Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Denver open thread

I have a dream. Have at it.

Back to painting.

0
No votes yet

Comments

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

NYT -- http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/... -- "Here’s a copy of the Democratic National Committee’s talking points, e-mailed to supporters and surrogates for use during television appearances and interviews with reporters – about Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Former President Bill Clinton’s speeches on Wednesday night, and the big Barack Obama address here tonight: ..."

Submitted by lambert on

He really soared on what happened when the Rs got all three branches of government, and on income inequality.

They leave out the meat and give us the mush. Assholes. From Clinton's speech:

Look at the example the Republicans have set: American workers have given us consistently rising productivity. They've worked harder and produced more. What did they get in return? Declining wages, less than a quarter as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller healthcare and pension benefits, rising poverty and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s. American families by the millions are struggling with soaring healthcare costs and declining coverage. I will never forget the parents of children with autism and other severe conditions who told me on the campaign trail that they couldn't afford healthcare and couldn't qualify their kids for Medicaid unless they quit work or got a divorce. Are these the family values the Republicans are so proud of?

[McCain] still embraces the extreme philosophy which has defined his party for more than 25 years, a philosophy we never had a real chance to see in action until 2001, when the Republicans finally gained control of both the White House and Congress. Then we saw what would happen to America if the policies they had talked about for decades were implemented.

They took us from record surpluses to an exploding national debt; from over 22m new jobs down to 5m; from an increase in working family incomes of $7,500 to a decline of more than $2,000; from almost 8m Americans moving out of poverty to more than 5 and a half million falling into poverty - and millions more losing their health insurance.

The truth that cannot be spoken and perhaps has never been said.

NOTE For those who say: "Then why the fuck don't you vote for the D?" I respond: Things can always get worse.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

that they had taken out-- "petro-dictators" -- http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0...

"... Schweitzer, other sources said, had already clashed with convention organizers over the editing of his speech. So when he took the stage, the Montana governor expanded dramatically on a prepared text sent by the campaign to reporters, adding signature language that stuck out from the rest of the speakers' words -- he was the only one talking about "petro-dictators" -- and offered a rhetorical merger of environmentalism and patriotism.

"If you would have turned around and looked at the teleprompter, you would have seen that for most of my speech, it didn't move," he said.

The result: The best received speeches in Denver, Schweitzer's and former President Bill Clinton's, were among those over which the Obama campaign had the least control.

"I thought it was a pretty good line when I said, 'The petro-dictators will never own American wind and sunshine,'" he said.
"

a little night musing's picture
Submitted by a little night ... on

looks harmless*, but packs a punch.

I kinda like him!

*OK, some think he looks like Chucky. I see that too, and I interpret it as how scary Chucky was because of his normalcy. But YMMV.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

the Obama people's efforts, which is so wrong.

they softened everyone's speeches except for Schweitzer and Bill, apparently---giant mistake.

a little night musing's picture
Submitted by a little night ... on

There's a mojito with my name on it, and a Dan Hicks song on the jukebox. (Where's the Money, if you must know) - and the Dodgers are playing in 15 minutes or so.

I won't listen to the Big Speech, but I'll read tomorrow. And I know how to read.

Fear me, Obama.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

It is now a nightmare. Obama here, tonight, for this black man, is not a poignant touchstone; it's just, well, plain ironic.

Submitted by lambert on

Expand, please.

I was thinking up on the ladder that it really is a great thing that a black man is running for President. Unfortunately, we're not voting for a black man. We're voting for a black man who gutted the rule of law. And that's an altogether iffier proposition.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by cg.eye on

his marketing strategy for full support from the Democratic Party, will end up as isolated as a, yes, Black Republican legislator during Reconstruction.

Yeah, I still have to read up -- but I'm wondering why neither Dems or Reps generally ask those questions about a president who demands that he should not have an openly partisan or ethnically-focused base.

If he'll refuse to address the problems of black people as a group, how will he ever find solutions, as the AA community takes on faith he will?

Submitted by lambert on

Pass the vodka.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

Not a bad speech, although that's only excerpts.

I don't see a thing on health care.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

you didn't think that a black populist or radical would ever be allowed to rise so high, did you? obama is exactly like thatcher in this regard. "only nixon could go to china," or "so long as it michael jordan, my white daughter can date him" and all that. anyone 'real' would be taken out well before achieving such fame, as X and King proved to us long ago.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

my plans of going out got canceled : <

-- and Sheryl Crow-- so very 90s and Clintonian, no? Is Hootie up next? ; >

Submitted by lambert on

Readers?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

it's new Dem law, i guess--you have to grow one after you've lost or something?

