|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
Swish
Shipmate
# 8566
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Swish: Are you watching the Democratic Convention from Sheffield? Seriously? I tip my political junkie hat to you!
Bill did a good job, I think, and he came right out and said Obama is ready to be POTUS. And he didn't spend the whole time tooting his own horn, which has to have been a huge temptation.
ETA: And Kerry comes out hitting! Why couldn't he have done that four years ago???
Why thank you. I am, however, a student so 3am is nothing. I've no idea why Hilary was making such a fuss about getting a call at this time.
And I agree about Kerry - outstandingly attacking speech. Was it really the same man who waited months before rebuking the Swift Boat ad? And importantly, both Clinton's and Kerry's speeches had enough sound bites to keep the news that McCain has chosen his Veep off the headlines for a while.
Anyway, you've officially got your Democratic ticket now, and this should be a good speech. I haven't felt this patriotically American since I watched 8 West Wings in a row. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Sorry Ted. I was concentrating too hard on looking holy.
Posts: 114 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
[Nice speech, Biden!]
I bring the election subject up constantly with friends, acquaintances and those met casually through work by opening with non-commital questions about whether they're keeping track of the campaigns, then moving on to specific questions about what they think of Obama and McCain's position on this or that.
The Northwest has a comfortable multi-cultural and racial mix of citizens and my hometown is no exception with two large Navy bases, seven and ten miles away. To the point, I meet African-Americans everyday who come from every state in the union. The comment that stands out in the fivethirtyeight.com link is the reference to "reverse-Bradley effect". Every Black person I speak to about the election expresses enthusiasm about keeping informed (not so much from Whites) and every one has been hesitant when speaking positively of Obama until this white guy reveals his preference in candidates.
African-Americans are a huge percentage of our population. I think their preference is understated for just the reasons mentioned in the link. I also think that our black brothers and sisters are extremely cognizant of this moment in history, proud of the man who has won the Democratic nomination and will turn out in record numbers to seal his election.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
I've never understood why people are expected to vote for their state's "favorite son." I will certainly NOT be voting for the Senator from my state this November.
And Janet Napolitano seems to think Arizona can turn blue.
(But Tennessee -- and every other state, IMNSHO -- should have voted for Gore in 2000. Not that a majority of votes did him any good.)
(This was in response to RuthW)
[ 28. August 2008, 04:44: Message edited by: Pigwidgeon ]
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Atheist
Arrogant Bastard
# 12067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Exit polls are indeed not very reliable for all sorts of reasons, but when we're trying to figure out who will win the presidential election, we're not talking about exit polls now, obviously, as they can't be done until people start voting.
They were exit polls for primaries, so whether they'd ever been studied, I wouldn't know, but I guess the point will remain moot until the votes are counted.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Al Gore is a proven loser. Wesley Clark has never been elected to public office. So how exactly are they winners?
Odd, my information says that Al actually got more votes than Bush in 2000, but wasn't declared president due to some pretty dirty tricks and manufactured key results. Bit unfair to class him as aloser on that one.
Wesley Clark appears to have winner written all over him and up against a popular ex-POW, a general would have been a good counter. I'm sure there must have been others who would be performing better right now.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And about grooming ... it's a contested election, not something you get groomed for and appointed to. The party can push resources at people they like -- and they do that a lot -- but it comes down to who can appeal to the voters.
Yep, and when the votes are counted, I think they'll vote for the other guy.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Why are you so sure that the American electorate is so chauvinist and racist?
Based on what I see, hear and read and poll results which show Obama neck & neck with a bloke whose arse he should be kicking to Arizona.
Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Al Gore is a proven loser....
Hope this isn't DH territory, but Al Gore did not lose the 2000 election. All he lost was the Supreme Court election.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Not to mention winning a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar. I don't think I'd call him a proven loser.
Well, 2000 should have been a cakewalk for Gore. Yes, there was the Supreme Court fiasco, but Gore had a strong economy, a popular president, had more popular policies. By all accounts, Gore should have won easily.
As my old US studies friend once opined "Never underestimate the ability of Democrats to lose elections."
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Never underestimate the power of Karl Rove.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by The Atheist:
quote:
How fuckin' stoopid are the Democrats?
The thought of having a black or woman candidate was brilliant from a liberal perspective, but a good dose of reality should have carried the day, saving the liberal favourite for Veep. I swear the Dems don't really want the presidency.
