Everyone — and I mean everyone — needs to take the time to listen to the speech that Barack Obama delivered yesterday:
You can also find a high-res version (in several parts) starting here.
I repeat only what many others have said when I describe it as the finest piece of political oratory, political thought, and political fortitude this nation has seen in at least a quarter century. (It’s important to note that this speech is entirely the product of Obama’s exceptional mind: It was not the product of speechwriters, but a product of his own pen — a trait which is true of many, if not most, of his speeches.)
When this political cycle began, way back in the waning months of 2006, my first choice for the Democratic nomination and the presidency was John Edwards. I had many reasons for that, but even when John Edwards was my horse, Barack Obama was a very close second. When Edwards left the race, it was with very little regret that I came an Obama supporter.
But this speech — coupled with Obama’s extraordinary Audacity of Hope — has transformed me over the course of the past week from being merely a supporter to a completely dedicated zealot. It is my fervent belief that electing Barack Obama is of the utmost importance.
America is standing at a treacherous crossroads. The last eight years have left us gasping as a nation. I have believed for many years now, that the 2008 election would decide whether or not America was going to reverse its decline and right its course.
But Barack Obama gives me hope that this election will be more than just an opportunity to avert disaster. Barack Obama gives me hope that this election can be about making America a better place and a stronger place than it has ever been.
McCain would be a disaster. Clinton would be acceptable.
But Obama?
President Obama would be exceptional.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept the politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle, as we did in the O.J. trial. Or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina. Or as fodder for the nightly news. You can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card. Or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his politics.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in our next election we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one.
And nothing will change.
Barack Obama
March 18th, 2008
ARCHIVED HALOSCAN COMMENTS
Justin Alexander
Unlike you, I have a fairly clear grasp of the consequences of political decisions.
You cite the 100,000 dead in Burma as being a disaster. Reliable estimates place the toll of Iraqi civilians killed violently as a result of George W. Bush’s war around 90,000.
(You may have also heard figures like 600,000 bandied around — but I think plenty of doubt has been cast on the methodologies of that study.)
Once you add in the deaths of U.S. soldiers, the difference between the 100,000 estimated dead in Burma and the 90,000+ estimated dead in the Iraq War just don’t seem that radically different to me.
Plus, I think the word “disaster” is a fair degree more flexible than you would give it credit for. If I said that I made a disaster in the kitchen, I don’t mean that I have a 100,000 corpses stacked up out there.
So I both refute your contention that the only way you can have a political disaster is if you’re piling up body bags and — at the same time — I refute your claim that George W. Bush hasn’t been stacking up body bags.
But while we’re talking about body bags, shall we take a moment to reflect on John “100 Years” McCain? Or would you prefer to consider John “Bomb Bomb Iran” McCain?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 2:04:23 AM
Yahzi
I guess my objection is really the violence you’re doing to the word “disaster.” The cyclone in Burma was a disaster. Hurricane Katrina was a disaster. 10000% inflation in Zimbabwe is a disaster. George Bush Jr,., who started two wars before finishing the first one, gave state money to churches, and tried to destroy the scientific establishment… still isn’t a disaster.
A pain in the ass, yes. Sub-optimal, unwise, unfortunate, difficult, or even downright bad. But not a disaster. There are countries whose rulers really are disastrous. We aren’t one of them; never have been, and, given the current crop of candidates (decrepit soldier, shrill bitch, and crazy black man)… we still won’t be.
I’m not saying McCain would be a good choice; I’m just saying, we’ll survive. We’re gonna make it. This is not the time to pull out all the stops; our mortal existence is not threatened here; so we can all have a nice civilized debate about what we should be doing, without claiming the sky is falling.
Too much alarmism is itself a danger. For once we have decent people who aren’t deeply stupid and hoplelessly inexperienced (admittedly, each of them might be one of those – but none of them are both).
So, by all means, campaign for the one you want – but let’s try to rebuild our tattered social framework, instead of continuing to tear it apart.
Just my two cents.
Saturday, May 10, 2008, 3:13:12 AM
Justin Alexander
You have far more confidence in the New McCain than I do. I supported him back in 2000, but since then he’s flip-flopped on tax cuts for the rich and torture (among other things). He self-professed multiple times to an ignorance of economics. He sang “bomb bomb Iran”. He has stated a desire to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
At some point John McCain decided that looking just like George W. Bush was the way to win the Presidency. I thought there was a chance that he was doing that primarily to win the Republican nomination and that, once that nomination was locked up, he’d move back towards the moderate positions he championed in 2000.
But he’s had the Republican nomination locked up for more than a month now, and he hasn’t budged. I see no reason to assume that, once elected, he’s going to do anything other than what he’s promised to do.
George W. Bush has done horrible harm to this nation in almost every way it’s possible for a President to do harm to this nation. It’s going to take more than “more of the same, but not quite as bad” to stop and reverse that damage.
So, no, I don’t think saying that a McCain presidency would be a disaster is hyperbole. I think it’s nothing more than looking at the type of President that John McCain is promising to be and drawing the logical conclusions.
Friday, May 09, 2008, 4:55:07 AM
Yahzi
“McCain would be a disaster. ”
Can we back off the hyperbole here? Bush was a disaster. McCain would have to get up at 3:00 AM every morning to be as much of a disaster as Bush, and the guy’s too old for that.
McCain might not be the best choice, in your view, but he’s certainly not a George W. Bush. He’s not going to erode the constitution, expand government intrusion, wreck the economy and invade two countries.
So really, let’s all take a step back and recognize that for once, the election looks like it will be between two moderates, both of whom have the ability to lead the country without groping the German Chancellor or confusing Switzerland with Sweden.
Sunday, April 20, 2008, 2:14:15 PM