TPM has the text. Pretty heavy on generational praise, a good bit of policy (education, EITC, jobs for ex-offenders etc.) and some of the personal responsibility stuff. Fine by me. I'll be very interested to see if we get another "Obama Scolds Blacks" headline from media folks. TPM thought that was the most important part of the speech, so who knows.
UPDATE: Thanks for the links guys. I'll have a longer response tomorrow. I find those headlines depressing. It says a lot more about media, and possibly--though I'm not sure of this--the broader country, than it says about Obama's speech.
UPDATE#2: That "Obama tells NAACP blacks must take responsibility" is borderline racist. I try not to throw that charge around much, But I can't see how anyone who doesn't think black folks are a bunch of roaring baboons could write that. I just don't get it...
UPDATE#4: I promised a long post analyzing the stupidity of the coverage of Obama and "personal responsibility." It's just not worth it. I can't spend the next few hours working out some nuanced explanation for why that headline is stupid. I'm hoping it speaks for itself. I don't have the energy to fight this battle anymore. If media wants to pit Obama against this strawman who sits around shaking his cup, demanding reparations and yelling "Whitey did it" there's not a damn thing I can do to stop them. And at the end of the day, who really cares? I'm too tired for this...
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I read the entire speech. It was fine.
"I'll be very interested to see if we get another 'Obama Scolds Blacks' headline from media folks."
The AP has already gone there. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_blacks;_ylt=AmD5JaqSAIM19lttWL_yH3.s0NUE
Culling headlines from Google News...
_________
Obama Urges NAACP to Insist on 'Responsibility'
Washington Post, United States - 44 minutes ago
Obama tells blacks they must take responsibility
Reuters - 58 minutes ago
Obama Addresses NAACP Convention - Stands By Message of Personal ...
FOXNews - 1 hour ago
Obama stresses 'responsibility' to black audience
Inquirer.net, Philippines - 2 hours ago
__________
Its the same old, same old. This is a really, really blatant example of spin, because there is a hell of a lot more to the speech then just Obama upbraiding blacks (although that is there AGAIN, cause you know we don't get that ENOUGH from every single corner possible, and way to praise and highlight the women and men who are doing the right thing NOW, but whatever. -_-), and the media is being damn selective with what it highlights.
Joan Walsh at Salon.com notes that ABC News is also playing the "talking down" headline":
"... the AP wasn't alone: ABC News headlined its story "Obama to talk tough-love at NAACP, despite Jackson frustrations."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/07/14/obama_naacp/
Had Obama's 2008 Father's Day (FD) message struck the kind of balance his NAACP speech did (from my glance at the text) then things would have been different. His March 2007 speech at Selma, AL was better both for its balance and eloquence (he included the line about "fatherhood doesn't end at conception" and talked about the task before the "Joshua Generation").
Somewhere along the line, though, the emphasis changed.
Obama has been consistent in "talking up" as opposed to "talking down" to non-black groups even when the groups have their own set of negative indicators -- e.g. Native Americans and Hispanic Americans. And "talking up" to a voting group is just what he did when he spoke before LULAC:
As it is, even this more balanced speech is poisoned by his previous statements and, by comparison, the inherent internalized racism is apparent.
Obama's speech at the NAACP flowed like his recent speech before LULAC (and, some of it, like his 2007 FD speech) but it diverged when his compulsive desire to be "tough" on Blacks caused him to betray the gospel music inspired approach of "looking beyond faults" to see peoples needs the way he did when addressing the Hispanic audience at LULAC:
"...That's what this election is about.
It's about the one in three Latinas who don't have health care...
It's about the Latino students who are dropping out of school faster than nearly anybody else; the mother in L.A. who said she felt like the education system wasn't designed for people like her; and the children from West Chicago to the South Bronx who go to overflowing classes in underfunded schools taught by teachers who aren't getting the support they need. They cannot afford another four years of false promises and neglect...
Americans don't need government to solve all their problems, and they don't want it to. They just want to know that if they put in the work that's required, they'll be able to build a better life not just for themselves, but for their children and grandchildren. It's the idea that in this country, the only limit to success is how big you're willing to dream and how hard you're willing to work... nobody embodies this spirit more than the Latino community."
Missing is Obama attributing the Latino drop out rate to some type of cultural or group character flaw. None of that personal responsibility stuff is there either and certainly nothing about the supposed "slander" of "Acting White" -- the stereotype Obama floated in his 2004 convention speech, apparently, to be "tough" on Blacks even though the phenomenon is worse among Hispanics, to the extent that it exist as advertised.
