BROWN: Obama's speech has familiar ring to it

By Peter Brown, Special to the Rocky

Published August 28, 2008 at 9:16 p.m.

Text size

Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee for president of the United States by being a candidate who happened to be black, rather than a black candidate.

His convention acceptance speech, which drove home the twin towers of his campaign — that he offered change from the Bush years and unity for the country — could have been, and much of its substance was, spoken by his much paler predecessors.

Obama’s nomination came 45 years to the day after Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech which made the slain civil rights leader an American icon. Obama’s nomination is the embodiment of King’s vision that the United States would one day become a place where a black person can achieve any office, even the presidency.

He acknowledged the anniversary at the end of his speech but did not dwell on it, or even name Dr. King, in an effort to focus the national television audience’s attention on the presidency of George W. Bush and Obama’s contention John McCain would bring more of the same.

In fact, it was McCain, who almost seemed to take greater notice of the occasion, releasing a TV ad that aired in battleground states during the telecast of the Democratic convention in which the Republican said:

“Sen. Obama, this is truly a good day for America... How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day. Tomorrow, we’ll be back at it. But tonight, senator, job well done.”

Actually, Obama — who has been criticized by some in the black community for not talking more about traditional civil rights issues in his campaign — used the speech to portray himself as the latest in a long line of Democratic leaders.

Rather than describing himself as a disciple of the late King, he reveled as the political descendent of Democratic icons Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.

The speech with minor changes could have been given four years ago by 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry and a number of other Democratic nominees in recent decades.

Like Kerry in 2004, Obama proclaimed his willingness to use force if necessary to protect U.S. interests, but said he preferred diplomacy, and promised to end the Iraq war “responsibly.”

His version of Kerry’s walking onto the stage with a salute to the American people and saying, “I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty,” was to challenge voters who worry Democrats might not be tough enough on national security matters:

“Don’t tell me that Democrats won’t keep us safe.”

Polls show that Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience is cited by voters opposed to Obama or undecided about him as one of the major reasons for not backing him. Over the last several decades Democratic presidential candidates, even veterans like Kerry, have generally found themselves in the same boat and made similar appeals.

Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama promised a middle-class tax cut and a radical change in direction after years of Republican rule.

Like Al Gore in 2000, he said he would look out for the average Jill and Joe and not let them be victimized by the Republicans. Obama did not use the line that he was “for the people, not the powerful” that Gore, who spoke before him, coined in the 2000 campaign. But his plan to take a share of oil company profits and rebate them to consumers fit right in with that theme.

Like Dukakis in 1988, Obama focused his speech on the need for change to end a Republican rule that he said had made the country a worse place to live. Dukakis’ line that “the Reagan era is over and a new era is about to begin” could easily, with just a name change, come out of Obama’s mouth.

And Obama’s reference to King, although obviously more meaningful because he is African-American, could have just as easily come from any of the white Democratic nominees since 1964.

Racial harmony has been a centerpiece of Democratic campaigns since the 1960s, and Obama’s use of King’s words that “we cannot walk alone ... we cannot turn back” could just as easily come out of the mouths of Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore or Kerry.

Peter A. Brown, formerly the chief political writer for Scripps Howard, is the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute and a weekly columnist for The Wall Street Journal online.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

August 28, 2008

11:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

gowrite writes:

And if Obama had focused his speech more on Martin Luther King, he would have been bashed for doing that.
August 28, 2008

11:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

The speech was standard Democrat garbage. Why does every politician feel it necessary to give irrelevant anecdotal stories about a janitor or waitress who works hard? Its a tired rhetorical technique. It seems like every politician for the past 20 years have had the same speech writer. Obama is only Change in terms of skin color not ideas.

It is truly depressing to hear this empty suit speak and to hear empty voters chant "Yes we can!". His supporters wave signs that say nothing except "Change". It all feels so empty. The entire night had a Disney'esque feel to it. From the sappy opening video to his laundry list of things he will cure, fix, or end: it all feels so phony and contrived and empty.

I found myself wondering who I despise more: Obama, the Marxist buffoon, or the young, mostly female, lemmings who fall for his nonsense.

