Like so much in this U.S. Presidential nomination cycle, reaction to Barack Obama's speech yesterday on race in America was all in the eye of the beholder.
My friend, Barry Brown, was exuberant:
I said Barack Obama had to give his inaugural address now and that's just what he did.
His speech on race had been compared to King's Dream for the modern era. Flanked by the flags, he looked completely presidential. He set the tone of what his Administration will be about. Completely consistent with everything else he's said and proposed.
Let's reason together and understand together.
What a novel concept after the Bush years. How tragic that it is so. But how wonderful the long night is ending and a new dawn emerging.
My reaction...
I absolutely agree with the substance of Barack Obama's message.
I've also heard essentially the same message delivered equally well before - by American leaders on race relations from Bill Cosby to Bill Clinton - and I have agreed with them too.
It was a good speech. Well-written and well-articulated, but hardly groundbreaking, in spite of all the hyperbole generated in its immediate aftermath.
It was not even one of Mr. Obama's most electrifying or inspiring moments, in my view. Beyond that, I fear it may add to the polarization already emergent, in spite of its best intentions to the contrary.
I do not see this speech as changing anything in this election.
Or in America.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net
EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE
6 comments:
It wasn't meant to be electrifying or inspiring (though it did inspire some of us apparently) - it was meant as a serious sober look at race relations, partially as a response to the reaction to Obama's former pastors remarks.
Really Garry.. come out and admit if you haven't already that you support Clinton.
My good friend, Scott Tribe:
I stated my preference for Hillary Clinton on February 10, 2008 - see: http://wiselaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-or-obama.html
I note your use of the word "admit," in the context of this choice, which I take to mean that you see support of Mrs. Clinton as somehow akin to a bad habit or dark, shameful secret.
Are you sure you meant to say that?
By the way, for our readers benefit, Scott Tribe does yeoman's work as the unsung administrator of Progressive Bloggers (http://www.progressivebloggers.ca/), and has his own, terrific blog, Scott's DiaTribes (http://scottdiatribe.gluemeat.com/), both of which are on our blogroll and are must-reads for me.
GJW
I was saying that in the context of I hadn't seen you do an official endorsement of her, so I felt if you supported Clinton/weren't an Obama fan, you should be making that disclosure so people know where you were coming from with all these attacks on Obama.
If I'd seen the post you mention, I'd not have worded it the way I did.
BTW, lots of people who are not Obama supporters rate this speech with some of the great political speeches of all time, so I wonder if your Hillary support is causing you to not give this speech as much credit as you should be giving it.
(Thanks for the plugs by the way.. no need to have done that).
Scott, I do not see myself as ever having attacked Mr. Obama. In fact, I have repeatedly mentioned that I am a supporter of him in every regard.
I simply have concluded, on balance, that Hillary Clinton is the better candidate.
Beyond that, I have specifically chosen, as an example, not to write on the silly smears by association of Mr. Obama based on his pastor's apparent extremism. I see this as yet another example of an irrelevant distraction - another "John Edwards' haircut" type of story.
We don't need to push the idea, once we have made our choices, that the other candidate is flawed or unworthy or the enemy.
I will be backing whoever the Democratic nominee is in the general election ahead, and I hope Mr. Obama's supporters will by and large do the same, if their candidate comes in a close second.
I think they are the two best democratic contenders we have seen since Bill Clinton, and nobody needs to apologize for his or her preference, as I see it.
More fuss for you: Major newspaper editorials praising the Obama speech.
Getting a speech compared to FDR's, Abe Lincoln, and JFK's? Not too shabby company, I'd say, particularly from a newspaper that endorsed Hillary.
Yes, I've seen those news reports and I hope everything they say proves to be true - that the speech proves to be a watereshed moment in American race relations.
If you've watched any cable news today, however,you'll see that along with admiration for the speech, there's also a backlash against his defence of his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.
As far as press adulation as a predictor of greatness, I have my doubts - remember the way they used to drool over President Bush? This too will end.
Let's see how long the "speech" news cycle lasts - I give it three days plus some recycling over the weekend.
Mrs. Clinton is about to release her First Lady years diaries. The next issue will be what it does,and does not tell us about her experience advantage.
Post a Comment