100 thoughts on “Obama’s Selma speech”

  1. I see somebody has pointed out to him that he was born before, not after Selma, so he’s dropped that BS claim about his birth being a consequence of Selma. That good. Politicians should at least have the sense to tell lies that are logically possible.
    I must say, as disturbing as I find the cadence of his delivery, cadence doesn’t come through in a transcript. He’s got an excellent speech writer, a pity his speech writer didn’t get elected President.

  3. What, you think he wrote it himself? To quote Cleek in the “If Not Hilary, Who?” thread:
    “/falls over laughing”

  5. I’d quote my favorite lines, but, honestly, it needs to be read (or preferably listened too) in whole. It recognizes America’s failings without being crippled by them, it recognizes America’s potential without being blinded by it.
    My unhappiness with Obama as president isn’t exactly unknown on this board, but this was an exceptionally inspiring and constructive speech, and he deserves credit.

  6. For picking a good speech writer, but yes. If you can’t do something well yourself, realizing this, and knowing who to hire to do it, is a pretty good substitute.

  8. Obama’s speech was incredibly inspiring. It’s the kind of American exceptionalism I can buy into – that we have had huge struggles and challenges, and they aren’t over, but that we can rise to the occasion through the grit our our people and the possibilities of our democracy. Keeping focussed on “who we are” is a blueprint for who we can be.

  10. Yes. You don’t need to think Obama wrote it, to think it was a good speech. The man has an excellent taste in speech writers, it’s only when he utters his own words that he comes off badly.

  13. No, of course not. I don’t believe he wrote it, because it IS a good speech, and he’s terrible speaking extemporaneously. Look, the guy is a genius at politics, doesn’t mean he’s great at writing speeches.
    He doesn’t have to be good at everything, after all.

  14. Brett, would you like to make a comment about the substance of the speech, or about the issues that it addresses?

  15. “He doesn’t have to be good at everything, after all.”
    I’m trying to imagine that sentence being uttered in the comments section at Redstate and the thunderous calls from the inmates for the banning of the commenter, with Moe Lane swooping in soon thereafter and beheading the comment with a dull knife as a lesson to America. Bam!
    So what we have in that sentence is yet another conservative/libertarian whose rear end Obama has kicked in a pickup game of hoops.
    Hey, I’m supposed to be traveling.

  16. I see somebody has pointed out to him that he was born before, not after Selma, so he’s dropped that BS claim about his birth being a consequence of Selma. That good. Politicians should at least have the sense to tell lies that are logically possible.
    His birth was, I would agree, in part a consequence of the Civil Rights movement. Without that, his parents would not have been able to get together.
    But the Civil Rights movement spanned more than a decade. And most of us are more than a little vague on exactly when things happened before we were in grammer school. (More likely, high school.) Little kids just don’t pay attention. At least the little kids I know.
    So to characterize what he said as a lie is a bit extreme. Everybody, even politicians (of all stripes), gets things wrong occasionally. Not because they are lying, just because their memory is imperfect or because they are ignorant. Probably better to save the accusations of lying for cases where it’s really clear that it was a deliberate lie. (Which probably means you can see a reason why he might have lied about it. Which with Obama and the exact date of Selma, simply isn’t apparent.)

  17. “His birth was, I would agree, in part a consequence of the Civil Rights movement. Without that, his parents would not have been able to get together.”
    But not Selma, which is what he actually claimed. And I expect that Presidential speeches get fact checked before they’re given, so that Presidents do not accidentally tell untruths in them.
    Stylistically, an excellent speech, and he largely avoided using the occasion for partisan attacks, didn’t make it about himself. Really, I have no great complaint about the contents, it’s about as good a speech as I’d expect from somebody I disagree with.

  18. I think Ljubljana, second comment was right. Brett can sometimes raise issues, but his opening comment here was just silly.
    It was a good speech–hit the right balance between excessive optimism and excessive despair.

  19. Okay, my IPAd is really getting on my nerves. That strange word above is a correction for lj.

  20. That strange word above is a correction for lj.
    It’s a little known fact, but Ljubljana is actually LJ’s given name.
    ;7

  22. Slovenia is actually on my list of places I would like to visit, because it sounds like a wonderful place, isn’t overrun by tourists like other parts of Europe, and isn’t as expensive as other parts of Europe. For a small country, it’s widely varied in aspects of geography.
    Thanks!

