It’s hard to even write anything in reaction to Barack Obama’s speech tonight. He’s a tough act to follow and words seem inadequate for the task of describing what he accomplished tonight. I don’t envy the Republicans as they seek to compete with the Democratic convention.
I’ve seen Obama give many speeches…several of them I saw in person. He has probably given better speeches before, but never a better political speech. He’s never blended so many parts into a seamless whole like this before. He gave red-meat at the beginning, and post-partisan inspiration at the end. He blasted McCain’s record and judgment and then challenged us all not to question each other’s character. He was personal, bringing his family and life experience into his policy discussion, but then he said this election is all about us. And, yet, none of this seemed to be contradictory or discordant. It was a masterpiece.
And it was much more than just a political speech. It was a galvanizing and motivational speech. Perhaps it wasn’t quite as soaring as JFK’s New Frontier speech. I don’t know…maybe it was. Obama absolutely filled the space. He filled it as none of the other speakers, not even the musicians, could fill it. He had a complete presence. Politicians and leaders like this do not come along often. I get the feeling that if Obama were on the outside of government, petitioning the government, that he could be as effective there as he may be as the president.
I was surprised in the beginning at how political he was making the speech. But that was exactly what he needed to do. Obama offers a totally unapologetic and self-confident message. He has made compromises along the way, as all aspiring politicians must. But he will lead and others will follow. Those that thought they could control him will discover that he will get what he wants. And what he wants is better than what he’s been offering us. All you have to do is look at his positions on the issues. Give this man large congressional majorities and he will give us progressive change.
One of the most significant moments of the night occurred just prior to Obama’s speech. Several ordinary Americans were provided primetime airtime to discuss the reasons why they are supporting Barack Obama. Take Barney Smith:
The idea that Barney Smith would get a slot in primetime is staggering. But it speaks volumes about the kind of party that Barack Obama intends to create. Putting Barney Smith before Smith-Barney is what it’s all about. Symbolically, that means everything. In reality, it will be a struggle.
It’s going to be up to us to use the tools that Obama creates for us. Obama wants to do the right thing. It’s up to us to get him elected and then make him to do the right thing.
none of this seemed to be contradictory or discordant
From the speech:
Is there anyone who doubts that the US would not have occupied Iraq if the neocons didn’t think that that was the way to “protect Israel”???
There’s a contradiction, in two consecutive sentences. So much for change. Obama’s slogan should be “Fine-tuning you can believe in.”
Actually, I don’t see the contradiction at all.
You don’t defeat al-Qaeda by invading Iraq and you don’t protect Israel by talking smack against Iran.
Where’s the contradiction?
Why is Alexander here, sigh.
So, you want me to leave? I can do that. But then how would that make you any different from the Republicans, other than having a difference in taste?
Your saying that I do not belong here signifies that you have a limited tolerance for rational argument. The difference between you and Bush supporters is that you have a greater tolerance level for rational argument. But both of you are alike in that your tolerance runs out more quickly than it should.
Fortunately you don’t have access to the keys to this place because if you did it would rapidly turn into a monotonous wasteland of party enforced delusion and conformity. Statements like the above are a little odd coming from someone who themself was unfairly ranctioned and silenced at daily kos for pushing the boundaries of their srictly enforced conformity.
sanctioned and silenced
The comment was not about censoring him. It was asking why he is here, because he clearly doesn’t share Democratic values. I’ve read his comments for a while and it’s clear to me he’s just here to sow dissent.
I think he’s here to speak his mind. If that’s dissent, so be it. I don’t think there’s a rule against dissent here. His opinion was disputed in comments and settled. Your accusation of “sowing” dissent is something completely different.
But maybe you’re right. He could be here to clandestinly pick off otherwise intelligent members who are so weak in their convictions that he finds it easy pickings to build his army of anti Obama crusaders. This is likely only one site in many that he’s infiltrated and in that case you should be commended for smoking him out of his hole.
Bravo!
