Obama continues to impress me:
Addressing a packed congregation at one of the city’s largest black churches, Senator Barack Obama on Sunday invoked his own absent father to deliver a sharp message to African-American men, saying, “We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception.”
“Too many fathers are M.I.A, too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes,” Mr. Obama said, to a chorus of approving murmurs from the audience. “They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”
…Accompanied by his wife, Michelle, and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, who sat in the front pew, Mr. Obama laid out his case in stark terms that would be difficult for a white candidate to make, telling the mostly black audience not to “just sit in the house watching SportsCenter,” and to stop praising themselves for mediocre accomplishments.
“Don’t get carried away with that eighth-grade graduation,” he said, bringing many members of the congregation to their feet, applauding. “You’re supposed to graduate from eighth grade.”
…“But we also need families to raise our children,” he said. “We need fathers to realize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception. That doesn’t just make you a father. What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. Any fool can have a child. That doesn’t make you a father. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.”
That’s the kind of leadership I like to see.
The video of the sermon:
ideas here
And then he talks about his faith. But he doesn’t seem to me to be asking his faith to do life for him. His faith doesn’t offer him excuses to not care about people (or in some cases people who are NOT LIKE US!!!) (IMO conservatives do give to charity, but they make sure that very little of that charity goes to PEOPLE NOT LIKE THEM!!) And although he addressed black issues, I didn’t get the sense that he was looking at that as a totally black problem (the non-existence of fathers in their children’s lives) even though he acknowledged that there was a huge problem in the black community.
So what about any of that should be a problem for the those on the right?
Or left?
Some people will be upset because they don’t like to told that they are part of the problem. Most people like the show of leadership. I love it that he is telling people to turn off the damn video games, take away the damn corn syrup and potato chips, and freaking talk to their kids.
what an amazing person this man is. I will be so proud to say I voted for him. I haven’t felt this way about any candidate in a very long time.
What is so amazing about his repeating what others have said every father’s day for decades?
how about using the words “black” and “better father” in the same sentence.
You are a very unpleasant poster.
knock off the name calling
“That’s the kind of leadership I like to see.“
My god! The guy makes a cliched and 100% safe statement of the patently obvious, and everyone goes bonkers over him, as if he were a gift from heaven! This isn’t politics, it’s idolatry.
Unbelievable.
When Bill Cosby said exactly the same thing he was condemned by the same people who are genuflecting toward Obama.
I’m sorry, Ed, did you disagree with anything that Obama said? No? Then what’s your problem?
The point is, Booman, that Obama did not say anything that tens of thousands of others have not said before, especially on Father’s Day. Yeah, what he said is correct. So why does a mundane, obvious truth we have all heard thousands of times from thousands of people suddenly become stunningly profound when it comes out of the mouth of Obama?
In other words, what’s the big deal?
Exactly.
Obama is a politician. Master of the Obvious. Speaking in Forked Tongues. Whatever . . .
In Obama’s support, I’d hate to be the one having to make a speech about every damn Americana event that happens throughout the year, what a dreary drudgery.
Mind you, I am NOT a bitter Hillary supporter, I just want people to realize that you don’t rise up to the position of Democratic Party candidate for the President in 2008 without having some very powerful, very wealthy people behind you.
Vigilance!
Our substitute preacher blathered about we’re not all fathers but we all have fathers to be grateful for. Huh? I tried to gently dispute, without the examples of incest, long-gone before baby’s first cry, and spare the rod, but he wasn’t catching on in my 10 seconds on the exit line.
With any luck, we’ll have a different substitute whenever our regular preacher is out of town again. Other members of the congregation behind me may not have been so easy on him.
I don’t have a problem with what Obama said, or with the fact that he said it. What has me aghast is that everyone is treating it as thought he has said what no one has thought of or dared to say before when it is nothing we have not heard virtually verbatim a zillion times every father’s day and two zillion times in between.
