I was disappointed by the speech. Your mileage may vary, of course. But it was basically standard Democratic Convention Boilerplate: nothing we haven't seen before from Obama, or for that matter, every Democratic presidential candidate in living memory.
Maybe the problem is that Obama has given too many good speeches. All Kerry or Bush had to do was show up on the podium and not vomit on their shoes, and we were impressed. Obama would have needed to channel Martin Luther King, Jr on a steroids to knock our socks off. This implies, that McCain will get a bigger bounce than Obama from his convention appearance; we'll see.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"Obama would have needed to channel Martin Luther King, Jr on a steroids to knock our socks off. This implies, that McCain will get a bigger bounce than Obama from his convention appearance; we'll see."
This implies that posting while drunk is really, really, really NOT A GOOD IDEA.
Megan,
I thought the speech was exactly as you described it. Once more it was really angry and nasty and not positive at all. There were lots of reasons why McCain is evil but not one reason, beyond Democratic Boilerplate, to vote for Obama.
You are usually a good indication of media conventional wisdom. If the speech didn't work for you, I doubt it worked for many people.
It does seem that many of the great political speeches in American history do pop out of nowhere.
I think the expectations were too high. And policy substance is boring.
"And policy substance is boring."
It is at its most boring when it is rediculous boilerplate promises that everyone knows won't happen and have been made 100 times before. When someone has a geniune new idea, like welfare reform back in the day, or an idea that has caught the zeitgeist of the time, like healthcare reform in 1992, it is not boring.
Well, maybe if someone assassinates him, it will pique your interest.
read that post again tomorrow. it was a joke.
Wow, another incisive post from the best blogger ever!
I hope you choke on your vomit.
"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."
That has got to be the weakest line of the entire political season. You say a lot of bad things about McCain, but not having courage is certainly not one of them. It is especially gauling coming from Obama; someone whose idea of braving danger is a tough Chicago council meeting. As a veteran I really take excpetion to Obama throwing a cheapshot at someone who won the medal of honor's courage.
Megan, you prove that we are a nation of whiners.
John writes: "Once more it was really angry and nasty and not positive at all. "
Angry? Seriously? That seems completely idiotic to me. He never once seemed angry. And his belief in the promise of America is quite positive.
But then you're a Bush lover - you support torture and endless, pointless war - so your viewpoint seems utterly inhuman and irrational to me.
The "gates of hell" comment is not a cheap shot. It's saying that McCain is more interested in Iraq than al Qaeda.
That would have been cool if they would have copied the open ceremonies in Beijing and have Obama rise after the speech and sky walk around the stadium.
Megan, kindly remove panties from ass-crack before posting in future.
"The "gates of hell" comment is not a cheap shot. It's saying that McCain is more interested in Iraq than al Qaeda."
Of course we have killed 1000s of Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq and there are no longer any Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan where Obama claims to want to send troops. Right now the only obvious place to go after Al Qaeda besides a few places in Iraq is Pakistan. Does Obama plan to invade there? How does he plan to get UN authorization for that?
Further, Al Qaeda hasn't attacked the US since 9-11. Either it is not a threat and McCain's ignoring it doesn't mean much or it is a threat and Bush has done a few things right in combating it? which is it?
Megan you're too old, too out of touch. You don't get it. It was not Democratic boilerplate. It wasn't very partisan at all. Many times he emphasized things that aren't typical Democratic fare. What he said about gays/lesbians and about abortion at the end was not boilerplate. Whether you agree with the policies or not it was a monumental speech. It did everything it needed to. Get with it Megan.
John -
Did you know that Al Qaeda didn't have a presence in Iraq until after we invaded them? No? You didn't? What a fucking surprise.
It seems like suppressing terrorism (that wasn't his own) was one thing that bastard Saddam Hussein was actually good at.
Granted, the foreign policy stuff was incoherent (that's the nicest thing I can say about it), but I found the delivery inspiring and found myself wishing he would have run for Governor instead of Senator and waited 8 years before going after the White House. That way, I might actually consider supporting him. As it stands, no way will I vote for Obama no matter how great a speaker he is. Now or ever.
"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."
And Obama will?
Go for it, Barack! I'd love to see you personally go to Pakistan to kick Osama's ass. Perhaps you can go undercover, as Indonesian citizen Barry Soetoro.
Megan,
He could have garfed up a furball and talked about how he and Michelle hated whitey and the Obamabots would be on here raving about how great it was. It is really pretty hopeless to argue with them. Good for you for giving an honest opinion of a very average speech. Just delete all of the insults and obsenities they will clog your site with over the next few hours.
I'm so obsessed with you Megan. I watch your page constantly while scratching my skin with a sharp knife. You will post. You will be mine. You will rue the moment you post. You shall be vanquished! Hoohoohoohahaha!
"What he said about gays/lesbians and about abortion at the end was not boilerplate."
The abortion thing was basically the same "safe, legal, and rare" thing we've been hearing since 1992.
Obama ascended to the Democratic nomination by being the most anti-Iraq War of the non-lunatic Democrats. And tonight his withdrawl plan got one vague line.
If that isn't proof that the surge worked, I don't know what is.
Twenty-one posts in and Megan for saying the speech was average has already had people hoping she chokes on her own vomit and talking about her ass crack. The Obama people really know good rethoric. Classy bunch they are.
Why don't you read what your wiser colleagues Coates and Sullivan wrote about it. The fact that it moved both of them like it did is evidence enough that it wasn't just boilerplate. People weren't inspired this way by Kerry or Gore.
Wow. I might have agreed that we weren't a nation of whiners...and then I read the troll response. Good job, guys.
Really, here's how the speech broke down.
First 15 minutes: Attacks on Bush, hoping to splash onto McCain.
Second 15 minutes: Standard liberal boilerplate domestic policy.
Third 15 minutes: Incoherent foreign policy.
Final 15 minutes: Weak compromise offers on social issues that only extremists on both sides care about (like abortion.)
It was very well delivered, but the substance won't push anyone across the aisle. In the boxing match of presidential campaigning, this was a jab that landed and scored a point, but didn't do serious damage. Since this is where Obama is strongest, I would have expected a haymaker.
John writes: "Of course we have killed 1000s of Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq and there are no longer any Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan where Obama claims to want to send troops."
And you know this how, John?
You're one of the last people on the planet that still believes each and every last thing the Bush administration tells you. What's up with that? Head injury, bad genes, or what?
Besides the zombie-eyed stares of all the suckers in the audience, my favorite part was where he kept mentioning how long McCain has been in the Senate.
Uh...Biden has been in a lot longer. What's his excuse? An Obama serves during the Senates' lowest public approval rating ever. What's his excuse? Oh, I know, he hasn't done anything.
It was a lot of empty promises an platitudes and outright lies. In other words, Democrat boilerplate.
Besides the zombie-eyed stares of all the suckers in the audience, my favorite part was where he kept mentioning how long McCain has been in the Senate.
Uh...Biden has been in a lot longer. What's his excuse? An Obama serves during the Senates' lowest public approval rating ever. What's his excuse? Oh, I know, he hasn't done anything.
It was a lot of empty promises an platitudes and outright lies. In other words, Democrat boilerplate.
LarryMoeandJesus,
If you bothered to read anything you would know that Afghanistan is now a civil war and Al Quede is not there anymore. It is in NW Pakistan. If you don't think that is true, the produce a link or some evidence that Al Qeada is there. Until then shut the fuck up and go read a little on subject. You might learn something, but a doubt it.
Remember, to the younger folks this tired old crap is brand new, so they've yet to run into the cynicism the realities of the world brings.
Thank god for that, the world needs optimism.
James Hudnall says: "It was a lot of empty promises an platitudes and outright lies. In other words, Democrat boilerplate."
So you prefer Repiglican boilerplate and lies. Can you tell me exactly how this country is better off than it was 8 years ago? How about dealing with reality for a change?
I know the right doesn't want to do that this year, but just give it a shot. I double dog dare you.
The best part of the speech happened before, when TomCruise parachuted into the crowd from JohnTravolta's plane.
Remember, to the younger folks this tired old crap is brand new, so they've yet to run into the cynicism the realities of the world brings.
Thank god for that, the world needs optimism.
Remember, to the younger folks this tired old crap is brand new, so they've yet to run into the cynicism the realities of the world brings.
Thank god for that, the world needs optimism.
"Thank god for that, the world needs optimism"
Or stupidity.
I see lots of Obama supporters angry that you found the Senator's speech, uh em, "angry".
Obama tore up his "different sort of campaign" in a panic, when Hillary made a comeback mid-primary. He's devolved into one of the most misleading, partisan, invective-spewing candidates of the past 25 years.
Anyone of fair mind would concede the maverick, independent, deeply experienced career of Senator McCain, his independence from the Bush Administration, and his track record of reaching across the aisle for solutions.
Unfortunately, Obama can devise nothing of substance upon which to meet McCain head-on. He is engaging in guerilla tactics of asymmetrical warfare. With the war-chest he is building outside the regime of public financing he embraced before he rebuked it, we can expect the most vicious, distorted, negative campaign imaginable.
It was actually a very good speech. No speech like that is designed to go into policy detail. It's designed to preach to the converted and maybe pick up a few more independents.
Megan is delightfully delusional.
Then too, the speech was far from angry. It responded to Cain's cheap, snarky attacks, but focused on vague positive vibes, which is all you should really be doing in such speeches.
I am a registered Democrat (who, to be fair and upright about this, has pulled most Republican levers -- except for national office and state office -- over the past decade, because I live in Connecticut and the Republican party in CT has been for MANY years either corrupt or inept) but I thought this speech didn't do it for me. The first part of his speech cast the American nation as one of a nation of victims, whom somehow, some way, government would save. The second section, was a litany of typical Democratic oratory -- steal from the successful, to save everyone else. In this last part, his rhetoric soared, and throughout, but it really didn't mean anything. His saying that he's only going to raise taxes on the top 5% -- well I wonder. The top 5% pays way over 50% of the taxes. How many jobs will be sent away????
Exactly my thoughts. I watch this speech every four years. Classic liberal democrat. Boring as hell.
OTH, next week I'll watch the typical republican conservative speech. Boring as hell.
It's as Dan says: "Remember, to the younger folks this tired old crap is brand new, so they've yet to run into the cynicism the realities of the world brings.
Thank god for that, the world needs optimism."
Very well written.
Trolling is so 2003.
Actually, I'm an independent. Don't have a horse in this race. But I can smell BS a mile away and this one stunk up the place.
The man has only been successful at one thing, running for a higher office as soon as he gets a better job. He has nowhere to go as prez. If he wins, he has to actually do something. And he's revealed nothing but weakness when it comes to making hard decisions. His response to Georgia and Hillary's role at the convention were worthy of a court eunuch.