Perhaps it is time to implement a higher set of standards for the right to vote. Is it really wise to allow every stupid 18 year old to cast a vote for a leader of the free world?
August 29, 2008

12:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Kraemer writes:

Well John, I don't know what I despise more: ageism of all kinds (against both young and old), or the same old usual "Marxist" label that people still throw around like they are back in the time of 1848, defending the good old absolute monarchies against the oppressive tyranny of the masses.

Unfortunately for you, all people above the age of 18 are guaranteed with the right to vote, both the stupid and smart. But perhaps you're right, maybe when we reach the ripe old age of 21, something just clicks, and suddenly we all become brilliant citizens who know the 21st century Marxists when we see them. We know that finally young boys and girls have to grow into strong men and women who are constantly on the look-out for those commie-marxist-socialist russians. Moi dryug- tebe nuzhno chitat mnoga.

In the meantime, while on the look-out, I'll be hoping for a more compassionate government from the next President, be that McCain or Obama. I'll be hoping for a better health care system which doesn't leave tens of millions behind, who don't have the means to afford their life-saving medical care. I'll also be hoping for lower tuition costs, so that some of my good friends will be able to afford to go to college. Lastly, I'll be hoping that some of the world's leading scientists are dead wrong and that global warming really isn't much of a problem. Perhaps then, when I'm old and on my deathbed, I won't see the world going to hell, because the US, Russia, and China didn't have the fortitude to change terrible habits. Heck, at least the Russians and the Chinese have an excuse; they don't have the right to vote.

Regardless, I enjoyed the speech, and I think Obama would do a great job as President, and heck, maybe even McCain would too.

Do svidanya
August 29, 2008

12:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"In the meantime, while on the look-out, I'll be hoping for a more compassionate government from the next President" - Kraemer

Within the confines of the Constitution, right? Or does that thing matter anymore?
August 29, 2008

12:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"I don't know what I despise more: ageism of all kinds" - Kraemer

So, are you against the minimum age requirement of 18 for voters? Should nine year-olds be allowed to vote?
August 29, 2008

12:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

mikeyg writes:

Obama's speech: Like "New Coke": Interesting and novel, worth a try after seeing the multi-million dollar advertising campaign, but tastes like miserable old liberal swill when it hits the back of your tongue.
August 29, 2008

12:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Kraemer writes:

Well I figure that if you are old enough to die for your country, then you are old enough to have the right to vote. Because you must be 18 to enlist, 18 is a suitable minimum voting age. But perhaps, because you are for these "higher set of standards for the right to vote," you would rather deny the right of some of our younger troops to vote.

As for the Constitution, I wish the current administration had more reverence for it. Also, I assume a president can exercise compassion without defying the Constitution. I'm not entirely sure how the Constitution and compassion are mutually exclusive.
August 29, 2008

12:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"Because you must be 18 to enlist, 18 is a suitable minimum voting age. " - Kraemer

So, Kraemer, you support ageism just like I do. You think 18 is a good age while I think 30 is a better one. But do not act as if you are holier-than-thou when it comes to age requirements. You support denying 17 year-olds the right to vote.

"Also, I assume a president can exercise compassion without defying the Constitution." - Kraemer

Sure he can. Unless that passion includes universal health care or any of the other BS proposals Obama offered us tonight. Read his transcript, Kraemer. Show me all of his proposals that are authorized by the Constitution.
August 29, 2008

12:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

compassion
August 29, 2008

1:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

CatHeyward writes:

John- I'm glad to see that you have separated yourself from the (mostly female) lemmings, and from the inexperienced 18-year-olds who aren't affected at all by the election. It's not like they should get a choice in who represents them. I've often found myself wondering, "Gee, why DO we let them vote? Shouldn't we screen the registration system so only the intelligent and deserving- don't worry John, I'm sure you'd make the cut- are able to cast ballots?"

Do you realize how elitist you sound?

There are people in the world who are never satisfied with the political system, and the candidates who dedicate their lives to it. I have no problem with people who constantly critique the government, in fact, more people should question what is going on and push the candidates to be the best representatives of our country that they can be.

However, I am bothered by the apathetic and jaded who sit around doing nothing to improve our country's situation, at home or abroad. And I am bothered by those who do nothing but moan about how every politician is the same and how corrupt and fake the candidates are.