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

You answered your own question in your response. The irony to which I spoke of is that MLK fought against things like illegal wire-tapping and true social justice, and the man who will almost certainly claim his mantle, tonight, has squandered most of all of that, and my people are falling for it. They didn't just fall for it, they followed him off of the cliff as if it were an honor.

No, I'm not surprised. But, that doesn't mean it hurts any less, my friends. I've talked to relatives, today, who are falling all over themselves with pride, but it doesn't have anything to do with issues. Not one; and it hurts.

Submitted by lambert on

That must have hurt. Proverbs 16:18....

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by cg.eye on

as they made their way through nearby Larimer Square.

It felt as if everyone thought a deal was done; that not much else would be needed, or else someone else would do it.

I nodded to the black folks who passed by (don't get het up at the implied bigotry; it is as saying "Landsman!" to a rare fellow Jewish person in the Old West, very Southern, and expected). They were quiet, thinking the same things I was -- do we want to go through this, all over again?

Fight for the new mayors, new congresspeople, then watch as they fall away into their new tribe's habits of corruption and constituent inattention? Will that phalanx of men who shaped his image let him deliver a damn thing the people want, save spectacle?

And, as always, the Memphis question -- hell, during the RFK June mischegas, every black person in the US would have been tried to thoughtcrime, because it's discussed every time we have a quiet moment to think what an Obama presidency would bring. On the bus, coming home a few days ago, it was either that or conjectures of complete election theft, to stop him.

Rabid white men have taught us, you see. If someone is too precious to us to lose, kill him quick or corrupt him quicker. That's more than the Chicago Way; it's the American Way.

Submitted by lambert on

... about it, although for a different reason. Protocols of the Elders of Zion territory.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Yeah, he grew the beard after he dropped out of the primaries. It was quite a story for a few days when he came back out to endorse Obama during the primaries.

Submitted by lambert on

Back to that earlier discussion on the "surprise visit" -- I finally figured out what made me nervous about it: Obama was addressing a crowd -- that's the flip side of being a rock star. But convention delegates, if you take them seriously, are not just a crowd.* But at that moment, they were.

Which is water bothers me about this stadium, too. It's a crowd, period. That is the purpose of a convention. It's a change in the constitutional order, signaled by all sorts of little cultural events like this.

Gore "coming up"

NOTE * And both Clintons showed how to "work a crowd" while simultaneously giving them respect as delegates.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

str8 white guy. can't you tell the difference?

jus funnin wit you, bro.

...anyway, yes. i know *exactly* what you mean. however, it's important, lesson-wise, as it shows just how little "race" matters in our media-driven imperial age. everyone, of any age, race or class, is susceptible to the media narrative. thinking people are rare, of any color, and all of america suffers from the religion of Celebrity.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

it's like all those events--and certainly is coming off the same way they do on tv.

Submitted by lambert on

Love the T-shirt on the congas guy.

"Barack the Vote."

Tell that to the TX caucuses. Change in the Constitutional order once again.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

Tribute to retired generals seems to be the next item on the agenda.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

Why not Mamie?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I just heard Thom Hartmann (on a replay of his daytime show, I gathered) talking with two guys from MediaMatters.

A caller complained that Obama and the various conventioneers, outside of Bill Clinton briefly, hadn't been talking about restoring the 4th Amendment and other parts of the Constitution lost to the FISA Bill, the Patriot Act extension, etc.

The panel discussed this topic for a few minutes and not once came near mentioning that Obama had voted for both, including lying about his plan to actively oppose the FISA bill.

Goddamn it, truthiness rots everything.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

He said that anyone who was going to fall in love with Obama already has, so tonight would be aimed at independents (wow, what a change of pace!)

Maybe it's Lucy-and-the-football time, but I'm expecting a little more blue tofu from Obama tonight than usual.

Submitted by lambert on

"Can't afford it!"

Take her on the road!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

concerts, Ipods, texting (@ $.03 per)(hattip to the telecoms), webcasts, youtubes, blogging... you know how it goes. Where is the discussion of the issues? Where are the debates? Where is the hard work to earn people's respect and their vote?

Not here. Not now.

Oh, how I yearn for a candidate that will speak simply and directly about the issues of our world and how we can address them.

I love this job!

Submitted by lambert on

At least according to the Colorado GOTV coordinator.

I suppose if this is the solution to turnout, then, well, good.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

too funny!--

Slate twitter feed--

"# Can't believe the Dems couldn't book Kenny Loggins or Christopher Cross." 41 minutes ago" -- http://www.slate.com/id/2198510/

"# Gore's speech is making me want to write in the Lorax." 55 minutes ago

Submitted by lambert on

Because the stadium soundtrack is all boomer music.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Say what?

Mid to late 80s? That's my generation of rebellion that segued nicely into Nirvana. For me at least.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

he's like the stupid member of the Chicago gang--but he's the who has the car or something, so Axelrod/Emanuel/Obama let him hang out with them.

