Obama's victory speech

A transcendent political and historical moment:

Andrew Sullivan:

Simply put: he sounded like a president. The theme was not just change; it was a new unity. And as a black man, he helps heal the past as well as forge the future. This really was history tonight. To win so many white voices, and bring together so many minorities, and use the unifying language that leaves the toxins of race and partisanship behind: This was the moment America stopped being afraid.

This was the America we have missed and have found again.

Comments

[Brian Foster]

A transcendent political and historical moment

Why?

[Sobbing Mess]

Me makes my heart weep with delight, and my bosom laugh with warmth.

Foolish partisans, who believe politics should be an openly argumentative process of hard-fought policy battles. Let us fuse together our hands, raised high above us! Raise your voices and be glad, and twirl, twirl towards a transcendent, unified future of complacent agreement!

[Sobbing Mess]

Er, "he". I'm so overcome with emotion and a heretofore sense of purpose and meaning that my fingers mash maddenly at my keyboard, as though racing one another to be the first to proclaim Obama's arousing virtues.

[Sobbing Mess]

Heh, "heretofore UNREALIZED". My hands betray my bliss, bliss for Obama!

[Joe Mama]

Brian,

Your previous observations about the vapidity of Obama's speech notwithstanding, it's at the very least a historical moment in that a viable black candidate for POTUS won the Iowa caucus (unless Jesse Jackson or someone else already did so in the past, which I don't believe is the case).

[Brian Foster]

Jackson never won Iowa (he came in second in 1988), but he won 5 primaries in 1984 and 11 primaries/caucuses in 1988. He was the front-runner for a while in 1988.

So it's certainly not historical in the sense that it's the first time a black candidate has won a presidential primary/caucus. Nor is it historical in the sense that it's the first time a *viable* black candidate has won a presidential primary/caucus. I guess it might be historical in the sense that it's the first time a black candidate (viable or otherwise) has won the *Iowa* caucus, but why should the fact that it's Iowa matter? It's an accident of history that Iowa is the first state in the nation to make its pick, as opposed to any other state.

Unless you're suggesting, as did CNN commentators several times last night in a manner that made them sound like blatant racists, that it is historically significant that "a black guy" could win in "arguably the whitest state in America." Aside from the fact that thinking about it in such terms is awfully reflective of the "politics of division" that Mr. Obama claims to have risen above, it simply isn't terribly surprising in 2008 that Iowa Democrats would vote for an African American, particularly when that African American is running such a strong and effective campaign.

And finally, to the extent that the vapid speech itself is assertedly the "transcendent and historical" moment, that has nothing to do with whether or not his statistical accomplishment in terms of votes has any historical significance. Unless I am much mistaken, it is the speech, and not the victory, to which Brendan is referring, and I remain curious as to why he thinks the speech -- and not the victory -- is either transcendent or historical, other than the fact that it gave him goose bumps.

[Brian Foster]

Correction -- it appears I may be wrong about Jackson's performance in Iowa in 1988. I had first understood that he came in second, then read that he got the second-highest number of delegates but placed fourth in actual voting, and have now seen sources indicating that he did not finish in the top four. So I'm not sure how he did in Iowa in '88. But he definitely won at least five primaries in 1984 and eleven more contests in 1988, and around April of that year was anointed the front-runner before eventually losing to Dukakis.

[Brendan Loy]

Brian, it was just a feeling I had while I watching the speech... and it seems to be shared by a lot of others I've seen/read, so I feel somewhat vindicated by that. But I can't defend it intellectually (nor would I have the time or energy to do so at the moment), so feel free to disagree. I'll let you guys hash it out in comments while I continue focusing on taking baby pictures and such. :)

[Marty West]

Brian,

His speech was terrific. What are your qualms with it? The speech was about unity. What could possibly be wrong with that?

[Jay Johnson]

It's a pretty good stump/victory speech, with lots of big sweeping generalities and a nice lilting tone, but I don't know that I'd go all the way to transcendent and historical.

It might be historic in the terms of what the victory means to Obama if he secures the Democratic nomination, but it's wee bit early to determine the lasting importance of the speech.

I don't remember any really long-lasting quotable lines from the speech.

[Alasdair]

Is it just me - or is this potential 'first black President' just as much another potential white President, since he is 50% black, 50% white ?

With a Kenyan father, a white American mother, and an Indonesian stepfather, where does Senator Obama become "African-American" except for crass and cynical political gain ?

With all due respect, Senator Obama got many of his votes because the Democratic voters in Iowa couldn't bring themselves to vote for the equally crass and cynical former Senator Edwards, nor for the even more crass and even more cynical Senator Clinton ...

Which brings me back to my as-yet-unanswered question to Brendan ...

"Can Senator Obama stand up to the current leaders of the House and Senate ?

If not, we could way too easily end up with another set of Carter years ... ask your revered and esteemed paternal parent what he thought of how the country did during the Carter years ... "

[Brian Foster]

Marty,

I refer you to my many comments here.

Succinctly -- I have absolutely no problem with the speech. It was the same victory speech Huckabee gave, and the same one Kerry gave four years ago, and the same one Bush and Gore gave in 2000, etc. etc.

It was normal, typical, boring boilerplate about bringing change to Washington and being a uniter not a divider and all that. There was, in my view, nothing at all historic or transcendent about the speech.

The only thing that distinguishes it from any other Iowa caucus victory speech is that Obama is probably the best orator to win the caucus since Reagan, and he'd probably could have held his own against the Gipper as well.

The hysteria in the wake of this speech is overblown, the speech itself is overhyped, and the rhetoric is nothing we haven't heard before.

It was a great delivery of a good speech. That's it.

