The finest indie-rockers in town will take the stage to karaoke their hearts out as Seattle's best KJ plays the backing track. There will also be a some open spots on the schedule for lucky audience members to participate throughout the night. Join us for an evening of New Wave love and sing-alongs!
Loved Michelle's speech. Now I'm annoyed and depressed. Help me imaginary readers, you're my only hope
I watched Michelle Obama (and Ted Kennedy's) speeches from the opening night of the Democratic National Convention last night online (as I have no TV at home). I was amazed. Michelle might be an even greater orator than her husband. And that's about the biggest compliment I can give.
Her speech was heartfelt, eloquent, and delivered so naturally that it truly seemed like she had it memorized, or was even speaking extemporaneously. I loved watching every moment of it.
Srsly? No headlines extolling Michelle Obama's mad rad public speaking skills? No words about how inspiring and sincere she was? This leaves me infuriated, depressed, and frankly, disgusted with the US media.
That's why I turn to you, imaginary readers. Can we have a conversation about what all of you thought about the opening night of the DNC? What did you think about Michelle Obama's oratory skills, or Ted Kennedy's rousing surprise speech? What are you looking forward to during the rest of the DNC? Please weigh in with your thoughts in the comments below.
Oh, in case you missed it, here is the Democratic National Convention speech from the woman who absolutely should be our next First Lady.
Don't be sad. The only music acts the Republicans have for *their* convention are:
THE CHARLIE DANIELS BAND (wha?)
John Rich (a CMT tool)
Gretchen Wilson (a self-proclaimed queen of the rednecks)
The Dems have:
Sugarland (interesting cutting edge country)
Jennifer Hudson (hubba hubba)
Bruce Springsteen (SCORE! for the everyday citizen - show me a Republican who doesn't wish Bruce was at their show)
And I *know* Michael Stipe and Conor are back stage waiting to come out for an encore song.
The NY Times has "Emotional Biden Thanks Delaware delegates", "Kennedy adds spark and Obama's wife praises values" and "Michelle Obama reluctant no more". WaPo has "Clinton to take stage to praise her former rival" so I don't think the coverage has been as negative as you do, Dana, but I understand where you're coming from.
I think that the backlash from the media is from the whole event being so carefully scripted.
I thought Michelle Obama's speech was fine - she had a compelling story that she told and told it well. I think it should definitely have erased the doubts people may have had about some comments she made that were taken WAY out of context. I'm not big on the personal narrative stories so I think you liked the speech more than I did.
Ted Kennedy's speech - holy cow! How inspirational was that!?! That was the moment that made me tear up and be glad that I call myself a Democrat.
BTW, my favorite part, besides Kennedy's speech (again, OMG!!!), was watching the newsticker on MSNBC and every 5 minutes the story was that Cindy McCain (who I don't dislike - her husband, that's a different story) was going to Georgia to assess the situation over there. What kind of foreign policy insight could she possibly provide?
I've lost all faith in mainstream media.... over at ABC news online they have James Carville going on about how the DNC is "lacking a message". Uhm.... what?!?! Really?? You're not helping, James.
@ChrisB Thanks for providing those better headlines. I don't always love personal narratives; in fact, they can sound corny/contrived. But her delivery was so impeccable, and her use of personal narrative to establish context for why she and Barack have taken this journey to the White House -- that was brilliant. It also wasn't just what she said, but how she said it. She was so warm and elegant and regal yet elegant. She's just lovely.
I totally should have gushed about Ted Kennedy's surprise appearance more. He was incredible. I couldn't believe how strong he looked and sounded. When I watched the coverage on MCNBC video, it immediately rolled over to the Larry King show after the DNC coverage. He had four pundits on, all four Republicans. The first man (can't recall who the hell he was, but he looked like a walrus and sounded even worse) started talking about how Ted Kennedy.
