Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Obama's speech (the text) & why he has to do it - UPDATE: Is he on valium?

Fortunately, the Huffington Post posted Obama's speech at 8:15 a.m., the end of the embargo period. I couldn't wait much longer to go into work. Here's the text.

Yesterday, I didn't think there would be any need for this. As I listened to Sean Hannity in the car railing on and on about Jeremiah Wright, I rolled my eyes and thought he was making a mountain out of a mole hill. "No one thinks that Barack Obama hates America," I thought, "and you're misquoting Michelle Obama's 'pride' comment (again)."

But later, at dinner, a lifelong Democrat surprised me by saying, "Obama knew all along about what this guy was saying. He disinvited him from his first campaign announcement; what does that tell you? You can't tell me this guy (Wright) never said any of these things during the hundreds of sermons that Obama attended." Wow, I realized; this thing has traction. Obama realized that sooner, evidently.

This probably needed to be done, anyway, as a rite of passage for the country. As uncomfortable as it is, he will probably look back at this time as an opportunity more than a challenge.

UPDATE: I stayed to watch part of the speech -- what the heck? Where is the passionate, inspirational oratory? Did they tell him to chill out? The text of the speech was good, but this didn't strike me as an Obama delivery.


5 comments:

andrewsmiracledrug said...

I wasn't able to watch the speech (as I'm at work), so I only read the text.

Too bad the delivery was flat; the content was honest and courageous.

Curmudgeon said...

Well, Voice, consider another possibility: that the toned-down delivery conveyed a message of its own, and an important one --- that there are serious matters that need discussing in the U.S. today, and that need discussing seriously. I for one like that idea: that candidates, when their audience is not an arena filled with cheering partisans, but The American People... and that was the audience he aimed at today... need to speak seriously, and substantively, about important matters. That a serious candidate for the Presidency asking for our votes must at times tell the American people what they need to hear, rather than what they would like to hear. Think FDR.

Was it smart politics? I don't know. We'll see. But it was, I think --- both the content of his speech and the manner of its delivery --- appropriate to the topics he addressed and the broad audience he was speaking to.

It was, in a word, presidential.

Ethan said...

I also immediately noticed the change in delivery. I think it was primarily because of the crowd.

As the crowd got more into it and cheered more, he loosened up...

and those moments when he talked over the cheers, he sounded like his same old self.

We're used to hearing him backed up by constant chants and clapping. I think he's used to that, too.

Voice of Utah said...

Aha; I'm not the only one who had this thought (and I agree that he perked up a bit, appropriately, along with the audience):

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184062.php

nikki23 said...

I thought the speech was phenomenal.

It was "politics elevated".