Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 28, 2004
Billmon: A Star is Born

As Billmon says in one short post:

“I do believe we’re going to be hearing a lot more from Barack Obama in the years to come. He has the gift.”

Room for discussion here, plus the CSPAN Real Stream of Obama at the DNC convention and the transcript at the NYT site.

Comments

His speech was amazing, excellent… I haven’t felt as optimisitic in a while. For a second, I can ignore all the issues I have with Kedwards and just think, “you know, things could be ok.” I snap right back to the long road from here to there, but that man can speak. Damn!
I already heard a few ‘first black president’ comments from the commentators… and that little weasel Tucker Carlson could only stutter a half-baked response on CNN, that self-satisfield little shit. For that alone, I would hail Obama.

Posted by: æ | Jul 28 2004 5:29 utc | 1

Impressive. A powerful speaker, if perhaps a bit too preachy to my mind. He can move mountains for the Dems. Terrible to think what a man of this talent, who is by definition a gifted manipulator, could do in the other department. An excellent man for congregations, but how good he is for daily politics remains to be seen.

Posted by: teuton | Jul 28 2004 9:06 utc | 2

Does anyone have a working link for the stream?

Posted by: french speaker | Jul 28 2004 9:20 utc | 3

pfrrrrppp… Sorry, but this one‘s too good not to be posted.

Posted by: teuton | Jul 28 2004 10:13 utc | 4

Hearing Barack speak gives you hope that the democratic party can finally get its shit together. (Of course, I felt the same way after Cuomo’s speech in 1984, and look where that got us.) This time though, the Dems are remarkably on-message and unified.
I thought Dean’s speech was a little flat, but I’m sure they wouldn’t let him say what he REALLY wanted to say, so he re-hashed some nice primary sound-bites. Tremendous reception for him though – really showed the great appreciation the delegates had for givning us our party back.
Seemed like Hillary could have summoned up a LITTLE more enthusiasm during the speeches. Every time they panned to her, she was at best clapping tepidly (or maybe it was the champagne…)
Teresa’s speech was interesting, but probably won’t play overly well to average America. Not enough platitudes for a First Lady. (What in the world do people see in Laura Bush? The pundits were talking like she’s the greatest first lady in history — whaaaaaa…?)
To all you barflies on the other side of the pond- how are you watching this? Is it being carried by your TV networks, or are you watching streaming video from C-Span, or what?
One last random thought- seems the spin here is that the networks “blew it” by not televising all the speeches last night. I was watching it via the real no-spin zone, C-Span, but apparently the networks didn’t carry Obama’s speech? Is that possible? If so, here’s my prediction- the networks will recognize the ‘error of their ways’ and will correct it in time to provide wall-to-wall coverage of the repub convention next month. Any bets?

Posted by: semper ubi | Jul 28 2004 12:59 utc | 5

No bets semper ubi. That was given long ago (by Michael Powell).
I spent the evening muting David Brooks commentary on PBS but after Obama’s speech, I was slow enough to hear him admit that they had witnessed a historical moment. I couldn’t get the tears out of my eyes to find the remote.

Posted by: beq | Jul 28 2004 14:08 utc | 6

“Too preachy” sez teuton.
He spoke beautifully Teuts. Perfect pitch, no stuttering, emphasis in all the right places, with a perfect level of preachiness for his audience. The most moving and spot-on speech so far for the Dems.
Now, regarding “getting along” in the Senate, I can only recall Wellstone for you. He was snuffed because he wouldn’t play the game according to somebody else’s rules. He was wise and open enough to see through the haze to the truth, as is Obama, and willing to say it as he saw it.
This is against the rules ~ you must lie to survive, support the regime. I get the feeling that Obama, and if we and he are lucky, others like him, will change the rules. I have hope when I hear and see such a figure on the stage.
(I saw and heard Teddy Kennedy thiry-eight years ago in Boston, and was impressed by the gaseous volume of bullshit he could spew even as a young man.)
Teddy has grown up and improved his speaking skills a bit over the years, but Obama is beautiful right out of the gate.

