Did Barack need more MLK references?

From JGR:

Hey Ta-Nehisi, have you watched Tavis yet tonight? Drs. Julianne Malveaux and Cornell West just unloaded on Barack for not talking about Dr. King enough. Basically dismissed the whole speech for not saying the words: "Dr. Martin Luther King."

I'd like to know what you think. I hate to even think it, but was that jealousy? Pride? Is it something about the talented tenth wanting their props? It sure seems like Barack knows what he's doing, so I'm not going to jump to any conclusions. The name was conspicuously absent, and the journey to this historic moment was not especially built up. Basically, this did sound like a "post-racial" political speech, and ironically a lot of folks might not like that kind of "post-racial" (especially if it means you have to downplay the people that came before you).

I'll leave it there, but it was an interesting moment. I'll continue to think about it, but please let us know what you think after you check it out.

I don't know. We had the John Lewis tribute and the film. I don't see it as particularly postracial. I see it in much more simpler terms--as my buddy Jabari Asim says, Barack Obama is running for president of the United States, not president of the Urban League. But moreover, I just don't have much respect for the "kissing the ring" critique. I think you can hit Obama for not pushing specific issues that are important to the black community--I don't know what they are--but I would at least respect that. The problem with this idea that Barack isn't talking about "black issues" is that the most important issues to black people right now--the war, jobs, the economy, education--are "American Issues." So what then? If black people--your base--mostly want to hear about the same issues that most Americans want to hear about, where is the impetus to not talk about those issues? I don't quite get it...

UPDATE: One other thing. This theme keeps recurring that Obama isn't claiming his blackness like he needs to during this campaign. I just got off the phone with one of my best friends who just basically nailed it--I need Obama's policies to be progressive. I don't need him to be a civil rights leader. Ironically, no one has pushed this angle harder than Al Sharpton. My requirements for Barack Obama--as a black man running for president--are very simple: I need him to publicily be affectionate to his wife and kids, to acknowledge them whenever possible. That, really, is the only extra burden I put on him.

Comments

West and Malveaux didn't limit their critique to Obama not mentioning MLK -they also talked about how he didn't mention the anniversary of Katrina. By Coates' criteria, that seems a bit more legit.

Posted by Josh | August 29, 2008 12:40 AM

Why do intellectual Black folks like to hate on one another? As an intellectual Black folk, it makes me sad. We hear about Black and Black crime everyday on the news. But this is a bourgeois kind of Black on Black crime. And it's sickening.

Posted by KWiz | August 29, 2008 12:51 AM

Katrina is legit. But still not an actual issue. My question is this. What issue is of great relevance to black America that Obama isn't addressing. I'd like to see folks hit him there.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | August 29, 2008 12:51 AM

Sounds like a bunch of haters.

Posted by Keith | August 29, 2008 12:52 AM

I dunno, I think he maybe wanted to avoid seeming to compare himself to MLK. The whole emphasis on humility, it's not about me it's about you - that would be undercut if he looked like he was exploiting the occasion. For me, the subtext seemed so obvious & present that it didn't need to be made explicit.

Posted by zak | August 29, 2008 12:53 AM

No. MLK was a great man, and Barack doesn't need to draw the parallel for people. It was already there. But to do so himself - talk about presumptuous. I'm glad he didn't.

Plus, from a tactical standpoint, Obama has the black vote locked down. He has nothing to gain from anything more than the obvious and logical mention of King's speech, framed (and this is important) as an example of how far America is come and how great this country can be when it gets things right.

Posted by TH | August 29, 2008 12:54 AM

Except that he did mention Katrina, not by name but as a reference
We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty... that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.

Down right Whitmanesque.

Posted by msw | August 29, 2008 1:10 AM

Barack is going to get it from all angles from the chattering class. Think someone on Tavis isn;t going to criticize Obama: Tavis has issues with Obama, not sure exactly why. Cornell and Dr. Malveaux are so late 80's. Besides, from a tactical standard point, if he did mention MLK as much as the good doctors demanded, the spin the next day would be either that Obama has no authority in his own right so he must borrow from MLK's, or that he running for President of Black people, but not all Americans.

