‘Sometimes, just sometimes, there are nights like this’

Following up on the last post, which talked about what Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa means, I wanted to also take a moment (or two) to comment on what was a heckuva speech.

As a matter of substance, a speech is just rhetoric. As a matter of campaign strategy, an address thanking Iowans for their support probably wasn’t seen by too large a television audience. But I’ve been a speechwriting junkie since I was a young kid, and I watched Obama’s victory speech and kept saying to myself, “Damn.”

The funny thing, to me, about Obama’s recent rhetorical history is his ability to exceed absurdly-high expectations. In 2004, everyone expected him to give a great nominating address at the Democratic convention. In January 2007, everyone anticipated a good announcement speech. In November, everyone thought he’d bring down the house at Iowa’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner. About a week ago, everyone imagined his “closing address” would be persuasive. And last night, everyone assumed he’d say something inspiring to an Iowa crowd that had worked tirelessly on his behalf.

But in every instance, Obama capitalized on the pressure and delivered speeches that are even better than what the political world expects. Last night was particularly impressive.

Ezra, who, I think it’s fair to say, is not Obama’s biggest fan, summed up the reactions of many of us.

Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I’ve heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence. […]

[S]o much as I like to speak of white papers and scored proposals, politics is not generally experienced in terms of policies. It’s more often experienced in terms of self-interest, and broken promises, and base fears, and half-truths. But, very rarely, it’s experienced as a call to create something better, bigger, grander, and more just than the world we have. When that happens, as it did with Robert F. Kennedy, the inspired remember those moments for the rest of their lives.

The tens of thousands of new voters Obama brought to the polls tonight came because he wrapped them in that experience, because he let them touch politics as it could be, rather than merely as it is. And for that, he deserved to win. And he deserves our thanks. The politician who gets the most votes merits our congratulations. But the politician who enlarges our politics and empowers more Americans to step forward into the public square deserves our gratitude. And we, in turn, deserve to permit ourselves to feel inspired, if only for a night.

Remember, that’s from an Obama skeptic.

If you’re reading this site, chances are you’re not a political neophyte with a passive disinterest in the presidential race. But for most Americans, the process began in earnest last night, and Obama’s thank-you speech may very well have been the first time a lot of people heard him speak.

And if so, it was quite an introduction.

To be sure, speeches won’t win elections. But it’s a start.

You’re capturing my take on Obama’s speech. As someone who likes Obama, but hadn’t been persuaded by his health-care and other policies, Obama sure looked and sounded like a President last night.

  • Sorry, I keep coming to the party wanting to believe in Obama. And I keep leaving thinking, as Gertrude Stein said, “There is no there there.”

    What I hear time after time is glorious language — gloriously empty of any substantive content. “I will end the war.” Wonderful. If you want me to believe it, tell me how. Healthcare? How will it be universal, if the Obama plan leaves some uncovered, often the healthiest ones or possibly the poorest, at the eventual expense of the rest? The “politics of change?” Change to what?

    Sure, Barak, uplift me. But give me some food for thought. Right now, listening to an Obama speech is like trying to swim across a vast lake filled with whipped cream.

    So I’m still for Edwards with his “old” message about corporate greet that rings true and fires up my real passions about tangible matters.

    Crankily yours,
    The New York Crank

  • I was irritated by Obama’s speech. Maybe I’m too cycnical, but it was a mishmash of Kennedy/King which just seems phoney to me now. Posturing. The more I see Obama the less impressed I am. I think the Reps’ll eat him alive.

  • It is all about language.
    Always has been.
    It is what sets our species apart from all others.

    I sided early on with Obama precisely because of his words.
    I want a president whose language has the potential to uplift citizens and challenge them.

    The reason Americans walked on the moon?
    Because of JFK’s speech.

    The reason why America degraded into a torturing nation?
    Because of the brutish language of its current president.

    The hope that this planet can begin to defeat global warming?
    Totally dependent on a leader whose words can inspire the American people to feel good about getting it done.

    When it comes to humanity:

    Sticks and stones will break our bones
    But only words can lead us.

    After language, everything else pales as mere sophistry.

  • Sorry for the long post, but this seems relevant to any discussion about Obama having some “there there.” As another skeptic who wants to believe, this helps a lot for me. From the Post:

    Judge Him by His Laws
    By Charles Peters
    Friday, January 4, 2008; A21

    People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama’s bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.

