Barack Obama’s speech on race, hope, his church background and pastor.
Good stuff. Very good stuff. Strongly recommended (even at about 38 minutes).
One thing I found of value was his reframing of the whole situation (viz his former pastor). It is legitimate to ask how someone believes about certain issues — or even about how they believe about certain issues in comparison to someone with whom they associate. But the idea that someone either has to ignore differences they have, or throw someone off the wagon if there’s a disagreement, is a ludicrous proposition.
To wit, I have friends, and family, who hold views I disagree with. In some cases, vehemently. Like Obama, I’ve had relatives who I’ve loved dearly, but who have not been politically correct (to say the least), or even held beliefs, or expressed stereotypes or epithets that “made me cringe.” I’ve had friends who I care for a lot who’ve held positions, or said things, or even done things that I disagree with. Sometimes vehemently.
If I were running for President, it would be perfectly legitimate to say, “Hey, Dave, you claim this person is your friend, or you say you’re close to this other person over here, or this guy supports your candidacy. Well, they said this and this and this, and, by the way, also say that. Is that how you feel?” That’s what Barack has done in the current situation (though not, I’ll note, McCain with his embarrassing supporters) It’s even legit to say, “So, what role is this person going to hold in your administration?”
It’s not legitimate, useful, or logical, though, to say, “Well, if you disagree with them, why don’t you banish them from your sight, cut off contact with them, drop them from your Christmas card list, and lead a crusade to have them run out of town on a rail?” That’s the sort of ideological all-or-nothing you’re-for-me-or-against-me you’re-with-the-angels-or-the-devils kind of thing that has gotten this country into a lot of the mess it’s currently in.
That Obama seems to realize that makes him, to my mind, all the better of a candidate.
(shared by Doyce)
Les weighs in (sans Trackback …).
I swear I’m gonna get some free time one of these days to actually watch this speech. I keep reading and hearing amazing things about it, but don’t have the friggin time!!!
Anyways, I agree with you point on association Dave and thanks for pointing it out. When McCain was endorsed by that one nutball some people were shocked. I was a little surprised and some people made a big deal of it. Me I just thought the same thing as you, somehow they’re likely friends or just colleagues and just because they are doesn’t mean McCain is also a nutball by association.
I agree — but it also behooves one (running for office) to clarify how they differ. The “well, we don’t agree on everything” excuse is passable up to a point, the “what we do agree on is X” is a bit better, but for some things you have to point out and clarify the differences.
So, the Obama Speech…
First off I spent time watching all the Rev. Wright vids that have been posted by racist white folks on YouTube and… First off, not much different from what I have heard the handful of times that I have been…
Snicker-snort.
Yeah, read that while picking up comics last night. ;P
But he’s a SOCIALIST, Dave.
Wow, if Obama is a Socialist, what the heck are Dave and I since Obama is almost completely on the other side of the diagram from me politically?
Or is that the American idea of Socialism where everything left of Goldwater is socialism?
I have no idea what other side you’re referring to, I don’t really keep up with your political leanings. But here’s the definition of socialism, in case you need it: re-distribution of wealth. Your wealth, my wealth…probably not Obama’s wealth though, and certainly not the Hildebeest’s. Sounds like FUN, doesn’t it.
Woot!
I’m a socialist!
Yeppers, it does sound like fun since I had no idea that someone that was almost a Republican and just a bit to the left of Goldwater was a socialist. =P
Hazel, here is a little test for you to take. I come out at -6.98,-7.02. Here are the results of the U.S. Presidential Primaries, and based on what I have read at your site, I expect you to come in in the +7,+7 range.
As a comparison, here are the EU countries, and as you can see, most of western Europe, by your defination, are Socialist.
Happy easter!
There’s redistribution, and there’s redistribution.
While I suspect that I am far less socialist than BD, I do believe that one of the proper and beneficial roles of society is to protect and assist the least of its members. I’m not a Leveller, by any means — I think we also need to have a society that incents personal achievement and growth of wealth, even if that wealth is not evenly distributed. But I’m also not an economic Darwinist, or an “are there no workhouses?” kind of economics fan, either.
I think the past eight years have seen enough “welfare” for the wealthiest of individuals and corporations. I wouldn’t mind the pendulum swinging a bit back in the other direction for a while. (And I say that as someone who’s likely to be among those paying for it to do so.)
For the record, last time I took the test, I came up -3/-4 — “Libertarian Left.”
Who is the Hildebeast? Is that Hillary Clinton? I have a friend named Hildebrand, and I think he’d be concerned if something that might be his nickname was used to refer to Hillary Clinton.