The Democrats presumably voted for Barack Obama because they believed that he is the best person to become the President of the United States of America.
You appear to be saying that they should have chosen someone less able because Barack Obama is black. There is a technical term for that sort of behaviour.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Political Junkie from the UK here. Currently watching last nights Convention that I recorded - didn't quite manage to be up at 2 in the morning...
Was impressed by Bill's speech but then I've always liked William J. Kerry was excellent.
On the subject of the 2000 election, it is appalling, like the idea of a Christian being the president who instigates torture of prisoners in Cuba.
In the UK, my general theory is that Thatcher is to blame for everything... (Ok, confessing political colours here). Similarly Reagan has a lot to answer for - who do you think appointed the judges who gave the election to Bush? Even if Bush was the rightful winner of Florida, how can you in a democracy possibly stop the counting of the votes???? It's beyond me. But enough of that...
Can Obama win? I wonder.
But whilst this is the American election, it affects so many of us throughout the world - even the people who unlike me, aren't sad enough to watch.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Similarly Reagan has a lot to answer for - who do you think appointed the judges who gave the election to Bush? Even if Bush was the rightful winner of Florida, how can you in a democracy possibly stop the counting of the votes???? It's beyond me. But enough of that...
AFZ
Some of the Justices were appointed by Reagan, the others by George H.W. Bush. And of course the Governor of Florida in 2000 was Jeb Bush. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. No, that couldn't have had anything to do with it. Of course not.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Well, 2000 should have been a cakewalk for Gore. Yes, there was the Supreme Court fiasco, but Gore had a strong economy, a popular president, had more popular policies. By all accounts, Gore should have won easily.
I don't know what Gore should have done - but I do know what he did do - overturned a seventeen* point deficit to win the popular vote.
I've no idea what you mean by "By all accounts, Gore should have won easily." when the polling data (and for that matter the media) was that biassed against him.
* Yes I can count - scroll down for the Aug 4/5 figures.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Even if Bush was the rightful winner of Florida, how can you in a democracy possibly stop the counting of the votes???? It's beyond me. But enough of that...
Can Obama win? I wonder.
When after many weeks it's pretty obvious further counting won't change the outcome? I keep thinking back to Gore's (eventual) very gracious concession speech and believe if he'd demonstrated that spirit a few weeks before the election we wouldn't have ended up with W.
And it seems to me the conspiracy types want it both ways: Bush and his cronies are utterly incompetent but still able to hold together a scheme to steal the Presidency.
To The Atheist: IIRC this is the third time I've said it on this thread and I apologize for the repetition.
IMO if Obama loses this election it won't be because he's black, it'll be because he's a lot farther 'left' than this country is. I know you wankers laugh at what we call left but it's all relative - we think you're a bunch of fascist pinko atheistic reprobates speeding down the slope toward Hell, and serve you right. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Balls I get tired of hearing Democrats whine about that election. You lost. Learn and get over it.
Unfortunately, democrats often get too involved in things like being PUMAs and less involved in getting their people elected. They often have an overdeveloped sense of "fair". It's not. Even Al Gore admits he gave up too easily (probably because it was "fair"). That he gave up at all is one more proof he wasn't worthy of the presidency.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Even Al Gore admits he gave up too easily (probably because it was "fair"). That he gave up at all is one more proof he wasn't worthy of the presidency.
I disagree completely. Paradoxically, I think this proves how worthy he was. I very much doubt George W would have won in 04 without 9/11 too.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
(Unlike Swish, I watched the replays)
Great stuff from Bill Clinton, Kerry and Biden. But Hillary really hit the home run the previous evening.
We really dont have set piece speeches of such quality and fluency at UK party conferences. It's odds on that Obama's finale will be in the zone as well. He seems to handle such big occasions very well - and he does have a lot of ammunition now.
Karl Rove tactics apart, makes me wonder what the Republican party convention will deliver next week.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Does Obama's response to this indicate he's not all that big on free speech?
quote:
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign and its allies, mindful of the lessons of the swift boat attacks of 2004, have begun an aggressive, multipronged attack on an advertisement running in swing states that seeks to link the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to former domestic terrorist William Ayers.
With threats of legal action, boycotts and a response ad launched quietly to avoid publicity, the Obama campaign has put conservative donors and television stations on notice that 2008 will not be 2004, when Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, waited weeks to respond to attacks on his Vietnam War record and ultimately did so ineffectively.
