August 25, 2008
Obama’s Convention Acceptance Speech: An Advance Copy
Michael Blim
I am printing here an advance copy of one half of Barak Obama’s upcoming convention acceptance speech.
For the record, I obtained it through a family friend who labors in the bowels of Chicago’s Daley Democratic Machine. I am calling him Billy here so that his gift to me doesn’t bring down the wrath of Richie Daley on his head. Billy has a no-show job at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. I don’t ask him what he does there, because I am pretty sure he doesn’t do anything.
The only time you can be sure of finding Billy is at his apartment in the 42nd ward two weeks before every Election Day. He’s a precinct captain. And now I guess you understand why he has a no-show job. I heard via a mutual friend that he spends most of his time in Las Vegas running a strip club.
Billy sent me the speech in a PDF. He had gotten it from his sister-in-law who does clerical work inside the Obama inner sanctum in Chicago. She had given Billy the PDF because she figured that he wouldn’t be watching the convention, with the Sox and Cubs in tight pennant races and all. Billy wrote me that she sent it on to the whole clan in Bridgeport. He thought a scoop like this might generate interest in my column, given that he thinks nobody reads it, and he is a loyal friend and wants to see me make out as a writer.
Given that the whole Bridgeport clan has this part of the speech, and most of them are connected, I decided to put this out, and see if I can pick up a reader or two.
The following is the part of Obama’s acceptance speech that concerns foreign policy:
“The Republicans say that I talk a lot about change, but I don’t say what I want to do.
Not true, but just so there is no mistaking what I intend to do as president, let me lay out my new direction for American foreign policy.
I am going to make big changes.
First, the Iraq war was the biggest mistake America has made since the Vietnam War, and it has cost over 4000 men and women their lives. Tens of thousands will carry grievous wounds around for the rest of our lives. Countless tens of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives, suffered terrible injuries, or are worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein.
I intend to pull out our troops by the end of the first year of my term. There is already a consensus in the country that this is the best thing to do. There is no guarantee that a McCain administration, once they get in, will do it.
I will. And I will not leave garrisons of American troops on Iraqi soil after the combat pullout. They would be a provocation for Iraqis and their neighbors who wish to govern themselves without American interference. Their resentment would put our troops constantly in harm’s way.
Everybody is coming home. You can count on it.
Second, I favor engagement – not war or isolation -- with Iran. Only war could possibly stop them from building nuclear weapons if they choose to. This would be a disastrous course of action. Even a cold war with Iran would fail. We couldn’t stop friends like Pakistan and India, so what gives us the confidence that our hostility will change their minds?
My administration is not going to war with Iran. It is better to establish a relationship with them. It would be even more important if they develop nuclear weapons.
Some argue that we must use force and eliminate Iran’s growing nuclear capabilities to support and protect Israel. I ask you: Since when has Israel ever needed defending? The certain knowledge that Israel would use its A bomb against Iran is deterrent enough. Deterrence worked between the former Soviet Union and us during the Cold War, and it seems to be working between Pakistan and India. Let’s leave Iran to decide its own fate.
Third, we should leave the Israelis and Palestinians to sort out their destinies. Our involvement doesn’t help. Instead, it hurts the chances for peace. Because the United States has given Israel our unconditional support, Palestinians believe they cannot trust us to be even-handed, and they are right. Our constant pressure drives them further away from making peace. Israel too, given our total support, has no real incentive to make peace. We provide each of an excuse. In the long run, they are locked in a deadly and ruinous embrace.
The Palestinians and the Israelis must make their own peace, and their chances of success increase if we get out of the way.
Fourth, we had better acknowledge that we face a new cold war if we do not find better ways of coexisting with Russia. We can blame former President Putin and his governments for making it more likely. But it takes two to make a cold war.
We never stop to consider Russia’s position. We told them to make an American economy out of the shambles of the failed Soviet system. After years of trying and failing, they went back to their old ways of doing things. At least for the time being, their new arrangement works.
When they were down, we lorded it over them. Our plan didn’t work, and the Russian people suffered terribly.
So the state once more controls Russia’s massive corporations, and Russian citizens enjoy what we consider a limited set of civil liberties.
This is their affair. Just as we would resent former President Putin lecturing us about how we eliminated many of our civil liberties after September 11, they find it irritating too to be told how they should run their society.
We also don’t seem to get it about why they are becoming more aggressive. How would we feel if Canada became a close ally with Russia – a second Cuba in other words? We are expanding NATO, the historic bulwark against Soviet ambitions, to their very borders. We would never stand for it, and they won’t either.
