Bonnie Erbe, writing for U.S. News & World Report, has an interesting take on Obama's speech.How effective was Barack Obama's Tuesday speech on faith and race, in terms of putting to rest questions about his ties to controversial minister Jeremiah Wright? Polls reflecting America's reaction to the speech won't be out for days or weeks, but it appears the speech did little but preach to those already in Obama's flock.
Obama had the opportunity to lure undecided Reagan Democrats, independents, evangelical Christians, and American Jews, deeply suspicious of Wright's close relationship with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. But he said renouncing the pastor would be like renouncing part of himself. In so doing, he thrilled African-American and liberal Democratic supporters but lost an opportunity to appeal to centrist voters, who will be critical to victory in November should he secure the Democratic presidential nomination.
Obama's speech, however, is likely to add grist to conservative claims that he has been less than honest about his knowledge of Wright's most controversial remarks. Obama himself last week posted remarks online denying he'd ever heard Wright make controversial remarks in person.One conservative website claims to have proof that Obama was indeed present for at least some of the controversial rhetoric last year.
Meanwhile, Obama's national popularity has predictably taken some hits as a result of recent revelations. Reuters reports that:Democrat Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary Clinton has all but evaporated in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according [to] a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday. The poll showed Obama had only a statistically insignificant lead of 47 percent to 44 percent over Clinton, down sharply from a 14 point edge he held over her in February when he was riding the tide of 10 straight victories.
16 comments:
"One conservative website claims to have proof that Obama was indeed present for at least some of the controversial rhetoric last year."
You mean proof that is clearly contradicted by the facts?
Interesting you would use a conservative publication to endorse, by your very words on a Skype forum, a liberal candidate.
I thought Obama was going to reach across the aisle? Hasn't that been your hype for months now?
Looks like another place he simply can't close the deal.
BAC
"I thought Obama was going to reach across the aisle?" The willfully blind and the deaf can never be made to see or hear. Obama has shown time and again that he is willing to speak and listen even to those who hate him. The same cannot be said for everyone else in the world. Fortunately, those people are generally in the minority on both sides.
Oh, so Obama really ISN'T going to be able to bring people together if elected? Who in the hell do you think has been stopping any progress on things like the war, the economy, etc. It's amazing that you are JUST NOW SEEING IT.
Looks like "Mr. Uniter" ... isn't.
BAC
"Fortunately, those people are generally in the MINORITY on both sides."
John - You CLEARLY don't get how Washington works!! The Democrats DON'T HAVE 60 VOTES in the Senate. THAT is why nothing has happened over the past two years! If your "Mr. Uniter" can't get those MINORITY votes, he's DOA regarding getting anything accomplished.
THOSE ARE THE VERY PEOPLE HE WOULD HAVE TO UNITE TO GET ANYTHING ACCOMPLISHED!!!
Sen. Clinton KNOWS THIS. And she has been working to reach across the aisle to them.
BAC
BAC, there is a small minority of people, people like Limbaugh, Coulter, etc., and their likes on the left, who can never be made to hear what the other side is saying. These people are a small minority. Most of the people, including elected officials, are not these people. They are willing to listen and see what they can gain from working with or against different people.
Senator Obama has shown that time and again he IS able to work with these people to get a true majority. He did this most spectacularly in Illinois, but he has done it also in the Senate and this past speech has shown he is able to do it on a national level. Senator Clinton has not, she has shown that she is willing to try to strong arm her opponents, but that will only get you 55 of the 60 votes you need in the Senate. You CANNOT accomplish ANYTHING if all you do is label your opponent as evil and level divisive attacks against them.
WE CANNOT SUCCEED AS A NATION WITH A "WITH US OR AGAINST US" MENTALITY.
John J: I loved Obama's speech and it convinced me that he's getting it as he goes and if he hits the books some, could make a fantastic president. I still favor Clinton. What I don't understand is why everyone from BAC to me to Clinton to Wolfson to Obama to Axelrod and everybody else get that THIS IS A COMPETITION. SOMEONE HAS TO WIN.
You don't think Obama and Axelrod are tough guys? Get real. They are both willing to do anything it takes to win because come 2012 if McCain's in office, Clinton and Obama will be yesterday's news and the race will be among folks like: Wyden, Feingold, Kaine, Dayton, Mark Warner, Gore, Clark, Sibelius, Webb and the big kahuna--BLOOMBERG.
Politics is not about how nice you are and how accomodating you are to your opponents. It's about winning. Hang out in the Obamasphere for a while and mention something that isn't worshipful of Obama and see what happens.
I don't feel the same way about Wright on some of this stuff as most Whites or Jews do. He's got his point of view which happens not to affect me in the slightest. I have trouble with how Wright feels about the LGBT commmunity. I have trouble about Obama on that score, too, even thought I'm straight.
