Obama wrote:"I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities," Obama said in a statement on Sunday.
"We should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that's a job for all of us. That's the way to honor Trayvon Martin."
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07 ... lence?lite
Let's think about the political process (voting and rhetoric).
Why would Obama say this?
Why not specifically target ALL violence--as oppose to only gun violence? Obviously, he's referring to Zimmerman's actions, but to me it suggests as if Martin was completely innocent (as if hitting someone's head to the concrete is a type of violence which... should go unmentioned?). If both people's violence were to be taken into consideration, then obviously a call against violence in general would be warranted, but that's not mentioned in this excerpt. It's weird, and I don't get Obama's/his speech writer's angle.
Does anyone think that Obama playing the race card in the first paragraph? Obviously, race is not mentioned--it's only hinted at it. "To widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities" suggests to me that Zimmerman is a narrow-minded bigot--according to the excerpt. It sounds like Obama is narrowing this issue into race--when it shouldn't be. It's like he's trying to tap into the 'hearts and minds' of his black voter market and/or anyone who thinks that this issue is primarily about racial discrimination/targeting.
If my interpretations are correct, then his rhetoric is manipulative and disgraceful*--if the alternet.org article can be trusted, then there was clear manipulation through that agency of the federal government (i.e. those who were organizing protests/backlash due to Martin's death). If anything, you'd want an impartial Executive magically promoting the general interest, but even that's not being achieved with his kind of rhetoric.
- *No president speaks honestly and 100% from the heart (in many circumstances, they can't/shouldn't; otherwise, they wouldn't get re-elected or even make it to the nomination. It's like the electorate and politicians face a prisoner's dilemma). Their speeches are designed (note: their writing teams). Their events are planned; the attendees selectively invited. It's all political marketing for goal of securing profit (i.e. namely votes, campaign contributions, positive Party image, etc.).
