19 Responses to “Media’s Spin On Obama’s Race Speech”

1. Elyas Says:
   March 18th, 2008 at 10:48 am

   Actually, CNN’s first version was worse than Fox’s: “Obama: Constitution stained by stain of slavery.”

2. Polimom Says » Obama on Black and White Anger Says:
   March 18th, 2008 at 11:38 am

   [...] Gardner has a media spin outtake at Donklephant (it’s an interesting early look): So to sum up, MSNBC and CNN once again prove to be as [...]

3. kritter Says:
   March 18th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

   I thought he showed a lot of guts and intergenerational understanding by refusing to throw Wright under the bus, and saying that Geraldine Ferarro deserved better as well. This is a very good example of what I personally look for when I speak of “telling us what we’d rather not hear.”

   Whether it will hurt or help him once the various spins take hold remains to be seen. I happened to catch most of it, and found it very honest, sensible, and challenging where it needed to be challenging. I wish more folks had gotten to hear and see the speech in its entirety.

   The bit I found to be most on point (and sure, mileage WILL indeed vary) was this:

   We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

   We can do that.

   But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

   This speech gave me a clearer picture of where Obama hopes to lead us than anything that he or any other candidate has said so far.

4. Rob Says:
   March 18th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

   I read the transcript at kos, the full story you linked to on cnn and the excerpts from fox and msnbc that you posted.

   Sorry JG, but fox got it right without missing points on the continued relationship like cnn or throwing their panties and fainting like msnbc.

   1) Obama in no uncertain terms condemned the reverends divisive content and incendiary language (Obama’s own words).

   2) Obama goes on to explain that the reverend and the body of his life’s work represent the good, the bad and the ugly of the black community and their present experience affected by past injustice.

   3) Obama repeatedly distances himself from the rhetoric in question, but not the man; stating many times that the reverend has been a positive influence in his life even if he didn’t agree with everything the reverend preached.

   4) Obama relates the black experience to the white experience tying it into the american experience.

   I can match that up point for point with what fox printed, minus the last part, but then I didn’t read fox’s entire article so they may have covered that as well.

   For you to call msnbc objective as it acts like a high-school groupie at a rock concert and then insinuate fox is biased when based on what’s presented is the most complete and objective article of the bunch…

   Your response comes across like a toned down version of “OMFG they didn’t heap praise on Ron Paul, ALERT teh INTERWEBS!!!”

   Credibility is a function of objectivity… don’t start taking cues from rabid paulites.

5. Tully Says:
   March 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

   Can’t we all just get along? ;-)

6. Rob Says:
   March 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

   Personally, I thought it was a good speech. Solid intro, condemned the sermons, didn’t try to distance himself from the man, spared us a little on the platitudes, hell he even gave a nod to ferraro (brilliant political move imo), but he should have ended just before the story.

   To be fair it was an empty platitude, but damn if it doesn’t warm the heart.

   Anyway that’s where I would have cut it off.

7. joe Says:
   March 18th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

   Different ears hear different things I guess.

   Being an Obama supporter I was in tune to his speech and explanations and thought it was brilliant.

   As for someone who doesn’t like him in the first place this just gives them more fuel for the fire.

   Those in between, either they are impressed and may change their minds to vote for him or they are convinced to give their vote to someone else.

   All because people hear what they choose to hear. I keep reading how people think the reverend’s words were racist and hateful. I for one don’t think so. I think they are factual. on point yet mean spirited. Since most are split from that starting point it’s no wonder we hear the words and speeches differently.

   It is true that America has done some horrible things around the globe. They are not to be excused because of the good that is also done. You must also know that things go on around the world by Americans and people in government that will never be aired by the American media. (the atrocities in Guatemala by the U.S. school of mercenaries to wipe out the locals and allow US corporations to take over industries). That’s just to name one incdient.

   Wright’s words are uttered by thousnads of preachers every Sunday morning. It is commonplace in the black church as well as many white evangelical churches. Southern churches may not preach racism out loud but they surely do practice it. As I said on another blog, there are churches that will not let you in the door unless you are white. There are whites that will never step inside the doors of a predominiantly black church.

