On Sunday, before Barack Obama gave his A More Perfect Union speech, I wrote about what was likely to be addressed regarding Rev Wright’s non-productive recorded comments that raised a political ruckus last week, so click over to read my thoughts on that topic.The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
– presidential candidate Barack Obama, “A More Perfect Union,” delivered in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008
Obama addressed the impact of what was said — and how it was said — in a way that was thoughtful, personal and direct. This was really two speeches though — one was his response to the political storm over Wright, and the other was distinctively different and spoke to me — a brave cracking open the door on the larger questions about our country’s complex, pathological issues with race.
I knew I wouldn’t see the speech live (I was on a panel at Take Back America in DC). I decided that I would avoid reading blogs about the speech, or watch the talking heads do the punditry after the fact. While in the airport waiting on a flight back home to NC, I sat and read the transcript. I didn’t watch the video — I wanted to absorb the message devoid of delivery and presentation. I am writing this still not having read any MSM coverage or blogosphere reaction to the speech.
When I read it I wept. The tears were of sheer relief, particularly because of the above quote.
More below the fold.
People who know me well are quite aware that I’m not one prone to great waves of emotion; I’m Ms. Even Keel to most. The emotion was because there I sat, reading elements of wisdom about our desperate need for engagement on the topic of race that I have written about on this blog for years. At times I have almost pleaded with readers to feel safe to open up to discuss the difficult issues of difference — putting up posts with a dearth of comments because few were willing to put themselves out there.
Sometimes I feel like a tiny, insignificant voice attempting to bridge a Grand Canyon-sized divide. I can’t imagine what it felt like for Barack Obama to write and deliver this speech, knowing the audience that would be receiving the message.
Because of that, in Obama’s speech I was reading the words of a man that gets it, regardless of the fact that he is a candidate for President of the United States of America that resonate with me on this issue. That he is thisclose to becoming president of this country — and to risk it all by cracking open this door on a painful area of this country — is something I thought I would never see. He is giving voice to a healthier view on race relations that needs to be embraced from a stage where it’s hard to argue that it is not an issue worth tackling.
Barack Obama is doing incredibly heavy lifting on this issue, and it’s certainly was not his initial desire. He personally wanted to steer away the conversations about race and division in this primary cycle, but because of the toxic, misguided words of others, he was left no choice but to take on the mantle.
And yet, he was not afraid to challenge people of all colors in denial that the conversations kept out of polite company need to come out of the closet. All of us need to work through the fear that words will be misunderstood or poorly received. Trust must be built, thicker skin must be developed, and emotional effort must be expended to solve these problems.
Wishing the divide it away doesn’t make it happen.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.Thank you, thank you, Barack Obama. It had to be said. I am so, so tired of watching our society flounder in silence as the disease of racism sickens us. If this speech does not result in moving us forward on this topic, we are truly lost as a society. “Post-racial” goals will never be reached if one side sees little progress and the other side thinks the problem doesn’t exist except in the most egregious cases.We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
The denial manifests itself in veiled terms that are couched in language that allows alleged plausible deniability in terms of being “racist,” defensive reactions of seeing purposeful racism in every action, rating sheer ignorance and implicit bias as equivalent to hanging someone from a noose.
All that said, he knows he is not perfect and neither should anyone else; should Barack Obama be elected he is sure to disappoint many. No candidate can harbor all of the hopes and dreams of so many and be able to deliver in the political system we have in place, full of bottom feeding consultants, backstabbing operatives, and professional DC climbers who will step on anyone and everyone to maintain power and access to power. No one can change all of this disease-ridden infrastructure upon walking into the White House. There are a lot of constituencies nipping at his heels.
Though I am not biracial, but a product of two black parents, I deeply felt what he said here about his grandmother:
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can 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 by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.You don’t have to be white to have internalized the fear of wondering if those young black men walking toward you on the street pose a threat. That doesn’t however, mean that an otherwise non-threatening black man in a suit with a briefcase walking toward you should also ratchet up fear. But for some people it does. And you don’t have to be a man. I’ve had to deal with “hailing a cab while black” and “shopping while black” on many occasions. I’ve been spared the “voting while black” or “driving while black problem” so far. What occurs far more often is that white people I speak with on the phone (vendors, business associates), who do not know me assume I am white and thus are visibly startled when meeting me.These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
This is the kind of stuff that wears on people of color on a day-to-day basis, but I’d rather put my energies into talking this stuff out than taking my ball and going home, or as Obama referred to, retreating to our corners. I wish others would do the same. But honestly, I’ve experienced just as much bias from blacks because of the “acting white” syndrome and reverse colorism - that there is some sort of standard light-skinned blacks must meet to prove themselves to be “black enough,” an issue Obama raised in the speech.
I’m reminded of how far we have to go by the comments of CNN Headline News’ bleater Glenn Beck, who reflects the implicit bias of far more people who just don’t articulate it this clumsily.
Beck responded by saying “he’s very white in many ways,” adding, “Gee, can I even say that? Can I even say that without somebody else starting a campaign saying, ‘What does he mean, “He’s very white?” ‘ He is. He’s very white.”It’s the absurdity of claiming to be colorblind, when in fact the statement is racist because it attributes Obama’s positive characteristics to the default value of whiteness, as opposed to blackness. I won’t blow this off by saying Beck is a bigot here (he may earn that label because of other statements), so much as ignorant of white privilege and how it manifests itself in what was meant to be a compliment. That there is no self-reflection on why Beck believes “colorlessness” has more to do with diction, dress, cultural neutrality is fascinating as much as it is disturbing.After the interview, Beck attempted to clarify his comments to executive producer and head writer of The Glenn Beck Program, Steve Burguiere, who is known on-air as “Stu.” Beck claimed that Obama “is colorless,” adding that “as a white guy … [y]ou don’t notice that he is black. So he might as well be white, you know what I mean?” In addition, Beck said: “I guarantee you, there will be blogs today that will have me being a racist because I say that.”
This perception that has allowed many whites to vote for Obama in spite of the under-discussed racial tensions in this country is what was breached by his association with a fiery pastor that evokes the angry black man. Perhaps a hidden angry black man.
It’s all a big mess, isn’t it? But I guess we can take some solace in the fact that while not all may agree with all aspects of Obama’s speech, people want to see it — the YouTube of it has had over one million views in 19 hours — what people will rise to the challenge on the issue of an honest and open discussion about race will be telling.
