The Democratic Convention thread [Archive]

Cleverboy

Aug 25, 2008, 08:16 AM

People need to start voting for the best candidate because they are the best candidate. Voting for people because they have the same genitalia as you, the same skin pigmentation as you or the same false hip as you just makes mock of the process.I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Identity politics aren't going to go ANYWHERE. People vote for you, because they think you're "like them". Whether they can get past the OTHER traits, is up to each individual.

People need to GET OVER the fact that people will vote for Hillary because she's a woman, Obama because he's black, or McCain because he's white and male. That's going to happen. Period. What is unacceptable in my view, is when people actually vote AGAINST someone... not because of who their chosen candidate is, but because they harbor a prejudice toward the candidate they would otherwise pick.

Basically, if people voted for McCain because he's neither female nor black. That, for me, is FAR more alarming... and has nothing to do with what we all know about identity politics.... it has to do with the politics of fear and prejudice. People could vote for you because you wear a bow-tie, and folks think that's just swell, for all I care. --Its the people that don't know WHO they like, but they know who they DON'T LIKE that represent the biggest danger to this country in my opinion.

It's one thing to steer your car toward "red" things when you're driving through a rainbow. It's another to steer your car AWAY from the color "blue" (while staring at it intensely), simply because its "blue" (and damned if you don't HATE BLUE), and not looking where you're going otherwise. I can virtually guarantee more accidents per capita with that flavor of discrimination.

~ CB

és:

Aug 25, 2008, 08:28 AM

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Identity politics aren't going to go ANYWHERE. People vote for you, because they think you're "like them". Whether they can get past the OTHER traits, is up to each individual.

People need to GET OVER the fact that people will vote for Hillary because she's a woman, Obama because he's black, or McCain because he's white and male. That's going to happen. Period.

I got over that a long time ago and never suggested it was going anywhere. I'm just suggesting what people need to do for a better tomorrow and voting for someone because of who they are instead of what they do isn't going to achieve that.

What is unacceptable in my view, is when people actually vote AGAINST someone... not because of who their chosen candidate is, but because they harbor a prejudice toward the candidate they would otherwise pick.

Basically, if people voted for McCain because he's neither female nor black. That, for me, is FAR more alarming... and has nothing to do with what we all know about identity politics.... it has to do with the politics of fear and prejudice. People could vote for you because you wear a bow-tie, and folks think that's just swell, for all I care. --Its the people that don't know WHO they like, but they know who they DON'T LIKE that represent the biggest danger to this country in my opinion.

~ CB

It's exactly the same thing, in my opinion. It's just as random. It's just discriminatory and just as potentially damaging. In fact, they are each a by-product of the other.

Pittsax

Aug 25, 2008, 08:34 AM

im confused, why does it matter what clinton does once obama is nominated? i mean once obama is nominated, clinton isnt an option for the presidency correct?

for the clinton supporters that would punish the democratic party, why? i mean the only real choices for this election will be mccain and obama right? and wont the clinton people vote for obama?

i am just confused so any explanation would be nice
Basically because there's a boatload of Clinton supporters who can't come to grips with the fact that she lost the primary election, and are trying to come up with every possible explanation for it. All the while, they ignore the fact that the deck was so heavily stacked in favor of her from the outset that the election was hers to lose, and lose it she did.

If that's going to be their attitude, fine. Everyone has the freedom to act like a 3 year-old and hold their breath until they turn blue. But if you're going to do that, just stay home in November. It's the people that would actually go out and vote for McCain, not because they support him, but because they're punishing Obama for running a better campaign that I take issue with. Do you REALLY want to vote for someone who is night and day compared to Clinton on every single issue (except for that Iraq vote)? If you're so supportive of women (sexism being the major excuse for her loss), do you really want to vote for a president who is going to put more Alitos and Scalias on the Supreme Court?

Bottom line: if you are still pouting about Hillary not being on the ticket come November, do me and the entire country a favor and just stay home.

BoyBach

Aug 25, 2008, 09:33 AM

Is it not because the Democratic Party forgot that the point was to put a Democratic nomination in the White House; instead the candidates became to preoccupied with being the Democratic nomination and have committed political seppuku?

fivepoint

Aug 25, 2008, 09:40 AM

I won't vote for any candidate who wears yellow ties. :cool:

Lyle

Aug 25, 2008, 10:24 AM

her coven of fansJust an observation from someone on the opposite side of the aisle (politically speaking): terminology like this probably doesn't help to build bridges between the Clinton and Obama camps.

Pittsax

Aug 25, 2008, 10:28 AM

Just an observation from someone on the opposite side of the aisle (politically speaking): terminology like this probably doesn't help to build bridges between the Clinton and Obama camps.
Neither does taking your bat and ball and going home because the Dem. primary wasn't just a formality for Hillary's waltz into the White House. The bottom line is that her supporters' behavior is what precipitated this kind of language.

leekohler

Aug 25, 2008, 10:35 AM

Lyle

Aug 25, 2008, 10:43 AM

What, prey tell, would work?Well, this Republican hopes nothing works. ;)

But I guess I see your point. One might hypothesize that at least making a show of considering her for the VP slot would have helped to heal the "coven"'s wounds, but who knows?

Thomas Veil

Aug 25, 2008, 10:59 AM

Just an observation from someone on the opposite side of the aisle (politically speaking): terminology like this probably doesn't help to build bridges between the Clinton and Obama camps.I chose that word rather deliberately.

I'm not one to slam Clinton by calling her a witch, and especially not the "b" word that rhymes with it. Though I was disappointed in her behavior during the latter part of the primaries, I did defend her against people taking cheap shots at her. But the followers of hers that I was talking about have already burned their bridges, so I'm not beneath slamming them.

Perhaps that's mean of me, but I'm just getting sick of their attitude, which strikes me as condescending and sexist.

I do think if wouldn't have hurt Obama to say something nice about Clinton (and the other people he was considering) when he made his speech introducing Biden as his VP choice.

Pittsax

Aug 25, 2008, 11:47 AM

I do think if wouldn't have hurt Obama to say something nice about Clinton (and the other people he was considering) when he made his speech introducing Biden as his VP choice.
I have to disagree. The Obama/Biden speech had nothing to do with Clinton, and to bring her up there would have made the campaign look even more worried about Clinton than the concessions they've been making to her at the convention already do.

Anyone who interpreted a non-mention at that event as a snub against Clinton is most likely already lost.

leekohler

Aug 25, 2008, 12:10 PM

Well, this Republican hopes nothing works. ;)

But I guess I see your point. One might hypothesize that at least making a show of considering her for the VP slot would have helped to heal the "coven"'s wounds, but who knows?

How could you possibly want to continue Bush's failed policies by electing McCain? That's more puzzling than Hillary supporters.

MacNut

Aug 25, 2008, 12:15 PM

Not really a fan of either but if a Clinton supporter doesn't like Obama as a candidate why should they be forced to support him. Don't say well because its for the good of the party. If they don't like him they don't like him. I don't think they should give in to their beliefs just to support the party. Vote for the person not the party. I have never been a fan of party politics for that very reason. Why vote for someone you don't agree with just because they are the parties nominee.

leekohler

Aug 25, 2008, 12:20 PM

MacNut

Aug 25, 2008, 12:24 PM

I have a few family members thats are stanch Democrats that won't vote for Obama under any circumstances.

leekohler

Aug 25, 2008, 12:29 PM

I have a few family members thats are stanch Democrats that won't vote for Obama under any circumstances.

What possible, reasonable explanation could they have? Because if you look at both Hillary and Obama, there's no real difference.

MacNut

Aug 25, 2008, 12:31 PM

What possible, reasonable explanation could they have? Because if you look at both Hillary and Obama, there's no real difference.Honestly, skin color and name is what I think is the reason.

leekohler

Aug 25, 2008, 12:33 PM

Honestly, skin color and name is what I think is the reason.

Then they're not the most intelligent people in the world. Perhaps they should become Republicans.

MacNut

Aug 25, 2008, 12:36 PM

Then they're not the most intelligent people in the world. Perhaps they should become Republicans.Thats the thing, they are as liberal as it gets. They just don't trust Obama for whatever reason.

beatzfreak

Aug 25, 2008, 02:17 PM

I chose that word rather deliberately.

I'm not one to slam Clinton by calling her a witch, and especially not the "b" word that rhymes with it. Though I was disappointed in her behavior during the latter part of the primaries, I did defend her against people taking cheap shots at her. But the followers of hers that I was talking about have already burned their bridges, so I'm not beneath slamming them.

Perhaps that's mean of me, but I'm just getting sick of their attitude, which strikes me as condescending and sexist.

I do think if wouldn't have hurt Obama to say something nice about Clinton (and the other people he was considering) when he made his speech introducing Biden as his VP choice.

But you are calling Hillary a witch by caller her supporters a coven. And by calling her supporters names, Aren't you resorting to the same behavior you are so disappointed in with regards to Hillary and her campaign?

I personally don't believe there are lost causes until a vote is cast. If you listen to these Hillary supporters, they feel neglected and feel their candidate is being snubbed. They are vulnerable right now as they still had hopes of Hillary becoming VP. McCain and republicans are taking advantage and reaching out. It's possible that the threats of some Hillary supporters to not support Obama are just knee jerk reactions. Both Hillary and Obama need to find a way to reach out to these voters. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and they'll come around. We may need them.

As much as I would love to join the "get over it" crowd, it seems to push these Hiilary supporters closer to the dark side.

Thomas Veil

Aug 25, 2008, 03:27 PM

I have to disagree. The Obama/Biden speech had nothing to do with Clinton, and to bring her up there would have made the campaign look even more worried about Clinton than the concessions they've been making to her at the convention already do. A valid point.

But you are calling Hillary a witch by caller her supporters a coven. And by calling her supporters names, Aren't you resorting to the same behavior you are so disappointed in with regards to Hillary and her campaign?Perhaps. I don't necessarily agree calling them a coven = calling Clinton a witch. Clinton's gotten past this thing -- they haven't.

I also don't know if they deserve much respect. This is a team game here, and while everybody might not agree on the choice of quarterback, if they don't feel they can play, they should at least sit on the bench. What they should not be doing is threatening to throw the game.

They are vulnerable right now as they still had hopes of Hillary becoming VP.This is what I find troubling. Plenty of other people pinned their hopes on Edwards or Richardson or Kucinich, or, in other elections, on Kennedy, Brown, Gephart and others. You didn't see any of this kind of behavior from them, though. So boo-hoo for the Clinton diehards. They need to stop acting like a vice presidential slot is their divine birthright.

mactastic

Aug 25, 2008, 04:02 PM

Well, this Republican hopes nothing works. ;)

But I guess I see your point. One might hypothesize that at least making a show of considering her for the VP slot would have helped to heal the "coven"'s wounds, but who knows?
Apparently the sticking point on the "Clinton as VP" issue was Bill's unwillingness to have his financial dealings of the past 8 years scrutinized. Thus, the issue was a non-starter from the beginning.

atszyman

Aug 25, 2008, 04:40 PM

What on earth makes anyone think that Clinton wanted the VP slot? She got everything she could hope for with Biden. He's 66 years old so he's probably not going to run if Obama is a 2 term president opening the door for Clinton in 2016, if she thinks she can still do it.

Asside from a wildly successful 2 term Obama presidency we have the following options.

1. McCain wins 1 or two terms, God forbid.
2. Obama wins and is horrible.

Either one of these opens Clinton up to run in 2012 or 2016. If she cozy's up to Obama too much and he's not well liked she's going to have a hard time running in either election. If she runs with Obama and McCain wins she's half of a losing ticket, and we can see how well that worked for Lieberman and Edwards. If she runs with him and wins, and he's not any good she'll have a hard time running against him given her ties to the administration. If he's successful she still has her shot in 2016 since Biden will likely not run. Only one of the four options really works to her advantage if she was the VP, Obama wins and is good. The other 3 options, McCain wins and is good or bad, or Obama wins and is bad would only hurt her if she was the VP candidate. But with Biden she can capitalize on all 4 possible election outcomes and run again either in 2012 or 2016.

It's in her best interest to not to take the VP slot although it would be beneficial to somehow come up with a narrative on how they mutually reached the point of not giving her the VP slot before the vetting even began, therefore she was not slighted by not being offered the position, and she wasn't in the running so nothing can be said of Obama going with his second choice.

MacNut

Aug 25, 2008, 04:46 PM

kavika411

Aug 25, 2008, 04:53 PM

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/25/dems-set-stage-for-show-of-unity-in-denver-but-is-there/

If an agreement along these lines is reached and it works on live TV, it will be very impressive, and lauded as a brilliant political chess move. If an agreement along these lines is reached and it fails on live TV, it will be very funny, and laughed at as a massive blunder. There will be no in-between.

atszyman

Aug 25, 2008, 04:58 PM

How many people deep inside the party want Hillary to run again? Would they rather she fade away no matter what the outcome in 4 years. If Obama is a huge bust there is no way Hillary will get in. The party would have to radically shift directions.

I think most of her supporters and many in the party would probably like to see her run again, there seemed to be quite a bit of interest in getting Gore again in 2004, and there was even some speculation about him entering the fray again this year.

I wouldn't say that there's no way she could win in 4 years if Obama is a bust. By all practical measures Gore should have won in 2000, coming off of a strong economy and a mostly favorable incumbency, he should have walked in to the WH without any difficulty, yet he lost. In 2004 Bush was already pretty unpopular and yet managed to win again, when it once again should have been a fairly easy victory for the opposition party.

If Obama is a bust to the point he sits out in 4 years or even has a shot at losing the nomination, it will all depend on who the GOP can put up. If they lose this one they'll most likely be in for a party re-alignment as well, heck that might even be necessary if McCain wins and things don't improve. We could see a massive shake-up in both parties in 2012 if things don't improve, no matter who wins the election.

mactastic

Aug 25, 2008, 06:22 PM

How many people deep inside the party want Hillary to run again? Would they rather she fade away no matter what the outcome in 4 years. If Obama is a huge bust there is no way Hillary will get in. The party would have to radically shift directions.
I'd have thought if Bush was a huge bust, there would be no way someone espousing his policies would get in. If Bush was a huge bust, wouldn't you think the party would have to radically shift directions? Do you see any evidence of the occurring?

Then why would the Democrats have to shift radically?

beatzfreak

Aug 25, 2008, 06:38 PM

Perhaps. I don't necessarily agree calling them a coven = calling Clinton a witch. Clinton's gotten past this thing -- they haven't.

Maybe Clinton's got past it the fact that she lost, but she hasn't had a chance to really come out in support of Obama yet. Once she does, I'm hoping they'll get over, but in the meantime, it doesn't make much sense to me to alienate them.

I also don't know if they deserve much respect. This is a team game here, and while everybody might not agree on the choice of quarterback, if they don't feel they can play, they should at least sit on the bench. What they should not be doing is threatening to throw the game.

