2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

awesome

SPECIAL OFFER
Blacks exploited by their own leadership
Civil-rights establishment makes lucrative career out of keeping racial strife alive
--Shop.WND.com

my old roomate used to refer to WND for all his 'analysis'

pundit on today's Talk of the Nation whining about "well why didn't he address this BEFORE"

even clinton was saying complimentary things about this speech, and she hadn't even HEARD it

this is a gimme for her. all she has to do is smile politely and she comes out ahead.

this is keeping him in the news cycle and her out of it, though

Pundits still be whinin'? Who knew?

What a bunch of UGH. Not surprised at all when RW get all entitled about needing 'explanations' and 'repudiations', then get their fucking explanation etc, cue reconfiguration of goalposts. They didn't like that explanation and want another one. Nothing Barack Obama does is ever going to satisfy these people.

Reading the comments upthread has made it seem like all these conservative pundits have moved their goalposts to a moon made of cheese.

like until akm mentioned it, asking "what did hrc think of this" hadn't even occurred to me or (i imagine) a lot of people (?)

xp

up until today i think hillary was perfectly happy staying out of this news cycle. PA's a long ways away. as for the conservative pundits, nothing brings out the sharpened knives like overt threats to the natural order.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change

From a Guardian commentator:

That's why the speech exemplifies the deepest virtue of Obama's campaign, which is its stand against the politics of picayune bullshit.

Americans have endured election after election in which endlessly amplified talking heads have harped on risible questions of style and shallow analysis of dubious microtrends (Microtrends, of course, being the title of a book by Hillary Clinton's chief strategist). Who can forget all the blathering about Al Gore's embrace of earth tones and the implications for his masculinity? Or speculation as to whether John Kerry's windsurfing would sink him? George Bush had to drive the nation into multi-fronted catastrophe before we stopped hearing about what a fine beer-drinking companion he would make (and that despite the fact that he's a teetotaling recovering alcoholic.)

why is it I still laugh at the Onion despite the fact that it's the same joke over and over again

Also @ person upthread incredulous re. jocks having to learn the difference between Shia and Sunni - or black 'charismatic' churches, for that matter - in HS. It's a crime when they don't. What's school for? YMMV but I have no doubt that potentially divisive issues such as race and religion can be turned into 'teaching opportunities', even for morans, as this was my experience:

By far the most influential {religion studies] program now in use is that developed by Lee Smith and Wes Bodin of St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Originating in a suburban system near Minneapolis, their course on world religion grew out of a controversy about school holidays. The local community, approximately one-third Lutheran, one-third Jewish and one-third Roman Catholic, was sharply divided. The high school elective course that Smith and Bodin developed has significantly improved interfaith relations. Its carefully crafted materials (filmstrips, tapes and texts) are used nationwide -- indeed, throughout the English-speaking world. Funded by three successive grants from the U.S. Department of Education, the project was able to develop class-tested materials and to enlist the support of recognized historians of religion.

An important aspect of Smith and Bodin’s material is their encouragement and support of pluralism. Each student is expected to be what he or she is religiously; there is no advocacy. At the same time, clergy in the communities where the course has been used report that younger members of their congregations come to them, seeking information.

At the beginning of the Minnesota course, Smith and Bodin ask students to identify religious agencies (synagogues, churches, hospitals, schools), places and persons that they know in their local community. The list turns out to be a long one. Why should all that it represents be taboo in the American public-school curriculum, when it is so deeply a part of American life -- past and present? The NCC’s Kelley reported that recently a leading born-again Christian remarked in public that a great door had been opened by the Supreme Court’s decision on teaching about religion, but it has not yet been walked through. There will have to be more recognition of the need to walk through that door before major dilemmas are overcome.

believing that the education of children is for liberals to control 2

Conflation of unstated liberalism with basic common sense part 2957463

Also @ person upthread incredulous re. jocks having to learn the difference between Shia and Sunni - or black 'charismatic' churches, for that matter - in HS. It's a crime when they don't. What's school for?

I wasn't incredulous that they have to learn the difference. I was incredulous that not knowing the difference between rival sects of Islam reminded you of high school jocks, of all things. I mean, yes, many probably don't know the difference, but when are they ever talking about it? "Oh fuck bro, I totally meant 'Sunni' when we were talking earlier about the problems in Kurdistan."

An excellent response by Michael Crowley, probably the best I've read yet.

LOLs. Though in my school it was more like "Shauvot? Is that Jewish for Sabbath, dude? Do you get a free day for that one too?"

i can't help but wonder if mlk would've been raked by the media we've got today. seriously, watching the morning news was kind of sickening today. "he didn't distance himself enough from wright" blah blah.

wtf?

sure, i still think the speech was no mlk glory hallway-lou-yeah, but damn.

i have a question for america: do you have a butthead friend that says stupid or at least very opiniated/controversial shit? do you disown that person?

i mean, because i have a load of ultra-conservative family and friends. some of my in-laws are downright embarassing southern bama buttheads who think michael savage is a genius, but are they occasionally funny and actually really nice people? yeah. do i respect their advice on some things? sure. even tho they're lunatics as far as national politics goes, that's not a reason to cut them totally out of my life.

i'm having a really hard time getting the story fed from the media. don't people get that being a politician means sort of well... being polite to people who are on your side 75% of the time, even tho their pretty weird on that other 25%?

nonstory elevated.
m.

ugh, proofreading is not my friend. i disowned that asshole.
m.

yeah msp i think that's what the "he's like family" line was trying to convey - we've all got at least a couple of family members who are shitballs insane when it comes to politics but we don't disown them

lol http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=229108

i just did slate's delegate calculator with the highest estimate for clintons 26 pt lead in pennsylvania and it still leaves her 110 delegates behind obama

I wasn't incredulous that they have to learn the difference. I was incredulous that not knowing the difference between rival sects of Islam reminded you of high school jocks, of all things. I mean, yes, many probably don't know the difference, but when are they ever talking about it? "Oh fuck bro, I totally meant 'Sunni' when we were talking earlier about the problems in Kurdistan."