The man barely "defeated" Hillary, whom he really only "beat" because of being selected in caucuses. (No, I am not a Hillary fan either)
I like some of his positions, but I don't believe anything he says and half of his promises are next to impossible. They would require the Congress approving them and I doubt that would happen even with a Democrat majority.
"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."
I know some SPECOPS friends of mine who served in Afghanistan that might want to "talk" to Obama about this implied lack of effort on their part. A soundproofed room and no witnesses would be best for an, err, "candid discussion."
The takeaway was the anger. Obama didn't channel MLK. He channeled Malcolm X. I can't remember a major party acceptance speech filled with such an undercurrent of bile and what felt to me like a thinly disguised emotional undertone of vengeance. All on top of run-of-the-mill "progressive" boilerplate.
And Uni, you must be kidding. McCain running a positive campaign? And Obama one of the most invective spewing campaigns of the past 25 years? Care to say how exactly? And after she/it/he says how, someone care to refute that nonsense.
I seem to recall it was the Clintons who started the baiting, coming right out and saying, essentially, "As a black person, you can't get white people behind you, so therefore, the white candidate should be THE candidate." Senator Clinton ran through every permutation of argument as she realized she would not be annointed: class, race, then finally sex.
Malcolm X? Wow.
Megan, you deserve these troglodytes as readers. Enjoy scraping your knuckles along your MacBook (Air? Pro?) as you try in vain to justify your assuredly meager salary.
Meagan is tone deaf. The whole point of the speech was to stop going after the Meagans and start going after the midland. Not sure it worked, but Meagan's complaints sounds like someone who wanted a speech written for a person born of privilege and educated at Penn. Guess what?
Even Pat Buchanan called it the best convention speech he'd ever seen.
KT Cat, John,
The line about following bin Laden to the cave where he lives, etc., is a specific reference to McCain saying that he wouldn't launch any attacks in Pakistan without the permission and cooperation of the Pakistani government. Obama said if we had actionable intelligence we would. McCain mocked him for it. Then it became clear that Bush had done what Obama said he would (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500_pf.html). And we killed an a senior al-qaeda operative.
"The first part of his speech cast the American nation as one of a nation of victims, whom somehow, some way, government would save."
So true, this really caught my attention as well. My wife looked at me after the first ten minutes and commented that you would think half of America is living in trailers and eating cat food every night. I had to remind her that this is typical liberal rhetoric and hasn't changed for 25 years.
The whole "on your own line' was really repulsive. Your god damded right I am on my own. That is what made this country great; individualism and individual effort and responsibility. In Obama's view we all children unable to help ourselves without the government and enlightened leaders like him to lead the way.
"The first part of his speech cast the American nation as one of a nation of victims, whom somehow, some way, government would save."
So true, this really caught my attention as well. My wife looked at me after the first ten minutes and commented that you would think half of America is living in trailers and eating cat food every night. I had to remind her that this is typical liberal rhetoric and hasn't changed for 25 years.
Megan, You're right on target...
While the Dems and MSNBC are lauding it as policy laden, and hard hitting-the way they thought it should be; I could not disagree more.
I thought that it was well delivered, but warmed over boilerplate palaver. Even Brian Williams admitted that some of the lines were pulled from "the west wing" TV series-and quickly adding "but that's Obama's style and persona..." How pathetic is that?
Also, I thought that the speech was laden with the same old lies that the political left in this country is fond of peddling. Among these: Our country is in decline, but THEY know how to return us to a better footing. The republicans are divisive, when in reality, it's the democrats obsess over the identity politics. And the most laugable "remember this John McCain, we all put our country first"; this from the senator and party that has declared the war lost (and still does), that the economy is in the tank (Q2 GDP +3%), and insist that real income has decreased, per capita, over the last 8 years when in fact the opposite is true. But I'm sure that if he were elected (God forbid), the same economy-with the same statistics-would be hailed as rebounding by the sycophantic MSM...
So, all in all, while it may have been good stagecraft and soaring rhetoric, and gave the democrats what they wanted to hear, it was really nothing new or extra-special; indeed, Bill Clinton's speech last night was arguably better!
But, just as with Mr. Clinton's speech, it was one whose main talking points are easily refutable after a short bit of reflection....
Megan,
I don't know how well the speech worked -- no one does yet. (I think the idea of speeches "working" to the extent that they are suggested to in this context is overblown anyway.)
But one thing you definitely have wrong: this is DEFINITELY not something we have seen much of from Obama in a major context like this yet. I found him confident, but dialed back to the point of serenity. He was temperamentally in a vastly remote place from where he was in the prime time events of the winter and spring -- the last times America has had much of any extended view of him at all. It was something I wondered if we'd see, and that I'd hoped for. I think he needed to be that way because he knew he was going no holds at his opponent and he needed to be extra-poised.
This is not to deny that it was not a perfect speech. There is a downside to following Bill Clinton, even 24 hours later. But I believe what we expect from Obama at this point is not what he's interested in delivering. People like us who have been watching him for two years(!!!) are not the folks he's trying to reach. He's either sold us by now or turned us off (and let's be honest Megan, in this post you're telling the hard truths you see that others may not -- but they're about the guy you're going to vote for!).
No, this speech is for the people who are just now or not yet even starting to decide what to do this election. They know that half the freakin' countr, it seems lke, is going crazy over this guy with the funny name -- so where do I stand? Well, some of them may be tuning in to start to make that decision tonight. And a lot of those people are demographically and income-distributively Democratic and they are in swing states and they may or may not give a bucket of warm spit about Abu Gharaib. And those are the ones that this speech is directed toward.
And that's all I have to say.
Bile? Malcolm X? Boilerplate?
You guys are living on planet Tralfamadore. You guys will soon find that you're in the minority.
Obama is not the guy who is making this campaign ugly, comparing his rival to Paris Hilton, etc.
And the man has been an achiever in everything he did, against the odds, especially when compared to sons of privilege like W and McCain.
What on earth do you want from a guy to prove he's good? "Be older" is kinda lame from the guys who put Dan Quayle a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Uni...
Interesting comments. Apparently voting with Bush 95% of the time is "independent?" Curious definition.
"Nothing of substance?" You mean like the fact that Bush is now following all of Obama's suggestions for foreign policy? But I guess that wouldn't make it substantive, it would just make him right.
I'm an Obama supporter, obviously. And I'm okay with it coming across as angry. I'm pretty angry with this last administrations raping and pillaging of our country and Constitution, and the idea that there is an option to vote in a guy who changed all of his "maverick" positions to fall in lock step with the same policies that have destroyed various aspects of America.
I think McCain's "Job well done", ad is pure genius. Tomorrow, Obama is going to let Biden off his leash and when he goes after McCain tooth and claw, it will seem terribly unfair so soon after McCain "shook hands" with Obama. Also, it is an opportunity for McCain to "Pat Obama on the head" in a senior to junior "nice job son" way that positions B.O. as a, dare I say it, "Boy".
Uni...
Interesting comments. Apparently voting with Bush 95% of the time is "independent?" Curious definition.
"Nothing of substance?" You mean like the fact that Bush is now following all of Obama's suggestions for foreign policy? But I guess that wouldn't make it substantive, it would just make him right.
I'm an Obama supporter, obviously. And I'm okay with it coming across as angry. I'm pretty angry with this last administrations raping and pillaging of our country and Constitution, and the idea that there is an option to vote in a guy who changed all of his "maverick" positions to fall in lock step with the same policies that have destroyed various aspects of America.
The fact that 'MoeLarry/crucifyyou' has the decoder ring that brings this from spittle delivered rant to conversational English just tickles me. It was delivered on his wave length. Perhaps this also means that the Spanish I could understand on a local radio station after the Reagan/Carter Nov. vote is applicable here: Para Jimmy Carter (o Obama) esta adios a la casa blanca!'
Megan:
Your right. Just a stock speech. And he didn't even deliver it very well...
"Even Pat Buchanan called it the best convention speech he'd ever seen."
lol. Pat also argues that the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves and that WWII was an unnecessary war.
I'm with Hmmmm....
Yeah, I'm angry. The last 8 years have seen assaults on the Constitution, the Endangered Species Act, women's right to control their reproduction, citizens' essential rights to privacy.
Fuck. If you AREN'T angry, it must be because you're stupid, not paying attention, or you are somebody's paid slave.
I'm middle-aged, married with 2 kids that I can't wait to take to D.C. for President Obama's inauguration.
I tuned in. He was talking about McCain. I got bored and turned the channel. Why can't politicians talk about what *they* are going to do? When I listen to candidate A, I'm not doing it because I want to hear about candidate B.
Obama talks a good game but votes with his party 96% of the times (vs McMaverick's 88% - which would be lower still if he could find more stuff to regulate). His position on not killing live premies (ie "Born Alive" Act) is well to the left of his own party. His buddies are unrepentant terrorists and America-hating black supremacists. He thinks that government is the solution to every problem. This guy is to the left of Carter and McGovern, never mind the semi-pragmatic Kerry or the sometimes centrist Clinton.
His first response on any foreign policy question is to adopt the fetal position while blaming US Allies - except when he wants to invade nuclear-armed Pakistan. Up to this point, whenever he gets a job, instead of actually discharging his duties he immediately beging campaigning for the next job - I wonder what that is now? Sec Gen of the UN? Holy Roman Emporer? Superman?
If it wasn't for him being half-white and beloved by the media he would have been written off as the naive tyro that he is over a year ago. Frankly, Hilary's right to be pissed - she has twice his Senate experience (snort-laugh) and she already knows how to be President just be being married to the guy - why next week, I plan on getting back surgery performed by my surgeon's wife, since she clearly knows how to do the job, having been married to him for 25years.
The crazy thing is, by any reasonable light, the compulsive liar Biden has far more claim to be a serious presidential candidate than either of those affirmative action hires (as do Bill Richardson, John Kerry, Al Gore and Mark Warner).
All who don't love him just don't understand the way of the Light-weight. The Light-weight Is, the Light-weight does. Those who follow the way of the Light-weight shall dwell in the Light forever.
Ah-I'm so sorry---Its Light Worker, not Light-weight. Or then again--was I right the first time? I hope none of Obama's people sue me for not getting it right. You just got to love Obama, because if you don't you're a racist.
I'm with Hmmmm....
Yeah, I'm angry. The last 8 years have seen assaults on the Constitution, the Endangered Species Act, women's right to control their reproduction, citizens' essential rights to privacy.
Fuck. If you AREN'T angry, it must be because you're stupid, not paying attention, or you are somebody's paid slave.
I'm middle-aged, married with 2 kids that I can't wait to take to D.C. for President Obama's inauguration.