Submitted by lambert on

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

Barack Obama doesn't want overreaching government invading our privacy, or words to that effect.

I can cut politicians a lot of slack in a convention speech, but that's just a direct lie: FISA.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by cg.eye on

Jeezum crow, they hope they get more slack than the Bush Administration, don't they?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

in this video--or Hawaii even

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

President Obama? ugh.
President McCain? ugh.

we lose both ways.

Submitted by lambert on

Both Bill and Hillary could.

He just keeps saying thank you -- but can't improvise!

Says nice things about the Clintons.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I thought Barney Smith (regular Indiana Joe) was going to be a snoozer, but the Barney Smith/Smith Barney burn was the best line of the night.

EDIT: Obama just said "with great humility, I aceept..." Could be possibly be any more see-through? Obama is many things; humble, he's never been. Which, actually wouldn't be a problem, if he had something to back up his confidence.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Someone's been listening on framing at fucking long last (I reserve the right to reverse that if that post-partisanship shit rears its head).

Finally mentioned that things were better under Clinton. Waaaaay past fucking time.

So, what policies do we get?

Submitted by lambert on

But call me cynical -- I can't help comparing this to Jackson's "they work every day," which still brings a lump to my throat, or one of Bill Clinton's stories, where you got the feeling he actually remembered the person. Obama doesn't give me that feeling (or bring a lump to my throat).

That said, this is good class warfare red met -- worse than Clinton, but better than Kerry.

NOTE Hat tip DamonMI for teaching me "burn".

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

I love this job!

Submitted by lambert on

[spontaneous demonstration]

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

... not against us."

Nice to hear a D defending government.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

I've been waiting for this:

1. Tax policy

2. No capital gains tax on small bus

3. Cut taxes on 95% [middle? Working?] class

4. 10 yrs no dep oil mideast [Even possible?]

5. Natural gas, clean coal, nukes, auto companies retool

6. $150 billion in wind and solar and biofules -- 5M new jobs pay well and can't be outsourced [why?]

7. Education -- community service -> college education [good idea]

8. Affordable accessible health care. If have, lower premiums, if don't, can get what members of Congress have. Stop discrimination against sick. [new, I think]. mediocre No [x] from me.

9. Equal pay for equal work. Daughters [what did they learn from the primary...]

Pay for with [missed something] Slashing the federal bureaucracy.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

but he doesn't say that.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

It goes against 30 years of conventional wisdom.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by jawbone on

say reduce dependence on OIL. All oil is priced the same, no matter where it comes from. This was no biggie.

Clean coal? Some call that a fantasy. Safe nuclear energy? Sure, and where do we store the spent fuels?

Some of the laundry list sounds good--his way of paying? Kind of fairy tale: the ever sought, seldom found waste and inefficiency. There was some kind of taxing of corporations? Not sure.

I missed what kind of healthcare--but he did say anyone could get into the Fed plans? Or just those who couldn't
get private? What was there?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

which is another lie.

and that he'd reduce premiums on people who already have insurance--which is impossible for him to do since that's private insurance.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Where was this Obama, yesterday? I can't but help feel even while loving it that he can turn this on and off, and it'll be off, tomorrow. There is just no real passion in it.

Submitted by lambert on

people's character...."

Well, sure. Unless they're women or bitter clingers, of course. What a crock. He did nothing else the whole primary, and to entire classes of people.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

But, I just don't believe it. It is, quite simply put, unbelievable. I know, I know, you'll say that he can't win for losing, and maybe that's true, but this conversion on the road to Dasmascus is all too convenient.

He's responding to Hillary and Bill, period. He's reacting. This is a game, to him. This isn't a proactive speech.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

he'll say what they tell him to if he can win with it.

he has no track record of ever doing any of this stuff that all of a sudden he now cares about.

Submitted by lambert on

Not. Hospital visitation rights and no discrimination.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

Funny, my mind wandered and I started doing other stuff right then.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

That's really for the finance crowd, not the workers. See this essential reading from Eric Jansen.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Just like in OH I fear this is all "just words." Especially, after Obama said he didn't believe you should engage in the politics of personal destruction. Or Obama continually harping about "change" after having selected Biden and being surrounded by the entrenched DC establishment (Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc.). Or after Richardson, Durbin, and others attacked those who voted for FISA...without acknowledging Obama's vote.

OK, WTF! Obama just said, "If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone you should run from." Are you fucking kidding me?! Basically, he just outed himself.

Submitted by jawbone on

after the warrantless wiretapping or privacy or the 4th Amendment, all that Constitutional stuff--bcz Obama himself voted to give Bush all the powers he wanted and voted against the rights of the people and against the Constitution.

