Well, the Democrats couldn't have asked for anything more from their headline speaker on this night. Midway through, Harrogate commented to Supadiscomama that Michelle Obama is as compelling a speaker as her husband.
For Harrogate's part, he still has serious ideological difficulties with the Democratic Party at this Moment, and this very much extends to the people at the top of the ticket. But this night went some ways towards reminding Harrogate that some progressivism is better than none at all. Sigh.
(By the way. Harrogate would be remiss this evening if he didn't throw a hearty shout-out, and a recognition that will only barely be granted by the television outlets covering this spectacle, to the protestors who have been sequestered over a mile away from the convention site, and some of whom have reportedly been pepper-sprayed by the police, this evening.)
But anyway. Harrogate is very curious what other Board Members, and our litany of Readers, thought about the two main speeches tonight.
4 comments:
I saw only a few moments of each. (I am trying to finish a project before the semester begins in the morning. I am only on seven hours of sleep-- for the last two nights. Furhter, I have adopted Mr. Rumsfeld style of standing at my desk to work, which is actually much better. If you can take one thing away...)
Both speeches were very moving. I briefly flipped to Andrew Sullivan and saw his comment that the Obamas are the most "conservative" and "virtuous" family to run for President in a long time... And I mean a long time. And, yet, even after this speech and the impromptu session afterwards, we will be treated to the anti-intellectual notions that the Obamas are the most radical people in the US. I probably have emails in my inbox from my step-father as I write this.
Oh the dangers of ideology, especially when the American dream works for those who are meant to be excluded.
At some point last night, on FOX, which some people reportedly say is a corporate whore, post-Michelle Obama, Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol agreed that her speech was, quote, "hokey."
This coming from guys both of whom told the American people that on entering Iraq the American soldiers would have flowers thrown at their feet. This coming from guys who see foreign affairs as a real life Lord of the Rings.
Juan Williams on the other hand got all choked up. You could tell Hume was annoyed but he couldn't express it since that would have seemed, er, racist.
FOX contributor or no, Williams had just witnessed an African American woman from the South Side of Chicago occupy the biggest political stage, and give a rousing speech about social justice.
At work today, we discussed the speech briefly. We agreed that the content of the speech concerned: "Hey look, I am not Angela Davis and I do not carry an AK-47."
It may not have been the most content-filled speech, however, if you care about Progress, especially as the Foundation for Democracy, then it is quite moving.
Harrogate agrees with you and your co-workers that there wasn't too much political meat on the bones of her speech. But he argues that she did interlace an overriding concern for social justice and equal opportunity throughout her delivery.
And besides, it isn't up to the prospective First Lady to lay out the hard political vision. Her appeal to Identification was entirely appropriate, not only given the role she is playing in the game, but also given all that has been said about her for months now.
The "hard stuff," as it were, ought to begin in earnest tonight, with Clinton and Warner. We shall see.
Post a Comment