I only have a few minutes to write this up, and I still have not seen the video version of I only have a few minutes to write this up, and I still have not seen the video version of Barack Obama's speech Tuesday in Philly in full, and because of travels didn’t have a chance until yesterday to read it in full. But the thing that most strikes me about Obama’s speech, once all campaign and electoral dynamics are set aside, is the deep, almost sad irony of the criticism, most notably but not exclusively coming from Hillary Clinton, that Obama is little more than a guy who gives a good speech. Why is this such a sad, and sometimes tragic irony? Because not only are speeches like Tuesday’s necessary, but the establishmentarian powers in the country—and by that I don’t intend a veiled dig against Clinton, who herself often rails quite nobly against such powers—are more than happy to sit and applaud politely, maybe even fall over each other like puppies trying to climb out of a box to praise great speeches about serious, troubling issues like Tuesday’s undoubtedly was...so long, of course, is that all they need suffer, or do, is that: Listen to speeches. This is the level of tolerance, I dare say, for orators who some might consider forerunners in some ways (racial or otherwise) to Obama, be they Jesse Jackson or Paul Wellstone. “Great little speech, fella, thanks for that,” comes the reply. “Now pack up and please go back into your little cubby hole, if you don’t mind.” Is Obama capable only of giving a good--even great--speech? Is he a rhetor nonpareil, but ultimately not much more than a Symbol-in-Chief? Maybe, in the end, that will prove true--though I think he has already proved otherwise, that his skillset is far deeper, his vision much wider. Still, what most bothers me most about this week is not that good speechmaking may be the most he’s capable of, but that suffering politely through a powerful, necessary and overdue speech is so often the most the powers-that-be in America are capable of enduring. And in the absence of action—indeed, as a distractingly lovely and relatively painless substitute for real action—what it says about American political leadership and its fascination with great speeches, no less its simultaneous intransigence toward doing anything about moving words to action is, I submit, a far greater indictment of Obama’s “he giveth good speech” critics than of him. --Tom Schaller