Posted by: rapt | Jul 28 2004 15:08 utc | 7

@ french speaker:
try this and scroll down to Obama for either text or video.

Posted by: beq | Jul 28 2004 15:20 utc | 8

My problem w/ the whole propaganda exercise is how far it is removed from reality. Even Obama. They’re in the business of selling myths and dreams. These are not motivational speeches because they do not offer real solutions, only reinforcement or further indoctrination into the illusory world of an IDEALIZED United States. It’s my contention that we can talk about dreams all we want after we address the very real problems that we face. A politics of hope shrouded in false characterizations and blind nationalism is not going to get us out of this mess. I was disappointed w/ Obama’s speech. How can our pride be based on the rhetoric that “all men are created equal blah blah blah” when we have always had such great inequities throughout our history? Pride in what? When have we lived up to those words collectively as a nation? And what’s the deal w/ this “one America” nonsense? We are all humans, yes, same species, but there is great danger in preaching, yes, he was preaching, that there is no Black America, no White America, etc… I cringed at all the speeches last night. The only thing that struck a note w/ me was that it took a 12 year old girl to state the obvious that Cheney is an asshole and not fit for leading people. When we have to rely on kids to mobilize to eliminate bad words, we don’t have much to be proud of.

Posted by: b real | Jul 28 2004 15:33 utc | 9

beq:
I spent the evening muting David Brooks commentary on PBS but after Obama’s speech, I was slow enough to hear him admit that they had witnessed a historical moment.

For sure. In fact I’ve now taken to muting both Brooks AND Shields.
Not only were they both way out of bounds in regards to Teresa’s speech, but it was as if they were trying to golf with croquet mallets.
Yes, Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s speech had little to do with her husband, and both those old sops couldn’t understand that.
Dinosaurs both of them.
Neither could understand that not only is she entitled to speak her mind…but free also, to define herself as a ‘single separate person.’
After hearing her introduce herself last night… I now know why both men fell deeply in love with her.
She has got the soul of a poet.
Teuton:
An excellent man for congregations, but how good he is for daily politics remains to be seen.
This article answers some of that.

Posted by: koreyel | Jul 28 2004 15:40 utc | 10

Something in both b real’s and teuton’s words (idealized, preachy, etc.), and in rapt’s and beq’s (hope, historical momenty, “speaking truth to power”). I felt a bit of all those.
Not to throw cold water (I was impressed, nay, riveted by Obama), but I think it was Shields on PBS who read a LONG list of D & R Keynote Speakers who went on to… nothing of national political office note.
I didn’t catch Ted K. Perhaps no loss on my part.
I still think we may well have been looking at the first black POTUS of the future. Inspiring.
I personally found Teresa HK’s short intro. in 4 other languages to be a refreshing gesture (she even included the Brazilians — who, OT won the Copa America last Sun.), if a little personal bragging (however, as a professional translator, she’s entitled). If she saw it, even my un-repentent Nixon-supporting Repub. mother-in-law (of Italian heritage) may have been moved — I must ask her. but it was aspeech about her, and that was appropriate. She also told a bit about her husband from her perspective — also appropriate in the setting. Good for her.

Posted by: tom 47 | Jul 28 2004 16:01 utc | 11

b real: They’re in the business of selling myths and dreams. These are not motivational speeches because they do not offer real solutions, only reinforcement or further indoctrination into the illusory world of an IDEALIZED United States. It’s my contention that we can talk about dreams all we want after we address the very real problems that we face. A politics of hope shrouded in false characterizations and blind nationalism is not going to get us out of this mess.
Good ears and eyes. You’re good b real. 😉

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Jul 28 2004 16:18 utc | 12

koreyel,
Thank you for the New Yorker article. Obama is undoubtedly bright and motivated, and goddess knows people are longing for real-speaking, bright and motivated people in leadership. I’m an Illinois native, living in S. California for the last 24 years. Were I back there now I would throw my lot in with Barack Obama.

