Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Obama Speech Spin

By

Match the headline to the media outlet: Drudge, CNN.com, Foxnews.com, MSNBC.com — as of 11.15am.  

“A more perfect union”

“Constitution stained by sin of slavery”

“Pastor painted distorted view of US”

“Obama speech covers race issues”

The first headline is actually the speech’s title.  And I think it’s the best headline for Obama.  

The next two are not good for Obama.  “Stained” amps up the negative vibe from Rev Wright.  “Pastor” keeps that angle front and center, when Obama is trying to go larger.  

Answers:

1. Drudge

2. CNN.com

3. FoxNews.com

4. MSNBC.com

What do you think of the speech?  

What about the coverage of it?

11.40 update

MSNBC: Obama: Racial Anger Is Real (methinks: very bad headline for Obama)

FoxNews.com Obama Condemns Pastor, But Won’t ‘Disown Him’

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

      • *My .02

    <

    p>I think Senator Obama might have tried a different approach.  

    <

    p>”I am running for president to serve every American.  I want to make us more secure, safer, stronger.  I want to improve the economy, so more Americans have better jobs.  I can better guide us through the complicated issues of health care and education.  No matter what you see on TV, that’s all I think about.  I obsess about those issues.  

    <

    p>”John McCain is an honorable man.  Mostly his ideas are like the ones we have now.  I think I’ll lead America, all Americans, in a better direction.  Voters, you get to decide that.  

    <

    p>”I happen to be the son of a black dad and a white mom.  I don’t think that’s what the election should be about.  I’m not running for president of black America.  My whole life has been an effort to bring people together of all races, to lead us together, forward, all Americans.  

    <

    p>”Fairness is an American value.  I appeal to all voters to be fair.  If you believe Senator McCain’s vision is the right one, vote for him.  If you believe we can do better than the last 8 years, and that I’m the right leader for the job, vote for me.  It’s that simple.  

    <

    p>”I don’t want to talk about race.  Sure, race is an issue.  But I want to talk about opportunity for Americans: Iraq, defense, terrorism, homes, colleges, middle class opportunity.  I think Senator McCain does too.  He’s an issues guy, like me.  Neither of us wants to get into a battle of which person we know has said the most extreme things.  We want to be judged for who we are, what we’ve done, and where we’re going.  

    <

    p>”Realistically, though, I’m aware that the media often prefers me to talk about race than strong defense and the economy.  Because racial tension gets them ratings.  I’m telling you, America, directly: I want to lead the whole nation.  Give me the opportunity to tell you how I will move our great nation forward.  Judge me.  

    <

    p>”When you hear attacks — and they have only just begun — not against me, but attacks against people I know, trying to make their views seem like MY views — then recognize that you’re seeing an unfair, unAmerican effort to change the rules of the game.  An effort to avoid a fair fight between Senator McCain and I for the direction of our nation.  An effort to eliminate the right f you, the voters, to judge that fair fight, and instead to disqualify me by fear. Don’t fall for that.  Listen to what I say.  And I say: GOD.  BLESS.  AMERICA.”  

    • You seem to basically want him to disown race as an issue, which is a goal opposite to his speech.

      • i want him to be “allowed” to talk about race about as much as typical presidential candidates….which is to say sometimes, but far less frequently than the big issues….economy, defense.  

  2. I listened and watched the whole thing and it will be interesting to see how it is covered.

    <

    p>To me, it appeared to be a comprehensive, nuanced look at racial issues.  Issues that are not easily boxed up and packaged for consumption through the media.  I predict they will botch its nuanced message in each outlet’s effort to give a unique perspective on the speech.  

  3. “I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

    But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

    Thanks to Ben Smith because Drudge broke the embargo.

    • Andrew Sullivan

      I have never felt more convinced that this man’s candidacy – not this man, his candidacy – and what he can bring us to achieve – is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man’s faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian.

      <

      p>From NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan

      Obama even compared Wright to his white grandmother, using the two as foils of each other to represent how the legacy of racism has steeped itself into the fabric of who many Americans are. He said that he could no more disown Wright than he could disown the black community, just like he couldn’t disown his White grandmother for making racially derogatory comments that have made him “cringe.”
      ….
      His tone throughout was quiet and thoughtful. The same speech could have been delivered in a fiery tone. But Obama chose one that was quiet and thoughtful. It did little to lessen the impact and may have added to the weight of his words.

       

    • “We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.”

      <

      p>Hmmmmmm.

      • I thought it was gratuitous and preferred that he not have mentioned Ferraro.

        <

        p>The two surrogates have been “linked” by the news cycle, so it was “fair” to bring Ferraro up. I just wish that he hadn’t. If her comments were not contemporary to Wright’s, Obama would have been on very shaky ground, imo.

        <

        p>I wish Clinton hadn’t said this:
        “These are difficult issues. Race and gender are difficult issues,” she said, stressing the conjuction. “And we need to have more discussion about them.”

        <

        p>Tit for tat, I guess?

        • Hillary’s quote:

          <

          p>

          “I did not have a chance to see or to read yet Sen. Obama’s speech. But I’m very glad that he gave it. It’s an important topic. Issues of race and gender in America have been complicated throughout our history, and they are complicated in this primary campaign.

          “There have been detours and pitfalls along the way. But we should remember that this is an historic moment for the Democratic Party, and for our country. We will be nominating the first African-American or woman for the Presidency of the United States, and that is something that all Americans can and should celebrate.”

          <

          p>Nothing earth shattering here, she made a statement which in my opinion supported Obama, but it was safe.  She wants no part of the sh**storm, but she did issue a statement of support.