How would we feel if Russia put missiles of any sort in Canada or in Cuba again? John Kennedy wouldn’t stand for it, and once more today, neither would we.
We would risk war, and that is the point. If we want to work with Russia, we need to understand its motives – not prattle on about how the Old Russian bear is returning. We need to help find a new détente that will strengthen the treaty obligations that we, the Europeans, and the Russians agreed to when we ended the Cold War. We need to find ways among all of us to make peace and cooperation more desirable.
The bottom line: Nobody needs a new cold war, least of all our friends in central and Eastern Europe. For their sake, we need to support mutual respect and understanding on the part of all the nations of Europe, including the Soviet Union, and avoid unwittingly encouraging Russian aggression.
Fifth, we need to become again, as Franklin Roosevelt put it, a good neighbor to countries near us and to nations around the globe. We consider America great humanitarian, and we are. But we are also quick to tell others what to do, and to back it up with force.
We have military bases in 153 countries. We have half a million soldiers and their dependents stationed permanently abroad. We have an array of weapons and the ability to project deadly force on the ground within 48 hours anywhere in the world.
We need to turn this around. We need to pull back, and give up the bases. They are only an incentive to our meddling in the affairs of others. If nations need our help, we can provide it quickly and efficiently. And we have much to do at home. Our neighbors need the freedom to pursue their own paths to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Sixth, the threat of terrorism. I believe we have accomplished more to defeat terrorism with intelligence, with vigilance, and with stealth than with our military operations. Terrorists do not form armies. They are not even revolutionary guerillas wanting to take over nations. They are persons who want to make the world suffer for what they believe are its sins. They seek vengeance and believe wrongly that violence converts people to their cause.
Let us continue to treat them for what they are: international criminals whom we must pursue relentlessly until they are ours. No war can successfully destroy a small group or a network of the angry and unappeased. Smart police work and counter-terrorist initiatives can --- and will under my administration.
Finally, we should support the United Nations, and help it have greater impact on the world’s many crises. Let us recall that the United Nations was America’s idea. Franklin Roosevelt made its creation part of the post-World War II settlement. We need to reaffirm his noble vision by helping to make a stronger United Nations.
Mankind’s success as a species depends upon the existence of a grand arbiter such as the United Nations that protects the concerns of all in the management of our world.
To get America moving in a new direction, it must start with us. Let us help the United Nations grow. Let it discover a new role as the arena where peace is made, and agreements undertaken observed.
Let us grow too. Let us find a new way of being a great power. Let us use our power for good rather than our power for war. Let us work together with all peoples and nations of good will, and make the world a better place.
This, my fellow Americans, is change you can believe in. Americans young and old have heard the call. They hunger for changes that will be more than promises. They want changes that revolutionize our ways of life and that of citizens of the world wherever they find themselves.
More of the same will not do. Look at our performance over the past eight years. Does anyone want four more years like the last eight?
John Kennedy once quoted an ancient Chinese proverb that said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
If I become your president, I will help us take this new step together. Let us work to build a world of peace and prosperity for us – and for our global neighbors. “
Wow, helluva speech! Change I believe in.
Glad too that I could reproduce it here, as I know that outside the Bridgeport neighborhood of Chicago, many of you have teams in pennant races and such.
So I say thanks to Billy’s sister in law for the sneak peak and the scoop. I have pennants on the mind too, so go Cubs – and Barak too!
Posted by Michael Blim at 12:20 AM | Permalink










Comments
Obama/Blim'08!
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Aug 25, 2008 12:52:20 AM
If this speech turns out to be the real deal, I will find it incredibly ironic that Obama is espousing(superficially at least) a foreign policy more that is more conservative than any America has seen since its involvement in the second World War.
Posted by: Phillip | Aug 25, 2008 1:51:20 AM
Applause! Redolent of Lincoln'd oratory...
Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | Aug 25, 2008 7:02:46 AM
There's no way in hell this is the speech he's going to give on Thursday. I think someone is playing a prank on you. Not only is it horribly written, it doesn't sound a thing like Barack.
Posted by: Matt | Aug 25, 2008 8:40:19 AM
If the line about Israel not needing defending is in the speech, say hello to president McCain, unless he dies. This is a fairly universal hot button across the country.
Posted by: mr.ed | Aug 25, 2008 8:42:57 AM
Hellooooo... people. Anyone ever heard of satire here?
Posted by: wow | Aug 25, 2008 9:04:13 AM
Satire? What's satirical about it? It looks to me like someone's political wish list. Why not just write it as such, without pretending to link it with Obama? Just to attract more attention than it would deserve on its own, I guess.