Are people willing to risk stepping on that third rail, or are they going to work to turn that charge off to make it safe for one another?
101 Responses to “Thoughts on Barack Obama’s ‘A More Perfect Union’”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Wrong, Pam- you, me and so many other bloggers are part of the bridge that will cross that divide. We can do this.
Little bricks can make cities, can make skyscrapers. Many people working together can solve problems. It takes someone who can make sense of it all, come up with a plan and organize our efforts and our thoughts, encouraging us to keep trying and giving us hope and direction.
I cried too, but I also cried when Maggie Simpson, in the voice of Elizabeth Taylor, said “Daddy”. I’m a sap and it doesn’t take much to tap into the emotions.
But this speech of Mr Obama’s…blew me away. Grabbed me and made me pay attention, shut up and listen. I hope enough others did and were moved as well.
THIS is what we must remember and talk about until November. Not just Obama’s speech, but the messages within. We must parse it out, take the chances, talk and work together to create a better America for all.
Discussing racism outside of my closest friends, the ones who understand me best, is scary. (I’m white.) My own (unintentional) racism makes me deeply uncomfortable when it rears its head.
Well, at least this helps me understand why some well-intentioned guys are scared to death of talking about feminism.
I wish I had something more useful to contribute.
Whats really impressive is that he wrote this all by himself. No speech writers or advisers, just his own words.
He’s been teaching seminar classes on race and laws in UoC. This subject is his home turf. The guy has advance law degree fer gawd sake. (It’s one of the best political speech, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise.)
Great post, Pam. I did the same thing you did: avoid blog and MSM commentary, and read the speech first. If anything the voice I heard in my head as I read it was more passionate than Obama’s actual delivery, which I watched later. I think he refrained from passion to contrast with the fiery performances of Rev. Wright as found on the clips repeated ad nauseum on CNN, etc.
I was really moved by the way he sought to connect his love yet disagreement with his pastor to the same feelings he has for his grandmother. I think that is some good “bridging.” As a white guy, I have several members of my family whom I love but who drive me nuts with their ignorant shit. This is true of all of us in America, regardless of ethnicity, color or sex (or sexuality and gender identity, for that matter.) We have inherited a lot of poison from the past that needs to be expunged. We won’t do it by pretending it’s not there.
I had a chance to watch Obama’s speech last night and I thought it was wonderful. I just wish he was making it 8 years from now after he had had a chance to gain the experience he would need to become president. As much as I enjoy him and find him to be inspiring, when it comes to electing a president, I want a PRO, not someone who believes that change is a coherent policy platform.
It’s a great speech and he’s an inspring man, but he’s still flat out not ready to be president.
It’s very encouraging that his speech has been well received by just about everyone.
It takes a lot of guts in an election year, when he’s put his future in the hands of America, to actually talk about these issues rather than find some weasel way to pretend all is well.
In an era when a lot of white people take on face value Tony Snow’s ludicrous statement about racism being over in America, it would be easy to just go along in order to ruffle as few feathers as possible.
I think he’s realized that by being serious in his pursuit of POTUS, he’s become a huge target, and many of the attacks on him will either be overtly racist, or cruise just below the surface of out-and-out racism.
By tackling this stuff head on now, he has a chance of making the bigots look so bad that their influence is greatly diminished.
God I hope so…
Don’t read the commentary, because it will only make you despair once again at how stubborn most people are. I’ve seen everything from conservatives claiming that Obama “played the race card” to Hillary supporters saying that it was a slam at Geraldine Ferraro because, apparently, equating her with his grandmother and his pastor is an insult. Or something. I’m still confused about that one.
I was able to watch the speech on television from start to finish.
I, too, was just blown away by it. To see a politician speak with such honesty was beautiful. I’ve been a supporter of Obama for a long time, but after this speech my admiration was deepened a hundred fold.
After watching, for the rest of the day, I was reluctant to listen to MSM reactions or read blog reactions. Because I knew there would be those who would miss the point and/or deliberately distort the words. There would be people just waiting to pounce, and people who need to tear down to build up themselves. I wasn’t ready to deal with that. I wanted to enjoy the moment of peace and beauty before the cacophony of politics as usual got in the way.
No matter what happens in this election, Obama and this speech give me hope that we can move forward in this country. I choose to believe that. I have to believe that.
Great post, Pam. I was fortunate enough to see it live, and it blew me away. I have *hope.* It’s a scary proposition in some ways. I live my life as if I believe that people are capable of loving one another…of seeing past our difference…of overcoming hate, cynicism and apathy.
But in quiet reflective moments…I see so much misplaced anger and acts of horrible cruelty that I wonder if things can ever get better or whether we will continue in an unending cycle of “othering.”
But within the context of this man - politician or no - I see the possibility for true empathy, for a connection between people based on our common humanity. I want to believe we can do that. I want to believe that we can move beyond othering as a way to connect to a community.
So I have hope…perhaps for the first time since I entered adulthood…I have hope.
I too have not yet seen the speech itself. I read the transcript. It was truly inspiring. I’ve also read many of the editorials and responses to said speech. The pundits and journalists are doing exactly what he anticipated, saying “Yes, well race is really important, but…”
As a white woman I am quite ignorant of what it means to be any kind of racial minority in America. I can try to imagine, to leave myself open to education, but I cannot presume. I’ve been blessed with a number of black friends who have opened my eyes to the differences between us. I am not color blind, but I am willing to address my own racial assumptions and come together with people of all races to build an America to be proud of.
I also recognize that my privileged upper-middle-class upbringing, college education and job opportunities put me in a different place than a lot of other Americans. That is why I so welcome a leader like Barack Obama, who has experienced so many different social, racial and economic environments. He has a unique perspective and a unique opportunity to expose our differences, acknowledge our fears and help America move forward.
Sort of off-topic, but not really, is anyone watching the HBO “John Adams” miniseries? Right from the very first episode they show how multiracial the US has always been, which is very nice to see since black people tend to be edited out of American history, even when they’re one of the flash points for the Revolution.
Still need to get to episode 2, but so far I’m liking it.
This was really two speeches though — one was his response to the political storm over Wright, and the other was distinctively different and spoke to me — a brave cracking open the door on the larger questions about our country’s complex, pathological issues with race.