    Since most of Obama’s legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there — and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. (Another factor is reporters’ fascination with the horse race at the expense of substance that they assume is boring, a fascination that despite being ridiculed for years continues to dominate political journalism.)

    I am a rarity among Washington journalists in that I have served in a state legislature. I know from my time in the West Virginia legislature that the challenges faced by reform-minded state representatives are no less, if indeed not more, formidable than those encountered in Congress. For me, at least, trying to deal with those challenges involved as much drama as any election. And the “heart and soul” bill, the one for which a legislator gives everything he or she has to get passed, has long told me more than anything else about a person’s character and ability.

    Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced — by beating the daylights out of the accused.

    Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

    This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama’s bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to “solve” crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

    Obama had his work cut out for him.

    He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that “Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics.”

    The police proved to be Obama’s toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, “This means we won’t be able to protect your children.” The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought — successfully — to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

    By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

    Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

    Obama didn’t stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state’s first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois “one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure”). Obama’s commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who “bundle” contributions for them.

    Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a “unique” ability “to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people.” In other words, Obama’s campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric.

    I do not think that a candidate’s legislative record is the only measure of presidential potential, simply that Obama’s is revealing enough to merit far more attention than it has received. Indeed, the media have been equally delinquent in reporting the legislative achievements of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom spent years in the U.S. Senate. The media should compare their legislative records to Obama’s, devoting special attention to their heart-and-soul bills and how effective each was in actually making law.

    Charles Peters, the founding editor of the Washington Monthly, is president of Understanding Government, a foundation devoted to better government through better reporting.

    © 2008 The Washington Post Company

  • No offense to the posters above, but you missed the point of that speech. There were numerous things Obama sought to achieve with that speech, and he achieved them.

    1. Thank those who have worked for him – People gave a lot to ensure his success yesterday, and through the speech, he further gave his supporters ownership of his campaign, thereby stoking and fueling that fire in his volunteers to continued hard work and support.

    2. Point out he’s in this for the long haul – He ain’t a one-trick pony, he’s on fire, and he’s doing it all to fix things for you.

    3. Continue his message of unity – He’s all-inclusive and everyone is welcomed and encouraged to come on this ride.

    4. Tell everyone who isn’t supporting him yet, “I’m coming for you. Get ready.”

    This kind of speech is meant to inspire, not to bog down the people with policies and specifics. For example, there was an episode of the West Wing that portrayed Bartlett early in his campaign. He was speaking to a group of dairy farmers and droning on and on about specific policies and how economics work–as an economics PhD, he was using all the big terminology, etc. The crowd was bored to tears. Then a question was asked, and he switched into the mode demonstrated by Obama’s speech last night: he talked in generalities rather than in specifics, about broad intention rather than roadmaps–and thus he was able to succeed through inspiration.

    Rhetoric (read: great speeches) is powerful only when it can be made applicable to everyone listening. Speeches can only take off and soar–as Obama’s did last night–when the heavy weight of details, specifics, and policy are shirked.

  • I agree, good post, CB. Dale you are a bit too cynical – you and I can create such a painful dossier on Huckabee, that he couldn’t even open his mouth to eat Obama alive…

    Hillary speech was very classy (as someone else pointed out as well on this blog). You gotta love her poise

    Edwards disappointed. Not congratulating Obama was very unexpected and un-classy.

  • I didn’t see his speech last night, but I have seen him speak before. I agree with The New York Crank. His speeches are all tangerine dreams and marmalade sky. They show his idealist side which is nice, it’s very nice, but not very realistic. There are very real shades of Martin Luther King in him and his speeches. “I have a dream.” “We shall go to the mountaintop.” etc. Beautiful images that I would definitely like to believe in, but can’t in today’s toxic political environment. He might be better suited as a vice presidential candidate.

  • The standard for excellent post-Iowa speeches has been pretty low ever since “YEAARRRGH!”

  • Unfair as it was, Matthews put the fork in Edwards when he said that the “we’re going on to New Hampshire, and South Carolina. . .” part of Edwards speech sounded just like Howard Dean without the scream. Speech cribbing plus being tied to someone whose candidacy became a punch line – not good.