Of course, it sounds nothing like his style, and practically nothing like his actual views. A waste of Internet packets, if you ask me.
Posted by: JonJ | Aug 25, 2008 9:26:37 AM
Clearly not real- and yes, a complete waste of time. Not interesting in any way..
Posted by: kafka | Aug 25, 2008 10:10:57 AM
"Since when has Israel ever needed defending?"
This line alone tells you all you need to know to be certain this is a speech neither Obama, nor any other person who seriously wants to be President, would give. It is a measure of how much many of us want to be deceived that we would think for a moment Obama would say any of this.
Posted by: Frank | Aug 25, 2008 10:24:50 AM
stupid.
Posted by: dali718 | Aug 25, 2008 11:25:08 AM
If this is an attempt at satire, it's certainly a failed one.
Lines like this: "We need to pull back, and give up the bases," suggest that it may be, but altogether it is poorly written and fairly trite.
"More of the same will not do. Look at our performance over the past eight years. Does anyone want four more years like the last eight?"
...No? And we'd also like to avoid poorly thought out satire and internet hoaxes.
If there's one thing we've learned from Obama's speeches it's that--empty rhetoric aside--the speeches are concise and poignant.
This doesn't touch on either of those qualities.
Posted by: jake | Aug 25, 2008 12:20:09 PM
if this was his speech i would be thrilled.
Posted by: natron | Aug 25, 2008 2:39:09 PM
Those wacky Internets...
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Aug 25, 2008 3:18:12 PM
Brilliant column. *You* should run for president.
Posted by: Barbara | Aug 25, 2008 5:47:20 PM
The "give up the bases" thing, or at least the reason given, is a little odd.
"They are only an incentive to our meddling in the affairs of others."
Who is giving this incentive to whom?
Posted by: Sagredo | Aug 25, 2008 8:26:25 PM
Hey! That's my speech!
Posted by: Ron Paul | Aug 25, 2008 9:14:57 PM
I don't understand how it is possible to mention confronting Iran today, without acknowledging every time that We the USA overthrew a democracy in Iran.
Posted by: Joe Biden | Aug 25, 2008 9:29:38 PM
I want you as my running mate, because you understand that there has been only 4000 casualties in terms of men and women's lives. But if you include Iraqi lives, it sounds like more.
Posted by: McCain | Aug 26, 2008 6:23:11 AM
Hello All: Thanks for your responses. I am glad some of you liked the speech but am sorry many of you didn't like the speech.
I will pass on your comments to Barak.
I will thank Billy too on your behalf for the sneak peak.
And to all: May the curse of the billy goat be broken.
Michael Blim
Posted by: michael blim | Aug 26, 2008 9:14:39 AM
Barack is spelled with a "c".
Posted by: ghostman | Aug 26, 2008 12:22:32 PM
Spell Barack with a "z", if you wish, in the end it doesn't matter, for it was a hell of a good speech based on reality.
Applause again and again!
Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | Aug 26, 2008 3:27:10 PM
The speech above was not "a hell of a good speech." It was, frankly, a terrible speech — so terrible that one can't even tell whether it's supposed to be satire or not (and not in that New Yorker cover kind of way). Either way, it doesn't work. And either way, the repeated misspelling of Obama's first name does matter: it's a simple issue of respect (especially in Obama's case, as his very identity has been ruthlessly and relentlessly attacked), but also it reflects poorly on the writer. Why should I take a writer seriously if they can't even spell the name of the subject about whom they write?
Posted by: ghostman | Aug 26, 2008 3:43:31 PM
On Barack: Mea culpa. I confess I sometimes mispell my own name.
It is a pity that blogs like 3qd don't have copy editors who would have caught my error. Having worked for a small daily a lifetime ago, that's what copy editors do: they correct little slips like this for a writer who is too tired or hits a myopic moment.
Would anyone like to copy edit me? It would be great.
On substance: except for praise or disgust, it puzzles me that people pretty much only jumped on the bases issue, leaving what I would have thought were more controversial issues. On bases, see Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrow of Empire, before you write off the relationship between having force in an area or post and using it.
I was also confused as to what part of the Israeli comment bothered readers -- the assertion that Israel would be better off without us carrying their water in the Palestianian settlement or the A bomb discussion in which I argued that they already have deterrent enough for an Irani adventurism.
Does this mean that you readers agree with me in every other respect? (yes, me. oops) If I were a baseball player, I would be htting about .800!
By the way, what's wrong with a wish list? Where do ideas in part come from (other than an assessment of facts themselves), if not from wish lists?