Christian Pinkston, a spokesman for the American Issues Project, which is airing the anti-Obama ad, called the response intimidation and harassment.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Even Al Gore admits he gave up too easily (probably because it was "fair"). That he gave up at all is one more proof he wasn't worthy of the presidency.
I disagree completely. Paradoxically, I think this proves how worthy he was. I very much doubt George W would have won in 04 without 9/11 too.
AFZ
Worthy? PAH! Gore was a loser. Clearly. He is great spokesman for Global Warming. He woulda made a shitty president. I think he found his niche a few years too late. The only thing that makes him look good is that GW was even worse, which is hardly a ringing endorsement for Gore.
You really do have to wonder about a politician that can't carry his own state. I mean it is widely observed in polling that everyone hates Congress but most LOVE their own congressperson. It really does have to make you wonder what they knew about him. I don't have to wonder though, he was a loser.
As for GW and 04, in that we are in agreement.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
Does Obama's response to this indicate he's not all that big on free speech?
No. It means he was paying attention in 2004.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Even Al Gore admits he gave up too easily (probably because it was "fair"). That he gave up at all is one more proof he wasn't worthy of the presidency.
That's called damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Unfortunately, democrats often get too involved in things like being PUMAs and less involved in getting their people elected.
As some trivial background checking shows, the person leading the PUMAs has only ever been known to be a McCain supporter and is most probably a Republican concern troll. Hillaryis44 is almost certainly another Republican false-flag operation. Now there may be some genuine democratic PUMAs - but where?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Atheist
Arrogant Bastard
# 12067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
You appear to be saying that they should have chosen someone less able because Barack Obama is black. There is a technical term for that sort of behaviour.
Realism?
"Less able" isn't quite right, because I think there are others who would be more likely to win = more able.
quote:
Originally posted by mjg:
IMO if Obama loses this election it won't be because he's black, it'll be because he's a lot farther 'left' than this country is. I know you wankers laugh at what we call left but it's all relative - we think you're a bunch of fascist pinko atheistic reprobates speeding down the slope toward Hell, and serve you right.
Surely, that would affect the overall Dem v Rep vote, though? Obama seems no further left than other Dems and less so than Al Gore and as the Dems picked him, I would expect that left-leaning to be more apparent in the Congressional polls.
I agree though, that Americans are generally less than ambidextrous when it comes to left/right.
Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
I agree though, that Americans are generally less than ambidextrous when it comes to left/right.
Surely you can't be suggesting that "Far right, less far right" fails to count as ambidextrous???
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I've never understood why people are expected to vote for their state's "favorite son." I will certainly NOT be voting for the Senator from my state this November.
And Janet Napolitano seems to think Arizona can turn blue.
Well, yes, but... no Democrat not from an Old South background has won a US Presidential election since 1960. And Kennedy had a Southerner on the ticket. In fact if you count Kentucky as the South then no Democrat has won without a Southerner on the ticket for over sixty years.
Mayeb it doesn't make a difference, but up to this week the Powers that Be in the Democrat party certainly acted as if they thought it did.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
(Unlike Swish, I watched the replays)
Watched it live at about 2am...
quote:
We really dont have set piece speeches of such quality and fluency at UK party conferences.
Cos unlike Americans we can't do the hand-on-heart stuff without sounding like hypocrites who can barely restrain themselves from giggling. Last night Bill Clinton actually DID put his hand on his heart when he mentioned America and his family. Brits can't get away with that level of corn and haven't been able to since at least the late 19th century. (Dickens, Wilde, Little Nell, Heart of Stone...)
Hillary Clinton's speech might have just worked in a UK party-political meeting, though only just, but Bill Clinton's & Biden's would not have. Someone would have started groaning or chuckling. No-one could have taken it seriously.
British party political rhetoric, like British parliamentary language, tends to be less pretentious, less in-your-face patgriotic (especially on the left), funnier, rantier, and also (believe it or not) nastier. The Americans often leave the knocking copy to the TV ads, the Brits (& Irish and especially the Australians) come out with it in speeches. I think it has got more boring recently. Maybe that's because the downside of making even one mistake is so much greater than the upside of making a dozen good points that every speech is edited to blandness.
We have had good speakers at our UK party conferences - though more Labour than Tory and more from the left of the Labour party then the right. Perhaps political rhetoric survived in the trade unions and ward branches for longer than elsewhere. Or perhaps it just that if you don't really believe you are goping to win you can take more risks and say what you think. The "New Labour" project involved a large amount of self-censorship.
