Obama gave a good speech. He said what he needed to say

[mtnsnake]

and said exactly what I thought he would. He condemned Wright's "anti-America" remarks, but he defended Wright, the person. In essence, Obama pandered to every faction of voters possible by doing so, which was the only smart thing for him to do.

Another smart thing he did was that he extended his speech and used it as major campaign speech, too, especially the last third of it.

One brutal mistake he made was using Geraldine Feraro to make a comparison with Wright's actions. Obama was doing great at the time, and there was no need for him to stick a barb into the Clinton campaign with his Feraro comments. That was totally unnecessary on his part, and it will only fuel more divisiveness in the Democratic campaign for his bringing Feraro up twice in what was otherwise a decent speech. For someone who preaches so much about unity, he sure likes to create rifts where there ain't any.

[papau]

1. Agree - poor intro but good applause lines - we'll have to wait for polls a week from now to see

if the media swung this one his way,

I thought half the speech was Hillary did it, the other half I inherited the problem and can make it better.

The Hillary did it was funny when he pulled the IWR vote into a speech on Wright and his relationship and race - "political opportunism" is a kind phrase to use.

[ronnykmarshall]

2. I agree.

The speech was wonderful.

The Ferraro remark was uncalled for, as were her orginal remarks.

[democrattotheend]

3. I saw the Ferraro comments the opposite way

It sounded to me like he was saying we should put that controversy to rest as well. But I appreciate your open-minded review...I know you are a Clinton supporter, so I appreciate your being thoughtful instead of finding something to pounce on.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Agreed.

It was obvious.

[Armstead]

4. I think you misinterpreted the Ferraro remarks

My interpretation was that he was saying it is just as wrong to base the discussion of this election on bad remarks by his pastor as it is to base it on bad remarks by a supporter of Clinton.

He was saying both controversies miss the point by misconstruing the context of the issue and the people involved.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Agreed.

It was obvious.

[blm]

12. Or deliberately misinterpreted them - Obama was VERY CLEAR about his point

and it seems impossible that any Dem could find a way to misinterpret them, but, where there's a will there's a way.

[mmonk]

7. Thanks, I suppose.

Except that I did not, as a white man over 50 living in NC hear anything divisive in it.

[rodeodance]

8. many are comparing this to the MLK speech, but with the personal attacks it

will not measure up close.

[mtnsnake]

9. Anyone comparing this to the MLK speech are out to lunch

This speech today was well delivered and he said what he had to say, but it wasn't what I would call anything incredibly awe-inspiring, not even by Obama's own standards, let alone MLK's.

[rodeodance]

11. It was Ok, he his major talking points. not much else.

[Bluerthanblue]

10. I completely disagree about Feraro- I think he put Geraldine

exactly where she belonged. As someone who does NOT speak for Hillary, or for those who support Hillary- but rather as a person who spoke for herself, inappropriately- and whose words were used by the media and others to diminish Hillary-

I was very proud that Obama would take the opportunity to slam the for what was being done to Hillary, as well as himself.

:shrug: I guess we hear things that we hope to hear- He DID speak to our unity- but it isn't a unity that will be settled by one speech- or one person- it is a unity we all have to want and work toward.


peace~

[Seabiscuit]

13. I just read the speech and it is well written. I really like the section where

he talks about race relations in this country, which is important and needed to be said. However, he still will not distance himself from Wright nor will he ever (I'm sure even if he became president) and that will not serve him well in the GE. This speech was given because he needed to defend his position in relation to the "Wright Controversy" and it was his position alone to be explained and discussed. Did he fulfill his purpose of overcoming the controversy? I think not since he made the core of his speech a defense of Wright. I think the damage has already been done and the speech is too late. I did not like the comparison between Ferraro and Wright which was uncalled for because there is no similiarity nor comparison.
The lashing out at Ferraro or presenting part of his stump speech was unnecessary.