Richard Nixon's dirty trickster, Pat Buchanan, calls it the best convention speech ever, but Megan is unimpressed.
Megan's really sucking up to her base tonight, even if it means selling out the man she'll actually vote for.
John types: "If you bothered to read anything you would know that Afghanistan is now a civil war and Al Quede is not there anymore. It is in NW Pakistan. If you don't think that is true, the produce a link or some evidence that Al Qeada is there. Until then shut the fuck up and go read a little on subject. You might learn something, but a doubt it."
The illiteracy of your reply is exceeded only by its stupidity, Johnny. You claimed that "thousands" of Al Qaeda fighters had been killed in Iraq. Please provide some evidence of this or "shut the fuck up," as your mom taught you to say.
Afghanistan a civil war? That's not what your idiot Bushpig heroes are saying. They say it's a BIG VICTORY and that we have a new, successful democracy there. If you're calling them liars, that's your first baby step on the way to honesty and human decency.
Would megan ever be impressed by anything though? Really?
Just surprised that Obama seems to have doubled down on populism in order to win the election. Maybe I haven't been paying attention but I didn't think he had been doing it the rest of the campaign. I am not the target audience for that- it turned me off in a big way but maybe it will resonate with other people.
I also found it illustrative that when Obama took time to say specifics he would change he said "tax breaks for businesses", "tax breaks for families", and energy independence (with nothing concrete about how to get there). You can't run as the candidate of change If you aren't willing to stick your neck out and give voters a few concrete things you are willing to change.
I am not at all enthralled by either McCain or Obama, but this speech made me far less likely to vote for Obama. Though as I said people who are more populist very well could have a different reaction.
Wow. That was an inspiring speech that cut across ideological boundaries, was full of good policy idea, and simple humanity.
I don't know what could explain the inability to recognize its quality but ideological rigidity.
Megan McArdle has always been a petty, pathetic shrew. There was absolutely no substance in this critique. Couldn't you at least have tried to do a thorough evaluation of the speech. I know it's late, but if that's a problem you should have waited until the morning to write a review. Word of advice: Don't drink and post!
Just to follow up my previous comment, here is the text of what Obama said about the concrete things he would change.
So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.
Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.
Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.
I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.
I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.
And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
Seriously- thats what I am supposed to get behind for Obama being the candidate of change!?
I have one last comment about this post. Pat Buchanan and Jay Nordlinger on the Corner have mostly good things to say about the speech and you don't have one good thing to say...? I think you're just saying it was disappointing so that you have something unique to say. This is the problem with having hundreds of political commentators competing to be the most incisive analyst.
The "90%" or "95%" figure "voting the same way as Bush" we're hearing repeated today is typical demagoguery from the liars and spewers of invective in the partisan Obama camp.
Think about it. A President who has exercised extraordinary restraint in the veto power, ergo almost never casting a vote -- the only way a President can.
What the bejesus are these Obamanites saying, with "90% the same as Bush"? Do they lack any basic understanding of how the government works? It's a made up, fantastical number, the latest cheap, negative attack by the gutter Chicago street fighter who will say anything to win.
Megan,
Agreed... the speech was not inspiring. And I agree with Ross also, maybe his people did him a disservice in going overboard with policy substance. But what do we know is who was the target this evening. The target were the portion of the 30mln viewers who are not in his camp already. I mean the people he has to convince he is tough enough to take on the bad guys and compassionate enough to give some assistance to the many of those who are not doing so well right now economically. I think he showed these two sides tonight - which would suggest versatility - but let's see. It is evident from the responses on this blog that not a single person has faced economic distress recently which is funny because the data suggests that a majority of Americans are worse off than 8 years ago. Nothing bad in that but I think indicative of the disconnect between Megan's readers and the target audience of the speech. But I am distinctly unimpressed by the angry commentary on this blog - from the nutters who think Obama is a terrorist sympathizer to the crude Obama supporters. Disappointing.
Wow. Must have hit a sore spot. And got a non-response. Don't shoot the messenger. 95% voting record with Bush. So take a look:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html
Not invective. Fact. But alas we have learned facts are the enemy. It's all about perception. Like McCain's independence. Perception. Image over substance.
McCain and Obama are senators. They both vote along party lines. McCain is actually less likely to do that than Obama. He is more of a real independent.
There are clear differences between McCain and Bush. Unlike Obama, McCain has actually done a lot as Senator. I don't agree with many things he's done. But he is a real pork buster. He has fought pretty hard against lobbyist influence, unlike Obama who just talks the talk.
Obama promised to increase jobs, but raise taxes on job givers (corporations and the rich).
He promised to eliminate our oil dependency in ten years (even though he could only serve in 8), with no explanation how. Oh, and increase alternative energy use even though many such technologies can't do the job yet and the energy grid isn't set up for it.
He's going to be a better commander in chief even though he has shown weakness and naivety at every opportunity (like Georgia).
He barely defeated Hillary, went on vacation in the middle of a campaign and is running even with McCain at a time past Democrats were 10 points or more ahead.
Yeah, he's a winner all right.
Hmmmm.,
Factcheck.org has already been debunked 100 times. They are owned by the annennbergs, the scumbags who funded Ayers and Obama for their Annennberg challenge.
Factcheck.org is simply bullshit.
Bush doesn't vote. Mccain has obviously gone against the GOP on many huge issues. We saw the damn primary, and it's been pointed out many times. The basic bill of the Senate is to make a national tree or a post office, and the statistic of 05%, already very suspect, is also irrelevant.
When Mccain wants to cross the aisle, he does. he did in the gang of 14. he did on immigration. he did on immigration. he did on beirut.
Only a tool would claim that Obama is right in this particularly pathetic attack.
James GOPnall says: "He's going to be a better commander in chief even though he has shown weakness and naivety at every opportunity (like Georgia)."
It's "naivete," chuckles. And what exactly would McCain have done - whacked the Russians over the head with his cane? Pissed on them?
How many wars do you wingnuts want, anyway?
This speech did it for me, I am definitely voting Republican this time around. I refuse to believe that the country is overflowing with hard luck cases that somehow need to be saved by the government. Democrats need to get back to the 90s when they talked about personal responsibility and welfare reform and cut spending - it is a sad day for a blue dog.
James,
I appreciate your points, and don't disagree on all. The difference I see between the parties is the fact that McCain cultivates and image of being a maverick and breaking with his party. In my mind that would necessitate a rate less than 95% (I'd like to see the record of a party maverick like say Lincoln Chafee- although he's gone- as a contrast). Obama isn't cultivating a maverick image although his history has shown reaching across the isle as well (see the nuke bill as a great example).
I think something that people are missing is that this type of speech is not about policy detail. This is a forum to address the party. He is after all accepting their nomination and for that reason, there is going to be some boilerplate (or even alot) Any in depth treatment of policy differences are for future discussions. It's a catch-22 for him. If there is more policy (as you would like to see) then it would turn off one class of critic. If there's not enough then it turns off critics such as yourself. A balance will never really be found. I don't know if a discussion is forthcoming, but at this point you could go to his website to see more details on his proposals.
Admittedly, I don't follow politics all that closely, but I thought this was incredibly savvy, and (yes) inspiring. I'm (obviously) an Obama supporter -- but one who voted for Bush twice and who is now *really* disillusioned with the Republicans.
The first strength was the way he took on McCain. The McCain camp has been working for weeks to build up the theme that Obama is an insubstantial celebrity (and a pretty effeminate one at that). Obama answered all of that effectively and pivoted and dumped the empty charges and the trivialization of politics back in their laps. McCain was so completely pwned by Obama, that one has to think that Obama's been sitting back for weeks letting the McCain camp get ALL the way out on that limb before sawing it off behind them. He's called out Rovian politics and especially the politics Republicans play with 'patriotism'. That's always been one of his draws. Tonight, instead of just calling for a new politics, he performed it.
The second place were Democrats are always weak is on the claim that they are all about the spending and taxes. Well, Obama's going to cut the taxes. And he acknowledged that the programs will cost money and promised to be pay as he goes. He may not mean it -- but it's not a transparently empty promise. You believe it or not if you believe that you're seeing a different kind of politician here. (Recall that Reagan's program seemed loony tunes to CW in the summer of 1980). The cool thing is Obama's move to claim the middle ground which emphasizes BOTH individual responsibility and mutual responsibility. It's a message that wouldn't have worked 15 years ago, but is pretty on target in an era where the limitations of the Republican view (all individual responsibility) are being shown up for what they are.
Obama's no Walter Mondale. And the Republicans had better wake up to that fact in a hurry lest they see the political landscape shift as radically around them as it did around the Democrats in the wake of Reagan in 1980.
It's kind of cool being old. The Democrats in 1980 just couldn't even see what Reagan was on about, and insisted on seeing him through outworn lenses. Much as I read your reaction to Obama here.
My wife and I were eating dinner while we watched it (west coast). We didn't hear anything that made us stop our converstation. I don't recall anything memorable about it. Tomorrow, noone will remember any specifics. She's right, it was pretty much standard boilerplate.
Admittedly, I don't follow politics all that closely, but I thought this was incredibly savvy, and (yes) inspiring. I'm (obviously) an Obama supporter -- but one who voted for Bush twice and who is now *really* disillusioned with the Republicans.
The first strength was the way he took on McCain. The McCain camp has been working for weeks to build up the theme that Obama is an insubstantial celebrity (and a pretty effeminate one at that). Obama answered all of that effectively and pivoted and dumped the empty charges and the trivialization of politics back in their laps. McCain was so completely pwned by Obama, that one has to think that Obama's been sitting back for weeks letting the McCain camp get ALL the way out on that limb before sawing it off behind them. He's called out Rovian politics and especially the politics Republicans play with 'patriotism'. That's always been one of his draws. Tonight, instead of just calling for a new politics, he performed it.
The second place were Democrats are always weak is on the claim that they are all about the spending and taxes. Well, Obama's going to cut the taxes. And he acknowledged that the programs will cost money and promised to be pay as he goes. He may not mean it -- but it's not a transparently empty promise. You believe it or not if you believe that you're seeing a different kind of politician here. (Recall that Reagan's program seemed loony tunes to CW in the summer of 1980). The cool thing is Obama's move to claim the middle ground which emphasizes BOTH individual responsibility and mutual responsibility. It's a message that wouldn't have worked 15 years ago, but is pretty on target in an era where the limitations of the Republican view (all individual responsibility) are being shown up for what they are.
Obama's no Walter Mondale. And the Republicans had better wake up to that fact in a hurry lest they see the political landscape shift as radically around them as it did around the Democrats in the wake of Reagan in 1980.
It's kind of cool being old. The Democrats in 1980 just couldn't even see what Reagan was on about, and insisted on seeing him through outworn lenses. Much as I read your reaction to Obama here.