The creepy pundit was saying (I paraphrase) that Kennedy didn't deserve any applause because of his disgraceful actions in the past. It was disgusting. His one scandal happened what -- before any of us were born?? An entire long lifetime of public service and achievement later, then he flies across country while fighting brain cancer and rouses the crowd... and this nobody gets to show up on Larry King and belittle Ted Kennedy??!? Ack, see I'm getting furious again.
Did you watch MSNBC at all? I was watching as Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews positively GUSHED over Michelle. I think Matthews might have even been a little drunk. He called out Pat Buchanan for some asinine statement, and told Chuck Todd some pundit equivalent of "I love you, man!"
Anyway, Michelle's speech was amazing, I cried so much, and her daughters are just adorable! What a beautiful family, one I certainly want in the press for four (eight) years!
Just an question for the team, but I heard Michelle say basically that we need the Dems to give people back the hope and help they need to make it. Her personal narrative, though, was basically that things were tough for her and her family, but they made it because of a grat family and a great country. Why didn't she give that message to everyone else rather than the "you need our help to make it" message? Put another way (and maybe this is what I was looking for and didn't get), why didn't she say, "thank you Dems, thank you Progessives, because without your hope and help, which we need again, I wouldn't have made it"? Sometimes I wonder whether why those who make it don't ever say back to Dems and Progressives that they made it because of Dems and Progessives. They also speak about others needing help. Would that be better and help explain what they are trying to do?
Seaprog- It's called pandering to centrist, undecided voters. Maybe you've heard of it; it's a yucky necessity of the two-party system. The bottom line is, those possibly Republican-leaning folks who *might* vote for Obama are just the sort to be put off by a speech that could very easily be misconstrued as "Welfare State AHOY!"
This fracturing of the left's support for the Democratic candidate is one of the biggest issues that have stymied the Dems for years. With progressives pushing agendas and criticizing the only leftist candidate for not being liberal enough, it has the same effect as GOP pot-shots: Undermining your candidate.
Freaky-deeky church folks and other ultra-conservatives have been very effective about supporting their candidates, even if they're not freaky-deeky conservative enough for them. It's all in the name of politics. We progressives need to learn from that. Obama is the choice. Instead of nattering at him, we need to direct our attention at McCain.
Well, the Michelle Obama approach feels kind of dishonest, and ungrateful, really.
She can either say, (1) "I made it, so can you" or (2) "I only made it because of hope and help from the Dems/Progs, and you need their hope and help, too," but instead she is mashing and substracting and saying, "I made it, and you need hope and help from the Dems/Progs to make it." Feels a bit out of whack.
Why wouldn't a majority of people go for statement (2)? Don't the majority of people fall into that same category, i.e., can only make it with our help? Or do you think that the majority deluded themselves into thinking that (1) can or should applies to them?
I agree with The Grim, especially regarding his concluding statement:
"Obama is the choice. Instead of nattering at him, we need to direct our attention at McCain."
Elections propel forward on momentum. Rather than spinning our progressive wheels on whether Michelle's speech expressed enough gratitude or not (I disagree, but that's beside the point), let's focus on what we surely agree on: that Obama is the by-far-more desirable candidate, and we need to do everything we can to get him into office. Once we achieve that goal, then I'm all kindsa down with expressing differences in opinion and attempting to shape how the Democratic party differentiates and grows.
But right now we have a MUCH more daunting task at hand -- motivating the half of Americans who don't vote, and the ones who are -- as inconceivable as it seems to me, undecided -- to vote for Obama.
Now is the time to direct your frustrations and negative opinions where they belong -- on the opposition.
I do think the majority of people in America are caught up in some false class consciousness where they identify with the rich even though they're certainly middle class/working class. We've been drilled about the American Dream all our lives and fed all this crap about how working hard and being a good person is all it takes to, if not get rich, then at least have some upward social mobility.
Now, Seaprog, you and I can probably both agree that, for the most part, that whole can-do, class-climbing stuff is crap. The deck is stacked against everyone; money and power look after money and power. We have neither.
