Redstate

could win a great deal of support with all families by keeping this theme a constant from his 'bully pulpit'.

If my main issue was to encourage "African Americans (to) join the rest of America in building real families" I'd pick Obama for the obvious 'success story' sort of influence he'd have on the African American community.

However I think the challenges for a lot of families, white and hispanic too, are all about the economy right now.

Yes, it's a struggle to raise a family, pay the bills, do right by our neighbors, and keep the bottom line of net worth going up. But I do not think that our struggles are anything like those of our forebears who tamed a continent, fought world wars, and passed it all on to us.

Something on the order of 100% of the people who have ever lived have had life very much worse than the most desperate American of today.

Parents need to instill in their children the belief that success is in their power to achieve if they follow the rules and work harder than the next person. That's real hope. And it has nothing to do with whether the overall economy is booming or busting, because people succeed in bad times and fail in good ones.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Give me a break! There is so little about Barack's record of issue raising that suggests that this isn't simply political positioning--an attempt to appeal to Hillary voters.

I applaud what he said, but I don't think for a moment that he means what he said in any meaningful way.

You don't think that a Black man who didn't have a father in his life is honestly concerned about the lack of fathers for Black children?

Not everything is a reason to doubt the man.

There are legitimate grievances and concerns with Obama, but the tendency to attack him irrespective of the facts cheapens the message. Someone will read this attack on Obama and think, "Heh, those guys are nuts, it was a good speech."

Specifically, their incorrect categorization of the speech. So why did both of you make your responses with the assumption that Soren was criticizing Obama?

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Obama talks to a black church on Father's Day and uses the occasion to condemn those black fathers who neglect their responsibilities to their children. He is speaking from personal experience.

Bill Clinton compared a black musician and activist to the leader of the KKK.

It's easy to misinterpret the comparison as an attack on Obama, even if the slant is calling out the media (or whoever) for failing to attack Obama for what mos agree was a decent speech...

Which was, why were they complaining about Soren criticizing Obama's speech, when he was actually criticizing the media's coverage of Obama's speech? - because trust me: if Soren intended to criticize the speech itself, he would have done so explicitly.

I think that this is a situation where somebody is having a headspace issue; only, whoever it is who's having it, it isn't Soren.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Calling that speech a "Sister Souljah" moment is to call it a gaffe, a mistake, an insensitive swipe for political gain. You are right that it is not a critique; it is a comparison meant to dismiss the speech as crass politics without having to go through the effort of proving it as such.

What was the media (or Jesse Jackson, as the two are conflated in the post) supposed to say about the speech? That Obama was clearly talking out of his rear end and doesn't give a hoot about family values?

There's a difference between "Telling the truth" and making stupid comments. Clinton could have easily said something along the lines of "Violence only leads to more violence, and I denounce those who call for violence against my fellow Americans." Pointed enough without being so stupid as to compare a black political activist to the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Your line of argument feels disingenuous, although I do enjoy the back and forth.

Seeing as [he, like yourself, is] criticizing Jonathan Martin for calling it a Sister Souljah-type speech.

Umm. There's no real diplomatic way to put this: we expect our readers to read our posts before they actually comment on them.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I didn't understand the post. I suppose that attempting to call this a "Sister Souljah" moment (that phrase now sounds absurd, but whatever, I'll stick with it) is giving Obama a free ride when there are other, worthier moments for comparison. Would have been nice if he'd provided a few, but then again, they're everywhere. It's late and I'm tired.

Apologies, will try to refrain from posting in this state of mind in the future.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

With respect, Moe, I'm glad you could clarify Soren's intent, because as written it just wasn't clearly apparent, it seems, to anyone but you. If every single poster here interpreted the post as some sort of criticism of Obama or his speech, there's probably a reason for that which might be worth considering before you insult your readers for their laziness or stupidity. In this case, the reason is: Soren wasn't clear.

I actually read the post several times to try to figure out what he was saying, and after your explanation, I re-read it, and I have to admit I still don't get it entirely. I mean, now I understand the point, but it really wasn't nearly as obvious as you make it out to be. I still don't get the end of it: "stop giving Obama a free-ride" [sic]? What exactly is the free ride? That Obama is being credited with a "Sistah Souljah" moment that he doesn't deserve because his audience was receptive? Huh? Is that even it? It just makes no sense. I'm glad it was evident to you, but evidently everyone else here felt differently.

And as long as we're picking nits, the overall writing and grammar in Soren's post is far below your site's usual standards -- it's horrendous, actually. In addition to seeming lazy and amateurish, the poor writing contributes directly to the failure to articulate and communicate an idea.

I would like to be clear that I'm not attacking the man, whom I don't know in the least, just this one deficient post which you have used as an opportunity to unjustifiably and snobbishly criticize your readers.

There's nothing like a post that starts off with the classic weasel "With respect," goes for an overly-familiar tone from a one-hour driveby, follows through with a false suggestion of speaking for the crowd, and ends with both complaints about the post and personal insults made against a site moderator. Nothing finer with which to end a night's blogging.

Well, not quite.

Moe

PS: You can send a link to your They Banned Me, ME!!!!! post to us via the Contact link. We collect 'em.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

... her racist comments. In fact, it was one of the cleverest and most right he did during his campaign.

Whether or not she was black, purple, green, blue or pink with beige stripes, what she said, if the races were reversed, would not have sounded out of place coming out of Robert Byrd's mouth some decades ago.

It may have made the politically correct (like you) blanch and hither high to their fainting couches but it was true - she sounded like a Klucker. And Clinton did the right thing by pointing it out before the same audience that had just applauded her for those very same comments.

He even gained votes because of it. Deservedly so.