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Jul 28 2004 16:29 utc | 13

@b-real,
I hear that, it is total propaganda. I mean, the rational side of my mind knows that when Obama says “in no other country on earth, is my story even possible”, that’s total BS. But as far as addressing policy before dreams, I think maybe you have the order reversed in a way…
I would contend that this sort of talk isn’t meant to be dissected critically, but rather responded to purely emotionally, and it is the equivalent of Mass for our political religion. It restoreth hope, and faith. If we don’t believe in the potential for an idealized US, there is no motivation for change.
Surely even the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence from which Obama quoted recognized the gulf between the ideals they set down on paper and the world around them. But they figured, rightly, that you need to aim pretty high, and every step you make in that direction is an improvement.
So, I think Obama’s speech needs to be seen within that context to appreciate it’s effectivness. On the other hand, in the end all the rhetoric in the world is nothing compared to what the pol in question actually does, it must be said. And on that note, it sounds to me like he’s a clever and effective one. Thanks, koreyel, for that link, it was good.

Posted by: æ | Jul 28 2004 16:48 utc | 14

and…
The other thing what just occured to me is this: as far as nationalism goes, the kind he mainly expressed is not the odious one. To me, all the shout outs to the US being “the best” and “the greatest” and “the only”- the ones that place us somehow above the rest of humanity, I find that sort of talk insidious. We’re all stck on the same rock here, after all.
So, Obama had some of that going on, it’s true- it is a requirement of the job for as long as we (the American sheeple, i.e.) get off on it. But then, to some extent, I think most nations also engage in it…
But, the ‘nationalism’ that looks inward and tries to unite us as a country based on the ideals set forth in our foundational documents- that sort of appeal doesn’t bug me. I think it’s good, generally, for the aim of addressing the myriad domestic issues at hand.

Posted by: æ | Jul 28 2004 17:00 utc | 15

I really enjoyed Teresa Kerry’s speech.
It seemed a little too mature for the
current US presidential debate format though.
It was more suited to ‘old europe’ or the UN.
Especially her support for the environment.
All in all a good signal for the rest of the world if JK wins and listens to her counsel- Kyoto, Doha – a real partner for multilateralism.

Posted by: Ramlad | Jul 28 2004 17:55 utc | 16

Thanks for the article too, Koreyel (I’m a slow reader). It fills in the gaps for me.
I was also blown away by Teresa H-Kerry’s speech. I felt that she was using her opportunity to get in the faces of all those who have attacked and will continue to attack her for her individuality and she made considerable points with me. I was thrilled for her. Misogyny is still alive and well on our “happy planet” (Kate) and I deeply admire her courage. Poor Laura, what has she got?

Posted by: beq | Jul 28 2004 18:04 utc | 17

Also, and then I’ll be quiet, they both (Obama and Heinz-Kerry) appealed to the polyglot that is and has always been our country; from the heart and not a gratuitous few words of mangled Spanish and cue the mariachi.