  23. I don’t believe he wrote it, because it IS a good speech, and he’s terrible speaking extemporaneously.
    Not to nitpick (and by that, I obviously mean “just to nitpick”), but being terrible at speaking extemporaneously doesn’t mean you’re bad at writing speeches. Indeed, I’d be not at all surprised if a great many great speech writers are absolute rubbish at speaking extemporaneously. The two skills are related, but by no means so closely that one must excel at both or neither.

  24. Anyway, my IPad thinks we should listen to the Slovenians and not feed the troll in this thread. I concur.

  25. Using the exact same rigorous method of authorship determination that Brett is using, I claim that Brett’s “troll” posts are a result of him being off his meds.
    Claims to the contrary will be dismissed with contempt, unless accompanied by incontrovertibly documented proof.

  26. “I claim that Brett’s “troll” posts are a result of him being off his meds.”
    Is caffiene a “med”, in this case? If so, you might have something there.
    I note that the White House has both a Director, and Deputy Director of speechwriting. I give you my word the Bellmore household has no such positions. To my mind this makes suggesting that one of Obama’s speeches was speechwritten just a tad more plausible than suggesting it of my comments.

  28. True, the Bellmore household is a one-stop shop.
    Like Sam Drucker, one guy, lots of hats.
    This scandal of Obama employing speech writers is about to go viral, like herpes.
    I predict it will being the man down. Next thing you know we’ll find out his wife picks out and ties his neck ties, which will scandalize Tea Party types who keep offering the Confederate noose knot, prevalent among crackers and stipulated by the original intent of the Constitution.
    Talk among Republicans is that he hired speech writers to minimize his natural inclination to slip into Ebonics.
    He raps what he wants and his writers translate.
    When he hires Luther to write and deliver his speeches, we’ll finally have something, to my mind.
    It is thought by historians that the one thing John Wilkes Booth hated about Abraham Lincoln was he actually wrote his own speeches.
    You simply can’t win with conservatives.

  29. Nor do I have a deputy director of blog posts, though my six year old would gladly interview for the position if I were to create it.
    Seriously, give it up, Obama doesn’t just have a speechwriter, he’s got a speechwriting department. And you’ve probably heard him speak off the cuff, too. That speach, as well done as it was, was written by somebody else. He merely read it.
    I’ll say this: He could easily have demanded a worse speech from his speechwriting department, in any number of respects, and didn’t. He almost entirely refrained from politicizing the event, despite what must have been considerable temptation.
    Is that not enough, do you have to pretend he wrote that gem, too?

  30. “Albeit speeches that nobody will give.”
    I used to rant my OBWI rants to my ex-wife verbatim.
    Oh … that’s the reason. Hmmm.
    No, I didn’t.
    It is thought that right-wing radio and TV commentators make up their speeches on the run.
    It just flows, like sewage from the source, or black sludge from the dishonest mouth of Madame Bovary … no teleprompter, no shut-off valve.
    For example, every single lie out of the mouth of Bill O’Reilly was ad libbed.
    A remarkable talent, that.

  31. Seriously, give it up, Obama doesn’t just have a speechwriter, he’s got a speechwriting department.
    We are shocked to hear this.

  32. This is as much of a compliment as the big Zero is going to get from me: The speechwriter wrote a really good speech for him to deliver, but he was the one who decided not to commission a speech that was a political hit job, or all about him, but instead a good speech for the occasion.
    Isn’t that enough?

  33. Is that not enough, do you have to pretend he wrote that gem, too?
    I’d say I have to pretend that his not writing it, at least not in its entirety, shouldn’t be particularly noteworthy. How many presidents didn’t have speech writers? How much input did different presidents provide on their speeches? Does anyone have any idea how much input Obama generally provides on this speeches and how that compares to the input by other recent presidents on theirs?
    Isn’t it nearly a foregone conclusion a this point that any important speech a president gives was at least partly written by someone else or even a number of other people? Is every speech, good or bad, evaluated with the caveat, “But, you know, he has a speech writer, don’t you?”
    Yet, that’s what we’re discussing, instead of the speech.

  35. I just learned the other day that Ronald Reagan employed a team of scriptwriters during the filming of “Bedtime For Bonzo”
    I thought he and the chimp were, you know, method acting and improvising.
    The chimp was so believable.
    Disappointing, really.

  37. The chimp’s real name was Peggy.
    Seriously.
    http://mentalfloss.com/article/17839/8-chimpanzee-stars
    Reagan’s character was trying to teach the female chimp the concept of morality, or was it the other way round … anyway, it would seem the producers followed the first rule of morality in Tennessee (it’s a law there), which to is make sure chimps with female genitalia that go by male names wear trousers while on screen.

