Replies

While checking out the responses to Obama's speech on Democratic undergroung I came across an objective response to the speech. A poster on democratic underground did an exceptional job of explaining why the speech failed, this is what he had to say and it is spot on. Needless to say, he took a lot of flames but stood his ground regarding his analysis:

"It was a fine speech for fluffing supporters: it failed to do what it needed to do."

Obama Supporters are missing the point, as did Obama. This speech was great troop fodder, but to anyone coming in ambivalent or skeptical...it completely missed the mark. These important points were missed, or brought up and not supported.

1) He was present for Wright's speeches

What he NEEDED TO SAY BUT DIDN'T: he said nothing about not being there or not hearing the "GOD DAMN AMERICA" speech. This was a major omission.

2) He won't distance himself from Wright.

What he NEEDED TO SAY BUT DIDN'T: this issue was key if he wanted to defuse the "guilt by association" issue. Does it matter to you that he wouldn't "throw Wright under the bus?" Likely. Does it matter to those who saw this as racist or anti-American that he DID NOT "throw Wright under the bus?" ABSOLUTELY. Another MAJOR omission.

3) He didn't leave the church. He spent 20 years there listening to Dr. Wright, and gave no good justification.

What he NEEDED TO SAY BUT DIDN'T: This speech was not supposed to be for supporters. He WAS at this church for 20 years. During that time, detractors are going to find it impossible to believe that he did not agree with everything said. Now I'm a pretty tolerant guy, but I pulled my kids out of a church my family had belonged to for 20+ years and my late father had been a deacon of because they started on a "Love the sinner/Hate the sin" tact related to the Gay community. If I can do that, what are less tolerant people going to believe of him?

4) He identifies with several important white people in his life, such as his mother and grandmother.

What he NEEDED TO SAY BUT DIDN'T: This UNFORTUNATELY sets up #4.

5) He blames Dr. Wright's racism on white society.

What he NEEDED TO SAY BUT DIDN'T: the way he words it, yes, he does blame it on white society. He speaks of current "...endemic white racism..." This isn't history, and it makes it look like he is betraying his mother and grandmother.

6) He asks us to UNDERSTAND Wright's message.

What he NEEDED TO SAY BUT DIDN'T: this was exactly what he DID NOT need to do. This was to distance from that message. Instead, it looks like he reinforced it, and therefore in the eyes of detractors, embraced it.

7) He rationalizes Wright's racism.

What he NEEDED TO SAY BUT DIDN'T: People who needed to be shown he was not racist and did not support Wright's racist message were likely not reassured.

8) He defends his membership in said church.

What he NEEDED TO SAY BUT DIDN'T: you can see that this is not what he needed to do. Supporters are forgiving of any issue that might have a negative slant. This does nothing to dispel this slant. I know people, not very SOPHISTICATED people, put sharp enough to go to the Trinity Web site, which, to someone with a somewhat closed mind, reads like an AFRICAN SEPARIST church web site. THIS may have been the myth he most needed to dispel, and he completely failed.

Rest assured, I do not think him a racist. I do not think him stupid. But this speech does nothing it needed to do. As a supporter, you heard and read what you wanted to get out of the speech. The person he needed to convince sat there saying "...yeah, yeah, get ON With it; clear it up or shut up." He did neither. In my opinion, his speech failed to convince the unbeliever. This was the wrong speech at the wrong time."