this line of attack on conservative sites, and it seems to be written by people predetermined to find unacceptable any speech short of blubbery contrition. I'll grant that my view is heavily biased in the other way, so I suppose it's fair for someone to have that interpretation, however much I disagree with it. Be that as it may, I don't see it as a big political problem for Obama, given that this is the segment of the electorate that's not going to vote for him anyway.
5. Repudiation of Wright's statements may turn off black voters: I feel like I've seen this dynamic in plurality-white cities where white opponents of black mayoral candidates harangue them to repudiate people like Louis Farrakhan (I'm thinking about two cities where I've lived and seen this dynamic, Chicago and New York City). Such calls do not actually have to be apropos of anything that the candidate said. Rather, it's a useful wedge issue for a political opponent to use: force the candidate to disown a black constituency or force the candidate to accept someone white voters find unacceptable. My hunch is that this won't be as much of a problem for Obama. I doubt that most black voters ever thought they would live to see a black president (and there have been reports that a lot of black voters fear that Obama would be an assassination target if he was elected), and my suspicion is that he'll get a lot more slack then a mayoral candidate.
Maybe I'm just being over-optimistic about all of this, but hey, you gotta have hope!
Labels: Obama
posted by honestpartisan | 11:05 PM
4 Comments:
I agree. He played his hand well. He spoke candidly in a way that probably resonated with a lot of people. I'd like to see him continue along these lines. I wish more politicians were as honest, reasonable and candid.
It sort of makes up for his fumble on the turban photo. There, he should have diffused any irrational fears about him being a Muslim by embracing the photo and fondly recalling the moment when it was taken, pointing out that it is the kind of thing all statesmen do. The photo should have been on his website. The same goes for his middle name, Hussein. He seems embarrassed by the name when he should be proud of it (I believe it means 'beautiful'). Of course it's understandable that he would not want to draw attention to it, but he shouldn't seem to be hiding it or be so quick to cry foul when someone mentions it. I think in the long run, and this is certainly gonna be a long run, the best way to diffuse racist fear mongering is to speak sensibly with pride, candor and optimism.
--RATZLOW
Lincoln, Bobby Kennedy and Barack Obama. That's what it is.
The speech was unbelievable. I'm shocked that an American running for President delivered (and wrote!) such a speech.
He swung for the fences. He showed a strong back-bone and incredible courage to respond directly with his core beliefs. He also pitched the speech for what's best in America. As in: I won't talk down to you, I won't simplify or pander.
God bless us all - everyone!
>>He's excusing the inexcusable: I've mostly read this line of attack on conservative sites, and it seems to be written by people predetermined to find unacceptable any speech short of blubbery contrition.<<
Ah, but then those same conservative folks would just criticize him for blubbering or being contrite....
Bravo for Barak. he gets my vote even though he is a Democrat.
I, for one, cannot wait to hear him take on McCain (The slayer of McAbel)and definitely not his brothers' keeper.
OldTimeLefty
Post a Comment
<< Home