... BUT that's kind of a nasty, brutish and cold conclusion to have to draw. You know, learning that pretty much everything you based your dreams on is BS, and, no matter how smart and a hard worker you are, you probably won't become the next Bill Gates. That's a fundamental value in the American consciousness, and people tend to cling to their beliefs even when they're obviously ludicrious (i.e. the creationism vs. evolution debate).
1 imaginary liz said on August 26, 2008
Don't be sad. The only music acts the Republicans have for *their* convention are:
THE CHARLIE DANIELS BAND (wha?)
John Rich (a CMT tool)
Gretchen Wilson (a self-proclaimed queen of the rednecks)
The Dems have:
Sugarland (interesting cutting edge country)
Jennifer Hudson (hubba hubba)
Bruce Springsteen (SCORE! for the everyday citizen - show me a Republican who doesn't wish Bruce was at their show)
And I *know* Michael Stipe and Conor are back stage waiting to come out for an encore song.
2 imaginary dana said on August 26, 2008
OK, that news does make me feel a bit better/superior.
3 ChrisB said on August 26, 2008
The NY Times has "Emotional Biden Thanks Delaware delegates", "Kennedy adds spark and Obama's wife praises values" and "Michelle Obama reluctant no more". WaPo has "Clinton to take stage to praise her former rival" so I don't think the coverage has been as negative as you do, Dana, but I understand where you're coming from.
I think that the backlash from the media is from the whole event being so carefully scripted.
I thought Michelle Obama's speech was fine - she had a compelling story that she told and told it well. I think it should definitely have erased the doubts people may have had about some comments she made that were taken WAY out of context. I'm not big on the personal narrative stories so I think you liked the speech more than I did.
Ted Kennedy's speech - holy cow! How inspirational was that!?! That was the moment that made me tear up and be glad that I call myself a Democrat.
4 imaginary liz said on August 26, 2008
Yep - that Michelle is no Bessie Truman, that's for sure.
5 ChrisB said on August 26, 2008
BTW, my favorite part, besides Kennedy's speech (again, OMG!!!), was watching the newsticker on MSNBC and every 5 minutes the story was that Cindy McCain (who I don't dislike - her husband, that's a different story) was going to Georgia to assess the situation over there. What kind of foreign policy insight could she possibly provide?
6 Porkchop Sandwiches said on August 26, 2008
I've lost all faith in mainstream media.... over at ABC news online they have James Carville going on about how the DNC is "lacking a message". Uhm.... what?!?! Really?? You're not helping, James.
7 imaginary liz said on August 26, 2008
And who teared up at Jimmy Carter's presence? So sweet.
8 imaginary dana said on August 26, 2008
@ChrisB Thanks for providing those better headlines. I don't always love personal narratives; in fact, they can sound corny/contrived. But her delivery was so impeccable, and her use of personal narrative to establish context for why she and Barack have taken this journey to the White House -- that was brilliant. It also wasn't just what she said, but how she said it. She was so warm and elegant and regal yet elegant. She's just lovely.
I totally should have gushed about Ted Kennedy's surprise appearance more. He was incredible. I couldn't believe how strong he looked and sounded. When I watched the coverage on MCNBC video, it immediately rolled over to the Larry King show after the DNC coverage. He had four pundits on, all four Republicans. The first man (can't recall who the hell he was, but he looked like a walrus and sounded even worse) started talking about how Ted Kennedy.
The creepy pundit was saying (I paraphrase) that Kennedy didn't deserve any applause because of his disgraceful actions in the past. It was disgusting. His one scandal happened what -- before any of us were born?? An entire long lifetime of public service and achievement later, then he flies across country while fighting brain cancer and rouses the crowd... and this nobody gets to show up on Larry King and belittle Ted Kennedy??!? Ack, see I'm getting furious again.
9 Imaginary Kiku said on August 26, 2008
Did you watch MSNBC at all? I was watching as Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews positively GUSHED over Michelle. I think Matthews might have even been a little drunk. He called out Pat Buchanan for some asinine statement, and told Chuck Todd some pundit equivalent of "I love you, man!"