It's too embarrassing to bring up. The crazy aunt in the attic. Not to be mentioned.

snow-moon's picture
Submitted by snow-moon on

jawbone:
(re: your comment on the Lithwick article)

This has been my problem with the whole "change" theme of Obama's campaign. It doesn't have teeth.

Change I can believe in would lead to consequences-- for all of the people responsible for the past eight years.

Some can just go home, and leave public service forever.

Others have committed crimes, and need to go to prison.

Several of those at the highest levels should be tried-- for war crimes-- in The International Court (whose authority we still don't recognize).

Unfortunately, many of these people have D's by their name (and we need the Republicans to like us in order to win the election).

So we choose to just sweep it all under the rug as we always tend to do. It's our nature-- and our history-- to conveniently forget our national crimes.

These particular criminals will be back in a few years--unpunished and stronger for it.

(This is similar to the observation that the U.S mainstream media will never fully examine-- in our lifetimes, anyway-- the causes and conditions that allowed Bush to succeed in nearly every perverted adventure he and his administration desired. The media elite are complicit.)

The inconvenient truth is that we need to dismantle our current system of government in order to restore democracy to America.

Red America can sleep well tonight- knowing that whatever the outcome in November, the leaders of their party will be safe from prosecution.

Read Glenn G. today?

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Like during The Race Speech he said that a candidate exploits race to cover up for their weaknesses. But, damn, to say that line now after the shit he pulled against both Hillary and Bill Clinton is just too much. Worse, I don't think for a second he believes he was ever at fault. Disturbing.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

what was our takeaway?

he's gonna respect everyone, yet do stuff for us that they won't ever allow?

we must elect him or we're "turning back"?

???

Submitted by jawbone on

somehow better before all the people were there--now it looks kinda tacky and small. And those few pathetic firworks? Oh, no!

They all look so...distant from everything.

Ah, fireworks from around the top of the stadium. Blown confetti.

And the principals look so very small and far away....

What's the closing music?

And they could have used some advice from the Chinese on the fireworks...

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Suckers!

He said he wouldn't vote for the FISA bill but he did anyway. He says one thing about Iraq while his (most likely #1) adviser says what he says now won't matter once he's president (or paraphrasing).

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice...can't get fooled again.

oceansandmountains's picture
Submitted by oceansandmountains on

You made me go off my lekkage-free diet! Ick, now I have to wash out my brains...

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

"choosing the unknown is what we did we picked Roosevelt" -- "and Reagan"

"attacking from a defensive position"

wtf?

Submitted by lambert on

Terrific peroration.

But for me, it's just like after Hillary and Bill -- they made the case, but I already knew that case, and just because someone new presented the logic didn't change the logic.

So, best speech I've heard him give. But I already knew he could give a good speech. I think the commenter who said it was reactive not pro-active had it right. We're hearing boring bullet points about policy -- and lots of boomer music -- because he's decided to go after HIllary voters. Good. And we get? I want that broken health care plan fixed, and I want somebody credible put in charge of that now, because after FISA I don't trust him any farther than I can throw a piano. A concert grand. So, no [x] from me because the health care bullet point is a fail.

And whatever happened to the old political maxim to always book a hall that's too small for the crowd?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

we don't promise tax cuts that reduce govt money--we use govt and its money and power to help people---that costs money.

he said he would pay for his plans by "reducing govt. waste" and "cutting programs that don't work"--that's pure GOP bs.

Submitted by lambert on

or I would have lost another keyboard.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

How Obama's grandeur makes him unreachable to most people, physically and emotionally (e.g., he lectures from podiums rather than speaks to us on our level). Basically, we feel we are witnessing a man of mythical Greatness so it's difficult for us to relate to him (think: George Washington). He desperately lacks the common touch:

The common touch is not a trifling quality. Most voters are not policy experts, and they lack detailed political information. Yet they must still make a choice. In that situation, what should swing voters (i.e. those not guided by partisanship) do? It makes sense for them to vote for the guy with whom they can relate. That's a candidate who can be trusted to do what the voters would want him to do.

Obama's narrative seems to preclude this quality. The claim of greatness carries with it an implication of distance. If Obama is great, and the rest of us are average, how can we identify with Obama, or he with us?

Submitted by lambert on

Last night, Bill Clinton was teaching -- that riff on "finally the Republicans took power and look what they did" was like a distillation of five years of blogging -- but tonight Obama was lecturing. You could almost see the outline Clinton was mentally working from, flexing beneath the words. Obama does that on the phrasing -- the peroration was terrific -- but he doesn't have that beautiful logical flow of connected ideas; they just come in a sequence, with no flow. And that to my mind is what gives Clinton the common touch, because somewhere (given time) he's going to make a real person part of the flow, with a story. I never got the feeling that Obama's stories were about real people. They were about types. What can I say.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by jawbone on

It is not easy to make ideas flow logically for others to follow. That was the astonishing thing about Bill Clinton's ability to communicate. I stand in awe of him.

