Liveblogging Barack Obama's speech
Thursday August 28, 2008
Categories: Democrats
OK, here we go... I was skeptical about the stadium setting. I was wrong. This looks fantastic for Obama. And the roar of an entire stadium full of people, and these incredible shots. Wow. (BTW, here's the text of the...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
"America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this."
This will remind many of us that Mrs. Obama was an adult long before Bush was elected in 2000. (Oops, sorry, I mean before he stole the election lol!)
Wow!
Wow!
WOW!
In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is – you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps – even if you don't have boots. You're on your own
That's how a lot of us like it, Mr. Obama. Better my own bootstraps, or my own toenails even, than a government hammock.
I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.
Playing the common man...but you are anything but common, Mr. Obama. You have the rare gift of uniqueness that you are riding to the wire.
"I was skeptical about the stadium setting. I was wrong. This looks fantastic for Obama. And the roar of an entire stadium full of people, and these incredible shots. Wow."
No, you were far beyond skeptical, Rod. This is why you do not plan such events. It looked funny when the stadium was empty. It looks quite Presidential on television. And the sound of the applause...perfect.
Given that the average voter buys more sizzle than substance these days, this was exactly the backdrop Obama needed.
In the speech, he refers to his mother surviving off food stamps and the challenges he and Michelle had with student loans.
However, one reason why his mother struggled is because of bad choices on her part. She chose to play anthropologist and "chase her dreams" when most of us choose to face up to our adult responsibilities and not rely on the government to bail us out.
As for Michelle and Barack's student loans ... no one forced them at gunpoint to attend expensive Ivy league colleges. No one forced them to take lower paying jobs after graduating. Although, in the end, "public service" didn't exactly lead them to the poorhouse ... thanks in part to Tony Rezko and the near-tripling in Michelle's salary the year AFTER her husband got elected to the US Senate.
Oh sure, he wants government programs to pay for every conceivable desire under the sun. But who's going to pay for these programs? This guy is a freaking socialist.
I've long given up listening to convention speeches, but I cannot abide the fact that this is happening on the hallowed grounds of my beloved Denver Broncos (yeah, I know it's not the old Mile High, but I don't care). I Obama goes on to win I'll be forced to start rooting for the Cowboys.
I've long given up listening to convention speeches, but I cannot abide the fact that this is happening on the hallowed grounds of my beloved Denver Broncos (yeah, I know it's not the old Mile High, but I don't care). If Obama goes on to win I'll be forced to start rooting for the Cowboys.
Kevin, totally agree with you. Much rather my own boots than the nanny state.
How far we have come from the original intent of federal government.
Eh, the speech sucks rocks if its intent was to snap BHO out of the poll doldrums. Waaaaaay too much time talking about McCain, and way too little outlining an affirmative agenda. Face it, the magic is gone...go back and read Rod's reaction to Obama's post-New Hampshire speech and tell me he isn't a little embarrassed by it now.
But it will be fun tomorrow watch the Obamatons try to spin more straw into gold.
When he's general and thematic, he's criticized. When's he's specific and policy focused, he's criticized. There's nothing pleasing the McCainiacs.
"At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future."
I never thought I'd hear such truth spoken to power. The parallels to the Gettysburg Address are perhaps too obvious.
Rod: "I was skeptical about the stadium setting. I was wrong. This looks fantastic for Obama. And the roar of an entire stadium full of people, and these incredible shots. Wow."
Rod, you're initial skepticism is justified. Tonight is no different in tone than the previous Obama performances which have brought him to nothing better than a virtual deadlock in the polls with McCain.
The country has been skeptical before now ... and all the shouting and the large crowds tonight will not move the skeptics. If anything, it will frighten them. As it should.
The Obama oratorical style is passe. In the language of Marshall McCluhan, it is a "hot" style for a "cool" medium. More frightening than reassuring.
Barry O. draws 85,000! Johnny Mac now needs to show he can draw something other than flies at his rallies.
Mighty bosh.
Just having them stand on stage - only this small number of people, is a little bizarre. There should be kids groups, veterans, drum majorettes from local high schools, something - it just looks weird
only rock stars can stand around sucking up this kind of adulation without looking bizarre
It was an exceptionally good speech for the right moment. We aren't going to see McCain a speech like this next week this time. He doesn't have it in him. He can't talk about compromise and moving forward.
And there's no way he could fill a stadium like this.
What is wrong with these people that are in tears like he is some kind of messiah. They all have to go back to their freiken jobs tomorrow and work for most of what they get. I know this is not new to conventions, but good grief. Do they think Obama will deliver heaven on earth?!
UPDATE.5 "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."
Rod, I know you asked somewhat rhetorically why people were cheering...
Let me be my blunt self. This is a gross insult to our intelligence.
If this were serious conversation between man and wife, or business partners, someone would have already been wholly insulted and reacted angrily, demanding some accountability and honesty.
I know you think I run off at the smallest stuff. But 90% of what liberals say angers me, as it is a gross insult to my intelligence to even HOPE that I might swallow such insane nonsense...