Let's not feign apathy, when we're all running to post our opinions on this freshly written article in the middle of the night.
August 29, 2008

1:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Felicity writes:

Wow John_II. Wow. Your elitism is as stunning as it is disgusting. First of all, your little plan of only letting smart educated people vote is going to backfire since polls show that more educated people overwhelmingly back Obama. Secondly, since it seems to be young women that are your biggest problem, why not let 18-year-old men keep the vote, and go ahead and move the age up for women? And really why stop there? Let's just make it so that only demographics that agree with you vote? Or hell, for that matter why not just you, since you are clearly more important than the rest of us?

Sure there's no reason we should let 18 year-olds vote, especially since it seems that they disagree with you and your infinite wisdom. It's not as if this election will affect us at all. I mean, our generation isn't the generation that is doing all the fighting in Iraq, risking our lives for a war initiated by our current President (elected by the way, before many of us young lemmings were old enough to vote, but don't worry, we're still old enough to die for our country). We aren't the ones who can't afford to go to college because federal grants have been cut and the interest rates on loans are too high. We certainly aren't the ones who will not be able to find jobs if we do manage to get that college degree because the economy is in the tank. And of course we aren't the ones who are paying into social security now only so that John McCain can privatize it so that it won't be solvent when we are old. Oh all that clean energy crap... we aren't the ones who are going to have to clean up that mess.

This election is ALL ABOUT our generation, so excuse us for wanting the older generation to take a little responsibility for the eight years of Bush that they inflicted on us. Maybe instead of assuming we are all idiots you should spend 5 seconds thinking about someone other than yourself, since that, after all, is the basic tenet of this country.

Shame on you for assuming that younger people don't take the time to learn the issues and are just swayed by a charismatic man. And shame on you for thinking you are better than us just because you are older. And here I was always taught we were all created equal...
August 29, 2008

1:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

"First of all, your little plan of only letting smart educated people vote is going to backfire since polls show that more educated people overwhelmingly back Obama." - Felicity

That only goes to show how ridiculous our modern education system has become. There is no wisdom in universities anymore. Any moron can get into college these days. And the fact that Obama is a Harvard graduate does not say much for Harvard.

"Shame on you for assuming that younger people don't take the time to learn the issues and are just swayed by a charismatic man. And shame on you for thinking you are better than us just because you are older. And here I was always taught we were all created equal..." - Felicity

Only a moron would utter such words. Shame on you for being so dumb and ruining democracy for everyone else.
August 29, 2008

3:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Kaetlynm writes:

"Only a moron would utter such words. Shame on you for being so dumb and ruining democracy for everyone else."
--John_II
Thank you for explaining your position so fully. I am glad that this discussion has been reduced to childish name-calling. You don't have any legitimate arguments against Barack Obama. All you seem to want to do is talk trash about someone all because you disagree with them. If you have something of substance to bring to this discourse, then by all means, share your opinion. Explain WHY you don't agree with Obama supporters, instead of just insulting their intelligence.
August 29, 2008

4:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

skunknuts writes:

John, you are the dolt. How laughable, a conservative bringing up whether the changes Obama will usher in will be constitutional. Bush and Cheney have treated the constitution worse than toilet paper, and you know it, my friends.

My friends, then you use a tissue-paper-thin tautological argument to defend the fact that more highly-educated people (who consistently have higher IQs, by the way) support Obama because of lower standards at Universities, my friends. What a sorry joke of an argument, you are worthless for a rational discussion. I say this, my friends, because you trash Harvard's credentials (a university you, John, surely would have gotten into, if not for affirmative action. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!) by (SO SUBTLY) saying that Barack's acceptance and achievement there is somehow unwarranted, my friends. That must be the brilliant bait you use to have me point out that you are, clearly, if not an outright racist, sound exactly like one would, my friends. Next, you, obviously ditto-head trained, (a real tough achievement) can scream bloody murder that any criticism of Barack makes one a racist, blah, blah, blah. Shut your piehole, it isn't going to work this time, my friends.

How about the legacy affirmative action McSame got at the naval academy, graduating in the bottom 99% of his class, my friends? BWAHAHAHA!!! Now there's someone ready to be commander in chief, my friends.

