Filkertom got me thinking

[catsittingstill]

I watched Barak Obama's speech last week.  I think if you haven't watched it, you should.  Yes, it's 40 minutes.  It's worth it.  If you don't have time (or if you're on dialup; I had to go to the college library to watch it), there's a transcript here.

And as filkertom pointed out, here, and here, we're getting bogged down, again, in issues of race. 

And as randwolf made me aware, there's a current among us to think that supporting someone other than Clinton indicates sexism. 

We're not helping anyone but the Republicans when we savage each other over these issues.  Yes, as Obama's graceful and nuanced speech makes plain, racism is an issue both for the indelible marks its history has left on people of all races living today and for the way it conveniently inflames resentments on both sides to get us to turn on each other.

We mustn't turn on each other.

Yes, as ozarque pointed out (alas, I can't find where now, but she gave me the idea and I want to give her credit), many parts of Obama's speech can be applied to sexism as well.  That too is an issue both for the indelible marks its history has left on living men and women and for the way it can conveniently be used to inflame resentments on both sides to get us to turn on each other.

We mustn't turn on each other.

DailyKos has a good post on what the real issues in this election are, and if the writer took a section from Obama's speech, it's a good section and it deserves to be foremost in our minds, because it's about what we all, Clinton supporters, Obama supporters, and hopefully even McCain supporters of good will, everyone, want from this election.  I'm going to reprint that excerpt here:

Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children.

This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st Century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the emergency room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care, who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life.

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag.

We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

Barak Obama "A More Perfect Union"  March 18 2008 (emphasis added by TocquDeville)

Isn't it more important to address issues like these, than to tear at each other over whether we are perfectly not-sexist, perfectly not-racist?  Especially when the people most helped by such a battle are our opponents?

Comments

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the kudos. And, yes, this is The Important Stuff. I am staggered at the rhetorical skill of Obama, that he could take this nasty attack against him and turn it into a springboard for discussion of real, deep-seated, long-term issues. And it points out that one of the major methods the Powers That Be have used to manipulate us for a long time is that most basic, Watch Out For Them -- They're Different From You.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Don't know if either of you is a fan of the Morning Edition, but I found this tidbit over there... it seems that as of Thursday morning, the most popular item on YouTube was neither the Hamster Dance nor the latest cellphone cam shot from last night's concert but The Speech Itself. 1.6 million hits isn't a *lot* in terms of total voters, but it means that a fair number of folks are bothering to judge the source material for itself.... and that, methinks, is hopeful.

NPR text story, with audio link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88650809)

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

It's actually up to over 3,000,000 as of this morning. :)

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

So how does one tell, anyway?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

There's a spot below the video box where it says how many times the video has been viewed.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this link. I came to CN--couldn't get into the library but found a back way into the student center so I could use the wireless--so I could actually listen to this, and I appreciate the opportunity.

[qnofhrt.livejournal.com]

I am staggered at the rhetorical skill of Obama, that he could take this nasty attack against him and turn it into a springboard for discussion of real, deep-seated, long-term issues.

Issues that Clinton still wants to bury. They were showing a clip of Bill over the weekend, the one where he seems to insinuate that Obama may not love America, that sounded to me like he wanted to NOT talk about the racial issues - those things that bog the campaigns down.

I too thought it an extremely powerful speech and I applaud him for making it because he did so knowing that it might alienate more people than it won over. That is something that I can't remember the last time I saw a politician do - do the right thing rather than the safe or politically expedient thing.

The question he needs to answer now is what CAN we do about the racial issue? (As well as some specifics about what to do about job losses and the economy, which might win him some votes in PA.)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'd like to know how to fix the economy and get more good jobs too. Plus I'd like to know what we're going to do about the Bear Stearns mess--if the Fed (read "our tax dollars") is going to start loaning money to non-banks, maybe the non-banks should be regulated in some way.

Plus there's the whole issue of corporations-as-sociopaths that I'd like to see addressed; I understand why they're sociopaths, but given that they *are* sociopaths (and legally have to be, since they have to put the profits of their shareholders first), maybe we should remove some of their rights and restrict some of their freedoms a little more tightly, for the saftey of the people among which they operate.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Myself, I'd almost like to see the legal fiction of "corporations' rights" done away with.

Corporations do not have rights. Businesses do not have rights.

People have rights.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I follow you, but corporations can own property for example--if someone steals a bus from Greyhound; is that really stealing if Greyhound has no rights? I favor serious curtailment of coporate rights, certainly, but I think there might be unintended consequences in doing away with them altogether.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's really stealing, because Greyhound does not own that bus. The people who manage Greyhound own it. You'd be stealing from them.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, but the people who manage Greyhound can't just sell the bus and use the money to buy birthday presents for their kids. That would be embezzling, wouldn't it? So presumably the bus doesn't actually belong to them?