Eh, no biggie. Let him rant, sometimes these folks do this on purpose hoping to get booted.
The contradiction is that the second sentence implies that the Bush administration “protects Israel … just by talking tough”. But it didn’t just talk tough: it invaded Iraq, a main if not the main reason for which was protecting Israel. And as far as the Israel lobby is concerned, “defeating a terrorist network…” is more or less synonymous with “protecting Israel”.
Thus, the two sentences appear not to contradict each other only if you disregard (1) it was thought that invading Iraq served Israeli interests and (2) “terrorism” as used by US foreign policy makers can usually be glossed as activity perceived to be harmful to US and/or Israeli interests. You have to read beneath the text. Isn’t that what you post-modernists do? 😉
you’re talking out of your ass.
First of all, the two sentences are independent, not part of one logical construction.
Second of all, Bush invaded Iraq for his own petulant reasons, and protecting Israel wasn’t near the top of the list. If you had asked Israel they would have told us to invade Iran.
Your argument does not make sense.
Obama intends to protect Israel. He intends to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Maybe you disagree with those policies but they are not contradictory.
I seem to have hit a raw nerve.
You do not appear to be familiar with The Fall of the House of Bush. Craig Unger shows how Bush only developed his animus against Iraq after he started getting briefed by neocons as he was being groomed for his presidential run. Israel wanted us to invade both Iran and Iraq; Iraq was seen as the first step.
And, since you apparently haven’t heard, “protecting Israel” and working for the best interests of the American people are contradictory.
No.
You seem to be illogical.
And troll-like.
so, you think protecting Israel is contradictory to protecting America? I’d say that depends on the policy that we have. It’s not inevitable at all.
I’d evaluate his policy in its totality.
I think it’s perfectly obvious that “protecting Israel” conflicts with US national interests. (I won’t use the tendentious phrase “protecting America”, since the main threat that America needs to be protected from is itself.) If it wasn’t for (1) Israel having been created as a byproduct of British imperialism; (2) Israel having decided that the only way it can deal with its neighbors is from a position of absolute military superiority, as opposed to dealing with its neighbors diplomatically, through realpolitik; (3) the US giving unconditional support to Israel, no matter how much Israel violates international law — the US would really have no significant conflict at all with the Arab world. They have oil; we have hip pop culture. What’s the problem? According to the economic theory that both American parties embrace, there is no reason why America and oil-rich Middle Eastern countries cannot just trade amicably, and leave it at that, were it not for Israel. Mearsheimer and Walt make basically this point.
Obviously, Obama’s policy should be evaluated in its totality. It’s just that I was very taken by Clinton and Gore’s victory speeches in 1992, only to be really let down. So far, Obama has given no indication that he will be any different.
And now that we’re at it, I have a problem with this whole “change” meme. To say that you want change means that you accept the present situation on some level. Why couldn’t Obama have chosen the slogan “Let’s get this country back on track?” He never says that Bush has radically moved the country in the wrong direction, since that would require him to point out that the “war on terror” is bullshit. But Obama speaks of the “war on terror” as a rational, legitimate activity.
I don’t believe the statement was contradictory, but share your frustration that he has not given us any real signs that he will truly change policy, particularly on Israel. I also disagree with those who claim Israel played no role in our decision to invade Iraq. Read Richard Perle’s “A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing the Realm”, but I think they do it out a real fear of retaliation fro m likudnik groups. Unfortunately we must just cross our fingers that the real policy will be better than the rhetoric, and prepare for massive street protests if it is not.
Yes, I doubt that. They had many motives and protecting Israel was probably #50. You are letting your hatred of Jews show. Are you a Palestinian?
So, there are no anti-Semites other than Palestinians, according to your logic. What are you smoking?
My problem isn’t with “Jews”, or even Israel. It’s that given the immense problems that the United States faces, I don’t see why the task of “protecting Israel” should show up in a US presidential candidate’s nomination acceptance speech.
The Israel lobby is just another lobby, like the multitude of corporate lobbies. My main problem with Obama is that he has shown no sign of being ready to challenge lobbies to fight for the public interest. (But as Booman has noted, if he had shown such a sign, he would not be the nominee.)
You are such a good writer, BooMan. I’ve been cruising the newspapers and blogs looking for commentary, only to find yours is the best I’ve seen yet. And wow – you so captured it with Barney Smith vs. Smith-Barney.
I’m trying to write something myself but all I want to do is revel in this moment a while longer. I’ve waited a lifetime to feel like this. I wish this night was many hours longer.
This is the first time in my entire life my 1st choice has gone on to become my party’s nominee. This is truly a miraculous moment.
Thats it Booman thats the ticket:
Savvy enough to get elected, but not a calculating sociopath. He has seen pain and struggle. He is one of us. He understands who we are and our humanity. His mother’s outrage at bullying makes me believe that, yes we can make him do the right thing. It won’t be hard he is already there.
“How are you suppose to pick yourself up from your boot straps, when you dont have any boots?”I LOVED the rips on the ownership society.
What happens with Mariano Rivera gets the ball in the 9th? Or Kobe/MJ have the ball for the final game winning shot? Or Tom Brady on a 2 minute drill in the 4th Quarter? There was no doubt Obama was going to close this convention out on fire.
I was more impressed by the images than anything else. Historic.
So what does the right do when they get their ass beat in a game? The cry foul on media bias. Check this out and I am sure Drudge will link it soon.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/08/28/media-cheers-obama-speech/#comment-58738
Yeah, the media couldn’t possibly cheer Obama’s speech simply because it was cheerable.
Here is the full link to the media cheering bullcrap that I am sure thousands of right blogs will link.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/08/28/media-cheers-obama-speech/
Your headline is fitting Booman. I can never forget what I felt like as a Hill staffer on election night in 02. I was furious at the Democratic party for its election strategy and scarred by the October war vote. I was still in a fog from the death of Wellstone. There was no true leadership or conviction to progressive values at all.
The media picked up on this weakness and kept yacking about their being no real leader in the Democratic party. They had some truth behind their vindictive blabbering.
While the attacks on his valor were complete horse shit,I never felt warm to John Kerry in 04. (I could not get over how I personally witnessed him treat his staff in the US Senate or his pro war vote)
Nancy and Harry had their chances in 06 for the main leadership role but Harry let his Corporate buddies control the FISA bill and Nancy was unable to get the blue dogs to end the war funding. The Executive dominated the Legislative so it was difficult to give any Dem a sole leadership mantle.
The 08 primary fight was such an drown out slugfest and the general election started so quickly that I had never thought that the leader of progressive ideals had finally been achieved. November will make it official.
Thanks Booman. Im fired up and ready to go to make this happen. It took much effort to take down the Hillary and the DLC wing of the party. The Republican thugs will much harder to eradicate from power.
We’re still going to have Reid and Pelosi and Hoyer and the other problems. I just hope we send enough new blood to the Congress to overcome some of those liabilities.
Storm could postpone Republican convention
Uh, I hate to be the first to tell them, but the storm is already raging, and it has nothing to do with the weather, despite the subhead, which reads, “The party is wary of anything that could remind people of Katrina.”
Terrific article, Booman! “Galvanizing” is the perfect word for Obama’s speech. It was tight, well-constructed, and beautifully delivered. I alternately cheered and cried as he spoke because I was so proud. He was confident and inspired.
I kept reminding myself that 45 years ago Martin Luther King Jr delivered his most famous speech to the masses, people longing for leadership and a voice that spoke for them. That’s what Obama gave us last night.
It was a fine speech and it gets the Democratic campaign off to a great start. Here’s hoping that Obama’s fighting spirit matches his oratorical ability. We won’t know how tough he really is until the Republicans open up with their patented mix of slander, invective and outright lies. Kerry sounded great the other night. Too bad he fell apart when things got rough in 2004.
One never can tell about a person’s stamina and courage until the battle starts. Then, things begin to clear. Everyone gets knocked down in these political fights. Not everyone gets up.
Reminder: if the election is close, McNasty wins since the Republicans are so much better at stealing elections than the Democrats are. After all, who makes those damned voting machines anyway? And which party is so skilled at disappearing unfriendly votes and preventing these voters from even showing up?
My fervent wish is that Obama fights as well as he speaks.
When the going gets tough, the tough get going.
I will tell you this. I haven’t been that moved by a politician since Bobby Kennedy spoke after MLK assasination. Obama has fullfilled Maertin’s dream. Now it us up to us to carry it through.
Each of us has a responsibility to each other and this once great nation to be the change we want to see. Obama cannot do it alone. He needs each and every one of us to help. If he loses it will not be because of something he did it will because of something WE did not do.
Please folks, be practive this election. Make phone calls, talk to your neighbor, drive people to the polls. If each of us can convince just one other person that Obama is the change we all yearn for we will succeed in November.
GOBAMA!!
I’ve been doubting this campaign over the past few weeks, not the first such time. However, each time over the past couple of years that I fear Obama’s lost the touch, his campaign roars back. I have to remind myself again and again, these guys know what they’re doing. I think they chose not to respond to the McCain smear jobs until now, when they had the maximum audience, maximum impact. Had he been going after McCain piecemeal in July and Aug, last night would have been different in impact.
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve got XM radio, so I’ve heard a lot (most) of his speeches, and this one, while having a lot of “recycled” material, was among the best paced.
I especially liked the emotional use of the word “Enough!” after his litany of the sins of the Republican Party over the last eight years.
The historic aspect of this has me, as a lifelong Dem, feeling quite emotional. Obama is truly the most inspirational public figure to come along in a long, long time.
I thought the “regular folks” were just stunning. Imagine yourself speaking in front of 80,000 people! Their stories, coupled with the candidate’s hard-hitting critique and his laying out of a bunch of policy prescriptions were just what the doctor ordered.
I’m 61, and I’ve never seen a better organized convention in my life. With all the things that could have gone wrong, they emerged united, in every important sense, and the country now has a much better idea who Barack is.
I’m prouder of my country at this moment than I’ve ever been.
I am not proud in the least to have helped move that and other Thomson plants to Mexico, Poland and China. It was the most unpleasant project of my career and one I opposed as a partner in my firm.
I was touched to see Barney last night. I think it was effective, but I believe there is a lot a blame all around for why plants like the Marion plant closed.
The plant set up in Mexicali was helped along by NAFTA, a Republican cause, co-opted by Clinton so there is plenty of stink to go around. BTW that plant never got up to speed and I think is now closed. They couldn’t get Mexicans to stay in the jobs long enough to keep the lines running. A complete mess.
The real issue was these plants made Cathode Ray Tube for just about every TV manufacturer. In that technology, RCA led the world (excepting maybe Sony), but they first let themselves get eclipsed by others who could make the flat screen CRTs better/cheap than they. Then they did nothing to take a lead in making flat panel sets.
So they sold it all to the French (Thomson) who promptly set up a shell company to buy all the equipment at highly devalued prices and then leased it back to them at inflated rates when it was installed in new plants overseas. Then these plants were to be run at the lowest possible costs until the market for CRTs dried up.
The point is no one gave a crap about creating a sustainable company and sustainable jobs. It was all an accounting game to (borrowing from Barney Smith) enrich Smith Barney. And it started when the leaders at RCA let their game slip.
I don’t know all the tax law and incentives that are in play with this or what McCain or Obama are proposing that would make a difference. And there should be market consequences for bad business decisions.
But governments and all of us have and interest in not seeing places like Buffalo, Reading, Cleveland, and the like empty out of jobs leaving millions of Barney Smiths behind. At worst, we should not have tax laws and incentives imposed that encourage not investing in innovation and moving jobs oversees.