I thought the speech was great -- and politically savvy.  Still, I didn't appreciate the suggestion that Bill Clinton "exploited our racial divides to mask his personal failure."  I think Obama would have been more successful if he didn't use the speech to again allege racist tendencies within the Clinton campaign.

Great post.

My own take is that this speech was for elites. He doesn't need to convince voters. He needs to convince media elites to stop playing these videos indescriminately without the context that this speech provides. And he gave his supporters some talking points. We've been sitting here looking confused for a week now.

At any rate - the most amazing part of the speech, for me, was the middle part, where he analyzed how whites and blacks see race - and made the case that complexity MUST be part of the debate. Simplification distorts reality.. 2nd favorite - the part where he started saying, "Not this time."

Scott looper- was he specifically referring to Bill Clinton or was that your inference? I took him to be referring to Reagan and his ilk, but if there was a specific reference I missed, could you fill me in?

I thought the poliician failings line was directed towards some black politicians, not Clinton or Reagan. Here is the line with it context.  

"For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.  That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends.  But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table.  At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings."

When seen in context, the "exploited by politicans" part sounds like it's aimed at the Al Sharptons of the world.

Obama for Preacher-in-Chief. But not Commander-in-Chief.

Gore, Biden, Dodd... any of the above would be a more decisive, focused, effective leader. Race relations simply are not the top priority for this nation now. Not even on the short list.

There's a war on, and an economic meltdown going on... remember?

Yeah, when I heard that line about ginning up votes and making up for personal failings, Marion Barry's face came instantly to mind. Not Bill Clinton's.

All in all, Obama's remarks compare favorably to Bill Clinton's defining speech on race in 1997:

www.usembassy-israel.org.il/.../wh40617.htm

tep, I admire your single-mindedness, but sometimes I suspect you're not actually listening. The point of Obama's speech was to put the preacher wars and race politics behind him in order for his ideas about the war and the economy to be heard, not to establish a new platform of race reform. As a matter of fact, and it surprises me that you seem unaware of this, for several weeks Obama has been publicly backing Dodd's approach to stabilizing the mortgage market.

Plus, Gore, Biden, or Dodd will not be the next president. Barring an unexpected death, McCain, Obama, or Hillary will be. Let's deal with the world as it is, shall we, and focus on A) figuring out what the heck to do about the several crises we face and B) assessing which of the actual candidates we have is best suited to the task.

To me the most important part of the speech was:

           I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.....

           These people are a part of me.  And they are a part of America.

Tep,

Despite the title, the job of president is not really commander in chief.  This is meant only to indicate that the armed forces are subordinate to civilian authority, not that the president is supposed to be his own top general.  And the Constitution reserves the war power for Congress.  So, absent an emergent need to repel invaders, the Original Intent is not that the president goes to war and no that the president literally leads the armed forces.  

In fact, the job of president is to be preacher in chief, not in a religious sense, but in a political sense.  That is, the job of the president is to discern what public opinion will support and shape public opinion to support his agenda.  The president is supposed to make policy, not widgets.  It is for the bureaucrats to figure out how to make the widgets, the policy options and mode of execution.  

Do you imagine, for example, the Clinton's economic policy was of his design?  Of course not.  It was Robert Rubin's.  But Clinton was smart enough to understand the policy debate around Rubin's proposal and politician enough to discern what he could get the public to support and the Congress to do.  That is the president's job.  

It is no wonder you are bent about the fact the politicians politic instead of talk policy (the good ones, anyway, the bad ones can't politic so they talk policy details and then they lose)

I agree with Virginiacentrist, the speech seemed geared to move the debate on to something other than race, by appealing to the media to understand that, while replaying Wright's frothing about AmeriKKKa certainly might appeal to the immediate need for drama in a tediously endless primary season that most americans are tired  of, it is a distraction not only from a real discussion of race, but any of the serious problems our country currently faces (see.... just about any teplukhin post for a recap).

It's amazing that anyone thought this would be an awkward moment for Obama.  he's better versed about race in america than any other national pol, probably.  Wrote a book on the subject back when the sophistication of  discourse about race in the country was "Do you think OJ did it??"  I'm sure he was probably hoping to lead by example rather than by giving a Great Speech to get his campaign back on track,  but he was sure as hell prepared to give it.  With any luck he will have convinced all but the most conservative media that they should either raise the level of discourse about race in this country or move on to other pressing issues.  I don't know if he'll succeed but it's a damn noble effort.

Today's WSJ editorial about Obama makes some decent points. But then there's this: He dwelled