So, what is so special about Obama having repeated the same thing tens of thousands of others have said before. In fact, I have to wonder how many other people said today exactly what he said in virtually the same words.
I can’t remember an example of a politician telling people to quit being deadbeat parents and pay attention to their kids. He’s not just telling black dads to be fathers to their children. He’s telling parents to turn off their kids video games, feed them nutritious food, and make sure they do their homework. It’s not the first time, either.
If you don’t see the difference here then you don’t get it. The playbook says to pander, not hector.
I don’t see it as something that warrants the kind of adulation I am seeing here. He said some good things that we have all heard thousands of times before, and that we all know are true. Good on him, but it does not make him a saint.
Okay. Find me one example of a politician saying what Obama said during a campaign appearance in the history of this country.
Come on! Whether or not another politician has suggested that there is a difference between a “sperm donor” (as the awful Dr Laura puts it) and a father – and my guess is that a number of others have – is not the point. What Obama said is such a standard father’s day speech that it has become a bit of a cliche. It is true, it is correct, it needs to be said, and it is good that he said it, but having said it does not make him worthy of all this adulation.
He may be an “amazing person” as one commenter put it, but there was nothing amazing about his speech today. Good, yes. Praiseworthy, perhaps. Worthy of being called an “amazing person”, hardly.
I personally have not seen anything more than an intelligent, well educated, exceptionally articulate, clever, ambitious politician. I see someone who is bound to be an improvement over what we have endured the last 7.5 years, if only because he will not be a source of constant embarrassment, and at least will put a respectable-looking face on the government of this country. And I do like his dignified, seemingly unflappable demeanor. But I am missing the part where he walks on water, as so many of you seem to think. I just haven’t seen him do it. What it looks like to me is that people are so desperate after the years of the Bush regime that they are carried away.
And since you brought up pandering, what is the very first thing Obama rushed to do after he was assured of the nomination? Why he couldn’t wait to run over to the AIPAC convention where he pandered as very few have pandered before. In fact, he was so into his pandering and so eager to pander enough in just the right way that he got carried away and said a couple of things he was forced to back pedal on later.
I hope to god Obama wins because the alternative is not something I want to contemplate, but let’s keep our feet on the ground and our expectations realistic. He’s a politician, not a saint.
Why are you wasting so much time arguing about this?
It has been said by countless black men and women. Obama may be the one of first major black politician to advocate this message, but it is not new. Around here in Oakland, California, you see this every day. That doesn’t mean the message is wrong or bad. It is a great message and we all need to hear it. I always smile when I see some young man with his kid and I see it a lot. The message is spreading and I see hope.
Being a deadbeat dad crosses all pigmentation lines. My kid’s dad left her at age 8 and never looked back.
It is a good message, but I don’t look to my president to tell me how to raise my kids. I do what I can, but I don’t want to feel guilty if I let my kid eat frozen food, play video games or surf the net. I live in a dangerous city and city kids don’t walk to their friend’s house or bike in the streets or play kickball. They just try and stay alive and not get raped. Fuck, video games and the internet are their only outlets.
This kind of feel good talk does nothing for me, and I am an Obama voter. I want to hear how he will improve the economy so our young people can get jobs so they can support their families. I want to know what he will do for these young parents so they can earn a living and provide for their children. I want to know what he will do for women (or men) trying to do it all.
Right on! And I want to know that he will actually end the occupation of Iraq, and not just continue it with a lower profile. And I wish instead of increasing the size and the budget of the military so it can continue to be used to force the United States’ will on other countries, he would stop using it for non-legitimate purposes – i.e. everything it has been used for since WW II – and make sure it is available and used only for defense of the country against real attacks.
And I want to know he will recognize and act based on the fact that education is essential to a strong society and a strong economy, and a strong country. And I want to know he will take steps to ensure that every American child has an opportunity to get a good, solid education at least through secondary school, and find ways to make college and university education accessible to all who can qualify for it academically.
