Barack Obama's Philadelphia speech Tuesday was a transparent attempt to quell the controversy over his ties to fiery anti-American minister Jeremiah Wright. But the New York Times, along with the rest of the media, portrayed the speech just the way the Obama camp would have wanted -- as a transcendent address on race in America, past, present and future, with Obama's long connection to Wright a secondary matter.
Janny Scott's "news analysis," "A Candidate Chooses Reconciliation Over Rancor" compared Barack Obama's speech on race to those of Lincoln, JFK and LBJ (so did the paper's hagiographic editorial.)
It was an extraordinary moment -- the first black candidate with a good chance at becoming a presidential nominee, in a country in which racial distrust runs deep and often unspoken, embarking at a critical juncture in his campaign upon what may be the most significant public discussion of race in decades.
In a speech whose frankness about race many historians said could be likened only to speeches by Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln, Senator Barack Obama, speaking across the street from where the Constitution was written, traced the country's race problem back to not simply the country's "original sin of slavery" but the protections for it embedded in the Constitution.
Yet the speech was also hopeful, patriotic, quintessentially American -- delivered against a blue backdrop and a phalanx of stars and stripes. Mr. Obama invoked the fundamental values of equality of opportunity, fairness, social justice. He confronted race head-on, then reached beyond it to talk sympathetically about the experiences of the white working class and the plight of workers stripped of jobs and pensions.
....
He faced a choice: Having already denounced Mr. Wright's ferocious charges about white America, he could try to distance himself from the man who drew him to Christianity, married him and baptized his two children. Or he could try to explain what appeared to many to be the contradiction between Mr. Wright's world view and the one Mr. Obama had professed as his own.
To some extent, he did both.
In a setting that bespoke the presidential, he began with the personal: He invoked his own biography as the son of a black Kenyan man and a white American woman, grandson of a World War II veteran and a bomber assembly line worker, husband of a black American who carries "the blood of slaves and slave owners." Seared into his genetic makeup, he said, is "the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts -- that out of many, we are truly one."
Scott quoted no opponents, just long-time black liberal activists John Hope Franklin and Julian Bond.
The main story on Obama's speech was from Jeff Zeleny, who previously covered Obama at the Chicago Tribune. Even the headline, "Obama Urges U.S. to Grapple With Race Issue," helped Obama transcend the issue by putting the onus on America for racism, not on Obama for his long history with the hatemongering minister Wright.
Wednesday's web posting by reporter Jodi Kantor, "An Effort to Bridge the Divide," was the closest thing the Times could muster to an actual objective news story, with dabs of muted criticism.
In a way, Mr. Obama seemed to be arguing not only for his own candidacy but also against the often-reductive nature of presidential politics. To answer the brief, incendiary clips of his pastor's statements that have been dominating television airwaves and the Internet, Mr. Obama made a long, nuanced speech, seeming to bet that voters will care enough about him and the race to give it many minutes of attention and thought.
The address, which Mr. Obama wrote himself, seemed partly like a historical refresher course for white voters on discrimination against African-Americans.
Kantor again praised Obama for nuance:
It was one of several times that Mr. Obama seemed to be quite purposefully arguing two ideas at once -- another dangerous tactic in presidential politics, in which statements are sifted for hints of contradiction and every speech is an attack ad waiting to happen. He admitted that his pastor is both a divisive figure and an inspiring one. He said that his candidacy should not be viewed through a merely racial lens, though racial reconciliation is one of the reasons he ran.
In interviews, Democratic and Republican strategists, scholars, and voters all agreed that Mr. Obama had given a brave, incisive speech about one of the topics most difficult to address in American life. But nearly all of them expressed doubt that his address will fully put to rest the firestorm over Mr. Wright's statements.
Kantor did eventually note criticism at end of story -- the only critics to appear in the paper's coverage, by Times Watch's reckoning. Nowhere did the Times question the integrity of Obama comparing privately muttered racist talk by his grandmother to Wright's publicly aired, conspiracy-minded hatred.
The Times didn't say anything about the contradiction by Obama caught by Politico -- finally admitting that he had in fact heard "controversial" remarks by Rev. Wright.
Contrary to his earlier suggestion, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) acknowledged in his speech Tuesday that he had heard "controversial" remarks by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
"Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy?" Obama said. "Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."
Obama had initially written on the Huffington Post website:
"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign."