Hmmm,
McCain is actually at 85% with his party. So he does fit the Maverick. He is a Global Warming believer, is for Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants, is anti-tobacco, kind of anti-gun, on the fence on Abortion. He is very close to a blue dog Democrat.
The Dems are trying to make him out to be the anti-Christ, but in many respects he could be one of them. He is just a hawk on the military and is anti-pork in a big way. Which makes him more Republican.
He is also good friends with people like Biden and Hillary, so all this Dem stuff about him is bogus.
Maggie, unfortunately I do not believe that Barack Obama is a different kind of politician.
Do you know how he won the two elections he has stood for? By getting his opponents disqualified. He did it both in his race for the state senate and against Jack Ryan (hey Ryan was a slime ball, I am glad Obama did it). To me he looks like nothing more than a typical Chicago politician with a silver tongue.
I just don't see his appeal. To each his own I guess.
Megan wasn't watching the speech. She was blogging from the recent hit movie Pineapple Express. Sorry for any confusion folks!!!
Oh Deirdre,
You're so cute. Show me where they've been debunked - on this issue (I know there has been one case that had nothing to do with this). Though I find it interesting that McCain likes to site them too... I guess you're right, only a tool would do so. Or is it just a blanket accusation? So please. Show me. I prefer a site from conservapedia if you can find one, because I'm sure they've covered it.
And you are right, Bush doesn't vote. Well, not in the traditional sense. A veto is a vote in the end.
My favorite one though is the immigration bill that John wrote. And then voted against. I guess he didn't like the language. Or is it just that the uber wing of the party didn't like it so he decided in order to create bona fides with them he'd vote against his own bill. Either way, that's awesome. You list 3 times.
I'm trying to think of what the Gang of 14 accomplished? Oh yeah, it stopped filibusters by the Democrats. So, what did John actually have to do. He sacrificed nothing in the end. The Democrats played and lost.
The Marching Moron Repiglican orders have been issued, and the word they're all using is "boilerplate."
That was fast.
I'm with Megan on this. When Obama wasn't making ludicrous attempts to sound "smart, tough," he was making the standard politician speech of everything-for-everyone: lower taxes, more benefits, global reputation, invade Pakistan, protect abortions, reduce pregnancies, make all our kids above average, etc. ad nauseam. All the while either looking off into the distance (just how far was that teleprompter?), or staring at the camera with the expression of someone sucking on a lemon while enduring a prostate exam.
Which reminds me: what IS it with Obama always seeming to look down on people or stare off into the distance? Is he trying to connect with some audience in the faaaar fuuuuuuture?
from john:
"Of course we have killed 1000s of Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq and there are no longer any Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan where Obama claims to want to send troops."
We can agree to disagree about many things, but there are seriously about 7 factual errors contained within this one sentence. When people write stuff like this it's a blinking red light that advertises the fact that they've done little to no actual research about al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Obama's policies.
If this didnt do it for you ....
You are simply out of touch.
It's not Kool-aid ... it's not Jim Jones ...
It's people that get it ... and people that are hopelessly out of toch or dis-interested ...
If you don't get it ...
I'm sorry .. .get out of the way ...
You are a hinderence, you are a roadblock ...
And I WILL RUN YOU OVER.
If this didnt do it for you ....
You are simply out of touch.
It's not Kool-aid ... it's not Jim Jones ...
It's people that get it ... and people that are hopelessly out of toch or dis-interested ...
If you don't get it ...
I'm sorry .. .get out of the way ...
You are a hinderence, you are a roadblock ...
And I WILL RUN YOU OVER.
Can we compromise and say it was very clean, articulate boilerplate?
Can we compromise and say it was very clean, articulate boilerplate?
If this didnt do it for you ....
You are simply out of touch.
It's not Kool-aid ... it's not Jim Jones ...
It's people that get it ... and people that are hopelessly out of toch or dis-interested ...
If you don't get it ...
I'm sorry .. .get out of the way ...
You are a hinderence, you are a roadblock ...
And I WILL RUN YOU OVER.
If this didnt do it for you ....
You are simply out of touch.
It's not Kool-aid ... it's not Jim Jones ...
It's people that get it ... and people that are hopelessly out of toch or dis-interested ...
If you don't get it ...
I'm sorry .. .get out of the way ...
You are a hinderence, you are a roadblock ...
And I WILL RUN YOU OVER.
"Why don't you read what your wiser colleagues Coates and Sullivan wrote about it. The fact that it moved both of them like it did is evidence enough that it wasn't just boilerplate."
Sullivan is so enamored with Obama that I think there's almost nothing he could've said he would find uninspiring.
Anyway Obama had energy and charisma. He makes it clear t me he will have Christian love and respect for anyone, no matter how backward or unpleasant he finds them. However he also sent a pretty clear signal in my mind that yes he is of the Left-wing of the Democratic party. He won't throw stones at you for being a Blue Dog, but on the other hand he's not going to really exert himself to reach out to you. I think he's hoping to win back the poor and female among Hillary voters. The conservative Democrats who are white and male? I almost felt like he's conceding he's not going to do well there no matter what he does. It does strike me maybe he is right and it's best to cut his losses with that group.
I feel much better about voting McCain after the speech. Even if he picks a Pro-Choice VP I might still do so. Obama was an exciting example of the kind of youth, idealism, and charisma I don't want anywhere in my life. Remember never trust anyone under 30! (Or 50 as the case may be)
It is at its most boring when it is rediculous boilerplate promises that everyone knows won't happen and have been made 100 times before.
Mmmmmmm, Democratic boilerplate. The only thing that would make this meal better is some Republican boilerplate to go with it. Fortunately, I think McCain's about to serve up a big steaming pile of it next week.
Bob Barr is looking better all the time.
Let me first say that I liked the speech a lot. I thought it was really good. It had some flsws, sure enough, but it was pretty much what I hoped it would be.
As to the GOP meme that Obama was angry, or that he questioned McCain's character, I'm not sure what speech they were wtaching. Obama questioned McCain's policies, and his policy judgment. AS to the OBL question, he basically said that McCain, by voting to go to Iraq, voted to take the focus off bin Laden, and on to, what Iraq war critics consider to be distraction. I'm not saying I agree with this argument (I'm for all intents and purposes a war supporter), but that was his argument.
As to the policy positions, it's true that many of them are traditional bread and butter Democratic issues, but this is a Democratic year after all.
Obama will have a bit of a problem with attacking McCain as a phony maverick, because while it can be argued that the larger part McCain's policy positions, as far as most Dems are concerned are not sufficient different from Bush, McCain does have a legislative record of breaking with the GOP and Bush, while Obama's record is much thinner. It's something he's going to have to work through. The 90% tag is problematic, too.
Now this could be because I agree with Obama overall more than I do McCain (and I really do see something real in Obama), but I really thought the speech worked well, in terms of delivery and most of the substance. That's my take.
See, it's not that hard to make your point on the speech, without cutting each others throats is it?
Megan,
You seem like a nice person. I don't wish to be mean. But please, find another line of work. If you were disappointed by that speech, you have no business commenting on politics. Maybe you should try accounting or pricing options & deriviatives. Anything, but not political commentary.
Best,
Peter
P.S. Take Douthat with you.
i missed the speech because i was walking home from a late class, but i could still hear it..it's great weather and lots of houses had windows open and i could follow the sound from one house to the next. that was cool.
ok, i live in a blue state. but still.
Thomas R writes: "I feel much better about voting McCain after the speech. Even if he picks a Pro-Choice VP I might still do so. Obama was an exciting example of the kind of youth, idealism, and charisma I don't want anywhere in my life."
Plus the 4 more wars will be fun to watch on TV, and Thomas is too old to be pulled into them, so no skin off his nose.
Rewarding the Repiglican party with another 4 years in the White House is the mark of a total nutjob. I thought you were better than that, Thomas. I guess you own Halliburton stock.
I just keep wonering how and why so many "classy acts" found the Atlantic magazine website to blog here. I always thought the Atlantic was supposed to be elitist. That's what I want it to be, if I read it...
Now, there are people here claiming that Al-Quaeda is in Iraq or Iran. (!!!) I wish they bothered to turn on the TV at least once in the last 7 years to find out Al-Quaeda ranked both Saddam and Iranian Aytollas as the sworn enemy #2, after the great satan the U.S.A.
Although Roe v. Wade is not my favorite topic, I am amused to see how some McCain supporters want to widen his appeal by saying that "he's on the fence on abortion". This is just one week after McCain himself was touting his "25 year pro-life record."
There are people who keep repeating the word boilerplate in Obama's critique. (My guess, in 47 posts out of 94 at the moment that I am writing this.) Is there a secret radio channel that tells all these brave writers which word to use on any given day of the week?
And please, stop using the phrase "He's popular" as an argument against Obama. As in: "I don't understand why Obama is so popular, so I am going to vote against him." This is so twisted... I am all for cheering an underdog, but not to the point where we elect the least qualified candidate for president just because he failed to appeal to anybody.
As a veteran I really take excpetion to Obama throwing a cheapshot at someone who won the medal of honor's courage.
Posted by John
If you are a veteran, you should educate yourself on McCain so you know what you are talking about. McCain never won the Medal of Honor. The rest of your post makes sense.
===============================
Andy - John -
Did you know that Al Qaeda didn't have a presence in Iraq until after we invaded them? No? You didn't? What a fucking surprise.
Did you know that the Confederate Army never went North until after WE invaded them in the South?
What a fucking surprise! War is like that Andy...One side shows up on a field of battle and the other side decides to show up or not and make a contest of it. We found that AQ Islamoids were far easier to kill and capture in Iraq than in their nearly perfect defensive positions in the Hindu Kush and their hidden cells in Arab cities & Europe.
Indeed, the critique of Al Qaeda, internally, is that an isolated senior leadership in Pakistan urged AQ members in N Africa, the ME, and Europe to go rushing half-assed into Iraq where better armed and organized Marines butchered their asses, got whole networks exposed from interrogation of captured AQ, and allowed AQ Muslim-on-Muslim terror tactics that turned Muslims against AQ. The consensus in Arab nations and with religious leaders is the "AQ's Central Front in Iraq for War Against the Enemy" was a complete strategic disaster for AQ.
PS - Did you also know that Americans were not in Guadacanal before the Japs invaded it?
==================
On the speech:
It was nice that Barack pulled Granny out from underneath the bus - if only to recast her as a hard working ugly white woman in a Mumu that saw better-looking white women get promoted over her.
Mighty white of Barack to say so.
Pity she couldn't have had some of the Affirmative Action he was magically entitled to simply by being the illegitimate spawn of an alky Kenyan bigamist.
Well kids, no more one sided change BS from Camp Obama.