And I want to know that he will take steps to ensure that those in the society who are truly unable to take care of their own needs will have them met.
And I want to know that he will take steps to reform the health care system, which is getting more and more out of control.
And if he wants to make pretty speeches from time to time about how to be a father or a mother, I am fine with that too.
And I want to know…
Well, you probably should’ve picked a different speech to watch then. Where exactly should he have squeezed Iraq in?
And if he wants to make pretty speeches from time to time about how to be a father or a mother, I am fine with that too.
With all the energy you’ve devoted to this thread, I can say that no, you’re not fine with that.
I did not make myself clear. I don’t mean he should have addressed Iraq or anything other than what he did address. What I meant was that that speech, while it was worthwhile and all that, did not contain anything that convinces me of his ability to be President of the United States.
Yes, I AM fine with it. I am PERFECTLY fine with it, and nothing I have said indicates otherwise. I have said nothing here critical of Obama, or of his having made the speech. It should be very clear, if you read what I wrote with any care at all, that what I am NOT fine with is the way people went all ga ga over this, declaring him the “leader they want to have”, “an amazing person”, etc., etc. It indicates a kind of head-in-the-clouds approach that does not bode well.
Let’s go to your first comment:
“That’s the kind of leadership I like to see.”
My god! The guy makes a cliched and 100% safe statement of the patently obvious, and everyone goes bonkers over him, as if he were a gift from heaven! This isn’t politics, it’s idolatry.
Unbelievable.
You are equating BooMan’s one, single, lone sentence about Obama’s leadership on this issue, to him thinking that Obama is Jesus. How are you not overreacting?
Oh, and someone else said that Obama was “amazing” and that they’d be “proud” to vote for him. I agree. You seem to think that this indicates mental unstability. But how? A person can’t experience amazement or pride without it being a delusion?
About heads in clouds, I’m sure BooMan could list ten things about Obama that he doesn’t like (off the top of my head: single-payer health care, gay marriage, overstating Iran’s nuclear threat, ethanol, etc.). Can you list ten things about Obama that you like?
For what it is worth, I see the same kind of infatuation among a lot of Hillary’s supporters, and among those who wanted to see Al Gore running, so it seems it is just part of the election process here that people get all emotional about their candidates.
These are the words you have used to describe those who liked Obama’s speech:
“hysteria”, “dangerous”, “fall in love”, “bonkers”, “gift from heaven”, “idolatry”, “Unbelievable”, “stunningly profound”, “ga ga”, “head-in-the-clouds”, “besotted”, “infatuation”, “adulation”, “saint”, “walks on water”, “Sermon on the Mount”, “Gettysberg address”, “head in the clouds”, “someone in love”, “imbue his every word with deep significance”, “going all wonky every time he takes a breath”
Come on now, don’t you think you’re overreacting, just a teensy-weensy bit?
Nope. :o}
Well, you wrote all that in response to one sentence from BooMan that said that Obama shows leadership–something that’s objectively true: neither Clinton nor McCain have drawn attention to this issue, and Obama’s spoke about it numerous times.
You need to look into the mirror and think about whether your level of outrage matches up with reality. What if BooMan had instead written three sentences praising Obama? Or, heaven forbid, three paragraphs? Try to save the rhetoric for when you really need it. “Amazing” is not over-the-top; a Lincoln-Jesus-Cupid hybrid is…
Outrage is far, far too strong a word. No, it is actually not even the right word.
Sheesh!
It looks like from other replies that you see that you indeed may have overreacted, even if you can’t admit it to me. I’ll take that. Good day.
But Cosby said exactly the same thing and got the opposite reaction from many in the “progressive” community.
I also object to the political timing. The Obama campaign would not have done this speech in the heat of the primary battle with Clinton. They are moving to the center in order to beat McCain. This may be good politics, but it’s another off-key note in the “change” theme song.