The bloggy right, at least the honest bloggy right, is "disappointed" since he didn't constantly try to hit the rhetorical high C's, instead he spent most of the speech within the workman-like pentatonic scales. But, then, if he did trill the octave range, then the same people would criticize him for offering no substance. Megan wasn't impressed, but who cares. I know she's your girl, TC, but if you want to know what the bloggy left thinks of her, guest post on Drum's old site at the Washington Monthly and ask a simple question: "What do you think of Megan McArdle?" Expect 200+ comments, 199 aggressively negative. (She's a twit.)

Democrats and the bloggy left are giddy, but the happiest are the Democratic Governors and leaders of swing states who must help sell Barack to a skittish constituency: Strickland in Ohio, Rendell in PA, Kaine in VA, Easley in NC, Schweitzer in MT, Richardson in NM, Sen. Reid in NV, Ritter in CO. That's who this speech was for.

So who cares what Douthat or Brooks or McArdle or Kristol or Cornell West or Tavis or sad, sad Juan Williams or the AP or anyone at The Corner or the Weekly Standard or Commentary or even the New Republic think. This speech wasn't from them.

But Pat Buchanan loved it. Go figure.

Posted by Shine | August 29, 2008 1:15 AM

I think TH and Zak have it right. Sen. Obama was going directly after what should be McCain's base. This was an open tent speech, going in that direction.

I think there was the subtle reference, just enough to trigger the recognition amongst us but not so overt to scare away the skittish previous McCain base who really would consider voting for Obama. TH nailed the tactical part perfectly.

Once he wins the election, in his victory speech and on 1/20/09, then, then I fully expect him to fully list and credit all the people who struggled, & were bloodied to make those days possible.

Posted by JT (Chicago) | August 29, 2008 1:16 AM

Something tells me those people on the Tavis Smiley show are going to vote for Barack Obama either way. It strikes me that Obama's job tonight was to convince people who haven't already decided to vote for him that he's their guy.

In any case, I thought it was very cool how Obama built up the anticipation for an invocation of Dr. King right up until the end. And I thought the light in which he cast the King speech was really, really great.

There are some people out there for whom Obama can never do enough.

Posted by Rafe | August 29, 2008 1:17 AM

As a white guy, have limited room to talk, but I thought it was rather elegant how he implied Katrina and Dr. King, without banging our heads on it. Watching with hundreds of fellow dems in St. Louis, everyone watching clearly got both references, they were tremendous applause lines. Sort of his long running attempt not to talk down to the electorate, accepting that we aren't stupid.

Posted by StLPastor | August 29, 2008 1:24 AM

Mr. Coates, enough of what you think, we think, the pundits think.

What we really need to know is this:

What did Billy Dee think of the speech?

Posted by JT (Chicago) | August 29, 2008 1:27 AM

Gustav is going to mention Katrina.

Posted by Peter Hoh | August 29, 2008 1:30 AM

Here's the thing: he had to acknowledge the history of the day and the power of that moment without looking like he's pitching himself as the living embodiment of King's dream.

I admit, my heart did soar at the end when he referred to King's speech at the end-- it seemed placed as a logical climax of the speech, and all the more fitting because he spent the rest of the speech laying down, in very concrete terms, his own vision for America.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | August 29, 2008 1:31 AM

I need him to publicily be affectionate to his wife and kids, to acknowledge them whenever possible.

To paraphrase the Rock: You're supposed to be affectionate to your wife and kids you low expectations having motherfucker!!

