wenBLOG

Yesterday, the landmark (word and emphasis mine) 42nd anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” bridge crossing was celebrated and remembered in Selma, Alabama. This landmark event (aren’t landmark dates of remembrance usually on like the 10th, 20th, …50th, etc…) which seriously does deserve more than a casual annual mention on the first Sunday of each March was vaulted to the forefront yesterday because two Democratic politicians, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, were looking for some publicity - and hoping to identify with an important segment of the electoral base. Both Barack and Hillary had good showings.

Obama spoke first and was ushered to the podium at Brown Chapel AME Church by a litany of pastors, civil rights heroes and fellow federal legislators, the senator from Illinois spoke eloquently about his claim to membership in the African American community and his responsibility as a member of “the Joshua generation” to carry on the work begun by previous generations of African American activists. He made the obligatory claim that without the efforts of those who had come before him, he would not be running for president today. He also did something that only a person of color could do without fear of reprisal and that was to call out some African Americans for falling short on their obligation to preserve and advance the work of their forebearers. Invoking “Cousin Pookie” to ‘go vote’ and “Uncle Jethro” to ‘get off the couch’, Obama scratched an itch that African Americans are often unwilling to discuss.

Almost immediately following the close of Obama’s address, Mrs. Clinton stepped to the lectern at the First Baptist Church just a few hundred yards away from the Brown chapel.

It is rather curious that while the events were uncoordinated and held at two seperate sites that the timing of the speeches was so well choreographed. It’s likely that Mrs. Clinton’s handlers made the decision to wait until Obama had finished because they feared that they live TV feeds would have stayed with Obama. Such a slight would most cetainly be noticed by folks paying attention to such. As an addendum it should be noted that while both churches were filled to capacity, the overflow crowds watching the activities on TV monitors outside the events was significantly larger at Obama’s Brown rather than Hillary’s First Baptist.

Hillary began her conversation (remember even though she’s running for president, she’s really just having a conversation with America) by talking about the work left to be done -

“we have a march to finish”. Her remarks described her kinship with African Americans and a respectful admiration for Martin Luther King. She recalled seeing King at a church in Chicago during her youth and she harkened the themes of his sermon. She also noted that if not for the marchers of “Bloody Sunday” Obama, Hispanic New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and indeed herself would not be considered viable presidential candidates today. She included some bait to hook her audience by stating her intentions to reintroduce the “Count Every Vote Act”. Additionally, her comments included numerous references to her husband and the work that he had done to help African Americans.

For the casual observer it would appear that Obama won the day. His tale of family ties to the African American community and the value that civil rights had in his life were undeniable. Add to that the ease with which he delivered his remarks and it was apparent that he outshone Hillary.

But as a political observer, my thoughts are a little different. I still believe that Obama did better than Hillary. Having seen him in Cleveland last week during his Ohio swing, I half-expected him to rework his stump speech so that it fit with the day and the audience. Instead he delivered a carefully crafted address designed for the events of the day and designed to identify him as the rightful bearer of the African American constituency. Obama succeeded in doing this with flying colors.

On the other hand, Mrs. Clinton demonstrated why she is the front-runner among Democratic presidential hopefuls. She spoke in her cool calculated style and beyond the platitudes of Obama’s “joshua generation”, she gave specifics about what she has done and intends to do in the future. She showed that this campaign will be long and it’s not how you fight the battle, but how you win the war.
One final thing that struck me as interesting in comparing the two speeches was the quality of the prose used in each. On paper they probably would be comparable (although Obama’s had many more pages). Hillary’s speech sounded as if it was written by Paul Begala or another former White House speechwriter. The problem is that Bill did not give the speech, Hillary did. While Obama’s oratorical eloquence matched his rhetoric, Hillary’s fell short. And unless she finds a writer who knows her voice, she’s going to have trouble beating Obama.