http://www.santhoshtv.in
http://www.alwayseconomics.blogspot.com
http://www.facts-unmasked.blogspot.com

It is true to say that Barak Hussein Obama\u2019s Philadelphia (as it is delivered
at Philadelphia's National Constitution Centre) speech may be considered as a
sequestered one among the speeches that reflect the social and economic reality
of the present day world in general and US in particular. To some it is one among
the greatest speeches ever delivered. It may be considered as a sequestered one
because it clearly shows that the \u201cpredicament of politicians\u201d\u2014especially during
the run-up to power when confronting the barrage of criticisms\u2014is \u2018exactly same\u2019,
which side of the equator you are notwithstanding.

In short, Obama is confronting multifaceted criticisms and even abuses
from the campaign side of Hilary Clinton ever since he proved that he is a real
challenger to the once-thought-the-solitary contender for the democratic
candidature for the Presidential election. Mrs Clinton became so nervous that

sentiment among public by simply but cannily spreading rumours that Obama is a Muslim. It is true that his Kenyan father is a Muslim but his mother is a white US Christian and he is also a Christian. To prove that Obama supporters even produced evidence that it was none other than Pastor Jeremiah Wright who

available with the media including youtube. The noteworthy fact about all these
sermons is that they all were delivered in the past period. But they were made
available as if they are delivered very recently! The common thread of all these
sermons (the main three charges against Pastor Wright) is the references to racial

terrorist attack on US as a natural backlash of its own policies etc. The purport is
obvious. Plainly speaking, they have nothing to do either with the Presidential
elections or with Obama. But conclusions are swiftly drawn and they are
invariably linked with the credentials of Obama to lead USA. J ust because of the
reason that Obama\u2019s marriage was solemnised by Wright or his daughters were
baptised by him or he was brought into the faith by Wright or Wright was in the
support committee of Obama, one cannot blame Obama for whatever speeches

manner, that is, they let \u2018passion to rule over reason\u2019. Other wise this new
controversy would not have happened. Now, given this situation, what Obama
must do, as just like any other politician who face a do or die battle? On April
22nd Obama is facing the vote at Pennsylvania state primary. Naturally he chose
the Philadelphia's National Constitution Center of Pennsylvania state to make a
reply to this virulent and nasty vilification campaign against him. In such a
situation what would be the natural response of any politician? The simple and
straight response would be to take a distance from the alleged three charges
against Wright. Obama also did the same thing, nothing else!! Thus came the

clarion call for the discussion of issues which touch the USA as a whole. But BBC news story clearly showed that this is only a fiction and they aptly titled one story covering the Philadelphia speech as \u201cObama says US cannot ignore race\u201d on 19th Wednesday of March 2008. But it is true that Obama wanted to discuss that

Thus the predicament of politicians is same regardless of the nation where the election battle is fought. Since he is a half-black, to win the election he need to win the white votes in a decisive manner. But now he has been painted as a person who still nurtures the issue of racial discrimination. So he wanted to

also. Hence he made a call to conduct a joint effort by blacks and whites to
overcome the problems of US in general rather than problems of black or white
alone. What else Obama could do in such a situation?

Obama for a joint effort for the larger interests of America were so flimsy that it is very visible that he trips frequently thought out that speech if one makes a closer scrutiny. Thus it gives the impression that the Philadelphia speech was a clever smokescreen meticulously crafted by Obama to ward off the vilification campaign supposedly piloted by Mrs Clinton.

David R. Henderson, research fellow with the Hoover Institution and
associate professor in Economics argued that there are three faults with the
Obama speech. First, Obama argued that Wright\u2019s speech was full of hatred. But

Henderson argued that Wright\u2019s speech has only anger and have no hatred.
Obama instead argued that Wright\u2019s sermons were full of hatred and hence need
to be brushed aside and condemned. But if anger when expressed with
explanation cannot contain hatred, says Henderson. If that is the case, Obama\u2019s

Secondly Obama distorted the speech of Wright just to make mileage and strike a chord with the conservative whites who denounces Palestinian cause and blindly supports Israel. Wright only said that "We (US) supported Zionism