Lastly, my friends, I'll just say, the tables are turning. If you don't like our next president, my friends, and the direction he is going to take our great country, my friends, why don't you move to fascist Russia, my friends, with the whole lot of you and your filthy neoCON swine brethren, my friends.
August 29, 2008

4:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

roy12560 writes:

For John and others who knock Obama and his supporters as Lemmings and socialists, etc., you are really sounding old and tired. Perhaps you'd really prefer America to revert back to a feudalism government like in the middle ages?
Let's get the record straight. There are no objectively defensible comparisons between Obama and socialism. It is just a tired, warped right-wing spinning point to try to dupe the masses so we can have more of the same failed Republican policies like we've seen these last eight years.
The experts who have examined McCain's policies in depth find little difference between what with McCain is offering and the Bush/Republican fiscal policies that have already demonstrated to fail these last eight years.
Or perhaps you'd prefer more of these last eight years of the Bush administration's version of the U.S. government and the Constitution that has left us with soaring deficits, falling wages, quagmire war, disappearing middle classes, spying on citizens, torture?
Explain to us. You are saying there is no room for improvement with our current system of government and, of course, working within the confines of the Constitution?
Why is Obama and his supporters misguided and socialists merely for believing they can bring about positive changes for the benefit of all U.S. citizens?
Please enough already with this right-wing fatalism and negativity that there is no room for improvement!
It is utter nonsense to think that anyone who advocates such improvement must automatically be a Socialist just because they disagree with the right-wingers and McCainiacs and just because they believe we can indeed do better than to have four more years of Republicans' failed policies.
August 29, 2008

4:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Prof writes:

I sincerely listened. As one of those undecided who will determine this election, all I heard was a reciting of old democratic things renamed as change. An eloquent speaker who promises a lot with no details on how he will do it. There is simply not enough money to do everything Obama promises while cutting taxes to 95% of America- If he cannot do the math how does he think he can be President?

Listening to cable and networks after the speech was even more disappointing. Does anyone really look at facts and the truth?

Next week we will most likely hear the same old republican promises.

In the end it will be the media vs swing voters--

This election is not about the economy, the war, or values. It is about who get's to be in control!
August 29, 2008

5:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

KneeDeep writes:

John and Prof, as a 50 something, conservative business owner I have been aghast to see the Republican Party reduced to that which I loathe, Populism. You may rant against “Liberals” (I share these sentiments) but the logic behind your rants is reduced to the same empty talking points that are employed by those you deride. I see the NeoCon view of the world to be as empty as those that are trotted out by the ultra liberals. On both sides it becomes the same old arguments… on one side the empty utterances of the ditto heads, the other side the employs the same old “us against them” class envy Populism. I voted for Bush because we needed a strong leader at a time when we were threatened. As a business owner however, I have seen incompetence on a scale that is hard to comprehend. In my mind this election comes down to leadership and more importantly a contest to capture the spirit of the American people. We need a leader that can inspire the strength of that which makes us great. In my view, Obama has captured this vision. It does not matter what the party is, this is a time that we need a leader who can inspire. In my life there have been a few presidents that have exhibited this on both sides of the aisle. I would proffer Kennedy and Reagan, as examples of leaders who were able to capture and inspire the great will of the American people. This seems to be a simple choice, it is time for an inspirational leader that is able to harness the will of the American people. That this voice has come from the left is irrelevant.

Regards
August 29, 2008

5:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dan_S writes:

Peter Brown's article is quite insightful. Combine it with Charles Krauthammer's post-convention observations (his Washington Post editorial), and a picture of a truly unimpressive candidacy emerges.

John_II,
Your first posting was good. You should know that any posting will elicit responses that range from good to not-so-good. If you try to respond to all the not-so-good ones, you will consume all your energy and get nowhere. It is impossible to have the last word, unless you sit at your computer 24 hours a day. Please have a nice day.
August 29, 2008

10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Felicity writes:

"Only a moron would utter those words. Shame on you for being so dumb and ruining democracy for everyone else." - John_II

It's nice that you can't refute anything that i wrote so you are resorting to entirely unfounded character attacks. I'm sorry, do you know me? Do you have any idea what my IQ is? I would gladly submit to competition of the minds with you. What college did you go to? How'd you do on the SAT or ACT? But the fact of the matter is all of that is entirely irrelevant. Whether or not I am smarter than you, the entire basis of this country is that everybody matters, and we look out for each other and that you and I are equal. If you are so upset about "stupid" people getting the vote (and if you are including me in that category, which you appear to be doing, then by your standards 99% of this country you love is too dumb to vote) then you should seriously consider moving elsewhere. If you would like to offer a serious criticism of the candidate, I would be interested to hear it, since I, quite seriously, offered the issues he addressed that make me think he would be an excellent president.