   This garbage has been fed to Americans since childhood and we live and breath it like we are defending something that is right and good in all of our arrogant, self righteous presumptuousness.

   I wonder when McCain’s minister’s comments will surface? Because he too has said many inflammatory things. Will his supporters then have a change of mind?

   I grew up in a church where statements were made like Wright’s all the time. Hate? No. Anger and rage over social injustice? Absolutely. Does it make it right? No. But you can’t call people racist for telling it like it is.

8. William Swann Says:
   March 18th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

   “Sorry JG, but fox got it right without missing points on the continued relationship like cnn or throwing their panties and fainting like msnbc.”

   I think I’m going to have to go with Justin on this one. Both the title and especially the first sentence of the Fox piece seem to either miss the basic thrust of the speech or misrepresent part of what was said. I didn’t see any point at which Obama suggested “the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.’s incendiary rhetoric is still valid.” He condemned the man’s rhetoric unequivocally, and repeatedly. Takes a fairly sizeable dose of spin to make out of it what Fox did.

9. kevin Says:
   March 18th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

   I am surprised that a BLACK man in a country that ACTUALLY ENSLAVED BLACK people in America…and that a Black man could actually have a chance to become president. But I am also surprised that it took this long for RACE to become a MAJOR issue in Obama’s quest to become President, in this supposed (United) States. America is a country where SLAVERY existed and the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment were performed on 400 Black share croppers. Based on the history of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment in America, I TOTALLY believe Rev Wright when he said America could have invented AIDS for BLACKS!

   Yes Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment were performed on 400 Black share croppers that deliberately infected 400 BLACK share croppers with the (Syphilis) virus and NEVER told them what they were actually doing to them. If a country like the United States could do something like the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and actually had a time when people accepted SLAVERY, then history shows that it could happen AGAIN. Could you tell a JEW to FORGET about the HOLOCAUST?! No! But you want to tell Blacks to forget about being SLAVES and being used for Syphilis Experiments!

   And CIVIL rights for BLACKS ONLY happened about 40 years ago in the 1960’s. ONLY 40 YEARS ago in the 1960’s!!!! You have too be kidding me! It took AMERICA that long (AFTER SLAVERY) to give BLACKS their CIVIL rights after SLAVERY. Wow, what a GREAT country America is and WAS for BLACK people! But we should just fall in line NOW, and FORGET every thing in AMERICA’s pass, because WHITE America feel guilty and said we should. Some things NEVER change about White people telling you how to THINK and act.

10. Rob Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    He does validate it, citing the injustices of the past and present, as the root of the sentiments expressed.

    That those sentiments, while unproductive, are the natural evolution of social inequality and politicians of feeding of the anger it engenders.

    That’s validation. I don’t agree, but it makes sense that you believe [insert opinion here]. Validation is not endorsement.

    The text starting at:

    “The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through”

    And ending around:

    “This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years.”

    Of course if you’re looking for, “I Barack Obama, disagree with what the Reverend Wright opinions, but he’s justified in feeling that way” you’re not going to find it. His writers are a tad more eloquent then that.

11. I dont get it Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    Whats funny is this pastor has over 480 hours worth of sermons. Why is the media cherry picking only 30 minutes?

12. William Swann Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

    “He does validate it, citing the injustices of the past and present, as the root of the sentiments expressed.”

    I disagree, Rob. The Fox piece said (in it’s opening sentence, no less) that Obama said Rev. Wright’s “incendiary rhetoric is still valid”.

    And we all know what that rhetoric is — “God damn America”, and all that.

    I think it’s more accurate to say he expressed understanding for the feelings of frustration and anger of some folks in the older generation, while not validating the most incendiary words they sometimes use. I thought that distinction was clear in his speech. But here it is — missing — in the lead sentence of the Fox article.