Ahh, the old football analogy. I'm a huge fan of the NY Giants. When Eli Manning was brought in, some players and fans were not behind him at all. Coach Coughlin took a hardline, telling them to get over it. The more he did this the more the team became divided. Last year, after losing his star player, he pledged to be nicer, listen to his players and treat them like adults no matter how childish they were acting. Even though Eli's performance was poor at first, Coughlin managed to get the entire team to believe in Eli and work together to win. They won the Superbowl.

This is what I find troubling. Plenty of other people pinned their hopes on Edwards or Richardson or Kucinich, or, in other elections, on Kennedy, Brown, Gephart and others. You didn't see any of this kind of behavior from them, though. So boo-hoo for the Clinton diehards. They need to stop acting like a vice presidential slot is their divine birthright.

I'm pretty sure I remember Kucinich supporters considering the Green Party when he dropped out. Over on Huffpo Saturday, Richardson supporters were up in arms that he didn't get VP and vowed not to vote for Obama.
The media is all over this Clinton /Obama drama, you don't really hear much about other supporters.

I agree about the Clinton VP entitlement, in fact, I don't even think she wanted the VP slot, but it's only been 2 days. Give them a minute to get it together and stop acting crazy.

atszyman

Aug 25, 2008, 06:53 PM

I'd have thought if Bush was a huge bust, there would be no way someone espousing his policies would get in. If Bush was a huge bust, wouldn't you think the party would have to radically shift directions? Do you see any evidence of the occurring?

Then why would the Democrats have to shift radically?

Because while the GOP administration can be considered a bust, if McCain wins this election they've won 3 in a row while the dems haven't been able to get their heads out of their own#$%#$% to be able to win an election that should have been a cakewalk.

If the Dems lose they'll need to regroup and overhaul, as will the GOP with a resounding loss this November. Both parties are due for an overhaul and this election will determine which party gets it first (although something might be said that the Dems are in the middle of it with the 50 state strategy and all that stuff).

rdowns

Aug 25, 2008, 06:54 PM

Can anyone explain to me why a candidates wife is being given such a prominent speaking role at the convention? Is this usual practice? Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what she has to say.

MacNut

Aug 25, 2008, 06:57 PM

I could care less about the conventions in general. All they are is look at us please we are on TV.

iJohnHenry

Aug 25, 2008, 07:06 PM

She might yet be the First Lady, and her worth has to be judged by all and sundry.

Now, for your consideration, I give you Lot 666, a chandelier. :p

rdowns

Aug 25, 2008, 07:07 PM

I could care less about the conventions in general. All they are is look at us please we are on TV.

Agreed, it's little more than a circle jerk.

Pet peeve: It's COULDN'T care less.

Thomas Veil

Aug 25, 2008, 09:18 PM

Ahh, the old football analogy. I'm a huge fan of the NY Giants. When Eli Manning was brought in, some players and fans were not behind him at all. Coach Coughlin took a hardline, telling them to get over it. The more he did this the more the team became divided. Last year, after losing his star player, he pledged to be nicer, listen to his players and treat them like adults no matter how childish they were acting. Even though Eli's performance was poor at first, Coughlin managed to get the entire team to believe in Eli and work together to win. They won the Superbowl.Fine, but again, nobody on the Giants was so spiteful as to deliberately lose the game, which is what these people seem to be trying to do.

Give them a minute to get it together and stop acting crazy.I wish I could believe they will, but I caught MSNBC's pre-convention coverage, and some of the Clintonistas Chris Matthews was talking to were outright mean, as mean as the most vicious Republicans I've seen. They were clearly there looking for trouble, and thankfully they got booed down by the saner people in the audience.

How many people deep inside the party want Hillary to run again?My guess is after the trouble she had "letting go", she won't be welcome back. If Obama should some how fail to win this fall, we'll see a whole new crop of candidates in four years. The Dems have been nurturing their bright young stars for a while; I think they'll go in that direction rather than trying to warm over past candidates.

kavika411

Aug 25, 2008, 09:25 PM

My guess is after the trouble she had "letting go", she won't be welcome back. If Obama should some how fail to win this fall, we'll see a whole new crop of candidates in four years. The Dems have been nurturing their bright young stars for a while; I think they'll go in that direction rather than trying to warm over past candidates.

Not that you need affirmation, but I completely agree. There is no such thing as "Hillary Clinton '12," nor even (if he were to lose this year) a "Obama '12." Will.not.happen. That's not a criticism. Just fact.

Thomas Veil

Aug 25, 2008, 09:45 PM

It's not just that. Bill didn't exactly cover himself with glory either. I just think the way the whole thing played out, the Democratic party doesn't want anything to do with the Clintons after this election.

In fact, now that I think about it, Hillary Clinton's more badly-behaved fans have probably achieved the exact opposite of what they intended. Politics is very much a game of mutual back-scratching. By being whiners instead of team players, the more extreme Clintonistas will have ensured that the party will never want to go through this again...and the only way of assuring that is making sure the Clintons never go near presidential politics again.

Now that's probably not fair to Hillary...but it does give me a warm feeling all over to think that the tantrums thrown by Hillary's most arrogant fans will backfire on them and deny them that which they want most.

BTW, I watched Pelosi's opening remarks, and the word that came to mind was "underwhelming".

I'm not feeling any better about this.

obeygiant

Aug 25, 2008, 10:53 PM

Can anyone explain to me why a candidates wife is being given such a prominent speaking role at the convention? Is this usual practice? Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what she has to say.

I really don't care either, but evidently she's got Obama's ear or something else. ;) It seems like everyone was trying to cry during her speech.

Cleverboy

Aug 25, 2008, 11:07 PM

Not that you need affirmation, but I completely agree. There is no such thing as "Hillary Clinton '12," nor even (if he were to lose this year) a "Obama '12." Will.not.happen. That's not a criticism. Just fact. When Gore lost in 2000, I remember a guy I worked with say, "He won't be back." I was immediately disturbed, and asked him what he meant. He'd said it so matter of factly. And he was right.

I roll my eyes now at the people that said Obama could always come back later. Could be, maybe. I believe them when they say that this is a specific moment in their lives that they feel this can work for. The future's not promised to any of us either. I bought an issue of Time Magazine that promised to settle the question of Gore '08... in which even Steve Jobs weighed in.
"We have dug ourselves into a 20-ft. hole, and we need somebody who knows how to build a ladder. Al's the guy," says Steve Jobs of Apple. "Like many others, I have tried my best to convince him. So far, no luck." Time doesn't wait around trying to provide second chances to everyone. If those chances come again... it will return to people who've changed in a number of ways, and a world that holds a different promise. Maybe there WILL be a Hillary '12. But, we have NO idea what that will look like, and its silly to think we do.

~ CB

Prof.

Aug 25, 2008, 11:10 PM

OMFG Michelle Obama's speech just now was... AMAZING! I laughed and cried. I pray to God Obama wins this election. I am so sick and tired of these old, white, republican males running this country.

Thomas Veil

Aug 25, 2008, 11:12 PM

Okay, that just goes to show you how much of a pessimist I can be.

I stand by my evaluation of Nancy Pelosi's speech. I frankly missed Ted Kennedy. But I did come back in time to see Michelle Obama.

WOW.

I say this without a hint of cynicism, but...the Dems choreographed that perfectly. Mrs. Obama is quite a good speaker, having her brother introduce her was great, the speech itself was eloquent enough for Barack himself (maybe he helped ;) ), and then, having the two little girls come out, and then having daddy appear on TV...just perfect. It was a wonderful feel-good moment, and lest you think that superficial (it sort of is), just remember that one of the stated purposes of this convention was to introduce Barack and Michelle Obama to people who say they don't feel like they "know" them yet.

Well, they know them now.

Top that off with a salute to Hillary and Joe Biden giving Michelle a standing O at one point, and it was just a picture-perfect ending to the evening.

If the polls don't jump for Obama tomorrow, then there is just no hope for this country.

yg17

Aug 25, 2008, 11:30 PM

Ditto on Michelle's speech. It was excellent. I think her and Jill Biden will make an excellent team on the campaign trail and in the White House.

Thomas Veil

Aug 26, 2008, 12:16 AM

Best thing is, she told the story of she and Barack, and she told it honestly, and it wasn't forced or smarmy, and even though bringing the family onstage and talking to daddy on TV was pre-arranged, the kids' reactions weren't. That little one who kept going, "Hi, Daddy!" was adorable.

leekohler

Aug 26, 2008, 02:00 AM

Well, this Republican hopes nothing works. ;)

I'm still waiting for an answer. Why would you want to continue Bush's failed policies? Do you like war, huge amounts of debt and a bad economy? Be honest Lyle, because that's what the Republicans are currently about.

MacNut

Aug 26, 2008, 02:04 AM

I caught the end of it and it made we want to vomit. This is what I hate about politics. The whole night was so scripted and over done that I was turned off by it.

leekohler

Aug 26, 2008, 02:18 AM

I caught the end of it and it made we want to vomit. This is what I hate about politics. The whole night was so scripted and over done that I was turned off by it.

Let's hope you say the same about McCain. Otherwise, your views are becoming quite transparent. :rolleyes:

madfresh

Aug 26, 2008, 02:19 AM

Michelle Obama sure does seem like an angry b****

Prof.

Aug 26, 2008, 02:20 AM

Michelle Obama sure does seem like an angry b****
WTF!?!?!?!?!?!:mad::mad::mad:

What makes you say that???

MacNut

Aug 26, 2008, 02:20 AM

Let's hope you say the same about McCain. Otherwise, your views are becoming quite transparent. :rolleyes:Like I said I don't like conventions in general. It is just one big ego fest. You could put anyone on the stage and people will go nuts.

Obama could have named the janitor as his running mate and the crowd would have applauded it. It is so fake to me.

The Republicans will do the same thing next week.

EricNau

Aug 26, 2008, 02:24 AM

Perhaps I just caught the wrong moment, but when I tuned in it reminded me too much of a basketball half-time show. There were lights, mascots, the whole shebang.

leekohler

Aug 26, 2008, 02:25 AM

Like I said I don't like conventions in general. It is just one big ego fest. You could put anyone on the stage and people will go nuts.

If that's the case, then why did you watch? Seems like a waste of time to look at something you don't like- unless you wanted to dislike it in the first place and that gets you off.

MacNut

Aug 26, 2008, 02:26 AM

Perhaps I just caught the wrong moment, but when I tuned in it reminded me too much of a basketball half-time show. There were lights, mascots, the whole shebang.Ya what is this an award show. The band is playing people off stage. If that's the case, then why did you watch? Seems like a waste of time to look at something you don't like- unless you wanted to dislike it in the first place and that gets you off.I was flipping though the channels. I mean it is not like I could avoid it. It was on 10 channels.:rolleyes: You think I want to watch this instead of normal prime time programing. 2 weeks of Olympics and now 2 weeks of conventions. Woooo

leekohler

Aug 26, 2008, 02:35 AM

Ya what is this an award show. The band is playing people off stage. I was flipping though the channels. I mean it is not like I could avoid it. It was on 10 channels.:rolleyes: You think I want to watch this instead of normal prime time programing. 2 weeks of Olympics and now 2 weeks of conventions. Woooo

Was someone forcing you to watch TV? Are you serious? You really couldn't do something else and had no idea the convention was on? Wow- the US really is in trouble when one thinks he has no choice but to watch TV.

Exercise you right not to be annoyed. Use the power switch on your remote.

EricNau

Aug 26, 2008, 02:43 AM

Was someone forcing you to watch TV? Are you serious? You really couldn't do something else and had no idea the convention was on? Wow- the US really is in trouble when one thinks he has no choice but to watch TV.

Exercise you right not to be annoyed. Use the power switch on your remote.
But he certainly has the right to criticize the programming, no? Is that not the whole idea of a free market?

leekohler

Aug 26, 2008, 02:46 AM

But he certainly has the right to criticize the programming, no? Is that not the whole idea of a free market?

Sure, but to claim that he "couldn't avoid it" is ridiculous. The power button is right there at your finger tips. Turn it off if something bothers you that much. I certainly don't sit and watch Bush's SOTU speeches. After one of those, you've certainly seen them all.

obeygiant

Aug 26, 2008, 08:30 AM

Sure, but to claim that he "couldn't avoid it" is ridiculous. The power button is right there at your finger tips. Turn it off if something bothers you that much. I certainly don't sit and watch Bush's SOTU speeches. After one of those, you've certainly seen them all.

I'd say to be an informed citizen one should probably watch some of it. However I agree with James Carville that the convention was mostly boring. Michelle's speech sounded like it was written by commitee. The highlight was likely Kennedy speaking. We'll see what happens tonight with H.R. Clinton Speaking.

It is a little ironic/funny that they chose Bill Clinton to replace John Edwards as a speaker.

rdowns

Aug 26, 2008, 09:29 AM

WOW.

I say this without a hint of cynicism, but...the Dems choreographed that perfectly. Mrs. Obama is quite a good speaker, having her brother intro...

Perception is a wonderful thing. I missed the beginning of her speech but I felt as though I was being force fed a heaping load of propaganda. She is a good speaker, I'll give her that. The appearance of Obama on the TV monitor made me throw up in my mouth a little. maybe I'm just too cynical.

gibbz

Aug 26, 2008, 09:33 AM

Perception is a wonderful thing. I missed the beginning of her speech but I felt as though I was being force fed a heaping load of propaganda. She is a good speaker, I'll give her that. The appearance of Obama on the TV monitor made me throw up in my mouth a little. maybe I'm just too cynical.

If looking at Obama made you throw up a little, I'd hate to see what looking at McCain would do to you. :)

Cleverboy

Aug 26, 2008, 09:46 AM

So, John Legend's "If You're Out There" has
been released for free on Obama's site:
http://my.barackobama.com/johnlegend

Available in DRM-free Mp3. Good stuff. :)
Now if only we can get Ludricris and Madonna
to lock themselves in a room and shut up!

Meanwhile, James Carille criticizing the Dems for playing "Hide the Message" on their first criticial day of the convention. He's hoping they go into attack mode ASAP.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/26/carville-dems-wasting-first-night-2/

Apparently a slow start for the convention was a Kerry criticism too. Personally I don't think a "feel-good" first day is anything to grumble over, as long as things move into gear quickly after.

~ CB

és:

Aug 26, 2008, 09:50 AM

Perception is a wonderful thing. I missed the beginning of her speech but I felt as though I was being force fed a heaping load of propaganda. She is a good speaker, I'll give her that. The appearance of Obama on the TV monitor made me throw up in my mouth a little. maybe I'm just too cynical.

Maybe it's because you're just not used to people not having to 'thinkerfy' as they speak or when they're wondering 'is our Children learning'.

madfresh

Aug 26, 2008, 09:57 AM

WTF!?!?!?!?!?!:mad::mad::mad:

What makes you say that???

she has angry pointy eyebrows, this look on her face like she'd really enjoy emaciating you and a speaking style that makes my testicles retract into my abdomen.

It's not like McCain's wife is any better, anyway.