He took complex ideas, which leave most pols wandering the in the tall weeds when they try to explain things to people, and he could make a logical, understandable explanation. He never spoke down to people--he just knew how to summarize, synthesize, organize.

You mentioned seeing the muscular flex of the outline under his words. Yes! He would answer questions with a restatement of the question, then a topic sentence, explanatory parargraph (brief), a summary to tie things up.

Brilliant. And so difficult to do. Just ask anyone to state anything in few words. Like tell someone what the it means to be a Democrat....

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... it was far more partisan than anything I've heard him do. It petered out at the end, and the phony crap about it being about you and such did undercut the sense that one should believe anything he said, but all told it was far better than what I've heard from him thus far.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I noticed that, as well. I couldn't grab onto anything, and he's made it, also, that you HAVE to compare this to his 2004 keynote speech, which was way better.

Ironically, these stadium rallies and feel-good speeches are "more of the same." We get it. You could feel the Great Rift Valley with the throngs of humanity if you'd have wanted to. And?

I'm with Washington Clinton delegate Ann Mills Price, on this one. You've got two months, Barack, two months. You've got two months to make me believe you, two months to prove to me that you even have half the passion of Al Gore.

That is something that I'd never thought I'd type: "Al Gore" and "passion" in the same sentence. Seriously, Al and Hill never looked so good as they do now. These guys can't drag Obama across the finish line. They just can't. It's not possible.

This party has done everything they possibly could to save you from yourself, Barack. Now, it's time to show them why you are worthy to be their nominee.

Submitted by lambert on

Just out of curiousity.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by jawbone on

a Western assault.

The US and NATO have sent a 10 heavily missile loaded ships into the Black Sea and are delivering by air tons and tons of material (which might be materiel) to Georgia each day.

And both Biden (then Obama) and McCain have been fairly bellicose toward Russia over South Ossetia. This may be more dicey than any thought initially.

And BushBoy and Cheney? Is this their last roll of the dice to encircle Russia and establish bases all around Russia, enabling them to go after the great energy reserves of the Caucuses?

Submitted by lambert on

Some damn thing in the Caucasus...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I try not to, because they are so dissimilar, or should I say, expect one to be like the other. It's apples and oranges. But, what I will say is that you always feel like Clinton is talking to you, and Obama is talking at you. I'm not sure what that ultimately means, but it's something I've observed.

Submitted by lambert on

And I've been talked at quite a bit this primary already.

I keep thinking I'm really going to end up disliking that voice. And then I think of McCain's voice.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i always got that from Bill--he felt WITH us.

Obama doesn't.

dupager's picture
Submitted by dupager on

that hits the nail for me. My problem with the omg brilliance of Barry's speaking style is that its a lecture by a smug prof.

It always sounds condescending, like we're stupid and he's here to tell us what's important.

that 2004 speech was the same way, "we worship an awesome god in the Blue states!" Uh no, I don't!

oh well, i spent 8 years turning off every radio or TV where George Bush's voice was heard. I guess I can spend the next 4 or 8 turning them off when I hear Preacher Obama's condescension. Come to think of it, I'd be turning them off if I heard McCain too. So no tv or radio for me for 4 years..

dupager

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Most likely because I'd never heard him before. It really didn't have so much to do with the substance of either speech as it had to do with the novelty. If I were to look strictly at the substance, this one was actually better given that 2004 had nothing but post-partisan crap up and down. Still, if on style I still give 2004 better because it had great pacing, if I remember, right. This one seemed a bit more disjointed.

Yes, McCain's voice kills me. It's as if he tries to make his voice as small as possible and to move his mouth as little as possible.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

To be fair, by his very trade, Bill is a lawyer, and he's very capable of giving a lecture. You saw this side of Bill Clinton during the impeachment, and it wasn't pretty. I think the difference with Obama is that he doesn't have the other empathetic half.

He's in lecture mode all of the time. This became very apparent to me when he decided to lecture us on race during the whole Reverend Wright thing. I'd rarely ever seen people take such abuse, from a politician, enjoy it, and ask for seconds.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Cry all you want to, Barack Obama just sealed the deal.

I don't believe a word he said, or not many of them any way, but that doesn't matter and neither do any of your negative opinions. His speech was aimed elsewhere, and every single point he needed to make he nailed. Flat nailed.

Yes a lot of fine words with no real specifics, so what; specifics are next year's problem. This year's challenge is to get elected, and to do that he needed to reach out to white America and be the black friend you always wanted but never had. Every single sentence, every word and every emphasis, was aimed in that direction and he flat nailed it.

Out. Of. The. Park.