  38. You know when Johnny Carson had the animal lady on and there would be some mishap or other?
    Well, his TV cameramen were instructed ahead of time, WITHOUT the prior knowledge of the viewing public no less, to do a closeup on Carson for his reaction, especially if it was a spit take.

  39. Historians just the other day revealed that Margaret Thatcher faked all of her orgasms during the Falklands War.
    All the world is a stage and we but bit players upon it feeding Brett Bellmore straight lines.

  40. while it got mostly skipped over, thanks cleek, for the Thinker link. Very much, not exactly, my reaction to the speech. Or, is there any event or moment that he won’t use for his self aggrandizement and to draw silly parallels to his current agenda? No, is the answer.

  41. Insiders will tell you that just before Ronald Reagan would appear through the curtains for a press conference or speech, he would yell “Makeup!” and Milton Berle, stationed just back stage, would hit him full square in the face with a gigantic powder puff to take the sheen off Ronny’s rouge implants.
    Powder everywhere!
    If Brett was Milton Berle, I’m the guy in the balcony:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGQkC9K-qEY
    This is why Reagan kind of staggered toward the podium looking a little bewildered.

  42. Marty, you were probably too young and missed those Democratic Party beaters of the Selma protestors, referred to Cleek’s Thinker, being welcomed into the Republican Party voter registration rolls.

  43. Republican Kris Kobach writes his own speeches:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/anthony-hensley-kris-kobach-most-racist-politician
    Young conservatives practicing their speechifying in case they work in a Republican Administration:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sigma-alpha-epsilon-oklahoma-racist-video
    The Republican base authors its own speech:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michael-slater-jackson-county-sheriff-slur
    Selma needs a do-over with different beaters.

  44. is there any event or moment that he won’t use for his self aggrandizement and to draw silly parallels to his current agenda?
    Again, I’m shocked that a sitting President would use a public speech at a major historical commemoration ceremony to advocate for his point of view.
    It must be something about the office, Lincoln did that at Gettysburg, too.

  46. Obama’s self-aggrandizement was far more insidious, what with it being all buried in the sub-text and requiring so much in-reading, interpretation and extrapolation. That speechwriter really knows his stuff, huh?

  47. russell, you I engage on the Obama topic much more rarely these days. I have to admit that a major reason is that I despise him being compared to almost any other president, Lincoln in particular. The point of the speech at Gettysburg WAS his agenda. Obama diminished the sacrifice and dedication of those people at Selma by his cheap comparisons and attempts to make himself “one of them”.

  48. you I engage on the Obama topic much more rarely these days
    I think it’s because I don’t have all that much to say about Obama, per se.
    I’m glad he’s the President, I like a lot of things about him, other things not so much.
    None of those things have all that much to do with his personality or character, which seems to be a big part of your issue with him here.
    The point of the speech at Gettysburg WAS his agenda.
    That is a very fair point.
    Long story short, I am extraordinarily sure that I can find a very generous collection of examples of Presidents using high-visibility speeches to articulate and advocate for their own priorities and policies, whether those things were the subject of the event or not.
    Not just Presidents, but virtually anyone, anywhere, whose job involves them being the public face of some point of view.
    I’m not seeing anything unique at all about Obama in that regard.
    As a personal aside, I’ll just say that I found the American Thinker piece to be noxious. Close to fighting words, frankly.
    A chacun son gout.

  49. Obama is like Lincoln only in his enemies’ choice of enemies.
    I blame Lincoln for that.
    He ended the Civil War too soon.

  50. The count will now lead us in a heart-felt chorus of Marching Thru Georgia. (Let’s hope this time we can spare Atlanta!)
    /off-the-wall comment
    which it definitely was.

  51. I assume that Obama’s routine speeches are more or less 100% written by staff but that the more important the occasion gets the more personal input he will have concerning the actual text.
    Since Selma probably counts as a event of not totally negligible importance, I would believe that Obama did a bit more than simply ask for a ready-made speech but had at least a talk with his staffers about what he wanted to say and likely counterchecked the result before delivering it.
    I know of the recently deceased German president von Weizsäcker that for important speeches he would have first a long session with his personal speechwriter and give him a detailed outline of the intended content. Then the speechwriter would prepare a draft and they would have another session before the speech got finalized. The content of the speech given would be near 100% by v.W. and the wording depending on context about 40-60%. The speechwriter admitted though that this was rather uncommon and most politicians would put in less effort and content.
    —
    I think it is a sure bet that if it should come out that Obama writes 100% of his speeches himself that this would be a reason to attack him. ‘Has he nothing better to do than writing speeches? See, he is just talk no lead or do!’