Agreed. We're in a, "post-racial" campaign, and if both Obama and the media can feel free to s--t on blacks, why can't they s--t on latinos, native americans, poor whites, etc.? After all, Obama represents EVERYONE, so he should be able to criticize EVERYONE right?
If EVERYONE was receiving such harsh treatment then I wouldn't have a problem in it, but there seems to be a special place in America's heart for berating blacks in a unique way. Note Obama doesn't go into the Appalachians or other poor rural white areas and tell them THEY need to work harder and their men need to fly right despite all the social and economic ills that have befallen them (many of which--ie, the end of American industrialization, the disintegration of the American nuclear family, etc.--are hurting both whites and blacks). I think if he DID--and maybe acknowledged a little more often that SOME black men were actually doing the right thing on occasion--I'd respect him a lot more and perhaps begin to buy into the, "post-racial" hype; or maybe just not dismiss it out of hand like I do now.
And note the media doesn't talk of, "personal responsibility" for any other group in America besides black. Seriously,when was the last time you saw so many damn headlines in a period of two months talking about how one ENTIRE group of people in America need to, "act right" and be, "good men" and other such criticisms?
Gah this is frustrating.
It is frustrating, Alexander but you said this,
"I think if he DID--and maybe acknowledged a little more often that SOME black men were actually doing the right thing on occasion"
There are many who are doing the right thing on a regular basis!! If you actually look at the ACCURATE stats and take into account that just because a man isn't in the home doesn't mean that he isn't taking care of his children and in their life then you would come to find out that it is the majority who are taking care of business and being ignored because our society wants to give airtime to those who are not to paint us as collectively dysfunctional, irresponsible and morally bankrupt.
Now Nquest, I knew that was you and I should change my name to Nquest fan. I co-sign as usual.
Sad...
This is what I mean by being careful about what you say, or rather, understanding which parts of what you say "white folks," "media," "they" (it's all more or less the same, no?) pay attention to. Because not everyone watched the speech or will read the transcript.
That said, this is a very good speech and the policy points definitely dominate. But yea...the headlines, that's what racism looks like.
Since the moment the MSM LIED about his speech in Hampton, VA, I have taken to reading ALL his speeches for myself. This one is no different.
The speech was 27 paragraphs long. 'Personal responsibility' was TWO paragraphs.
I just wanted to draw your attention to a website-- www.obamatracker.com
This site posts dozens of stories regarding Barack Obama daily, from all different news organizations. We currently have over 3,000 stories, and we're only adding more as they come! It's a great resource for finding out anything about Obama.
I knew this was going to happen. I saw a headline from the Washington Post last night, and knew that was going to be the copout angle they came up with from his speech. It's like no one is really listening to the man.
It's not Barack's fault that too many folks in the MSM are looking for the easy angle, or that they feel Obama is somehow breaking new ground in the so-called black community by lecturing us on "personal responsibility."
I wish there was someway Barack could address this - but then again it'd be blown all out of context, stripped of nuance and the right would accuse Barack of whining and being a racial apologist.
Sigh. I can't wait until this election is over already. So much for that post-racial society we supposedly live in.
"I don't have the energy to fight this battle anymore. If media wants to pit Obama against this strawman who sits around shaking his cup, demanding reparations and yelling "Whitey did it" there's not a damn thing I can do to stop them. And at the end of the day, who really cares? I'm too tired for this..."
Dude, take heart, your blog as a whole does this every day.
Nquest & Alexander, so right. For all the talk of this being a post-racial era, if Senator Obama (or Sen. McCain) delivered that speech to LULAC or La Raza, there would probably be a lot of grumbling about the messenger even though the message is valid.
At some point, Sen. Obama is going to have to decide if he's going to govern all the people of the USA or just those who share an African ancestry with him. He has an unique opportunity to open up our national discussion in a way that white politicians have failed to do, through timidity, bigotry, or just plain lack of know how.
It's asking a lot of the man but if not him, who? If not now, when? It's his moment and he needs to seize it for all its power. It's a cliche now since the Spiderman movies but with great power, there is great responsibilty. He must accept that responsibility and spread his message to all people not just his supposed base.
Two things:
1) Amen, Ta-Nehisi. The media guys want drama. Another story about how Obama supports basically liberal policies - boring. A story about that lets them both talk about a supposed intra-community "fight" AND talk about how black men are irresponsible - priceless. And this is why folks have been giving Obama a hard time for doing the personal responsibility thing, because it feeds those trolls. I think it may be politically smart - i.e. helping white people who are nervous about voting for the black guy feel more comfortable by confirming their racism - but at what price?
