"drink that magic water"?
Is that Obama's 'holier than thou' water? He's just so blessed. Blessed be Obama and the blessings he inspires and brings. Hallelujah!
Our Obama, Who Art in Heaven, hallowed by thy name. And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us (except Hillary). And keep us from Evil Hillary, and let us keep our eyes and ears closed except for your heavenly words Obama. Facts and figures are such a nuisance!! And you're so COOL! And lets all pretend that you will deliver us from Iraq (even though in the fine print on your website you say that if al Quada stays, WE STAY - like they're just going to leave. But you don't say that in your speeches, er...sermons, er...parables, so we believe you and will follow you blindly.)
Obama, forever and ever, Amen!
Speeches Do Matter
Hillary said she found her voice in New Hampshire because she cried in public. Her audience applauded. But now it seems to the senator that having a voice is irrelevant because somehow having a voice is now the subject of ridicule in the new Clinton campaign.
The Clintons seem to have nothing left to add to the national conversation other than to tell us that the conversation itself is beneath them. It's ironic for so many reasons, not the least of which being that Bill Clinton himself has been known as much for his stunning ability to inspire an audience and an electorate as he is known for his other considerable political skills. Yet now the ability of a leader to communicate with those he or she intends to lead is simply childish.
First of all, don't the Clintons realize that when they're both saying the exact same thing (especially when that thing is so ludicrous) that it puts us in the room with their handlers and so-called experts. We're suddenly aware of the "strategy" and we stop being aware of the candidate and the woman. So much for finding her own voice.
Second, there is the assertion that speechmaking is irrelevant. I'm wondering where this country would be without great oratory, without great communicators, without those who have been able to articulate a vision and move a nation.
Where would we be without Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech? Is there a single piece of oratory that defined a moment more than that speech did for the civil rights movement? That speech is a cry for freedom and equality that changed the world. Yes, the marches and the political wrangling with various presidents (yes, including Johnson) mattered. But, it was that speech which encapsulated the simple humanity that was at stake. That speech galvanized a movement, electrified a nation, and embarrassed a government into action.
What about Robert Kennedy's, "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"
Or JFK's, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Churchill's, "Never in the history of mankind have so many owed so much to so few."
Roosevelt's, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
Lincoln's, "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
And, now we have Senator Clinton's, "Talk is cheap." Boy, she really knows how a move a nation.
We've had seven years of bully politics and of awkward and embarrassing communication by our president. We've had seven years of lying, condescension, parsing words and a staggering inability to use language and authenticity to call a nation to action. Now we finally have a candidate in Barack Obama who uses the word "We" while others use "I." He empowers us with words and the authentic emotion behind them and people are rushing into the tent to drink that magic water.
Candor, inclusiveness, poetry, and inspiration. We don't only deserve those things, we long for them. We want to be led and we want to be lifted and anyone who doesn't understand that simply doesn't understand us.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Your comment accurately portrays how many feel about the political climate surrounding Barack Obama. Its getting kind of deep over there in Barack's camp. And the passion and of some of his more "motivated" supporters is starting to make me dread what will happen if HRC recieves the nomination. We do not need another '68 convention, but tensions are very high and that is looking like more and more of a possibility from where I'm standing.Barack has been very lacking in supporting party unity,( remember his statements about how his supporters will not just all fall in line and support HRC?) and this may bite us all in the ass if we are not carefull.
The Barack Obama movement is very organized and responsive. If there is a floor fight, it won't be 1968. In that era, the Democrats themselves were conflicted about the war, Martin Luther King and RFK had been killed, and the protestors outside were siek heiling the Chicago Police. If the Democrats can't come together, they will deserve to lose, but it won't be because of the movement.
A welcome sign for Laura and Bush read: Welcome Firt Lady, Laura Bush!!!
A welcome sign in Benin for Laura and Bush captured by the Washington Post reads: Welcome Firt Lady, Laura Bush!!!