  53. Bonus style points for the James Baldwin namedrop in a speech where he also mentions gay rights. That was a beautiful bit of subtlety.

  54. thanks cleek, for the Thinker link. Very much, not exactly, my reaction to the speech.
    Are you serious? Ms. DeAngelis sounds demented to me. Among other things, she seems to think that everyone who ever came to the US from Mexico or points south did so illegally.
    Her commenters, for the most part, are even worse.

  56. Thanks, lj. The kind of American exceptionalism that Obama believes in (as the link describes) is the exceptionalism that calls us (we, the people) to live up to its ideals.

  58. Well, it focuses on how we are exceptional, as in DIFFERENT from most everybody else. Not on how we are exceptional, as in necessarily BETTER than everybody else.
    We can believe (and I do) that what makes us different also makes us better. In both the effective, and the moral, senses of “better.” But we need to be clear that even us being better would not make anyone else necessarily bad — a point which seems to get lost all too often.

  59. We can believe (and I do) that what makes us different also makes us better.
    In what ways are we actually better than, for instance, Finland, or Denmark, or France, or Canada, or the Czech Republic.
    Or Slovenia, or Botswana, for that matter.
    How and why are we better. Not richer, not more powerful. Better.

  60. Better at integrating people from elsewhere into our country and our culture. Which cuts down on problems down the road. Yes, we get hystrical at the immigrant group of the day. But a couple of generations later. Those immigrants’ descendants are joining in with regard to the next group. And are otherwise undistinguishable from the rest of the population.
    In contrast, to take just one easy example from your list, Muslim immigrants to France after a couple of generations.
    I would say that makes us better as in more effective — we are better able to utilize the talents of that population. And I would also say that it makes us better morally, that we treat other human beings like real people, even if their ancestors are from somewhere else.
    We certainly don’t do it perfectly. And other countries certainly don’t fail at it compeltely either. But overall….

  61. In what ways are we actually better than, for instance, Finland, or Denmark, or France, or Canada, or the Czech Republic.
    Or Slovenia, or Botswana, for that matter.
    I don’t think we, as human beings, are “better”. Our country, though, has a mythology of promise. If we’re not working to make it real, it’s a joke. If we are, it’s exceptional.

  62. @Nigel: “Strikes me that Brett need to hire someone to write his blog comments…”
    I hear that Stephen Colbert has some extra time on his hands.

  63. wj: We certainly don’t do it perfectly.
    Indeed. And every step closer to the ideal has always been led by bleeding heart liberals, and denounced by patriotic conservatives.
    Actually, I suppose that’s simply the definition of “liberal” and “conservative”.
    –TP

  64. Better at integrating people from elsewhere into our country and our culture
    Agreed, on that point.
    We’re not really a “people”, we’re a nation. Historically, that’s been among our strengths. Hope we don’t forget it.
    Our country, though, has a mythology of promise.
    All nations have a mythology that promises something. Why is our mythology better?
    I chose the countries that I named because they’re all pretty good places. In some concrete and important ways, most or all of the countries on that list are our equal if not our better.
    Deeds, not words.
    The US is exceptional, and has played a really important role in the world historically. Often, maybe mostly, for the good.
    I just don’t buy the “better” thing. Better for what? And why are the things that we are “better” In more important than the things that other countries are “better” in?
    I think the whole mythology just gets in our way. Whenever we have an issue that we need to deal with, we first have to talk ourselves down off of the “American exceptionalism” ledge before we can do anything about it.
    It’s a PITA and an albatross. My opinion.
    On a perhaps related note, we still have stuff like this.
    Seriously, the freaking KKK, our very own domestic terrorist organization for lo these many decades and generations, leafletting in Selma on the anniversary of the police riot at the bridge.
    Isn’t there any way to, finally, once and for all, put this crap to rest?
    Can’t we just deport these SOB’s for crimes against our national mythology and aspirations?
    The skin color fixation appears to be bred in our bone.
    Out, damned spot. But spot won’t go.

  65. although mr. bellmore has uttered a stingy compliment for obama, i can accept it as a compliment. for mr. bellmore even faint praise for obama is praise indeed. the commenter known as marty continues to suffer from a cramped and distorted view of united states history, especially with respect to race relations resulting in a reaction to the selma speech that is both meanspirited and wrongheaded. i can forgive him for both since he is so obviously suffering from both a lack of information and a glut of misinformation on this topic. his post makes clearer the actuality of mr. bellmore’s praise.