Posted by: beq | Jul 28 2004 18:17 utc | 18

Brooks was witnessing an historic moment. Obama has no opposition for the Senate seat it seems, since Ryan is out, so it’s pretty much a given that he will win this election.
and he will be the first African-American Senator that I know of…maybe historians can fill me in on the reconstruction era if I’m wrong.
as far as the preachy tone….that’s partially a cultural issue, I think.
Like a griot in Africa, the African-American preacher (and that sort of way of communicating) has a strong tradition and position of honor in American life. Al Sharpton uses the same cadences, as does Jesse Jackson.
…and really good white pols, like Bill Clinton, “get” the power of that sort of verbal riffing, too. I don’t think it’s any accident that Clinton blows sax as well as speaks with, for lack of a better word, “soul.”
The whole convention thing, imo, can be summed up in the Biblical line, “Without a vision, the people perish.”
I do think the speeches have offered a vision, not just jingoism. Teresa HK talked about females having opinions, and imagined when assholes like the Scaife crew not blowing blood vessels over “uppity women,” but appreciating well-informed women.
..the fact that Laura says she is clueless isn’t a positive for some people..although it seems to give creepy guys with liver spots a hard on.
again, talk about stem cell research, talk about affordable health care, talk about fathers who lose their jobs and have to take jobs earning the same salary as their sons…these are all issues that have been mentioned as part of the dem difference.
btw, this morning I heard a little bit of Michael Moore giving a speech at American Coming Together, and he was great. I know people say he can be a prima donna in real life, but I appreciate what he has to say and that he has the platform to speak what so many of us know in our hearts.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 28 2004 18:23 utc | 19

“..the fact that Laura says she is clueless isn’t a positive for some people..although it seems to give creepy guys with liver spots a hard on.”
Tee hee.

Posted by: beq | Jul 28 2004 18:42 utc | 20

Faux- How quickly you forget Carol Moseley Braun! Also Edward Brooke from the 1960s (I think). Plus there was another one – just don’t know the name.
Obama wouldn’t even be the first african american senator from Illinois. OK, he’d be the first MALE african american senator from Illinois.
He was still great last night, first or not.
😉

Posted by: semper ubi | Jul 28 2004 19:08 utc | 21

semper- oops.
I was thinking of the African-Americans in the House of Reps…trying to remember if I could name anyone in the Senate…and Mosely-Braun was even speaking last night..

Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 28 2004 19:17 utc | 22

To the Americans on this Blog.
Will Obama galvanise the Black vote?

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 28 2004 19:40 utc | 23

Good question cp.
The media (of course) “coverage” of the convention is dreadful on tv. If you could drag the sheeple for whom this means the most away from their silly programs and get them to listen!!! Yes.

Posted by: beq | Jul 28 2004 19:47 utc | 24

Beq
If Obama is a threat, bye bye.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 28 2004 20:31 utc | 25

æ:
If we don’t believe in the potential for an idealized US, there is no motivation for change.
Yeah…
fauxreal:
The whole convention thing, imo, can be summed up in the Biblical line, “Without a vision, the people perish.”
Double Yeah…
I can appreciate b_real’s insights as well as anybody.
But like I’ve written before: All my heroes in life are people who maintained their vision of a better world in the face of fearsome odds.
Capitulation–to the worst that is in us–is not an option.
I realize that this is not what b_real is advocating. And yet, my mind is drawn in that direction…
Ramlad:
I really enjoyed Teresa Kerry’s speech.
It seemed a little too mature for the
current US presidential debate format though.
It was more suited to ‘old europe’ or the UN.
Especially her support for the environment.

At times I felt the same way. The last poll I saw only 3% of the US voting public thought enviromentalism an important issue.
That’s frightening. Talk about not being connected to one’s primal roots. But then again… that’s what happens when fear de-roots people from their essense and their best interests.
Obviously the next step in the evolution of humanity is, if not the outright worshipping of Gaia, than at least an appreciation and a determination to honor and appreciate her creations.
So yeah…I loved Teresa’s line (paraphrasing here): “Good economics is good environmentalism.”
That’s high order thinking.
The type of thinking that unfortunately sailed over Shield’s and Brook’s heads.
One more thing:
Maybe I am a simpleton…but…I thought the speakers last night went deep. Deeper than any convention night I could remember. No one has even mentioned Ron Reagan. But some of his sentences were so ferociously pro-sceince…they I bet even Isaac Asimov would have been grinning.
It was all good stuff…top to bottom.
Am I looking forward to tonight?
You damn well better believe it.
Like Billmon said…These are my people…and I too wish I was there.

Posted by: koreyel | Jul 28 2004 20:48 utc | 26

Careful of those bullshit rigged polls Koreyel. They seem to be spilling out all over the place in these desperate times.
I wouldn’t believe the 3% if I wuz you.

