- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Ravanne: "It wasn't a policy speech. It wasn't a speech about the focus of an Obama presidency. I know of absolutely no one who has changed their minds on who to vote for based on a speech made by their spouse."
You don't know what's going on in other people's minds. You shouldn't pretend you do. The fact is that a lot of people didn't have a very good idea of what Barack Obama and Michelle Obama are like as people. They didn't know if they could relate to them. There's been a lot of crap circulating about them being unpatriotic and such. Whether or not Michelle's speech will "change people's minds," like a lightswitch being turned from off to on, is not certain. I don't think anybody here has made that claim anyway. But the speech seems likely to make people a little more open to the idea of relating to the Obamas, not finding them "scary" (as a pollster said in an article posted by Walter Shapiro here yesterday), and so on. I think you're asking the wrong question if you're reducing it to "will this change people's minds?"
Ravanne: "Speeches like this are pretty pointless to me and tend only to reenforce the views already held about a candidate."
You missed the point then. Not everybody already has clear views about the candidates. Some people are fence-sitters. And your comparison to Kerry's wife is a little off, since she had not previously been the subject of so much controversy and innuendo as Michelle Obama has.
Ravanne: "It's political theater - nothing more."
Nobody is denying that the party conventions are political theater. But you're wrong if you think political theater doesn't serve a purpose just prior to an election.
Ravanne: "Still, in the end it really means very little."
Sure, it means very little.....to you. No argument there.
