Speechifying

[bcholmes]

Dayum. I just got around to watching the the Obama speech everyone has been talking about. I loved Obama's keynote back at the DNC four years ago, and greatly admired his speaking ability.

I think that, for a long time, I believed my friends who said that "he's running for vice-president." I think that, for several months, I was most struck by the message that John Edwards had about the perils of uncontrolled corporations, but I never believed that he'd become the candidate. Mostly, I was resigned to a Clinton ticket (I suspect that she won't deviate in any meaningful way from the Bush doctrine).

But, wow, I love how Obama has taken the lead, and his speeches are fascinating examples of political dialogue the likes of which I haven't seen in a long, long time. The US could do a lot worse than Obama.

(I'm trying to think about any really beautiful speeches from Canadian politicians. It occurs to me that the only examples I can come up with have all come from inside parliament, where, of course, nobody pays attention. Rae's speech in favour of the same-sex marriage bill in June, 1994. Paul Martin's speech on the same topic in 2005. These were good speeches. Pity Canadian news outlets choose not to televise any of them, favouring instead the soundbytes that can fit into a 15-second video clip.)

I think that the parties the US has don't... well... really represent a broad political spectrum. Maybe Obama's belief in the possibility of America can serve as an example there, as well.

Comments

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

The parties down here really *don't* represent a wide political spectrum. They're either way left or way right (or just way out). Most of us are much more centrally located.

Unfortunate that Edwards dropped out, but I will definitely be voting for Obama. Hillary's playing too much of the political games for my taste.

[the-nita.livejournal.com]

Perhaps from the US's perspective. Your "way left" up here in Canada looks "right of our right wing".

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

Yah, drawback to "the two-party system" is that classic "race to the middle" where candidates try to appear centerist to everybody. The early primary races are the only time in the national elections in which candidates actually try to differentiate themselves from anything normal and boring. Sen. Obama's actually tried to keep that shine for a long, long time, and do no more political attack than is strictly necessary to be not *always* on the defensive. It makes Sen. Clinton look like an overpolished product of a political machine, sour, mean and humorless.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but one of the things that's always perplexing for me is that your middle looks to be in the same place where our right wing is.

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

It's a relative center, rather than an absolute, and run through a filter of Puritanism and anti-intellegencism. It's not even real anti-intellectualism, becuase it doesn't matter if the smart is for the sake of being smart, or used for a purely practical purpose. Being able to ACCOMPLISH things isn't valued or rewarded, and hasn't been for 25 years.

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Honestly, the speech felt a bit heavy handed with emotional manipulation in the last part. I like Obama for the most part, but I'm getting tired of how inspiring he tries to be all the time.

Perhaps I'm just tired today.

[sarah-dragon.livejournal.com]

I like Obama a lot, no particular reason. It could be that he is the Anti-Clinton/Bush. I pointed out somewhere a few weeks ago that if Hilary were elected, we would have been ruled by a Bush or Clinton for at least the last 24 years. Thats a solid oligarchy at work.

Is he perfect? No he is a politician. Still I think he is the change we need right now.

I also totally agree with you that our parties do not represent us very well.

[expanding-x-man.livejournal.com]

Actually, not to burst your bubble, but Obama is actually a centrist and in some respects -- to the right of Clinton in policy matters. Oh, he talks a good game, but if you look at his record (which is thin) and his actual policy positions, he is not much different than Hillary and actually - in some ways to her right. He will not bring us Universal Health Care, he will not bring a moratorium on foreclosures, and -- his actual positions on foreign policy are not much different than hers. And, he will continue to authorize the use of mercenaries in Iraq, while she will not;

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill

[mizalaina.livejournal.com]

I love the guy, as much as anybody can love a politician whose image is constructed. He has been my candidate of choice since last year. Like you, I thought he was a long shot, and it was only when he won Iowa that I thought, "wow, this guy could actually become the nominee".

I contrast his approach to campaigning with Hillary's. She comes across as one of those people who will do anything to get into the White House, whereas he let her poke and poke and poke until he was forced to respond. I think that after eight years of yeehaw diplomacy, that sort of restraint is what the US needs.

Since being elected to the Senate, Hillary has re-cast herself as a hawk. I have no interest in a candidate who wants to prove that she is "just as tough as men". If I wanted to vote for another white guy, I would vote for a white guy, but frankly the US (and the world at large) needs a sensibility that is grounded in something other than that.

Regarding the subject of this speech, I watched some of the things that Barack's minister said, and I can't say I disagree with the guy. I mean, but when you say "the US of KKK A", you pretty much sum up 200 years of unfair treatment; how else could you do that in the length of time that it takes to speak that phrase? I think white people are taking this so personally because they don't want to see what happens when they pull away the nicey-nice veil that covers the resentment that Black Americans feel. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

I like a lot of what he has to say, and while I'm not crazy about the Clinton/Martin/Blair Third Way that all Democrats these days seem to follow, I think Barack brings something very special. Right now, he's getting my vote.

[firecat]

I like Obama because he appeals to most of the Democrats I know and he also actually appeals to some Republicans -- and right now the US needs a politician who can appeal to a wide range of the populace.

Also, although I haven't spent that much time following what he actually says, I like that he appears not to play dirty too much.

Yeah, the two mainstream US parties are pretty close on the political spectrum. I think they only differ on abortion and gun control.