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Equivocation in the
March 19, 2008 - 14:08 ET by mattmEquivocation in the advancement of Liberalism, with little, if any, substance, is what these empty-headed MSMers thrive on.
Closing the door
March 19, 2008 - 15:22 ET by johnbarryThe Liberal media can try its damnest to dampen down the controversy. The reality is that the words of Jeremiah Wright will linger in the voters subconsciousness. Obama has been damaged. It is pointless closing the door after the horse has bolted.
"It was an extraordinary
March 19, 2008 - 14:16 ET by MassConservative"It was an extraordinary moment -- the first black candidate with a good chance at becoming a presidential nominee, in a country in which racial distrust runs deep and often unspoken, embarking at a critical juncture in his campaign upon what may be the most significant public discussion of race in decades.
...and just like that they set the table for "if he is not elected it is white racist America's fault" and not the fact that he chose to associate with this radical race baiter.
"There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them." - Tom Delay
Obama the Uniter
March 19, 2008 - 14:27 ET by allanfHere is a news flash for the New York Times. Abraham Lincoln was not a uniter. He was a divider. He shattered the Union into pieces and then undertook to reassemble it by force of arms. Much of the racial bitterness that the Times decries may have stemmed from this heavy handed approach.
If Obama wants to be a "uniter" comparisons to Lincoln are not appropriate.
AAAAAAGGGGHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!
March 19, 2008 - 14:50 ET by MrShyOkay, this is off-topic slightly to this thread, but it's the NYT, so thought I'd post here.
Another article -- the front page one covering Bush's speech today, has this DISGUSTINGLY agenda/left-framed paragraph:
As it has in the past, the anniversary galvanized the war’s critics and, to a lesser degree, its supporters. And many of the arguments on both sides fell along familiar lines. The scale and the fury of antiwar protests, however, appears to have diminished from just a year ago before Mr. Bush ordered “a surge” [as always, in quotes] of still more American troops to Iraq that has resulted, according to many, in a decline in overall violence there.
Of course, the slanted article continued on, telling us how the Iraq war has "dropped in significance" because other issues have (thanks to them and their MSM effing-comrades!) taken center stage, like the economy, health care, and.... get this..... "race"!
Then, the next brief paragraph after the above nonsense mentions McCain and his visit to Iraq, and THEN.... three lengthier paragraphs devoted to Obama, repleat with a handful of choice quotes from his speeches denouncing the war.
I swear, I'm gonna explode.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
All hail the mighty Obama.
March 19, 2008 - 16:30 ET by ckc1227All hail the mighty Obama. He couldn't fix the racism in his own church, but he's going to fix it for the whole country.
Geat observation
March 19, 2008 - 16:32 ET by LionKingThat's great !!!
CKC, excellent point! Mail
March 19, 2008 - 17:02 ET by ConservativeRexCKC, excellent point! Mail that in to McCain ASAP, because I know damn well his people won't think of it.
You think they'd use it
March 19, 2008 - 17:11 ET by ckc1227You think they'd use it even if they did think about it? I'm not so sure.
Hey ckc... Couldn't hurt
March 19, 2008 - 17:17 ET by bigtimerHey ckc...
Couldn't hurt to try...do it for the good of the country....civil duty and all that.
Seriously, it is an excellent idea...can't you just see the political ads/commercials?
We here at NBs would know it was your donation to-boot!
»→ accolades to ckc
March 19, 2008 - 17:16 ET by Cool ArrowWe certainly don't believe he could have fixed it, but certainly it would have been enough for Obama to stand up to the racism in his own church.
He chose to worship at the altar racial bigotry, swilling up the praise of his peeps.
♣ a seal
How many people really watched "The Speech"?
March 19, 2008 - 18:15 ET by nkviking75How many people actually watched "The Speech" anyway? After all, it was on during the day, not during prime time. I doubt anyone's opinion was changed. It's only purpose was to allow Obama and the MSM to say, "OK, he's addressed it, move on."
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Nothing of Substance
March 19, 2008 - 18:22 ET by CGattonWhile I did not watch it, I know there were several here who did, because they were constantly updating the Open Thread, I believe. as he swallowed his feet. I felt he would say nothing of substance - he hasn't had to on anything else, why should this be different - and all political speeches are logical zeroes, as far as I am concerned. From the sounds of it, I didn't miss anything at all, except another demagogue aspiring to tyranny. :o)
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC