There are times when rhetoric ascends to oratory - when the speaker speaks from their heart, communicating directly to the hearts of those who hear him. I haven't heard a lot of that in the past decades.
I watched the replay of Senator Obama's speech early this morning. I heard oratory, folks.
He articulated a vision that was doable, that was attainable, and best of all it appealed to the best in us.
I just was talking about how this is bigger than Obama now. He's tapped into something that's resonating with a lot of folks.
We shall see how this all plays out.
Fifty years from now we're going to be hearing Barack's words just as often as we hear "ask not what...." and "the only thing we have to fear..." Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were good orators. Barack is a great one.
Now let's get him into office with a tidal wave of positive, forward thinking. But we still need somebody else prosecuting as many Bushco monsters as it takes to restore the rule of law. I don't think it's in Barack's nature to do it himself, but we need someone on a mission to expose the rot of the last 7 years, and most of all we to restore justice and accountability. Without it, the 30%-40% of our country that still believes in Bush's lies, will believe those lies and others that they have waiting for our next Democratic president, and the foundation for real change will be too weak to support the glorious edifice Barack wants to construct. Bush's lies and liars just have to be thoroughly discredited if we're going to move forward.
Maybe if Barack gets someone else with real zeal and courage to confront and expose what has happened, Barack will be just the person that the country will believe when he explains that it's just even-handed justice and accountability.
One can dream...
What Adrian said in paragraph 2. I'm not holding my breath though.
Adrian,
The one you seek is anothe junior Seantor. His name is Jim Webb. And YES HE CAN!
SP
Very good delivery, but not Churchill, MLK, or to a lesser extent JFK. I really wish it were.
Why am I saying that? Because he's talking about universally desirable outcomes without specific (hard) sacrifice. He's talking about unity, better schools, generic change against the status quo, less lobbyists but more bipartisanship. All good things, but in such a diffuse form that anybody couldn't really be against it.
MLK on on the other hand was talking about very specific tangible actions that were unpopular enough to get him killed. Churchill was rallying a nation that was getting the shit kicked out of it every night and at the point of his greatest oratory was suffering terrible defeat after defeat. Blood, sweat and tears wasn't a rhetorical flourish. Read the "I Have a Dream" speech, while it ends in a soaring vision of the outcome it is full of very specific immediate actions which were fundamentally unpopular with a large segment of the population, but are now basic assumptions.
With true oratory you don't say, "we won't know till a few years from now", "I don't think that in his nature...". Nobody asks "what was MLKs position on Vietnam?" or "We won't know till a few years from now if Churchill will keep the war effort up till the bitter end".
If Obama quoted the Bill of Rights at length in that speech and stated that the FISA bill must never pass, that would be oratory.
We have presently got a seriously broken country, and are looking into the maw of some of the greatest constitutional, ecological and economic crises in the post war period. We need somebody who is going to have to convince the country that some very hard choices and sacrifices are going to have be made. When that happens then the oratory is going to have to rise to greatness.
In Massachusetts we had the same kind of David Axelrod campaign speech ("together we can") from the same kind of candidate (and I'm not talking about race, but charismatic speaking and general appearance) and with great enthusiasm and hope voted for him.
It's been over a year now. Our governor actually has to govern. Rhetoric has been replaced by policy actions never even once mentioned during the course of the campaign, because people would never, never have supported him if he had done so; hope has died, people are revulsed, and our governor likely won't get reelected. I've never been so angry about the course of my own vote.
I really don't want the same to happen again with Obama. But he scares me. He's using a premade package that has been tested and worked - that is, worked once. Not again.
Cassius,
Then WE have to let President Obama know he has to live up to his rhetoric and not let him off the hook. As Howard Dean said "We have the power!" If you doubt that, ask yourself why, 8 days before Super Duper Tuesday, Clinton and Obama are leaving the campaign trail to fly back to DC to vote on the FISA bill. You think they wanted to have to do that? It's because so many of us outside the Beltway folks made so much noise about it.
The biggest difference between Obama and Clinton is I believe Barack will respond to the will of ordinary people. Clinton will only listen to those who come checkbook in hand -- and those who have already written checks. (Frank Rich reminds us in yesterday's NY Times that we STILL don't know who funded the Clinton Library and can only imagine what they're expecting in return for their largesse.)
I'm trying to be nice, Jesse. Honest I am. If that's what you hear, then shout it! But when I listen to Obama, all I hear is Steve Jobs. Sorry.
I will state again that if the Democrats nominate Obama, I will vote for Obama in November.
