The Media Weighs In On Obama's Speech

National Review contributor Victor Davis Hanson says the more praise Barack Obama received from pundits and op-ed writers in the aftermath of last week's speech, "the more the polls showed that there was a growing distrust that the eloquent and inspirational candidate has used his great gifts, in the end, to excuse the inexcusable.

"The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with (his pastor), nor dared open up a true discussion of race -- which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism."

John Heilemann writes, in New York magazine, that the speech "was pretty much everything one could ever hope for from a presidential candidate on the vexed topic of black and white: nuanced, candid, gutsy, and replete with context." He also writes that it was a "political maneuver" that "did nothing to defuse an issue that Republicans clearly intend to beat him senseless with this fall."

John McCain, of course, would have nothing to lose by using the race issue in a general election campaign against Obama. The black vote is a key component in the battle for the Democratic nomination -- but Republicans never win the black vote in the general election. Historically speaking, black voters will do one of two things this fall, and neither will affect McCain's situation adversely -- black voters will either vote for the Democratic nominee (even if that nominee is Hillary Clinton) or they will not vote at all.

In fact, writes John Harwood in the New York Times, "Feuding Democrats have handed Senator John McCain the gift of time."

(And, obviously, some folks in the media believe McCain should be using that time -- as he may well be -- to give a lot of thought to his running mate selection. Kirk Victor writes, in the National Journal, that the choice for a running mate provides voters "with what is often their first impression of what the presidential nominee really values.")

The thing that's getting all the attention on the Democratic side -- with the next primary still four weeks away -- is Obama's speech. Even -- or, perhaps, especially -- among Republican pundits.

"I shuddered only once while watching Barack Obama’s speech last Tuesday," writes Republican pundit/analyst/strategist William Kristol in the New York Times. "The only part of the speech that made me shudder was this sentence: 'But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.'

"As soon as I heard that, I knew what we’d have to endure. I knew that there would be a stampede of editorial boards, columnists and academics rushing not to ignore race."

Well, it's not a "stampede" -- yet. But it's only been a week -- one that included a holiday, which means there has been less time to opine about the speech.

But a week is plenty of time for some people.

"In some ways, Barack Obama's speech on race last week was as brilliant as it was nuanced," writes Gregory Rodriguez in the Los Angeles Times. "But for all its rhetorical beauty, it was also an enormous step backward and, in the end, a rather self-serving call for more discussion about racial grievance in a country that has already done way too much talking. ... The one new thing Obama's speech added to the dialogue was the inclusion of whites to the list of aggrieved (and angry) parties."

Is the race issue going to decide the winner of the election? That remains to be seen.

But, Alison Fitzgerald counsels Democrats, in Bloomberg.com, "rising home foreclosures, shrinking financial assets and gasoline approaching a record $4 a gallon are daily reminders that the U.S. economy may be the worst in almost 30 years."

In effect, Fitzgerald tells Democrats, don't sweat the small stuff when the other party can be blamed for a recession.

"Recessions shaped four presidential elections in the past half-century -- in 1960, 1976, 1980 and 1992. Each time, the candidate from the party trying to retake the White House won. A model that uses economic data to predict presidential race outcomes has the Democrats getting 52% of the votes cast for the two major party candidates."

Pocketbook issues -- that's something everyone can relate to, right?