  • I thought Tom Cleaver (comment 121) summed up Obama’s speech quite well last night.

    (Seems we can’t link to individual comments any more?)

    Sure we can. To link to individual comments, just click the number alongside the post. In this case, Tom’s comment is here.

  • I was happy with all three speeches by the Dem frontrunners. Especially Obama’s. Although I am still not sold on Obama–I still do not feel his actions have met his words, and he has not shown me he is willing to really lay down his political capital to take a strong stand and fight for something. But I would assume/hope that if elected president this would change. As I have said before, I would be happy with any one of the top three Dems.

    On the other end of the spectrum (no, not the GOP side), the media is just horrendous. Especially Chris Matthews–what a feeble, impotent, woman-hating, arrogant twit that man is. If it were not for Olberman I would have shut the TV off sooner than I did. I know he is bad, but it really seemed to me he took his badness, incompetence and hatred to a whole new level last night

  • Obama is a hell of an orator, and not bad as a legislator. Even a lot of Republicans like him (despite themselves, it seems) and with them on his side, and the average Republican idiot only marginally fired up (if Hillary is out) we could see a huge Democratic sweep all over the nation, which would be huge. We could be seeing another FDR type era coming on.

    After seeing what the media did to Howard Dean I hate to get my hopes up, but this is exciting.

  • Thanks, wvng@7–I love Charlie Peters, and I love the point he makes here.

    Anyone who thinks Obama isn’t tough enough to fight for progressive goals hasn’t looked at his record. I admit I’m biased–but my read of his history indicates that he’s got stronger “fighter” credentials than Edwards, who talks the talk but didn’t really walk the walk in the Senate, or Clinton, who’s never met a triangulation she wouldn’t embrace.

  • While not nearly the orator Obama is, I heard many people make similar comments about Howard Dean (during his rise). Personally, I supported the guy because of his record as governor, his pragmatism, his knowledge and judgement, and his willingness to speak his mind. Wish we had someone like that today. Myself, I can generally do without the oration.

    That said, the turnout and the youth vote are impressive. I’m not sure Obama is the only driving factor. I suspect there is a long-delayed reaction to abuse by Bush and company. Wish the electorate could make decent assessments in real time.

  • Ohioan said:

    I agree, good post, CB. Dale you are a bit too cynical – you and I can create such a painful dossier on Huckabee, that he couldn’t even open his mouth to eat Obama alive…

    You’re probably right about my cynicism. I’m just not inspired by 40 year old rhetoric anymore especially not presented in that singsong preacher’s cadence and with the added twist of Rooseveltian jaw thrusting while looking toward “the mountain.” No more misty-eyed 60’s political hero-worship for me.

    As far as reps eating him alive, I was actually thinking of after he is elected President.

    If you think about a turning point in History that Obama referred to, Huckabee’s win was one too. It was a point that the fundamentalists rose up (however briefly I hope) to have their own candidate and take center stage in American politics.

  • I suspect there is a long-delayed reaction to abuse by Bush and company. Wish the electorate could make decent assessments in real time.

    B, I agree with you completely. My wife’s comment last night as we left the caucus is “sure would have been nice had they all been here four years ago” – as in, maybe the world would have been spared 4 more years of Bush.

    My snarky response in the disappointment of the moment was that it just shows that Obama supporters catch on more slowly than the rest of us. 🙂

  • one word, and one word only: bush.

    obama won decisively last night, because he provides a clear antidote to the war criminal chimp in the oval office.

    hillary will never get it, which is why she hedges everything she says, and has finally been made to pay for her couched weasel-offerings to the fanatic right.

    the key to success in election 2008 is clearly and unequivocally calling out that stupid goon for the dangerous failure he is …. if you’re clear and clearly enunciate why this country needs a radical change, you succeed. if you hedge, and don’t have the courage of your convictions, hillary, you get third place. ‘change’ isn’t just a buzz word — you have to explain your motivations, you have to show you recognize and can identify what needs changing. obama has done that by regularly calling out bush on his toxic record — hillary hasn’t, because she tries to embrace some of that bush poison at the same time she critiques it.

    LISTEN, again, to obama’s great speech last night. part of what made it great was the continual references to the satanic character of the current occupant of the oval office.