I looks like McCain is going to turn this race upside down:
Governor Palin of Alaska looks to be his choice.
Let the games begin!
Well kids, no more one sided change BS from Camp Obama.
I looks like McCain is going to turn this race upside down:
Governor Palin of Alaska looks to be his choice.
Let the games begin!
I will make sure and chime in to say the same thing ("boilerplate of the last 40 years")when McCain talks about a "culture of life" or "sanctity of marriage". Given that Reps. have made such strides in new legislation in these areas, I guess we cannot call it boilerplate but rather substantive policy right. My favorite boilerplate will be when he says "support the troops" over and over. Glad they give to Obama at 6 to 1 in the officer ranks. Glad they understand that Walter Reed was not isolated. Your thoughts on this are ridiculous and your post on his speech completely vapid. Engage or just go to bed, but do not ruin your reputation by refusing to say anything. I will read your blog less than I used to. not because of what you said but because you refused to say anything and turned partisan. That should never be the Libertarian's default.
Once more it was really angry and nasty and not positive at all.
you didn't even watch it, did you?
go ahead, admit it.
I bet if you check the IP addresses of all the hate posts, they come from a single source.
I must say the trolls have come out in force to spew more BS than the average comments thread here at McCentral. And if you all want to argue the points of the speech, please make some. But seeing all the "boilerplate" and "uninspiring" talk from the conservatives makes me think "Homerun".
The speech was definitely not perfect. But it was a rousing crescendo to all the other speeches leading up to Thursday. And you just had to know that Obama was not going to win with the conservative crowd - either he is too full of lofty rhetoric or drops all pretense of being the Change Candidate and goes negative. Well, for the most part he sounded like a passionate, grounded, progressive Democrat. But the most heartening part of the night was that he came out swinging and punched McCain in the mouth and drew a line in the sand saying "No Mas" to all the smears. I will enjoy watching the dittoheads flail around crying foul, with a mouth full of loose teeth.
The only way to combat a bully is to get in his face and bloody him up. And for a Democrat, thats a change I can believe in.
I have watched every candidate's convention speech for the last 28 years, and Obama's speech was standard fare, and not even delivered better than some I have seen.
I would guess that Obama might get a 5-6 point bounce over the next 2 to 3 days, but will return to baseline pretty rapidly- especially if McCain makes a bold, interesting VP selection.
Don't expect fireworks from McCain either- his speech is almost certainly going to be standard fare.
Promising pie in the sky is typical for politicians.
"That's the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation, the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper."
I cannot believe he really said that.
What about George O.!
Did I miss Jeremiah Wright's opening prayer?
Barack' acceptance speech was good, it hit all the points that Democrats wanted to hear. The meme that the Republicans leave you "on your own" in contrast to the Democrat's plan to expand government services may bring the Hillary voters onboard. I figured that the poll numbers showing such a sizable portion of Hillary voters (a quarter, third, half?) were going to McCain wouldn't hold up, and after this convention I think it's inevitable that number is going to shrink way down.
The middle of the speech sounded like classic Bill Clinton. When he started talking about "5 million green jobs" and investing in technology, and helping pay for college, this sounded a lot like Bill Clinton's speeches in the mid '90s when he ran for re-election and SOTU addresses, talking about "millions of jobs created". Any of the independents nostalgic for the boom-boom 90's may go for Barack just because they hope he becomes the 2nd Bill Clinton.
In the end, though, I don't see how Barack's plan to both expand government (healthcare) and cut taxes will work. Just increasing the taxes on the wealthy won't cut it. A modest economic recovery won't cut it either. Does anyone think he will really be able to cut government elsewhere, to amount to anything? When entitlements eat up over half the budget? With more entitlements on the way? This sounds a lot like 1992 all over again. Except the economy isn't as bad (more inflation though) as it was then.
Re where was the anger and, found, was it appropriate:
What a nasty, vile statement. What a palpable, obvious, and deliberate lie. What a calculated insult, in a speech guaranteed to have been combed over in advance for anything that might generate misunderstandings, in a speech guaranteed to receive more national attention than anything Obama has said to date in his entire life. What a great insight into the shallow, immature thinking and overweening, craven opportunism of this man who's never done anything, never risked anything, never shown an ounce of even political courage (much less physical courage) — but yet would be the Commander in Chief of the United States of America.
And the crowd roared its approval. That must be the lowest moment of the Democratic Party in its history. Shame on them, on every one of them who cheered and every one of them who didn't sit on his or her hands and shake his or her head in disgust. How very fortunate for them all that brave Americans like John McCain in the uniforms of our country's military forces have fought and died for their rights to make such utter fools of themselves.
From 'Beldar's blog.
"Plus the 4 more wars will be fun to watch on TV, and Thomas is too old to be pulled into them, so no skin off his nose."
TR: I'm 3 foot 4 with a medical condition, I was never going to be "pulled into" a war. Besides you do know this country has no draft, right?
More important the Congress is likely to stay Democratic. Do you really think McCain will do a bunch of wars that the Congress won't back? How many wars has even Bush done since 2006?
"Rewarding the Repiglican party with another 4 years in the White House is the mark of a total nutjob. I thought you were better than that, Thomas. I guess you own Halliburton stock."
TR: I didn't vote for Bush in 2004. (I went write-in) If the Democrats were just a little closer to my values, if Obama was, I would go for hurting Republicans. The Republican party is full of jingoists, Social Darwinists, Anti-Catholic Evangelicals, and other people I wouldn't want to even know.
However the Democratic party contains people who wouldn't even recognize my right to exist. People who think my family are lunatics who they can condescend or hurt. Who clearly want the state to have way more power and to wipe away values I care about. Who seem to believe one man can end the racism or injustice in all of America or that his promises to do so are remotely based in reality.
Believe me there's been times I wish the Democratic Party is something I could vote for. I was considering Obama if Giuliani won. I was considering third-party if Romney or Huckabee won. However I can't justify voting against a guy I've respected for years, and in favor of values I strongly oppose, because of spite about Bush or Craig. I have not voted for Bush since 2000 and I'll never vote for Cheney. Thankfully this election I don't have to.
All we really need to know about the substance of Obama's speech, and indeed this entire election cycle, can be summarized in this timeline:
-- Bush I v Dukakis: Former VP, CIA head, US-China liasion versus state governor.
-- Bush I v Clinton: Incumbent president versus lawyer and state governor.
-- Clinton v Dole: Incumbent president versus lawyer and long-time senator.
-- Bush II v Gore: State governor with military background versus former VP and long-time senator.
-- Bush II v Kerry: Incumbent president versus long-time senator with military background.
-- Obama v McCain: Junior senator v long-time senator with military background.
With that observation made, Obama is a fantastic public speaker, but I heard exactly two substantive points given in passing and ill defined, surrounded by a prolonged microburst of line-item boilerplate and fluff. He's got a long row to hoe in terms of proving that his ideas can go anywhere beyond his articulate mannerisms.
I also thought the Obama speech was pretty tame and dull, though I missed a few minutes of it, so maybe that was the exciting part. I sure didn't get a sense of anger from Obama, though. I took the speech's style and tone as evidence that Obama was being rather cautious. I also thought he mishandled the "on your own" delivery--that was a beautiful line, if delivered well and worked into the right kind of theme, but he didn't do much with it. (I think the underlying idea he's supporting with that line isn't all that great, but it could have been a really powerful line to return to again and again through the speech, IMO.)
For all we know, he was tired, or emotionally overwhelmed at reaching this point, or sick, or worried about how to pull those Hillary-supporters back into the fold, or whatever. Or maybe he was just trying to make a very conventional (*ahem*) acceptance speech and save the rhetorical fire for more appropriate times. But he probably had a bigger audience last night than he will usually have, nearly all devoted Democrats who he needs coming to the polls on election day, and sending money and volunteering before then. I'm surprised he wasn't shooting for a bit more powerful inspiration from this speech, since that's something he's really quite good at.
Why do I keep thinking David Thompson changed his name to Uni Petrowska?
And why do I then laugh out loud?
Sigh.
Shouting above everyone else that simply shows everyone here has their mind made up already.
Moving on.
So...it's mid afternoon and no new posts from M&M since last night. I thought for sure we'd see some commentary from her about Palin.
I guess she is still sleeping off her hangover eh?
Megan, you haven't posted since Palin was picked! C'mon, we need your insightul analysis!
Why don't we supply our own?
I thought McCain should have chosen someone with more experience, and he had a lot more female candidates to choose from than Obama did. By choosing Palin, it appears that the McCain campaign is not going to go after Obama for lack of experience- they are going to let the media do that for them. You already are seeing this in the news stories over Palin's selection- they are comparing her to Obama, and this is a comparison that works against the Democrats because the inexperience is at the top of their ticket. This may work out for McCain, but it will undermine any attempt on his campaign's part to bring the experience issue front and center.
All in all, unless Palin just shows not to be up to snuff (like Meirs), then this will narrow the female gender gap Republicans suffer from without seriously undermining the male gender gap they benefit from. A bold but risky choice.
He didn't really invest any time in explaining HOW he was going to accomplish everything he promised, did he?
(a) How is he ending the war with al Qaeda?
(b) How is he going to reduce the number of accidental pregnancies?
(c) How is he going to make people better parents?
(d) How is he going to end the subprime crisis?
(e) How is he going to pay for a health care program?
(f) How is he going to pay for a new energy model that doesn't rely on foreign oil?
(g) How can he cut taxes on 95% of the population and still maintain the current level of services? Ending tax loopholes for corporations isn't enough to make up the difference. Did his reference to government waste mean civil service layoffs and salary cuts are part of his solution?
These were all things he promised last night, but he didn't offer any plan that makes me believe he can deliver them. Right now I'm no further ahead than I was before the speech. I just don't see how this qualifies as great oratory.
He didn't really invest any time in explaining HOW he was going to accomplish everything he promised, did he?
(a) How is he ending the war with al Qaeda?
(b) How is he going to reduce the number of accidental pregnancies?
(c) How is he going to make people better parents?
(d) How is he going to end the subprime crisis?
(e) How is he going to pay for a health care program?
(f) How is he going to pay for a new energy model that doesn't rely on foreign oil?
(g) How can he cut taxes on 95% of the population and still maintain the current level of services? Ending tax loopholes for corporations isn't enough to make up the difference. Did his reference to government waste mean civil service layoffs and salary cuts are part of his solution?
These were all things he promised last night, but he didn't offer any plan that makes me believe he can deliver them. Right now I'm no further ahead than I was before the speech. I just don't see how this qualifies as great oratory.
Yancy,
I think Megan must be in shock. Palin is a libertarian small government woman about Megan's age. At some level it probably makes her want to vote for McCain. But, no way could Megan lose her street creed among other journalist by doing so.