The bounce has already started, K Street, see http://www.gallup.com/poll/109897/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Moves-Ahead-48-42.aspx
When he's general and thematic, he's criticized. When's he's specific and policy focused, he's criticized.
We can always count on you for a good laugh, Daniel.
What "specifics"?
- He will make the tax code help ordinary people rather than lobbyists.
- He will end American dependence on foreign oil in 10 years.
- He will acknowledge disagreements over abortion, gun rights, gays, etc. but find common ground.
- He will catch Osama bin Laden.
Platitude after platitude, nothing about HOW he'd do any of these things.
I actually thought it was a rather good speech. I'd give it an A-. Yes, it was full of crap, but that's what political speeches are made of. He hit some good points about moral responsibility, and he laid into his opponent. He got some good mileage out of Gramm's "whiner" comment. I don't know what the "cave" comment meant, and that may come back to haunt him. Also, how can a soldier who lost a limb re-enlist?
The set behind Obama was fine, but the column-framed TV sets flipped between creepy and silly. One moment he looked like the imperator, the next like a vacation picture from the Acropolis.
Daniel: When he's general and thematic, he's criticized. When's he's specific and policy focused, he's criticized. There's nothing pleasing the McCainiacs.
Never thought I'd type this, but I agree with Daniel. Obama's problem is that he set the bar too high in 2004; now every speech he makes inevitably gets compared to it.
"Do they think Obama will deliver heaven on earth?!"
Actually, we think he will sweep the worst President and Vice President (I hope I'm not flattering them too much) and their whole corrupt cadre out of Washington.
I can't stand what those people have done to this country, and I don't think we'll survive another 4 years of them.
Sick (physically), so not listening to the speech, but just read a little of your blogging. I also read some of Derb's stuff on your blog. I agree with both of you. SO tired of these guys and their promises. You have it right, Rod, when you say that Obama (but could be McCain too) knows these things won't happen; why does he say them?
And if I hear one more politician promise higher salaries for teachers I am going to SCREAM! That will always win support and never happen. Obama doesn't pay teachers' salaries -- you and I do (through taxes and local budgets), and the unions, and nothing he does will change that. He can't do one thing about teachers' salaries!
Daniel: And there's no way [McCain] could fill a stadium like this.
True. Nobody doubts you here. And nobody doubts that McCain couldn't get 200,000 Germans to come out to hear him speak in Berlin.
But so what? McCain doesn't have to fill stadiums or platzen. He just has to win votes. I hate to break it to you, but they're not the same thing, Daniel.
Okay, he didn't detail solutions. That is not the purpose of a convention speech.
It was a speech thankfully light on Dem-party platitudes, which were present but understated compared to most.
Workman-like but effective enough for me.
Accuse me of Kool-Aid consumption all you like; Obama is the 'real-er' of the unreal things (politicians seeking office).
"At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future."
I never thought I'd hear such truth spoken to power. The parallels to the Gettysburg Address are perhaps too obvious.
What? The sentence you quoted was imbecilic pablum.
"At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future."
I never thought I'd hear such truth spoken to power. The parallels to the Gettysburg Address are perhaps too obvious.
The Man from K Street wins my vote for Post of the Night.
"He just has to win votes. I hate to break it to you, but they're not the same thing, Daniel."
I'm thrilled you clarified that for me, because I never could have figured that out.
Elections are won by votes, but also momentum and energy and motivation. McCain and the bickering Republicans aren't going to be able to garner that kind of energy or menentum in St. Paul. McCain can't give that kind of speech.
Is there anyone really enthused about McCain. I know you are going to vote for him, but can you say you are enthused about him? I know you are going to St. Paul to be with the other conservative elites, but are any of you really enthused about him? Are people really going to be enthused by Pawlenty or Romney?
Watcher,
One word: saracasm.
Watcher, it's sarcasm.
The Man from K Street was pointing out the imbecility of the pablum with humor.
The Ownership Society means the On Your Own Society! Best line of the speech.
Actually, we think he will sweep the worst President and Vice President (I hope I'm not flattering them too much) and their whole corrupt cadre out of Washington.
News flash dude... Obama and the Democrats are FAR MORE CORRUPT than W Bush has ever even been tempted to be.
Their whole premise is to take your money from you and then get you to vote for them to give it back to you in return for letting them control your money for you.
When the mob does it, it's a crime. You think it's virtue when Democrats do it. That's some strong kool-aid you're drinking...
Elections are won by votes, but also momentum and energy and motivation.
No, Daniel. Elections are just won by votes.
It's a commonplace among political pros that a sure sign of a candidate on the verge of being slaughtered at the polls (later in the cycle than this, of course) is when the flaks start talking about how the crowds are getting larger and more enthusiastic.
Daniel:
Is there anyone really enthused about McCain. I know you are going to vote for him, but can you say you are enthused about him? I know you are going to St. Paul to be with the other conservative elites, but are any of you really enthused about him? Are people really going to be enthused by Pawlenty or Romney?
