Olbermann Delivers a Great Speech
I’m glad to see that, like myself, there have been many that have been inspired by Keith Olbermann’s courageous and eloquent ripping of Donald Rumsfeld’s you know what. Writing for the Huffington Post, Richard Greene, a professional presentation and communications coach, concludes that Olbermann’s speech is "the greatest speech of the decade." Now, I ain’t no pro, but that was one great speech by Olbermann. What’s curious is how starved we, the modern American public, are for eloquence and courage (and us, liberals, appear to be more famished than others). Richard Greene does a great job of breaking down and, deservedly, praising Olbermann’s outstanding job:
The host of a national television program gave a speech. A real speech. In fact, a great speech. In my opinion, probably the greatest speech, thus far, of this decade.
That a deep, thoughtful speech could wend it’s way through the halls of the corporate media and box out, for a few glorious moments, the breaking news coverage of John Mark Karr’s airplane landing on a runway in Colorado or Brittney Spears or Jessica Simpson or Paris Hilton or Tom Cruise or polygamists and the rest of the NewsPorn that passes as news while the country endures – and does not seem to care about – non-stop death in Iraq, a looming attack on yet another sovereign nation, a complete mess in the Middle East, upcoming elections to be conducted on electronic voting machines that are completely hackable, illegal wiretapping, a culture of fear and an apparent Houdini terrorist leader who has outwitted the entire American military for 5 years… is pretty close to a miracle.
[...]
Listen to the subtlety. Without calling names he blasted Donald Rumsfeld and everyone else in the Bush Administration more powerfully than if he had filled his entire 6 minutes with 4 letter expletives.
The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
[...]
Listen and watch the history. Only by the deep understanding of history was Olberman able to do what needed to be done – to turn the “Appeasement of the Fascists” argument around on Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Rove and the Bush Administration. He uses the much maligned Neville Chamberlain against those who use him so often. A brilliant turn.
In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For, in their time, there was another government faced with trueperil – with a growing evil – powerful and remorseless. That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the secret information. It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s – questioning their intellect and their morality.
That government was England’s, in the 1930′s.
It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone to England. It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords. It knew that the hard evidence it had received, which contradicted it’s own policies, it’s own conclusions – it’s own omniscience – needed to be dismissed.
The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.
Most relevant of all – it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile – at best morally or intellectually confused.
That critic’s name… was Winston Churchill.
Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.
[...]
And, listen to the humility… always a sign of great speakers who understand, at least on some level, that they are mere channels for that which flows through them…
Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute… I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow. But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed, “confused” or “immoral.
With this I must disagree, Mr. Olberman. Perhaps because the void has been so deep and for so long you, Keith, may be unaware that you have stepped, firmly, into it. Your words, not in a thousand years, but in 6 minutes, stirred the soul of a nation thirsty for the courage and brilliance of Mr. Murrow and were hardly distinguishable from his. You have earned the right to quote the great Edward R. Murrow on television. And you have earned the respect of those who have longed for a real journalist . . . and a real speechwriter and speech giver to step up for America and against those who might have forgotten what we are, indeed, fighting for.
May your courage be rewarded by ratings that rival those of John Mark Karr’s.
I couldn’t agree more.