    Imo, this is just what Obama was saying in the segment quoted by Kritter. We can all decide to have this “discussion” on the dopey, grade-school level of “tag, you’re it … you’re the one to blame”, etc. The folks actively involved in discussing and debating politics in our country will mostly want to talk about it on that level, because it’s a way of advantaging or disadvantaging one party or one politician over another. Obama asked, instead, for us to discuss this like adults.

    And then Fox wrote a story that said “tag, you’re it” — you validate the worst kind of incendiary rhetoric — in its first sentence.

    To place it in context of my own views, I find it understandable, on some level, that parts of black America feel frustrated with some of their experiences in America, particularly the older generation that experienced gross inequality. There are black Americans alive to day who were denied the right to vote — here in the world’s greatest democracy.

    Those feelings may be valid, while some of the things they say and do are not. The response to oppression that works for the oppressed is to try harder, both on the political level and in your personal lives. A fierce determination to “show them how wrong they are” is the most effective response to oppression. The rhetoric you hear from some black leaders doesn’t reflect this priority. So I can personally blame black leaders for some of the things they say, while fully understanding the frustration and legitimate emotion underlying their concerns.

    I’ve often felt the same way about the Israili-Palestinian conflict. If the Palestinians had pursued a course of non-violent protest, I believe they would actually have a Palestinian state today. I don’t think the world would accept continued Israeli occupation if the Palestinian’s could simply show they will be peaceful neighbors. The actions, and some of the rhetoric, of Palestinians is not “valid”, even if some of the underlying emotions are understandable.

    But we can’t have that discussion, right? It has to be all one-way, or all the other. The opinions that mean something, in terms of getting media exposure, are the ones where one side can rack up a powerful indictment against the other.

13. B. Moore Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

    As a black man in America, I thought that Obama did a great job of articulating the racial issues that are hardly ever talked about in public, and gave white America insight to better understand black preachers and the black church. My only question to the American public is when did we become so brained washed with patriotism that we can no longer objectively examine this country. Americans need to stop the witch-hunt for racists. Just because Rev. Wright speaks, “loudly” about his problems with America does not make him racist. I know it sounds bad to those who do not attend black churches, but most black preachers use a lot of volume and passion in their sermons. In my opinion, Rev. Wright is not a racist, but a black man who has experienced the injustices of this country and is still “frustrated” and “angry.” If you had live through what he has, you might be angry too. To move forward in the perfection of this union, we need to see America for both its flaws as well as its greatness.

    -B. Moore

14. Rob Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Will, the damn internets ate my post, so you’ll have to suffice with this free-flow rehash.

    I will agree that people tend to see and hear what they want to; none of us are completely free of our own biases.

    I reread the cnn article and read the fox article, but the msnbc article is gone and now links to the associated press article.

    Imo, why and how Obama can condemn the rhetoric while supporting the man is an important point that CNN didn’t even gloss over. It’s up in the air whether he stood by the pastor because he was politically brave or because he would be unlikely to disassociate himself from the rhetoric if he’d thrown the rev under the bus. Whatever the reasoning, I think he made the right decision.

    After reading fox’s article, they pretty much made an article that primarily quoted from his speech. They weren’t gushing, over Obama, but that’s hardly “trying to throw more gas on the fire”.

    Unfortunately (or fortunately) I couldn’t read msnbc’s fluff piece (as evidenced by the excerpt) in it’s entirety, because it’s appears to have been replaced with the associated press article. Accident or wise decision?

    Anyway, my point was not about bashing obama or his speech, for which I’ve already iterated my admiration. My point was to draw attention to and hopefully curb some of this anti-intellectual behavior like the “faux news sux” meme.

    JG tried to call fox out for being unfair without proving it, leaned on the faux news meme, and then claimed msnbc’s pie-eyed fluff piece was objective.

    If you want to shoot something down, try the message and not the messenger.

15. HappyinTexas Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    Obama finally gets coaght in a lie. Last night he said he was a regular attendee at the church but never hear White say anything bad. Today he says that he wasn’t always there but sometimes heard White say things he didn’t agree with, which he overlooked because the guy was really John the Baptist. Which is it Obama? You can’t have it both ways. Are you for driver’s licenses, or aren’t you?