Bookmark that speech, and after next week play it back in comparison to what John McCain dribbles out. Then you tell me who kicked ass, and whose ass got kicked. I am not all that easily impressed by oratory, but damn!

Out.

Of.

The.

Park.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

He made some real progress last night, finally showing some partisanship if not much substance.

Some folks like me will be listening to how he performs on the rest of the campaign trail, instead of simply checking out.

It's his job to earn our votes (yes, even the votes of shitty, inconsequential progressives like us), not our job to get him elected when he doesn't.

The "cry if you want to" attitude doesn't help any more than the repulsively naive and oppressive "movement" shtick.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Who would do that? Even John McCain knows that John McCain couldn't make a speech as good as Barack. As far as Kabuki goes, it was definitely a great speech. I'm not sure anyone denied that.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

...by how much less hideous the stage looked than I'd imagined. Maybe, it was the spacing and physical layout, but at least for me, the stage didn't come across quite as poorly as I thought it would on television.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

We gave it praise where praise was due. It wasn't unwatchable or horrible. At the end of the day, though, it was still "just words" until he makes the effort to try and prove that he can deliver on them.

Submitted by Randall Kohn on

I didn't get the sense it was a really BAD speech. It's just that at the end of the day...
well, you said the rest, very effectively.

"You'd better get this straight. Wise up before it's too late." -- Sister Sledge

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Here is an interesting op-ed by David Folkenflik of NPR. It was interesting that he also noticed that the columns didn't come across quite as silly as some thought they would. This is about as even-handed as you're going to get from the MSM. I think he gave the speech a bit too much credit, but I really wouldn't expect any less than that.

A Soaring Speech? You Gotta Let It Sink In

Bloomberg's Al Hunt said it was "amazing" but added, "I don't know how it played on television."

And that's where I come in.

At the risk of falling into the trapdoor through which Gibson, Fineman and Last descended so readily, it's worth sharing my own impressions from watching on television.

...

And all the chatter subsided about whether it was presumptuous to hold the address in a stadium holding a crowd promised at 70,000, then 80,000, and finally 85,000 people.

And all that punditry about the columns on the podium proving Obama's imperial ambitions fell by the wayside — for the simple reason that they really were only fleetingly visible on television.

makana44's picture
Submitted by makana44 on

doesn't come with a Democratic majority. Nor will it echo for 8 full years. Nor silence Hillary's in 2012. Or kill off the Progressive wing of OUR Democratic party. And reward the true asses.

Yes...

Out.

Of.

The.

Park...

All.

Lies.

Just... [ ] Obama = passive aggression.

Plus.. [x] McCain = active prevention. (Done with nose squeezed tightly 'tween forefinger and thumb; extended pinky optional :-)

Choose your poison. In four years you can say, "Don't blame me I didn't vote for Obama," or "Don't blame me I voted for McCain." BIO is right, he probably sealed the deal. If you disagree with that probable outcome, then abstaining just isn't going to be enough.

Submitted by gob on

I confess to not having watched or read the speech, but, seen through your collective eyes, it seems to have been inspired by better advice than many of his previous efforts.

...looking forward to that cold turkey...

Policy not party!

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... in a better direction?

That isn't to say he's taken the cure, but the idea that the base needs to be fed some juicy, blue tofu finally hit home.

I'd like a little firmer tofu, myself, but much of his speech smelled better than previous ones.

Submitted by lambert on

... but I think so, if only because he hasn't done it before.

Also, the polls were awful, and really did show he hadn't closed the deal with Clinton voters.

Both would explain why there was so much whining and shaming, no doubt.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

The verdict from the young "creative class", which pretty much describes most of my cow-orkers, is in.

Selon lui, Obama hit it out of the park, as BIO said. He may yet take this thing. It depends partly on whom McCain nominates as VP and whether the votes accrued thereby can counteract a "creative class" that is still paying attention to politics in a more sustained manner than usual.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

I'd like to emphasize how different I find this. Rarely is it possible to energize people in my general field of work to talk or take an interest in politics. Obama has found the magic formula to do it, and to keep that interest. If there's anything that's going to push and keep him over the top, it's that.

For better or for worse, it's not likely that Hillary Clinton would have been able to hold the attention of this segment.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

So in this maybe we can say that the Obama strategy makes sense in this way: perhaps it was not possible to make many people who would otherwise want Hillary want Obama.

Then he had to find another pool of voters. Well, he seems to have found one. The only problem is, in order to appeal to this group, he had to alienate the more traditional group quite thoroughly.

I can believe this. Remember we're talking (at least in the case of people I know) about people who often believe that it was their brains and hard work that got them where they are. Process interests them more than policy, for sure. They're the sort of people who think that David Brin is a motivational speaker.