If you read my columns you know that I have been pro-BARACK since the beginning, and perhaps too partisan during primary season. Sensing this, I didn't write about the New Yorker cover though I was so mad I cancelled my subscription at my expense (no refunds).
On Obama's rhetorical style: actually he is highly repetitive, a device that keeps the message in the sight lines of the audience. His seeming conciseness derives from his use of punchy summary sentences.
That said, he also wanders, for all of the talk about staying on message.
Also, I must say that if we talk about egotism, for all my respect for Obama, he puts himself in the center of his rhetoric. In part, I think, this is why people complain about "lack of substance" and why he can appear smug. He doesn't dramatize the lives of others enough, something that Reagan (for whom he does have respect) did with great skill.
Also I think he is trying to be a bit of a stealth candidate and not get caught committing himself to policies he may have to reverse when and if he is elected.
I wish he would also just skewer a lot of the nonsense and factoids that circulate in America at the expense of truth. The Philadephia speech was so compelling exactly because he spoke plainly about the facts of racism and its effects after slavery for generations of black people.
Finally, people respect kind of "straight talk," as the polls show. They aren't really getting it anywhere right now, sad to say.
Michael Blim
Posted by: michael blim | Aug 26, 2008 6:23:17 PM
Michael:
I too am feeling a bit grouchy .. and nervous. I feel almost exactly as you do - my fierce pro-Obama stance during the primaries and negative reaction to the NYer cover notwithstanding.
I find the Obama campaign well organized but timid - playing it too safe and too pretty. I am also beginning to get a bit impatient with Obama's amorphous rhetoric on the stump. Nothing very memorable is emerging from there. He has to connect very soon to real people in real time. Inspirational messages are no longer necessary. It's time for perspirational talking points. Your wish list is therefore welcome. I have one of my own.
You are absolutely right about voters and "straight talk." People go for forceful proclamations although they often know the candidate is fibbing. And McCain is forceful even when he tells whoppers. Obama on the other hand, has taken very few thorny issues by the horns so far. Nuance is good on philosophical matters. Policy needs a well articulated plan. And it may well come down to "strong and wrong beats right and weak" as the big dog of Democratic politics once warned us. By the way, he is still singing the same tune although this time it is more malice than fair warning.
Posted by: Ruchira | Aug 26, 2008 9:35:17 PM
It wasn't the topic, it was the (perhaps)the classification of casualties into "men, women and Iraqis" that got my goats. So much so, that I didn't bother to read the rest. It sounded far worse than Biden's comment about Obama.
Posted by: me no McCain | Aug 27, 2008 11:44:36 AM
Sorry, correction:
*(perhaps unwittingly)
Posted by: me no McCain | Aug 27, 2008 11:46:18 AM
It's the incoherence of the rhetoric that bothered me (and possibly others) about the bases issue. It's all very well for some private person, even some lefty American citizen, to express suspicion of American state power. But it makes no sense for an American president to do so.
It's the difference between "we're going to give up the bases because they're too expensive and they annoy our allies" and "we're going to give up the bases because we don't trust ourselves not to do something bad with them".
Posted by: Sagredo | Aug 27, 2008 9:26:54 PM
wow: Hellooooo... people. Anyone ever heard of satire here?
Good point. I was actually preparing a post showing how much this "advance" version of the speech got wrong compared to what was actually delivered by Obama when I realized that it was all a joke.
I like 3QD, but their posting of satire alongside real content is indeed a problem. Entertaining for sure, but confusing for those of us short on time to actually verify what's published (yeah, that's the point - that you should always check for yourself, but my point is I don't have time to always cross-check sources and thus prefer reliable sources). I'll continue to read 3QD (because it's just so interesting and well-done), but I'll attach zero importance to anything said here, instead viewing at all as entertainment.
Posted by: zoc | Aug 29, 2008 4:58:52 AM
Zoc --it is often difficult to tell the difference between reality and satire, but not only at 3QD.
Surely the government's handling of Katrina was satire. If Molière had penned a play called Katrina it would not have been more hilarious.
How could we tell the difference in that case? People died, and the stink of the place lasted months.
In the context in which it was delivered, Sam Clemmons could not have been more thigh-slappingly funny if he'd written that brilliant line, "Great job, Brownie!"
And what could be more satirical that John McCain rattling off a rape joke while riding between his five houses in a golf cart with George Bush the elder and punch-lining it by calling Obama an elitist? Satire is all there is in the USA these days. Reality is for chumps.
Seems to me Michael was just telling it like it is.
BTW, it only hurts when you smile.
Posted by: Jim | Aug 29, 2008 3:20:13 PM
Post a comment