Fun Idea for Obama's Inauguration Speech
Remember Honest Abe's Gettysburg Address?
FOUR SCORE AND SEVEN YEARS AGO our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Well, since, by the time Inauguration Day rolls around January 20th, 2009 it'll be 144 years since the end of the Civil War that ended slavery, perhaps Obama should begin HIS Inauguration Speech with:
SEVEN SCORE AND FOUR YEARS AGO...and take it from there... I just thought that'd be a cool reversal of "four score and seven years ago..."
8 comments:
That's wonderful, I hadn't even thought of that.
I thought his speech last night was brilliant, especially the way he didn't really talk much about himself. He talked about his family, then Clinton (at some length, really), and then McCain. And in addressing McCain, he didn't show any of the timidity and wobbliness that the past two democratic nominees have shown, which I think bears very well for our chances come November.
And his speech was SO much better and more effective than McCain's...
Yeah, I think McCain's in an interesting predicament. He's trying to make himself look like a "leader for change," essentially ceding the platform to Obama and allowing Obama to write the script for the general election. But if he doesn't do that, then he's in a situation where he has to go a totally different path and ignore the whole "change" motif. I think he's made a mistake, but I'm sure not complaining!
Over at DB's site, I keep hearing the inevitable complaints about Obama's lack of "qualifications" for office. I produced a helpful quote:
"The fact is beyond contradiction that no person ever before nominated, with any reasonable probability of success had so little of public service to show for his reward. He is absolutely without the advantage of any experience in national affairs, beyond the little that can be learned by an occupation of three years in the Senate. In the history of our government, down to this hour, no experiment so rash has ever been made as that of elevating to the head of affairs a man with so little previous preparation for his task."
That quote is actually from 1872, by Charles Francis Adams (grandson of John Adams), reflecting on the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. (The quote is verbatim except that Lincoln's national experience is described as "two years in the House.")
McCain's trying to seize upon the "change" theme is not going to work for him. Obama has already taken full hold of that theme. I talked before about Geoffrey Nunberg's book Talking Right. (The Wikipedia summmary, which I wrote, is here.) Nunberg talked about the way Republicans have created narratives which are invested in particular words in common discourse. Thus, when Democrats try to co-opt words like values and patriotism, voters aren't convinced, because they associate those words with the right-wing narratives behind them. In this election, however, Obama has the edge on the word "change" and the narrative it evokes. (This is aside from the question of whether the theme is accurate; I believe it is, but the question I'm talking about is whether it resonates with voters.) McCain's attempt to co-opt the word "change" will be no more effective than John Kerry's styling his 2004 campaign "a celebration of American values." If McCain wants to win, he will have to find other narratives--expressed through other words--to seize upon.
He's also simply going to learn how to speak and captivate an audience and bring in a crowd, none of which he can do. He's insisting on having 10 "townhall" meetings with Obama, but I don't think he realizes Obama will beat the crap out of him, at least figuratively.
It's going to be fun watching McCain's hopes go down the drain and watching (hopefully) Obama win by a huge landslide...
reading your comments and some other jewish blogs,i realize how right Bob Grant[he is a talk show personality here in NYC]was,when he made fun of stupid jewish liberals,who are suicidal,and absolutely clueless when it comes to self preservation,and said in jest'that he is sure that would hitler be running on the democratic ticket,he would still get 70% of the jewish vote
chaim
Well, no, you see. Fascists are all the way the RIGHT, stupid.
Post a Comment