How can he cut taxes on 95% of the population and still maintain the current level of services?
I'd settle for an explanation of how he can cut taxes on 95% of working families when nowhere near 95% of working families pay taxes in the first place. Or was he talking about the payroll tax?
Since the speech Obama gave at the '04 convention, his star has been rising. And rising. Mostly because there are few stars around and thus people are desperately looking for one, and because, well, he's a star -- glowing in the shadows of a declining nation, shining in the midst of turmoil.
Again and again, throughout the campaign he presented promise, but was discriminate about making promises, unlike Mrs. Clinton who, effectively, claimed she would make sure every box of popcorn would have a toy in it, every child would attend college, and every common citizen be given a boost. In this regard Obama avoided being the snake oil salesman so many politicians, particularly Democrats, have been over the past 30 years.
Madison Avenue caught on quickly to the ocean of cynicism among the unwashed masses in the 80s and started making amusing spots, as opposed to hyping products and services. Apparently, DC politicians never got that memo. It seems they still believe common individuals are willing to buy all their shallow rhetoric. Are they? Perhaps the 9% approval rating of Congress is an indication.
That, however, didn't stop the Democrats from pulling out all the stops, and conducting an affair Gatsby could be proud of. Oddly, in the middle of wretched economic times, when counties are declaring themselves bankrupt and banks are falling right and left, the Democrats chose gradeur and oppulence, and, oh yeah, Greco-Roman decor. Was it maybe an unconscious acknowledgement that, indeed, all empires fall?
In the end, however, that rising star, unfairly called a pure celebrity, came 'round to the Old School way of doing business. About four months ago, when Obama decided he was, after all, going with the flag pin accessorizing, the writing was on the wall. The capitulation in the bag, the concession to Clintons' Third Way quite obvious. Obama beat the rest by insisting on a unique strategy, but ultimately signed onto what he had previously rejected.
The decor was grand but his speech wasn't. Mainly because it dashed all hope that the one distinct promise Obama offered -- overcoming the polarization in DC -- wasn't based on much more than hope. In the end, it was like an old black and white Western: good guys (us) versus bad guys (them). Which is the way DC has been operating since the rise of Reagan.
That doesn't mean McCain is the better choice. He isn't. But after the Democratic convention, haunted by an elephant in the stadium -- gender-based animus -- he isn't much worse than the alternative.
About that elephant: If there is a significant constituency that simply wants a woman to ascend to the White House based solely on gender, then how wise is the Democratic party as a whole? How much of a viable alternative is it? Really, is it worth continuing the Neocon grab in the Middle East and seeding the Supreme Court with 3 ideological members for the sake of ensuring a woman is in the White House? If yes, then have at it. But please take ownership of the burning embers of a once great nation. Be man enough -- no, that's sexist -- be woman enough to admit your petty biases.
After the Kool Aid has been cleared from the table in the wake of the spledor of the Denver convention, it will soon dawn on millions of Americans who talk around the water coolers, Hey, despite what anybody says it's still at least 51% of the same old same old. Probably more like 90%. And that's a damn shame, especially after Obama raised our hopes so high.
I'd settle for an explanation of how he can cut taxes on 95% of working families when nowhere near 95% of working families pay taxes in the first place. Or was he talking about the payroll tax?
Does being stupid come naturally to you?
Like so many here, I too grieve at the terrible blow to hope and a new American politics last night.
I grieve that a Democratic nominee declines to be a high-minded punching bag. I grieve that he dared to criticize a one-time POW and Keating Five member. I grieve that he showed an obsession over the poor and struggling by noticing them. I grieve that he failed to point out the many, many good things of the past eight years, such as the aggressive urban renewal ongoing in New Orleans.
And I too wish for a new, less partisan politics. I look for a candidate who embraces some torture, if not quite so much as the present administration. I look for a candidate who embraces some illegal and useless wars, if not quite so many as the neocons desire. I look for a candidate who beholds the suffering of the millionaire who hates paying any taxes whatsoever with the same eye he beholds the single mother trying to keep her home.
Fortunately, I expect to see this high-minded and deeply fair view on display at the Republican convention, assuming non-existent weather fluctuations don't delay that glorious event.
All in all, unless Palin just shows not to be up to snuff (like Meirs), then this will narrow the female gender gap Republicans suffer from without seriously undermining the male gender gap they benefit from. A bold but risky choice.
Are you serious? Have you seen her views on foreign policy? Putin would eat her up. She is not a Libertarian. She supported Pat Buchanan in 2000. She is a nutters wingnut.
I haven't read any of the comment threads, but looking at the VP selection announcement the day after Barack put together a speech that at the very least put a lot of onus on McCain's responsibility over the last 8 years. I can't help but think McCain may find a very different reception when confronted with Obama without Iraq (in case you haven't been paying attention Iraq may not want us anymore). So if you subtract McCain's bold stand on Iraq what else is there? Nothing the American people are buying wholesale. You have a 72 year old 5'7" Vietnam POW, cancer survivor, who can't use a computer on his own. And most importantly to me he seems slow off the block, like a car that has 150,000 miles on it: It still tops out high but the acceleration is terrible.
Look at McCain and you can see that his time was 2000 not 2008. If his highlight thus far is talking about defeating evil then I am definitely concerned about the Republican party. Because, they should know this; if you think evil exists than you should know - KNOW- that it walks on two legs, laughs, smiles, and justifies with an oft told line "we need to do this to protect ourselves" so low-key you'd never realize how much comes out of it. I know Evil exists, I know that I can't beat it, but I don't have to lose to it.
No you don't Ben, and you won't. McCain lost this election with this truly moronic VP pick.
Does being stupid come naturally to you?
No. That's why I had to leave the Democratic Party.
So do any of you Obama supporters know what that "cuts for 95%" is supposed to translate to in actual tax law? Are the half or so of that 95% who have no current income tax obligation going to start getting welfare checks, or was Obama just blowing smoke up our asses?
Bush often does puke all over his shoes and even projects into the audience and they still love him. Not so much in set piece speeches but any other time he speaks.
Bush's speech and manner are often bizarre by any measure of a political leader. They are a national embarrassment, a national humiliation.
In the end political leadership is only half doing, the other half is saying. Even in this age when rhetoric is discounted a billion times since the age of classical Greece, because of the endless flood of words in print and over the air, political rhetoric from leaders still means something.
Setting aside every political act done by Clinton his rhetorical power insures that history will judge him above average as president. By the same token Bush will reside at the bottom. Reagan as well will rise to the upper half by virtue alone of his rehtorical skill.
Dan, that is the idea. See Wall Street Journal editorial Friday.
Dan:
So you are telling me that half of the people earning less than $250,000 a year pay no taxes? Is that what you are trying to claim? Can you define for me what exactly are you talking about with this 95% crap? Do you believe Kudlow knows what he is talking about?
As so often, I see I am too obviously right to be debated. Bravo, me. And goodnight, all of you.
Michael/Dan:
Yeah, that's a very left-wing radical idea you're describing, supported by a far-left ideologue. But I'm pretty sure that's not what Obama's supporting.
JKC,
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml - Summary Table 1.
As of 2005 - latest numbers I've seen - the effective income tax rats are -6.5, -1.0, 3.0, 6.0, 14.1 for the 5 quintiles. The 2nd quintile's average income was 37,400 the third was 58,500. That mean somewhere between 30-50% of tax filers had negative effective income tax rates. Their total tax burden is non-negative, but that is payroll and excise (voluntary) taxes.
Unless Obama plans on cutting payroll taxes or, as was suggested above, simply making the negative rates more negative, the 95% claim is odd.
Actually, I think it is more like 40% pay no imcome tax. They do pay state and local taxes, of course, and indirectly they pay corporate income taxes including the "windfall profits" taxes that The One loves so much.
Actually, I think it is more like 40% pay no imcome tax. They do pay state and local taxes, of course, and indirectly they pay corporate income taxes including the "windfall profits" taxes that The One loves so much.
You mean like the one that commie, pinko, socialist Governor of Alaska believes in so much that she increased it?
Considering the histrionics the Left is going through since yesterday, I am beginning to think McCain chose smartly. Still, Palin in action will tell the final story.
Most still don't get what happened yesterday- McCain has contracted the experience issue out to the media and his ideological opponents. Almost every single news story on the Palin selection focuses on her inexperience, and that experience, unfortunately for Obama, compares well to that of the Democratic presidential candidate. Nonpartisans see this readily, and the insinuations I see here and elsewhere on the left suggest that Obama trumps Palin because he has testicles rather than ovaries. Some Clinton supporters, maybe 5-10% of them, will be turned off by this attitude. Obama needs to find a way to rein in some of his supporters.
The other thing that happened yesterday is the McCain found a way to placate the more passionate of the Republican base. This has been an issue for him for some time. He finally found a workable solution.
Yancey Ward:
Are you serious? I love how you project your feelings onto others. The left is laughing their asses off. Palin wasn't even Governor when McCain announced his campaign. And if you want to go the "executive experience" route, she beats McCain in that department too. Has Palin been to Iraq(Kuwait doesn't count)? Afghanistan? Do you realize that McCain's team didn't even vet her? Do you realize they are just sending people up to Alaska now to look into Trooper-gate? As as far as experience goes, are you comfortable with her having her figure on the button? Does she know the difference between Shia and Sunni? What it comes down to is that McCain just blew up the two rationales for his candidacy. With this selection, he put politics first, not country. Second, it shows his lack of seriousness. When someone like Andrew Sullivan(who dearly wants to love McCain) is disgusted, you know you've gone off the deep end.
JKC,
The fact that you think Sullivan wants to support McCain is pretty damned funny.
Read some of these comments above, and on other liberal blogs. Read the bloggers and other media writers that support Obama the most ardently. They are playing it just how McCain's team expected them to- badly with quite a bit of sexism thrown in as an appetizer.
I personally think experience in government is highly overrated (this is why I would have rather seen McCain select Meg Whitman), but most people don't, and comparing Palin to Obama can only hurt the Democrats. The one plus from the pick for the Dems in this regard is that the McCain campaign will no longer be able to bring up the inexperience themselves, but they know they no longer need to- Obama's supporters are doing it themselves, and looking silly in doing so.
I predict the McCain campaign will make government reform it's campaign centerpiece this coming week. Until he selected Palin, I had thought McCain would put his greater government experience front and center. He is going to steal the "Change Washington" banner from Obama.
Yes, the trooper scandal will be a problem, and she has to answer it convincingly, or her candidacy will go down. This is the biggest risk in selecting her, but almost any one else McCain could have chosen has a skeleton of one kind or another in their closet- some known and unknown- the trooper scandal was well known. With Biden's background, her scandal is most likely going to be a wash, but it will be interesting to see what the media can find out now that she is the pick. Before, only investigators in Alaska were looking into it, now they will be joined by thousands of journalists.
