Does anyone have a working link for the stream?

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

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

“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beq
If Obama is a threat, bye bye.

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

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

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

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

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

“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

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

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

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