I heard David Brin speak to a rapt crowd of my colleagues recently. He's a Gorenik, but it was all about how technology would revolutionize the world enough that poverty would become irrelevant. Policy not really required, and no thought to potential losers.

Submitted by lambert on

Never would have imagined it. Of course, it's all my fault for being a racist.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

... so I wouldn't have counted her out with the younger segment either.

We'll never know.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...are a different kettle of fish entirely from people who think that San Francisco is the capital of the United States, so to speak.

I know lots and lots of people who think that way.

Submitted by lambert on

I'm saying that, as an excellent politician, she can adapt. That's the point of upstate NY.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Upstate NY are a traditional form of voter. She adapted to speaking the verbal and visual language of a well-worn and known constituency.

Could she have also adapted to a constituency that is entirely different? That does not view health care as a major policy plank, except insofar as the drag on the economy graces the FT web site?

She might have been able to, but I don't think her campaign team could have done it so well as Obama.

Even so, I don't know if the new votes of this group can countervail the constituencies alienated by Obama.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Remember the campaign signs? Hillary Clinton's campaign sign was traditionally presidential. Serify font and all.

Barack Obama's campaign sign used futuristic looking fonts, and a cute visual pun, on a blue gradient background. Note how Obama's campaign sign reminds me of nothing so much as a cell phone theme background on a crackberry or something, while, well, Hillary's does not.

This obviously extends to the web site. The Clinton web site was, as I recall, a web site. A serviceable web site.

The Obama web site is an experience with a brand and a sophisticated visual language. There just really is no contest. And that's the perception that Obama's campaign team had that Hillary Clinton's did not.

Whether it will win is another story.

Submitted by lambert on

I found Obama's web site creepy and repellent. I didn't like the soft-focus stuff, didn't like "Join Us" [who?] -- and I had "just look at the web site"* shoved down my throat by the OFB (as, indeed, they were trained to do).

And my demographic counts too...

NOTE * As if a web site could be authoritative. Web sites are dynamic; I know; I build them. So a consumer was insulting a producer's intelligence, and at about as many levels as you could care to name.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...see, for some people, "look at the web site" is an innocent and in fact very positive thing to say, and your irritation entirely incomprehensible, and at worst a sign that you belong to the Old Economy that we are in the process of jettisoning.

And because your demographic counts, I am skeptical that this will work, but the BREAKING choice of Palin for McCain suggests that it very well might, because Palin is a weak choice IMO.

Submitted by lambert on

That was the OFB training regimen at work, confirmed by my experience and many others.

Personal conversion narratives, with "look at the web site" whenever policy was brought up.

You may call that "innocent and positive." I call it manipulative and negative.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...has roots in people's real life. For all kinds of things, I tell people "check the web site" or "look it up in wikipedia" or something just as a matter of course. Offhandedly possibly multiple times a day.

So it's very easy for people to adopt that point. Some people, at least. No training regimen really required.

For me, if I were an Obama supporter, I certainly would quite happily say "check the web site" if someone asked me a policy question I knew or guessed was answered on the site.

It wouldn't occur to me that it would annoy. I mean, don't you outsource your brain whenever possible?

Submitted by lambert on

You reinforce me in my conviction of how fucked we are.

1. "Wouldn't occur to me that it would annoy." No, apparently not. But the training was apparently so strong, or the inability to engage so great, that after the OFB were called on the behavior, it persisted. Meaning either that (a) the threads weren't monitored (hard to believe) or that the outcome was acceptable (easier). Just one more tiny little conveyance of the message that "fuck you, you're not part of this." A speech doesn't reverse reinforcement like that, at least overnight.

2. I tend to "outsource my brain" -- revealing phrase -- to Wikipedia for information that is relatively static and not very important. I can't imagine going to Wikipedia for medical information for example, if my life depended on it. So, if you take political information seriously -- things like campaign promises -- "check the web site" is not an acceptable answer, because we hold candidates acccountable, not web sites. If you don't, it is. (Though the "outsource my brain" concept dovetails very neatly with the concept of being a fan.)

So, for this voter the result was : 1. Alienation from that group; 2. A perception that Obama supporters treat political information as trivial; and 3. A perception that Obama supporters won't hold their candidate accountable. (This is all from my experience at Kos. I should emphasize that I didn't expect to find this; and that I read the SacBee article only after noticing the behaviors myself.) And therefore, summing up, an abiding mistrust of the Obama campaign. Unfortunately, this is how I was introduced to them, and so that is the lens they created for me to look at their campaign through.

And on the training: You say it wouldn't be necessary. But the Obama campaign disagreed, otherwise "look at the web site" wouldn't have been part of the regimen. So, on this I trust their views.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

perhaps "not possible to make many people who would otherwise want Hillary want Obama"?