Posted by: rapt | Jul 28 2004 20:59 utc | 27

koreyel, it’s a bit late, but thanks for the link. Much appreciated, and we both know it’s a nice piece of bias, but still, nice. If I were American, I would vote for Obama; his professionalism is impressive in itself.
As to the preachy tone: yes, fauxreal, I absolutely agree, it’s a cultural issue. You know, as a German with half a brain, you cannot avoid hearing certain echoes when somebody lauds his nation in superlatives and churns out some professional, all-inclusive phrases about ‘the people’, which is in German ‘das Volk’. Yuck. I know it’s probably unfair to the guy, but there it is. I cannot help it.
Someone upthread asked about the European coverage of the convention. We get good summaries with lengthy excerpts on the major networks here in Germany, and we can watch stretches of it on some politico-networks (I think, ahem).
One last last last observation: I know you guys are used to them, but the endless piling of superlatives about the US in the speeches is, to be honest, really getting on my nerves. And I have not even seen that much.
Feel free to say something unpleasant about my country. (If you lack ideas, I am willing to help you out. A bit.)

Posted by: teuton | Jul 28 2004 21:37 utc | 28

Here we go again. I wonder how many of the posters prostrating themselves at the feet of Obama today will own that action in 8 or 12 years if Barack is around and running for Prez. By then he will have cut his deals with whatever Industries and Interests he decides to use to finance him and many of whatever the 2016 or 2020 equivalent of blogs is, will be referring to him with the sort of contempt found in here when Hillary, hubby Bill, Gore, or Kerry are mentioned. It appears to me that the way Obama has allowed himself to be presented as the ‘future’ betrays the inner motivations of a person who is far more interested in personal advancement than helping the poor up the ladder of happiness.
It’s true that many other countries vote for self obssessed liars as well, but when one reads or hears the opinions of ordinary voters they display a cynicism not revealed in the sort of hero worship US elections and in particular political conventions inspire.
Maybe I’m completely wrong and Obama is the exception. Even then this sort of adulation is a mistake. Social democracies work best when the ‘leader’ is just another member of the government. When so much power is placed in the hands of one person it makes the job of lobbyists much simpler. That is; it is much easier to bribe, corrupt or suborn one person than fifty. And I really don’t believe anyone can make the sort of objective decisions required to govern a country without their personal prejudices coming into play.
As an outsider looking in it appears to me that at the time the US constitution was written; having a President who basically took the role of a King but was democratically elected was a logical option. The thing is that since then many other nations have relegated their Heads of State to opening public events and wearing silly hats whilst real power has passed into the legislature, which far from perfect has at least reduced the chances of a country falling into the hands of a megalomaniac.
In fact this years US election seems to be about voting for the person who is less megalomaniacal than the others. For example the substance of concerns about Ralph Nader (apart from his electability) whose views seem most closely aligned to the views of many of this blog’s posters, is Nader’s ability to consult and compromise. Surely the US (and the world) would be better served were far more difficult of any megalomaniac to assume so much power.
p.s Yes Eugene was probably one too After all it takes a particular sort of person to run for President knowing you won’t get elected but will probably stay in prison longer.

Posted by: Debs in ’04 | Jul 28 2004 23:07 utc | 29

got to agree with b real and katestorm. i have better things to do than listen to these guys spewing out the proper cliches. heard it all before. if they actually come up with a few solutions to the many problems in the US i may start to listen. hell, if they started to discuss some of the real problems ,i may start listening.
same old, same old!
remember, when a politician’s lips are moving, they are lieing. their actions tell the tale.