Bravo! Obama makes more sense than any of them all put together, except for Ron Paul. And in terms of practicality, he's making a tad less in making sense than Obama.
I, a white (for what that's worth) life-long Republican,am first of all, an American, and a proud one at that. As I look at the road Bush has caused us to traverse, I am ashamed and appalled at what our country has become. We need to reclaim our honor among the nations. We need to stand firmly on the path of moral correctness in terms of justice for all, and yes, that sure as hell does include the Palestinians, every man, woman, and child. Israel does us a severe injustice with its state terrorism directed at them for the purpose of "cleansing" them from the landscape. All this in the past with U. S. Government support, to the tune of billions, all because of total AIPAC domination of our government. (And I expect our government to require true security for Israel's borders, as they were created in the first place!)
I assume that under Obama's lead, we can establish integrity in our foreign policy again. I would hope that we, the majority of Americans, will have the backbone sufficient to stand up to the Israeli Connection here in this country. It means real conflict, but we need to stand up to this internal mess created by greed on the part of our legislators, at the expense of our American principles of justice for all.
Obama will engage the Middle East in a new way.
But don't blame Israel for defending itself. We don't have to worry about Iran creating Nuclear weapons, because if they proceeded, Isreal would bomb their facilities, as they did to Syria and Iraq. Sure they want the USA to take some of the heat, but don't think they won't defend themselves. We've given Pakistan $10B...with marginal and declining returns. Obama will engage them all, and better than
the current administration..but Isreal isn't the problem, oil dependency is. Convert 25 % of our energy source to US supplied clean energy, and that will change the equation. it would change te world, because so would everyone else, especially China. That requires leadership and comittment, not against terrorism, but against our own lobbyists.
What's ironic is that as HRC and her supporters flail wildly and try to convince everyone that Obama is a light weight and his supporters delusional... but she trails miserably with bleak prospects for the future.
If she can't beat this empty suit and his fluff speeches for the Democratic nomination, what chance does she have in the general election?
Obama had no experience, no name recognition, no legislation, never faced the "vast right wing conspiracy" and yet he and his campaign are cleaning her clock.
Face it, he has no right being in this thing... yet he is.
I say the kid has moxie, and moxie is something dem leaders haven't had since her husband.
Deep down I think Bill is pulling for Barack.
If Hilary can't beat this "lightweight" in a fair fight, she'll never lay a glove on McCrazy and the Republican slime machine.
That alone should give HRC supporters pause.
Hillary "trails miserably with bleak prospects for the future" You must live on a different planet then the rest of us. Here on THIS earth the candidates are still in a virtual dead heat with neither having enough delegates to put them over the top for nomination. Just because you and the media keep repeating something over and over doesnt make it true. The race is far from over!! Sit back, relax, and let the primaries play out.
Way to pick out the one thing that you could actually disagree with while not commenting on the essence of the argument. Politics as usual, indeed.
Agreed, "trails miserably" was an overstatement on my part, but look at the popular vote tallies.
Cognitive dissonance from the Clinton's and their supporters... Obama is a lightweight, Hillary is a heavyweight, yet the lightweight is wiping the ring with the heavyweight.
Given her poor campaign performance so far and Obama's miraculously well run one, I find it hard to see how she has any chance against McCain.
You must not be paying attention; picking "out the one thing you disagree with" is the way politicians campaign, and is the very ESSENCE of debate. Well he has run a great campaign; I'll give you that, and I am impressed with many of his attributes. But DEFINATELY not his ability to unite us!! Our party hasnt been this fractured in generations, and he has done NOTHING to support party unity. In fact he has gone out of his way to emphasize that his supporters will not support HRC in the general election What the HELL is that about? Fracturing our party is NOT the way to bring about change and unity in our country.
Of course speeches do matter. They come from thoughts; thoughts turn into words; and words turn into actions.
"I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama," said McCain adviser Mark McKinnon in an interview with NPR's "All Things Considered." "I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign."
