The New York Times praises Obama's speech. Let's hope that's the dominant view over this idiot's or this other idiot. Based on morning news coverage I'm not so sure. The Today show (and TIm Russert) missed the point, played the sound bites, and said it's not clear if it accomplished what it needed to do. It's like they didn't actually listen to it and were preparing their polls for the moment it ended. Wolf Blitzer blew it too (well no surprise there).
Adam McKay (director of Anchorman) got it, and he realized how different this was. "In other words, he didn't pass the buck to save his own ass. It was a monumental moment in modern American politics. He didn't distract, deflect, or attempt to frighten. He didn't accuse, declare war, or get angry. He didn't game play, scape goat, or blame. Can you imagine? We need to engrave this shit onto a commemorative coin fast."
Socratic on Daily Kos writes about watching the speech at a car dealership in the Atlanta suburbs. "but just at that moment I stopped watching it ... and started watching the people around me. The young black man. The elderly white couple. The two white women, one college-aged, one in her late-20s. One middle-aged white woman. Two white men, one college-aged, one in his late-30s. One Asian couple. All of them were watching the speech. Rapt. Nodding." Now this does remind me too much of a Scott Templeton article and yes that's a reference from The Wire, watch the DVDs dammit.
As usual Glenn Greenwald gets it and takes it one step further. "But in Obama's faith in the average American voter lies one of the greatest weaknesses of his campaign. His faith in the ability and willingness of Americans to rise above manipulative political tactics seems drastically to understate both the efficacy of such tactics and the deafening amplification they receive from our establishment press. Even Americans who authentically believe that they want a "new, better politics" may be swayed by the same old Drudgian sewerage because it is powerful and ubiquitous."
I had kinda burned out on the election coverage. It was the same old thing again and again. This speech reenergized me. The fact many issues aren't blank and white but shades of grey and when someone does something you object to the standard politics say you either "denounce and reject" them or dismiss them as Hillary did with Ferraro or literally stand by them as Silda Wall Spitzer. I heard debate about whether Imus should be fired and people saying how ridiculous it is for the wife to have to stand next to the adulterer but that's merely almost getting to the point that the political media is theater. Which is better: supporting the delusion that your staff is perfect or they'll be fired; or dealing with the nuances of people's strengths and weaknesses? Which is more likely to end a crippling division in politics?
No comments:
Post a Comment