I really haven’t seen too many people address the second speech - everyone wants to talk about whether Obama had heard Wright give a particular sermon, or whether he threw his grandmother to the wolves, or whether he was assisted by outside speechwriters. Hell, even the folks who say the speech was brilliant don’t actually talk about it much, except in terms of how it impacts his candidacy.
We *are* retreating into our respective corners. The pundits are taking the safe routes of journalism - merely reporting what Obama talked about, without comment - and punditry - talking about how the speech affects Obama’s campaign. Everyone’s talking about this discussion, but is anyone actually having it? The only folks who seem willing to pick up this topic and run with it are the ones who were already doing so.
It’s discouraging.
Mnemosyne-
Its an excellent series. I was actually shocked that blacks were allowed to testify in Massachusetts courts in the 1770s.
It also shows a lot about Abagail Adams, which is great. Shes basically a “founding mother”.
Thanks for this post. I’m so glad to have an opportunity for people to talk seriously about race in public, with an example of a better perspective, instead of just finding things to be critical of. It is a hard thing to bring up in polite conversation, but it is something I have grown more aware of and angry about since I’ve started reading more widely on the subject (like things I read in this blog, for example). I am a nightmare dinner guest: my answer to “what do you do for work?” is “think about religion and politics.” and then I want to talk about race relations. I’m ok with that.
I watched the You Tube video while reading the transcript and was blown away. I then talked to friends in MA who all said, “Are there people who really don’t know we have a race problem in this country?” There is a problem in this country not only because blacks and whites can’t talk about this, but because whites can’t talk to each other about it whereas blacks are familiar with the necessary assumptions of the conversation. Whites who know the issue look at the idiots like Glenn Beck and his reflections in our day to day life and struggle to understand how they don’t see. If you can’t understand their ignorance, how do you challenge it? How do you engage in productive conversation with someone who can say “he’s very white” and not realize the inherently fucked up assumptions that go along with that statement. It seems obvious, but he’s on TV as a spokesperson for the common man and I’m a liberal from MA. What could we possibly have in common and thus where would the conversation start from?
I was actually shocked that blacks were allowed to testify in Massachusetts courts in the 1770s.
I wasn’t, but I’m an amateur history geek.
The history of race and the treatment of African-Americans in this country is far, far more diverse than a lot of people realize. It’s really been an ebb and flow. We’ve improved immensely since the 1950s, but we’re still far behind where we were during Reconstruction. The Colonial and Revolutionary periods were much more racially diverse than we’re ever taught. The three sailors who were forcibly impressed by the British navy and set off the War of 1812? Two of them were black.
For a war that supposedly wasn’t about slavery, there sure was a major backlash against African-Americans when Reconstruction was de-fanged a few years after the Civil War. (Not that the North acted much better when black people fled the South to escape that backlash.)
Mnemosyne-
I was a history major in college but still didn’t know that! I guess its because I’m a Southerner so I assumed they wouldn’t be allowed.
You’re absolutely right that race relations have gone back and forth in this country. The Revolutionary generation was actually further ahead than the Civil War generation. You can find slave owners among the Founders, but precious few actually suggested slavery was a positive goodas virtually all the slave owners of the Civil War era did.
After the Revolutionary ferver died down things slide backward, and as you said got better in reconstruction, followed by the nadir of race relations from reconstruction until the ’50s.
Thats why Obama’s speech is so important–because it reminds us that we have work to finish and, if we don’t, we can slide backwards and lose all the progress.
Bookworm, you are so right about pundits taking the safe routes. I’d add to that the media. I was so frustrated by something I saw on CNN last night. Forgive me, I didn’t catch the names of the participating parties but this exchange really made me angry:
Pundit (black woman): The media is at fault for a lot of the racial divisions in this race. They need to stop all the polling based on who blacks voted for, who women voted for, etc. We are Americans voting for Americans.
News Anchor (white woman): But, but there are divisions.
And she moved on to the next pundit. They just can’t look at this presidential race without wanting to parse voters into as many groups as possible.
I’d say it was the single most important political speech in my lifetime. I’ve been debating about whether or not I could vote for the D candidate in the general election. I have no doubt now that if Obama is that candidate that I will vote for him.
It’s amazing to hear a major political figure make a speech on the subject of race in the US & show an understanding of current conditions. He hit on so many of those things that I’ve been arguing about w/ folks. He put it into better words than I ever have, but yeah.
So, a Dem candidate has finally articulated one of my core values in a way that agrees with me. That candidate has my vote.
A friend sent me the transcript as soon as she could find it after his speech. I read it at my desk in the office and started crying. I thought he hit it out of the park. He talked about the ugly stuff we all - regardless of our color - keep buried inside and are too afraid to examine. He dragged all that crap out into the light and said, Yes, it exists. I was so relieved and full of hope.
Last night I started hearing from the pundits who felt he hadn’t distanced himself far enough from Wright, who said he should have told his reverend that “he shouldn’t say that”. Then the right wing morons started yammering about how they thought Obama was going to “transcend race” and it turns out he’s just another “Black Power” racist; that he’d lost the vote of the white men and independents…
It suddenly occured to me that these idiots are just now starting to realize that Obama really is black.
I was a history major in college but still didn’t know that! […]
You’re absolutely right that race relations have gone back and forth in this country. The Revolutionary generation was actually further ahead than the Civil War generation.
I just realized that I have never gotten that impression from history classes: race relations were always presented as a continuous improvement from “really shitty” to “perfectly fine”. I wonder if this kind of “our generation better than anything that came before” approach to history is part of the reason so many people seem to think racism is “over” or “no longer a problem.”
Thats why Obama’s speech is so important–because it reminds us that we have work to finish and, if we don’t, we can slide backwards and lose all the progress.
Even worse: we don’t realize how much progress has already been lost. I have been very conscious of the recent resurgence of the stupidest kinds of sexism, and I would guess that the resurgence of racism is at least as bad (if not worse).
Without a good historical perspective, though, it’s really hard to notice the pendulum swinging back until it whacks you in the head.
Thanks for the post, Pam. I was also moved by the speech, and agree with John Stewart that for the first time in a very long time a politician spoke to the American public about race like an adult. He didn’t insult our intelligence or ignore that race is an important issue. I was thankful that Barack was able to get at the complexities of race and the importance for us to really deal with it in this country in a simple yet profound way. It was the best speech on race I have ever heard by a public official. I think its one of those speeches that people will be talking about for some time. Perhaps it can elicit cultural change that can lead to instituitional change for race relations in this country.