Posted by drjimcooper | August 29, 2008 1:34 AM

@ Rafe,
You are so right. Obama can't make everyone like him, not even amongst the black intelligentsia that are getting MAJOR air-time in part because of Obama's candidacy, by the way, because of it's historical antecedents in political and social thought/civil rights as well because of the heights the candidacy has achieved.
Looking at the scene with Barack, Michelle and the girls waving to the crowd, I was touched. As a black man, a husband and a father. And when he turned from the crowd to give his boo a squeeze he whispered something to her and she sort of swooned. I hope he said, "Girl, you betta stop playin' and have those chirren in bed by the time I get back to the hotel. Don't be fakin' like you sleep, neither. I'm the Commander-in-Chief up in herre, and, baby, don't forget the pumps." LOL.

Posted by Phil Deeze | August 29, 2008 1:36 AM

Over and over, Obama assumes that the electorate is intelligent. Over and over, his detractors assume that the electorate is stupid.

I like him more than I like them. 'Nuff said, man.

(Look, he plays street ball. Okay?! He knows when to make the move. The academics? thhhpt.)

Posted by mc | August 29, 2008 1:36 AM

I have to say, Cornell West complaining about lack of credibility is like Bush lecturing Alcoholics Anonymous for being soft on drink. I mean, come on now, what has Cornell West actually done for anyone?

Posted by shiv | August 29, 2008 1:39 AM

I did see part of the clip that JGR is talking about. I was really taken aback by both Drs. Malveaux and West. He didn't mention the name "Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." so basically the rest of Obama's speech was meaningless. That's basically what Dr. Malveaux was arguing. I couldn't believe my eyes and ears.

So Obama referred to Dr. King as simply a "preacher from Georgia". I did think it a bit odd that he didn't directly mention Dr. King, but I think that his presence was pretty obvious. There was a video tribute about this significant moment in history, for crying out loud! Anyone who was paying attention already knew that Obama was accepting the nomination on the 45th anniversary of that historic day. Dr. King's children were there and spoke. John Lewis spoke. Obama must also address it as well? Everyone in that place--and anyone who has been watching this convention from the beginning--already knows who the "preacher from Georgia" is.

Now, Smiley and West have disappointed me a lot with regards to Obama's quest for the nomination. Obama seems unable to do nothing right in their eyes. I recall Smiley and West fussing over the fact that Obama wouldn't leave the campaign trail to attend the State of the Black Union, and they pointing out that Hillary Clinton made it there. Then there was that little "note" Dr. West had written at The Huffington Post a few months ago, bitching about Obama not dropping everything to go to Atlanta to commemorate the anniversary of the death of Dr. King. Seriously???

And what exactly would him mentioning Katrina in a speech do for the people of the Gulf Coast, an area that is about to be slammed with yet another hurricane? He mentions that the government hasn't done as they had promised and then what?

I really think it is time for the old guard to recognize that their time is up and that they need to step aside. It is either that or they must adjust their thinking and look at things outside of the context of race. I see Rev. Sharpton making an attempt at it. Why can't they? They choose instead to continue to engage in racial politics. That may have worked in the past, but is being rejected today. I think it rankles them a lot that Obama has refused to get into that, and that he does his own thing without having to first get clearance from them.

If Obama is going to deal with finding solutions for ALL Americans, is it really necessary for him to address the issues only within the context of black folk? I may be too young to understand their perspective, but what I saw on Smiley's show with Malveaux and West was disappointing.

Posted by akonuche | August 29, 2008 1:40 AM

I saw Tavis's show, and Dr. Malveaux was harsher than Dr. West. She said Sen. Obama came up short in comparison to the other speakers of the convention, calling Sen. Clinton "incandescent" and Bill Clinton something laudatory that escaped me. West chimed in that if Clinton can mention Tubman, and some other white speaker can mention Dr. King, why can't Obama? Dr. Malveaux said Obama "whitewashed" his speech, and West said he was erasing history.

Tavis hit back with all the critiques you're making - e.g., wouldn't he be considered too black, where else would disappointed black voters go anyway, etc. etc. West was like, we're all part of American history! (True, but academic.) Malveaux was like, he could have at least mentioned Fanny Lou Hamer (this just seemed random to me).