Posted by: lenin’s ghost | Jul 28 2004 23:26 utc | 30

Obama did seem like a possible first black president – he speaks well, is not “too black” and is not too challenging … as a former speechwriter, I was impressed – the words and the delivery were just right or as his wife said after, “he hit all his marks.”
But his “only in america” line points to a critical problem in this whole show – other countries may be proud of their culture, art, history, football team, whathaveyou but not need to be the “only country” where there is freedom or opportunity or whatever. Not only is this thinking inaccurate, it displays the very arrogance which leads to actions like the war in iraq and all the other crimes – and until we give up this america first idea, we will never be fit to join a mature world community.
As the audience, I think it’s very tricky, esp for folks of my generation – we so want to believe in the kennedy myth vision of america acting for good in the world at the same time we know the evil our country has done. We want to drink the kool-aid but we know it’s poisoned …

Posted by: Siun | Jul 29 2004 2:12 utc | 31

I know I’m out of my league here but I cried through his whole address. I think I cried out of a sense of despair. I followed this same egalitarian rhetoric to Viet Nam and we all know what became of that.
These bastards better stand behind their words.

Posted by: Jack K | Jul 29 2004 3:25 utc | 32

Like Billmon said…These are my people…and I too wish I was there.
Tonight had some of the flatest and most flatulous speeches I ever let pass from one ear to the other.
Thank God I was at home and could turn off all those oafs.
If last night was ying and yang (Obama and Heinz), tonight it was all din and dung.
Yuck…
Yeesh…
Yick
Somebody bang the gong…err I mean the gavel…and be quick about it.

Posted by: koreyel | Jul 29 2004 3:27 utc | 33

Just watched,sort of,the Edwards speech,and guess I’m down on the other side of that Oboma bounce.It was sweet but mighty short.
Have been trying to take all this pomp with an eye to circumstances, it is after all a convention playing pretty pretty to those 10% playing hard to get. The sad fact is that the (Dean) inspired regeneration(anti-Clinton anti- war) of the Democratic party have pretty much been turned inside out again (out republican the republicans) to steal that kiss (of death) from the middle.
I think most hanging on to this thread could imagine a convention that would aspire to something more than an info-mertial for mono-culture here, and mono-culture abroad, coke or pepsi in Washington, coke or pepsi in Karbala. Aspire to something other than the inbred corpocratic,winner take all political dog run of a system we’re apparently trapped in.Its not like theres never a wellspring,there is occasionally an Obama that bubbles up, setting an alternative trajectory,aimed at the heart of a real issue.Then along comes Mr DNC, Mr Lobbyist ,Mr Electability, and before long that wellspring is a million dollar ,Members Only, destination spa resort.
I suppose if we’re going to” ride that donkey”(thanks Al) maybe we should show it the stick now and then.

Posted by: anna mist | Jul 29 2004 4:51 utc | 34

“in no other country on earth, is my story even possible”, that’s total BS.
Yes, that is a real disappointment. Americans honestly believe their country is the greatest, when there are probably 20 countries where Obama’s story happens as often as in the US.