This happened all the time when I was in college.

i can't help but wonder if mlk would've been raked by the media we've got today.

No doubt in my mind. Just watched this agitprop doc, War Made Easy, which features a clip of MLK's 'Beyond Vietnam' speech in '67. He called the US government the "leading purveyor of violence in the world." THAT King would be demonized (and was condemned then). And get "distanced" by Obama, you know.

^^^^ hi dere missing the point of Obama's speech, namely that we aren't living in the sixties and we've progressed beyond sixties rhetoric.

arizona state, right? xp

xp: No, not missing it. The US is still the leading purveyor of violence in the world.

And get "distanced" by Obama, you know.

I think you'll find his Wright response is a little more nuanced than that.

Um, my point wasn't that King said something that was incorrect, my point was that the media response to King's statements would have been different and would have generated a different political response because it was a different era.

Simon, I read it. He "condemned...the statements... that have caused such controversy." Joe Lieberman, who Barry endorsed in the '06 CT primary over Ned Lamont, has said way more fucked-up shit than the Rev has. Just not "controversial."

Yes, Dan, I accept that.

and I know Lieberman isn't Obama's rabbi, so please don't go dere.

WAIT OBAMA A JEW

The reactions to Obama's speech in the media and elsewhere are a pretty good litmus test of who's a nasty partisan tribalist provocateur and who's actually sane.

strangely a lot of nasty partisan tribalist provocateurs liked it too

i mean, pat robertson and jerry falwell blamed 9-11 on hot gay sex and those guys get invited to whitehouse to have bbq and hang out.

what's more crackpot, that 9-11 was caused by our questionable foreign policy over the last several decades or that it was caused by abortion rights?

nobody's disowning the gop preachers.

What's the difference between a nasty partisan tribalist provocateur and a reasonable person whose value system is antithetical to yours?

ABT TEN DOLLARS LOLOLO !!!!!

(im aware that that doesnt make any sense)

Is Juan Williams _really_ the only guy NPR can find to cover all this stuff(aside from mara liasson)?

xp: and where does making a pass at exonerating Israel in the midst of their current atrocities fit into your tribal values?

What's the difference between a nasty partisan tribalist provocateur and a reasonable person whose value system is antithetical to yours?

Thank you for asking this.

On Juan Williams -- there's definitely a disingenuous expectations game that's coloring a lot of the reaction to the Obama speech in order to tamp down its significance; According to the prescribed rules of Washington politics, there was an objective that Obama needed to accomplish (distance himself from Wright once and for all) but he failed to do so (when in fact, I think, he accomplished something far more important). I understand where this argument can be explained as the reflex of a political analyst, but covering the political angles and not the actual content serves the public really poorly.

OK elmo, what's the significance? It's an intelligent, decent speech when it's not making its overt, pandering political points; but mighty few people are likely to be citing (or remembering it) 3 months from now.

According to the prescribed rules of Washington politics, there was an objective that Obama needed to accomplish (distance himself from Wright once and for all) but he failed to do so (when in fact, I think, he accomplished something far more important

Listening to Cuban talk radio now, I've made the exact same observation. Someone called in and said (in Spanish), "If he HAD condemned this man, you'd be accusing him of being a typical politician and that his career was finished." The moderator spluttered and cut her off.

morbus you crazy, it's a huge huge speech. people will be talking about it for the entire election

YAY Cuban radio caller. HI DERE in Wake The Fuck Up OTM.

Yeah basically I'm going with the hope that the tribalist provocation industry will undermine itself by arguing in circles until it goes batshit insane and that most people will recognize the narrative arc rather than be drawn in. I will sell bags of all these popcorn for $2 if people want to settle in and watch.

Morbius, the nuances of getting Israel to do anything reasonable WRT its neighbours without pitching some handbagger of a hissy fit for even *mentioning* Palestine in mixed company are perhaps beyond you, as you are now doing exactly that yourself prompted by Obama's mention of Israel. But we do have to begin by taking responsibility for an alliance of 60 years, hence the use of the word 'stalwart', before that happens. This should be an obvious point of embarkation.

morbs i think you are very wrong about how long/in what context this will be remembered. honestly i would put money on this thing being printed as a pamphlet/small book, and the only awkward part of it will be all of the stuff about wright ("who's that??") once we get some distance.

and yes it is v frustrating to see the media hold the speech up to a standard that obama v clearly was not addressing. he overshot it on purpose, wanting to raise the level of discourse, etc., and they're all like "wait what about the tawdry????"

I fully expect that persons who I sincerely disagree with on fundamental issues can find fault with Obama's speech, and I wouldn't dismiss such a person's interpretation of the speech -- as long as a reaction was offered in good faith and addressed the facial arguments of the speech.

I would not group those reactions in with those who willfully misinterpret the minutiae of Obama's speech and couch their reactions in bad faith and sarcasm.