Now what we really need is a brave, honest discussion about gender in America. We need it as much as we need this discussion on race, but I don’t have the same optimism that it will occur or be greeted with the same enthusiasm. Gender is an entirely different animal for Americans.
“He’s been teaching seminar classes on race and laws in UoC. This subject is his home turf. The guy has advance law degree fer gawd sake. ”
But, but. but he’s an EMPTY SUIT!!!11!!! And he haz no real world experience!!11!!!! And hiz rezumay iz paper thin!!11!!!!
God knows we should ALWAYS take someone who finished near the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy over someone who made review at Harvard Law!!11!!!1!!
/s
You were literally one of the first people I though of when I heard this speech was in the works; I was absolutely dying to see what you had to say about it. I’m still trying to find my own words to describe how I feel about the soul shattering way I felt when he gracefully and thoughtfully addressed an issue so central to my being and love for this country.
Just watched the speech. I like it.
BUT. There is always a but in American political speeches. What is it?
This bit:
“…I will never forget, that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.”
Oh, really?
I am sick and tired of the American myth that claims that only in the United States can such a multiethnic background be possible. No, make that disgusted.
I am the son of a Jewish father and Catholic mother. My mother is culturally Uruguayan as is her family, but her ethnicity can be traced all the way back to Portugal, Spain, and Uruguayan natives. My father’s origins can be traced to Italian Jews, Romanian Jews, Polish Jews and Russian Jews. I was born and raised in Argentina, currently live in Ireland with an Irish partner, and will soon move to England.
I write that to highlight that as an Argentinian my story is NOT STRANGE. It is common. Ask around nations like Chile, Uruguay, Britain and Australia and you’ll hear similar stories of world-scattered, multiethnic backgrounds.
I accept that the United States has an interesting mix of cultures. I will go as far as saying that the fact that this is addressed at all is amazing, as depressing as that may sound to Pandagon readers. But I am very, very tired of the United States claiming supremacy over everything, even the left-wing!
That’s all I have to say. As for his remarks on race and the way he dealt with the whole situation, Barack Obama has my respect. It is because I now hold this respect for him, that the little patriotic phrase he threw in bothers me even more.
Theres nothing wrong with using a national myth in a positive way. Sometimes, its even necessary.
I don’t agree. Barack Obama, with this speech, is all about deconstructing national myths that everything is fine in the United States. It’s great in that sense.
But that little line was unnecessary rhetoric. I mean, of course it won’t offend an American. It’s saying how great the United States is, after all. But as a citizen of the Third World who is just as diverse as he is, it offends me.
I think the key word is “story” not “success”.
Silvera, if an Argentine politician said “I’m the son of an Italian Porteño mother and a Welsh father from Patagonia. In no other country is my story even possible” , I wouldn’t be offended, because he would be absolutely right.
While I’m trying to ignore the talking heads, but this guy’s response was so genuine that I have to recommend it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enaB5yj4HcE
Oy. Pretend that was in English. (Bad Kristen…no posting while on a conference call…)
Ben: But that is not the implication, and you know it. The implication is that no nation in the world is as diverse in its make-up as the United States. This has been said by many United States politicians on both sides of the left-right divide. Simply because Obama phrased it better does not mean it’s not the same idea being conveyed.
R.E. Silvera: that comment has bothered me, also, but I think of it in broader terms. That perhaps he is not speaking only of the ethnic background, but also the achievments he might not have been able to accomplish in other countries.
P.S. I have a really hard time getting my comments thru. Am I doing something wrong?
I mean, of course it won’t offend an American.
Well, yes, actually, it will. Please don’t assume all Americans are dumb, ignorant, and jingoistic; that’s offensive too.
Olivia -
The spam blocker is a trial for many. What seems to work for me is, before I hit the blaspheme button, I do a select all and copy what I have written.
That way, if the filter eats it, All I have to do is refresh the page and paste it back in. For some reason, it seems happier that way.
Anyone who had read his first book, and I mean really read it, could have known how real, direct, and personal this speech would be. It’s hard to quote an exact passage, but underlying the whole book is race relations in the U.S. (and to a lesser extent around the world).
Jon Stewart had the best reaction (funny at times of course) with this line (paraphrased from memory): “And so, at 11 AM on a Tuesday, a presidential candidate spent 45 minutes talking to the American people about race as though we were adults.”
Thanks, Peter. I’ve learned to copy my text, but it still took me a dozen tries to get that comment thru. It may be that I have a hard time reading the anti-spam text.
I think his success is possible in ANY North or South America country, if we mean by that an ethnic minority becoming the chief executive of his country. In fact, it already happened in Peru where a Japanese-Peruvian was President. It could happen in other colonial countries like Australia or New Zealand.
I’m less sure, for example, that a person of Algerian descent could be a serious candidate for President in France, or an Indian be serious contender for British PM .
I can say it would be next to impossible for a Korean to be the PM of Japan or a Mongolian to be President of China.
However, thats not to say its because of some kind of moral superiority or all that crap, its a result of different histories.
Olivia and Peter- if you plan on commenting regularly and welcome to the both of you, I would highly recommend registering (upper right corner of the banner) as it streamlines the commenting process.
I heard the latter part of the speech as he was giving it yesterday morning. I was completely blown away by it. I eagerly started making my normal blog rounds to see everyone’s reactions… I shouldn’t have gone to Shakesville first. A few of the commenters there were talking about how he “threw his grandmother under the bus” and is a big giant misogynist douchehound. I just… don’t get how that translates.
THAT made me cry.
It was a great speech on race relations in the US and yet I had my own issues with it. I did find the grandmother statement as jarring. I think that if he had used his grandfather, who also helped raise him, it would have balanced better against the Wright as mentor with flaws versus relative with flaws. He also felt it necessary to add the adjective ‘white’ in his comment on women and the glass ceiling which I felt was gratuitous ( the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling). If and when he becomes President it would be nice to see him reaffirm this speech with the power of the Presidency behind him. As I have said, it convinced me that he would have made a great professor at university but it does not put me over the top for him.
After all these comments, I decided to read the transcript for myself. At first, I thought “This is good, but not great.”
Then I got here:
And I felt like someone stole my breath and I broke down in tears.