That said.
OBAMA WILL BEAT CLINTON AND McCAIN BECAUSE NO EDUCATED PERSON WANTS TO ATTACK HIM.
"Only once in a very long time does politics become more than politics, that is something more than partisan struggle, vote bartering, or arena of ambition...
... on rare occasion, old arrangements and conventional wisdom come unstuck. This happens in periods of rapid if not revolutionary change. We find ourselves now in one of those periods. The forces of globalization, information, eroding sovereignties, and transformation of war ensure that traditional leaders and conventional politics can only muddle through at best and fail badly at worst."
"Therefore, the good of man must be the end of the science of politics."
"There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands."
So let it be that our YOUTH sees HOPE in UNIVERSAL TRUTH:
"Love each other or perish."
"From caring comes courage."
"LIVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."
GO! OBAMA!
Mr. Seitzman -
Why did you undercut your whole thesis by referring to Senator Obama's moving oratory as "magic water"?
Your whole point is that great leaders in the past have moved the country - nay, the world - forward by crystallizing the ideals we hold dear through great oratory. Obama, from what I can tell, would very much like to move past the cynicism of the past few decades. We've tried cynicism. How about we give real authenticity a fresh shot?
"..people are rushing into the tent to drink that magic water..." This suggests that Obama's capaign is like a religious revival or a snake-oil sale at the county fair.
The last two blathery paragraphs of Seitzman's blog suggest his intended thesis, namely that Senator Obama's rhetoric is the opium of the people. Beware, Mr. Seitzman is not a political commentator. The "magic waters" metaphor is the real give-away. His choice os words didn't undercut his thesis. They are his thesis.
well written post!!!
"Ask not what you can do for your country, ask fear itself."
G.W. Bush
Clap, clap, point, point.
The premise is off-base. Hillary started the conversation on the issues and desperately wants to debate the issues one on one with Mr. Platitudes. Obama's camp claiming that they debated enough is ridiculous. They have only debated ONCE together. This is the only way to determine who is the best nominee. Watch them side by side. She is better on the issues, he is better on the platitudes.
Whining for debates is desperation by Miss Hillary. Obama has no need to continue to debate her. She's a certified liar and he just needs to move on with winning.
Debating with the desperate, heir to the throne, queen of sleaze is a no win situation for Obama.
He is far too much the gentleman to get into a shouting match with her and they know it.
If he gets too aggressive and humiliates her on a few points, some folks might say the black guy is getting too uppity with the white woman, in many parts of the country during my lifetime this would be considered a lynching offense by a lot of people.
Right now Obama has more money and more delegates than she does and is much better at connecting with people in Rally type venues, he should use this format plus TV advertising in Wisconsin to defeat her again.
Why give her free publicity and waste time preparing for a hostile debate when he can win the state without a head to head confrontation.
Trailing candidates always want endless debates because they have everything to gain, it gives them an opportunity to cast dispersions on their opponent for free.
From all the debates I have watched between these two candidates, Obama I think handles himself quite impressively, he is a well-spoken intellect with a powerful command of the English language, but like I said, because of his gentlemanly demeanor, he is at a disadvantage when arguing with an obstinate aggressive insulting (slumlord) woman.
What? 18 debates isn't enough?
Hillarious.
my thoughts exactly.