2) I think it's really interesting that the comments have headed to "why isn't he accusing Latinos and Native Americans of being irresponsible?" To me, it seems really different to have that conversation when you are part of the group and when you are an outsider. "This is something WE need to do," vs. "this is something YOU need to do." But also, it just seems like more beating up on the little guy. Why no calls for him to take rich and powerful people to task, like the CEO's we're currently bailing out? Shouldn't THEY be taking more personal responsibility for the messes they've created?
Keep the faith, babe, but it's fine (and necessary) to take a break from beating your head against that brick wall every now and then.
Live to fight another day.
rikyrah,
Tell us about his 2007 vs. 2008 Father's Day speeches. There is no way those two are the same. The emphasis changed. PERIOD.
And his speech at Hampton was markedly different from this peculiar emphasis and his apparent desire to be "tough" on Blacks. That's clear to see for anyone who has read the speeches.
From the Hampton speech:
"We can diminish poverty if we approach it in two ways: by taking mutual responsibility for each other as a society, and also by asking for some more individual responsibility to strengthen our families. If we want to stop the cycle of poverty, then we need to start with our families.
We need to start supporting parents with young children. There is a pioneering Nurse-Family Partnership program right now that offers home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income mothers and mothers-to-be. They learn how to care for themselves before the baby is born and what to do after. It's common sense to reach out to a young mother. Teach her about changing the baby. Help her understand what all that crying means, and when to get vaccines and check-ups."
Obviously and decidedly different chord and tenor struck from the "parents need to parent" Cosby-like line and it's clear how that's different from the NAACP speech:
"...we have to do more in our own lives, our own families, and our own communities. That starts with providing the guidance our children need, turning off the TV, and putting away the video games; attending those parent-teacher conferences, helping our children with their homework, and setting a good example. It starts with teaching our daughters to never allow images on television to tell them what they are worth; and teaching our sons to treat women with respect, and to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; that what makes them men is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one. It starts by being good neighbors and good citizens who are willing to volunteer in our communities – and to help our synagogues and churches and community centers feed the hungry and care for the elderly. We all have to do our part to lift up this country."
Note: Even when Obama talked about volunteering... There was a difference. Gone was the "it takes a village to raise a child" emphasis, though I've noted how the NAACP speech was more balanced even though "personal responsibility" isn't in a politicians job description.
So, really, not a single line in a politicians speech, much less a paragraph (not to mention a recurring theme) should ever be about "personal responsibility" -- particularly as selectively as it is.
Obama understands that his job is to tell other constituency groups, not to be confused with his most loyal constituency (you know, the one that folks over at JJP credited with delivering him the nomination), what he intends to do for them and that's it.
I'm starting to think that the only time that a certain faction of white folks listen to an Obama speech is for the part where he says that black people need to do this or that and the other. They perk up for that part, snooze through the rest and then the media prints the "Bill Cosby/Jason Whitlock" part as if it were the whole speech and then a certain faction of white folks can feel all superior and Bible-thump to their sick little heart's content.
And before decent white folk attack me, please go back and read the part where I said a "certain faction" of white folks. If you're white and you're an asshat, I'm talking to you, and you suck. If you're white and you're cool, then dammit, this ain't for you. ;-)
Adolph Reed over at Black Agenda Report:
"To be clear, I'm not arguing that it's wrong to vote for Obama, though I do say it's wrong-headed to vote for him with any lofty expectations. I would also suggest that it's not an open and shut case that - all things considered - he's that much better than McCain. In some ways Obama would be better for us in the short run, just as Clinton was better than the elder Bush. In some ways his presidency could be much worse in the longer term, again like Clinton. For one thing, the recent outpouring of enthusiastic support from all quarters - including on black academic and professional list serves and blogs and on op-ed pages - for his attacks on black poor people underscores the likelihood that Obama will be even more successful than Clinton at selling punitive, regressive and frankly racist social policies as humane anti-poverty initiatives. In a way, I suppose, there could be something useful about having a large strain of the black petite bourgeoisie come out as a militant racial class for itself. Maybe that could be a prelude to a good fight, but unfortunately there's no counterweight. And the black professional-managerial strata, despite their ever more blatant expressions of contempt for black poor people, continue to insist on speaking for the race as a whole."
Racialicious posted a great link to Diversity Inc.
http://www.diversityinc.com/public/3672.cfm?gclid=CK_Q_tifl5QCFQKcFQodNFUdtw
It just shows how stupid and infuriating people can be, and the comprehensiveness and patience of the guy's answer is what is needed. But you can see that to deal with these people takes a lot of work, it's practically a full-time job. So sometimes you've got to take a break, get refreshed, and let someone else take on the burden.