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

A lot of reasons, but most of them related to lack of interest.

These are people who are not that impressed with age and experience. Why not? Because many of them surpassed their parents in success and achievement at an age even younger than they are now. So the Clinton history doesn't really attract them because the Clintons are Not New.

That's right. The newness of Obama is an important factor, and the phenomenon of the use of technology and social-networking organization, both on and offline is very attractive to this set. That is the policy, the sign that we are moving into techno-utopia.

Even if they don't call it that or even believe in it, techno-utopian memes are very resonant with them/us. Insofar as Barack Obama's campaign technology, style, rhetoric and so on reflect that, he holds their attention.

When you mock the use of text-messaging, you're mocking the policy statement that Obama is sending to this group of new voters. Instant communications is a process to you, but a policy outcome to them. Remember we are talking about people who might be more likely to read Slashdot or the Apple blog (not an Apple fan myself) than the NYT, and who take the Singularity as a matter for serious discussion, and, as I said, think of David Brin as a motivational speaker.

Gore is popular with this group, but Obama has taken it to another level.

ETA, I should have said in my title, "the process IS the outcome", not "process, not outcome."

Submitted by lambert on

Updated for a new age. Splendid.

Nice perceptions, but none of this reassures me that we aren't totally fucked.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...because this is the group that is often likely to be voluntarily uninsured or underinsured, healthwise, and they are also the group that is likely to get away with it.

And note that it is quite blithe. I don't detect any animosity towards Clinton. These are not generally *wince* Kossacks. It's merely a matter that for the first time, a politician has come along that can keep their attention, at a time when another politician forces his way into their attention due to his incompetence.

In a sense, this is a perfect storm for Clinton, and certainly the DNC was probably salivating that they had found the Key to unlock this lucrative vote bank.

Submitted by gob on

The front page headline of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Scaife's paper!) today:

"We are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years be like the last eight."

When the bankroller of the Arkansas Project turns his paper over to putting out Obama's line, I'd say the election is as much in the bag as it could be.

Policy not party!

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

So this is important...

1. “Wouldn’t occur to me that it would annoy.” No, apparently not. But the training was apparently so strong, or the inability to engage so great, that after the OFB were called on the behavior, it persisted.

One of my several real-life hats is "IT research" and this discussion is actually kind of important to me professionally. For me, if I didn't know your predilections, I wouldn't be able to avoid persisting in that behaviour, honestly. It's just really alien to think that it would not be so.

The web site is, after all, the message that the candidate is delivering. Why should I wait for it come out of his mouth, when it's under his name on the internet?

Submitted by lambert on

And I've answered it above at least once; please recheck the thread.

Clue stick: Web sites are dynamic.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by gob on

ok, sure, for overall policy views (and in fact it was Obama's website, in part, that convinced me I should support Clinton - all that religious stuff, ugh).

But if someone is telling me their personal story of how they chose to support Obama, I would expect some important policy choice to be part of that story. Otherwise, I'm not going to listen to that person, because I'll perceive them as not serious.

Policy not party!

Submitted by lambert on

Scary smart as usual:

Hillary and Bill can deliver these kinds of speeches that go hammer and tongs after the Republicans, speeches that resonate with the core of the party, because they don't feel the need to capitualte on being Democrats. There is no nod to bipartisanship just for its own sake. Struggles in Washington are not always bad if what you are fighting is the pillaging of the nation and an assualt on our basic liberties. They are as partisan as the moment will allow, and now is the time to go all out. What the anti-Clinton faction can't figure out (or won't cop to) is that Bill and Hillary have moved on from the embattled times of the Movement Conservative ascendency and are pushing a significantly more hard-nosed and tough approach to politics than you hear form the rest of the party, which is seems stuck in a timewarp from 14 years ago, Hillary even more than Bill.

or 40 years, since 1968, the American political landscape has been dominated by the most compact, fanatical, ideologically radical party in the West today. They have brutalized their opponents and despoiled the nation. The crises of our nation (vs. some rather pedestrian political screw ups) have been caused by this group that simply does not agree that we should be a democratic nation. This is not "gridlock" - this is political survival. They have over-reached and now is the time to seize a political opportunity.

From the langauge I have heard through the campaign season and particularly in the last few days, this group is quite cheerfully positioning itself in a weaker position than the Clintons took in 1992, when it seemed impossible that anything could stop the Reagan Revolution juggernaut. They have eagerly taken on the superficial trappings of the Right - pandering to religious kooks, backing down on civil rights, abandoning even the pretense of social and economic equity, flatly saying they will not entertain an ambitious health care reform plan - and have no sense of the depth of change they could accomplish if they would trust to their own party's philosophy.

The speech was all surface and ended by denying its own opening claims, cutting off its deepest, strongest roots.

No [x] from me.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.