"There is no wisdom in our universities anymore. Any moron can get into college these days."--John_II

Do you actually think there is something wrong with that? You don't think "moron's" should have equal access to get an education in an attempt to be a bit less of a "moron" ? I think it's wonderful that so many people in our country are seeking a higher education, and I think it's horrible that Bush and McCain are trying to make it so hard. And please note, they are making it hard not by limiting admissions based on test scores or preventing "morons" from attending school. They are stopping poor people from having equal access to school because they simply can't afford it. And that is appalling.
August 29, 2008

10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

The_Punnisher writes:

Three million people lack work and sustenance. The officials, it is true, work to conceal the misery. They speak of measures and silver linings. Things are getting steadily better for them, and steadily worse for us. The illusion of freedom, peace and prosperity that we were promised when we wanted to take our fate in our own hands is vanishing. Only complete collapse of our people can follow from these irresponsible policies.

Thus we demand the right of work and a decent living for every working German.

Joseph Goebbels, 1927

( Page copyright © 1998 by Randall Bytwerk )

" Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it "

-Santayana
August 29, 2008

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

His speech was "familiar" because one politician, from one side or the other, delivers it every convention year.

It's the motherhood-and-apple-pie, feel-good approach. On one hand, it's "the government's not your daddy" but on the other hand it's "you are helpless in this mess, so we will fix it for you".

Same ol', same ol'.

The interesting part was when he proposed how to fund all the bread and circuses.

"Cut taxes for 95% of the working people. Raise taxes on 5%. Raise taxes on business." Fine. Heard it before. Pander to the majority. Everyone, rich or poor, has one vote. Go for the big numbers.

"Examine the budget line by line" and look for excess and waste. Really? Where did he get line-item veto power? Or did I miss an announcement that reinstated it?

He'll have to negotiate that with a congress whose make-up is still undetermined. Good luck with that.

I'm sure McCain will have a similar speech, with similar promises.

"How do you know when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving."

Have a good campaign, everyone.
August 29, 2008

1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

John II has a new favorite word, "moron". I notice he smeared women again, and he can not even type the word compassion without messing it up.

Love to see his high blood pressure readings when he even thinks about us libfemdemprogressives voting.

As B. Hussein Obama would say to him "enough".
August 29, 2008

3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

John_II: Why does every politician feel it necessary to give irrelevant anecdotal stories about a janitor or waitress who works hard? Its a tired rhetorical technique.

Because those are the people continually left out of the "American dream" you trumpet. And only a tired political hack like you thinks it's a rhetorical technique.
August 29, 2008

3:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

SPL writes:

Kneedeep - thanks for being the first conservative/republican I've seen who's written something intelligent and relevant about this whole election. You have definitely made a positive impact on my views about conservative stereotypes (John_II's nonsense withstanding).

On topic, of course the speech is bound to have a familiar ring to it - it seems almost too stupid a statement to make. He's the nominated Democratic candidate and he's pushing the democratic agenda. DUH! No doubt McLame will do the McSame at his convention.
August 30, 2008

2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Zim writes:

RE: "That only goes to show how ridiculous our modern education system has become. There is no wisdom in universities anymore. Any moron can get into college these days. And the fact that Obama is a Harvard graduate does not say much for Harvard."

Are you from Harvard, John II? What is your pedigree? What are your credentials? What is it about yourself and what you have accomplished that is so superior that you can make this comment and not come off as a pretentious jerk? Go ahead, John II-- impress us....
August 30, 2008

11:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

ajcole22 writes:

"If you are not a liberal by the time you are 20, then you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by the time you are 40, then you have no brain." somebody, somewhere, sometime ago.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › News › Politics

BROWN: Obama's speech has familiar ring to it

By Peter Brown, Special to the Rocky

Published August 28, 2008 at 9:16 p.m.

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs

DNC Calendar

FEATURED REPORT:

Delegate Portraits

MORE DNC SPECIAL REPORTS

FEATURED BLOG:

Rocky Truth Patrol

DNC BLOGS

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links