Gordon Brown can be a stirring speaker, but much better on international affairs than domestic, and at the moral than the pragmatic. Gordon Brown on why we should be nice to poor Africans is brilliant. Gordon Brown on why we should have this-or-that tax rate is tedious and sounds shifty. Blair used to be a very effective speaker though he lost it after getting to be PM - too smarmy and clever to sound good. He came over as fake. I didn't think Foot and Benn were that good (maybe I heard Foot when he was already a little past it and Benn is better on TV or especially radio, he is more of a fireside chatterer than a rabble-rouser) but Dennis Skinner really could speak and (dare I say it in this context?) so could Neil Kinnock.
Whoops...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You really do have to wonder about a politician that can't carry his own state. I mean it is widely observed in polling that everyone hates Congress but most LOVE their own congressperson.
I do love my Congressman (i.e., Representative), but the only nice thing I can say about "my" senior Senator is that he missed 407 votes in the Senate (63.8%) this session due to campaigning. He missed more votes than any other Senator. The less he votes, the happier I am.
For comparison: Obama missed 290 votes (45.5%), and Clinton missed 206 votes (32.3%).
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I can't believe you left out Tony Benn, Ken - though I suppose he would come over as communist to mainstream America.
(Of course Enoch Powell was said to be a good orator - but the facist tendencies were just a tiny little smidgen of a bit of a problem to most people. But no one has forgotten the 'rivers of blood' speech.)
A little bit of Benn ...
[ 28. August 2008, 18:48: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Cos unlike Americans we can't do the hand-on-heart stuff without sounding like hypocrites who can barely restrain themselves from giggling. Last night Bill Clinton actually DID put his hand on his heart when he mentioned America and his family. Brits can't get away with that level of corn and haven't been able to since at least the late 19th century. (Dickens, Wilde, Little Nell, Heart of Stone...)
This was an example of the measured reaction last time I recall any major UK politician trying to wrap himself in the flag - the army were really unimpressed. He himself now says quote:
For two years I had the privilege of running the Ministry of Defence. ... After I had been there a short time, I committed a horrendous error by making a party conference speech that used the SAS motto “Who dares wins”. Critics said I had exploited the armed forces for party political reasons. That wasn’t my intention, but I recognised that I had offended against the code of the department, and I sought a meeting with every chief of staff to make an unqualified apology.
And I notice you won't find the text of that particular speech on his website.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Unfortunately, democrats often get too involved in things like being PUMAs and less involved in getting their people elected.
As some trivial background checking shows, the person leading the PUMAs has only ever been known to be a McCain supporter and is most probably a Republican concern troll. Hillaryis44 is almost certainly another Republican false-flag operation. Now there may be some genuine democratic PUMAs - but where?
Figures there would be a Republican exploiting the treand. And Yes, it IS a trend. I live with a PUMA. I am pretty sure that if she doesn't get off her high horse by the election, I'm going to point out that the Fiscal Conservative in the room is voting for HER boy, so she damn well better too!!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Screw Hillary, this is about:
No how, No way, no McBush.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Well, 2000 should have been a cakewalk for Gore. Yes, there was the Supreme Court fiasco, but Gore had a strong economy, a popular president, had more popular policies. By all accounts, Gore should have won easily.
I don't know what Gore should have done - but I do know what he did do - overturned a seventeen* point deficit to win the popular vote.
I've no idea what you mean by "By all accounts, Gore should have won easily." when the polling data (and for that matter the media) was that biassed against him.
* Yes I can count - scroll down for the Aug 4/5 figures.
Simple, popular president Clinton, a booming 1990s economy, the people prefer Democratic policies over Republican policies. Anyone but Gore would have easily tossed Bush back to his ranch in Texas.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
I am still in "wow" mode over Obama's acceptance speech-he took the fight to them!
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
It was a hell of a speech--and I don't usually bother listening, figuring I can read the synopsis in the paper the next day. It was worth the time. And I came to Obama only after Kucinich and Edwards, so I'm not a hard-core Obamamaniac.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I had the speech highly recommended to me , and am keeping an eye on Youtube. I heard it was a home run.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Did anyone else catch the folks who came on earlier? "America needs a president who puts Barney Smith ahead of Smith Barney." ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) That guy has probably told one version or another of that joke most of his life - I wonder how many of his buddies back home were laughing at the fact that he got to inflict on 75,000 people in the stadium plus a national television audience.