Honestly, I wonder if you inhabit some sort of autistic headspace. Asperger's Liberalism has found its avatar, it appears. Have you not been reading my constant complaining about McCain and the GOP? Did you not read my post today saying that I agree with Derbyshire in dreading both these guys in the White House? Almost nobody is enthusiastic about McCain. Certainly not me, or many of the conservatives who post here. Yet you seem to have this strange compulsion to paint us all as McCain fanatics. It's just so weird.
And yes, I am going to St. Paul to be with conservative elites (news flash, Daniel: the Democratic elites are just ending their party in Denver; anyone who goes to a party convention is a member of that party's elites), but not because I'm just dying to be with the Republicans. I'm going because I'll be on assignment for Beliefnet and the Dallas Morning News. I would have gone to Denver but we couldn't score enough credentials to go around. You no doubt find this hard to believe, but sometimes, the world does not work by ideological conspiracy.
How will he pay for it?!?
Give 95% of families a tax cut?? I thought the Democrats were going to get fiscally responsible. I thought they bashed GWB for raising the debt.
I expected some specifics; that is, how he will pay for all these dreams?? How will we make college more affordable? Where will we get the $150 billion to invest in energy? So the Democrats want to make Bush's tax cuts permanent now?
Simon, enthusiastic people write checks. Enthusiastic people man phone banks, do "get out the vote" efforts, work the campaign.
At this point in the election, the battle is over undecideds and persuadables. Political pros will tell you that undecideds tend to follow momentum. McCain can't get over 43%. A week from now, if there doesn't appear to be McCain momentum as opposed to anti-Obama momentum created by McCain, 43% is going to be a problem.
Watcher:
Really, you have to quit screaming. Do you know that on the Internet, TYPING IN ALL CAPS is considered the equivalent of screaming. Not good.
Elections are won by votes, but also momentum and energy and motivation. McCain and the bickering Republicans aren't going to be able to garner that kind of energy or menentum in St. Paul. McCain can't give that kind of speech.
It's too tight of a schedule with MLB-- Twins and Tigers at the Metrodome on Friday night and home batting practice is at 3:30-- to turnaround from seating to baseball, anyway, and there isn't another large stadium in the vincinity. The U of M's old stadium has a swimming pool in the middle of it.
And, anyhow, Daniel, the "bickering" seems to be something of a myth, given tomorrow's apparent Dating Game moment.
"Let us keep that promise, that American promise, and in the words of scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess."
Did anyone else catch this? Exactly which "hope" is he alluding to?--because I don't think it's the one the author of Hebrews had in mind. Strangely, with this conflation of the American dream and Christian hope, Obama is aligning himself with fundamentalists. Hmph.
Daniel: When he's general and thematic, he's criticized. When's he's specific and policy focused, he's criticized. There's nothing pleasing the McCainiacs.
Daniel, I don't know any McCainiacs, so I can't speak to that. For me, a vote for McCain would be a vote cast while holding my nose.
However, I will say regarding Obama that there is indeed no pleasing me. Well, there is ONE thing about him that DOESN'T bother me: the color of his skin.
The only enthusiasm I have regarding McCain is that he's not Obama. Hardly an endorsement, but there it is.
"Yet you seem to have this strange compulsion to paint us all as McCain fanatics. It's just so weird."
You just proved my point. You aren't enthusiastic about the candidate you are going to vote for. You aren't seriously going to vote for Barr and I don't believe you won't vote (and if you do, it further underscores how unenthusiastic conservatives are about their candidate).
My point was that McCain just doesn't engender enthusiasm or appear to have momentum. We are saying the exact same thing.
My favorite part of the speech were the parade of sad sacks that some genius imagined would be the best possible warm-up act to come not two hours, but immediatelybefore the Chosen One--c'mon, Barney Smith the chinless Hoosier and that smallbore Denver politico pleading for text messages are not who you want America to see just prior to your party's nominee.
Watcher,
You're wasting your "breath". I will never fall for the Republican lies and propaganda machine again. At this point, it wouldn't matter who the Democrats put up, I would vote for any in-named Democrat over any named Republican.
Reagan is gone. Bush Sr. is gone. No Republican ever took up their mantle. And none will ever get my vote again.
The speech was a homerun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Out of the ballpark!!!!!!!! Did I expect it to convince an extreme right wing nut like some who have responded, (not describing you ROD)-NO! Basically McCain presents only negative despair, and now acting like a whining victim due to his POW status! Obama gives me hope, after 7 1/2 years of the village idiot Bush thinking he is king, we must have change!
Andrew Sullivan says it much better:
" I've said it before - months and months ago. I should say it again tonight. This is a remarkable man at a vital moment. America would be crazy to throw this opportunity away. America must not throw this opportunity away.
Know hope."
Andrew Sullivan says it much better:
Sully says a lot of things. Some of them aren't even primarily fueled by steroidal hysterics.
But not many.