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

If only one of many co-owners did so, yes.

If every owner of the company, by mutual agreement, sold a bus and split the money, I'm not sure it would (or should) count as embezzlement anymore.

Of course, "every owner" includes stockholders and, to some degree, employees. Everyone who has a stake in the company is entitled to benefit from the sale of its assets.

Plus, there's the question of how one explains such a redistribution of funds to the IRS.

Perhaps we can allow incorporated entities to retain some rights -- the right to be secure in one's property, for example -- as a convenient shorthand for the collective right of those persons involved. I'll call those "defensive rights" or "passive rights", in the sense that they are designed to protect individuals or corporations from harm.

What I'll call "active rights", such as those outlined in Amendment #1, I maintain that corporations do not have. IBM cannot petition the government for a redress of grievances, but the employees and stockholders of IBM can.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yes, this is the important stuff. That's why I put that excerpt up; I think we need to keep our eye on the ball. There are also other important issues that aren't mentioned there: restoring habeas corpus and other civil rights, repairing our tattered international reputation, rolling back the power of the executive to something more balanced, putting a stop to using the office of Federal Prosecutor for political ends, giving the EPA back their teeth and putting someone in charge there who is willing to bare them, or bite with them if necessary, funding our rapidly-eroding national parks, correcting the appalling rightward swing of our Supreme Court...

But Obama's speech hit on some important ones--and *any* of these is more important than having the progressive faction do-si-do into a furball over who is sexist and who is racist.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

It also shows that he can and will answer attacks from the radical right, which is wonderful; Clinton shows no such ability. That said, I wonder what Obama will do when he encounters a situation he can't talk his way out of.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, what does any politician or statesperson do in such a situation?

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I think most progressives agree with you, wish this was all over, and are other than that feeling thoroughly marginalized--I know I am. But the campaigns are desperately scrabbling for advantage, and at this point have staked out different constituencies. Unless they can be brought together, the Democrats are going to lose this one, and the harder the campaigns fight, the harder it is going to be to bring the followers together after the election. [Correction: Democratic National Convention]. Be nice to go back to singing "Kumbyya".

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, I wouldn't say that I'm feeling marginalized. But I'm almost at the point of wishing that one of them would give in, for the good of the country, and let the other one have the nomination.

Except of course that the one who gave in for the good of the country would be by definition the better candidate--willing to put the interests of the country above zir own.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I'd really like to hear "Nolo Episcopari" (I do not wish to be a bishop) from them myself--I'm starting to feel that wanting the job is a disqualification. Al Gore's decision not to fight to the finish in Florida looks better every day.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, except look what we wound up with!

I thought about that when I made that remark the first time...

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

...and then I thought that Gore might have been removed from office after 9/11, and his hard-right running mate Joe Lieberman installed as VP. Bleh.

Why on earth would Gore have been removed from office?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

1) Gore was actually aware of the terrorist threat. Remember, he was part of the Clinton administration, who had received a wake-up call in the form of the attack on the USS Cole, and subsequently caught the Y2K terrorists as they came over the border from Canada. I can't guarantee the Gore administration would have caught the 9/11 terrorists before they struck--but I can guarantee that you're more likely to catch terrorists before they strike if you're actually *looking* for them, and a Gore administration would have been looking.

2) Even if Gore's administration hadn't caught the terrorists and 9/11 happened on schedule, why would Gore have been removed from office? Bush wasn't, and there was no hint that he might have been, and he was *much* more culpable in what happened, since he was ignoring terrorists, in spite of the Clinton administration's attempts to warn him, in favor of looking for a pretext to make war on Iraq.

It has nothing to do with reality at all

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

In 2000-4, people in the way of the radical right usually ended up resigning in disgrace, sometimes even were jailed, because if the radicals couldn't make something real stick, they just made something up, and kept trying until something stuck. (Much longer rant deleted--this stuff makes me so angry.) I don't think anyone at the time was prepared to defend against the right-wing attack machine, even after Clinton. At this point, the radical right has pretty well discredited itself, and people are a bit wiser to their tactics (the press is still behaving shamefully, however, and there are a lot of right-wing judges), so I think there's some hope. But in the period 2000-4 I think there's a good chance the radical right would have found a way to break Gore, and I'm just as glad he didn't give them the chance.

As a footnote to this

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Don Siegelman, former governor of Alabama, probably falsely convicted for political reasons, has been released pending appeal. Brrr. Brrr.

[msminlr.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the link to the transcript.
I'd heard it mentioned on NPR the other day, but I was at work and didn't move fast enough to write down the link reference.

I'm printing out both the speech and your discussion, to review at lunchtime and possibly add to the discussion when i get home.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

You're quite welcome; I just found it by happenstance--I missed that NPR segment.