worth watching
Jul. 29th, 2004 07:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/072804-14v.htm
Rev. Sharpton's speech to the convention last night.
Edited: So what I originally saw was the second half (I tuned in after feeding the cats and starting dinner). I still think the second half was the best, but it's a terrific speech altogether. I love the mule/donkey bit; that's priceless. The "blood of martyrs/this vote is not for sale" part was very, very moving (to me). The "they don't have to be gangsters" section has me in tears every time I listen to it; that's certainly one sentiment that I laud Sharpton for--it really *should* send a message to kids who are low on hope that someone who started off from where he began can, by working for his community (whatever one may think about how he chose to do it), stand on that stage, but more importantly, stand behind the podium at the primary debates as a contender for his nation's highest office.
And his final passage showed, IMO, how much more effective a personal anecdote, an emotional appeal calling on someone else's loss or suffering (in that case, Ray Charles's blindness) can be when (a) the personal element is a concrete one that your audience shares a knowledge of and (b) you tie it tightly to a broader theme. Contrast that element of Sharpton's speech with Edwards's later reference to a notional mother left at home to manage her family while her husband is overseas with the Guard. I think Sharpton's is much more effective, in part because Ray Charles was real, he was a specific person, a person that almost all of his listeners knew and recognized, probably most of them had heard. And the emotion of the appeal went beyond evoking Charles's inability to actually see what he sang about, elevated him for his faith and belief in America, and called on the audience to justify that faith by working to make that vision a reality, while reminding them that it won't be easy. In contrast, Edwards's imaginary "grass widow" evokes momentary sympathy, engages the audience in imagination, but I think he would have done better to leave it at the point where he tied that family's plight to the change in foreign policy (rebuild our alliances + use force more judiciously = fewer American soldiers who need to be deployed overseas, leaving their families struggling at home), rather than dragging in the whole "when you see a mother going to work the late shift" bit; I thought that was kind of lame. But I suppose he needed it as an intro to the call-and-response "hope is on the way" section. But all that encourages the audience to do is pass on a slogan--not very inspriring. The two speeches shared some elements, and I found some portions of both of them moving, but all in all I think Sharpton did it better.
Rev. Sharpton's speech to the convention last night.
Edited: So what I originally saw was the second half (I tuned in after feeding the cats and starting dinner). I still think the second half was the best, but it's a terrific speech altogether. I love the mule/donkey bit; that's priceless. The "blood of martyrs/this vote is not for sale" part was very, very moving (to me). The "they don't have to be gangsters" section has me in tears every time I listen to it; that's certainly one sentiment that I laud Sharpton for--it really *should* send a message to kids who are low on hope that someone who started off from where he began can, by working for his community (whatever one may think about how he chose to do it), stand on that stage, but more importantly, stand behind the podium at the primary debates as a contender for his nation's highest office.
And his final passage showed, IMO, how much more effective a personal anecdote, an emotional appeal calling on someone else's loss or suffering (in that case, Ray Charles's blindness) can be when (a) the personal element is a concrete one that your audience shares a knowledge of and (b) you tie it tightly to a broader theme. Contrast that element of Sharpton's speech with Edwards's later reference to a notional mother left at home to manage her family while her husband is overseas with the Guard. I think Sharpton's is much more effective, in part because Ray Charles was real, he was a specific person, a person that almost all of his listeners knew and recognized, probably most of them had heard. And the emotion of the appeal went beyond evoking Charles's inability to actually see what he sang about, elevated him for his faith and belief in America, and called on the audience to justify that faith by working to make that vision a reality, while reminding them that it won't be easy. In contrast, Edwards's imaginary "grass widow" evokes momentary sympathy, engages the audience in imagination, but I think he would have done better to leave it at the point where he tied that family's plight to the change in foreign policy (rebuild our alliances + use force more judiciously = fewer American soldiers who need to be deployed overseas, leaving their families struggling at home), rather than dragging in the whole "when you see a mother going to work the late shift" bit; I thought that was kind of lame. But I suppose he needed it as an intro to the call-and-response "hope is on the way" section. But all that encourages the audience to do is pass on a slogan--not very inspriring. The two speeches shared some elements, and I found some portions of both of them moving, but all in all I think Sharpton did it better.