  • Does anyone know who writes these speeches? Is it Obama himself?

    Speeches move people and elicit emotion–which is why they’re always used in movies about presidents–but to me, its always the delivery, as opposed to the words, that packs the punch. GWB could have given the exact same speech 8 years ago, and it wouldn’t have had anywhere near the impact that Obama had last night.

  • CB, I noticed we could still link to comments a while ago by using the number next to the comment, but it’s not a real obvious place to find the comment link. I was befuddled by it for a little while, but luckily figured it out I think without missing my chance to write anything I wanted to.

  • My wife’s comment last night as we left the caucus is “sure would have been nice had they all been here four years ago…” -Z

    Probably just weren’t old enough to vote! 🙂

  • Obama gave a great speech last night. While I was watching it, I had the same reaction as another commenter earlier today – I felt optimistic, like I did before Bobby Kennedy was murdered.

    In similar circumstances, Bill Clinton might have given us one of his policy-wonk addresses. Republicans would have immediately jumped into the details to tear down whatever a Democrat was attempting to build. What did Obama say last night that a Republican could even argue with? I agree that his speech was long on marmalade skies and bereft of policy specifics, but that may be exactly what we need right now. As much as I love red-meat Bush-bashing, what progressives need a lot more than that is the second coming of FDR. “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” applies very directly to us in today’s political climate. (I’m talking about you, Rudy.)

    Listening to Obama’s victory speech tonight reminded me of CB’s post from yesterday – “Is it Independents’ Day?” I don’t doubt that Obama has the policies that progressives like me want and that he will fight for them, but his speeches avoid the red meat that might drive away disillusioned Republicans who would like a change but just can’t force themselves to vote for a Democrat. If any Democrat has coattails, at this point it looks to me like that candidate is Obama.

    I’m not interested in compromising with hard-core Republicans in the House or Senate or anywhere else. John Edwards (my candidate) is absolutely right when he says that you can’t compromise with those bastards, you have to fight them. I don’t think that Obama will compromise with them either, but I think that he can co-opt them or render them powerless by taking away their electoral support with conciliatory rhetoric.

    Could we be watching the beginning of a Democratic majority for the next generation, put together by Barack Obama, the second coming of FDR? Is Obama “The One?” Stay tuned.

    (You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.)

  • What’s impressive about listening to Obama is that after four years of listening to Bush stumble with the English language, use grade school level speaking skills, constantly speak in stilted language and have that damned smirk on his face when he addresses the public, it’s elevating to see a leader speak without a script, with such a strong sense of purpose, with the clarity of thought never witnessed since Bush came to office and with the sense that his beliefs honestly permeate from his core.

    Obama’s speaking skills prove to me that he has the mental acumen to do the job. I don’t know which of the Democratic horses to support for this primary season, but I will not hesitate to vote for any of them in the general.

  • I think far too many people are only capable of seeing the trees in the forest with Obama and not the whole biosphere a forest represents.

  • “They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. ”

    Agreed 1000%

  • A friend said it was the cadences and dreams of Martin Luther King, and the beliefs of Robert Kennedy. I think we could do a whole lot worse than finally bring those two shades back, which relates directly to my comments last night about 1968 and 2008.

    I was particularly knocked out by this:

    ”It’s not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it and to work for it and to fight for it.

    Pure MLK and RFK – their very essences.

    And this was pretty good, too:

    ”Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an empire. What led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation. What led young women and young men to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom’s cause.

  • The line of the speech–hell, the line of the decade–for me:

    I’ll be a President who… understands that 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes, but a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the twenty-first century: terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.

    That’s a triple-shot at Bush, Giuliani… and, yes, Hillary Clinton. It shows Obama’s potential to do exactly what Bush signally failed to do: yield something redeeming from a terrible tragedy. If anyone still doubted it, that should have shown that this guy is a special politician.

  • The speech last night sounded like an acceptance speech. There were two points Obama reiterated from his campaign and which the press has overlooked. He repeated that he will address as president the tax inequalities in this country which have destroyed the middle class and made the corporations and their owners the top one percent of wealth ownership. I don’t think Hillary will want to go there at all. And he used words like science, education and American ingenuity in solving the global warming crisis. I have heard him decry the mood of anti-intellectualism in this country many times and believe that we have lost at least two generations to the dumbing down of America. It’s a critical problem and an issue I believe which is of great concern to Obama. We are at a crisis point in our history, and Obama has the makings of a great president and savior of this country.