  67. I chose the countries that I named because they’re all pretty good places. In some concrete and important ways, most or all of the countries on that list are our equal if not our better.
    Well, not so sure that they’re “our equal if not our better” but maybe so. It’s hard to dispute a list like that in a broad subject like this one.
    And no, if I were French, or Botswanian, or Czech, etc., I’d have a lot to say about my own cultural mythology. But I don’t think that their mythology is the same as ours. In that case, all countries are “exceptional” just as all people are. But identifying one’s promise, and living up to it (for a lifetime, much less than for eternity or the duration of a naton-state) is a constant battle.
    I completely disagree with you, russell, that our mythology gets in the way of our achievement of “goodness” or whatever it is that we’re after.
    We all need an ideal (or maybe you don’t?). We need something to aim toward. “We the people” is an incredibly inspiring mantra, if “We the people” means a pluralistic, tolerant, egalitarian society. Clearly, we’re not there yet, but people who believe in that need to own the mythology.

  69. Clearly, we’re not there yet, but people who believe in that need to own the mythology.
    And, yes, my mythology was articulated quite well by Obama in his Selma speech. And I will take it as mine.

  70. I don’t think we, as human beings, are “better”. Our country, though, has a mythology of promise. If we’re not working to make it real, it’s a joke. If we are, it’s exceptional.
    well put…the problem it seems to me, is that we often are working and not working in equal measure…glasses half full and all that.

  71. Can’t we just deport these [KKK] SOB’s for crimes against our national mythology and aspirations?
    And who are you thinking would be willing to take them? (If you thought getting someone to take al Qaeda members was hard…!)

  72. wj, unfortunately I know a few places that would welcome true-bred KKKers with open arms. Not the governments necessarily but the locals. Someone to repopulate the ‘nationally liberated zones’ to use one of their favorite terms.
    Sadly, I am not talking about the Balkans but parts of Eastern Germany (and some brown pockets in South-Western Germany).

  73. Don’t be embarrassed, Hartmut. After all, there are places in the US which welcome them. Breed them, in fact.
    We’re in no position to sneer at someone else who has some local nuts as well.

  74. Stingy? I gave credit where credit was due: The speechwriter got credit for writing a really good speech, and the President got credit, both for being really good at selecting speechwriters, and for directing the speechwriter to write THAT speech, rather than the rather worse sort he usually would.
    That’s not stingy, that’s accurate.

  75. Well, not so sure that they’re “our equal if not our better” but maybe so.
    What I’m trying to get at, or more accurately challenge, is the default assumption that the US is “better” than other countries.
    Better in what way? Are we freer? Richer? More intelligent? Healthier? Wealthier? And not on paper, but concretely, in fact. And not as demonstrated by a handful, but broadly, by all of us.
    I agree that the founding principles of the US are exemplary. But if all they are in practice are words, or laurels to rest on, then I don’t see that we have a basis for claiming to be better than anyone else.
    For that matter, I’m not sure there is any particular point in being better than anyone else. It’s not a contest.
    I completely disagree with you, russell, that our mythology gets in the way of our achievement of “goodness” or whatever it is that we’re after.
    Not so much our mythology, but our sense of ourselves as exceptional and “better” than anyone else.
    It creates a sense of entitlement, which then has to be walked back before we can address the ground reality of a given situation.
    George HW Bush – “The American lifestyle is not up for negotiations. Period”
    Well, FU too, the rest of the world might reply.
    Jefferson’s beautiful words are not an excuse for us to do whatever the hell we like. Or, some kind of weird justification for whatever the hell we happen to do.
    They should create in us a sense of obligation, rather than privilege.

  76. I>They should create in us a sense of obligation, rather than privilege.
    russell, I agree, except that we’re privileged to be in the position to participate in our own government. Too many people don’t realize what a privilege that is, and squander the opportunity. Obama spoke to that issue eloquently.
    The kind of arrogance you describe is not the American exceptionalism I support. But having our citizenry buy into the concept that “we the people” must and can work through our system (including our Bill of Rights) to attain liberty and justice for all is powerful. There are many democracies in the world, but in the case of the United States, that’s what we were founded on – we have no other common culture. It’s our creation story. Rather than rejecting it, the left should use it to encourage values of plurality, inclusiveness and civic responsibility.

  77. the commenter known as marty continues to suffer from a cramped and distorted view of united states history, especially with respect to race relations
    I’m pretty sure the cramped and distorted view belongs to the President.
    And, this is an attack on me personally and I have no regard for its author so no answer is needed, but: I can disagree with you and the President and dislike him with a full and undistorted view of the history of race relations in our country.