Rod: Have you not been reading my constant complaining about McCain and the GOP? Did you not read my post today saying that I agree with Derbyshire in dreading both these guys in the White House?
Maybe it's a matter of tone that Daniel is getting at. I notice you very frequently put something like, "I'm not voting for Obama, but..." or "...but I'm not voting for Obama" as a preface or coda. Never with McCain, though, no matter how much you may dread him. Also, you have been a bit snarky towards Obama in ways I haven't noticed you doing towards McCain (complaining about McCain, yes, but I haven't detected any snark).
When you gripe and complain about McCain, it's almost like we can hear an inner dialogue: "Must...vote...Republican...but...don't...like...McCain...bad..as..Bush...but...must...overcome...disgust...to...vote...Republican...AAAAA!!!!" I am, of course, being arch, but I don't think that's completely unfair. By your own criticisms of Bush, of McCain, and of the almost-certainty that McCain will be Bush III, it seems that you can find almost nothing to like about McCain; and yet you have never unequivocally said, "I can't vote for this man--I'll do third party or write-in, but I can't vote for McCain." Yes, you've floated the possibility, but I get more the sense of a kid sitting at a table, knowing his parents won't leave until he eats the liver. It's gross, but it's gotta be done. I think there is a distinct tone of steeling yourself up to votee for McCain that comes across in many of your posts.
I don't mean anything personal--I'm just saying that this is maybe what Daniel is talking about. And I know that elections sometimes are bad all around--I have actually voted third party in the past, and I would respect anyone who did so if they honestly couldn't stomach either side. In this case I have to agree with Scott R--I'm voting for Obama, with all his flaws. In any case, in 67 days we'll see.
Honestly, I wonder if you inhabit some sort of autistic headspace. Asperger's Liberalism has found its avatar, it appears.
Why don't you call him a retard while you're at it, Rod?
Rod, I think you missed it big time. That was a great speech. I think you are too much of a partisan to be able to be truly objective about it.
Pat Buchanan called it one of the best speeches in a generation. He was gushing about it on MSNBC, quoting it at length, so much so that they had to cut him off to break to the Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews.
Folks, you all are missing the big picture here. It's not that folks who support Obama believe he is the Messiah. We know he is human, with his faults and foibles.
The whole reason we are excited is that he is SO MUCH BETTER than the current resident of the White House. McCain is presenting himself to America to be the third term of Bush. We are sick and tired of Bush, and if McCain is going to continue what Bush started, we simply do not want it.
Obama has some excellent ideas and presents our nation with something other than fear and divisiveness. Having come through the wreck that has been the past two terms of George W. Bush, Obama is made to look even better.
Sorry folks, but even if Obama is just hamburger, he's better than the poorly cured jerky we've had for the past 7 1/2 years.
Honestly, I wonder if you inhabit some sort of autistic headspace.
Posted by: Rod Dreher | August 28, 2008 11:33 PM
You say that like it's a bad thing. What's up with that, Rod?
"No, you know what makes people cynical about government? When politicians promise things like ending dependence on foreign oil within 10 years, and don't deliver because they can't deliver."
I always thought conservatives were about getting things done. Not for meandering around without a goal because "it can't be done."
Yeah, ten years is unrealistic. Thing is, you'll actually get somewhere if you trying to do something in ten years. Even if you fall short, you're still a lot further along than where you started.
sorry, but you apparently can't read or are deaf. he said middles eastern oil. Check where we get our oil -- canada, mexico and venuzeuela are in the top five. so, what's your point again?
On the whole "it just cain't be done in ten years" vibe, have a look at this for a start:
http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/11/t-boone-pickens-and-perseus-investing-in-natural-gas-vehicle/
Wow! Did we hear and watch the same speech? I was an undecided before now but I tell you what, he hit everything I wanted to hear about. And better yet, I have HOPE that things will change. He inspires me.
This character honestly thinks that he has the right ideas to succeed as President of the United States ? Barack Obama actually thinks he has what used to be called "The Right Stuff" ?
Someone please tell me he's kidding. This has to be a joke, and not a particularly funny one.
I never watch any of these speeches, whether by Republicans or Democrats. I always read the transcript, several times. This way I filter out the emotionalism and ultra-sentimentality that afflict so many such addresses. It's the ideas that matter, not the cheap theatricalism.
Policy-wise, this speech was nonsensical. Some examples:
"I will -- listen now -- I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Since the payroll (FICA) tax hits far more Americans--at least commoners---than the income tax, one may assume that he is prepared to "reform" the Social Security system, or at least to tamper with it to reduce its burden. Yet later on in his speech, he says he wants to "preserve" it, presumably in something like its present structure. Which is it, Chief ?
". . .In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East."
Can't. Be. Done. Not without completely rebuilding the energy infrastructure of the country. Not without doing an Al-Gore and replacing several million gasoline-powered cars. Does his plan involve more drilling for oil to keep things going while this process takes place ? If so, where ? What is his timetable for this process ? And what is his plan for paying for all this, pray tell ?