However, I pride myself on controlling my emotions rather than the other way around, and I refuse to be swayed by oratory, however fine-sounding. I remember people being swayed emotionally by St. Ronnie, and that taught me to distrust emotions. To be brutally frank, the public adoration of St. Ronnie taught me to distrust the idea that my fellow citizens were smart enough to know what was good for them--at least my fellow non-elite white citizens.
Senator Obama has baked a fluffy, warm, toasty, fine-smelling bun.
Now where's the beef?
Aside to Adamson: I think you're looking for Attorney General John Edwards. Such an appointment would improve my opinion of President Obama.
To hell with "bipartisanship", which our enemies have defined as "date rape". I want to schedule show trials and roll the tumbrils. I want to burn down the foul temple of Mammon called "plutocracy" and piss on its ashes.
And Ivory Bill, I want to try and start the change by electing a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress... because as they say the longest journey starts with the first step.
Note that there is no assurance the November Election will be a Democratic Slaughter or a slaughter of the innocents. We could end up with a version of Bush or an acolyte of St. Ronnie prosecuting the Iraqi War, cutting taxes for those that least need one and turning RoeVWade into a quaint historic concept.
Just think how many Americans see Mitt or John McCain as the leader of Americas' future. You think that the religious Right would not fight hard for Hucklebee?
Attend your caucus. Donate to your candidate. Participate.
I will vote in my primary. My state doesn't do caucuses.
I donated to Kerry in 2004 and he took a dive. I don't feel like throwing good money after bad.
Y'know, lately I hadn't been paying as close attention as I usually do to matters of such import. I've been hearing the headlines, and I've heard people here and there talk about what a moving speaker Obama is, and how he's bringing this wave of hope and making believers of people. Then, I finally clicked the link atop this post and heard just what the hullabaloo was about. I must admit, I was incredibly moved...
Then I came here to the comments section.
Thus far, I don't really disagree with what anyone said - of course, accountability and transparency will be the paramount requirements of anyone who gets elected to the White House. Even with that important caveat, I would say to those whose faith has been dampened by the last 7-plus years of the shit we've endured (and to those for whom the root of their trepidation goes back even further); Don't discount the hope that others are feeling. For those who, like me, weren't alive during MLK's or Reagan's heyday or were too young to understand or care, Obama is bringing that same feeling back (even if, for you, it isn't quite of the magnitude that you remember). To quote someone upthread, the longest journey begins with a single step, and more than anything I'm of the opinion that the hope being inspired by Obama IS that first step. Without that, why even bother to show up to the polling station?
All of this is my uber-convoluted way of getting around to asking the following question: In the midst of all the noise, I've also heard naysayers say that Obama is no better than Clinton because they're both hopelessly tied to special interests, or that they're both "corporate candidates". Forgive me for not doing my due diligent research, but how is that true of Obama? Given Obama's track record thus far, what am I missing? I turn to the good people of this blog to educate me on this. Thanks.
"Obama is creating the experience that he is the (only) one who can bring change"
Ok, he does. But still, the wonks are right: Where's the BEEF???
If you look at Obama's proposals, they are not so much diferent from Hilary's. In fact, very often they are worse or at least not really thought through, for instance regarding health care. And he's conspiciously silent on how he wants to achieve them. "Bipartisanship" is NOT going to do the trick, it takes two to tango and the republicans are refusing to dance along.
So, actually, Obama is conducting an advertising campaign: Lots of big words, disguising empty promises.
Where's the BEEF???
:-/
I'd like to add to my earlier comment: I understand what Jesse is doing here. He's talking about the language of change, and how well he thinks Obama has mastered it.
Well that's fine as far as it goes, and if that's what Jesse wants to talk about, then fine.
But we're hiring a president here, not some fucking marketing consultant. I want specifics because we are paying for them, some of us with our lives and our health and our careers.
I talked to a good friend Saturday who was back in WA after months in Iowa on the ground for Obama. I told her I wanted to hear a direct, unequivocal, unambiguous statement from Obama that he would keep Dean's 50-state strategy in place, and hopefully would keep Dean on as DNC chairman if Dean wanted to stay. I told her a lot of Democrats were vitally interested in what Obama would say about this.
She said, "well, you know, Obama was a community organizer, and he . . ." and I cut her off gently and told her, very politely, that we didn't need to keep hearing that, as if it explained everything.
It is getting to be time in the campaign that calls for specifics. For certain audiences, Obama needs to be closing the deal, and I don't hear him doing it.