  78. “George HW Bush – “The American lifestyle is not up for negotiations. Period”‘
    Wasn’t that his speech, transmitted by moving Bush’s mouth by remote hand-up-the-back-of-the-shirt ventriloquization by “speech” code writers at the Heritage Foundation, Club for Growth, The American Enterprise Institute, and the Ayn Rand Institute for Boring Soliloquies in which he cut funding for public transportation, solidified hospital emergency rooms as the only option for poor sick kids whether they suffered from strep throat or a pre-existing, uninsured tumor on the side of their head the size of a musk melon, while cordoning off part of public hospital emergency rooms to provide room for shoot-and-go gun ranges, and declared ketchup a first-line antibiotic with indications for Ebola prevention.

  80. we’re privileged to be in the position to participate in our own government.
    That’s true, and I agree that it’s a privilege.
    It’s no longer unique to us.
    That said, I have no disagreement with the larger point you are making here.

  81. I’m posting this on multiple threads, so please forgive the redundancy.
    Over on Crooked Timber, we had a nice discussion thread (as of when I left it), in which a certain troll kept trolling, but nobody answered him.
    100% troll ignoring, and it helped – the conversation was productive an informative, and not threadjacked.
    I strongly recommend it here – ignore him – whomever that troll is 🙂

  82. Brett,
    What, you think he wrote it himself? To quote Cleek in the “If Not Hilary, Who?” thread:
    You know, Brett, you really make a fool of yourself with this sort of thing. What do you know about Presidential speechwriting, and the writing of this speech in general? Sure, it’s likely that the original draft was prepared, like most such, by a speechwriter(s).
    But it’s also quite plausible that Obama worked on it somewhat himself, changed some of the wording, revised the draft, etc., not to mention gave basic instructions as to wha he wanted, themes to address, and so on.
    The fact is, we don’t know. yet here you are proclaiming that you know all about the process, despite the fact that you weren’t there, have not, I think, spoken with anyone involved, and in general have nothing to base your claims on.
    You feel free to say you are not certain about the location of Obama’s birth, because you weren’t there, but when there is an opportunity to assume something critical about him you are happy to jump in with both feet.
    If you imagine yourself an objective, hard-headed, fact-oriented thinker then you are wrong. Seriously so.

  83. I strongly recommend it here – ignore him – whomever that troll is 🙂
    I think it may come down to a disagreement about whether someone is acting as a troll. Or is merely incorrect, but persuadable with evidence and rational argument.
    We may get trolls wandering in. But I suspect most of us, most of the time, take an optimistic view of the rest of the regulars. However frustrated we occasionally become with each other.

  84. I wouldn’t argue for ignoring Brett in every thread–sometimes he raises issues worth discussing even if I think he is wrong and occasionally I even think he has a point–a little cynicism about government sometimes isn’t a bad thing. But in this thread his point was silly, just reflexive Obama-bashing, not worth a response.

  85. Let’s not go overboard, wj.
    Over many years, I at least have seen no evidence that Brett and Marty are “persuadable with evidence and rational argument”.
    To be fair, they would surely say the same about me.
    “Persuadable” is of course not the same thing as “persuaded”. In a sense, I suppose the most you can say of a stone wall is that it has never been persuaded yet. And I also suppose that Brett (and Marty, and I) were “persuaded”, at some point, by some kind of evidence, to adopt the views we argue for, here at ObWi. I know I was.
    Nevertheless, speaking strictly for myself, I long ago abandoned any hope that I can persuade Brett or Marty of anything. I can’t say whether either of them feels the same about me.
    That’s especially true in Brett’s case. Brett hammers so hard, and has been hammering for so long, that he may actually believe he can still drive his point home. Watching the sparks fly every time he misses the nail is pretty entertaining, for me, but I do wonder what fun he gets out of it.
    –TP

  86. I thought it was a good speech. Whether it was written by Obama or not is kind of irrelevant.
    Although Lincoln tended to write his own speeches, IIRC, the Chief Executive was a bit more of a hands-on leader way back then.
    My chief criticisms of Obama tend to be where he writes himself into the story (which was notably absent, here) or take an occasion to pettily brickbat his political opponents (also not greatly in evidence).
    I give it an A. Not an A+, because I can’t quite bring myself to do that, but a solid A.

  87. Lincoln also lined his cabinet with his political opponents, and then did the requisite roadwork to knit them together into an effective machine.
    That is not Obama’s way, but Obama is no Lincoln.
    Neither, to be fair, is anyone but Lincoln. It’s a big set of shoes to step into.