Grim Pub Quiz II
Where is Megan?
My companion just asked "So what happens if Megan got shot by a mugger?"
Given the fact that she lives in D.C., that's been the topic of some discussion around me in the past. The consensus is that Andrew gets the top slot, but of course, by some logic it should be Ross. Anyone actually know the answer?
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/grim_pub_quiz.php
From what I've read, that trooper tasered his 11 year old stepson. If Ms. Palin steps up and says she'll fire every law officer who has that little judgment, and those who defend them, I'll have no trouble understanding her approval ratings in AL.
The fighter pilot is inside The One's OODA loop. Pass the popcorn!
Read some of these comments above, and on other liberal blogs. Read the bloggers and other media writers that support Obama the most ardently. They are playing it just how McCain's team expected them to- badly with quite a bit of sexism thrown in as an appetizer.
Media writers that support Obama? Which ones are those? In the grand scheme of things, readership of blogs is still small compared to the electorate at large.
I predict the McCain campaign will make government reform it's campaign centerpiece this coming week. Until he selected Palin, I had thought McCain would put his greater government experience front and center. He is going to steal the "Change Washington" banner from Obama.
This gets torpedoed by your statement right below it. Change Washington? How? He's been in Washington forever. Are you saying he's going to delegate authority to her?
From what I've read, that trooper tasered his 11 year old stepson.
Except it has been reported that the gun wasn't on full blast mode, and the son actually asked the dad to tase him like those demonstrations where the cops tase each other to test it. Not only that, but the guy she hired to replace the Public Safety official had pending sexual harassment charges against him, which she knew about.
"I personally think experience in government is highly overrated..."
Oh, Yancey, you're really something. The President of The United States is the most powerful person in the world. In the eyes of George Bush and his loyal supporters, the President can have you arrested just because he wants to, tortured, and held indefinitely without the right of habeas corpus and without benefit of counsel. In foreign affairs he can start hostilities on his own and he has the power to wipe out cities with thermonuclear weapons. You wouldn't go to a dentist or a garage mechanic without experience, you ask for references when you hire a contractor for home repairs, but experience in government is "highly overrated". Reading this blog is such fun.
I have to agree with Yancey here. The Maverick has set a beautiful trap here for The One.
All Palin has to do is be reasonably articulate and appear intelligent during the campaign and not have any fatsl skeletons in her closet. People naturally want to cheer for the underdog.
The One's rabid supporters are going to force him into the trap even if his is smart enough to spot it. I have already heard them suggesting that a real feminist would have aborted her downs syndrome baby. That ain't going to play well outside the strident pro choice crowd.
I am going to make some popcorn and enjoy the slsughter.
I think you miss the point, Stan.
The president of the United States cannot be a technocrat with expertise in everything that he/she has power over. What is required is good judgment and the ability to form and articulate a broad political philosophy that guides ones decisions.
It is unclear that spending time in government working to bring home pork to the local yokels to buy votes does anytning more to develop those characteristics than other experiences.
This was a bold move by 'Cain and a cynical one, since he is making certain assumptions about Democrat female voters: that they don't care about actual policy.
It may work. But it's risky. It also undercuts his central theme till now that Obama has no experience. It's not really a trap for Obama, since Democrats have not been making the experience argument, McCain has. So it's his latest attempt at out contradicting himself.
So here, we have McCain favoring immigration reform, then backing down. McCain against Bush tax cuts, now favoring. McCain against lack of experience, now for. McCain kind of mocking the religious right, now firmly attached to born-again derriere.
He abandoned many more qualified Republican men and women and is leaving his fate in the hands of Palin and her ability to adjust to a more intense level of scrutiny. Can she take it or try to fake it? In herself, I think a good person (and actually shares many of my viewpoints despite my Obama lean), but she is being woefully used by Cain.
In the least though, we can all stop harping on experience as a factor for determining the quality of a president and move on to actual policy issues.
No, Robert Brown, I don't miss the point. If Huey Long had lived to run for President, people would have known from his record in Louisiana that he was an American Mussolini. When FDR ran in 1932, voters knew from his record in New York that he believed in activist government. The list is endless. Do you really think that all John McCain did in office was bring pork to the local yokels?
And do you think that's all that government consists of? Think about it.
I don’t think that Maverick is targeting Democratic female voters. Clearly they put policy above their gender identity. Witness their response to Clinton’s sexual abuse of a subordinate. Independent minded females are another matter.
True, Democrats have not been making the experience argument, for good reason. Maverick has made his point and now he is going to sit back and watch his enemies be drawn into the experience debate to his advantage.
Yes, that is part of the trap. The more Maverick can tease out The One’s political philosophy and policy proscriptions the better for him.
From what I've read, that trooper tasered his 11 year old stepson. If Ms. Palin steps up and says she'll fire every law officer who has that little judgment, and those who defend them, I'll have no trouble understanding her approval ratings in AL.
The fighter pilot is inside The One's OODA loop. Pass the popcorn!
OK, now you are shifting the debate away from the qualifications that government experience offers a candidate to the mechanisms most likely to expose ones conviction to a political philosophy.
I tend to agree with that. Reports indicate that Palin was willing to go up against the old bulls in her own party in support of her philosophy. Maverick has a similar reputation. The One appears to have gone along with corrupt Chicago political machines if it favored his advancement.
Ooooh, so the officer tasered his minor stepson because the 11 year old asked to be shocked? He didn't use full blast mode? That is a defense? The Trooper clearly isn't fit to be a law officer. I wouldn't let him walk my dog around the block, and I think it is outrageous that the Police Union defends this jackass.
I applaud Ms. Palin attempting to get this idiot fired before she was elected. Please, keep defending Mr. He-asked-for-it and link Ms. Palin to the attempt to fire him. Pretty please with sugar on top.
Pending? What I read is that he had a letter of reprimand for hugging a subordinate. But by all means, bring all this out and let's hear the facts. If she's guilty of misbehavior or misjudgment, so be it. I still support her efforts to remove Mr. Eat-a-f**king-bullet from law enforcement.
Megan,
Is it true you have three testicles?
JKC,
So how do you feel about the 30-50% number now? How do we go from some large minority not paying income tax to getting 95% of families tax cuts?Do we now count cutting someone a $1000 check instead of a $500 check as a 'tax cut', even though they don't pay taxes?
I noticed you've failed to mention you were wrong.
skullberg:
I was questioning the figures. I wasn't wrong on anything. It smells fishy that half the country(if not more according to you) has no net tax liability. I'm not rich and I know I pay federal taxes.
Are the CBO's numbers wrong? From them, somewhere in the low to mid $40K range and average taxpayer starts having a federal income tax liability. The numbers vary, but family status and children effect this, but the numbers don't lie - roughly 40% of taxpayers don't actually pay income taxes.
I agree.
He's instead getting a three-fer:
1) Shoring up the GOP base. From Dobson to Limbaugh, the base is finally ready to enthusiastically support the GOP ticket.
2) Appealing to the blue-collar union workers who kept showing up to vote for Hillary in the Primary. Joe Biden was supposed to do this (at least in Pennsylvania) for Obama. Palin has a good shot at doing this far more successfully.
Any "Presidential trivia" experts out there want to tell us when the last time a major party's candidate for Preident or Vice President was actually a union member? (No, the Bar Association does not count.)
3) Appealing to independent women. Staunch Democrats may like her, but most will vote against her because of the issues. Independents are more likely to be won over. This bump could be huge if the Dems (or the Media) go too far in attacking her -- particularly if they keep on about how irresponsible it is of her to be taking on a full-time job with young children.
All this, of course, is on top of the quick change of conversation; highlighting of Obama's inexperience; injecting energy into the campaign; and last, but not least, the simple fact that she's not an old white male Senator. Yes, it's silly and irrational that this last point counts so much. Try arguing with voters and telling them they shouldn't care about what they care about.
And if you want to go the "executive experience" route, she beats McCain in that department too.
Why, yes, she does. Why is this a problem? Biden equals or exceeds Obama in any category of government experience you can name, and it is supposed to be *McCain* who suffers from having a VP that surpasses him at something?
Ideally, the Presidential candidate would have the executive experience, and bring in a VP (and advisers) with the military and foreign policy credentials. The McCain ticket's got it backwards, but the Obama ticket is missing the executive and military experience entirely. That's a bit troubling, especially since we'll be fighting a war in, at the very least, Afghanistan for some time to come.
If McCain is elected Sarah Palin will be a heartbeat away from the presidency, and the heart will belong to a 72 year old cancer survivor. In a time of increased tension with Russia, her finger will be on the trigger. She knows bupkis about national and international affairs. She hasn't thought much about the Iraq War, and at least a few months ago she didn't know what the Vice President did. She may be innocent in the troopergate scandal, but her firing of the police chief and the head librarian during her gig as mayor because ''I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla." is Bushism at its worst. I was staggered when McCain named her as his VP choice and even more staggered when so many Republican intellectuals (Oxymoronic phrase, n'ext pas?) defended his decision. This is truly a low point in our history, and if I were a Republican I'd be lowering my head in shame.
John,
"what made this country great; individualism and individual effort and responsibility: -- really? It is what gave us the Great Depression, massive income inequality, racial discrimination, etc. What has made this country great has been community and civic concern, But mayve you live in another country, the same one in which Megan could find Obama's speech uninspiring.
The same thing can be said about The One and noone has to die to get his finger on the button.
Dan:
Neither Bush nor Cheney had military experience. Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton. Bush was part of three different companies that went bankrupt. McCain's military experience consisted of crashing 4(or is it 5?) different planes. Hell, McCain was only able to be a pilot because his dad was an Admiral in the Navy(It's likely the reason McCain wasn't thrown out of Annapolis as well). Is that the type of experience you are satisfied with? Do you want recklessness and a flying by the seat of your pants attitude in your President?
Robert Brown:
Are you trying to be cute or does the stupidity come naturally? Palin has only been overseas once(last year). She didn't even have the intellectual curiosity to learn about Iraq and Afghanistan. She learned about "The Surge" last year from hearing it talked about on TV. Also, did you know she supports a windfall profits tax for Alaska? If it is good enough for Alaska, why not the rest of the country?
The One promised that the "surge" would fail. He voted to abandon Iraq to its fate. He blurted out that he would go hat in hand to meet with the worlds worst tyrants until HIll set him straight. His oh-so-brilliant second banana wanted to partitions Iraq into three countries...so much for toriegn travel.
Ns, I think that I will take my chances with the naive rube. She may turn out to have a lot more wisdom than you think.