I don't want to hear about this fucking "language of change" too damn much longer. I want to hear what the changes will be. I want to know who gets the boodle and who gets first crack at it.
I am for John Edwards until the last rooster crows, because he is the only candidate who is giving a straight answer to those questions.
Certainly I will vote for Obama and certainly I'd rather have him than suffer the Clintons again.
If he gives other people hope, that's fine for them. If good things happen as a result, that would be great.
But for now, my expectations for an Obama presidency are very low indeed. He would have to deliver a lot of goods to make a fanboy out of me.
I wasn't a big fan of the Kennedys either, so I guess I'm just a cynical prick or something.
I haven't felt this way about a candidate since '62, when Kennedy spoke before 100k people in downtown Cleveland. It was electric. Both showed charisma that is so lacking on both sides, and wins elections.
Gray: lots of beef in his education proposal. and at least hes not advocateing forced insuracne (as oppoesed to national insurance, hillarys plan will give us the same crap as the auto insurance scam....we don't need to give a gift to the insurance companies, they are a main part of the problem).
Where's the beef?
Indeed.
While I was walking about I suddenly realized what was bothering me about this speech and Obama's comments about Reagan.
This is far more of a Reagan speech than a JFK or FDR speech.
It's got the right words like Jessie talks about. But it's all focused on outcomes that nobody can argue with, change, an educated and prosperous next generation, supporting the troops. Reagan was great at that stuff, morning in america, shining city on a hill. But like this speech it never got around to detailing the ways and means. Judged by his speeches Reagan was an optimistic agent of change. The problem is that those changes were for the worse.
Carter was offering hard choices and ways of preparing for the future while Reagan was offering nice shiny outcomes.
Ivan...
Good. You got what I'm speaking.
Lots of people miss it. It seems to be that about a a tenth catch it right away. About 40% catch it eventually. And about half, never every get it. So it's always as if I'm talking reading to the illiterate.
Some of the half who never get it, get very prissy (and pissy) about it too. Like, what the hell am I talking about, what the hell difference does it make, I must be in the bag for one candidate or another, and won't I please just STFU about all this crap!
*laughs*
I'll let you in on a secret, Ivan, since you cracked the code today. If we weren't having this conversation in the context of politics, we'd be having it in the context of something else. It's that big.
People who do figure out what I'm talking about, end up with one hell of a competitive edge. Like the sighted man in the land of the blind. (Leaving Varley's astonishing The Persistence of Vision out of the mix.)
I am curious if the not-obama people feel that they will be better served or have more of a chance for real action supporting a better country with a Hillary Presidency?
I think the Obama campaign has been transformative but not just for me, or voters, for himself.
He believes that we can change things, I think he really believes it, AND he knows it's going to be hard, AND he still believes it.
Yes, We Can.
I commend SteveK for bringing up the difference between Carter and Reagan.
In November 1980, a majority of white USAmericans rejected harsh reality in favor of comforting illusions, and they have been doing so ever since.
I think it is too late for the USA. Even if Obama is everything his fans think he is, it's too late. I'll vote for him if the Democrats nominate him, but even if he is the real thing, he'll just be our Gorbachev.
May Miss Haruhi grant that I will be mistaken.
So what I'm hearing, Gator, is that you want me to sign on with your faith-based campaign.
Well, I won't. With no disrepect intended, I do not give a RIP if YOU have been transformed, or if Obama BELIEVES any damn thing or any other.
I want to hear what he intends to do, how he intends to do it, and in what order. I am not interviewing to be his acolyte. He is interviewing to be my employee.
First off, I am an atheist so screw you, transformation and believing does not have to be religious.
second, a speech after a campaign win is not the time for policy debate. Folks criticized Kerry for being too boring, to fact laden, too legislative- Not inspiring. Campaign victory speeches are a time to inspire and motivate.
If you want policy plans and more information every site for every candidate has gone on the record on issues.
obama's is here
instead of slinging shallow- he didn't say what I wanted to hear critiques- why not read the plan and then tell me what specifically you don't like. And for the record there is stuff in there that I don't like but I am not silly enough to say he has no plan.
sheesh.
Oh and So am I to assume that you are sitting this one out? Since Churchill is not running?
>To hell with "bipartisanship", which >our enemies have defined as "date >rape". I want to schedule show trials >and roll the tumbrils. I want to burn >down the foul temple of Mammon called >"plutocracy" and piss on its ashes.
And which candidate is offering this plan? none. period. We may want it, but you know what the rolling stones say...