Cosby’s sermons to black people were more along the lines of “it’s all your fault.”
Of course Cosby wasn’t running for president of the United States, so he might not have been as careful as Obama.
Only in your mind, Ed. This is essentially the same speech as the one he gave during the rally after the Wisconsin victory, on video games, etc.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021903257.html
Funny, nobody complained then — except some gamers who misunderstood the comment. The theme of “ask not what your country can do for you” has appeared before. And I think it’s quite refreshing.
He’s also delivered this message, along with homophobia in Black churches IN Black churches back in January and/or February.
Try again.
…I meant, try again, Ed. But for him, it matters not, since he didn’t give the remarks in a big swing state.
WTF is with the charge of “genuflecting”? Booman didn’t say, Wow! That’s the bestest speech I’ve ever, ever heard!
He just said that his is the type of leadership he likes to see, and damn if doesn’t seem like some people here are trying to take his damned head off about it. Booman, of course, can take care of himself, but dayum.
I don’t get it…he just liked the speech.
So what is this really about?
Ed J hates liberals and Hurria is annoyed that Obama is mainstream on the Israel/Palestine issue.
No, Booman. I am annoyed exactly because everyone is treating Obama’s perfectly appropriate but hardly revolutionary Father’s day remarks as if it were the Sermon on the Mount or the Gettysberg address or something. Obama’s position on Israel is completely irrelevant to this issue.
In short, it is not anything about Obama that is bugging me here, it is the reaction his audience that I am criticizing. There is a strong tendency among Obama supporters (as there has been among Hillary supporters, as well as those who avidly advocated for Al Gore) to have their head in the clouds, like someone in love, and to imbue his every word with deep significance. Yesterday’s speech was good, appropriate, thoughtful, and all that, but it was not terribly significant in terms of his ability to be President of the United States.
PS I am not in the least surprised, and therefore not disappointed to see Obama running to AIPAC panting and wagging his tail, and trying to be more pro-Israel than most Jews. It is standard behaviour for a presidential candidate and expected.
If you really want to know what I am annoyed with Obama about it is 1) making it sound as if he intends to withdraw completely from Iraq while having no such intention (just as Hillary did), 2) his plan to expand and increase the budget of the military instead of changing the way the military is being used (i.e. as a means to enforce the U.S. will around the world, instead of for national defense), 3) his position that the United States is hated in certain parts of the world not because of its very real and disastrous policies and actions, but because it needs better P.R., and his plan for improving that P.R., which roughly parallels Bush’ failed plan to fix the U.S. image via massive and expensive P.R. efforts.
There is a lot to like about Obama, but let’s get our heads out of the clouds, stop going all wonky every time he takes a breath, and be realistic.
I must say that Booman does a great job of keeping his blog controversial and alive with dissent and discussion, making us think and work hard to come clearer on issues and problems we confront each day — in our minds and in our external lives.
I have fought for progressive causes since the sixties. I marched against the war in Vietnam and for civil rights in an America where that could get the shit beat out of you.
I’ll match my progressive bona fides against yours anytime.
that’s great. You still hate liberals.
I could not and did not vote for the Al Gore of the 2000 election but I would certainly have voted for Gore in ’08. He dropped the artful political manueverings and became a straight-talking public advocate.
Obama is pissing me off with his flag lapel pins and his “May God continue to bless the United States of America” endings for his speeches.
I only hate liberals when they try to appear conservative. All too often the appearance becomes the reality.
I don’t see anyone here complaining about what Obama said. I, for one, have just been pointing out that there is nothing so outstanding about it, it does not make him a great leader, and it certainly does not mean he is an “amazing person”.
fits into a teaspoon, with much extra space.
His speech was graceful, thoughtful, and extremely good.
I suspect that you did not like it out of guilt.
1) Where have I said I did not like his speech, please? On the contrary, I have stated numerous times on this page that it was good for him to say those things. What I found of concern was what looked to me like an over-the-top reaction on the part of some of his supporters.