And then he did it again:
It’s been twenty minutes and I still can’t quite breath and am still choking up. I have read the speeches of Nelson Mandella, Steve Biko, Julius Nyerere, and Patrice Lumumba– all powerful orators– but not one has ever brought me to tears.
Obama earned my vote today– me, the eternal cynic. He may not be the most experienced candidate but the man is engaged in a way that we need our next president to be engaged. So much the better if he helps a white woman like me able to have a conversation about race that will actually be productive, rather than stifled because of my own latent prejudices that I have spent my adult life trying to unlearn and fear of being misinterpreted.
But as a citizen of the Third World who is just as diverse as he is, it offends me.
I realize that the US is not the only country with racial problems — Brazil is a good example — but have they been fought over as violently as in the US? Within the past 60 years did you have full-grown white adults screaming and spitting at black schoolchildren who were trying to integrate their grade school after a court order?
That’s what you may not be getting as a resident of another country: race is a hugely vitriolic issue here with public figures still not ashamed to come out and say that a person with African blood is inherently inferior to someone whose background is mostly European.
But it’s true that other countries aren’t perfect. Northern Ireland still has adults who line up to curse and spit on schoolchildren on their first day of school, only it’s Protestant adults against Catholic children instead of white against black. I’m not sure that the religious prejudice in Ireland and Northern Ireland is much to be proud of. I’m also not sure that you’re going to have the son of a Catholic and a Protestant becoming the Prime Minister of Ireland anytime soon.
Has anyone heard or read his speech on Iraq today? Its up on youtube now, and is excellent once again.
A good excerpt where he goes after the Republicans:
How is it “throwing his grandmother under the bus” if it’s true? I just — it’s so incredibly typical of race discourse in America that you’re a MONSTER if you point out that something someone else said or did is, like, kinda sorta tinged with racism — *even* if you totally do it with love, forgiveness, empathy, and understanding. Like the best, nicest, kindest, politest way to behave is *never* to mention the possibilty that *anyone* might be the teensiest bit racist unless they are (1) a toothless redneck haw haw! — that is to say, poor — (2) white but dead a long time ago or (3) black.
And, god, the people who say “oh, Obama is great — SO GREAT, don’t get me wrong — but *not ready yet*”. MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail is a Google search away. Give it a look see.
How is it “throwing his grandmother under the bus” if it’s true?
Not to mention…umm…Its true? White people (myself, my parents, my grandparents) have to own our culpability and the racism that runs through our community.
My grandmother had klan memorabilia in her home when I was a little girl. She said hateful, racist things. She believed hateful, racist things. I loved her dearly and she was the touchtone of feminism for me as a young girl growing up in a fundie community. But she was a highly imperfect person.
Fortunately, later in her life she changed. She began to see all people as equal and was able to strike up friendships with her African American and Latino neighbors.
But that doesn’t undo the pain she caused. If she were still alive, I’m sure she would own her contributions to our racist society. That is the strong, moral (yes, flawed but trying to do the right thing) person that she was. Why is the acknowledgment of that mean that you’re throwing someone under a bus?
Ouch,
update on Hillary. So her first Lady schedule book is released. (and she get cought lying and puffing up claims.)
1. NAFTA. (obviously she lied and promote NAFTA)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/19/16710/5636/924/480135
2. Her schedule shows now record she was negotiating peace in Ireland/Kosovo
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/19/155656/821/917/480126
3. She also busted for lying about Family act. (it’s not her doing, as she claimed.)
Because …. his grandfather is not a relative, but only a mentor?
He was saying that two people who might appear to be opposites (black minister/white grandmother) can sometimes say things he doesn’t agree with or that sound harsh or racist.
It also prefigures the “Ashley” story later in the speech: in one instance, you have a black man/white woman who disagree, and in the other you have a black man/white woman who are able to agree.
I hate to break it to you, but for most minority women in the workplace, running into the glass ceiling specifically because of gender with no relation to race isn’t common. At all.
Kathleen: I don’t think there is anything wrong with acknowledging that Obama is relatively new to the national political scene and that we have concerns about how he will navigate as president. In fact, these are the kinds of questions that should have been asked of Bush but were overlooked because people assumed Daddy Bush would be one of his advisors. Besides, idealists don’t usually make great presidents– but an idealist with a pragmatic political agenda and an engagement with the electorate can overcome the liability of inexperience.
Now if you are seeing the conversation about his inexperience as a proxy for race, that might be an interesting and enlightening discussion.
OH MY GOD!
Has anyone else seen the sermon from Pastor James David Manning from ATLAH Worldwide?
OH MY GOD!
That man is UNHINGED!!!
Obama is an emissary of the devil! Obama is a pimp!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU
I think, in the thread at Shakesville, people were saying that he referenced his white grandmother specifically to write off white women voters — or, to be more blunt, that he was using his grandmother as a surrogate for Hillary Clinton and rhetorically beating on her. (Nevermind the fact that he WASN’T rhetorically beating on his grandmother).
I really feel that to assume that dismisses the a) intentions of the rhetorical device of comparing, as Mnemosyne mentioned, two people who in many ways are polar opposites but still have the ability to say wrong-headed things, and b) the rest of Obama’s life. Does he have issues with male privilage? Of course. Most men do. But he’s not Joe f*ing Francis here.
Sorry, that’s a bit OT. I’m just very frustrated by that point.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with acknowledging that Obama is relatively new to the national political scene and that we have concerns about how he will navigate as president. In fact, these are the kinds of questions that should have been asked of Bush but were overlooked because people assumed Daddy Bush would be one of his advisors.
By that logic, we should also have asked that question of Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, and on and on and on. A large percentage of our presidents have been “relatively new to the national political scene.” The more appropriate question is how new they are to politics.
Well, more than that….
c) that he DIDN’T love either and
d) that he was lying when he said he loved her.
Sorry, but that’s just mentally unhinged to believe that.
History Mom — I see the discussion of his “inexperience” as a proxy for “I don’t want to vote for him but I don’t want to say why even to myself thank god I have found somehthing that sounds plausible to explain it”.
The “inexperience” charge — you know, if he were more experienced the same people would say “well, he’s just great but if only he weren’t such a Washington insider / statehouse politico / bloodless strategist”. I do think that the “not yet” argument prompted by his supposed inexperience (U.S. Senator is not county dogcatcher, after all) really, really, really calls up the “well, now, I’m all for change but let’s go slow” attitudes that liberal racists have always deployed in response to race issues.
