Wednesday, March 19, 2008
|
|
Defining an Effective Speech ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
4:28 PM
|
While Barack Obama's race speech yesterday has been widely praised by the MSM, my suspicion is he did not achieve his ultimate goal of putting the issue behind him. My guess is that, despite the speech, the Rev. Wright controversy will hurt him in Pennsylvania, and beyond.
JFK's Catholic speech (along with his father's money) clearly assuaged the concerns of enough protestants to allow him to win the nomination and the presidency. In that regard, I think it's reasonable to conclude the JFK speech was a success.
While Mitt Romney's Mormon speech was well-received and widely praised, it was not so good as to have helped him win the nomination. Clearly, there were many factors involved in how the race played out -- including Huckabee winning Iowa and taking votes away from him in South Carolina. Still, exit polls would confirm that on election day, some voters were still influenced by anti-Mormon bias, meaning Romneys' speech -- though well-delivered -- did not persuade the folks who needed persuading.
It is important to note that a speech's efficacy should be based not on whether or not it is immediately praised by insiders (this may include writers, pundits, and even bloggers) -- but on whether or not it achieves the long-term objective of persuading actual voters. In this regard, I think Obama's speech fell short.
|
|
The reaction of the MSM to Obama's speech is the perfect illustration of the left's blind spot when it comes to the majority of Americans.
Most white Americans are not racist in the least. The left has assumed that virtually all white Americans are racist, particularly those on the right. In fact the opposite is more close to the truth as those on the left are continually expressing white guilt.
The crux of Obama's speech is that we're all racists to some degree and he illustrates this with the grandmother reference and therefore his pastor is just one of many.
Since the left agrees with this, they see it as a great and courageous speech. There is just one problem. We're not a bunch of racists and we don't like being told we are particularly by someone so closely associated with someone who so clearly is.
As long as the left continues to believe the lies they've spouted for decades, they will have trouble winning national elections. |
|
The speech was more of the same stuff he has been saying all along. He blasted big corporations, personal responsibility and blamed his problems on an oppressive history. He used the same excuses to try and contextualize his friend and mentor, the Racist Jeremiah Wright.
Obama is being exposed, and the disdain on his face is bleeding through the toothy grin. He hates all of us who would have the audacity to question him. |
|
"The racial divide in our Country seems to be a
a lot worse than previously thought.
I am very troubled by the way the Canidate for
the Presidency of the United States defines his
religious feelings.
Are black churches being used to rally against
the white majority? Is Obama to be a President
for all the people?
Well I hope no to both questions. There is to much to worry about, with the war on terror, the
ecconomy, immigration, and the courts in our Country.Now we as a nation are embroiled in a racial situation that clearly can leave our nation dangerously divided.
I hope and pray that John McCain is elected, and allows time and dialogue to define racial pregidous in our Country |
|
I think you're wrong. Obviously, the folks here at Townhall don't think it was convincing, but they wouldn't vote for a liberal Democrat anyway, even if somehow Obama hit all the right notes to convince them that he does not share Wright's views.
Just as obviously, the folks who frequent DailyKos and the like were going to skew in the other direction.
But I have seen thoughtful moderates and conservatives who were impressed with his candor, and who think his speech was one that is long overdue in America.
And it doesn't hurt that most of the non-political junkies are more focused on the tanking economy, the President's lackluster response, and the Fed's sorta-kinda, half-hearted bailout of Wall Street, then about what Obama's minister said from the pulpit. |
|
|
Obama's attempt to keep race out of the equation is simultaneously noble and naive. Los Angeles, a country-sized city in the state with the most delegates, transcended the issue decades ago by electing Tom Bradley for several terms as mayor and who narrowly lost a bid for governor. Obama is caught between Iraq and a hard place in regards to his own identify and the media who's editorial heads need a story line, just as a novelist trying to sell books and screenwriter trying to sell movies. So race persists. And it is naive to think that the public will forget about race because of our history, just as we cannot forget about our Judeo-Christian roots. Enlightened by my personal friends who are African-Americans, they rightly claim that whites cannot see America the way they do. But they also claim that fellow blacks trying to transcend race for the betterment of all have difficulty with "the race card" because for many in that community, "it is the only card we have to play". It's an easy fix. Like alcohol is to some. And it's hard to ween oneself away from victim status that may carry short term benefits but hurts in the long run. Just as we need to ween ourselves from oil, the black community needs to ween itself from 'the race card'. This of course is not to say that racism does not exist ... on both sides. The idea that "the man" is always out to get blacks is racism, pure and simple. And the sooner both black and white understand this, the better it will be for the red, white and blue. |
|
Obama did not do what Kennedy did.
Kennedy debated with active and hostile questioners.
Obama lectured to a passive audience.
Kennedy gave frank and direct responses.
Obama evaded using slick obfuscation and verbal distraction.
Kennedy explained his positions on faith and governance.
Obama threw his Grandmother under the bus and telegraphed how he'll punish past sins, if elected.
Kennedy explained the role of his Pope and his Cardinal in his Presidential positions and policies, if elected.
Obama excused his pastor's anti-American racism, and hid his "uncle" in the closet until Inauguration Day.
Kennedy explained his views on the separation of Church and State.
Obama tried to rehabilitate public views of his character and judgment (after aligning himself with an openly racist pseudo-minister).
Kennedy made church-going Catholics appear to be responsible citizens.
Obama made church-going blacks seem like profane, hateful, anti-American racists.
Kennedy proved his case, and was elected.
Obama showed himself as an arrogant manipulator.
Obama is a fraud.
The two cannot be compared in any way. Perhaps Caroline Kennedy didn't understand the difference because she was only three years old, when her father faced the Baptist ministers in Houston.
See for yourself:
John F. Kennedy, Greater Houston Ministerial Association Q & A, delivered 12 September 1960
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonminister ialQ&A.htm |
|
|
|