16. rust belt Says:
    March 18th, 2008 at 11:45 pm

    Do white people get to talk about race too, or do we have to settle for Obama speaking for us, describing for us what we really feel and what it really means?

    Because I reject his articulation of so-called “white resentment’. Obama isn’t qualified to speak for me.

    He has made NO effort to get to understand what “white resentment” actually feels like. He shows neither understanding nor real respect for working class whites (typical of “elite” liberals in general).

    He has no right to claim he knows how I feel, let alone pass judgement on whether my feelings are legitimate or not.

    The phrase “grievance politics” (and other phrases like it) describe a relationship where one partner - in this case the designated victim - gets to control everything:

    - who gets to speak, and of what;
    - how the narrative can and cannot be defined;
    - what words may be used, and by whom;
    - what demands are reasonable, and what is offensive.

    Real, healthy relationship can only be a two-way street, and that is why working class whites are so “resentful”: because, for us, our experience of race relations is toxic and dysfunctional.

    What I heard in last night’s speech was more of the same, not something fresh and new.

    What is at issue are the basic ground rules themselves. Just like in Obama’s speech, the assumption is that it is (forever and always) supposed to be black men talking, white men listening; black demands, white obligations. We are not allowed to question whether blacks too have responsibilities or obligations they ought to meet. We’re not supposed to question the black man’s right to determine what’s fair.

    And mostly what the black man wants always seems to be more or less what the white man wants, too. But we’re supposed to understand that, instead of working together to meet our goals as a people, the Entitled Black Man has a special claim to “fix” the problem (HIS problem, not OURS) by just taking more than his fair share of whatever the status quo already offers. And of course if we refuse to play the game his way, we are “racist”. (Another central myth: white people don’t suffer. All you have to do in the USA to be rich and join the country club is be white, right?)

    But white working class voters are not willing to live with rules like these. Here in the rust belt, we want poverty tackled, eradicated, not merely shifted more from black to white (ratio).

    The time for unilateral black victim status is over. Gone. We’ve endured a great deal of pain (which has mostly gone unappreciated by the more affluent whites who have so cheerfully offered us up as a scapegoat-sacrifice on their behalf…). We’re tired of hearing about what black men want from us.

    It’s time to start demanding a little accountability.

    I thought Obama was a “new” politician – one capable of understanding white people and really working with them to get something new and good. I was devastated to learn that he’s really nothing more than Jesse Jackson, only subtle. He won’t be able to mediate any race relations, because he’s not capable of winning white trust, outside of “white guilt” liberals (who are perfectly willing to be incredibly generous with what working class whites are willing to give up in the name of racial harmony).

    I am not one an affluent/elite liberal; I’m more of the “union” type of Democrat. A working class white Rust Belt voter. And here’s a news flash: I don’t give a rat’s back about skin color. I have actually taken great pleasure at the sight of workers, of every possible national origin, streaming out of a factory at shift change. I have watched this sight and thought, this is the melting pot, this is the American dream in technicolor reality.

    My resentment is not about skin color, but about values, and culture. My core values are important to me. I quite unapologetically believe in hard work and in taking responsibility for oneself. Honesty, and ethical behavior. Fair play. Equal opportunity for all, regardless of skin color. I approve heartily of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” - I view it as the basis of my image of how race relations ought to be: total assimilation as equals.

    I reject “white guilt”; like most Americans, my family came here through Ellis Island, decades after slavery was outlawed. Nobody in my family ever owned a slave, or for that matter did anything else, that I know of, that could possibly make me owe them anything. (Can Rev. Wright say nobody in his family tree ever owned slaves? I don’t hold much with this choosing which half of your heritage you wish to hold on to - I view it as fundamentally incompatible with “blood guilt”. I certainly don’t get to disown my own familial guilt, now, do I?)

    I reject the “zero sum” attitude that has ruled black culture. The cure for black poverty is not to rob Peter to pay Paul, but to work toward a culture where every single citizen is guaranteed access to real opportunity. I’d like it if all Americans willing to work hard and play by the rules could enjoy financial security, but I’d settle for all Americans getting a solid education and a fair shot at a decent life. But something that can’t be overlooked in this is that blacks have to understand that with rights, comes responsibilities. The two go hand in hand.