"And I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power, and solar power, and the next generation of biofuels -- an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced."
Exactly what does he base this estimate on ? Is he aware that most biofuels cost more energy to produce than they generate ? Or that biofuel production (ethanol comes to mind) is responsible for higher food prices, since corn for fuel crowds out corn for food ?
"I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries, and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability."
Education is NOT a central-government function. As a former Constitutional Law professor, perhaps he is aware of this ? Besides, his unlamented predecessor's "No Child Left Behind" act asked for higher standards and more accountability. It produced "teaching to the test" and state-by-state efforts to avoid accountability, if not outright lowering or eliminating the standards. How can he not know this ?
Besides, the best guarantor of student achievement is parental involvement---including having both parents in the home. There are also matters of limiting TV time, having books in the house, and so forth. What central-government program, exactly, does he plan to introduce to provide for these things ?
"And we will keep our promise to every young American: If you commit to serving your community or our country, we will make sure you can afford a college education."
Unwise in the extreme. Not everyone can benefit from a college education (Charles Murray, please call your office), nor should they receive one. There are skilled-labor jobs (with high pay) going begging, yet he says not a word about enabling kids to get training as a plumber or electrician.
"Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime: by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow."
Does he really think there are that many loopholes and "tax havens" around ? Doesn't he know that higher corporate taxes are passed along in the form of higher costs to consumers ?
"But I will also go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less, because we cannot meet 21st-century challenges with a 20th-century bureaucracy."
Do "programs that no longer work" include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid---spending on which is growing out of control to the point where Medicare is already insolvent and Medicaid rapidly becoming so ? These programs already account for over half of all central-government spending; serious spending reallocation CANNOT take place without addressing these three programs.
This man makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. His policies are completely incoherent and operate at cross-purposes. Are the American people really as stupid and ignorant as to not recognize that ? Mr. Obama and his handlers appear to think so.
Christ and Charlie help the country if they're right.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Forgot to mention this. It's fine that you disliked a lot of the speech. Even if Obama really was all that, no one can please everyone.
But a lot of your problems come down to not liking him for the policies he put forth.
Until now, the problem has been experience and whether Obama had any substance at all. But if you're complaining that you don't like a policy Obama has put forth, and the core of the complaint is that he's too much of a Clinton Democrat, then he's won.
Because even if you think his substance is the same substance that comes out of the back of a cow, it still means that you can't say he has nothing at all. And if the market for manure is strong this year, then I guess it'll do well, right?
Dear Rod,
Congratulations! I have no doubt that the disdain, malaise, and vitriolic hatred with which you viewed Mr. Obama's speech will finalize Richard Lowry's decision to rehire you at National Review - with a significant signing bonus, of course.
You wrote to each and every one of the Neoconservative desires in spades and Mr. Lowry shall reward you right smartly for your efforts.
Hidge @ 1:04 AM writes:
"Until now, the problem has been experience and whether Obama had any substance at all. But if you're complaining that you don't like a policy Obama has put forth, and the core of the complaint is that he's too much of a Clinton Democrat, then he's won. "
The core of my complaint is not that he's a "Clinton Democrat"; it's that he's a rookie-term Senator who apparently doesn't have enough experience, substance or even basic knowledge of the world to understand that the policies he supports make no sense.
I'll agree with you that I can't say he has "nothing at all". The biggest thing he has going for him is the color of his skin and the fact that a great many white Americans are on an unwarranted racial guilt trip. If he was Barry O'Bama, white guy from Rockford, nobody outside his own neighborhood would have ever heard of him, even if he spoke like Marcus Tullius Cicero.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Lord Karth, what made Lincoln qualified? State senator and single term in the House of Representatives, he was. Time for another every man president.
Also, if he was Barry O'Bama, he wouldn't be the person he is today. His experience is unique and what defines him in this race in many ways. You could use more experience methinks.
Dreher- there is a stark difference between ending the need for foreign oil period and oil from "The Middle East". According to some quick Googling, that would be a 20% reduction.
If we can put a man on the moon in 10 years, but not cut oil consumption by 20%, it's time to pack it up as a country.
We might fall short, it might take more time, but, to call such goals as unreasonable before even trying.... sheesh... What would you have us aim for then, a 0.2 % reduction?
"If he was Barry O'Bama, white guy from Rockford, nobody outside his own neighborhood would have ever heard of him, even if he spoke like Marcus Tullius Cicero."
Posted by: Lord Karth | August 29, 2008 1:32 AM
"There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which taken at the flood leads on to fortune"
- W. Shakespeare
Well Lord Karth, you may be right in that assessment, but I think Obama is likely to ride his tide into the White House.
It might have been different if the past eight years hadn't been so disastrously bad, or if the Republican candidate weren't a 72 year old man who looks like Death warmed over and sounds like Grandpa Simpson.
But it is what it is and I strongly suspect that Obama will win this election.