MacNut

Aug 26, 2008, 12:06 PM

and a speaking style that makes my testicles retract into my abdomen.Wait till Hillary speaks.:p:eek:So, John Legend's "If You're Out There" has
been released for free on Obama's site:Does Biden approve of this.:D

Thomas Veil

Aug 26, 2008, 03:07 PM

Perhaps I just caught the wrong moment, but when I tuned in it reminded me too much of a basketball half-time show. There were lights, mascots, the whole shebang.All right, granted, it's scripted. But if it weren't, everybody would be bitching about what a shambles the Democratic party was in, and how could they let themselves be so disorganized.

It's a feel-good party in which Democrats can celebrate their own. Let 'em party. They sure take enough kicks in the ass the rest of the time.

Meanwhile, James Carille criticizing the Dems for playing "Hide the Message" on their first criticial day of the convention. He's hoping they go into attack mode ASAP.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/26/carville-dems-wasting-first-night-2/

Apparently a slow start for the convention was a Kerry criticism too. Personally I don't think a "feel-good" first day is anything to grumble over, as long as things move into gear quickly after.I agree with both you and Carville. You have to have a positive attitude, but there also needs to be a lot of negative stuff to contrast that with. That, however, is a job for others. Quite frankly, Hillary would be perfect for that. She can be fiery, and she can really fire up a crowd as well. I'd love it if she spends a good part of tonight tearing Bush and McCain a new one.

she has angry pointy eyebrows, this look on her face like she'd really enjoy emaciating you and a speaking style that makes my testicles retract into my abdomen.I think you mean "emasculating". Anyway, I don't know where you get that. I came in having heard negative things about her, but I was completely won over.

Mr. Spock would like to have a word with you about pointy eyebrows.

mactastic

Aug 26, 2008, 03:48 PM

They sure take enough kicks in the ass the rest of the time.Pun intended, I'm sure...

Unspeaked

Aug 26, 2008, 04:04 PM

I'm really borderline about how to vote at this point in time. There's things I dislike about both candidates. But I sat down and watched most of the first night of the DNC hoping to get a greater understanding of where the party is heading.

I must admit, at one point during Ted Kennedy's speech, I almost committed myself to Obama. But the last speech just ruined the evening for me. It was way too choreographed, way too "perfect." I think Barack himself can pull off these types of speeches because he can transcend the scripted feeling and make them feel more alive, like they're part of the moment. The speech last night came across to me as fake and condescending. It almost felt like there were moments where her timing was thrown off because she had timed the applause and they were off a little. I mean, each little chuckle and smile and blink seemed timed to perfection. And the dropping of lines like how much she loves America, after the controversy over one of her previous speeches, felt forced. It was awful.

I'm going to continue watching, and hope the man himself will have something good to say, as I'm really wanting to vote Democrat, but we'll see how it goes...

EricNau

Aug 26, 2008, 04:29 PM

Unspeaked

Aug 26, 2008, 05:07 PM

It's very interesting how everyone is reacting to Ms. Obama's speech differently. Some thought it was "amazing" or "excellent," while many others thought it to be scripted or insincere.

I find this interesting as well, but it's pretty much what I expected.

Even the worst speeches appeal to some people. I'm guessing those that were 100% behind Obama to begin with loved what they heard. I'd like to think I was looking at it objectively - I was trying to, anyway - and just wasn't impressed.

Caroline Kennedy's speech seemed really scripted to me, as well, but was delivered with a lot more sincerity. Like she wasn't just saying those things because she felt that's what should have been said and what needed to be said to win votes, but because she really believed them (and why wouldn't she - her words were mostly about her uncle). But it's just an example of how a speech can be scripted and still have some genuine emotion.

Cleverboy

Aug 26, 2008, 05:19 PM

It's very interesting how everyone is reacting to Ms. Obama's speech differently. Some thought it was "amazing" or "excellent," while many others thought it to be scripted or insincere. I found myself somewhat indifferent. It was OK, but lost my interest pretty near the beginning. I thought it was good, yet scripted, with touches of spontaneity added by their kids. Pretty much I saw it exactly for what it was. It was very much similar to her other speeches, with the exception of the venue and subject matter. And... well, she was looking good that night. A bit better than her usual look. Overall, I'm finding myself slowly becoming somewhat unresponsive to anything either Obama or Mrs. Obama have to say. I've heard it all before, and I just want to get down to brass taxes more than more rhetoric. If I hear the "Yes We Can" song one more time, I'll scream. John Legend's "If You're Out There" has a few hundred more spins in its cycle for me. Otherwise, my more positive emotions have bowed out of this race.

~ CB

rdowns

Aug 26, 2008, 05:24 PM

I just want to get down to brass taxes more than more rhetoric.

~ CB

Brass taxes???? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_tacks)

atszyman

Aug 26, 2008, 05:26 PM

Brass taxes???? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_tacks)

It's a tax applied to marching bands. They've been freeloading in parades for years... it's all based on the number of trumpets, tubas, trombones and french horns. There's a wicked debate about saxophones as well.

rdowns

Aug 26, 2008, 05:30 PM

I knew the Democrats would raise taxes at their earliest opportunity.

beatzfreak

Aug 26, 2008, 05:32 PM

I wish I could believe they will, but I caught MSNBC's pre-convention coverage, and some of the Clintonistas Chris Matthews was talking to were outright mean, as mean as the most vicious Republicans I've seen. They were clearly there looking for trouble, and thankfully they got booed down by the saner people in the audience.

I finally had a chance to that Chris Matthews segment. The "lady" who was spewing the Obama hate is Christi Adkins, a longtime supporter of McCain before she was a so-called "Hillary supporter". She's been on Faux news. Her motives are questionable at the least. She doesn't give a crap about the issues Hillary stands for, she's just using this as a way to get McCain in.

My guess is after the trouble she had "letting go", she won't be welcome back. If Obama should some how fail to win this fall, we'll see a whole new crop of candidates in four years. The Dems have been nurturing their bright young stars for a while; I think they'll go in that direction rather than trying to warm over past candidates.

I agree. These PUMA groups are going to make it hard for Hillary in the future. They say they are her supporters, yet they want to take Obama down, and Hillary will go down with him. The democratic party will not want to deal with this again. Hillary screwed up in the Primary, the best thing for her is an Obama win. I think some of these groups are more anti-Obama, than Hillary supporters.

mactastic

Aug 26, 2008, 05:32 PM

When was the last time a politician gave a speech that WASN'T scripted?

Are people actually expecting off-the-cuff remarks from these people at these events? :confused:

Unspeaked

Aug 26, 2008, 05:39 PM

When was the last time a politician gave a speech that WASN'T scripted?

Are people actually expecting off-the-cuff remarks from these people at these events? :confused:

Like I said in my last post - for me personally, it's not the scripting that bothers me, it's the delivery.

Sure, any speech is scripted. That's why it's a speech and not a rant.

Michelle Obama's speech looked to me like it would have had the exact same tone and delivery whether she was doing it in front of a mirror, in front of dozen people or to a crowd of thousands. It was almost robotic - the facial expressions, the vocals ticks, the pauses all felt sooo rehearsed. It was kind of creepy.

rdowns

Aug 26, 2008, 05:40 PM

These PUMA groups are going to make it hard for Hillary in the future.

Do they call themselves PUMAs because none of them are hot enough to be cougars? :D

hexonxonx

Aug 26, 2008, 05:45 PM

mactastic

Aug 26, 2008, 05:46 PM

Like I said in my last post - for me personally, it's not the scripting that bothers me, it's the delivery.

Sure, any speech is scripted. That's why it's a speech and not a rant.

Michelle Obama's speech looked to me like it would have had the exact same tone and delivery whether she was doing it in front of a mirror, in front of dozen people or to a crowd of thousands. It was almost robotic - the facial expressions, the vocals ticks, the pauses all felt sooo rehearsed. It was kind of creepy.
So you don't care WHAT is said, only HOW it is delivered?

I mean, Fidel Castro gave great speeches. Are you saying you would support him because he didn't sound scripted, no matter what he was saying?

BoyBach

Aug 26, 2008, 05:48 PM

When was the last time a politician gave a speech that WASN'T scripted?

Are people actually expecting off-the-cuff remarks from these people at these events? :confused:

David Cameron delivered his speech at the Conservative Party Conference unscripted, for which he earned a fair bit of respect amongst the political journos. So it does occasionally happen.

Cleverboy

Aug 26, 2008, 06:28 PM

I'm a Democrat that voted Republican the last two presidential elections. Like you this time, I'm not even sure what to even do. I don't like either choice and I don't feel good at all. I honestly don't think I will be voting this time around. I can't vote just to be voting when I don't either man. Oh and I live in Denver and I'm staying as far away from all the mess near the convention center as possible.
So, you're a Democrat that helped vote a Republican, the most unpopular President in U.S. history, into office... TWICE. Interesting. You might try listening to the voice that's keeping you registered as a Democrat and not the one keeping you conflicted. Last two rounds, it kind of screwed America.

I did so love the budget surplus...

~ CB

ucfgrad93

Aug 26, 2008, 06:35 PM

Oh and I live in Denver and I'm staying as far away from all the mess near the convention center as possible.

Agreed! I'm avoiding it like the plague.

hexonxonx

Aug 26, 2008, 06:36 PM

So, you're a Democrat that helped vote a Republican, the most unpopular President in U.S. history, into office... TWICE. Interesting. You might try listening to the voice that's keeping you registered as a Democrat and not the one keeping you conflicted. Last two rounds, it kind of screwed America.

I did so love the budget surplus...

~ CB
I can't bring myself to vote for Obama. If I did vote, it would be for McCain and I don't even like him. As I said, why vote just to vote?

Cleverboy

Aug 26, 2008, 07:20 PM

I can't bring myself to vote for Obama. If I did vote, it would be for McCain and I don't even like him. As I said, why vote just to vote?
As you couldn't bring yourself to vote for Gore or Kerry. No, I get that much.

It sounds like you need to do some serious soul searching. Personally, I vote because it is my civic duty, I appreciate the fact that my voice will play a role in determining the future of my country, and that even if it were a tough decision... that my understanding of the wide range of policy issues is more than adequate to cement my decision.

If it were a personality contest or American Idol I might see your point, but the last 8 years should be more than instructive on that count... At least for anyone claiming to be a Democrat. Personally, I'm independent though.

~ CB

rdowns

Aug 26, 2008, 07:32 PM

Just lovely.

http://abcnews.go.com/wn

Watch the DNC Money Trail video link on this page.

Macaddicttt

Aug 26, 2008, 07:39 PM

As I said, why vote just to vote?

I agree, why vote just to vote? I plan on voting, but not everyone should. Those in that category: people who want to spite Obama for beating Hillary, racists, people who know nothing about either candidate except for the sound bites, people who vote based on personality and not issues, etc.

MacNut

Aug 26, 2008, 07:46 PM

Thomas Veil

Aug 26, 2008, 07:49 PM

MacNut

Aug 26, 2008, 07:56 PM

It'd be nice to have his vote to counteract somebody else who thinks McCain is just going to be all wonderfulness. But if he's not adding one vote to our side, he's at least not adding one to theirs.How is that helping, vote just so the other guy doesn't win? If that is how you feel about the process just stay home.

leekohler

Aug 26, 2008, 08:05 PM

How is that helping, vote just so the other guy doesn't win? If that is how you feel about the process just stay home.

It helps a lot. If McCain wins, and it's a huge disaster (which it would be), I don't want to hear one person who didn't vote complain. You lose your right to complain if you don't vote.

MacNut

Aug 26, 2008, 08:06 PM

It helps a lot. If McCain wins, and it's a huge disaster (which it would be), I don't want to hear one person who didn't vote complain. You lose your right to complain if you don't vote.People will complain either way, what is your point. Why vote just for the sake of it if you don't think either of them deserve it.

Thomas Veil

Aug 26, 2008, 08:06 PM

BTW, allow me to be purely crass for one moment and say that this is a great time to be in one of those online political t-shirt fulfillment businesses. In just a few weeks I've earned enough to get that new iMac I've been keeping my eye on. :) :) :)

How is that helping, vote just so the other guy doesn't win. If that is how you feel about the process just stay home.Well, I was hoping that he'd be voting for him for more altruistic reasons, but when we're talking about a possible third Bush term, even negative votes are worth something.

iJohnHenry

Aug 26, 2008, 08:07 PM

And Democrats, clinging to The Woman's apron strings, are included.

MacNut

Aug 26, 2008, 08:10 PM

Voters would make a bigger statement by staying home. If voter numbers were low maybe both sides would get the hint and put forward better candidates.

Cleverboy

Aug 26, 2008, 08:12 PM

So even if you don't like either candidate you will still vote?HELL YES. I'm going to skip forward and assume you mean... if I don't like the candidates positions, character, and/or track record and not that I don't like their religion, background, or complexion. Even if I don't like either candidate for a range of reasons, its MY JOB as a citizen to be the judge and choose one. In my opinion, not voting would be like a judge coming to a sentencing hearing and saying, "Yeah... here's the thing. I don't like this case. I know how this works, but this whole thing kind of sucks." :D At the end of the day, either you believe in our political process, or you suck it up and start spitting on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights every chance you get. Hard choices, but they move us forward.
It'd be nice to have his vote to counteract somebody else who thinks McCain is just going to be all wonderfulness. But if he's not adding one vote to our side, he's at least not adding one to theirs.How is that helping, vote just so the other guy doesn't win? If that is how you feel about the process just stay home.While Mac has a harsh way of saying it, I have to agree that I've made peace with the fact that voting isn't just about having everyone boost up your side. Eventually, its my strong belief that people that vote will begin to value that vote the more they see their own "cause" in course of our national history.

I'm far more bewildered by people that vote on "personality" and then wonder why things have gotten so bad. People that avoid party conventions and insulate themselves from having an educated opinion about the track record and policies of the candidate. Instead of trying to "sell" them on my personal choice, I'd love them to become a smarter, more informed and connected voter... irregardless of their choice. I believe people vote in their own interests when they're properly informed and not distracted and numbed to the political process.

~ CB

MacNut

Aug 26, 2008, 08:16 PM

Cleverboy

Aug 26, 2008, 08:28 PM

I agree, why vote just to vote? I plan on voting, but not everyone should. Those in that category: people who want to spite Obama for beating Hillary, racists, people who know nothing about either candidate except for the sound bites, people who vote based on personality and not issues, etc. Everyone should vote. Those that vote out of spite, racism, or personality need to properly understand the gravity of what they're doing... they should be disenfranchised or be dissuaded from executing their constitutional rights as U.S. citizens.

It's the attitude that some people shouldn't vote, that causes the type of friction that has them vote against their own interests. I was recently SHOCKED to really look at John McCain's idea of healthcare reform. At the Saddleback forum, McCain outlined the type of Supreme Court Justices he would appoint (conservative judges that would put the final nail in knocking down a woman's right to choose). Anyone that supported Hillary Clinton on these issues, that would vote for John McCain against their own interests, shouldn't be called names or disparaged. They should be respected for their vote, and repeatedly faced with the projected consequences of their actions.