But I also think the “Goldilocks” approach to political experience just gives people a way to lament how the politicians they don’t like anyway are too hot or too cold, never just right. So I’ll out myself as a Naderite in 2000: ask me how well holding out for “just right” worked out.
Abraham Lincoln had eight years in the state legislature of Illinois, and two unremarkable years as a member of the House.
He became one of our greatest Presidents ever.
Richard Nixon, OTOH, had a very long resume, and how did he turn out?
But there are still people alive that think that Nixon was a good president. Honest. I’m not making this up. They also generally revere Ronnie Raygun too.
Wait, Ben, what’s your point?
;)
Eh, those same people probably thought Herbert Hoover was a great President too.
Thankfully, they probably make up that 31% that still approves of George W. Bush and aren’t going to be the swing voters in this election.
Speaking of Lincoln, his successor was Governor, Senator, and Vice President. Hes also our second-worst President behind his predecessor, another guy with plenty of Washington experience. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY except Confederate Symps would regard them as great Presidents.
He: Hawise @ 3:05pm
I wonder if maybe he chose to use his grandmother as the example rather than his grandfarther because his grandmother is still alive and his grandfather is not. I am not 100% sure that she is still alive but I have heard him mention that he spoke to her after he gave the keynote speech in 2004 and I have not heard anything about her passing away since then and I do pay pretty close attention to Obama news, as I am an admirer of his.
Also, I remember the passage from his book where he talks about her being afraid of black men on the street and that in that conversation Obama’s grandfather was the one calling her out for it. So he just may not have used his grandfather as the example because his grandfather was genuinely not (as) racist.
PinkyLeftBrain March 19, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Richard Nixon, OTOH, had a very long resume, and how did he turn out? // But there are still people alive that think that Nixon was a good president. Honest. I’m not making this up. They also generally revere Ronnie Raygun too.”
Roosevelt begun his tenure with pretty thin “experience” too.
Huh.
My parents deliberately moved to a mixed neighborhood when I was small, because they were starry-eyed back then. But then they became bitter; and my father said racist things. So I loved that Sen. Obama was willing to say that about his grandmother. It resonated. It seemed clear to me that he was saying he loved his grandmother, that it was ok for him to love her, and by extension for me to love me father.
It was one of my favorite bits, actually.
I realize that the US is not the only country with racial problems — Brazil is a good example — but have they been fought over as violently as in the US?
I do seem to recall some unpleasantness in Europe around the middle of last century…
I watched the speech yesterday morning and was very impressed. I’ve avoided suchlike for most of this cycle, and it was by pure chance I decided to click on his. Jon Stewart’s right, and for the first time in a long time, someone’s talked to us about race like we were actually able to think. The whole “only in America” bit seemed unnecessary and tacked on to me, but it was standard political “babies need to eat” boosh-whah. Man, you see how jittery folks are about the idea that maybe America isn’t as lily-white as we’d like to think, you really think they’re ready for someone to tell them “Look, you’re being obnoxious” when it comes to patriotism? Jesus, can you imagine the meltdown?
I must confess that the grandmother kerfluffle has me flummoxed. I don’t know how old Obama’s grandmother is, but I’m sure she wasn’t the only white person back in them days who made cringe-worthy statements concerning other ethnic groups. From what I understand, quite a lot of white people throughout most of the 20th century had some goddamn embarrassing ideas about not-white folk and weren’t quiet about it. I sorta gathered that was the whole problem.
Hell, my mammaw has been known to say the most horribly racist things. You’ll tell her, “Mommaw, that ain’t right”, and she’s real good about seeing how what she’d been taught and surrounded by all her life is not only hurtful to other folks she likes - and Mommaw likes everybody* - but just flat-out wrong. My mother, who came of age during the Civil Rights era, isn’t much better. She knows better and knows she should know better, but she’s still got a metric ton of Northeast Mississippi red-clay ruralness to dig through.
I don’t understand that, the idea that racism of the past, even the past within living memory, was some sort of “Other” and not the most of us white people. Not everyone was a screaming Klansman, of course, but a whole lot of people were awfully concerned about “those kinds of people, you know, those kinds.” We should have a day where people can come up and admit to some dumbass racist (or sexist or homophobic or whathaveyou) thought or deed or assumption or whatever, just to get it out of your system.
I’m Matt, and I used to think the Confederate flag was an appropriate and not at all ignorant-ass-racist symbol for a young country boy seeking identity to appropriate. Sorry. I was a goober. I know better now.
*She’ll tell you, “I reckon I like everybody I meet, ‘cause everyone I ever didn’t like is dead, and I didn’t like them enough to suit me the rest of my life.” And she’ll tell you who they were, too, even if she’s just met you. Mommaw don’t give a damn.
Well, I think that most people DO think of racism only in terms of lynchings and screaming Klansmen. Some of the more subtle stuff is totally off their radar and they get offended when you point it out.
She knows better and knows she should know better, but she’s still got a metric ton of Northeast Mississippi red-clay ruralness to dig through.
Oh, it’s not just Mississippi. My late beloved Irish-German grandmother, born and raised outside of Chicago, used the word “ghosts” in front of me when I was in junior high. Because, you know, that was more high-class than calling people “spooks.”
But I guess that telling that story means that I must have hated my grandmother or I wouldn’t even mention that she had human flaws, would I?
Jeez, who doesn’t have a grandparent who has made racially insensitive comments? I don’t know anyone who doesn’t, including me. Heck, my parents have been known to make those sort of remarks.
I am sick of seeing commentary saying that Obama was throwing his grandmother under the bus. Either these commentators are regurgitating right-wing talking points or they didn’t read the damn speech. I didn’t cry reading it, but I was amazed that we have a presidential candidate who, yes, talked to us all like we were adults. I think I have to start contributing to his campaign.
I was floored by this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTFLOu8fjxU
Start watching at 4:45.
Totally delurking here. And this is in reference to the history geek off topic thread. But, I defy anyone who has read the transcripts of the Senate debates on the 13th to tell me that the Civil War was not fought over slavery.
Having just read all of the debates in the house and senate, I’ve been struggling to understand where this rumor that the civil war wasn’t about slavery all started.
But I guess the crazy people think that it was fought over property rights. You know the right to own human property, that is.