What he said is true, and needs to be said. It has been said many times by many people, and it is good for people, Obama included, to keep saying it. I just don’t think the fact that he said it makes him a great leader, an amazing person, or anything else on that level. OK? Clear now?
2) What guilt? Guilt over what?
You know, if you didn’t like his speech to AIPAC, just say so.
But coming just a 1/2 step shy of accusing of idol worship people who just really liked his speech is over-the-top. Is it against the law to ever say you’re impressed by something he has done now, lest he will not be held “accountable”? Yours is a completely disproportionate response to what was written here.
His is a big job. He’s trying to piece together a winning coalition. He must pick and choose what battles he will fight, and somebody is going to be pissed off because of it. He can’t be all things to all people. Frankly, I didn’t like his AIPAC speech. I’m enough of a realist to know that a Black man with a “Muslim name” having been “endorsed” by Hamas trying to win over an electorate that’s been conditioned to believe a one-sided view of the “conflict” has few good options in the short term until he wins and changes the narrative.
I think the “What does he do first” conversation is a worthy one to have, because people need to know that he will not solve all of our problems one week after moving into the WH. Our problems are too deep, complex and long-standing for all of that. Just undoing the sins of this criminal administration will take 8 years. Not to mention his needing to spend political capital on something even in the face of 30 years of a steady diet of right-wing memes and worldviews. It has infected our culture and our language.
Again, it’s a worthy conversation to have. But don’t pretend you can get around that tougher job by doing the far easier one of accusing people here of idol worship on the basis of a mere compliment.
My comments had absolutely nothing to do with his AIPAC speech, and it ought to be very clear by now that I am more than willing and capable of discussing THAT particular issue and in more detail than anyone cares to hear. The only reason I mentioned AIPAC was that Booman brought up the subject of politician pandering. It was a side comment only.
And perhaps it DOES appear that I overreacted a bit, but what has caused this to go on and on is the stubborn insistence of some people here upon seeing my remarks at a criticism of Obama and his speech, when I did nothing of the sort. Believe me, if I want to criticize Obama, I will find very real, and very important things on which to criticize him.
What’s funny is that during the primaries I was constantly accused to being an Obama supporter because I was so critical of Hillary, and did not have as much to say about Obama. Oh well.
Write the father’s Day speech that he should have given.
People like you, who are guilty over your inadequate fathering skills, and react badly when given a comeuppance, are usually unable to do better.
So, what’s your Father’s Day speech?
Sigh!
I tried to explain to my father-in-law how really different Obama was. (Wrote a fast-sunk diary on DKos about it!)
This is the candidate that told his volunteers to bring boots and old clothes and go out to Iowa today rather than hustling votes!
He’s the candidate that gave up points in PA because he refused to throw street money around.
He’s the candidate who spoke in a Church today, telling dads to forget watching sports on television today and pay attention to their kids.
I’ve been involved in politics for 40 years (yeah, really) and been bitterly disappointed for most of that time. I don’t want to lose again. This is the real deal!
This is all well and good, but I really don’t think this is much of an issue.
I’m much more concerned about Obama’s fealty to the Chicago School of Economics (you know, Leo Strauss, Milton Friedman, et al.) What could be worse than more of the same myopic economic policies? The Market Knows Best scenario has proven that Dad is always wrong and Mom is always right.
See: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein for Naomi Klein’s analysis.
We got to watch Obama as closely as any other candidate for president. He’s no knight in shining armor, just a chance to get away from the Republican Anarchy.
Quite so! And all this hysteria over his having made some standard-issue father’s day remarks is, in my view, a bit dangerous. It is good, and probably noteworthy that he said what he said instead of something with less potentially offensive to some, but it does not make him a great leader for the strongest country in the world, nor does it make him an “amazing person”.
It’s just not a good idea to fall in love with a political candidate.