Just enjoy that Obama gave a great speech and has a slim delegate lead and stop telling people how to feel. For the first time, listening to Obama speak on race and class, I got the feeling that McCain couldn't just roll over him.
Isn't that worth savoring? Or do we keep having to bow down to this graven idol you've created. Obama's given you a lot to be proud of. Enjoy it.
John - Sen. Clinton has ABSOLUTELY worked across the aisle while in the Senate, and totally won over her strong critics in upstate NY.
Have you forgotten that when she first ran for the Senate they were all speaking out against her -- but by her second run they were all her supporters?
The ONLY thing that Sen. Obama has shown us is that HE CAN'T CLOSE THE DEAL.
If he can't close it NOW, how will he be able to win against McCain in November?
BAC
Kelso, I understand doing what it takes to win. What I don't understand, and what my statement here has been repeatedly, is spreading blatantly false rumors in an attempt to smear your opponent among those who don't read past the headline. There is a word for these sorts of political tactics - Rovian.
BAC, name me some major piece of legislation that Hillary successfully worked WITH the Republicans on that wasn't originally proposed by them and wasn't passed through threats and strong arm politics.
As for your "close the deal" argument, turn it on your own candidate. Hillary Clinton, a woman who was the second most popular person in Democratic politics (second only to her husband) hasn't closed anything. By any election measure, Obama has beaten the Clinton machine - the most organized and powerful Democrat machine. The fact that he has done what he is doing shows what he can do against McCain.
John - Hillary has closed the deal IN EVERY BIG STATE!!! If you look at the TOTAL delegate count -- that should rightfully include FL and MI she has beat him!!
Even with ALL THE HELP from the media, and more than TWICE THE MONEY, Obama STILL CAN'T CLOSE THE DEAL.
THAT, my friend, SAYS IT ALL!!!
BAC
Every? Like Illinois, or Missouri (you know, that other state that no president has won the general election without carrying in recent times)? Texas was a draw.
Actually, including FL and MI as is puts Obama even closer to the 2024 needed to win. If you read my blog you would have seen this already. Or are you asking to disenfranchise the 40%+ that couldn't vote for the candidate of their choosing in Michigan?
Clinton couldn't even win in a state where more than 30 percent of the voters in the Democratic primary were McCain supporters that went overwhelmingly for her. She didn't even come close.
Again I ask you, if you hold this talking point so dearly, turn it on your own candidate. Clinton was handed this nomination by all media outlets and pundits last December. If she can't "close the deal" against this first term national Senator that most of the population hadn't heard of before he started this campaign, how is she going to be able to defeat John McCain, probably one of the best known Republican senators?
Personally, I think this line of argument is false and pointless. The reason NEITHER of them has been able to "close the deal" is because they are BOTH good candidates. Both are good politicians and both can win against McCain, as long as we stop the divisive lies that breaking up the party.
MO was so close it was initially called for Clinton, so I wouldn't be touting that one John. And if Obama can't win in his home state he really SHOULD pack it in!
Face it. With all the help Obama has received from outside sources the guy still can't close the deal. He's had three opportunities to take Sen. Clinton out, and he has failed all three times.
And I have been a little busy lately getting ready for our big show, but are his polling numbers still dropping?
And in closing ... as I have said from the beginning, there is a lot we don't know about Sen. Obama. New information is coming out now, and as it does his polling numbers against McCain drop. We know everything there is to know about Sen. Clinton, and if Obama would pledge to support her the way she has said she would support him, the Democrats could be assured a victory in November.
BAC
Oh, that's right, the only states that have any bearing on anything are the ones Clinton won. It's another hollow argument that hasn't held up to scrutiny. Clinton has won states that are strongly blue and are all but guaranteed to go for Obama should he be the Democratic nominee.
His poll numbers have been dropping from the heavy bad press he got for someone else's words. The last poll that has been released though is the first one Clinton took the lead on, to my knowledge, and it ended before Obama's speech Tuesday. Both candidates have now fallen below McCain in the most recent poll as well...
The "already vetted" argument is also hollow. It came out this week that Clinton has been lying about her foreign policy experience and involvement with NAFTA. She has yet to release her tax returns. She has yet to release the earmarks she requested last congressional budget year. Not to mention the fact that Wright was already discussed early in the primary season, it was just brought back into focus in a fear campaign by the right-o-sphere, how many things from Clinton's past are going to be brought back up in the same way should she become the nominee? I can name a quick dirty dozen myself.
John - it is only a "hollow argument" to someone who does not want to face the truth.
And there was nothing new revealed about Clinton. Come on. The question to ask is what else is there in Obama's background we don't know?
BAC
Post a Comment