Lord Karth,
I'm not sure what kind of messianic anti-christ-like character you believe yourself to be by calling yourself such a name, but if Barack's race was the only thing propelling him to this point, then why wasn't Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton nominated as their party's candidate? By your reasoning, that would be the case, would it not?
Lincoln was absolutely unqualified. His election cost the country a bloody war and 600,000 dead.
America, under Lincoln's "leadership", was the only nation that required a war to end slavery. Do you consider that competent ?
Methinks you could use a new definition for "competence".
Your servant,
Lord Karth
His election cost the country a bloody war and 600,000 dead.
Here I thought it was Jefferson Davis' election and his decision to attack Fort Sumter that started all that.
America, under Lincoln's "leadership", was the only nation that required a war to end slavery.
You forget Haiti.
I thought it was a great speech. Although the litany of impossibilities around minute 25 got a bit old. No doubt he's poking fun with his unrealistic promises, but I wish he would make it a bit more obvious. Is your boss stupid? BO will make him smart. Are your underlings incompetent? BO will grant them skillz. Does your kid have crooked teeth? BO will straighten them. Does your spouse have stinky breath? BO will bequeath unto it sweet flowery fragrance. Are you having difficulty getting that wallpaper off the wall in the bathroom where the former owner painted over it? BO will remove it.
Keep the promise alive.
Keep hope alive.
Keep hope alive.
A Morgan @ 1:46 AM writes:
"[I]f Barack's race was the only thing propelling him to this point, then why wasn't Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton nominated as their party's candidate?"
Jesse Jackson's own mouth took him out. Remember that little flap about "Hymietown" ? Also, his efforts to conduct his own foreign policy (in Syria to free Lt. Robt. Goodman) during the election season didn't help much.
Al Sharpton ? The man who made Tawana Brawley a household name ? As it happens, being successfully sued for slander (and $ 345,000) by one of the prosecutors in that case did for him.
Live by the mouth, die by the mouth......
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Obama in this speech found a way to link his past to America's future. Specifically, he concretely told the nation how his values were formed by his mother and his grandparents from Kansas, who (he revealed through examples) believed in caring, scholarship, and hard work, in that order. This, plus the obvious authenticity of the love shown within the Obama family, will go a long ways towards convincing the undecided and the unbiased that Obama is a good man who can be trusted.
Obama in this speech also took it to McCain at some of his weakest points: his faith in tax cuts for the rich, in the invasion of Iraq, and in GOP schemes to privatize Social Security. It's true that Obama promised to end our dependence on oil from the Middle East in ten years, which is a stretch, but at the same time Obama challenged McCain on substance, ignored obvious gaffes, and chained him to Washington, the past, and Bush. Those weights could sink nearly any campaign.
Rod may not think much of Obama's speech, but McCain, a mediocre speaker, obviously isn't going to be able to match it on image, and probably won't even try on substance. What's left is Rovian symbolic politics. That's kept McCain close in the national polls, but electorally he's on thin ice. Obama has already all but locked up all the Kerry states, and has a substantial lead in several states Kerry didn't win, such as Iowa and New Mexico, and a real chance in states McCain can't afford to lose, such as Virginia, Ohio, and Florida.
This means McCain is going to have to swing for the fences. Chances are he's going to strike out.
If and when he does, it'll be interesting to see how tough Rod is on the Republican candidate. Rod's biggest complaint about this speech was the promise to end dependency on oil from the Middle East in ten years. Yet today McCain is pitching offshore drilling as America's answer to energy problems, when no reputable expert believes that will work, or even make much of a difference.
Will Rod challenge McCain, as he challenged Obama? Or will he give the GOP standard-bearer an automatic pass, because he's a Republican?
They all have to go back to their freiken jobs tomorrow and work for most of what they get.
The majority are school-teachers. They don't have to go back to work until after Labor Day.
His policies are completely incoherent and operate at cross-purposes. Are the American people really as stupid and ignorant as to not recognize that ?
Yes, many are.
But a lot of your problems come down to not liking him for the policies he put forth.
Of course. Because personally he is an attractive, charming,intelligent, well-spoken man with a lovely family, and most of us are also delighted to see the success of black Americans and other minorities because it confirms our belief in the boundless opportunities of America. But we are also very apprehensive because we know that success comes with effort, and many of his proposals seem designed to replace effort with government "assistance", which too often breeds dependency.
Rod, you wrote:
"What a load of nonsense. Within 10 years? He knows this is impossible. Why does he say it? Why do people cheer this? Do they really think he can do this? That any politician could? This irritates me to no end. It's just talk."
A lot of people said the same thing when Kennedy promised to take us to the moon in 10 years. Prudence suggests you are right. And yet, more Americans than ever before are awake to the fact that we can't keep procrastinating on this, that we can't just assume the kids will figure it out. Obama has shown a powerful ability to bring talented people together, and the judgment to support them until they find a solution. I think your pessimism is just a little bit too quick; just because something is impossible, doesn't mean American ingenuity can't make it happen.