  88. Obama’s speech was great. It is probably one of the most positive depictions of the American mythology I have ever heard of. It is so great that even on this side of the Atlantic, without any ties to the US, I can feel admiration. For the listeners, who share Obama’s patriotism and belief in America, this speech must have been a memorable experience. Obama is, after all, one of the greatest speakers of our time.
    Some of the symbolism is intriguing: “follow their North Star”. I have never heard that idiom. Is that something Southern or something more obscure?
    People asked here about the difference between the US and Finland. There is one great difference. You are a country born of revolution, with an inclusive national philosophy that is, at least in theory, ready and willing to assimilate every comer. We are a country with a people. Our historical pride is the age of our bureaucracy and our rather steady history of the rule of law, that we see as the basis for our current society and its social accomplishments.
    You are, and have been since 1840’s, a great power. For you, the essential question is how to bring about the revolutionary ideology of your government to the rest of the world. We are a small nation: for us, such ideas are foreign. Our first foreign policy priority is always national survival. If we aspire to have impact on the world, it is always as one chord in a larger harmony. Such idea that our culture might, as one among many, enrich the totality of mankind was, BTW, the justification for the existence of Finland and Finnish culture offered by J.V.Snellman, the leading philosopher of our nationalism.

  89. “follow their North Star”
    I’ve encountered “follow his guiding star” many times, and “pole star” occasionally. So even if nobody comes up with a specific source, I expect it is a gloss on that.

  91. Rather than rejecting it, the left should use it to encourage values of plurality, inclusiveness and civic responsibility.
    These are values the “left” generally places at the top of their agenda, so I don’t have a clue as to what “left” you are referring to.

  92. Slart, forgive me for correcting your characterization of Lincoln’s appointment habits.
    There is a difference between appointing one’s political opponents in one’s own party who ran against him in the primaries and appointing one’s political enemies in the opposing party who possess nary an iota of support for one’s political principles.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/opinion/20oakes.html
    Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals” is about Lincoln appointing rigid Republican (his Party) abolitionists who were far more radical in their positions and far more hawkish toward slavery, maintaining equality under the Constitution, and how to approach the Confederacy than Lincoln appeared to be, and indeed who held Lincoln’s moderate statements and his personal “style” in contempt.
    Seward, Chase, and Bates, all Republicans.
    Yes, he asked Democrat Andrew Johnson to serve as Vice President, but only after Johnson broke with the South in 1861 on the issue of secession which earned him their violent, threatening contempt.
    Hamlin, his first Vice President, was a former Democrat as well, having seen the light by 1856 because he was a northern (Maine) abolitionist.
    Lincoln did NOT make his political enemies like Stephen Douglas his Secretary of State, nor did he try to head off the brewing Confederacy by offering Jefferson Davis the Vice Presidency.
    He stipulated that no appointee would be considered who opposed the Republican platform, of which he as a candidate was a “moderate” supporter, compared to his team of rivals.
    Obama is no Lincoln, true, but you can compare Lincoln’s (he was a politician) coy statements regarding the place of blacks in American society (certainly separate and unequal, perhaps even returned to Africa, though no longer slaves) with Obama’s coyness as a candidate regarding gay marriage.
    Just so, Barack Obama appointed his bitter political opponent Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State.
    Joe Biden, political opponent in the primaries.
    He did not offer the job to Michelle Bachmann or Mitch McConnell, or John McCain, who have proven to be his staunch political enemies.
    He did not ask Rush Limbaugh to serve as his press spokesman.
    He did not reach down into Texas and pluck a young Ted Cruz to oversea implementation of Obamacare.
    Erick Erickson was not summoned to oversee a White House panel on tweaking automatic weapons restrictions after Sandy Hook.
    Anyway, on a separate subject, that of folks who alter their positions or at least moderate their rhetoric and listen because of give and take on political blogs, I would like to nominate Slart as No #1 reasonable guy after long observation of his presence here.
    Like the best of Shakespeare’s characters, as Harold Bloom (Gary, hold off) points out, you can observe Slart changing as events unfold and his inner monologue reacts.
    I might ask him to serve in my Cabinet.
    Brett, sorry, you will be sent to the front lines against ISIS to mansplain to them whatever it is you deem fit.
    You may find common ground with them regarding the depredations of political correctness among liberals.
    Please send recipes from the front, wherever the hell that is.
    If you get into jam, we might send an expeditionary force to pluck you out of there, but I don’t know if that will pass muster with Rand Paul, and I’m not sure the bake sale to raise the funds will suffice, as I plan to eliminate taxation on all Republicans just to shut their traps.
    Leave out the ingredients for head cheese.

