I was at two of Obama’s rallies yesterday, and I’ve been asked what it’s like. An Obama event is a unique political event in my experience. It’s like a cross between an African-American church service, an intimate rock concert, and your favorite professor’s lectures. There’s the call and response of African-American churches, and the rhythm to his oratory follows in this tradition.
He gets interrupted constantly by the audience, but integrates their communication into his speech. All great communicators do this, and he’s truly excellent at it. I think he can do this, because he loves what he’s doing and genuinely thinks about and believes what he’s saying. He’s too smooth with this to be hunting for correct answers when he’s interrupted.
He’s also theologically informed. His reference to Dr. King’s “Fierce Urgency of Now” is actually a powerful reference to black liberation theology.
He is, of course, a rock star, and it’s a little like being at a club where your favorite indie band is playing. It reminded me of being at a small club in Pittsburgh’s Strip District when Sonic Youth played while I was in college, minus the great music.
He references having taught Constitutional Law in his speech, and there are so many college-aged people out in the audience, that it really does at times feel like the mid-90s for me all over again.
I do believe he would make a good Pastor.
I am not swayed by his speeches as much for someone who is running for the presidentail bid though. Too much we don’t know and his use of speech is meant to make you feel all warm and fuzzy. That is good. But, there is not much else there.
His speeches are different than other political speeches. There is red meat in there, of course. But, what his political rhetoric does as well is address issues beyond the partisan red meat. True, his speeches do not often include specific remedies for the issues he raises, whereas Clinton’s often do include policy proposals.
I think the biggest difference, though, is that his speeches are participatory. Reading a transcript of the speech in his case does not really give you the speech, because he includes the audience — its interjections, its emotions & its responses — into the speech. In this way, the message is less controlled, not uncontrolled by any means, but less so than usual.