[Derek]

Everyone remember right after 9/11? When we all wanted to unite as a people against a common enemy, when we all wanted to restore the great American dream? Yeah, President Bush wasn't the greatest speaker, but that message of "unity" and "hope" rang true.

...until people realized that Bush had very different policies and very different means of achieving that end of "unity" than most other people.

Think about it. How's Obama going to "unite" us in our perspective on Iraq? Some people will realize one day, "Hey, wait a minute, I don't want to do it that way!" Or on abortion. Or the next Supreme Court nominee. Or health care.

Maybe he can will the collective conscience with his impressionable words (which may be the case, the way things are going). But the fact is that "unity" is a vacuous term without some sort of telos. United as what? A nation? Against terrorism? Or against... those other guys who're campaigning against him?

[Brian Foster]

P.S.

With a Kenyan father, a white American mother, and an Indonesian stepfather, where does Senator Obama become "African-American" except for crass and cynical political gain?

Psst -- Alasdair! Kenya's in Africa. (grin)

P.P.S.

Some additional commentary.

Oh, and some more.

[Brian Foster]

P.P.P.S.

Sorry -- here is my last one.

Clone Reagan!

[Condor]

Three stars. But, then again, I've seen a lot of his speeches.

[Marty West]

Brian,

I guess I see your point. I just enjoyed it so much. I actually truly did. I guess it's being caught up in the hype of seeing him less than a week ago and really relishing the moment. I walked over 2 miles in the snow with hundreds of other Iowans to see him speak in a gymnasium filled with people. It really was something to see in person. I think that you would agree if you had seen what I had seen.

I really think H. Rod. has a shot but at the same time a portion of me really wants a change. I think she said it best in her speech that it was a great night for our country, When you think about all the terrible shi% that's going on. Of course we have sports and pop culture to deflect us what is actually and truly going on but at the same time we live in a world where terrible things happen every single day,

Whatever the case may be...the next year is going to be very interesting.

[BK]

Marty -- sports and pop culture to deflect us from the terrible things in the world? Do the names Britney and Clemens ring a bell? :-)

[BK]

Marty -- sports and pop culture to deflect us from the terrible things in the world? Do the names Britney and Clemens ring a bell? :-)

[Marty West]

BK -

True :/

[HUSKERS 94 95 97]

Barack has a 100 percent better chance than jackson as evidenced by the fact he could never turn that hype into anything real. I believe that CNN owes America an apology for such tasteless questions as I have never heard those same types for white candidates and they have not asked if America is ready for a woman president. All in all I hope we move past black or mormon or woman questions and just ask, who is the best candidate?

[Alasdair]

Brian - Jan 4 @ 5:03 - yup, Kenya is in Africa - and, when the son of a white South African or Rhodesian married to an American in the United States is able to call himself an African-American, I'll accept that Senator Obama is entitled to do so ...

Until this country is as colour-blind as my daughters, I continue to consider Senator Obama as being as crass and cynical as Senator Clinton ...

[Brendan Loy]

Alasdair, if Obama were running a race-based campaign -- a Jesse Jackson-style campaign -- you might have a point. However, he is not doing so. He is running a campaign about ideas and ideals, appealing to people of all races and genders and ethnicities. He barely mentions his own race; he didn't reference it once in his Iowa victory speech, which is the topic of this thread. Of course, the media obsesses over it, but there's nothing Obama can do about that. It's the inevitable result of being a black candidate for president that people will talk about the fact that you're black. So basically, your argument leads to the conclusion that merely by running for president while having dark-toned skin, Obama is being "crass and cynical." I'm sure you don't mean that, but that's where your argument leads.

Are you suggesting that Obama should come out and repudiate the issue, that he should say "I am not African-American"? That's absurd. You would never make a similar demand of a similarly situated Republican candidate. Your accusations are completely hollow and are based on nothing but your own political biases.

[Brian Foster]

In general, Brendan, I agree with the substance of your response to Alasdair. He can no more change the generally accepted definition of "African American" to suit his purposes than David K can change the generally accepted definition of "neo-con" to suit his. It is beyond dispute that Obama has a black father and a white mother, and is therefore entitled to refer to himself, think of himself, and be referred to and thought of as black, i.e., African American.

But I must take issue with one statement:

he didn't reference it once in his Iowa victory speech, which is the topic of this thread

True, he did not use the words "black" or "African American" in his speech. But there is no mistaking the undertones of his "They said it couldn't be done" theme. And his reference to hope leading "young women and young men to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom's cause" takes on new significance in this context. And he did mention that he had "a father from Kenya [and] a mother from Kansas" in the very next line of his speech.

So, no, Obama is not running an overtly race-based campaign, but there is no denying that he is tapping into the social currents swirling around the undeniable fact of his race. In this community, Joe Mama is probably the best example -- I recall him commenting a few weeks ago that if he were not particularly impressed with the GOP nominee, he would feel strongly compelled to vote for Obama if only because of the symbolism of the gesture. Obama knows this, and he is pushing all the right buttons to promote such thinking, knowing -- as you again rightly point out -- that the media will do the rest.

And just as with the speech itself, of course it's crass and cynical to engage in such manipulative tactics. No politican worth his or her salt would do anything less. The real travesty here is that, either because people are too stupid to see it or because they are too busy feeling so good and self-righteous about themselves because they are supporting "the black one," they are giving Obama a pass on his crass, cynical campaign tactics, and pretending that he is something different, and in some way more honorable than what has come before him.

[Alasdair]

Brian - thank you for re-making my points ...

[Brian Foster]

Alasdair,

Inasmuch as I pretty much completely disagree with you and did not in fact make or re-make any of the points you have expressed in this thread, I am afraid I must respectfully decline your offer of gratitude.