I could nit-pick, but that would imply there are crawly nits to pick. Sure, it would be nice to address the usual "tax and spend" crap and combine it with the "he loves our enemies and the folk at home who blame America" by saying what about "borrow and spend?" and indeed mortgaging the nation to folks who hate us, just so bigwigs can make a buck. But hey, this was one for the ages. Amusing to see the Fox News and blogger punditry and gargling. But hey, they must clear their throats for the usual flag and cross snowjob bread and circus to mezmerize Joe and Josephine Sixpack next week. Lord, can't let the trance be broken on Joe and Josephine. Lest they absord what Barack said...
I was relieved. I am happy. And as for the "beyond the campaign" significance, this speech is history--especially given that this is the party of Jefferson and Jackson, and of the traitors who decided to leave the Union in 1861 and condemn thousands of men and women war and misery rather than admit that we were human. But that will make words he speaks on Inauguration Day even more paramount.
He looked and sounded like a president.
Impressed, I was.
I'm only a voter and I can only speak for myself. I was underwhelmed by Obama's speech.
I wasn't interested in hearing MLK's children speak. While the the tribute John Lewis was nice that wasn't the history making moment.
Obama's nomination was.
I expected more and the moment called for more.
I wanted a speech for the ages, something that will be as relevant one hundred years from now as it is now. I needed a speech that tied the struggles of people of color in this country to the larger American story. Why not mention MLK by name or A. Philip Randolph or any of the organizers of the March on Washington? Were they not great Americans whose progressive ideas are as important today as they were forty-five years ago. Why not, for example, salute the countless African American, Latino, Asian American and Native American servicemen who served this country abroad even though they were disenfranchised at home? They did that so one day a Barack Obama could stand in front of 80,000 fans and claim his nomination.
Obama had the perfect opportunity to deliver this century's Gettyburg's address instead we were subjected to 38 minutes of rehashed soundbites, talking points and slogans.
And what purpose? To win over white voters? I don't doubt that this "whitewashed" speech (Dr. Julianne Malveux's term, not mine) will calm the nerves of undecided voters. It may even help him win the election, but at what cost?
If he does win, I pray that he will acknowledge the struggles endured by brown folk who put him in the Oval Office. Maybe in his inauguration address he'll call a few by name.
I won't hold my breath.
I'd say Monica was in the minority. On the superficial level, he was a billion times better than any of his colleagues, including Bill Clinton, and zillion than the current president and any of the Republicans. I don't mean style, I mean substance too.
He wasn't addressing the country but it was also a convention let's not forget. It had to be an internal peptalk.
Post a Comment