            • because one of the Wright sound bites is a very misogynestic screed against “Hillary” by name.  based on that sound bite, one can easily assume that Wright thinks white women have it easy in this country just because they’re white.  i guess he doesn’t know that in this country, women (of any race) have been men’s nigger until quite recently.  Wright, by invoking the “we’ve got it worse than you” game, made Clinton’s inclusion of gender in her statement quite appropriate.

              • …it was nice to hear acknowledgement that many – no, MOST – white Americans received no benefit from slavery, and arrived long after it was over.

                • It is part and parcel to how America built its extreme wealth. Without slavery and the economic boon of WWII, I can’t imagine we’d be where we are today.

                  <

                  p>Not that it’s a justification for slavery.  

                • of global environmental catastrophe and technological servitude, with no respect for morality, is not what I would call a benefit.

                • enjoy white privilege even though our ancestors may not have helped create that system, and whether we want it or not.  wright was wrong to imply that white women have it easy in this country, but he was correct to the extent that white privilege boosts white women as well as white men.

                • Watching you extract the victim status for women in this topic is excrutiating.

                  <

                  p>Little secret, I am not supposed to tell you about men. We eat each other alive every chance we get. When we oppress women, it is simply because we can in that moment.

                  <

                  p>That is not to say that there isn’t systemic bias in neo-patriarchial and phallocentric cultures, but for chrissakes BUCK UP!

                  <

                  p>Humans dominate the weak by nature. Weak is a subjective term that could mean either mind, body, spirit or any combo thereof.

                  <

                  p>Dominant types, maybe that applies broadly to men, will control from the lowest level available. It conserves energy and political capital. However, when push comes to shove, nostrils flair or worse.

                  <

                  p>Now, what makes it wacky for the “ape-man” is that we have given the “weak” all forms of “civic” strength. Which is a good thing, imo. The breakdown is when the “weak” subdues the “strong” relying merely on the “civic” subsidy.

                  <

                  p>OK, an example.

                  <

                  p>You’re driving down the street, when a couple of “urban yutes” stroll out in front of you. They saunter along and one of them gives you the “yo” glare.

                  <

                  p>Now, is it not obvious that their “toughness” is a function of your “civic” restraint, mandated by law. In other countries, say Brazil, this doesn’t happen because the pedestrian is not empowered.

                  <

                  p>The “weak”, as defined by the laws of Newtonian physics, is now “stronger” then you and your multi-ton vehicle.
                  This defies your insinctual logic and grates your more base psyche, which wants to clip the punks for good measure.

                  <

                  p>The teeter totter dynamic between the “weak” and the “strong” will never cease. The range between the extremes of up and down will only become “fair” when both parties yield.

  5. His speech addressing the palpable racism of this country, and his own personal legacy, was well done.  It felt like a speech Senator Obama has carried in his head for a while, and was going to deliver at the right time.  Frankly, it felt like a speech that needed to be made by a prominent American who is African-American.

    <

    p>Spackled in and around that speech was a campaign denial and obfuscation about Reverend Wright.  A change-the-names exercise with Geraldine Ferraro or Samantha Power.  Damage control in front of a 100% American backdrop.

    <

    p>The two speeches didn’t mix well…the campaign speak made the better remarks seem insincere, while the lofty remarks implied Obama had no regrets about the Wright affair.  This could have been powerful had Obama delivered the first speech today, and the second speech a week later.

    • I thought there was a very good speech on race in there. But I thought the timing of it was political and subtracted a lot from the impact.

      <

      p>In addition to the timing, I thought there were some parts in there that were very typical passages that could’ve been borrowed from a generic politician’s token speech on race during an MLK Day event. Better to leave them out and keep the speech much shorter.

      <

      p>Clearly he was trying to rise above the recent discussion and turn it into a more dignified conversation where he could take the high ground. But my concern hasn’t been that he doesn’t understand or can’t articulate the nuances of positions on race. I am concerned with how he did or did not react to Rev Wright’s statements over the last 20 years. On that count, his speech didn’t deliver he answers I hoped for.

  6. I thought it was the most honest and sincere speech I have ever seen.
    As the pundits are all speculating about the potential impact, I keep coming back to the pledges that are the foundation of his campaign.  The phrases that are in every stump speech and spoken repeatedly in debates.

    <

    p>“I will always be truthful with the American people, even when it is unpopular.”

    <

    p>”We can disagree without demonizing.”

    <

    p>Rarely do we have the opportunity to judge a candidate’s pledges, within the context of the campaign.

    <

    p>He took the path less taken in politics, he was honest and sincere, when faced with intense scrutiny.  He spoke to us as adults about race and religion. He spoke within a historical framework, as well as candidly about his own experiences.  He challenged us to think.  He challenged us to be tolerant.  He spoke about the changes in perspective across generations.  He recognized the experiences of others.  He validated the emotions that exist in all communities.  Asked us to recognize that our experiences are different, but our concerns are collective.  Urged us to move forward.

    <

    p>Yesterday we saw not only a historic speech, we saw leadership.    

  7. Did anyone notice that Obama is under fire because Rev. Wright said 9/11 was the fault of America but McCain isn’t under fire despite the fact that he worked hard to get into the late Jerry Falwell’s good graces in 2006 and Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on AMERICANS! McCain knew Falwell had blamed Americans before he courted and became pals with Falwell. Why do you think the press gives McCain a pass? Is it because of race?  Read about it here:

    <

    p>http://beertap.wordpress.com

Archives