I’m not going to blog almost-live again because looking back on the Republican vice presidential nominee’s speech my mind is completely changed. Her speech was awful in my opinion, and not only viewed through my political prism. It will be chopped to pieces and lose more and more luster over time. This isn’t a consensus view. Some people think the Republicans have a star on their hands because of the enthusiasm she generated within the hall. I agree only that she generated enthusiasm within the hall.
My thoughts were real while I watched but this is why taking time is generally a good idea, especially since I’m new to writing this sort of analysis. (Not that anyone’s counting on me for tips on how to think. This is how blogging is akin to navel-gazing. I’m heading to the mirror in a few minutes.)
That whole “community organizing” theme didn’t stand out only to me, I’m glad to see. Check the Wikipedia article for the gentleman portrayed above for his credentials. He’s one in a long line.
As usual, someone far more eloquent than I not only packs more into a condensed space, he does it out loud, more creatively and with more satisfying edits.
Filed under: Language, Leadership, Media, Politics, Race, Religion
I might agree that Rudy’s laughter during his speech was over the top, but remember that when Palin brought up the community organizer bit she was responding to the Obama’s belittling of her position as a Mayor. Also, I will not start from the presupposition that Obama’s experience as a CO was the same as Mr. Paul Revere’s (the irony that Revere called people to war does not escape me). So far, in listening to Obama’s experience as a CO it’s been A. only him telling it and B. vague as to what he actually did and accomplished.
debese, thanks for stopping through. I’m not comparing Obama to Revere, I’m pointing out the flexibility of language. Yes, ironies abound.
Debating experience and qualifications isn’t where I’m going with this either.
The treatment of “community organizer” in both speeches Wednesday night was meant to diminish not just Obama but the goal of his work — to help residents in poor, mostly black communities improve their lot. It wasn’t said that way and I’ll take you at your word if you didn’t catch it, but make no mistake, that was the message.
If you’ve found my site you can find plenty on Obama’s experience as a community organizer, and not just in his own characterization. In case it’s unclear, he’s done some other things in the 22 years of post-college adulthood that he wasn’t a community organizer.
But those three years were important and, if you believe him, provide a window into his priorities. If you disagree with someone who wants to help others improve their lot in life, maybe he’s not your candidate. Or maybe you think McCain provides a better chance for people to improve their lots in life. Or maybe you don’t think that’s important, or as important as other issues. All cool.
Just don’t miss the message the Republicans have been sending for generations now — that improving conditions and expanding opportunities for poor black people in this country shouldn’t be a priority.
Thanks for the reply. I don’t want to “spam” your site with my opinions, and this comment isn’t meant to change yours. But I do want to challenge a couple of assertions you make that don’t do service to your argument.
“The treatment of “community organizer” in both speeches Wednesday night was meant to diminish not just Obama but the goal of his work”
This is an opinion stated as fact (even reinforced later). I’m sure you don’t claim to be a mind reader, but that’s really the only sure way that you could know this. For example, I could say that it’s Obama’s motivation to make sure everyone in the country is dependent on the government, but I can’t know that. And while that might be the outcome of his policies I still can’t say that was his motivation.
“In case it’s unclear, he’s done some other things in the 22 years of post-college adulthood that he wasn’t a community organizer.”
This goes to another topic. Palin also had done many things in her career, but when Obama attacked Palin’s role as Mayor, Palin responded with in similar fashion. It’s part of the political game that both sides take part in.
“if you believe him, provide a window into his priorities”
I would like to see the results. Priorities are good…I can make mowing my lawn a high priority, but if I don’t do it…you see…
But you like his priorities and that’s still a good thing to look at.
“Just don’t miss the message the Republicans have been sending for generations now — that improving conditions and expanding opportunities for poor black people in this country shouldn’t be a priority.”
Actually, the message I’ve seen is that they want to improve conditions for all Americans regardless of race, gender, or ideologies. Even in the Democrat party race and gender means nothing as seen in Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice and Sarah Palin…it’s all about ideology.
debese, we are starting at opposite ends of the spectrum. I am sure we can agree on things past that, but the topic of this post is a lot heavier, and reaching common ground there will probably take time.
My assertion about the Republicans’ meta-message is factual to me. I respect that it’s not to you. But there are deep roots to this — Southern strategy, Helms-Gantt, states’ rights, Willie Horton, Lee Atwater’s musings… I could go on.
I have no idea whether you know these things individually or as peas in a pod. Even if you do it’s possible that you might interpret them differently. But as you say, at some point results have to be considered.
What do you see as the results of Republican campaigns and policies that they have admitted behind closed doors are tied to race but will not say so out loud?
We have to know some history to answer that question, and of course what we’ve learned and how we’ve processed that is likely to be different. We can get past that but it’s an obstacle. I’ll wait on your answer to start comparing.
I disagree with your assessment that Palin was responding “in similar fashion” to an attack by Obama on her mayoral experience.
I agree, there’s an element of the “game that both sides take part in” at play. But Obama’s campaign never suggested that Palin’s done nothing, only that her experience isn’t on the scale and of the type suitable for the office she’s for which she’s now running. (And his campaign has been responsible for less of this than even some Republicans who are/were anxious about the choice.)
If you watched Palin’s convention speech, she said that being a small-town mayor might be like being a community organizer, “except that you have actual responsibilities.” This isn’t sloppy phrasing, this is saying that what Obama was doing was unimportant. I won’t stretch into what’s left unsaid with that kind of construction.
I have no problem with Palin’s résumé — but I’ve taken some time to get to know what’s behind it. Same with Obama. I don’t think any single “job” — even that someone was vice president once — should be the reason to give someone a vote for president. It’s the total package… experience, stance on issues, temperament, etc.
So if McCain and Palin want to diminish Obama by talking about how he wasn’t any good at community organizing or anything else he’s done, fine. Instead they’ve taken to diminishing the work itself — which in this context, even if people don’t know Obama’s story well, means “helping poor communities filled with black people.”
(Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that’s a technical definition of “community organizing.” I’m saying that’s the picture the Republicans expect to come into the minds of anyone watching and listening — even as they say they have no idea what a community organizer is.)
“…the message I’ve seen is that they want to improve conditions for all Americans regardless of race, gender, or ideologies.” That’s a great message, and if that’s what you’ve gleaned, I’m glad. I trust that if it’s an attractive message you’ll do what you can to see it through.
“…in the Democrat party race and gender means nothing as seen in Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice and Sarah Palin…it’s all about ideology.”
Is that what you meant to write? I’d be happy to engage on that theme, but I’m sure you can state your case more clearly.