If they remain unfazed, then their vote for Hillary must not have mattered to them in the first place. If they're to recognize what they're doing before voting day, they need to be given the space to appreciate reality for what it is... and not for how they feel because they're feeling taunted and disrespected.

~ CB

DakotaGuy

Aug 26, 2008, 08:30 PM

With the Democratic Convention underway Obama should be seeing a bounce in the polls, but he isn't. In fact, his polls are going backwards. I have also been watching some of the coverage today and it sounds like many Hillary supporters are trying to cause some havoc at the convention by passing around a petition to have a full drawn out nomination and trying to recruit delegates.

Like I said before I plan on voting for Obama, but I think in the end, he will loose and possibly badly. I'm not sure if it is angry Hillary supporters or people just don't trust Obama, but something is happening that is causing people to do a double take on the election and changing their mind on who they will vote for. I hope I am wrong, but I think because of the great fear that the American people have now they will settle for someone that they feel is "safe" even if he doesn't change anything. When your poll numbers are going backwards day by day and your opponent actually goes ahead during your convention, it's not a good thing. Obama needs to change something and quick if he wants a chance to win this election.

Fox keeps going on and on about McCain going ahead in the Gallop Daily Tracking Poll. Now I know what people say about polls, they don't matter, etc. However it is a way to gauge how people are thinking.

McCain passes Obama in poll (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/mccain-passes-obama-in-gallup-tracking-poll-a-first-since-june/)

Cleverboy

Aug 26, 2008, 08:34 PM

Maybe what we need is a majority vote to elect a president. If only 40% of the country votes we have a do over with new people. Kinda of like a budget referendum. It would take more than half the country to elect someone. Maybe then we can get qualified people.You mean a plurality? Something to think about. As it stands, its hard enough for us to get all the states on the same page regarding just the popular vote.... never-mind a plurality.

WOW. Janet Napolitano. She's a FIREBRAND. I have C-SPAN playing in the next room, and she was the first speaker to command my attention.

~ CB

MacNut

Aug 26, 2008, 08:34 PM

What is a 3 day tracking poll. Was it polled 3 days ago or polled today?

leekohler

Aug 26, 2008, 08:39 PM

iJohnHenry

Aug 26, 2008, 08:42 PM

Voters would make a bigger statement by staying home. If voter numbers were low maybe both sides would get the hint and put forward better candidates.

Unwise.

Then the crazies get their candidate into office.

*coughMcCaincough*

MacNut

Aug 26, 2008, 08:43 PM

Unwise.

Then the crazies get their candidate into office.

*coughMcCaincough*How is that any different from how it is now.

leekohler

Aug 26, 2008, 08:48 PM

How is that any different from how it is now.

OK, look- Do you like the way things are now? Honestly? If you do, go ahead and sit at home, and don't complain when things get worse.

DakotaGuy

Aug 26, 2008, 08:50 PM

Chill man. It's a long way til November. ;)

You might be right, I might be wrong, but remember 2004? It was Kerry's to loose and he did. Same with 2000. We can talk about hanging chads when it comes to 2000, however considering how well things were going in this country after the Clinton Administration, it should have never been an issue. Gore should have carried more states and not let everything come down to "hanging chads"

Even though no one wants to talk about it, race is an issue in this election. If Obama can get past it and be elected, it will probably be the biggest event ever in this country for racial equality. If he doesn't win, it might take years and years for it to happen again.

I am watching Bill O'Reily right now and yes he is a blow hard, but he also stated that Fox News has the highest ratings of any network at the Convention right now. Do you really think that is good news for Obama? Anyhow we will see what happens.

I hope you are right, however I do not think this thing is a slam dunk for Obama like some people on the left think it is. I figure as long as we can keep a Democratic Congress then having McCain win doesn't bother me as much.

You know there are many people that like the idea of a divided government with one party in control of Congress and another running the Executive Branch.

MacNut

Aug 26, 2008, 08:50 PM

OK, look- Do you like the way things are now? Honestly? If you do, go ahead and sit at home, and don't complain when things get worse.Honestly, either way it won't get any better.

iJohnHenry

Aug 26, 2008, 08:50 PM

The days of "better the devil you know" are out to lunch with the current Republican administration.

Why so fearful of change??

leekohler

Aug 26, 2008, 08:54 PM

Honestly, either way it won't get any better.

Then why are you still here discussing this? Of course things would be better under Obama. At the very least, they won't get worse. We get McCain and we're in for a heap of more of the same BS. If he nominates Supreme Court justices, we're in more trouble than you or I could ever dream. Start looking at the big picture.

MacNut

Aug 26, 2008, 08:55 PM

I like change, I just don't think that we will be making the right one. This might be one of the worst years to pick a president. I don't feel safe either way.

Thomas Veil

Aug 26, 2008, 09:02 PM

Article about the most recent polls from today's (Tuesday) "The Hill". (http://thehill.com/mark-mellman/sometimes-the-more-you-study-a-race-the-less-you-know-2008-08-26.html)

So don't panic yet.

I will ask this question: if Obama and the Dems do everything right, and Obama stays still or backslides in the polls, what will that say about racism in America? All this "uncertainty" about Obama is beginning to look to me a lot like closet bigotry. You don't hear this kind of "uncertainty" about the typical old white guys who usually get nominated.

DakotaGuy

Aug 26, 2008, 09:03 PM

Then why are you still here discussing this? Of course things would be better under Obama. At the very least, they won't get worse. We get McCain and we're in for a heap of more of the same BS. If he nominates Supreme Court justices, we're in more trouble than you or I could ever dream. Start looking at the big picture.

Well like I said I plan on voting for Obama, but my support is very lukewarm. I don't really understand why some people think he is the second coming of Christ, because quite frankly he is an inexperienced Senator that doesn't have much of a record of accomplishment. I am afraid that some people view him as more of a novelty, then someone who is ready to be Commander in Chief his first day on the job. I just hope he doesn't turn out of be a fad that fads away before November.

I am voting for him because I don't want 4 more years of what we have had for the last 8. That is the only reason. I am willing to give him a chance and if he doesn't do a good job then I will not support him next time around if he should win.

Article about the most recent polls from today's (Tuesday) "The Hill". (http://thehill.com/mark-mellman/sometimes-the-more-you-study-a-race-the-less-you-know-2008-08-26.html)

So don't panic yet.

I will ask this question: if Obama and the Dems do everything right, and Obama stays still or backslides in the polls, what will that say about racism in America? All this "uncertainty" about Obama is beginning to look to me a lot like closet bigotry. You don't hear this kind of "uncertainty" about the typical old white guys who usually get nominated.

I could not agree more. Here is my main point. Considering the current state of the country and Bush's current popularity this election should not even be close. The fact that McCain is actually ahead right now says a lot about what is going on here and how tough it is going to be for Obama to win.

EricNau

Aug 26, 2008, 09:28 PM

Thomas Veil

Aug 26, 2008, 09:30 PM

...Here is my main point. Considering the current state of the country and Bush's current popularity this election should not even be close. The fact that McCain is actually ahead right now says a lot about what is going on here and how tough it is going to be for Obama to win.Exactly! This race should not be close at all.

The fact that it is, well...like you said, people can't, they just can't be in love with the way things are going and want more!

I get that there are core Republicans who would vote for Mussolini if he were running on their ticket. But for the rest of those people who are planning on voting for McCain in spite of the fact that they don't think the country is being run well...what is the problem they have? If it's not bigotry, is it sheer stupidity? Deep-seated masochism??

Cleverboy

Aug 26, 2008, 09:37 PM

I like change, I just don't think that we will be making the right one. This might be one of the worst years to pick a president. I don't feel safe either way.It would be interesting to know what interests you have that seem threatened by either candidate. Trust me though, its NOT one of the worst years to pick a president. Much of what is happening is occurring BECAUSE this is an election year... its not that random. At the end of the day...come 2009, there will BE a new POTUS. Your only job is to make sure you have a say, and if nothing else... do your best to make sure that say is informed by what you wish to see happen. Walking away from the board doesn't make the game go away, and most importantly, it doesn't stop time.

~ CB

yg17

Aug 26, 2008, 10:04 PM

OK, look- Do you like the way things are now? Honestly? If you do, go ahead and sit at home, and don't complain when things get worse.

Ditto. If you don't vote, you have no right to bitch or complain, and you just have to sit back and accept it because you did NOTHING to change the current situation.

leekohler

Aug 26, 2008, 11:15 PM

Well- that was hell of a speech! She definitely gave it her all with that one. Now it's up to her supporters to make her proud.

Cleverboy

Aug 26, 2008, 11:18 PM

Well- that was hell of a speech! She definitely gave it her all with that one. Now it's up to her supporters to make her proud.Powerful video at the beginning of her speech too. That was awesome. There was a little dust in the living room. She sure didn't put it in any uncertain terms, and made the clearest, most articulate endorsement anyone could hope for.

~ CB

stevento

Aug 26, 2008, 11:21 PM

Hillary was great tonight. She delivered a great message tonight. "No Way, No How, No McCain!"

Does anyone else notice McCain is running attack ads during the convention? I wonder if this is commonplace? As soon as Hillary gave her speech, they played the ad about Hillary not being VP

Cleverboy

Aug 26, 2008, 11:26 PM

Hillary was great tonight. She delivered a great message tonight. "No Way, No How, No McCain!"That's going to be the sound byte for tonight. No doubt about it. BAM! CNN put it best... she was the first real RED MEAT speech to a hungry crowd. Like I said, Janet Napolitano was REALLY good, but Clinton stepped it up to the next level.

~ CB

leekohler

Aug 26, 2008, 11:28 PM

That's going to be the sound byte for tonight. No doubt about it. BAM! CNN put it best... she was the first real RED MEAT speech to a hungry crowd. Like I said, Janet Napolitano was REALLY good, but Clinton stepped it up to the next level.

~ CB

Yep- now let's go trounce McCain!

yg17

Aug 26, 2008, 11:40 PM

It was a great speech, I was very impressed.

Hillary was great tonight. She delivered a great message tonight. "No Way, No How, No McCain!"

Does anyone else notice McCain is running attack ads during the convention? I wonder if this is commonplace? As soon as Hillary gave her speech, they played the ad about Hillary not being VP

So if you're such a fan of the speech and don't like McCain, can you please take the PUMA crap out of your sig? PUMAs stand for one thing: getting McCain elected, and I wouldn't consider them Hillary supporters. You don't want to be a part of that ****, do you?

EricNau

Aug 26, 2008, 11:41 PM

Ditto. If you don't vote, you have no right to bitch or complain, and you just have to sit back and accept it because you did NOTHING to change the current situation.
I disagree. If you abstain from voting based on an educated and informed decision, you have the prerogative to complain about the outcome. For instance, if McCain were elected President and further flushed this country down the toilette, one who didn't vote for either still has the license to complain; just because McCain does a bad job wouldn't mean that Obama would be any better.

I suppose you could vote for a third party candidate to "prove a point," but in American politics it essentially makes no difference whatsoever.

Cleverboy

Aug 26, 2008, 11:44 PM

So if you're such a fan of the speech, can you please take the PUMA crap out of your sig?Just a suggestion but there are way more important things to discuss. This thread here (link (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=507126)) would be a better place to take issue with steve's new sig. Ideally... this thread is about Democratic Party unity, and not name-calling. (Remember, its just a signature!)

~ CB

yg17

Aug 26, 2008, 11:46 PM

obeygiant

Aug 26, 2008, 11:49 PM

Hillary did pretty good. In an orange pantsuit no less.

Cleverboy

Aug 26, 2008, 11:52 PM

I disagree. If you abstain from voting based on an educated and informed decision, you have the prerogative to complain about the outcome. For instance, if McCain were elected President and further flushed this country down the toilette, one who didn't vote for either still has the license to complain; just because McCain does a bad job wouldn't mean that Obama would be any better. I disagree strongly with your disagreement. I personally think its a bit pathetic to abstain from voting, only to complain later... allowing other people to take action... and then to complain that THEY made the wrong decision. It's pretty damn cowardly. The entire point is that its a very difficult decision borne from the bowels of a democratic governmental process. You can dress it up as some form of intellectual posturing, but in the end... you're advocating expectation without investment. Want without work. If you don't have an ideal candidate, you work harder to GET one in the next cycle... but deal with what you have for this cycle.

WAY too much ass-sitting these days.

~ CB

Lord Blackadder

Aug 26, 2008, 11:55 PM

Just watched Hillary's speech - I was expecting a solid endorsement and that's what she delivered. The question is, will the hardcore Hillary faithful follow their champion or will they be too bitter to unite with the party come November?

Hillary is too experienced a politician to desire the party to become divided during a Presidential election - that always results in a loss for the divided party.

As for abstaining - I think failing to vote is failing to be a good citizen. People complain about the government, but if you don't participate you deserve a bad government. You have a duty to stand up and be counted. A representative government has no chance of being representative unless the people make their wishes known by voting.

A third party would be viable if all the people who think it's a good idea actually got up and voted for third party candidates...

yg17

Aug 27, 2008, 12:00 AM

I disagree. If you abstain from voting based on an educated and informed decision, you have the prerogative to complain about the outcome. For instance, if McCain were elected President and further flushed this country down the toilette, one who didn't vote for either still has the license to complain; just because McCain does a bad job wouldn't mean that Obama would be any better.

I suppose you could vote for a third party candidate to "prove a point," but in American politics it essentially makes no difference whatsoever.

The people who sit it out because they don't think a 3rd party has a chance are the reason a 3rd party doesn't have a chance. A viable 3rd party won't be created overnight. But if over the years, more and more people begin supporting them, other voters might actually consider them a worthy alternative.

Anyways, I contributed 25 bucks to Hillary to help towards her campaign debt. I know it's not much, but it's a way to say thank you for her excellent speech and work to unite the party since the end of the primary. Of course, I had to donate some more to Obama too. These damn speeches get expensive :D

EricNau

Aug 27, 2008, 12:08 AM

At least if you vote 3rd party or write in someone, you can say you tried to change the direction of the country, even if they didn't have much of a chance. It's symbolic more than anything, but at least it proves you care enough to vote.
Let's not romanticize it; the outcome is identical with either method. I could either write in Snoopy, or save the gas (so to speak).

I disagree strongly with your disagreement. I personally think its a bit pathetic to abstain from voting, only to complain later... allowing other people to take action... and then to complain that THEY made the wrong decision. It's pretty damn cowardly. The entire point is that its a very difficult decision borne from the bowels of a democratic governmental process. You can dress it up as some form of intellectual posturing, but in the end... you're advocating expectation without investment. Want without work. If you don't have an ideal candidate, you work harder to GET one in the next cycle... but deal with what you have for this cycle.

WAY too much ass-sitting these days.

~ CB
You're assuming one candidate is a better choice than the other. What if, in one's opinion, they're both equally detrimental for our country? You also seem to be confusing laziness with purposeful abstention.

