What is the result of Obama’s speech? What did Obama have for breakfast?
Posted by: Neocon in 2008 Race, Media Bias, Obama, tags: aclu, atlas shrugs, barack obama, blank canvas, brit hume, chunk, commentators, folly, geraldine ferraro, hot air, james fallows, jawa report, jihad watch, mortal man, Obama, obama speech, obama wright, open thread, outpost, uniter, web atlas, weekly standard, window dressing
I don’t have to snoop around for media reaction to Obama’s speech. I can already tell you how it will be described. Even Brit Hume was offering up tempered praise for Obama’s performance, which tells you how the wind is blowing. A tour de force! Obama is masterful, swiping away the petty artificial divides being played up by partisan commentators. And so on and so forth.
The media was reluctant to report on Wright to begin with, largely ignoring him for over a year, and now that Obama has tossed them a nice long chunk of text to “cherry-pick” from in his defense they will do just that. Never mind that a lot of this speech was just stump-stuff combined with filler from his 2004 speech or that he contradicted himself by now deciding that it was folly for Geraldine Ferraro to be dismissed for making misinterpreted statements. Obama is triumphant. Truly a man who knows how to eat his Wheaties.
Here are reactions from around the web:
Atlas Shrugs examines how the uniter Obama is being devisive.
Conservative Outpost thinks we might have finally painted something on Obama’s blank canvas.
James Fallows offers reaction from the other side of the world.
Hot Air thinks it plays well to the Super Delegates.
Stop the ACLU has more round up.
The Weekly Standard sees what the mortal man Barack has to say.
Jihad Watch focuses on a positive line in the speech, but it could just be window dressing.
Cliff May sums things up at NRO.
Jawa Report digs into just who is Barack Obama.
Instapundit links to souljah advice.
JustOneMinute had some questions; they didn’t get answered.
NewsBusters has an open thread.
Right Truth reports on Oprah and the Rev Wright.
Amerpundit quotes, “he didn’t want the Obama blood sullied…”
Protein Wisdom is nauseated.
Victor David Hanson lists Obama’s lines of logic. He’s spot on.
1) The good that Rev. Wright and Trinity Church did far outweighs his controversial comments, which were taken out of context as “snippets” and aired in the “endless loop” on conservative outlets.
2) We are all at times racists and the uniquely qualified Obama is our valuable mirror of that ugliness: Wright may say things like “God damn America” or “Dirty Word” Israel or “Clarence Colon,” but then it must be balanced by other truths like Obama’s own grandmother who also expresses fear of black males (his grandmother’s private angst is thus of the same magnitude as Wright’s outbursts broadcast to tens of thousands).
3) We don’t understand Wright’s history and personal narrative. But as someone who grew up in the hate-filled and racist 1960s, it was understandable that he was bound to mature into his present angry anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-white mentality. (As if all blacks did?)
4) Indeed, Wright does nothing that much different from radio-talk show hosts and those of the Reagan Coalition who thrive on racial resentments. But whereas Wright has cause as a victim, his counterparts are opportunists who play on white fears.
5) And if we wish to continue to express worries about Obama’s past relationships with Wright — never delineated, never explained in detail — in trite and mean-spirited ways such as replaying the Wright tapes, then we have lost a rare opportunity to follow Obama into a post-racial America.
6) We, both black and white alike, are victims, victims of an insensitive system, a shapeless, anonymous “it” that brings out the worst in all of us — but it will at last end with an Obama candidacy.
Hot Air: Goalposts moved.
MSNBC First Thoughts.
FullosseousFlap didn’t see any pastors under the bus or a great national race speech.
QandO found a mixed bag:
One of those is a lie. I rarely use that word, and, in fact, have a real problem with those who misuse it routinely. When I use it I mean saying something you know to be untrue. So Obama either never heard him say controversial things about domestic and foreign policy while he sat in church or he didn’t.
Of course he lied, he munched on some WeakLies for breakfast.
California Conservative responds to a few choice excerpts from Obama’s speech.
Right Wing News wonders if Obama is going to gain some weight from all the cake he’s hoarding.




















Thanks, Neocon, but I’d prefer to be thought of as nauseated.
I can understand why!