Comments for West, Malveaux and Smiley

West, Malveaux and Smiley

2008-08-29T12:00:00Z

Here's a clip from the discussion last night This is the sort of thing that makes me afraid to blog. What I see there is a reaction more out of anger than any real consideration of strategy. The thing about Barack is that for all his rhetoric, he's a pragmatist, and he's a politician. Half the reason for having John Lewis, for having the film of MLK, for having MLK's kids is so that Obama is free to focus on winning the election. I don't think you do that but making the speech a paean to MLK--God bless him. How many votes is that going to get you? When you're on the battlefield, you don't pause put down your sword and sheild to praise God for allowing you the privelige of being there. Do that after the battle's won.

Comment from Persia on 2008-08-29

2008-08-29T12:59:27Z

Not to mention some people would've bitched about how 'presumptuous' Obama was being by 'comparing himself to MLK.'

Comment from shani-o on 2008-08-29

2008-08-29T13:04:40Z

Gotta second Persia. If he *had* talked about King, he would have been criticized. The man can't win. Hopefully this won't extend to the election.

Comment from Karl on 2008-08-29

2008-08-29T13:33:37Z

I think for those guys there is a bit of disappointment that both in the character of the moment and that man carrying this event didn't unfold with the romantic and noble sweep they had imagined. The whole ceremony was infused with the spirit of MLK directly and indirectly and while this is a civil rights achievement it is also a broader American achievement. This is just an example of that old post-civil rights skepticism rightly so. Still, that doesn't take a bit away from how and what Obama did, it says more about people like Smiley, West, etc.

Comment from Phoebe on 2008-08-29

2008-08-29T14:26:18Z

One of my favorite things about Obama is that he has TASTE. He doesn't beat you over the head with something until you hate what you used to like, and MLK and especially the dream speech - the best way to handle it is obliquely, and non-tritely; it's the most powerful way because it lets him and it through powerfully, without marking you as an arrogant dreary jackass.

It's like a music video - you don't want to have the pictures illustrate the words exactly. Tavis Smiley would not understand this because he lacks imagination and taste.

Comment from carsick on 2008-08-29

2008-08-29T15:11:20Z

I flipped by Smiley's show and honestly I was astonished. Did these people even live in America and understand American politics at all? Clearly not. It was an acceptance speech for a political party, not an MLK Day celebration.

Comment from Pesto on 2008-08-29

2008-08-29T15:16:24Z

It sounds a little like they want Obama to have given a general election victory speech -- talking about all of his predecessors making this moment possible, to contextualize his nomination in the grand sweep of history.

Obama is trying to persuade people to vote for him for President, not commenting on the way that the arc of history, though it is long, bends toward justice. And he's also trying to build up Dems as a whole in the upcoming elections.

I would expect Obama to discuss his place in history in a victory speech, or in an inauguration. If he gives those speeches and never mentions Tubman and MLK and the Movement, he really will have dropped the ball. But I can't fault Obama too much for focusing on accomplishing the task at hand, rather than on commenting on it.

Comment from conseula on 2008-08-29

2008-08-29T15:18:16Z

What I found most powerful about his speech was the way he *didn't* have to invoke King's name. King's presence was so obviously felt, and his legacy was one that so obviously belongs to everyone, regardless of color, who had gathered there, that mentioning his name was overkill. The matter-of-factness of it all is what struck me, as if Obama was saying, "I don't have to tell you how important this is because you already know." That, and the brother is trying to win an election.

Comment from num1Obamaton on 2008-08-29

2008-08-29T15:45:05Z

The sentiments Dr. West wanted expressed are more suitable for a concession or victory speech, after the election is over. It's not the speech Obama needs to give in the middle of the battle to be elected POTUS. As historic as Obama's nomination is, it's not the point. Whether from the prospective of history or the election, the battle isn't over, the victory hasn't been won. It would've been a huge mistake for him to treat this as a victory speech.

Comment from JR Shells on 2008-08-29

2008-08-29T18:16:04Z

Are they mad that he said "The Preacher" instead of MLK? I mean, didn't he quote him and reference the march and speech? These people are nuts and have no understanding of the considerable difference between a civil rights activist and a candidate for President... damn them!

Comment from JA Fine on 2008-08-29

2008-08-29T23:10:15Z

Calling him a preacher, i thought humanized in a way consistent with the whole evening. MLK was just a man who rose to great heights on his talent, courage, moral strength and the urgency of his calling. The Karl Rove machine would have attacked MLK in a way similar to the way they are attacking Obama--he hates America and is all flash no substance. Obama didn't need to canonize him, he needed to show he was in many ways just a preacher.

Comment from Liza on 2008-08-30

2008-08-30T19:46:24Z

I am one of the people who was looking forward to some of that "lofty rhetoric" that would honor the Civil Rights Movement and Dr. King. And I was hoping for a delivery that was slightly reminiscent of the civil rights leaders (think New Hampshire.) I thought it was the only way to go, given the historical significance of the Democrats nominating an African American and the 45th anniversary of "I Have A Dream."

However, a couple of weeks before the convention I realized that it wasn't going to happen, at least not in the way that I wanted it to. The purpose of the convention is to nominate a presidential candidate, lay out the party's political platform for the general election, and fire up the party activists. All of the major speakers had an assigned task, a specific message to convey, and it was Obama's job to present the Democrats' political platform and make the case to the nation why they should vote for a Democratic president (and Democrats in general.) When I thought about this, I knew that Obama would probably make a reference to Dr. King at some point, but the speech was going to be about making a clear distinction between the two political parties.

West and Malveaux are trying to intellectualize and explain something that they do not seem to understand is purely emotional. Obama's speech disappointed them because they wanted something from that particular speech that would satisfy them on an emotional level and they didn't get it.

I know how they feel, but I seem to be more accepting of the convention strategy than they are.

There will be other speeches, and I believe that if Obama wins in November, West and Malveaux and me and everyone who wants to hear that lofty rhetoric will eventually get to hear it.