Just to be clear, I will be voting this coming election, but I will definitely respect those who made an informed and conscious decision not to vote for either candidate. ...I would be suspicious, however, if they didn't vote for or against anything on the ballot; there are plenty of propositions that can't give rise to the same feelings ambivalence as would a politician.

Mike Teezie

Aug 27, 2008, 12:11 AM

yg17

Aug 27, 2008, 12:16 AM

Great speech from Senator Clinton. I loved the self depreciating pant suit joke.

I was watching CNN, and right after, they interviewed a woman - an ardent Hillary supporter. Did anyone see her? She was literally blubbering nonsense about Hilary not getting the nomination, staying home in November, etc. Unbelievable. How can someone be so reckless?

Hilary's main point was dead on. They supported her in the first place because things have been really, really, really crappy under Bush. Now they want to go for another four years out of spite?

She's not a Hillary supporter. She's a republican *****-disturber. That's about all their is to it.

After tonight's speech, anyone who supported Hillary in the primary but will not vote for Obama is not a Hillary supporter or a Democrat. Period.

atszyman

Aug 27, 2008, 12:25 AM

Exactly! This race should not be close at all.

The fact that it is, well...like you said, people can't, they just can't be in love with the way things are going and want more!

I get that there are core Republicans who would vote for Mussolini if he were running on their ticket. But for the rest of those people who are planning on voting for McCain in spite of the fact that they don't think the country is being run well...what is the problem they have? If it's not bigotry, is it sheer stupidity? Deep-seated masochism??

It's the unwillingness to believe that someone with a D behind their name can lead the country in the right direction. Thanks to FOX news and the likes of Limbaugh and the other right wing-nuts who rally and support almost anyone with the all powerful R behind their name no matter what and perpetuate anger and blame around that letter D to keep people voting against their best interests.

There are too many who believe that the R stands for smaller government, and more fiscal responsibility despite what the last 16 years have shown us. The "Tax and spend" liberals are still the bad guys and the GOP is going to get the government out of our lives. The message lives on despite the evidence.

Cleverboy

Aug 27, 2008, 12:26 AM

You're assuming one candidate is a better choice than the other.You're assuming what I'm assuming. I do not assume either candidate is perceived as better by any individual voter (every voter will make their own determination to their best ability), what I DO assume... is that the candidates are not clones of each other, and that the parties themselves introduce even further areas of differentiation.
What if, in one's opinion, they're both equally detrimental for our country?Changes absolutely nothing. Hung jury. Mistrial declared. Restart the process. None of the facts change. A decision will still be made with the same flawed process.
You also seem to be confusing laziness with purposeful abstention. You seem to confuse the advocacy of democratic civic impotence with moral virtue. I mean, if you lived in China, I'd have absolutely no problem with the idea of "purposeful abstention"... because your government doesn't really require your participation to work properly. Democracies are different though.
Just to be clear, I will be voting this coming election, but I will definitely respect those who made an informed and conscious decision not to vote for either candidate. ...I would be suspicious, however, if they didn't vote for or against anything on the ballot; there are plenty of propositions that can't give rise to the same feelings ambivalence as would a politician. Every spot on the ballot deserves our full attention, although not all will receive it. Life isn't perfect. But, a democracy requires participation to function properly, or it isn't for the people BY the people. You could be the voice that causes a change that gives people more choice. Or you could take the pressure off by simply choosing not to vote.

~ CB

Lord Blackadder

Aug 27, 2008, 12:28 AM

I was watching CNN, and right after, they interviewed a woman - an ardent Hillary supporter. Did anyone see her? She was literally blubbering nonsense about Hilary not getting the nomination, staying home in November, etc. Unbelievable. How can someone be so reckless?

I saw that - they basically cut her off when she started repeating the old campaign barbs about Obama's lack of experience, and mentioned staying home in November. Heartfelt and emotional stuff maybe, but poorly timed and at odds with Hillary's speech. Expect the GOP to have made note of that interview.

gibbz

Aug 27, 2008, 12:50 AM

You seem to confuse the advocacy of democratic civic impotence with moral virtue. I mean, if you lived in China, I'd have absolutely no problem with the idea of "purposeful abstention"... because your government doesn't really require your participation to work properly. Democracies are different though.
...........
Every spot on the ballot deserves our full attention, although not all will receive it. Life isn't perfect. But, a democracy requires participation to function properly, or it isn't for the people BY the people. You could be the voice that causes a change that gives people more choice. Or you could take the pressure off by simply choosing not to vote.

~ CB

I would argue that the government is indeed BY the people even if people choose not to vote. These posters aren't proposing that it is ok to abstain from voting due to apathy. Rather, they state that in the absence of what they deem a credible choice to run our country, an equally powerful message can be sent by choosing to vote for none of the above.

Imagine if we were given two completely incompetent choices. Using the above posters' ideas, the government would be sent a message of "our country deserves better and I will not sacrifice something as valuable a vote on those who do not deserve such." Using your claims, you would be happy to elect an incompetent person in the name of social activism. In the choice of suffering a gunshot wound, a knife wound, or none of the above, you would choose a wound because you feel that it is your duty to make a choice based on democratic values. That is exactly their point. One can remain a strong proponent of a democracy and choose not to vote.

This is where people have the entirely wrong idea of government. You speak of the government as if it were a 3rd-party entity. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. If you are not happy with an elected official, vote them out, fire them. If you are unhappy with either choice, do not vote instead of sacrificing your principles. We as the American public have the right to dictate what course our government takes, not vice versa.

When asked to raise a voice for a particular cause, silence is deafening to those in charge.

Mike Teezie

Aug 27, 2008, 12:50 AM

Cleverboy

Aug 27, 2008, 01:23 AM

I would argue that the government is indeed BY the people even if people choose not to vote. These posters aren't proposing that it is ok to abstain from voting due to apathy. I'll just disagree with your contention regarding abstention. For me it doesn't matter the "reason" for "abstaining", but voter turn-out is a universally acknowledged factor that is always considered when measuring the success of a democratic government. Once you start parsing the "reasons" or the "strength" of the candidates as a rational (especially when the opposition isn't intimidating voters through threats of force), you lose all ability to objectively quantify the efficacy of the fundamentals of that government institution.

We have a free country... so voting is a choice, but part of that choice is the choice to weaken your own government.

~ CB

Macaddicttt

Aug 27, 2008, 01:44 AM

I'll just disagree with your contention regarding abstention. For me it doesn't matter the "reason" for "abstaining", but voter turn-out is a universally acknowledged factor that is always considered when measuring the success of a democratic government. Once you start parsing the "reasons" or the "strength" of the candidates as a rational (especially when the opposition isn't intimidating voters through threats of force), you lose all ability to objectively quantify the efficacy of the fundamentals of that government institution.

We have a free country... so voting is a choice, but part of that choice is the choice to weaken your own government.

~ CB

Vote turnout doesn't make a government "strong" or "weak." But that logic, the US is one of the "weakest" and most "unsuccessful" democracies/governments and Singapore, with it's effective one-party state and façade of a democracy, is a "strong" and "successful" one since voting is mandatory. In Singapore, you have to vote, and those who are uninformed naturally vote for the ruling party. If only people were allowed to not vote, then the apathetic perhaps wouldn't get in the way of change and democratic progress.

Honestly, I'd prefer it if the uninformed/uninterested stayed at home. And I believe informed abstention is a perfectly reasonable option, too. In the California gubernatorial race, I voted in the primary, but the two candidates in the general election were idiots. I wasn't going to dignify either of them with my vote and I didn't. That didn't make California stronger or weaker, or any better or worse off, from my point of view. They both would make California worse, why should I have to give support to one of them?

If you're given two options (in anything in life) and you don't like either, you shouldn't be forced to chose. There is meaning in refusing to choose between two bad alternatives. You should only vote if you think that one candidate is better in some way than the other, and abstain otherwise. If you don't think one candidate is better, how should you choose? Flip a coin?

hexonxonx

Aug 27, 2008, 02:27 AM

As you couldn't bring yourself to vote for Gore or Kerry. No, I get that much.

It sounds like you need to do some serious soul searching. Personally, I vote because it is my civic duty, I appreciate the fact that my voice will play a role in determining the future of my country, and that even if it were a tough decision... that my understanding of the wide range of policy issues is more than adequate to cement my decision.

If it were a personality contest or American Idol I might see your point, but the last 8 years should be more than instructive on that count... At least for anyone claiming to be a Democrat. Personally, I'm independent though.

~ CB

No. I would never have voted for Kerry, MR contradiction himself. What was it, he voted against it before he was for it or something like that?
:eek: Voting just to vote is a stupid reason to vote, especially if you are unfamiliar with the candidates. A few weeks ago, a radio station interviewed people on the street. The people were asked who they were voting for and why? Ok, no problem right?
When asked about how the candidate they were going to vote for stood on the issues they supported, the person being interviewed couldn't come up with a single issue yet these people are going to vote BLINDLY. If these people don't know what the values of the candidates even are, they need to stay home on election day. These are the people you think should be voting.

I don't need to do any soul searching. I voted for who I voted for in the last two elections and felt good about it when I did it.

Again, I choose not to vote this election because I don't like either man. If I did vote again, it would be Republican again this time because Obama scares me. That's the way I feel and that's good enough.

Pittsax

Aug 27, 2008, 08:49 AM

I saw that - they basically cut her off when she started repeating the old campaign barbs about Obama's lack of experience, and mentioned staying home in November. Heartfelt and emotional stuff maybe, but poorly timed and at odds with Hillary's speech. Expect the GOP to have made note of that interview.
That's why I've turned to watching MSNBC...they had an older Hillary supporter who said she was swayed by the speech into supporting Obama.

I think a lot of the people who are still angry will start getting over it once they let Hillary's speech sink in a bit. I think the line about whether they are voting for her or for her positions will carry some weight. At a minimum, I think it'll convince the PUMA types to just stay home instead of actually going to vote for McCain.

Now the real nervous waiting begins...what is Bill going to say?

Cleverboy

Aug 27, 2008, 09:38 AM

Vote turnout doesn't make a government "strong" or "weak." But that logic, the US is one of the "weakest" and most "unsuccessful" democracies/governments and Singapore, with it's effective one-party state and façade of a democracy, is a "strong" and "successful" one since voting is mandatory. In Singapore, you have to vote, and those who are uninformed naturally vote for the ruling party. If only people were allowed to not vote, then the apathetic perhaps wouldn't get in the way of change and democratic progress.Wow. You didn't even TRY to give my point a chance. Clearly I'm talking about "free and open elections" and how voter turn-out factors into it. I clearly said "a factor". I don't need to explain this further. You KNOW its true, because you're clearly a smart person. But, you're also smart enough to invent exceptions that have little to do with my assertions simply as a salve to not supporting your governmental process.

I'm going to say this though.

There's a crack in my point that I'm not addressing if I'm being honest. It's a bit of a quandry, but in situations where voting is not fair and open... when there is oppression or coercion... having people "abstain" from participation in the voting process that is BROKEN puts pressure on the government, by clearly identifying a problem with the system. In these cases, low voter turn-out is a radioactive isotope identifying a cancer in a democracy.

In America however, to begin to equate those conditions with ours (where this is hardly the norm), and use that as justification for "abstaining"... simply because you don't like the choices. That's utter hogwash. You are protesting NOTHING. You're divorcing yourself from the process and giving yourself and others like you, more reasons to feel disaffected... when your active participation would ACTUALLY make a difference. You participate BECAUSE you want better choices, and don't want to be left to vote for people you don't fully support.

~ CB

ucfgrad93

Aug 27, 2008, 09:41 AM

As for abstaining - I think failing to vote is failing to be a good citizen. People complain about the government, but if you don't participate you deserve a bad government. You have a duty to stand up and be counted. A representative government has no chance of being representative unless the people make their wishes known by voting.

Agreed, however, I would further add that people should also be informed of the issues and prepared to vote accordingly.

Cleverboy

Aug 27, 2008, 09:49 AM

No. I would never have voted for Kerry, MR contradiction himself. What was it, he voted against it before he was for it or something like that?I don't need to do any soul searching. I voted for who I voted for in the last two elections and felt good about it when I did it. Interesting. My comment about soul-searching is not about questioning who you are. It's about questioning what you are CAUSE in, in this world. If you think Kerry being caught on charges of flip-flopping means that he was a poorer choice than Bush, and that if you were to have it to do over again... that you wouldn't reconsider the man you voted for.. then I can't help you. We can't change the past, but we can use the lessons we learned in our past experience to inform our next choice.

What I'd love you to say... instead of the lukewarm statement you made, is that "I voted for who I voted for in the last two elections and I not only feel good about it when I did it... BUT, if I had the same choice to make again, I can't see how I'd vote differently, even considering the results of what happened." Then I could dismiss your view as illogical. But as it is, you're not even following it through.

Amazingly, I'm still not sure why you're a Democrat. Why are you? You sound like you're not even voting on "issues", but on whether or not the media has made you "frightened" of a candidate, or whether the media makes you insecure about about his "steadfastness" as a leader.

Color it how you like, but I feel you have some flaws in your decision making processes. If you were to do some soul-searching, the question you need to ask yourself, is "Have my actions produced the results I want and expect from my government." If NOT, then, how will you change your actions to support a direction that DOES produce those results. Right now, you seem to be divorced from that relationship and its disappointing.

~ CB

beatzfreak

Aug 27, 2008, 10:38 AM

I am watching Bill O'Reily right now and yes he is a blow hard, but he also stated that Fox News has the highest ratings of any network at the Convention right now. Do you really think that is good news for Obama? Anyhow we will see what happens.

Billo always says he has the highest ratings.:rolleyes:

According to Nielsen data, CNN was the biggest draw of the night with an average of 3.7 million viewers, up 85% from its July 26, 2004, opening night audience. Fox News Channel, usually the most-watched news network, averaged slightly more than 3 million viewers for the night, up 84% from 2004. MSNBC scored an average of slightly more than 2.1 million viewers, up 88% from opening night 2004.

Among the 25- to 54-year-old viewers who are the key news target audience, CNN racked up a hefty lead with an average of nearly 1.37 million viewers in the demographic, up 127% from four years ago, while Fox News averaged 776,000, up 42% from 2004. MSNBC averaged 847,000 viewers in the demo, up 122%.

emphasis mine

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/08/cable_news_networks_reap_polit.php

MacNut

Aug 27, 2008, 10:45 AM

Lyle

Aug 27, 2008, 11:00 AM

Am I the only one that thought, wow Hillary is lying through her teeth. I did not find anything sincere about her speech. Deep down she was thinking, "I should be the nominee you bastards."If she was thinking that, I didn't see it. I thought it was a great speech.

Watching the cutaways to Mrs. Obama it looked like she was thinking, "get of the stage bitch."A few times when they cut to Mrs. Obama I thought she had an unusual expression on her face, but then again, I haven't see as much as her as I have Hillary. I wouldn't read anything into it.