West was adamant that he's out there supporting Obama no matter what, etc.

Then John Lewis was on and talked about not wanting to miss out on Obama's "movement" and switching his vote, even though he loves the Clintons (Bill "like a brother").

Then Landrieu was on reminding folks of the mess that remains in the Gulf Coast.

Posted by Redstar | August 29, 2008 1:44 AM

zak: I dunno, I think he maybe wanted to avoid seeming to compare himself to MLK. The whole emphasis on humility, it's not about me it's about you - that would be undercut if he looked like he was exploiting the occasion. For me, the subtext seemed so obvious & present that it didn't need to be made explicit.

No. MLK was a great man, and Barack doesn't need to draw the parallel for people. It was already there. But to do so himself - talk about presumptuous. I'm glad he didn't.

Here's the thing: he had to acknowledge the history of the day and the power of that moment without looking like he's pitching himself as the living embodiment of King's dream.

I admit, my heart did soar at the end when he referred to King's speech at the end-- it seemed placed as a logical climax of the speech, and all the more fitting because he spent the rest of the speech laying down, in very concrete terms, his own vision for America.

Yes, yes, yes!!! I wholeheartedly agree with this, and everyone else who made this point in a similar vein.

After I had wondered why he didn't mention King by name, this is the reasoning that came to me. I'm really at a loss for words when the so-called "enlightened" couldn't recognize the writing on the wall if it was written in neon pink. I am also glad that he chose instead to make reference to the man without seeming like he was believing himself to be that "dream."

Posted by akonuche | August 29, 2008 1:48 AM

Two of Dr. King's kids were on stage in tribute to him earlier.

The beef isn't with Obama, it's with the networks for not showing that part of the day's program.

Posted by Jon H | August 29, 2008 1:49 AM

MLK III gave a speech. John Lewis gave a speech. Other speakers referenced King as well. Obama did not say his name, didn't need to. But he quoted him at length and discussed what he did and why.

He did mention Katrina, unless people didn't hear the line about "a city drowning".

It just seems obvious to me that people are looking for reasons to criticize so they are just making shit up. It reminds me of every time Republicans attack. Even if it is not true, they just complain about the same crap anyways even though they are demonstrably wrong.

Obama is not running to be President of Black America, he is running to be President of the United States of America. I find it offensive that black leaders are supposed to be considered the spokesman for all of Black people. It is interesting hearing the same criticism coming from Black people.

I could care less how many times he mentions Kings name, what I care about is him carrying out policies that continue Kings legacy. These people are more concerned about pomp than substance.

Posted by debrazza | August 29, 2008 1:50 AM

Obama will have plenty of time to put on the black glove and pump his fist in the air when he's president.

Let's get him there first...

Posted by Jim | August 29, 2008 1:58 AM

I can only speak about a group of about one hundred mostly black folk who watched the speech together at a restaurant in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. But you weren't hearing the Malveaux/West critique in that crowd. Not an iota of it. There was pride; joy; some worry and anxiety about the campaign ahead; very strong approval for Barack's mentions of people's economic difficulties and struggles; a massive ovation for Michelle; and another huge ovation for the reprise of the "not red, not blue, but United States" theme applied to the sacrifice of the soldiers in combat. There was lusty approval of the attacks on McCain and the Bush record. And when after the speech I interviewed a gentleman who took part as an 18-year-old in the 1963 March on Washington, his reaction had nothing in common with the gripes of the Official Black Gatekeepers this post mentions. He had nothing but joyful emotion and pride.

Posted by siddhartha | August 29, 2008 1:58 AM

Barack Obama:

And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln’s Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could’ve heard many things. They could’ve heard words of anger and discord. They could’ve been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead – people of every creed and color, from every walk of life – is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

“We cannot walk alone,” the preacher cried. “And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.”

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America.

What the hell are we talking about?

Not only did Obama mention King, he made King his peroration, defined his own mission with King's words and King's philosophy. That Obama did this without pronouncing King's name? Are these cats really that small?