Blame Big Cotton. By the Revolutionary Period it was becoming clear that slavery, with the industries that were becoming dominant at the time, simply wasn’t that useful or cost effective and was well on the way to dying. What changed was the cotton gin and the massive expansion of cotton plantations. All of a sudden the South had a major money-making industry where slave labour did make economic sense, and when your economy depends on slaves at the same time as the world around you is slowly becoming more hostile to the notion of slavery, you need all sorts of justifications to explain why you’re doing things that would have made the Romans look askance.
I’m a white woman and I want to talk about it, but I don’t know how. I don’t know how to even start the conversation. And I guess at a certain level I’m terrified that this would mean that I would be bumbling and lame and insult everybody, all the time. And of course there’s the knowledge under all of that where I’m over here on the side of the oppressors, and what the hell do I do with that?
Put a fork in him. Obama is done. It turns out that having a mentor who believes the AIDS virus was created as an evil plot by whites to kill blacks is not a huge vote getter. Even in 2008.
It’s hard to imagine a single swing state that Obama could now win. Check out these apples:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/19/145653/053
Let’s just hope the superdelegates step in, for the good of the party and the country.
This is my cassandra prediction:
Hillary will start going negative, her crew knows Obama promises not to go negative.
Obama negative will increase, while Hillary still can’t win. She will litigate and call her wealthy connection and buddies to prop her back room effort.
So democratic party has two extremely weakened candidates.
McCain wins.
Watch her Michigan move and TV/media hacks. That’s her machine.
Hawise @ 41:
It’s crucial that he added “white” to “women.” It’s uncomfortable, but it’s accurate to note that many of the advantages white women have accumulated haven’t been extended to black women or women from other backgrounds, and that white women need to work against their internalized racism as much as white men. If he had made it all about his grandfather, again, it would have reinforced the false notion that it’s just “(rich) white men” who are responsible for the problems in our society, which is exactly what he rejects about Rev. Wright’s diatribe. It’s all of us, including Obama himself, who are responsible for the flaws in our society.
It’s hard to imagine a single swing state that Obama could now win. Check out these apples:
Gosh, 88 percent of Kentucky Republicans say they’ll vote for McCain over Obama? And 74 percent say they’ll vote for McCain over Hillary?
Wow, that’s a shocker. Next thing you’ll tell me the sky is blue.
And calling Kentucky a “swing state” is more than a bit of a stretch there, pumpkin:
Our lost moment of renewed greatness. I offer my soliloquy to Sen. Obama for your commiseration.
Our lost moment of renewed greatness. I offer my soliloquy to Sen. Obama for your commiseration.
http://bobbyvhowell.blogspot.com/2008/03/our-lost-moment-of-greatness.html
Hmm…waiting for someone to point out a single place where I said that relative lack of national political experience usually made for poor presidents. Nope, didn’t say it anywhere– though I did make a comment about idealists not necessarily making great presidents. I simply said that it could be a concern among many others when considering the merits of a candidate and something that should have given more people pause when it came to Bush. Likewise, people should think hard about a candidate who has made national politics a career– are they out of touch with the electorate? I’m sorry if I’m not getting how this is a cop-out. I weigh many factors when deciding who to vote for and I refuse to be shamed by those who think I shouldn’t ask these kind of questions or have certain concerns. You are welcome to consider whatever factors you want in making your choice, but don’t invalidate mine, m’kay?
I personally believe that many people do use the “inexperience” label as a proxy for race, in order to avoid coming out and saying they don’t think a black man is as qualified to be president as a white man. I see conservatives dismiss Clinton for the same reason, whereby “inexperience” stands in for “female”. But then I think it goes back to the ways in which we talk around race and racism in this country rather than confront it head-on.
I guess Rachel and I are in the same boat. I’m always shy about discussing race because I’m certain I’ll screw it up and make more enemies than friends. But I will say that Pandagon and the Blend have been very helpful in helping me expose my inherent biases and show me how much of my own experience is privileged thanks to my race. So, thank you for that.
One thing that was weird about reading the second part of the speech on Pandagon was how much it sounded like Pam’s regular blogging here. I almost scrolled up to make sure I hadn’t missed a close tag or something.
When I saw an excerpt from the speech posted at Slacktivists, for a minute I thought Fred was writing something he wished Obama would have said, an “Obama from an alternate universe” speech. I held my breath hoping it was real. When I watched and read the whole thing, I thought, “OMG. Barack Obama is quoting Pam Spaulding! Someone on the national stage is saying what she’s being saying for years! YES!”
Also, I love that he says it won’t all get fixed by his candidacy, and that the job is to make the Union “more perfect”, not immediately-right-now-fix-everything. Because that means he’s talking about the issue, not about how terribly cool Barack Obama is. Ahhhh, so very, very good.
(That his doing this makes me think Barack Obama is terribly cool is nontrivial, of course. Still.
)
(And yes, as a Canadian, I did twitch at the “only in America” line. Oh well. We’ll have to have that conversation with him another day–but this speech gives me hope that we can at least take ONE step forward, and then another, and another. I’m refusing to read the pundits–I don’t want to spoil my hopeful thoughts.)
Medicine Man @ 67.
Remember that Scarborough didn’t see any problem with a woman showing up dead in his office in Florida.
He’s high class all the way, uh huh… That fraud.
Wanna example of that ‘liberal media’? His career as politician was over but he could still suck off some organization with big money still…
Ass-hat…
Oh man, I loathe Joe Scarborough. At least Sean Hannity is honest about being a nutbag right-winger. Scarborough puts on this ridiculous facade of being “objective” and “independent” while still slipping in his right-wing views under the radar.
Plus nothing makes me cringe more than when Republicans go on their shtick about “the heartland” and “the REAL America”. Ick.
“Plus nothing makes me cringe more than when Republicans go on their shtick about “the heartland” and “the REAL America”. Ick.”
And that’s exactly why you never win any states in the Heartland, Benjy. Ick indeed.
No, its not that I denigrate the heartland. I live in southern Virginia for God’s sake. What I hate is elitist Wall Street-type Republicans like Joe Scarborough purporting to speak for people like my neighbors and I. He doesn’t.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Well, I agree that Scarborough is a waste of space. I don’t hate him, but I have no idea why he has a show. You would think there’s more interesting talent out there, but I guess not.