Anyway, Michelle's speech was amazing, I cried so much, and her daughters are just adorable! What a beautiful family, one I certainly want in the press for four (eight) years!
10 josh said on August 26, 2008
All the on air coverage of her speech was excessively flattering and she was on the front page of every newspaper I saw this morning.
11 Seaprog said on August 26, 2008
Just an question for the team, but I heard Michelle say basically that we need the Dems to give people back the hope and help they need to make it. Her personal narrative, though, was basically that things were tough for her and her family, but they made it because of a grat family and a great country. Why didn't she give that message to everyone else rather than the "you need our help to make it" message? Put another way (and maybe this is what I was looking for and didn't get), why didn't she say, "thank you Dems, thank you Progessives, because without your hope and help, which we need again, I wouldn't have made it"? Sometimes I wonder whether why those who make it don't ever say back to Dems and Progressives that they made it because of Dems and Progessives. They also speak about others needing help. Would that be better and help explain what they are trying to do?
12 The Grim said on August 26, 2008
Seaprog- It's called pandering to centrist, undecided voters. Maybe you've heard of it; it's a yucky necessity of the two-party system. The bottom line is, those possibly Republican-leaning folks who *might* vote for Obama are just the sort to be put off by a speech that could very easily be misconstrued as "Welfare State AHOY!"
This fracturing of the left's support for the Democratic candidate is one of the biggest issues that have stymied the Dems for years. With progressives pushing agendas and criticizing the only leftist candidate for not being liberal enough, it has the same effect as GOP pot-shots: Undermining your candidate.
Freaky-deeky church folks and other ultra-conservatives have been very effective about supporting their candidates, even if they're not freaky-deeky conservative enough for them. It's all in the name of politics. We progressives need to learn from that. Obama is the choice. Instead of nattering at him, we need to direct our attention at McCain.
13 Seaprog said on August 26, 2008
Well, the Michelle Obama approach feels kind of dishonest, and ungrateful, really.
She can either say, (1) "I made it, so can you" or (2) "I only made it because of hope and help from the Dems/Progs, and you need their hope and help, too," but instead she is mashing and substracting and saying, "I made it, and you need hope and help from the Dems/Progs to make it." Feels a bit out of whack.
Why wouldn't a majority of people go for statement (2)? Don't the majority of people fall into that same category, i.e., can only make it with our help? Or do you think that the majority deluded themselves into thinking that (1) can or should applies to them?
14 imaginary dana said on August 26, 2008
I agree with The Grim, especially regarding his concluding statement:
Elections propel forward on momentum. Rather than spinning our progressive wheels on whether Michelle's speech expressed enough gratitude or not (I disagree, but that's beside the point), let's focus on what we surely agree on: that Obama is the by-far-more desirable candidate, and we need to do everything we can to get him into office. Once we achieve that goal, then I'm all kindsa down with expressing differences in opinion and attempting to shape how the Democratic party differentiates and grows.
But right now we have a MUCH more daunting task at hand -- motivating the half of Americans who don't vote, and the ones who are -- as inconceivable as it seems to me, undecided -- to vote for Obama.
Now is the time to direct your frustrations and negative opinions where they belong -- on the opposition.
15 The Grim said on August 26, 2008
I do think the majority of people in America are caught up in some false class consciousness where they identify with the rich even though they're certainly middle class/working class. We've been drilled about the American Dream all our lives and fed all this crap about how working hard and being a good person is all it takes to, if not get rich, then at least have some upward social mobility.
Now, Seaprog, you and I can probably both agree that, for the most part, that whole can-do, class-climbing stuff is crap. The deck is stacked against everyone; money and power look after money and power. We have neither.
... BUT that's kind of a nasty, brutish and cold conclusion to have to draw. You know, learning that pretty much everything you based your dreams on is BS, and, no matter how smart and a hard worker you are, you probably won't become the next Bill Gates. That's a fundamental value in the American consciousness, and people tend to cling to their beliefs even when they're obviously ludicrious (i.e. the creationism vs. evolution debate).
Post new comment