Posted by southpaw | August 29, 2008 2:05 AM

Yeah, it seems to me that he's done an elegant triangulation between:
1) this election is about you not me
2) making sure not to shoot himself in the foot trying to be Dr. King and
3) getting more white voters on board by being a reconciling figure (but not an ahistorical one).

I just hope Drs. Malveaux and West appreciate the good and righteous politics here. And I'd like to echo the note that Rev. Sharpton is fast becoming the most clarion voice of smart politics. As he noted Obama is not running a "black campaign."

In the end I suppose it would be a bit naive to think that our first black president would work out like George Clinton figured it...
"And don't be surprised if Ali is in the White House
Reverend Ike, Secretary of the Treasure
Richard Pryor, Minister of Education
Stevie Wonder, Secretary of fine arts
And Miss Aretha Franklin, the First Lady"

Actually, come to think of it, I wouldn't count out the Stevie part...

Posted by JGR | August 29, 2008 2:06 AM

West and Malveaux are both past their expiration date. It's kind of scary, but Al Sharpton is becoming one of the most reliably un-wack of the Officially Black Commentariat. Never thought I'd see the day. That this was the tone on Tavis is telling. And does anyone else find Tavis simply boring ? He's mastered the art of coming off like Charlie Rose on one of his worst days . He should do all of us a favor, muster his talents such as they are and go head up The Urban League.

Posted by brucds | August 29, 2008 3:29 AM

Two brief points, if I may.

One, I found Obama's speech all the more powerful because he didn't mention King's name. While King was a great man, the lasting impact of the March on Washington is not his speech. It is that the people assembled came together to demand change. King was indispensable. But it was the movement that had power, not the man. In many ways Obama's invocation of King as a "young preacher from Georgia" is reminiscent of his own invocation of himself as "a skinny kid with a funny name" throughout this campaign. It isn't the man who matters in the end, but rather the movement he leads. King led a movement for change. But in the long run what matters is the fact that the movement achieved change. Obama invoked what mattered, America coming together to take a stand.

The other thing that I've been surprised no one else has mentioned is the parallel between King's call for change at the March on Washington and Obama's own tonight. Forty-Five years ago King said

"We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children."

And tonight Obama called for change in the exact same words, using the repetition of "now is the time" to drive home his point:

"Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

America, now is not the time for small plans.

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons."

I know that "now is the time" has become a bit of a cliche, but "I Have a Dream" was the absolute first thing that sprung into my mind when Obama started to hammer that line home. To my mind, at least, it was a subtle, but powerful and effective, evocation of King.

Posted by jjb | August 29, 2008 4:20 AM

He did it right. The mention of King was his big finale, he did it without trying to claim King's mantle (which must have been a danger he worried about when constructing the speech), and by referring to King as "the preacher" he was also making a not-so-subtle point about how the Republicans won't be able to own religion this time.

Besides, what was King mostly talking about for the last five years of his life? It wasn't just judging people by the content of their character, I know that. He was criticizing war and unfairness and poverty, sometimes in strikingly radical terms. Say "Martin Luther King, Jr." over and over, and you'll just end up invoking the plaster saint of non-racism and losing the substance. Obama went to the substance.

Posted by Matt McIrvin | August 29, 2008 7:35 AM

The more I watch Obama's campaign the more confidence I have that they know exactly what they are doing. Last night was an clinic on why the McCain camp better come stronger as he payed them back for every misleading negative attack. He played that moment perfectly. Total Ali beats Frazier.

Having Tavis Smily and coocoo for cocopuffs Cornell West berate Obama is almost as good as having Jesse Jackson do it or Sean Hannity. Had he gone to the MLK well they would have labeled him "your no MLK".

The people who have made their living since the death of Malcolm and Martin on justifying reverse racism and hatred and negativity are going to find themselves all the way out of a job in November. And they are petrified and desperate.