To me it looked like Hillary was given an ultimatum that if she didn't say nice things and turn her supporters they were gonna ban her from the party.She's not stupid. She did what she had to do. If Hillary had not said the right thing(s) last night, and if she is in any way seen as contributing to Obama's downfall come November, her political career would be over.

Pittsax

Aug 27, 2008, 11:46 AM

Am I the only one that thought, wow Hillary is lying through her teeth. I did not find anything sincere about her speech. Deep down she was thinking, "I should be the nominee you bastards." Watching the cutaways to Mrs Obama it looked like she was thinking, "get of the stage bitch." To me it looked like Hillary was given an ultimatum that if she didn't say nice things and turn her supporters they were gonna ban her from the party.
I think that look on Michelle Obama's face was Please don't say anything to **** this up, which was pretty much what I was thinking at the beginning of the speech.

I thought her speech was sincere. I just don't think it was a whole-hearted endorsement. She doesn't want to take the fall if Obama loses, so of course, she has to get her supporters to vote for him, or at a minimum not vote at all. Nowhere in her speech, however, did she say why she supported Obama, other than that he's not McCain.

zap2

Aug 27, 2008, 11:52 AM

Pittsax

Aug 27, 2008, 12:40 PM

Anyone see Kucinich's speech? I saw it on youtube, and darn, it made me sad he didn't get the party's spot on the ticket.

If you want someone who believes in what they say, is looking to help people, kucinich is your man!
He definitely gives a good speech, but his biggest problem is he's another one of those professional running for president types that too few people take seriously.

Cleverboy

Aug 27, 2008, 01:16 PM

Nowhere in her speech, however, did she say why she supported Obama, other than that he's not McCain. That's completely not true. She made a very impassioned and detailed comment about WHY she's voting for Obama. You should listen again, and count how many times you hear words like "--that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama!"

Hint: It's not "once" and its not limited to the areas she derides McCain.

Just keeping you honest here.

~ CB

atszyman

Aug 27, 2008, 01:33 PM

That's completely not true. She made a very impassioned and detailed comment about WHY she's voting for Obama. You should listen again, and count how many times you hear words like "--that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama!"

Hint: It's not "once" and its not limited to the areas she derides McCain.

Just keeping you honest here.

~ CB

I thought she did a good job and made it very clear that if you really supported her before, you should be supporting Obama now. The only disappointment I had is that nowhere in her speech did she outright denounce any of the attacks on his experience and say that Obama is 100% ready to be the president on day one, which is the quote of hers that the GOP is using against Obama.

Due to being at the gym the past couple nights my limited choices for viewing the convention consisted of Fox News, although some other networks were available last night. I saw 9ui11iani talk about how being president is not a job that lends itself to on the job training. Of course no one ever mentions where you're supposed to get the training to be president. Last time I checked there aren't many jobs comparable to being one of the most powerful leaders on earth and we have rules in place to keep previous presidents from running too many times.

Of course the night before when they were talking about Obama's house ads as being below the belt and immediately talked of Obama's "mansion" I almost threw my iPod at the TV...

beatzfreak

Aug 27, 2008, 01:54 PM

I thought she did a good job and made it very clear that if you really supported her before, you should be supporting Obama now. The only disappointment I had is that nowhere in her speech did she outright denounce any of the attacks on his experience and say that Obama is 100% ready to be the president on day one, which is the quote of hers that the GOP is using against Obama.

Due to being at the gym the past couple nights my limited choices for viewing the convention consisted of Fox News, although some other networks were available last night. I saw 9ui11iani talk about how being president is not a job that lends itself to on the job training. Of course no one ever mentions where you're supposed to get the training to be president. Last time I checked there aren't many jobs comparable to being one of the most powerful leaders on earth and we have rules in place to keep previous presidents from running too many times.

Of course the night before when they were talking about Obama's house ads as being below the belt and immediately talked of Obama's "mansion" I almost threw my iPod at the TV...

Funny, coming from Rudy, who thinks that being a mayor made him qualified to be president.

Cleverboy

Aug 27, 2008, 04:58 PM

The only disappointment I had is that nowhere in her speech did she outright denounce any of the attacks on his experience and say that Obama is 100% ready to be the president on day one, which is the quote of hers that the GOP is using against Obama. Yeah, I only think there's so much she can do without outright saying the exact OPPOSITE of what she said on the campaign trail. I don't think its her responsibility to denounce attacks on Obama. She's tried to address her supporters that might be voting against womens rights and healthcare simply to "defeat" Obama, but the best she can otherwise do is compare Obama to the alternative and hip-check McCain in as many ways as possible. --Cause she's got big hips, and keeps her elbows out.

~ CB

Thomas Veil

Aug 27, 2008, 05:06 PM

As far as I can see, the Dems have been doing better than I expected.

The Hillary situation came out about as good as anyone could've hoped. She didn't harm Obama (or herself) by being a sore loser. In fact, she did exactly what I said would be a terrific role for her: tearing McCain a new one. So kudos to her for putting the good of the country before herself.

Now it's up to her die-hard fans, the ones who hitherto haven't been able to accept Obama. As far as I'm concerned, she's done everything she could to convince them. It's totally in their hands now. If they're not convinced yet, they are a lost cause.

atszyman

Aug 27, 2008, 05:08 PM

Yeah, I only think there's so much she can do without outright saying the exact OPPOSITE of what she said on the campaign trail. I don't think its her responsibility to denounce attacks on Obama. She's tried to address her supporters that might be voting against womens rights and healthcare simply to "defeat" Obama, but the best she can otherwise do is compare Obama to the alternative and hip-check McCain in as many ways as possible. --Cause she's got big hips, and keeps her elbows out.

~ CB

I think she could have possibly done it, they're politicians after all. It's not that hard really,

It has been an honor and a privilege to campaign with Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. I know that during the campaign I had raised issues about his experience but in the time we spent together, pushing each other to new heights in our pursuit of the nomination, and in our campaigning together after the nomination I can say now that he is ready to lead this country and the Democratic party into a new era. He has the experience and judgement necessary to bring this country back on track, and I will do whatever it takes to make sure that he is the next president of the United States.

Of course it could be re-worded to be more eloquent and sound more natural but it's really not that hard to kill the experience attacks that use your quotes, especially if you're a politician. It's not like McCain can hammer the flip-flop attack too much, since there are plenty of his own flip-flops that can come back to haunt him, just like the house gaffe.

iJohnHenry

Aug 27, 2008, 06:41 PM

Funny, coming from Rudy, who thinks that being a mayor made him qualified to be president.

Point taken, but it might just make him a prime candidate to take over FEMA.

His reaction to 9/11 cannot be ignored, by any sentient person.

mactastic

Aug 27, 2008, 07:01 PM

His reaction to 9/11 cannot be ignored, by any sentient person.
Yup... run to your bunker with "the other woman" and bang her there on a bed furnished with taxpayer monies while his wife was at home. No ignoring that.

iJohnHenry

Aug 27, 2008, 07:16 PM

Oh dear, I do believe I have stepped in something?? :eek:

mactastic

Aug 27, 2008, 07:42 PM

Oh dear, I do believe I have stepped in something?? :eek:
Must have come from that high horse Guiliani rides around on. :p

beatzfreak

Aug 27, 2008, 08:25 PM

Oh dear, I do believe I have stepped in something?? :eek:

Yes you did. I live in NYC and experienced his "leadership" first hand.

FEMA?
I wonder how many ladies he would have stashed in those FEMA trailers.

zap2

Aug 27, 2008, 09:07 PM

Bill Clinton's on right now.....wow its great to see people excited about a (ex)president. I guess its been a long 8 years.....

Thomas Veil

Aug 27, 2008, 09:08 PM

Re: ratings...

That CNN did much better than Fox is not surprising. Liberals don't trust Fox, so they sure wouldn't watch that network and have to bear the Fox blowhards trying to spin everything their way.

Watch when the Republican convention starts. CNN's ratings will go down, and Fox's will skyrocket, because of course Fox is the only network that will give the Republicans a fair shake. :rolleyes:

On another note, I was glad to see the vote by acclamation. Glad to see that it really materialized, glad to see that Hillary had her stuff together. From what I've seen, she's dealing with it a lot better now than some of her fans are. Let's hope that seeing her make this terrific gesture towards Obama will help calm the waters.

It was kind of hilarious, though, when Pelosi asked, "All in favor?" and got a big chorus of "Aye"s, and then "All opposed the motion carries." She was not about to let anyone spoil the moment.

And I wish that, following that, they would've said a little something more in appreciation of Hillary. What she did today was probably very hard for her, and a little praise for what was, truly, a historic campaign wouldn't have hurt.

beatzfreak

Aug 27, 2008, 09:14 PM

thank you, BIll

"Barack Obama is ready to be President of the United States"

zap2

Aug 27, 2008, 09:19 PM

thank you, BIll

"Barack Obama is ready to be President of the United States"

Good call....there it is, spelled out(incase Hilary didn't make it clear enough for McCain)

Unspeaked

Aug 27, 2008, 09:22 PM

Man - all I can say is, I wish Bill could run for a third term...

mactastic

Aug 27, 2008, 11:53 PM

Good call....there it is, spelled out(incase Hilary didn't make it clear enough for McCain)
Nice. I'm sure that was a reaction to the clueless pundits making idiots of themselves all day with claims that Hillary didn't do enough. So out comes the Big Dog to put the cluebat upside the talking head's heads.

We'll see if Bill's performance is sufficient to satisfy the media folks that thrive on "Democrats in Disarray" storylines.

Now the only task left undone is for Al Gore to eviscerate John McCain tomorrow night; followed by Obama giving a top-shelf speech.

Unspeaked

Aug 27, 2008, 11:57 PM

Lord Blackadder

Aug 28, 2008, 12:06 AM

We'll see if Bill's performance is sufficient to satisfy the media folks that thrive on "Democrats in Disarray" storylines.

Well, the Dems have given the pundits plenty of ammo in that department in recent years. I think that Hillary and Bill have delivered a pretty good one-two punch to unite the party, with good follow-ups by Kerry and of course Biden, who so far makes a good political complement to Obama in terms of backgrounds. The "surprise" appearance of Mr. O himself was well-timed.

The media, of course, will drive editorial wedges into the smallest perceived crack. **** them.

Mike Teezie

Aug 28, 2008, 12:07 AM

Nice. I'm sure that was a reaction to the clueless pundits making idiots of themselves all day with claims that Hillary didn't do enough. So out comes the Big Dog to put the cluebat upside the talking head's heads.

We'll see if Bill's performance is sufficient to satisfy the media folks that thrive on "Democrats in Disarray" storylines.

It was interesting on CNN. Right after tonight wrapped, everybody from Blitzer to Cooper to John King were talking about how great of a night it was for Democrats, how great the speeches were, how unified the party is now, how great Obama looked up there with Biden, and so on.

THen of course, they cut to some Republican in another studio, he tells them they've drank the KoolAid, and predeictably, they all freak. Then it's, "well, we are inside the stadium, and it can be intoxicating, that really was a pedestrian speech by Biden."

They are so scared of being called biased, that they will turn literally on a dime and act like they all weren't just sitting there grinning like idiots.

Whatever. There's nothing more useless than a pundit, unless you are wanting to incite inner rage.

As for tonight, I thought they kicked ass. The speeches were good (Kerry? Wow.) and it was great to see the O man come out a night early.

Tomorrow is going to be wild. I'm afraid by making it so large, he's set himself up so that nothing he could possible do will meet the expectations of the yapping heads.

Lord Blackadder

Aug 28, 2008, 12:13 AM

It was interesting on CNN. Right after tonight wrapped, everybody from Blitzer to Cooper to John King were talking about how great of a night it was for Democrats, how great the speeches were, how unified the party is now, how great Obama looked up there with Biden, and so on.

THen of course, they cut to some Republican in another studio, he tells them they've drank the KoolAid, and predeictably, they all freak. Then it's, "well, we are inside the stadium, and it can be intoxicating, that really was a pedestrian speech by Biden."

Biden's speech was solid. If all the GOP can say in response is "you're all drinking the Kool-Aid" then the Dems have this campaign in the bag. Sadly, it will be a tougher battle than that.

I don't think the GOP will directly respond to the Dems if the going gets tough. They are more likely to fall back on the bastions of GOP rhetoric: Terrorists, God, and not raising taxes.

obeygiant

Aug 28, 2008, 12:32 AM

THen of course, they cut to some Republican in another studio, he tells them they've drank the KoolAid, and predeictably, they all freak. Then it's, "well, we are inside the stadium, and it can be intoxicating, that really was a pedestrian speech by Biden."

I saw that. The pedestrian comment was flat wrong, but what else is he going to say. They have to fair and let the other side have a say just like they'll have a democratic strategist ripping on the GOP convention.

One reason CNN may be winning in viewership amongst the other cable news networks may be due the fact that they broadcast in hi-def. I'm a comcast subscriber and CNNHD is irresistible.

Thomas Veil

Aug 28, 2008, 12:42 AM

Tomorrow is going to be wild. I'm afraid by making it so large, he's set himself up so that nothing he could possible do will meet the expectations of the yapping heads.Obama made a surprise appearance on TV the first night, one in person tonight, his team got Hillary and Bill on board and even maneuvered a nomination by acclamation. These people know what they're doing.

Thursday night is going to be in a stadium filled with incredibly excited people. It's going to be like the ********** Super Bowl. :)

stevento

Aug 28, 2008, 12:50 AM

What I realized today is that the reason Hillary put her name into nominaton and demanded a roll call was not to steal the convention, but to make a spectacle out of interrupting the roll call in order to move that Obama be nominated by acclamation. it was a party unity gesture, not what I had hoped for.

Mike Teezie

Aug 28, 2008, 12:56 AM

Obama made a surprise appearance on TV the first night, one in person tonight, his team got Hillary and Bill on board and even maneuvered a nomination by acclamation. These people know what they're doing.

Thursday night is going to be in a stadium filled with incredibly excited people. It's going to be like the ********** Super Bowl. :)

I hope so. I'm so pessimistic. I felt terriffic after the '04 convention, and then felt the life drain out of me on election night. As a photographer, I can picture the amazing scene in my head, one man standing in front of 75,000 people. An opportunity for some really amazing imagery.

What I realized today is that the reason Hillary put her name into nominaton and demanded a roll call was not to steal the convention, but to make a spectacle out of interrupting the roll call in order to move that Obama be nominated by acclamation. it was a party unity gesture, not what I had hoped for.

So are you ready to support the Obama|Biden ticket now? The woman threw every ounce of her weight into this thing, and it's a damn good thing she did.

stevento

Aug 28, 2008, 03:12 AM

well, i'm supporting joe biden for vice president and will so as such in november

Prof.

Aug 28, 2008, 03:14 AM

Man - all I can say is, I wish Bill could run for a third term...
I hear ya! He truly was one of our greatest presidents.

Maybe Chelsea will run for pres one day. :D:cool:

hulugu

Aug 28, 2008, 03:52 AM

well, i'm supporting joe biden for vice president and will so as such in november

What did Obama do to offend you so particularly?

I hear ya! He truly was one of our greatest presidents.