  93. These are values the “left” generally places at the top of their agenda, so I don’t have a clue as to what “left” you are referring to.
    Of course these are the values of the Left. My statement was that the Left should use (as Obama does) the creation myth of America to further those values. Instead, the Left rejects the story. It needs to own the story, as it has a right to do.

  94. Yes, you are correct that Lincoln didn’t appoint ideological opponents quite so much, because (this is my interpretation, here) he held that their views were unconstitutional.
    Whether he was correct about that or not is another argument.
    Thanks for bringing up Goodwin, though. I thought of amending my prior post to read something much more like what you pointed out in response, but I thought that’d disappoint someone aiming to correct me.
    I have moved out of Goodwin-land, recently, and am currently revisiting WWII in multiple works of nonfiction and (Wouk) fiction. I’ve recently had my view of FDR substantially readjusted, in the upward direction. The guy wasn’t afraid to do what was needed, even if the rest of America couldn’t see it. But he was mindful of the scope of his powers, for the most part.
    The distinction of offenses between “impeachable” and “should be impeached for” has also recently elevated itself to my attention.

  95. follow their North Star
    It’s an allusion to the underground railroad. Follow the drinkin’ gourd.

  96. It’s an allusion to the underground railroad. Follow the drinkin’ gourd.
    Yes.
    A lot of the subtext (or, plainly, text) of Negro spirituals and stories have to do with how to find your way North to freedom, should you be able to escape.

  97. It seems that “follow their North Star” and variations have become to mean, more generally, follow your passion.

  98. Jefferson’s beautiful words are not an excuse for us to do whatever the hell we like
    Indeed, but a cynic might say, for example, that the “merciless Indian Savages” have a right to a different view on that…

  99. when the republican party gave up on the noble project of reconstructing the defeated south they left the mass of freed slaves to a state like unto the bondage they had so recently been freed from and though the poor whites of the south were not much better off they entered into a kind of devil’s bondage with the power structure in the south that went more or less as “we may be poor, we may have little wealth or power, but by god we will do our part and give our votes to you and work together with you to keep the blacks down so that as long as we have the subjugated black man beneath our feet we can seem as lords of the earth by comparison.” maintaining that bargain become a major goal of the democratic party and the bargain stood for many decades. even in the new deal you saw programs that were altered so people in professions with a majority or a large plurality of black workers were kept from many of the benefits of the programs of the period because roosevelt knew he couldn’t do anything without the southern legislators’ votes. during the same period the republican party kept what few black votes as existed, first by earnest efforts to maintain or enlarge civil rights but eventually by lip service alone. as the democratic party began to moved by northern liberals towards expanding civil rights the south began its withdrawal, strom thurmond was a harbinger of things to come. after johnson pushed through the civil rights act of 64 and the voting rights act of 65 the trickle became a flood. in 68 the southern whites tended to vote for the naked racial hatred of wallace with 5 states of the deep south going for him. but then as nixon and later reagan made it clear that racial hatred and discrimination was okay with them the white southern vote turned to the republican party. i’m not even getting into the history of genocide against the indigenous peoples, the theft of lands from mexico by means of wars with a strong subtext of the protection of slavery, or the use and abuse of peoples consider inferior or undesirable to do the hard and dangerous work that went into the building of infrastructure and the creation of so much of the wealth of this nation. and look at what we have today with the republican (implicitly white supremacist) party. we have a republican appointed majority of the supreme court eliminating many of the most important protections of the voting rights act, republican majority state legislatures enacting oter i.d. laws that primarily work to the detriment of non-white voters. throw into this race-based oppression a class war perpetrated by the republican party on behalf of the very wealthiest americans and it is to me truly amazing that obama could deliver a speech that was so positive and so optimistic. when i say a cramped and distorted reading of our history, this is what i am talking about. there are some commenters who post comments that read as if this history never happened and that even if it did it has no relevance to the present. some commenters take a position along the lines of “if only those black people would stop complaining race relations would be perfect.” i am here to say that position is an affront to history and i will not let it go unremarked. it’s not personal, it’s historical.

  100. An excellent speech. Maybe great. He left himself out and almost left politics out of it (but not completely). Maybe a bit shorter (I am biased towards shorter speeches) and take away the politics completely and it would have taken it over the top, IMHO. And that’s reading it. Great themes about America. Way, way better than I expected (and that may be swaying my opinion).
    I (largely and almost completely) believe in what he is saying. I could put aside my differences and listen (and that’s saying a lot). That is what a Presidential speech on such an important occasion is supposed to do. And it did that.
    Great job, Mr. President.

Comments are closed.