GREAT SPEECHES BUT I'M STUCK ON A DIFFERENT QUESTION
I still remember exactly where I was when I first saw the photos of "Bloody Sunday"
It was probably the single biggest screwup by those desperate to hold onto Jim Crow. It was a Ghandian masterstroke by the sponsors. The discipline it took by the group leaders to prevent retaliatory violence was as good as in any military organization. It is difficult to argue that it wasn't a very important day in U.S. History.
I heard the Obama and Clinton speeches yesterday. They were both excellent but I'm not here to handicap them. Bloody Sunday was carried out by people looking to help a larger group. I'm just not sure a Bloody Sunday commemorative service is a place for politickin'.
Yeah, Yeah, you can say these were just dignitary sermons. Both dignitaries just happen to have a claim on the black vote in the Southern primaries. I also know both congregations gladly embraced their speakers. Still, I think I'd have found it more appropriate if maybe Cornell West and Cheryl Mills had come down, or Magic Johnson or Norm Early. Or Maybe Ernie Ladd could have come by (of course he knows too much--would have been declared an enemy combatant.)
Anyway, That's just the creepy feeling I got about the whole thing.
Labels: NATIONAL POLITICS
posted by UMRBlog @ 13:34
4 comments
4 Comments:
What did you expect from Democrats? Hillary even brought the first black president with her!
Clinton seemed so unauthentic. Just from the start of her speech, "This is the day the lord has made."
So freaking phony, I couldn't stand it.
I'm a Republican, so I don't like her anyways but at least Obama's speeches I can watch and understand why someone would cast a vote for him. Clinton on the other hand...
Full disclosure, I've known her since July of 1973. Her husband has been my friend since before he was her husband.
I may or may not like her personally but the one thing she's not is unauthentic. She is a believer that a gov't run by smart people can improve quality of life. She is distrustful of the private sector but knows it can be useful. She is a believer in her own intellectual nobility and feels that a certain responsibility goes with that.
There's not a thing in the world about her that's not authentic. You just don't like what she is. I'm not here to argue with that. Call her an elitist, no problem. Call her a believer in the nanny state and I probably won't even argue with you. Call her cold or austere and you might be right.
But that is really her. She's not phony. She's just not somebody you would enjoy having coffee with.
BTW, her religious upbringing and commitment to her faith is, as nearly as I can tell, also not phony or contrived. I didn't stay in touch with my youth pastor my entire adult life. I didn't go on mission work while I was in College. I think she's walked the walk.
I think you're wrong about the "phony". What you see is what you get.
TYFCB
She was born and raised in suburdan Chicago, and she claims to have "always been a Yankee fan"?
She didn't run for Senate in Illinois or Arkansas for that matter. She's a poser. That's what the kids these days call a phony. Her shift to the right and now to the left and an undoubtedly move back to the right after the primary is evidence that she is no more a "believer" than anyone else seeking power at all cost.
Full disclosure. Never met her, and never liked her.
Post a Comment
<< Home