Well,
it’s never good to fall in love with a political candidate and there are some here who, in my opinion, go overboard and a get little ga-ga with their support of him. But I’m not seeing this hysteria you’re talking about.
I think I agree with you generally about him, but criticism of him needs to be coming from a heads out of the clouds place too.
Peace
What are you, some kinda troll or something. You come in here starting Saturday I think and say nothing but very unpleasant things.
Obama made very sensible remarks.
It is not always necessary to say things people do not expect. Politicians are usually expected to say conventional things, but in a well-spoken manner
relax. Hurria has been with us since July 2007.
“It is not always necessary to say things people do not expect. Politicians are usually expected to say conventional things, but in a well-spoken manner“
My point – and my only point – was that neither what he said nor the fact that he said it warranted the reaction it got from some of his supporters. It was a good thing to say, it is good that he said it, but it does not add up to his being a great leader, or an amazing person or anything like that.
Sheesh! If I had known what a can of worms this would turn out to be…..
I would have said what I said anyway.
“”Too many fathers are M.I.A, too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes,””
This sounds like the statement of a right-wing hypocrite to me. I think instead of blaming African-American men he should put the focus on the ridiculous War on Drugs that both the Democrats and Republicans have been waging for decades, and which has had a devastating effect on black families throughout the land. Yes many black fathers are missing from too many lives. They’re in prison! Over a million of them, a very substantial chunk of the African-American population. Or they’re on parole and can’t get jobs because of their so-called “criminal” records.
Do people have any idea just how many families have been broken up by the War on drugs.
What do you think happens to a family when someone gets put into prison for some victimless crime such as smoking pot? Their families are broken up. Their spouses have to work more jobs and more hours to support their families, and their kids end up on the streets, where they are inevitably exposed to truly dangerous harder drugs, and the cycle continues to the next generation. And worse, this is WHY they have the War on Drugs. It’s not about keeping people from doing drugs. No one in the real world believes that making it illegal will stop drug use. That policy is a proven failure. The War on Drugs is a War on poor people, and especially on people of color. It’s textbook racial cleansing.
Instead of criticizing decent people who are trying very, very hard, I think Mr. Obama ought to address the War on Drugs, and stand up to his fellow Democrats. If he wants to do something for the African American community he could start by promising to pardon and liberate the million or so African Americans being held for victimless crimes, so that they can return to their families and begin to support them. Instead of having turn all of their earnings over to rich lawyers (such as Mr. Obama), who are making fortunes off of the War on Drugs.
but Obama is a black father, and so is able to properly criticize them.
There are a BUNCH of black fathers who need a little chastising.
This is called the “Sista Soljah” moment. It’s a good one too.
His sermon will do much to boosting him in the opinion of many. Many are probably concerned that he will excuse the many pathologies of the black family, and he clearly will not.
I had the impression that he was not only addressing black fathers. The reality is that it is not only in black families that the father fails to be a full participant or a participant at all in his children’s lives.
That’s certainly a reasonable point. Maybe we can persuade McCain to do the white fathers. After all, after he returned from Vietnam, he dumped his old, damaged wife for a nice new shiny one with all functioning parts, a boatload-o-bucks, and probably much less cellulite. Wonder what happened to his kids?
I believe that Obama said sensible things about fatherhood.
Now, ignorant morons want to fault him for saying conventional things. Since when are politicians saying innovative, new things? Since never.
Politicians usually say things that are expected. Good politicians say them with grace. Great politicians like Obama say them with grace, style, and elevate conventional sentiment to something important.
And morons criticize them for doing so.
Let me try this one more time:
I, for one, have not faulted Obama for anything he said in his speech. My remarks were directed at what I saw as an over the top reaction by some of his supporters.
OK?
You believe that he said reasonable, but not original, things.
So do I.
We appear to be at a stopping point.
Works for me!
And thanks for ending this gracefully. I’m much too stubborn to let you have the last word.
Cute kid.