    I totally, completely, and most unapologetically reject the culture Obama defends. The one that nurses its grievances and wallows in how victimized it is. It fails to recognize the importance of the role played by individual choice.

    Its adherents do not fully appreciate how much affirmative action violates those it takes from; its adherents do not fully recognize that such an emotionally violent action puts an obligation on the recipient.

    Working class whites can’t invest in Obama’s black (entitlement) America. We don’t have anything left to spare, and our towns are dying. Working class whites need someone to invest in working class America. What about us? Obama doesn’t say. I don’t think he cares.

17. CJ Says:
    March 19th, 2008 at 3:45 am

    Rustbelt,
    I’d like to respectfully disagree with some of your points. I am a working class Black man with a wife and four kids. I feel the same economic and social pressures you do, though from different sources. A few points I’d like to make:
    I do not agree with Affirmitive Action in the context of today’s reality. Race should not determine a person’s opportunity. To suggest that, in the historical context, white America has not had huge advantages over blacks/browns would be revisionist history at best. However, taking it back the other way is not the answer. Instead, the focus should be, as Obama noted, making sure that everyone starts from the same point in relation to education, social and civil services, etc.
    Also, I think Senator Obama is a bit more qaulified than you think to speak on what white people think. Not only is he the creation of a Kenyan (not African-American) father and a white mother, his father left early in his life, leaving his upbringing to his white mother and family. It is not as if he grew up in the ghetto, went to a historically black college, and suddenly became the presumptive candidate. He knows more about the white experience than I do, and more about the black experience than you do, which I believe gives him a fresh perspective. Another thing I find especially disturbing is how you equate Obama’s positions with those of Jesse Jackson and other black leaders, when I have yet to see him involved with any of these people. Is being black make him responsible for the opinions and words of every black leader, pastor, or idiot with a microphone? If I call that bigotry, then I’m playing the ‘race card’, but it’s at best an uninformed opinion that you hold. Lastly, I would like to let you know that most working class black people don’t particularly feel ‘entitled’, and in fact would reject such things. What ails Black America at this point is subpar schools, crumbling infrastructure, and a profound sense of detachment from the people that govern us. I’m sure these same issues are high on your list. Just as pointing the finger at the “Man” and waiting for reparations (don’t worry - it’ll NEVER happen) won’t help us, complaining that the blacks took all the jobs/scholarships/opportunities from the disadvantaged white man won’t solve your problems, either. You want people that just got the right to vote 40 years ago to sympathize with you because the jobs you’re used to having are being outsourced, and you haven’t updated your skillset? How backwards is that? The country that your family immigrated to became the Land of Opportunity because it built tremendous wealth over two centuries of free labor. Everyone who has come here since, and you and I today, benefit from that. No, I don’t want any advantage over a white person in the same situation as I; that says that I’m inferior and need help to be your equal. This is where we agree the most. Entitlements for anybody (minorities, women, etc.) runs counter to capitalism and accountability. Title IX is wrong for the same reason. It does not erase the evils of the past, it makes the effects worse. Welfare doesn’t help people get ahead, it keeps them down and makes them lazy. Not that this will change your view of him, but I think you should research some of Sen. Obama’s, or anyone else’s, positions before you waste an entire post deriding them. I think you’d find, even in the speech, that you agree with him more than you think. He even gave a speech to black people in Texas challenging us to be more responsible for our children, communities, and future.

18. Dancing Heretic Says:
    March 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    Wow, CJ. I was just going to make a snarky response to rustbelt, but thank you for your far more measured and thoughtful response. Speaking as a white woman, I agree that Obama did an excellent job of articulating the fears and resentment of both groups.