Maybe Chelsea will run for pres one day. :D:cool:

No. I hope she doesn't, we don't need family dynasties mucking up the office. The last run was enough to sour me on the idea of ever having even a cousin or nephew follow along.

Much Ado

Aug 28, 2008, 06:54 AM

I've just finished watching BC's speech, and like Lord Blackadder said, it was a good one-two punch.

Hillary thanks her supporters, highlights the issues that she and Obama believe in, and adds that she supports him.
Then Bill comes along and, without the need to save face, completely rallies behind Obama for him and his wife.

The overall effect was very powerful. I hope it converts the stubborn.

yg17

Aug 28, 2008, 07:46 AM

I saw that. The pedestrian comment was flat wrong, but what else is he going to say. They have to fair and let the other side have a say just like they'll have a democratic strategist ripping on the GOP convention.

One reason CNN may be winning in viewership amongst the other cable news networks may be due the fact that they broadcast in hi-def. I'm a comcast subscriber and CNNHD is irresistible.

If you get PBS HD, watch that. That's what I've been watching. They show everything in HD and don't talk over any speeches. There's a few minutes of talking heads who will put an insomniac to sleep between speeches, but it's not bad.

trebblekicked

Aug 28, 2008, 08:34 AM

What did Obama do to offend you so particularly?

He ran against Hillary. That's basically what it boils down to. Slate had a good analogy; you work at a company for 30 years and you're up for the big promotion when a new guy comes in and gets it instead. Doesn't really matter how great a guy he is; you're going to hate his effing guts. Mix in the overtones of sexism, and you've got plenty of reasons for the Hillary Cult Of Personality types to hate Barrack Obama, none of which are actually his fault or have anything to do with his politics or his abilities. The policy differences between them are so small that any expressed dismay is likely just projected anger.

I'd add that Stevento's desire to move to New York so he can vote for her is indicative of the Cult Of Personality type. For him and a few others, it really WAS just about her. I'd add that Obama supporters aren't asking you to throw a switch all of a sudden; we've been asking since it became obvious she wasn't going to win back in April, asking since she suspended her campaign in June, asking since she endorsed him in July. The vast majority of her supporters have joined in, but the few that refuse to are doing so loudly and irrationally, and it's insulting to anyone who actually cares about the issues they both supported.

Pittsax

Aug 28, 2008, 08:46 AM

If you get PBS HD, watch that. That's what I've been watching. They show everything in HD and don't talk over any speeches. There's a few minutes of talking heads who will put an insomniac to sleep between speeches, but it's not bad.
I flipped over there from MSNBC when I noticed Kerry was speaking (behind Tom Brokaw, who was droning on about something). I actually thought Kerry did the best job of the night as far as attacking McCain, with the best line being "Talk about being for something before you were against it!"

Other thoughts:

Bill Clinton's speech did what Hillary failed to do: offer a reason to vote for OBAMA, not "Generic Democratic Candidate Not Named Hillary Clinton." I was wonderfully surprised at his tone.

Joe Biden was a perfect pick for VP. He can play the good cop/bad cop routine with Obama better than anyone else, and he's one of the few politicians who speaks his mind every time he opens his mouth.

I'm glad Beau Biden didn't play up the fact he was going to Iraq. He mentioned it in passing, but nothing specific.

The Republican strategist for MSNBC (I forget his name) needs to move over to Fox. He actually said that Hillary and Bill Clinton would be voting for McCain. Of course, this is after he gave the Bush Administration a "C"

atszyman

Aug 28, 2008, 09:42 AM

The Republican strategist for MSNBC (I forget his name) needs to move over to Fox. He actually said that Hillary and Bill Clinton would be voting for McCain. Of course, this is after he gave the Bush Administration a "C"

I saw that on MSNBC too. Of course my first thought was, "So what, let them go home and privately vote for McCain. It's not like he has a shot at winning NY and as long as the Clintons keep giving their vocal support to Obama in the fashion of the last couple nights those 2 votes won't change the election at all."

Believe what he will, but as long as the Clinton's are pulling a Lieberman, I'd guess that their ballots will be cast for Obama so that they can maintain a good relationship in the party and get better treatment in the Senate and still have a voice and power within the party. Anything seen as a move against Obama would have them kicked out of the party in an instant, especially if it costs the Dems another election.

mactastic

Aug 28, 2008, 11:32 AM

I saw that. The pedestrian comment was flat wrong, but what else is he going to say. They have to fair and let the other side have a say just like they'll have a democratic strategist ripping on the GOP convention.

One reason CNN may be winning in viewership amongst the other cable news networks may be due the fact that they broadcast in hi-def. I'm a comcast subscriber and CNNHD is irresistible.
Can't get close enough in on McCain's liver spots in regular-def? :p

What did Obama do to offend you so particularly?
He was presumptuous enough to think that he should be president.

Lord Blackadder

Aug 28, 2008, 11:47 AM

Can't get close enough in on McCain's liver spots in regular-def? :p

That just spoiled my lunch. :eek:;)

Pittsax

Aug 28, 2008, 11:53 AM

He was presumptuous enough to think that he should be president.
Please explain. IMO, it's presumptuous for anyone to think they should be president.

mactastic

Aug 28, 2008, 12:03 PM

Please explain. IMO, it's presumptuous for anyone to think they should be president.
I don't know if you've noticed, but that particular line of attack has been pushed against Obama by Clinton during the primaries, and by the GOP since.

Of course it's rubbish. Either they're all presumptuous, or none of them are. In either case, it provides no distinction with which to make a decision about them.

Pittsax

Aug 28, 2008, 12:18 PM

I don't know if you've noticed, but that particular line of attack has been pushed against Obama by Clinton during the primaries, and by the GOP since.

Of course it's rubbish. Either they're all presumptuous, or none of them are. In either case, it provides no distinction with which to make a decision about them.
No, I definitely noticed the attacks. What I failed to notice was (A) who was posting and (B) the irony :o

leekohler

Aug 28, 2008, 01:40 PM

No, I definitely noticed the attacks. What I failed to notice was (A) who was posting and (B) the irony :o

Can I just tell you how much I love your screen name? It sounds so dirty. :)

Pittsax

Aug 28, 2008, 01:53 PM

Can I just tell you how much I love your screen name? It sounds so dirty. :)
Um...thanks? :rolleyes:

leekohler

Aug 28, 2008, 01:54 PM

Um...thanks? :rolleyes:

Yeah- it was a compliment. ;)

kavika411

Aug 28, 2008, 02:07 PM

Apparently, Denver is no longer a sanctuary city ... for journalists.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1

Thomas Veil

Aug 28, 2008, 03:53 PM

He ran against Hillary. That's basically what it boils down to. Slate had a good analogy; you work at a company for 30 years and you're up for the big promotion when a new guy comes in and gets it instead.Though Hillary actually wasn't a senator a whole lot longer than Obama...certainly nothing like 30 years. Yeah, she was a president's wife, and because Hillary's a smart woman that counts for something, but be honest, if Laura Bush tried to run for president on that basis, we'd be rolling in the aisles laughing.

What I realized today is that the reason Hillary put her name into nominaton and demanded a roll call was not to steal the convention, but to make a spectacle out of interrupting the roll call in order to move that Obama be nominated by acclamation. it was a party unity gesture, not what I had hoped for.Aw. That's just terrible. Mmm-mm-mmmm!!

Apparently, Denver is no longer a sanctuary city ... for journalists.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1Iiiinteresting.

Remember years ago when Ted Koppel and the news crews came to the conventions and went home early because there was no real news? Guys like Jim Hightower complained, asking why they didn't spend time investigating the real stories, like who's paying for access to whom. So now ABC goes and does it, and their reporter gets rousted. Sounds like some lobbyist doesn't want them liberal media types poking around in there.

Cleverboy

Aug 28, 2008, 04:13 PM

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/28/gallup-poll-gives-obama-convention-bounce/
The Gallup Daily Tracking Poll on Thursday showed the Democratic presidential nominee up 6 points over rival John McCain, 48 to 42 percent, with a 2-point margin of error.

It was the first time in two weeks Obama has opened up a significant lead. McCain even moved ahead of Obama by 2 points in the daily tracking on Tuesday for the first time this summer.

But the Obama bump comes after several high-profile speeches by Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Sen. Ted Kennedy and others praised Obama during two days of convention night speeches.

The Obama and McCain campaigns have been in a tug of war over how high to raise the bar for any post-convention bounce.
[-SNIP-]
The Gallup poll was an average of the last three days’ results and was taken before Bill Clinton and vice presidential nominee Joe Biden spoke Wednesday night.

I was suprised FoxNews would be one of the only ones picking up on any potential "bounce". The Boston Herald this morning headlined with "Obummer", "No Bounce for Obama". Which kind of falls in line with their usually shrill voice on politics.

But, FoxNews has also picked up on the inevitable McCain spin on Invesco Field, which, as a venue has even had some Democrats grumbling about its "showy" nature. The news is entitled: "Report: Britney Spears’ Set Designer Built Obama’s Invesco Stage". All I could think was, "Ug." I guess I can believe that who you've worked for recently will help characterize (or damn) your next client, no matter how many others you've worked with.
The same set team that designed Britney Spear’s last tour has constructed the enormous, Greek-columned stage where Barack Obama will officially accept the Democratic presidential nomination on Thursday, The New York Post reports.

The set, which was reportedly designed to resemble the White House and Lincoln Memorial, was built inside the 75,000-seat stadium — Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver — under the direction of Bobby Allen, Spears’ former staging manager. The "Celeb" attack continues. Attempting to fault Obama for his strengths and intend to open his acceptance to the greatest amount of people.

~ CB

Unspeaked

Aug 28, 2008, 09:46 PM

Those "real people" speeches were the best thing the Democrats could have done. They should have had a whole night of that (and probably could have...).

I'm calling it now: Barney Smith before Smith Barney is going to be the catch-phrase of the 2008 election.

Thomas Veil

Aug 28, 2008, 09:52 PM

The "Celeb" attack continues. Attempting to fault Obama for his strengths and intend to open his acceptance to the greatest amount of people.Yeah, well...

Both CNN and MSNBC are saying that while Invesco Field has 80,000 Democrats packed into 75,000 seats, John McCain is struggling to fill an arena in Ohio tomorrow for the announcement of his vice presidential pick. The seating? 10,000.

Let me repeat: Obama can overpack a football stadium, while John McCain can't get 10,000 people for his big announcement.

Pardon me while I step away to kvell at the schadenfreude of all this. :) :) :)

kavika411

Aug 28, 2008, 09:58 PM

Breaking news: CNN says history is being made.

[Sorry, can't find a link.]

Cleverboy

Aug 28, 2008, 10:05 PM

Let me repeat: Obama can overpack a football stadium, while John McCain can't get 10,000 people for his big announcement.
OMG. They're saying the lines are 6 MILES LONG. I thought the line was long when I saw him in Boston. I saw it and just started laughing, because it was so absurdly long. Simply amazing.

~ CB

miloblithe

Aug 28, 2008, 10:13 PM

Here we go. Beginning of the speech....

Prof.

Aug 28, 2008, 11:02 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen. The President of the United States of America... Barack Obama!!!

obeygiant

Aug 28, 2008, 11:08 PM

Both CNN and MSNBC are saying that while Invesco Field has 80,000 Democrats packed into 75,000 seats

Where's the Fire Marshal when you need him. lol :)

ucfgrad93

Aug 28, 2008, 11:11 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen. The President of the United States of America... Barack Obama!!!

You could at least wait until the election!:p

leekohler

Aug 28, 2008, 11:12 PM

That was great! I feel like we're gonna win this thing. If he stays on message like that til November, I predict he'll crush McCain.

EricNau

Aug 28, 2008, 11:12 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen. The President of the United States of America... Barack Obama!!!
Now you've gone an jinxed it. Quick, before it's too late...

Ladies and Gentlemen. The President of the United States of America... John McCain!!!

There, now they're even.

Thomas Veil

Aug 28, 2008, 11:13 PM

Out...of...the...park!! :) :)

Tilpots

Aug 28, 2008, 11:20 PM

Yes we will!

SilentPanda

Aug 28, 2008, 11:20 PM

Breaking news: CNN says history is being made.

[Sorry, can't find a link.]

This... made me laugh. :D

yg17

Aug 28, 2008, 11:23 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen. The President of the United States of America... John McCain!!!

Bite your tongue :p

Cleverboy

Aug 28, 2008, 11:29 PM

"Senator Obama, this is truly a good day for America. Too often the achievements of our opponents go unnoticed. So I wanted to stop and say, congratulations. How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day. Tomorrow, we'll be back at it. But tonight Senator, job well done." - John McCain

~ CB

trebblekicked

Aug 28, 2008, 11:55 PM

great speech :)

i love how he mentioned gay marriage, abortion, social security and gun control in the same paragraph. talk about guts!

there was a strong message of personal accountability and individual involvement that i really hope makes it through the punditry tomorrow. if obama can inspire the people to action, the country will in fact be a better place.

i think he did a great job of highlighting the differences between him and john mccain, while taking great care to avoid vilifying him. i was particularly fond of the "10% chance of change" line.

other great lines:
"change doesn't come from washington, change comes to washington"
"it's time for them to own their failure"
"i want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunity as your sons"
" if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education."

atszyman

Aug 29, 2008, 12:15 AM

OK, just finished the speech, thank God for TiVo.

Great job, can't fault the speech really anywhere.

My biggest gripe of the night, once again I was at the gym and the only channel with the convention on was Fox news while I was somewhere I could use headphones to hear it.

Hannity & Colmes had Kucinich on and Hannity (he's the Republican right?) asked Kucinich what made Obama qualified to be president and Kucinich waffled and rambled until they had to go.

Come ON! It's been the same attack/question about Obama since day one. By now, he's been the presumptive nominee for 2 months, you can't tell me that they can't answer the question directly without rambling at this point!

I can think of at least three ways to address it.

1) The oath of office has the President swearing to protect and defend the Constitution. Obama taught Constitutional law.

2) Part of the job of the president is to inspire and motivate the people. It's the point of the SOTU every year. Obama has been doing that since he started in politics and managed to inspire enough people and run a primary campaign that beat the Clinton political machine to win the nomination.

3) He has a longer political service record than our current president had when he was elected and McCain is promising to continue that legacy. If you admit that Bush was qualified and that continuing his policies is a good idea how can you claim Obama does not have the necessary experience?