Posted by MikeCee | August 29, 2008 7:49 AM

Guys, I'm searching for the clip. If any of you find it. E-mail me or post a link please.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | August 29, 2008 8:23 AM

JGR said :"Yeah, it seems to me that he's done an elegant triangulation between:
1) this election is about you not me
2) making sure not to shoot himself in the foot trying to be Dr. King and
3) getting more white voters on board by being a reconciling figure (but not an ahistorical one)."

This is exactly right, the speech is about Obama and his relationship with those he is asking to elect him to the Country's top job. Too often, intellectuals want everything to be about what they think is important, and the issues West and Malveaux wish to be stressed are probably far different than those of the rest of the nation.

Maybe some black leaders are living in a fantasy, where the first black President is more a Sixties charicature of some of the more strident leaders of the time. I can picture their idea of this candidate as a sort of Chappellesque "When Keeping it Real goes Wrong" character.

If elected President, Obama will inherit a nation with more unemployed auto workers than there are self-absorbed Professors. A nations where jobs are more important than props and tributes.

I don't watch much CSPAN, but on the rare occassion that I see a meet up with a bunch of older lefties, they really are obsessed with the name checking. The endless line of people that must be acknowledged, thanked, praised and deified is comical.

Posted by DougEFresh | August 29, 2008 8:33 AM

I listened yesterday to the beginning of King's speech from the Lincoln Memorial. In talking about the Emancipation Proclamation, he referred to "the man in whose symbolic shadow we stand" (or something close to that), not to Lincoln by name. Obama did much the same when he spoke of the preacher from Georgia. Some people are such powerful presences in our common heritage that it can be more effective to allude to them than to refer to them explicitly, perhaps because it lets everyone share a moment of recognition.

Posted by Paul Turner | August 29, 2008 9:00 AM

I think a lot of the old-school black elite is going to continue to throw Obama the side-eye in comments, in part to protect their own turf as "leaders", and in part because of pure jealousy. Obama proved his leadership and readiness for 21st century needs by cutting his own path; these other leaders derive too much of their power by standing too long in shadows of heroes from the past, laying back and waiting for a piece of the gleam to reach them.

Posted by NT | August 29, 2008 9:45 AM

Kudos to all the commenters - very thoughtful and well worth reading!

Posted by CParis | August 29, 2008 9:45 AM

Senator Obama did mention Katrina when he referenced the current adminsitration sitting by and watching a major American City drown. He also mention Dr. King's historic speech.

I think the word that sums it all up the best is "haters".

Posted by Nashville_fan | August 29, 2008 9:59 AM

This particular objection is ridiculous. EVERYONE knows he was referring to Dr. King.

Dr. King's legacy was invoked many times over during the last day of the DNC. It was addressed specifically when two of Dr. King's children came out to speak. However, Obama did reference Dr. King and why does everything need to be spelled out? WE KNOW WHO OBAMA WAS TALKING ABOUT.

This is a silly case of dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. I think Obama's speech was as perfect as you could get.

BTW, Obama DID reference Hurricane Katrina. He didn't reference the anniversary specifically, but if I recall correctly, Katrina came up at least twice during his speech.

Posted by ExpatJane | August 29, 2008 11:16 AM

The Democratic party nominated a person of color to be president. That's good. (Or, as McCain says, "Job well done, Senator." Huh?) Seems to me there's some work to be done in the next couple months, and then we can bathe in the glow of an unbelievable historic turning point in January during one hell of an inauguration speech.

Posted by bab23 | August 29, 2008 11:31 AM

I just wanted to take a moment to thank the Atlantic for bringing Mr Coates to the blog. I find he brings a perspective and a debate on the issues that I see nowhere else and it balances out the Atlantic ticket so to speak.
In a media world where so many news outlets are running to appeal to the same old right of center sliver of the population (hello AP, CNN, ABC) it is nice to see senior editors with a saner more balanced approach. Well done.

Posted by Northern Observer | August 29, 2008 9:29 PM