Tavis Smiley asked his two favorite contributors, Princeton professor Cornel West and Bennett College president Julianne Malveaux to weigh in on Obama’s speech.
The two African-American intellectuals wonder why Obama referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as a “preacher from Georgia” and never by name.
“The brother dropped the historical baton,” Malveaux said, disappointed that Obama didn’t delve deeper into the history of the civil rights movement and the significance of the anniversary of the “I have a dream” speech. Hillary Clinton talked about Harriet Tubman, but Obama didn’t.
This is an interesting insight, and one that I didn’t hear mentioned in other analysis. In general, the PBS coverage has been impressive, and soothing: Switching from the screamy tones of Chris Matthews to the calm that Jim Leher exudes was a much-needed respite on this binge of cable news consumption.
I was not surprised buy Obama's failure to acknowledged MLK by name in his speech..It has been a deliberate theme of his campaign to run away from Black liberation themes..
I am so empowered by the courage of Cornel and Julianne for keeping it real...
Posted by Thrasher on Sat 30 Aug 2008 at 11:52 AM
hillary clintons theme was about strong women breaking through in american history while endorsing barack obama and saying that he believes in what she believes in. that is why is was just for her to mention harriet tubman. barack obama's speech was not a tribute to mlk, nor was it a time to discuss the historical struggle of black people as cornel and julianne desired for it to be. this was obama's time to talk about obama. a time to convey to the people who he was, what he stood for, what his plan for america is for today and for the future. This was Obama's time to say, this is who I am, this is why you should vote me. That is exactly what he did. Its said to say that people such as Cornel and other black people want barack the voice of primarily because he is black people.This is why you have jesse jackson, this is why you have al sharpton, this why you have russell simmons, this is why you have Oprah. they don't will not suffer consequences for speaking their mind. the second barack starts speaking for only black people, will be the second we no longer hear about barack obama. barack has to be the voice of america, and its an america where there is only 15% black people. So when barack speaks of the lack of heath insurance, when he speaks of creating jobs, better education, gun control, guess what black people, these are the issues that effect black people as well has more than 150 million more americans. So if this was a speech addressing the NAACP about the needs and desire's of black people alone, then cornels and juliannes criticisms would be valid criticisms.
Posted by Joel Bell on Sun 31 Aug 2008 at 10:43 PM
It's fine disagreeing with someone but feigning ignorance gets a little tiresome. This reminds me of Lenny Henry doing a piece as a Black Scot being swamped by a few African Americans, lost and lonely in Scotland. Simply said, 'The brother' doesn't want to be a brother.
Martin Luther King is not as popular as Nascar, sure He is more important, but the U.S. is not there yet. Obama is trying to appeal to voters as a leader who happens to be black, to build bridges, not to be owned by a race group. If he pulls it off he will be 20 years ahead of his time, the impact of which I still cannot comprehend. For the political scientists who hide in their Ivy League seminar rooms, I can see why they don't understand.
He has the potential to do more than all the progressive intellectuals since King put together, because he had the humility to submit himself to the contradictions of politics. So the intellectuals are scratching their heads saying cool, but um on that point um well brother we think you didn't dot the i or left out a word so we can feel that you agree with us. Its arrogant and in a word it's about insecurity.
Footnote. The cheap seat on Thursday night were across the plains of the Serengeti, in the townships in Johannesburg and Rio, the trading floors in Asia. This is bigger than Martin Luther King. Why do you guys never discuss Asian Americans, or more importantly Native Americans, why is it a Black White issue. Its pathetic. The real world is in crisis, the U.S. is responsible for war crimes in the Middle East, South America and Africa, there is a global warming issue that is really big, and you argue about a persons name. I don't get it when Democrats argue over Hillary, or this issue. You do not deserve the potential of what you have in your hands.
Posted by grayarea on Mon 1 Sep 2008 at 05:41 PM