There was some worry that after a four hour program, which despite the excitement did have its duller moments, the crowd might be worn out with the anticipation and only mildly enthused when Obama finally took the stage.

There was nothing to worry about. The moment delivered on the hype and then some. But objectively, it was the presence and spectacle of it all that carried more emotion than the speech itself. Which is not to criticize the speech, just to recognize the impact of the collective energy of 85,000 souls - men, women, children - who had made a pilgrimage of sorts to the coming of a new America.

Obama’s statement that the moment ” is not about me, it’s about you” was entirely on target, even it it was the politically expedient thing to say. I got a crop of e-mails as Obama was speaking asking me for my feelings, I would have to say that above all there was within the stadium a universal feeling of crossing a bridge after a long and painful journey. We were not quite home yet, but everyone seemed to sense that we were a lot closer than we’ve ever been.

Does it sound like cheerleading to say the speech was a spiritual moment? Again, not the words but “the moment” of it all. Similar to the day Mandela was released from prison, there was in the air a palpable aura of imminent change for America. Whether Obama is the change or the just the catalyst the sparks one is yet to be seen. But if you turned around from watching Obama and looked deeply into the audience, you quickly realized that the change we are all looking for had happened in the stands long before Obama came on stage.

The question facing us is do we all require an Obama to lead us there, or are we brave enough to make the changes ourselves? We are the change we seek, indeed.

Quite a few people during the week questioned whether Rev. Jesse Jackson would show up to the convention, especially since his son, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. - a national campaign chair and early supporer - took the spotlight on stage earlier in the week, a position Jackson Sr. may have held in conventions past.

But the senior Jackson, comments aside, has always been an Obama supporter, and not only did he show up, as I mentioned in an earlier post he was rock star and along with Cory Booker, the most sought after by news cameras and autograph seekers. The Reverend pulled me and Michelle Norris of National Public Radio aside on the stadium floor to remind us of the history that wasn’t being spoken publicly that night.

He made the point that the event surrounding King’s “I Have a Dream” speech was not a celebration at all but a dangerous protest. He contrasted the number of Black sports and TV celebrities in the stadium with the fact that there were only a handful of Black professional athletes in 1963 and almost no African Americans at all on television, in films and definitely not playing at the Division I college level. Jackson also noted the major businessmen in the crowd and the number of Black people with special seating because of their status as fundraisers and major bundlers in contrast to the economic state of the Black community at the time of the March on Washington.

He said all that not to put a damper on the moment but to put emphasis on how far this nationa has come in those 45 years, with the caveat that after the celebration was over - and even if Obama ultimately wins- there is still a lot of work in the trenches that needs to be done, and that in the joy of victory we can’t forget people who are still left out. It was appropriate perspective.

If the official speeches did not emphasize the history of the moment, people in the audience kept it in focus.

Marian Wright Edelman, head of the Children’s Defense Fund, looked further back to African American freedom by prominently wearing a Harriet Tubman cameo.

There’s the highly visible corporate presence - tents sponsored by Google, lounges by Microsoft, badges by Qwest, hospitality rooms by Viacom, and the fun interactive marketing like Captain Morgan (of the rum) who is conducting is own independent campaign for President of Fun (OK, that’s the line the chicks in the hot pants gave me).

And there’s the more undercover corporate presence, in this instance all the people walking around with passes that read HONORED GUEST and FINANCE GUEST. The events that the press is not invited to are the ones populated by these people - some celebrities, some regular citizens and many corporate executives who have “maxed out” in their giving (given the maximum amount of $2,300) or more importantly bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars as fundraisers.

GLOSSARY: Bundling - the name given to the activity of raising money from others but gathering the checks in one central point (i.e. bundles) and taking credit for the full amount as opposed to mere peons who just gave their $2300. Note: This activity gets you a seat at the inauguration without exception.

Michelle Obama’s moment, while not infused with the passion and power of the evening’s Kennedy moment still carried its own electricity

This time her critics were listening for the signals that would allow a still sizable number of them to see if hope they see in Barack Obama can also carry over to the possible First Lady. In this regard, she acquitted herself well. Clearly her speechwriters knew what was at stake and they sent all the right messages.

She deftly name-checked key themes to attract Hillary supporters, tying the right of women to vote to dream of Dr. King, reassuring the women who though this moment should be about a woman that their dream could also be fulfilled by the election of a black president. She also gave Hillary her due for the “18 milion cracks in the glass ceiling” and received a rousing round of applause from the Hill camp because of it.

She successfully reinforced the image of herself as wife, daughter, community servant and working Mom. She emphasized the love of country that had been questioned and used the proper feminist phrase of equal pay for equal work.

The family moment at the end was authentic and only mildly staged. You can’t stage manage kids no matter how hard you try, and as one friend remarked, there was visible love in Barack’s smiles and the children’s voices talking to Daddy. It was a moment in time for Black families that we can all be proud of.