    If the race comes down to Obama and Huckabee, I think we will have a well-fought but civil campaign, which in itself will be a historical reversal, but Obama will be the candidate of reason and Huckabee of faith. Only 1/4 of us will chose faith.

  • I too found Obama’s speech very uplifting. (Although I noticed that the only time he wasn’t cheered was when he talked about Democrats and Republicans working together – for a brief moment you could have heard a pin drop.)

    I’ve been irritated when he uses Republican frames and language, but I’m hearing progressive themes throughout his speeches and his record is good (thanks for repeating the Peters’ essay, WVNG), and nothing will get accomplished unless he shifts the center and gets a large democratic majority in the house and senate. I think he’ll have the coat-tails to pull that off. He needs to be non-threatening enough for some Republicans to vote for him and later to work with him. Treading very lightly may also be part of his way of dealing with racial nastiness and the upcoming Republican slime-fest – it’s hard to win a slime war if the majority sympathizes with the victim and thinks he’s a nice guy. He’s clearly expanding political involvement, which is a wonderful way to change the context of national politics. Backed up by democratic appointments, democratic advisors, and democratic bills coming from the legislature, he should do just fine.

  • Great speech, to be sure. But did he say tax cuts for the middle class? Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t we have a $9 trillion national debt?

  • Chris said: “Great speech, to be sure. But did he say tax cuts for the middle class? Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t we have a $9 trillion national debt?”

    Oh, and two ongoing wars!

  • Several of the bigger GOPer blogs are apparently stuttering over this one. RedState actually is leading with a postcard of the Hindenburg going down in flames, with the words, “Thanks, Obama—so much for ‘inevitability’.” A few or their posters are actually commenting on Obama’s campaign-to-date—and the outcome in Iowa last night—in “decent terms.” Those “conservative frames” folks were complaining about yesterday (or was it the day before?) bring such consequences to fruition.

    It’s also a funny thing that so many “little-p progressives”—people who should be concerned primarily with reuniting the Republic, yet who continue to seek gain through division, rather than via unity—seem to think that Obama’s outreach to independents and moderate conservatives must, by default equate with letting everything done by the Bushylvanians be “swept under the rug and forgotten.” If, for example, someone throws a brick through your living room window in the middle of winter, would you demand that the culprit be caught, prosecuted, and punished BEFORE you fixed that great big hole in your house? Me? I’d rather get the window fixed first—or at the very least, boarded up. Putting some brick-wielding thug in jail isn’t going to pay my heating bill, it’s not going to keep my pipes from freezing up and bursting, and it’s not going to keep my children warm.

    And the “window” that’s being referred to in this case is the United States of America. The speech I listened to on the radio makes me feel like Obama “wants to fix that broken window first.” I’m not seeing anything suggesting a similar tack from either Edwards or Clinton. Edwards is coming across more like the guy who says “I know a plumber you can hire” (remember—we’re trying to fix a window, not a kitchen faucet!)—and Hillary looks like she wants to show up with the wrong-sized piece of glass, no putty knife, and a can of spackling paste that’s only good for use if it’s above 70 degrees Fahrenheit outside (and it’s wintertime—DUH!!!)….

  • #35 is right on… well put Steve.

    And think, just yesterday so many of you folks here were critical of Obama’s recent moderate/independent streak. That very same moderate position he took in his speech last night is what made it so memorable and now makes him the man to beat.

  • No offense to the New York Crank – and, of course, you’re entitled to your opinion, and maybe Obama’s speeches in general are long on imagry and short on substance – but last night’s speech was not meant to be a substantive speech. Lord knows I hate sports analogies, as they tend to dominish the truly important from, well, sports. But in your old high school pep rallies, whether it was start of season, or going to semis or finals or championships, it’s pretty rare that the coach lays out his whole strategy, or describes in minute detail each play his team has perfected and what it’ll do when used against the opposition. It’s substantive, but doesn’t put fire in anybody’s belly.