I was amazed to listen to the commentators on Tavis Smiley right after the convention coverage on PBS -- Cornel West and a woman I didn't recognize. They were dissatisfied with the speech and kept referring to how "the brother" had dropped the baton, saying they didn't think the speech reached lofty rhetorical heights and didn't talk enough about the black civil rights movement that made it possible for Obama to stand there tonight. And I thought: wow, they just don't get it -- he's running to be president of the United States of America, not the chair of the NAACP.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I had the speech highly recommended to me , and am keeping an eye on Youtube. I heard it was a home run.
A grand slam, Kel.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
stagflation
Apprentice
# 14061
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I had the speech highly recommended to me , and am keeping an eye on Youtube. I heard it was a home run.
A grand slam, Kel.
--------------------
so that's what i think, y'know
Posts: 16 | From: kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stagflation
Apprentice
# 14061
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stagflation:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I had the speech highly recommended to me , and am keeping an eye on Youtube. I heard it was a home run.
A grand slam, Kel.
Sorry technology confuses me sometimes. What I meant to say was...The speech and indeed all political racial issues are irrelevant. The presidential election is invariably decided by the respective heights of the candidates. therefore Barrack wins. the republicans should have found an ex;basketball player. I,m sorry I came to the discussion so late as obviously i could have saved you all some time.
--------------------
so that's what i think, y'know
Posts: 16 | From: kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Did anyone else catch the folks who came on earlier? "America needs a president who puts Barney Smith ahead of Smith Barney." That guy has probably told one version or another of that joke most of his life - I wonder how many of his buddies back home were laughing at the fact that he got to inflict on 75,000 people in the stadium plus a national television audience.
I was amazed to listen to the commentators on Tavis Smiley right after the convention coverage on PBS -- Cornel West and a woman I didn't recognize. They were dissatisfied with the speech and kept referring to how "the brother" had dropped the baton, saying they didn't think the speech reached lofty rhetorical heights and didn't talk enough about the black civil rights movement that made it possible for Obama to stand there tonight. And I thought: wow, they just don't get it -- he's running to be president of the United States of America, not the chair of the NAACP.
Cornel West is an overrated ideologue who dresses the part of Frederick Douglas without 1/2 the wisdom
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Ruth,
If I'm not mistaken, the guy's name is in fact Barney Smith.
I was really concerned about how Sen. Obama would approach the MLK speech anniversary without being accused of "playing the race card", but to say nothing about the speech would be an insult to Dr. King and and rather cowardly to boot. It seemed to me to be an impossible dilemma, and almost to the end I thought he might say nothing.
Instead, it was there, but so subtle that I think it was utterly appropriate. Brilliant!
Greta
[ 29. August 2008, 06:17: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by The Atheist:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
You appear to be saying that they should have chosen someone less able because Barack Obama is black. There is a technical term for that sort of behaviour.
Realism?
If this were hangman you wouldn't be that far off.
quote:
"Less able" isn't quite right, because I think there are others who would be more likely to win = more able.
Well, the last two white guys to have a go didn't exactly cover themselves with glory. So you may be over estimating the ability of your Aryan candidate. I should add, at this point, two things. Firstly that the McCain has the racist vote pretty much sown up as a result of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Secondly, what the bleep is the point of wanting the Democrats to win if you think the Klan should be allowed a veto on their candidate.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
What did you reckon to the Obama speech, ken? Just seen the re-run on Freeview 81. "Historic" is an over-used term, but I think it probably justified that label. For Invesco field, the best analogy is probably not "home run" but a fourth quarter 99 yard drive by the offence resulting in a potentially game-winning touchdown.
Read my sig. If US and UK politics are ever to get out of their present state of cynicism, change is necessary. Obama looks like a change agent to me. Or to quote Jim Wallis, a "wind-changer". He sure isn't the "same old same old". Hope he wins, and wins big.
I accept your flag-waving argument. One of the differences is of course that in the UK we don't elect a head of state, which may make our politics more about adversarial differences than anything we have in common. I think that may add to the problems of politics in the UK in a different way. I'm not sure how we get out of our mire. But Obama may help the US to get out of its mire.
[late edit "If US and UK .."]