want to hear Obama's ideas behind his speeches?? Listen to this:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071010/NEWS08/310100074/-1/news0801
Why is it men always include your husband when it is a she running for president, is that to take away or demean women? Yes Bill Clinton was a former president;but quit trying to attack her because she is a woman....and treat her as an equal candidate. I don't see Michelle not speaking out for her husband...she even went so far , as to be the one who said there will be no 2nd run. That is sort of speaking for your spouse I would say....and further ..quit tring to keep women back by attacking her talk as being cheap...what about Obama...a bit misleading on not voting for the war from the beginning!! lets see his beginning would be when he was sworn in to the US senate in Jan of 2005.........hardly the beginning of the war...and he voted from the very beginning.....he was NOT entitled to vote in 2002-2003-2004 so I hardly think any of his votes were from the very beginning when Bush was lying about WMD......the earliest we heard from Obama was merely an anti war rally speech...BUT NO US senate VOTES as he wasn't a senator til Jan 2005 and by the way hasn't even served one full term as a US senator...so hardly experienced in US policies..maybe state policies..perhaps he should run for Gov of Ill
Her husband is included because she is running on his record, on his coatails and because he is jumping in every time when she is in trouble (which is frequently in this campaign)... she cannot control him and he is de facto the one who is running for his third term.
Why is it men always include your husband when it is a she running for president,
________________________________________
This is a weird question since you drawing a generalization based on one instance of a woman running for president. I suppose you could call once "always" when it is the only example there is, but as a statistical sampling it's not very meaningful.
You could just as meaningfully (or perhaps more so) ask "Why is it men and women always include your husband when he is Bill Clinton and are running for president?"
It may not be fair that they do, since Hillary is not Bill. But it's hard not to talk about when the association is so in your face.
It's been a long time since Kennedy. It's time to be inspired again.
Absolutely on Target. David Letterman should contrast Obama speeches with the one's Bush II delivers.
Kennedy served in war. Kennedy was a Representative and Senator for a decade and a half. Barack Obama is no Jack Kennedy.
Apparently, that's not what Kennedy's brother and his daughter see.
And no one should pay any attention to her speeches and words about other people's speeches and words either.
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
Speeches are nice. Facts are better.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=451097355502728465&q=codex&total=1287&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
Speeches are nice. Facts are better.
___________________________________________
Facts have great value, to be sure. But there are a lot of them out there, and their value becomes less when you selectively use only those that favor your position.
Oh, wait a minute. That's politics, isn't it?
Senator Obama is an exemplary speaker, and anyone who actually listens to his speeches or to his discourse in debates or investigates his policies by other means, will also realize that his words are more than mere rhetoric. Perhaps the least among Bush's many, many failures is that he is not a good communicator, which is something that the leader of the free world must be, not only to communicate effectively to the American people, but to the global community as well. Those that are attacking Senator Obama for his oratorical skills are not only attacking an attribute that most people, particularly our political leaders, aspire to have, but are purposely and irrationally ignoring or dismissing the substance of his words for the sake of pursuing a baseless argument. Senator Obama is a man of substance and a man of great inspiration, and though some are threatened by this, many more have found this to be an ideal combination that gives hope that we can once again embrace the values that America stands for and redeem our integrity throughout the world.
The left likes losing so they can keep playing the victim card. Obama sure likes playing it and young people are being taught that unless their savior wins the democratic nomination, we are victimizing them. How sad Obama is such a slick and clever card player. Send him to some island far far away when this is all over. Somewhere he can never hurt our party and our young people again.
What happens to all the "hope" that the Obama camp keeps raising among the masses if HRC recieves the nomination instead of Mr Obama? It will be a hard lesson in dissapointment, especially to all the youth that have bought into Obama's message of a new day.Will Obama's supporters remain supportive of the Dem party if their candidate does not win the nomination? That is a very disturbing question..If they abstain from voting in large enough numbers, we will have John McCain in the White House, and hope will be dead again at least for the next 4 years.Obama needs to be frank with his supporters. He may NOT win the nomination, and he needs to voice his continued support for his party no matter what happens, and ask his supporters to do the same.
Wrong. Haven't you been paying attention? I've seen a number of HP articles and other sites/bloggers all saying that if Clinton doesn't win it's because the people in this country are pathologically filled with hatred of women. That's it, end of discussion. No weighing of issues, no consideration of views and beliefs. No inspection of voting records and experience. You're either with us or against us! [Oh my....looks we've adopted someone's favorite tactic.]
Posted February 14, 2008 | 06:18 PM (EST)