    Last night’s speech was meant to show appreciation to those that stuck by him and his campaign, as well as to inspire the rest of the nation to join his team. That means appealing to the rank-and-file more than the political junkies (let’s face it, most political junkies already know who they want to vote for). There are always casual observers of the political scene looking for the candidate that simply gives them the most warm and fuzzies (no surprise there that Oprah – the QUEEN of the warm and fuzzies – was able to deliver such an successfully impassioned plea for Obama). Obama is pretty good at inspiring people (high school coaches will be cribbing notes and trying to tailor it into their speeches for years). While I’d certainly hope that his speech would inspire people to actually do the research that proves he’s a worthy candidate instead of just jump on his bandwagon, I’m sure he’s happy with either of those two end results.

  • I heard most of the speeches on CSPAN radio (yes, my bedside radio is tuned to CSPAN, ack!) lastnight and while I agree that it was quite nice to listen to and I’m sure it inspired everyone in the room, all I came away with was, “Hope is not a plan.”

  • His speeches are all tangerine dreams and marmalade sky. — Dave G, @10

    I’ve heard about marijuana, I’ve heard about cocaine… Are you suggesting — ever so subtly — LSD as well?

    All 3 speeches had their good points and weaker points, but Obama’s was the best, I thought (and I’m in Edwards’ camp). A slow burning fire, maybe, but a steady one all the same. Possibly, the kind which will warm you all winter, instead of burning itself out in one great flash (which is what I’m afraid might happen to Edwards) or giving no warmth at all (Hillary’s artificial flicker in the fireplace).

  • #38 says “Hope is not a plan”.

    Conversely #35 intimates that : Hope (window repair) is a plan.

    I love high flying rhetoric, but it ain’t policy and it only goes so far. Will Obama be willing to walk the walk that will be required to fix our democracy? I don’t think that the corporate right will want to give up their deregulation feasting on billions just from nice talk.

  • I think Obama must have been listening to Springsteen (see below) with that message of hope. The problem with the speech was not that it lacked substance, as others have pointed out, but that it is the usual rhetoric of the typical American “feel good” political season, if better delivered than most. Hope, freedom, democracy, change… blah blah blah…, and still special interest groups run the nation/empire. New and improved, the commercials always tell us, but the taste is about the same with the same processed ingredients.

    The elections last year were going to bring change. The war goes on, more greenhouse gasses and the wealthy become richer. Finally, a woman as congressional leader!! and we find out she condones torture. Same old, same old. America will get a president who can’t/won’t actually threaten the system. If otherwise, s(he) might not last the 4 year term or even the election.

    I say keep your hope, but don’t use it all up this campaign only to live with four more years of frustration and disillusionment. 70% or the nation was for the war and now… Hype is the natural flip-side of failure or lies. Trusting political leaders to make change may be easier, but home-made action, like home-made cooking, is much healthier for the body politics.

    Reason to Believe–by Bruce Springsteen

    Seen a man standin’ over a dead dog lyin’ by the highway in a ditch
    He’s lookin’ down kinda puzzled pokin’ that dog with a stick
    Got his car door flung open he’s standin’ out on highway 31
    Like if he stood there long enough that dog’d get up and run
    Struck me kinda funny, seem kinda funny sir to me
    Still at the end of every hard earned day people find some reason to believe

    Now Mary Lou loved Johnny with a love mean and true
    She said “Baby I’ll work for you every day and bring my money home to you”
    One day he up and left her and ever since that
    She waits down at the end of that dirt road for young Johnny to come back
    Struck me kinda funny seemed kind of funny sir to me
    How at the end of every hard earned day people find some reason to believe

    Take a baby to the river Kyle William they called him
    Wash the baby in the water take away little Kyle’s sin
    In a whitewash shotgun shack an old man passes away. Take his body to the graveyard and over him they pray. Lord won’t you tell us
    tell us what does it mean.
    Still at the end of every hard earned day people find some reason to believe

    Congregation gathers down by the riverside
    Preacher stands with his Bible groom stands waitin’ for his bride
    Congregation gone and the sun sets behind a weepin’ willow tree
    Groom stands alone and watches the river rush on so effortlessly
    Wonderin’ where can his baby be. Still at the end of every hard earned day people find some reason to believe

    Copyright © Bruce Springsteen (ASCAP)

  • Comments are closed.