Dan,
I love, love, love your comment, you spend time denigrating people's intelligence and then throw this out -
Because the french phrase is "n'est pas".
Enjoy your big cup of fail.
"What has made this country great has been community and civic concern,"
No that is what has made Europe the consistent victim of fascism and communism and every other fashionable utopian ideology of the last 200 years or so. What has saved this country is our individualism and love of freedom. I know what country I live in; one that is lucky people like you don't often hold positions of responsibility.
Skullberg wrote:
>Because the french phrase is "n'est pas".
Well, you're closer than the person you're correcting. But actual French phrase is "n'est-ce pas".
Pedantically yours,
Jess
The country, if we mean the US, values both community and the individual; freedom and responsibility.
Although I think what keeps us from anything like fascism or communism is probably a sense of continuity. Unlike the nations that tried those things we have not had warring dynasties or multiple constitutions. Although a young society our Constitution and political parties are relatively old. They are also flexible enough that are system can adapt without requiring any kind of revolution. Continuity and flexibility is just not as sexy perhaps as rugged individuals or community spirit. (Well okay some find flexibility sexy, but that's a different kind of flexibility I think)
The entire conservative base is rejoicing. McCain has raised a remarkable amount of money in a very short time. Somehow, both the Romney supporters and the Huckabee supporters are happy - something which everyone thought impossible.
Palin deals with oil companies, has fought with them too, is in favor of ANWR drilling. That will give McCain cover to change his position on it. And energy policy is a big Democratic weak point; this will make it weaker.
The experience issue is interesting, but I don't see it as a big problem. It's unbelievable how many liberal pundits are referring to her as a beauty queen. McCain picked a beauty queen. She is a governor, for goodness sake, and one with a very high approval rating.
It makes as much sense to say that Obama picked a former baby in diapers to be his running mate.
And most commentators here are not dealing, IMHO, with the most important issue about Palin. She is a tremendous reform candidate. Read her history; she fought and defeated corrupt officials, including taking out several Republicans. McCain can use Palin's candidacy to bring the issue of earmarks and corruption in Congress to full visibility. And earmarks are exceedingly unpopular to anyone except Congressmen. Let's hear what Biden will say when Palin lists the amount of earmarks that Obama, Biden, and Pelosi took in the last few years, many hundreds of millions of dollars, and says that her candidate, McCain, is going to veto any such bills. Look out, Washington. Sarah Barracuda is in the water now!
This election is such fun! Haven't stopped smiling since Friday. I hope McCain's gamble works out.
MikeR:
It sounds like you haven't been paying attention. Palin was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it. She is embroiled in abuse of office charges back home in Alaska. She approved a hike in the windfall profits tax in Alaska. If it is good enough for Alaska, why isn't it good enough for the rest of the country? She also left the town of Wasilla with $20 million in debt. So much for fiscal responsibility. That is change we can believe in!!
Eh, Joe, don't be so grumpy!
Bridge to Nowhere? I've never understood the flip-flop charge, unless the person keeps doing it. No one always gets it right the first time. Fine by me that she got it right in the end. I understand that she kept the money, used it for something else...
Embroiled in abuse of office charges. From what I've seen of it, all power to her. Unfortunate that the guy she wanted fired was a former brother-in-law, looks bad and all that, but sounds like he had it coming big. Wake me up when there are results from the investigation.
Windfall profits tax? Deficit in city of Wasilla? Could be you're right; I don't know any more about the finances in Wasilla than you do, no insult intended. Nor about the tax arrangements in Alaska.
Anyhow, I didn't expect a perfect fit, happy with what I got.
Hey, when is The Atlantic going to dissociate itself from Andrew Sullivan? Attacking a 17-year-old with bizarre and completely meritless rumors is far beneath the dignity of this publication. The other Atlantic writers deserve better.
Besides backing the famous bridge to nowhere before it lost federal funding, Palin the reformer helped run Ted Stevens' 527. Also, in an awesomely Bushite way, she fired the police chief and head librarian when she was mayor of Wasilla for "not supporting her leadership". Of course, this is nitpicking stuff. The main charge against her is that she's a lightweight with no knowledge of or even interest in national or international affairs.
Megan
Are you planning on posting this week? A few things have happened since the speech. I'm quite interested in your take on the situations that are ongoing today
Megan
Are you planning on posting this week? A few things have happened since the speech. I'm quite interested in your take on the situations that are ongoing today
Are you on vacation or something? If so, it would have been cool if you'd let us know beforehand and said when you'd be back.
"Palin the reformer helped run Ted Stevens' 527. Also, in an awesomely Bushite way, she fired the police chief and head librarian when she was mayor of Wasilla for not supporting her leadership"
Stan, couldn't have said it better myself. She helped run his 527. Eventually, when he turned out to be corrupt, she called him out on it. Did you expect her to walk into her 527 job, fangs out, all ready to attack her employer on the first day? Pretty high standards for a reformer!:)
Fired the police chief and head librarian for not supporting her leadership? Have you ever run a business? If you did, and underlings did not support your leadership, I'd expect that you'd have to get rid of them if you wanted to get anything done.
Anyhow, is it possible she had good reason. That's what reformers do, they get rid of people who need reforming, and people who are running interference for the people who need reforming. Obviously, the reformees consider that an infringement of their rights, and if you listen to them, you'll think she's really bad.
Do I know anything much about this? Nope. But neither does anyone else; we all read the same articles. But the claims people are making are ludicrous. They're just repeating every negative thing somebody came up with, without thinking about whether knowing more might make them actually positive.
Sen. Obama, on the other hand, seems to have been Mr. Congeniality on the job. We have no record of his troubling anyone in Chicago, or in the Senate. Presumably because those places are not corrupt. Anyhow, the Advocate of Change got along fine.
"She's a lightweight with no knowledge of or even interest in national or international affairs." They say she's a quick study. Perhaps she's been busy at her job running Alaska, unlike some other candidates we all know and love. How any thinking person can call a successful governor a lightweight is beyond me.
Megan must be sick or something. I hope she is okay. I can't believe she missed the Palin flame wars. Moreover, I am surprised the Atlantic didn't have her out posting to get something on the web besides Sullivan vile ravings.
Megan must be sick or something. I hope she is okay. I can't believe she missed the Palin flame wars. Moreover, I am surprised the Atlantic didn't have her out posting to get something on the web besides Sullivan's vile ravings.
JKC: "Neither Bush nor Cheney had military experience."
Dude. Are you that stupid every day of the week? Or just days that end in "y?"
Bush was a commissioned officer, actually, in the Texas Air National Guard.
At least she doesnt plaster the makeup on like a trollop, you cunt.
Bush was a commissioned officer, actually, in the Texas Air National Guard.
And we know he went AWOL. What's your point? He was no better than Clinton when it comes down to it.
Sorry, JCK...you just got pn'd on the facts. Don't try to weasel out of it.
You made a specific claim: that Bush had no military experience. You were wrong. A mature person would acknowledge the error and retract.
I guess that's not you.
As for the AWOL charge, if you're the type of dolt to argue that a qualified pilot and commissioned officer in the Air National Guard has no military experience, then you haven't the fund of information to support it like an adult.
Now go on back to the fever swamp, kid.
Fever swamp, huh? Why don't you take your sorry butt back to whatever hole you crawled out from under. Qualified pilot? You mean like John McCain? You wingnut conservatives are so funny. Since you support the war, did you volunteer? Or are you just a member of the 101st Fightin' Keyboarders?
MikeR, you've convinced me. Sarah Palin combines the best features of Napoleon and Bismark, and I can't wait to see her as commander-in-chief.
JKC,
Are you a cop?
Are you a fireman?
Are you a teacher?
If not, why? Are you some kind of coward who demands we have police and firefighters but won't do it? Do you also demand public education but won't support it by teaching? Have you started med school so that when we get universal healthcare you'll be a doctor?
You've been called out on being factually wrong multiple times on this thread and you keep moving on to the next point to see if that will stick. I hope no one takes you serious any more, since you obviously don't know the facts of what you are talking about.
JKC: Since you support the war, did you volunteer? Or are you just a member of the 101st Fightin' Keyboarders?
Thank you for asking, JKC. It so happens that I did serve a tour in Iraq, as an infantryman. In fact, I went as a commissioned officer in the National Guard. Come to think of it, that's what Bush was, too.
Even got my combat infantryman's badge and VFW membership card.
So, moron...am I a draft-dodger, too?
"Megan must be sick or something."
Or maybe she wanted to do something more fun on the Labor Day holiday than blog and didn't feel it necessary to tell us it was Labor Day weekend.
Stan:
Heh. I personally would rather have her as president than McCain...
Anyhow, we're in the process of discovery now, where the idealized superwoman that was presented originally is replaced by the real human being, probably with a lot of flaws like all of us, not knowing everything she needs to, like the rest of us, dealing with (world-publicized) family difficulties, and perhaps not as one-sided and absolute a Barracuda as the Dark Knight.
McCain took a big gamble, and an exciting one. I hope it works out.
It's going on 5 days since this post, and no new posts since then. I hope your disappointment hasn't thrown you into a blue funk....
Palin! :)
MikeR, to tell you where I'm coming from, I think the best foreign policy presidents in my lifetime (which started in 1936) were Truman, Nixon, and George H. W. Bush, and the best Secretaries of State were George Marshall, Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. I favor conservative realism in foreign affairs. My beef with Sarah Palin is not that she's a conservative, it's that she's a lightweight. If McCain were elected and then died or became too sick to carry out his duties, she'd be at the mercy of his advisors. Harry Truman had an even more modest education than she did, but he was a thoughtful, well-read man, and he eventually came up with an effective and highly creative foreign policy team. Can you imagine Sarah Palin doing that? I can't. The thought of her as President gives me the creeps.
Harry Truman had an even more modest education than she did, but he was a thoughtful, well-read man, and he eventually came up with an effective and highly creative foreign policy team. Can you imagine Sarah Palin doing that? I can't.
Why can't you imagine it? What do you know about her that the rest of us don't?
Now, I'd agree that we don't know that she can either, but the evidence so far says that she's willing to buck the established power structure (resign from ethics commission in protest), including her own party (defeat the incumbent in a primary race) to generally accomplish what she thinks needs to be done.
The foreign affairs aspect of the presidency really is a crap shoot. Events often overtake the president's desires (Bush ran on a policy of no nation building). But just based on her track record of not getting rolled, she's demonstrated something positive.
None of which is to say that I think she's a known commodity or a sure thing. There's clearly a lot of risk - but what she has accomplished leads me to believe that there could be some upside to that risk.
Well, I guess it's clear Joe Klein's Conscience doesn't have have the intellectual honesty to retract his dumbass chickenhawk argument.
Score another libtard vanquished.