As a veteran of five conventions now - ‘84,’88, ‘92, 04 and now - I can say without equivocation that there has never, NEVER been this level of African American presence at a Democratic Convention. And it’s not simply more delegates you’ll see on television, it’s reflected at nearly every level from the expected service workers to the arena managers to security, and most visibly and surprisingly in the ranks of media.

Given the historic nature of these particular ceremonies, it’s not surprising that Black-focused media outlets (small and large) who might not normally cover a convention gavel to gavel are doing so this - TV ONE, BET, WVON Radio, WPFW, The Washington Informer and well, Ebony.

What is surprising, considering the many jobs for diverse journalists that have been lost in recent months is the significant presence of Black producers, camera people, show runners, print reporters and on-camera journalists who have been sent to be a part of the activities. Any compnay worth it salt is of course going to have Black commentators giving their spin on the first Balck nominee of the party and what it means. But that doesn’t immediately explain the people who will be doing the work behind the scenes.

This strength in numbers reflects a fairly dramatic shift in the level of responsibility to given to diverse employees of all colors. A shift that, had we been paying attention, could have predicted that this was the year for someone like Barack Obama.

The world is changing - whether we’re ready or not.

Even while some pundits discuss the likely fallout from an Obama victory in regard to limiting civil rights, few have talked about the possible benefits to African American business, particuarly in the lobbying arena.

Lobbying is fundamentally a game of influence. Fortunes are gained or lost by the ability of lobbying firms to convince their corporate clients that they have an inside connection to decision makers in the House, Senate and White House and can have some impact of swaying an opinion - or at least ensuring that an opinion gets a hearing.

In that dynamic, only are relatively few Black lobbyists have been able to break through to the big leagues, representing major powers in telecom, Big Tobacco, consumer goods, retailers, automakers and more. When Republic presidents win, Republican lobbyists clean up. When Democrats win the House and Senate, Democratic lobbyists get the inside edge.

So naturally with the possible first Black president in the wings, an Obama White House could mean boom times for African American lobbyists, right? Not necessarily.

I talked with a number of lobbyists (who asked not to be identified) and they had what could only be consider a cautious optimism.

A few quotes:

“He’s been talking he’s talking anti-lobbyist since the start of he campaign. He’s actually been more anti-lobby than any candidate in years.”

“I understand the whole symbolic connection of lobbyists to the whole image of “change in Washington” but it’s ironic. For the very first time in history, we [black lobbyists] have at least the appearance of a strong connection to a president, and he’s running as the anti-lobby candidate.”

“To make matters worse, at the top tiers, Barack’s campaign is not significantly diverse. The people running the show are largely connected to people like Tom Daschle historically.”

“Many black lobbyists will bluff it a bit, to be quite honest. They’ll play the perception that they have more clout than the next guy, but it many respects a high number of black lobbyists are farther away from this campaign in string connections that they were from Al Gore or John Kerry.”

“Washington is a town where we should thinking right now “This is our breakthrough”. We should be thinking of this the way people thought when Marion Barry won as mayor – when black businesses scored major victories in a very short time because of their connections. But this is more akin to Tony Williams as mayor and a much more broad group of people expected to see the benefits. Still, most of the lobbying shops are run by Republicans who have no connection at all, so as long as you can present a credible connection to the campaign, this should still be good times.”

Historical perspective is always important in these moments and a fact little known by those under a certain age is that now NAACP chairman and then Georgia State Senator Julian Bond once carried the halo of being “The One”, at least according a poll of Black America done by Johnson Publishing and appearing in the August 1971 edition of JET.

In a national poll of African Americans, the poll found that 33% of the Black community “strongly preferred” Julian Bond as a candidate to run for president in the upcoming 1972 presidential election. Problem was, Bond was too young at the time, at the tender young age of 32 (candidates must be 35). Cleveland Mayor Carl Stokes came in a close second with 30%. Both far distanced the competition which included Rep. Ron Dellums, Rep. Charles Diggs, Jesse Jackson and comedian/activist Dick Gregory.

Once he did become of age, Bond toyed with the idea, if only for a minute.

Bond gave me a quick interview by e-mail:

Here’s as much as I can recall.

I circulated to black elected officials a proposal for what I called a “Favorite-Son-Or-Daughter Presidential Campaign” – or rather a series of campaigns. The idea would be that because some prominent black elected official presently holding office in, for example, California, would be better known to California black voters than he/she might be to voters in other states, that person should run for President as a “favorite son (or daughter)” candidate in California while other well-known black elected officials would do the same in their home states - all of them pledged to a single set of campaign issues important to blacks..

This would not only lower the costs of running a single candidate nationwide, it would in my opinion have strengthened the chance of electing convention delegates tied to a single set of campaign issues.

There was little interest in this idea – and in 1976, I decided to run myself. I announced, registered with the Federal Elections Commission, and started off.

I raised very little money, little interest, and had only a minute volunteer staff. After some months I abandoned the campaign. But I did have some very attractive bumper stickers and even some t-shirts, combined what was then a heavy nationwide speaking schedule with campaign appearances.