[ 29. August 2008, 09:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
I thought it was a very good speech, but not a great one. It was more of a pragmatic text (i.e. less exciting in the rhetorical flourishes than we have come to expect) and perhaps a bit long.
But the speech was given a lot of jobs to do. Paint Obama as an ordinary guy; lay out in detail a fair number of policy initiatives; inoculate Obama on insufficient patriotism, being overly wimpy, etc., criticize McCain and all while claiming the 'moral highground' on positive campaigning and pushing for a change of the tone of debate.
If the speech sounded a bit less poetic than normal [not that it completely lacked rhetorical flourishes] then perhaps it was because it was overtaxed in function.
As Mark Shields put it, if he gets to write an inaugural address, who cares about that.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
If I'm not mistaken, the guy's name is in fact Barney Smith.
Yes -- that's why I'm convinced he's told that joke before. A lot!
Obama's speech wasn't on the level of "I Have a Dream," but I don't think that would have served his purposes anyway. He was appealing to swing voters, and I think he did all he could. And the criticism of McCain was pitched well.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
MSNBC reports Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, will be McCain's VP candidate. Wonder how this will play with the PUMAs?
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Swish
Shipmate
# 8566
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
MSNBC reports Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, will be McCain's VP candidate. Wonder how this will play with the PUMAs?
Obviously a play to them. I consider myself quite well versed in American politics (for a Brit, at any rate) and I had to go straight to her Wikipedia page. Apparently, she's served half of one term as Alaska (that old swing state) Governor and before that served on a city council.
I think McCain has vastly overestimated the number of PUMA's here. Palin is very "pro-life" in abortion terms which seems to be something American feminists care quite deeply about. Her non-Washington-insider status might help in states which have a reputation for being quite anti-Washington, such as Montana, but I think McCain has paid to much attention to the news channels and counted too much on Clinton supporters, the vast majority of whom will, in my opinion, fall back in line now they've made their protest.
--------------------
Sorry Ted. I was concentrating too hard on looking holy.
Posts: 114 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
So Sarah Palin... really going for Hillary aren't they?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
So, the question is, how do we feel about President Palin?
Because I give it 3 years till it's true.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Comet no doubt knows far more about Palin than any of us -- somebody lure her over here to comment!
PS on picking a woman as running mate: shrooooood.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bonabri
Shipmate
# 304
|
Posted
How on earth will she find time to continue hosting Hell?
Posts: 274 | From: Brighton and Hove, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Based on her wikipedia article:
Pro: Quasi-fiscal conservative. Granted benefits to same sex couples. Seems like a strong leader.
Con: Pro-life and anti-gay marriage. Blech.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Swish:
Palin is very "pro-life" in abortion terms which seems to be something American feminists care quite deeply about.
Yes, but don't forget that not every American woman voter advocates abortion as a means of birth control. Whether or not you want to believe it, Obama lost a lot of "swing voters" when he came out as pro-abortion. (And don't bother telling me that "no one is pro-abortion." In this arena, that's bull.)
But Palin? Boy, I did not see that coming.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
I don't know enough about American politics but this may just be a very very smart move.
How many swing voters, how many women who are conservative and would never vote Hilary and how many PUMAs might he attract?
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Swish
Shipmate
# 8566
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:
Originally posted by Swish:
Palin is very "pro-life" in abortion terms which seems to be something American feminists care quite deeply about.
Yes, but don't forget that not every American woman voter advocates abortion as a means of birth control. Whether or not you want to believe it, Obama lost a lot of "swing voters" when he came out as pro-abortion. (And don't bother telling me that "no one is pro-abortion." In this arena, that's bull.)
But Palin? Boy, I did not see that coming.
I do see your point, but it wasn't one I was making. I was saying that the core of Clinton's supporters care deeply about issues that Palin is a spoken critic of, and I believe that this will sway it for them much more than any token female on McCain's ticket. Those who are very pro life were not particularly likely to vote Clinton or Obama anyway.
And I do think it is possible to hold that abortion is wrong but making it illegal merely forces many to go through dangerous backstreet abortions, which benefits no-one. And maintaining that this view is not legitimate merely polarises an incredibly complicated and involves deep moral issues, which only serves the extremes.
Oh, and BBC just summed it up with their headline "McCain picks women running mate." They've also mentioned the words little-known at least 3 times in the last minute.
--------------------
Sorry Ted. I was concentrating too hard on looking holy.
Posts: 114 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