    Rustbelt, it’s ironic that you complain about black people always “playing the victim,” because to me that’s how your post comes across. You seem determined to be self-righteously offended and feel oppressed by what Obama had to say, no matter the content. If you look at what he has to said, he raised many of the issues that you yourself mention (which suggests he understands your position more than you seem willing to credit). I understand that a lot of people feel angry about what Obama’s pastor said, but how is it really different than the generalizations you yourself are making about all black people expecting special treatment etc etc etc? Furthermore, Obama has said that isn’t the view he himself takes, and the positions he is advocating are geared to bring us closer to the color-blind America you say you want even if they acknowledge that we aren’t there yet. What is it that you want from him?

19. rust belt Says:
    March 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    No, CJ, when I heard Obama speak, all I heard was a man who says what we want to hear, then adds a “bakchand” - a qualifier reversing the meaning.

    So while he’s totally appalled by what Rev. Wright says - who can blame Rev. Wright when he’s so justified?

    So while he’s totally sympathetic to the white working class man’s sufferings - his policies aren’t with reverse discrimination, but with “corporations”. So what he sympathizes with is our pain at outsourcing. Not our pain over unjust racial policies.

    He’s a two faced lying hypocrite. He waited until “racist” America proved they were ready to treat a black man as an equal contender - then he pulls this “America needs to understand the history of the black man’s pain” stuff.

    Well, I don’t have any white guilt left to manipulate it. You guys took it in direct payback 1992-1995, when my family was robbed and I was informed that white people don’t deserve equal access to government services. When does the white man who already paid get a THANK YOU? Oh wait slavery says never having to recognize any limit, any end to the debt.

    Well, those who wanted to, took affirmative action and made good with it.

    I don’t have anything in common with Obama’s “elite” whites. I never went to a prestigious prep school. But if he thinks he knows white people…

    He should not have called Ferraro a racist. The quote - where Obama said THE SAME THING she said - is being passed around. Obama could have just treated that question as if it were a debate question. He could have just said something nice about how great it is that we’re inclusive enough for this even to be a question - then reaffirmed his qualifications.

    But he isn’t ready to let go of his special ticket. He doesn’t want equality, he wants America to invest in “black” suffering.

    I compare him to Jesse Jackson (only subtle) because he rejects the idea that blacks need to assimilate. Instead, he wants us to just subsidize a class of professional victims. Well, I don’t mind saying that’s a bad “investment”. Those who want help when they won’t act to help themselves are what in finance is called a moral hazard.

    Racial policies aren’t “complex”. Either you assimilate and become one of us, or you don’t. Obama knows this, which is why he pretended to be so assimilated - “acting white” - hiding his church. Lying.

    Every other ethnic code has had to figure out for themselves: it isn’t America’s place to build an escalator out of the gutter. It is an American’s responsibility to pull themselves out - and America’s responsibility to reward legitimate effort with assistance. That’s why those who wanted to, did very well by affirmative action.

    By the way my kid started school at an inner city elementary school. I used to go in and help in the classroom - one really dedicated black lady trying to teach an entire school full of kids to read, by herself, except for the volunteers who wandered in.

    I got a book on how to fix up broken-down neighborhoods, and you know what it said? First it lectured me on the evils of the white man, and gave a history of slavery. And it kept calling us White and Black - capital letters, trying to make that the important thing about who we are. You have to decide. What do you want? Do you want your neighborhood fixed up, or do you want to just keep lecturing about slavery? You can’t have both.

    That is what you need to understand. You can have what could be or you can have what could have been. But it is your dwelling on how things should have been - your vision of how the world might have looked if only it were as fair as you imagine it ought to have been - that keeps blacks in the gutters today. That, not the color of your skin, is the cause of discrimination.

    The moment you are ready to join the American dream, take a leap of faith and throw yourself into the melting pot - I’m right here, I’ll teach your kid to read. The moment you’re ready.

    But if you won’t commit then screw you. No other ethnic group got the advantages you demanded, and they didn’t succeed and assimilated DESPITE that, they succeeded and assimilated BECAUSE OF that.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• Video: Obama’s Race Speech “A More Perfect Union”
• Obama’s Race Speech Viewed 2,000,000+ Times In 2 Days
• Watch Obama’s Speech Live