Folks, Reagan was a disastrous president, but he was in no way a “newcomer to national politics” or “inexperienced” when he won in 1980. He’d been a 2-term governor of California (which was either the largest or 2nd-largest state at the time) and he’d run for president against his own party’s sitting Pres in 1976 (and almost beat out Dole for the VP nod).
The thing that struck me about the speech (and in a good way) was that Obama was essentially saying that class trumps race — he accounts for racism as a result of the stresses and pressures of living in a capitalist economy with a thin safety net; and he talks about our problems are really caused by corporate interests. That’s almost like a soft Edwards rap, and the first time I’d heard an explicitly class-based analysis of the society from Obama.
It does leave open the question of elite white racism — although it may be fair to infer that Obama recognizes that it exists, but has no sympathy for it.
Alright- I said that those two comments jarred me and by that I meant that as I listened to him speak the fact that he said them brought me out of the speech and then I had to get back in.
I suspect that personal experience and a feeling that he protects his male relations while using his female ones is what pulled me out about the grandmother section. My experience was with a elderly man, immigrated to Canada in 1916, 8th grade education, working class. His language on race was straight out of the thirties but he remembered cheering Jackie Robinson at the game where he broke into baseball with the Montreal Royals. I would have liked to hear Obama balance his relationship with Wright to one with a male relation as I feel that that is probably closer to how the relationship works and would have rung more true to me. He brought the relationship with his grandfather into the speech at the beginning and he could have continued with it at that point.
The ‘white’ adjective was more jarring yet. He had scrupulously avoided gender in most of the speech (barring reference to relatives and a few men and women comments) and then had to use the adjective, I don’t think so. Others will experience it differently but I found it gratuitous.
Pinky @ 81
Yep, I agree about Scarborough. I was just a bit surprised that Mike Huckabee was so rational about the whole thing. Not what I expected.
Then I guess the party is just toast, if that’s what you think.
1 out of 5 Democrats will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she can only win the nomination with the Superdelegates. She’ll get Mondaled if she has to take the nomination through a backroom deal.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4469803&page=1
Then I guess the party is just toast, if that’s what you think.
1 out of 5 Democrats will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she can only win the nomination with the Superdelegates. She’ll get Mondaled if she has to take the nomination through a backroom deal.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4469803&page=1
I really find the kvetching here about Obama’s “only in America” comment extremely silly- the man is running for POTUS, not as Emporer or Grand Poohbah of Teh Worldz…
louise- if the next POTUS is to fix America’s reputation in the world than the ‘only in America’ remark and the reaction outside the borders is important. America is not alone in its rotten race relations, just a different historic path. The sense that Americans just don’t get it is a large part of why it will be an uphill struggle to fix its international standing.
if the next POTUS is to fix America’s reputation in the world than the ‘only in America’ remark and the reaction outside the borders is important.
Come on…you mean you don’t think your country is the best in the world? It’s like USC fans saying they have the best football team or a state citizen saying they have the best people. My Canadian co-workers are always talking about how much better Canada is than the US. I’m always talking about how much more awesome Hawaii is than Maryland. My husband constantly refers to how much better the Red Sox are compared to every other team in the history of teams. It is not a serious intellectual discussion…its a rah, rah moment where you acknowledge your national pride. Sure the good ol’ U.S.A. has serious problems and fails at a whole lot of things - but does that mean you can’t think positively about it over all?
Hogwash.
But bear in mind that John Kerry advertised his attractiveness to world audiences and it played out as “John Kerry wants to be the POTUS that French people like rather than the POTUS that American people want.” And Obama has already acknowledged on several occasions that he intends to work hard on restoring America’s relationships with other nations.
I think Obama nailed it even with the nationalistic language, because he deliberately used it to evoke what our grade schools had been saying to all of us in our youth (America is special and is (well, was) seen as a beacon of hope around the world) and link the pride Americans *want* to feel about their country with the need to address our racial differences head on.
I don’t think any country is the best in the world and the shining city on the hill has been showing a lot of potholes recently. I have heard back and forth that remains good natured but I have also heard some serious resentment from international visitors especially from South America and North Africa. I think that there are other ways to express national pride in such an important speech and especially when we know that the world is keeping a tight eye on this election.
Hawise: On the one hand, I get where you and others are coming from re: “only in America” but I also think you are reading way too much into the comment. It is a national election for the highest office in our country– candidates are going to say things that are meant solely for American ears and to evoke their national pride in order to make them feel good about electing that particular candidate. He was not speaking to the rest of the world about how his administration will interact with other nations. I see no reason to take this comment as indicative of his attitude about the rest of the world.
I do think that that HIS story and HIS success could only happen for HIM in America and he hopes others will feel that same hope in their own lives. It’s a lame comment (IMHO) but I don’t think it is nearly as exclusionary as y’all seem to think. Of course, given the American tendency to promote the exceptionalism myth as truth, I can understand why it would come off poorly.
history mom- I was mostly responding to louise’s problem with the ‘kvetching’ that started with a comment by an international reader/commenter. In the era of global communications the insularity of national politics can be misinterpreted especially in an election cycle that is bound to have a major impact outside American borders. The candidates are already talking about changing international treaties, making changes to an international war and that is going to make international observers nervous about how they view such things as race relations, religious diversity and international commerce. This is a national election for the candidates but it will have a major impact on American policies for the near future and that makes the rest of the world concerned about details that Americans may not perceive as important.
Hawise: I was taking the “only in America” comment with relation to becoming POTUS, which I thought was a very lawyerly way of saying something completely true while saying something that sounds very patriotic. If Obama had not been born in the U.S., he would not be able to become POTUS. And he needed to say something patriotic-sounding in that speech because of all of the flack he’s been getting about not being patriotic enough.
Oh, and BTW, I lived in Germany for a while when Reagan was President. I caught a lot of grief for the U.S. doing something so amazingly blockheaded as electing an actor, of all people, to one of the most powerful positions in the world. Many Germans I knew were extremely worried about what Reagan would do, because they felt his lack of education would lead him into making what they called cowboy decisions. (They had difficulty explaining to me what they meant by this, but I believe they meant that diplomacy should be subtle.)
So maybe our foreign partners should contrast and compare Obama’s fairly mildly patriotic statements with Reagan’s rhetoric if they’re getting worried.
I think the eight flags behind him covered the patriotic message but the comments are towards the perception that R.E. Silvera had that Obama was implying that his personal story was only possible in America and that there was some resentment towards the insularity of that reasoning.