Obama in this speech found a way to link his past to America's future. Specifically, he concretely told the nation how his values were formed by his mother and his grandparents from Kansas, who (he revealed through examples) believed in caring, scholarship, and hard work, in that order. This, plus the obvious authenticity of the love shown within the Obama family, will go a long ways towards convincing the undecided and the unbiased that Obama is a good man who can be trusted.
It is not "undecided and unbiased", it is "ignorant and gullible".
Obama in this speech also took it to McCain at some of his weakest points: his faith in tax cuts for the rich, in the invasion of Iraq, and in GOP schemes to privatize Social Security. It's true that Obama promised to end our dependence on oil from the Middle East in ten years, which is a stretch, but at the same time Obama challenged McCain on substance, ignored obvious gaffes, and chained him to Washington, the past, and Bush. Those weights could sink nearly any campaign.
I'm going to address your gross dishonesty here:
1. Nobody, GOP, dem, lib, conservative, or anyone else, has any "faith in tax cuts for the rich". Taxing people above certain levels causes them to change their behavior, and it changes in ways not beneficial to the nation or economy. Reducing taxes for everyone is good. Complaining that some rich person benefitted from it is juvenile idiocy.
2. The deposition of Saddam, and the subsequent successes have proven GWB absolutely right in what he did. One nation now is IMMUNE to being taken over by the radicals in AQ. They know how to defeat them, they know by experience how evil they are, and they will not, in the next two generations, even be SLIGHTLY tempted to fall for that radicalism. Only an idiot would think that a bad thing.
3. No rational person opposes privatization of their Social Security. Anyone opposing it either has a horribly malevolent agenda, or has become so irrational or brainwashed they are incapable of making a normal decision that's so obvious and clear. In short, the opponents should be hung out to dry for their incomprehensibly stupid agenda.
4. The "ten year promise" is so incomprehensibly idiotic, that no thinking person could actually fall for it. There are those with a malevolent agenda who see benefit in it for them to hang onto the idea, but any serious intent to accomplish this which is not based on the notion of removing obstacles to domestic production can be nothing other than a giant step toward fascistic government power over the daily lives and business of everyone.
5. We're all fully aware that McCain is "washington DC" in that he's a political insider. But to pretend that Obama is anything other than the consumate political animal, whose only previous experience consists of inside wheeling and dealing for his own benefit within party and government circles is to be either deliberately the epitome of hypocrisy, or naivite beyond comprehension. Or, just plain old dishonesty - which is the really only rational conclusion.
Can Obama's constructed myths and created images win him an election? Possibly. But for anyone to actually go along with it and support it, is either to be a self-serving accomplice to dishonesty, or to simply have an agenda so malevolent that all human concerns are ignored in its pursuit.
No, you know what makes people cynical about government? When politicians promise things like ending dependence on foreign oil within 10 years, and don't deliver because they can't deliver.
Except he didn't promise any such thing. He said he would make it a national goal. And it's a good and worthy goal. Even if we don't achieve it, the attempt will make us better off in ten years than we are now.
Rod" "Honestly, I wonder if you inhabit some sort of autistic headspace. Asperger's Liberalism has found its avatar, it appears. "
Elmo- " Why don't you call him a retard while you're at it, Rod?"
Ya know, as the sister of a woman who is both severely autistic and mentally
retarded, I have also been troubled by the use of both of these conditions as
insults to "normal" people whose opinions don't match the writer's, by both Rod("intellectual autist" for one) and by another prominent writer on Christianity who sometimes posts on this blog's comment boxes.
I know Rod has written about a child of his own with an autistic spectrum
condition, and I would ask that he, and others on this board, think before
using those terms as pejoratives. It is hurtful, perhaps more hurtful
than some may appreciate and not worthy of those who are followers of
Christ. It shows a lack of empathy for people who have loved ones like my sister, and that lack ironically enough is itself a symptom of autism.
Lincoln was absolutely unqualified. His election cost the country a bloody war and 600,000 dead.
I'm going to give you a pass on the incredible ignorance of this comment, being as it was made at 1:47 AM. Personally, I blame James Buchanan; the Southern states starting seceding on his watch, and he simply passed the buck to Lincoln. And what was Lincoln supposed to do, sweet-talk Jefferson Davis into rejoining the Union?
Also, you have been a bit snarky towards Obama in ways I haven't noticed you doing towards McCain (complaining about McCain, yes, but I haven't detected any snark).
Rod's treatment of the candidates is as different as black and white.
Kit Stoltz, I wish I could agree with you, but I fear you are whistling past the graveyard.
Watcher- Do you write religious tracts for a living?
I've been away for a while due to time constraints and a feeling that the intelligent, respectful dialog in the comments had been declining. I came here today to hoping to see some thoughtful conservative critique of the speech. I'm beyond disappointed. The kind of vitriolic attack and snide, pessimistic response that I've read here is *exactly* why so many people love to listen to Obama. Don't vote for him if you don't like his policies, but think hard about whether you want to mock that call to be our better selves. When he said it isn't about him, it's about US, he was right-on in my opinion. He's reminding us to get out of the mud, straighten up, and be grown-up Americans who care about our country and each other -- even those we disagree with. I would think that is a message true conservatives could embrace. An earlier commenter said that Pat Buchanan was praising the speech. I didn't watch that channel, but I wouldn't be surprised. No way does he agree with Obama on proposed solutions, but unless we can stop insulting each other and start working together, we are in trouble.
