Obama the day after ... the speech

Tuesday was another busy day, but I did stop for 40 minutes to listen to Sen. Barack Obama's speech. I must confess that I was able to focus on it for about 20 minutes, and then I found myself drifting off to thoughts of what I needed to do.

I also found myself thinking that I do agree with what he is saying, and there is no question that he is good at delivering a speech, but at the same time there was something missing.

I'm not sure this will come out the way I hope it will, but here goes.

There is absolutely no question that racism exists. Just as there is absolutely no question that sexism exists. What I am still so frustrated about is that we have now heard a 40 minute speech on racism, and we have yet to hear anything about the sexism that has gotten so bad some progressive bloggers have called for a strike against certain progressive blogs.

These so-called progressive blogs have allowed people to use language that is incredibly hateful and misogynist in talking about Hillary Clinton, or in responding to people who support Sen. Clinton.

Where is the 40 minute speech addressing this?

When do women get to hear someone say this contest should not be about what Hillary looks like in a pantsuit, that she is only a Senator because her husband cheated on her, or hear her called "Shrillary" for speaking out passionately on issues of the day?

In all the comments I've read regarding Obama's speech, these two most clearly touched on my thoughts about the speech.

Melissa McEwan, at Shakesville, had this to say:

There's one significant (to me) issue I have, and it's his failure to mention Clinton (at least in the prepared text), at whom some of Wright's invective was personally directed. It probably wouldn't bother me except for the fact that Obama's been a little ungracious to her on a personal level during this campaign. Clearly, they and their surrogates have provided plenty of reason for them not to like one another, and maybe they don't—but they are still colleagues and ideological allies at the end of the day. And, call me old-fashioned, but I still would like my president to treat people, even people with whom s/he has disagreements, with respect, despite Bush having spent the past seven+ years trying to make that expectation an antiquated notion.

I don't like it when I see Obama turn his back on Clinton, or refuse to look at her during debates. I don't like that he has failed to say he expects his supporters to vote for her if she gets the nomination, and has generally ignored issues of sexism—which I strongly suspect is not because he doesn't care about it (he is the father of two daughters, after all), but because he worries that its mention will remind people of his opponent.

It's an attitude that really rubs me the wrong way. One of the things I always really liked and admired about John Edwards was the fact that he was demonstratively respectful of his opponents. Even when he debated Cheney, who is arguably one of the most loathsome political figures in American history—but was also the vice president, the office of which deserved respect, even if the man who held it did not—Edwards looked at him when he spoke.

That says more about Edwards, ultimately, than it does about Cheney—which is something I feel like Obama hasn't quite grokked yet. He looked utterly contemptuous of Hillary when he would give up only "You're likeable enough," again, without looking at her save for a sideways glance, after she graciously noted how "very likeable" he is.

It's a decidedly unkind moment—and because, as Morrissey once so eloquently put it, "it takes strength to be gentle and kind," it also whiffs of weakness. I had the same feeling reading Obama's speech today, when he references "the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling" and seems to be casting that sideways glance at Hillary, without actually looking at her. [...] It wouldn't kill him to note that she's more than "likeable enough." Actually, it would make him a lot more likeable, too.

Jerome Armstrong at MyDD writes:

I figured. What Obama wants to do is pivot it back to Clinton vs Obama, and get the Republican attack on him through Wright off the table, so he's equated Wright and Ferraro multiple times in the speech. We'll see if the Clinton surrogates fall for it or rise above and ignore it.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

...We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

This is pretty ugly and unfair though of Obama, to equate statements by Ferraro with Wright. Obama goes on and on about how great a person Wright is, without a single kind word about Ferraro, just rubbing it in further. I believe the campaign has reached a new low.

Otherwise, great speech.