Posted by: french speaker | Jul 29 2004 8:28 utc | 35

@fauxreal:
The whole convention thing, imo, can be summed up in the Biblical line, “Without a vision, the people perish.”
The Democratic party and the effort to put John Kerry in the White House has a tremendous sense of mission, the goal is a beacon, the brass ring within reach, the trajectory and target are easily discernible. What is missing is a vision, the true and far reaching action beyond the election. Democrats seem to have a vague notion that if we reach the goal, complete the mission, the election will magically solve all problems. Where is the vision beyond the 2004 election? Beyond sound bites and speeches, the official party spiel is a morass of statement with no substance. What is our comprehensive plan for the Iraq debacle? How do we stop the spiraling stratification that is dividing our country? How do we actually implement programs and laws that provide for all people, protect them, educate them, feed them and keep them healthy? We have platforms and policy, but no one clear vision from the Democrats as a whole. Do we embrace the social contract started with the New Deal or do we need to design a new model for a new century? What is our vision? Do we continue to function handicapped by the political machinations that are now so intrinsic to both parties? Or do we really start a new way of doing things? Maybe our vision could go back to basics…”all are created equal with certain unalienable rights, the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Maybe we can take it one step further and mutually pledge to each other “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.” The democrats have some of the finest minds and the strongest backs willing to take on the vision. Are we going to keep slapping them down because tiny minds with big mouths keep us darting to and fro, a huge swarm circling at the center praying the sharks won’t start a feeding frenzy? Are we as a people willing to stand up and work wholeheartedly and without reservation to ensure that everyone, regardless of status, race or socioeconomic circumstances has enough to eat, a secure place to live, access to adequate health care, and the guarantee of a livable wage that promotes their well being and happiness? Will we welcome the huddled masses to our shores, embrace them without reservation as fellow human beings regardless of what artificial designation of real estate happened to be in place when they were born? Can we really create a common vision for the family of man? Are we ready to face down the bully and show him up for the coward he is? Are we finally ready to live the dream?
One generation got old.
One generation got soul.
This generation got no destination to hold.
Pick up the cry!
“We are volunteers for America”
Jefferson Airplane – 1969

Posted by: SME in Seattle | Jul 29 2004 9:05 utc | 36

thanks, beq and jackK – you said you cried – so did my husband, who rarely watches TV and can’t stand politics and rarely believes rhetoric. Teuton, it was full of superlatives, but to some of us Americans from multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multi-politics families, what we heard was the part about a “United” States of America. Every time husband & I see a car with flags we ridicule it with sounds of cavalry arriving (we are anti-jingoist too) – however, the phrase that got to us among others was “use religion as a wedge” – he did call the Rethugs out on their tactics and eloquently. thanks for tactic of muting the pundits – I’ll do that! what I saw was David Brooks silent for once a few times …

Posted by: francoise | Jul 29 2004 14:03 utc | 37

But as far as addressing policy before dreams, I think maybe you have the order reversed in a way…
Vision. We need vision, not lies. Dreaming is nice, but that mental energy is better spent finding creative and imaginative solutions to the problems we have right now. To recruit people to a program with the rhetoric of lies and fantasy does not help those people. Obviously we have an information gap in the USA and we cannot address it by invoking religious conformation to dreams about who we wish we were. You are correct that context is key, however, we should keep in mind that the context here is one part of a sales pitch. “Send Me.” It is interesting to observe the convention as an indoctrination program wherein the delegates are heavily subjected to carefully controlled propaganda in order that they carry the Kerry flag. Alex Carey defined propaganda as “communications where the form and content is selected w/ the single-minded purpose of bringing some target audience to adopt attitudes and beliefs chosen in advance by the sponsors of the communication.” That’s the goal of this convention. $93 million has been spent to elect Kerry. That is the context that Obama’s speech should be viewed in. The DLC dream is to be the party that the corporate sector turns to. They aim to do this by convincing the public that they are something that they are not and that our aim is good. (And what is it w/ this “Take Back America” sloganeering? When have the people ever been in charge? Did I miss something in the history books?) We are not to the point of desperation yet where all we have left to relieve us of our sufferings are dreams, so, again, I contend that we find solutions first, and leave the fantasies for the celebration afterward. Watch the convention w/ a healthy dose of skepticism. It’s an advertisement.

Posted by: b real | Jul 29 2004 14:36 utc | 38

Paul Street has some reflections on Obama’s keynote speech that are worth a read.

Posted by: b real | Jul 29 2004 17:13 utc | 39

$200 bucks from 1,000,000 people. Will Kerry forget where he got all those campaign dollars after he is elected?… I doubt it.

Posted by: pb | Jul 29 2004 17:43 utc | 40

I am British as such my words may have no place here, but I have to say, Go Obama Go and I am white. A star is born, a president in the making watch him, I intend to and so will lots of us Brits beacuse who ever you elect affects as as well.
H Clinton and B Obama for 2008 and onwards

Posted by: bob barrett | Jul 30 2004 20:10 utc | 41