>Lots of people miss it. It seems to be that about a a tenth catch it right away. About 40% catch it eventually. And about half, never every get it. So it's always as if I'm talking reading to the illiterate.
wow, that was a bit patronizing :-(
Oh and So am I to assume that you are sitting this one out? Since Churchill is not running?
No, Gator, I will vote for the nominee. I have read Obama's plan. It is short on specifics, and apparently he does not share my priorities. His health plan is warmed-over Hillarycare, and it cuts the worst offenders in on the action when we should be working toward cutting them out.
As for when he should be talking about specifics, I am not obliged to share your priorities.
Aside to Adamson: I think you're looking for Attorney General John Edwards. Such an appointment would improve my opinion of President Obama.
Maybe. But he seems to be known for his jury persuasion more than his constitutional convictions. (don't get me wrong; he's actually the only one I've donated to yet, and for me it's between him and Obama next Tuesday)
Here's what I'm looking for in Obama's AG:
We are deceiving ourselves when we talk about the torture issue, or the habeas issue, or the U.S. attorneys issue, or the extraordinary rendition issue, or the secrecy issue.
As if each one were an isolated case! As if each one were an accident! We ’ve let outrage upon outrage upon outrage slide with nothing more than a promise to stop the next one.
There is only one issue here. Only one. The law issue. Attack the president ’s contempt for the law at any point, and it will be wounded at all points.
That was Chris Dodd. Senators don't tend to give up their seats for an AG role, do they?
"lots of beef in his education proposal."
It's more or less the same stuff that the others have in their programs, too. But he promised much more, he promised CHANGE. Where is the damn change in his proposals? Where does he have any really different ideas? Face it, CHANGE is just hype. Obama is just a politician like all the others. All this excitement just comes from his personal charm, but there's nothing solid to base it on.
Gray, I think the ethics stuff, and transparency for the voters to actually see what the beltway bobs and bettys are up to is real change. and it is a part of a lot of his proposals.
Using the tools available to actually give the american people the info about what is actually being done, and not done.
I will amend what I said earlier. If Obama is what his fans think he is, he will not be allowed to assume office. The Cancer won't, can't, allow that.
The Secret Service will fail mysteriously, and a "lone racist nut" will assassinate Obama. The "lone racist nut" will then be "shot trying to escape".
Or perhaps the Cancer will go for the "crash of a light plane" scenario instead.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker wow, between this and the top of the page global warming story I am about ready to throw myself off a bridge... bummer
I hope Gator was indulging in hyperbole about jumping off a bridge.
As for me, I'm quite willing to wait for the perky Goth girl to come get me when she sees fit. I won't summon her.
I am quite influenced I'm afriad, by the whims and moods of the gods, goddesses, and lesser deamons over here at the gnb. And the black clouded- there is no hope- threads do really get me down...
but I shall overcome!
thanks for caring though.
The Secret Service will fail mysteriously, and a "lone racist nut" will assassinate Obama. The "lone racist nut" will then be "shot trying to escape".
That's why we need Al Gore or Edwards as VP, so that the wing nuts would be afraid to remove Obama from office. Worked for Bush. (prevented impeachment, that is...)
AA makes a good point.
Gray: thats pure bullshit and you know it...his educational stuff is allready being implamented in il. hell i live near the first birth to 8 education center...its a great idea, its a ture progressive idea and its being implamented.
but wait it didn't happen on the coasts so i guess it didn't happen.
forceing the police to vidoe tape all interviews, forcing them to recored all traffic stopes to monitor racil profileing...ya thats jsut busness as useual.
stop pushing teh BS gary, its just hallow talking points, unfortunaitly with the next and the docratmazation of power(man was bucky a visonary or what)the demcoratization of information we can all see taht your talking points are hallow...teh only reason left to beleive people like gary is lazyness.
IWB the last three presidents had the VP protection plan (qual, gore, chany) I think Obama can learn from teh past.
totally agree with Ivory Bill Woodpecker, Obama sure gives a purty speech but HOW is that going to repair the damage that our Crawford Caligua has done over the past 7 years
we've seen the results of having a Bush cult, and some of the people supporting Obama sound the same
listening to Obama is starting to annoy me almost as much as listening to Dear Leader but for a different reason: Obama is all platitudes
and I predict his speeches will get old fast
Gay Veteran, I am confused? you think Hillary is longer on details? More progressive? assuming we are in a 2 way fight now-- who do you think will respond more to pressure from the dems...
and comparing anyone here to the fans of bush is pretty low... :-(
Commenting by HaloScan