Bottom line: I'd rather have someone promising pie-in-the-sky while really inspiring people to get involved in the betterment of their country and community, than someone who is completely realistic but perpetuating the politics of cynicism and winner-take-all. (I'm not saying that's John McCain, rather it sounds like what some of the commenters would like to see.)
Back to your mud-slinging... sigh.
I watched a considerable portion of the Democratic National Convention (as much as I could stand, since, like all such political events, it had loads of hokum and tedium).
What occured to me as Obama was giving his fine (I would say B+) speech, was that George W. Bush has treated America like a brand new sports car his daddy gave him for his birthday. He didn't merely wrap it around a tree, he drove it over a cliff.
What I saw in the audience reaction to Obama was a deep hunger for a new administration that won't bring the unique blend of arrogance, cronyism, incompetence, corruption, disregard for civil liberties, indifference towards the common good, and favoritism towards corporate interests over all other considerations of the Bush Administration.
I think those ordinary people who got up to endorse Obama, especially Barney Smith (who said something like "I want a President who will care more about Barney Smith than about Smith Barney") were right on.
Also, I thought Obama's delivery of the speech set just the right tone. He was serious and forceful without seeming angry, passionate without being excessively fiery, very adult and direct. I give him a solid "A" on delivery.
I thought Pat Buchanan summed it up nicely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiMmNZJkEm0
My son's best friend - and the boy's father (who is also our friend) - have Aspergers. Both are incredibly kind, sensitive, brilliant people.
I encounter children with Aspergers all the time because my son goes to a school for children with special needs.
It was an inappropriate comment.
"What a load of nonsense. Within 10 years? He knows this is impossible. Why does he say it? Why do people cheer this? Do they really think he can do this? That any politician could? This irritates me to no end. It's just talk."
I know, crazy isn't it. Everyone knows that it's impossible for men to walk on the moon, let alone get there in the first place. Who does this JFK think he is? Getting to the moon within the decade...pffttt
Oh...and the speach was generic.
Ask yourself what kind of speech Obama could possibly have given that would have earned praise from the right wing. There ain't no such animal. So the portentous pontificating on presentation etc. can be ignored. To quote "Alice in Wonderland," "Serpents! There's no pleasing them!"
Ever hear the phrase "show willing"? It's often used of horses--one that shows willing is eager to get over the fence and will give it his all, even if he can't quite make it. It's also called being "honest" in a horse. It means you can trust him to give his best effort when you call on him. Even if Obama can't fulfill all the hopes he has projected, he's shown willing. There's a big difference between that and the horse who doesn't give a damn if you break your neck--the "up yours, Jack, I'm all right" attitude that the Republicans have shown us repeatedly. McCain is going to have a tough time wiggling out of the "you're on your own" label that Obama has pinned on him, because it's so accurate. I predict a speech that relies heavily on "Elect me or the Muslims will kill you," "Family values" and "I was a POW." What else has he got left? Oh, yes, plus perhaps a little lying about how he didn't really agree with Bush 90% of the time.
Lord Karth, what made Lincoln qualified? State senator and single term in the House of Representatives, he was.
Lincoln had served only one term in the House. He used that one term to be one of the more forceful critics of the hugely popular Mexican War.
But Lincoln more importantly established himself long before running for President as the leading national spokesman for the Anti-Slavery cause, which was THE issue of the day. Lincoln was viewed by many as an extremist, but his positions were specific and articulated courageously.
In other words, Abraham Lincoln didn't waste his rhetoric on banalities like Hope and Change.
sigaliris, you are so right. Obama is telegenic, smooth, and more or less a "metrosexual" so he gets treated as an empty-headed celebrity (or given a nickname such as that bestowed on Bill Clinton, "Slick Willie."
Biden is direct and down-to-earth, so he's called a big-mouth. Once people make up their minds, no facts or new information is enough to change them.
Elmo- " Why don't you call him a retard while you're at it, Rod?"
Hey Sis2Lis: Sorry if I offended you. I thought that Rod was out of line calling somebody autist/asberger's in a demeaning and insulting way, and was trying to point out that this is no better than calling somebody a "retard".
Wow, do we really believe what he says. In that speech it had no substance no real solutions. Just the same bashing of McCain. I needed to hear a solutions. I would feel more comfortable if Biden were running for President. I look at Obama and say "How can anyone believe in this guy?" He has no executive experience, no foreign policy experience. I question his character, especially his character. Being associated with people, dirty people does not make him a favorable candidate. I'm sorry he is very green and so I place my vote to Mr. McCain.
I think the thousands of people in the audience who were crying were inspired, no matter how much you try to act like you didn't hear it.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.