I'm sure there are other avenues to respond but to ramble on about how this election isn't about Obama and other non-answers is inexcusable at this point. You know the question is coming, be prepared damnit.

madfresh

Aug 29, 2008, 12:31 AM

Cleverboy

Aug 29, 2008, 01:43 AM

Meh...I may be one of the few, but Obama's speech bored me. According to Obama America is in shambles and if we don't elect him it will stay that way....didn't really hear anything new.Yeah, a LOT of it was "repeat" as far as I was concerned. A few highlights, but mostly "review" for anyone that's actually LISTENED to previous speeches before.
I did like how he said McCain voted 90% party lines...guess Obama forgot he voted 100% party lines himself...:p But, that's missing the point entirely. If his point was about who is more loyal to their partyline, that would be disingenuos to say, "Look how awful McCain is to vote with his party!" The point is... the country is on the wrong track (according most polls), and McCain has voted in favor of Bush's policies 90% of the time (not simply his party's policies). Read this:
Three out of four Americans, including large numbers of Republicans, blame President Bush’s economic policies for making the country worse off during the last eight years, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released today, reflecting a sharp increase in public pessimism during the last year.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/26/business/fi-poll26
Bush's foreign and economic policies have been DISASTERS, and yet McCain has dutifully voted in favor of them (with only the smallest objections on the details of execution). I mean, look at THE SURGE (tm). Obama describes it very accurately as a "tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder." while McCain is shouting, "Yeah! Surge good!" The only reason that's not more of a "holding pattern" strategy is because of the Sunni Awakening and what its doing to buttress the efforts of American soldiers on the ground.
http://www.newwest.net/citjo/article/barack_obama_is_right_about_the_surge/C33/L33/
The fact is that the Sunni Sahwa (Awakening) began in August 2006, six months before the surge was announced. In early 2006 Sunni leaders in Anbar province proposed a plan for money and arms with a promise to liquidate Al Qaeda, but the American military initially turned them down. The Iraqis had never liked the presence of foreign jihadists, and they became more and more outraged at their indiscriminate killing.

We have to remember that there were no Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq until President Bush offered his infamous "Bring Them On!" invitation. Primarily because of the cooperation of 80,000 Sahwa fighters, Al Qaeda in Iraq has been set back dramatically.Then... look at the Bush tax cuts. Do you know how much money we've had to borrow to deal with Bush economics? McCain likes them, and wants to keep them.
When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
I remember when Bush was first proposing the Tax Cut, and I was thinking, "Wow, it doesn't sound like its the right time for that." And then having to eventually think, "Well, they must know something I don't know. Looks like Bush has gotten Greenspan on-board. Must be more to his plan than lip-service."

~ CB

Mike Teezie

Aug 29, 2008, 03:31 AM

Amazing night, I really wish I could have been there. Wonderful speech too - I was really glad to see Barack lay out his policies in easy to understand nibbles, and at the same time blast Johnny Boy.

If we can't win this year, we might as well pack it in.

Thomas Veil

Aug 29, 2008, 07:21 AM

It's the following morning, and I'm groggy from staying up late watching Obama's speech and having to get up very early for work, but I'm still wound up from last night. The speech, Al Gore's set-up for it, the fireworks, the electricity of the crowd, the whole thing.

They are saying the lines to get into Invesco Field were six miles long. People in New York stopped on Times Square to watch on the big screen. Even cabs stopped so their passengers could get a look. I've never seen people so interested and so fired up.

You can accuse me of drinking the Kool-Aid, but I'm still going, "Wow!" After what I admit I said was a lackluster start (Nancy Pelosi's speech), the Democrats just took this thing and zoomed with it. I really can't think of a thing they missed. Hillary did not try to steal the convention; in the end she and Bill did the right thing and restored party unity. Just everything, the speakers, the parliamentary maneuvers (i.e., acclamation), the choreography of events, were just perfect. This was indeed the Super Bowl of political conventions...and the Republicans ain't gonna match it next week.

The corollary of this, of course, is that if the Democrats lose, it won't be because they did something wrong. They do not appear to be poised to "blow" this election. Every time the Republicans seem to have gained the upper hand, Barack Obama's people have course-corrected for it and fired back. Last night we saw Obama do two things people have been saying he needed to do: go on the attack more and make this about McCain and Bush; and put meat on the bones of his soaring rhetoric. He did both. No, he aced both.

Now...having said all that, the pessimist in me awaits the other shoe dropping. Please, please don't let me read the news and find that Obama got a minimal bounce from this convention and that his numbers are barely budging. If that turns out to be the case, then there is just no hope for this country, the voters will be effing stupid, and we deserve every bad thing that happens to us.

iGary

Aug 29, 2008, 07:27 AM

I'm still not convinced.

kavika411

Aug 29, 2008, 09:21 AM

I'm still not convinced.

How can you still not be convinced? History was made. History. Last night. Made. Like a pizza, or a lamp. It was made. That should be sufficient. To.be.a.part.of.history.as.it.is.being.made. Some history is not made; it occurs naturally, like iron ore. Some history occurs as a result of population shifts. But not last night. No, not last night. Last night it was made, like a fire by a cave man. Made. Not "maid." Made.

That should be enough to convince you.

iGary

Aug 29, 2008, 09:25 AM

How can you still not be convinced? History was made. History. Last night. Made. Like a pizza, or a lamp. It was made. That should be sufficient. To.be.a.part.of.history.as.it.is.being.made. Some history is not made; it occurs naturally, like iron ore. Some history occurs as a result of population shifts. But not last night. No, not last night. Last night it was made, like a fire by a cave man. Made. Not "maid." Made.

That should be enough to convince you.

:D

I just don't believe he can actually implement the miracles he's preaching.

I am considering voting for him just because I believe the government does need a shake up.

rdowns

Aug 29, 2008, 09:35 AM

I'll vote for him because the uncertainty over him is better to me than the certainty that is McCain. He gave a good speech. That said, I agree with iGary. He made a lot of nice promises but I don't believe he can get most of them implemented.

Cut taxes for 90% of working families - just what does that mean? Details please.

End dependence on foreign oil in 10 years. Good luck with that, we've made zero progress on that since the oil crisis in the late 70s.

leekohler

Aug 29, 2008, 09:37 AM

:D

I just don't believe he can actually implement the miracles he's preaching.

I am considering voting for him just because I believe the government does need a shake up.

If he gets one quarter of it done, I'll consider that a HUGE improvement over the cesspool in Washington right now.

And really, no one expected you to be convinced anyway. ;)

fivepoint

Aug 29, 2008, 09:44 AM

The corollary of this, of course, is that if the Democrats lose, it won't be because they did something wrong. They do not appear to be poised to "blow" this election. Every time the Republicans seem to have gained the upper hand, Barack Obama's people have course-corrected for it and fired back. Last night we saw Obama do two things people have been saying he needed to do: go on the attack more and make this about McCain and Bush; and put meat on the bones of his soaring rhetoric. He did both. No, he aced both.

Now...having said all that, the pessimist in me awaits the other shoe dropping. Please, please don't let me read the news and find that Obama got a minimal bounce from this convention and that his numbers are barely budging. If that turns out to be the case, then there is just no hope for this country, the voters will be effing stupid, and we deserve every bad thing that happens to us.

Not to rain on the parade. It's your guys' convention, so you should enjoy it, but I just wanted to say... if the Democrats loose this convention, it won't be because voters in this country are "effing stupid" or that they "deserve every bad thing that happens" to them.

If the Democrats lose, it'll be because they support the morally bankrupt practice of abortion, they stand for raising taxes, they trample freedoms/liberties in the name of "helping the little guy," they support legalized discrimination through affirmative action, they think the second amendment is "open for interpretation," and that they think teachers unions are actually helping our school systems improve. If the Democrats lose, it will be because Americans realize that the fundamental philosophies which guide every decision they make, are generally misguided. But then, that's just my perspective. I'm not voting Democrat or Republican. I'll be "throwing my vote away, instead."

Still though, it was a very good speech. If Obama does get in, it will be nice to have someone in office who can give a powerful speech and not fall all over himself with even the simplest of pronunciations.

iGary

Aug 29, 2008, 09:49 AM

If he gets one quarter of it done, I'll consider that a HUGE improvement over the cesspool in Washington right now.

And really, no one expected you to be convinced anyway. ;)

See, that's the thing, he's not the one that gets things done. A lot of people are assuming Congress will fall rank in file behind anything he pushes. I don't see it.

I'm not against him (although I do have serious issues with some of his positions on things), I'm just cynical about what he can accomplish.

Worst care I'm writing in Randy Downs.

fivepoint

Aug 29, 2008, 09:55 AM

Cut taxes for 90% of working families - just what does that mean? Details please.

The top 50% of wage earners in America pay something like 95% of the taxes.
The top 25% of wage earners in America pay something like 86% of the taxes.
The top 5% of wage earners pay around 50% of the taxes.
(http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls)

Obama is talking about further separating the percentage of taxes that the rich pay over the middle class and poor. He is talking about increasing the rate of redistribution of wealth or "robin hood" tax tactics. The flawed aspect of this, is that the bottom 50% of wage earners are hardly paying any tax anyway! You have to realize, the people at the top of the top of the tax bracket are ALREADY paying almost all of the taxes.

atszyman

Aug 29, 2008, 09:55 AM

Cut taxes for 90% of working families - just what does that mean? Details please.

You can start here (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061113) but comparisons and analysis of Obama's and McCain's tax plans are all over the web.

End dependence on foreign oil in 10 years. Good luck with that, we've made zero progress on that since the oil crisis in the late 70s.

Because they haven't made it a priority due to cheap oil. We can put a man on the moon in less than 10 years I think the United states can find enough alternative fuels to have a huge impact in 10 years. The technologies are starting now and making progress, 10 more years with enough investment and backing and I think it can be done.

Sure it would have been much more realistic to come out and say we'll reduce our oil consumption by half in a decade but why not issue the challenge and see what we can do? The best innovation comes when people are challenged. Sure we could set easily achievable goals and meet them but there would be few, if any, big innovations.

The top 50% of wage earners in America pay something like 95% of the taxes.
The top 25% of wage earners in America pay something like 86% of the taxes.
The top 5% of wage earners pay around 50% of the taxes.
(http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls)

How much of the nations wealth do those percentages control?

Tilpots

Aug 29, 2008, 09:58 AM

I'll be "throwing my vote away, instead."

Then why post? Your opinion means nothing. Your vote means everything.

fivepoint

Aug 29, 2008, 10:01 AM

You can start here (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061113) but comparisons and analysis of Obama's and McCain's tax plans are all over the web.

Because they haven't made it a priority due to cheap oil. We can put a man on the moon in less than 10 years I think the United states can find enough alternative fuels to have a huge impact in 10 years. The technologies are starting now and making progress, 10 more years with enough investment and backing and I think it can be done.

Sure it would have been much more realistic to come out and say we'll reduce our oil consumption by half in a decade but why not issue the challenge and see what we can do? The best innovation comes when people are challenged. Sure we could set easily achievable goals and meet them but there would be few, if any, big innovations.

Ahhh! The free market, at it's best! I agree, 100%. Now that oil prices have truly started to STING, people will get their heads on straight. Great analogy to the space race. You're exactly right. The best thing that could have happened to alternative fuels, was for oil prices to go up. The more unaffordable oil is, the more affordable solar, wind, bio-diesel, ethanol, nuclear, will become.

I'd have to say... the best quotes from the convention were from Biden:
Talking about dad who, when he fell on hard times, would tell his son: "Champ, when you get knocked down, get up."
Followed soon after by "I've never seen a time when Washington has watched so many people get knocked down without doing anything to help them get back up."

Now, that is irony you couldn't MAKE UP!

"Anyway, I'm out. Enjoy the rest of the upbeat convention talk."

Cleverboy

Aug 29, 2008, 11:32 AM

McCain picks first female on Republican presidential ticket.

What does that mean for Democrats coming out of the convention?

NO BOUNCE!

Aw. Better luck next time?

Listen to this Clinton delegate, and the uphill battle she felt Obama still had.
http://koreanpower999.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/hillary-clinton-delegate-pours-our-her-heart-after-hillary-clintons-speech-at-the-democratic-national-convention/

~ CB

zap2

Aug 29, 2008, 12:01 PM

I'd have to say... the best quotes from the convention were from Biden:

Now, that is irony you couldn't MAKE UP!

:confused::confused:
I don't get it?

Biden was raised with the ideas that people should try to help themselves out when times are tough, but our government is there to help the people. People need to want to do better, to raising out of troubled times, but a government doing nothing about it isn't help or doing its job.

Seems pretty simple.

Lyle

Aug 29, 2008, 12:12 PM

I'd have to say... the best quotes from the convention were from Biden:
Talking about dad who, when he fell on hard times, would tell his son: "Champ, when you get knocked down, get up."
Followed soon after by "I've never seen a time when Washington has watched so many people get knocked down without doing anything to help them get back up.":confused::confused:
I don't get it?

Biden was raised with the ideas that people should try to help themselves out when times are tough, but our government is there to help the people. People need to want to do better, to raising out of troubled times, but a government doing nothing about it isn't help or doing its job.

Seems pretty simple.I'm going out on a limb here to guess that fivepoint finds it ironic that long-time U.S. Senator Joe Biden is griping about "Washington" not doing anything to help people.

zap2

Aug 29, 2008, 12:28 PM

I'm going out on a limb here to guess that fivepoint finds it ironic that long-time U.S. Senator Joe Biden is griping about "Washington" not doing anything to help people.

I didn't think it was that(since they first quote would sever little purpose) and its very possible for 1 senator to not get his way even after many year(Kucinich, Paul, Sanders)..maybe I'm dense.

I thought he was trying to point our Biden dad's comment as if it was say people need to do their own thing, without the government helping.

But thats not what Biden's dad was saying, he was saying people to need to help themselves by working hard and allowing the government to set them up to do great things.

hulugu

Aug 29, 2008, 01:12 PM

Ahhh! The free market, at it's best! I agree, 100%. Now that oil prices have truly started to STING, people will get their heads on straight. Great analogy to the space race....

Am I the only one who finds this is a non sequitur? The free market would never have gone into space, especially in 1962 when the first programs were launched and certainly not in 1969 when the first Apollo missions were launched. It took a massive government investment (something on the order of 25 Billion dollars [135 billion in adjusted dollars] for just the Apollo missions) to run their course. I'm not sure what the other missions, Mercury, Gemini, etc. costed in adjusted dollars.

Putting a man on the moon is actually a great example of how government investment can help further a technological goal, putting the money out there for corporations to make something happen. But, let us be clear, we went to the moon because of the US investment and not because of Boeing, Lockheed, or Grumman decided to on their own.

solvs

Sep 2, 2008, 08:10 AM

Can anyone explain to me why a candidates wife is being given such a prominent speaking role at the convention? Is this usual practice? Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what she has to say.
You should. She's going to be involved in the campaign, and in the Presidency. Plus she gave a heck of a speech. Didn't really think much of her before it, but now I'm kinda liking her more than Obama and wishing it was her running instead. But she did what she needed to do. Humanized him. After all the celebrity, elitist, unAmerican, and Anti-Christ talk, this made him out to be a regular person, and them a regular family. I don't get the backlash. Of course it was scripted. Why wouldn't it be? :confused: It hit all the notes it should have and then some. The shout out to Hillary was a good start too.

Some people will never be happy and wouldn't have liked it no matter what.

I wish I could believe they will, but I caught MSNBC's pre-convention coverage, and some of the Clintonistas Chris Matthews was talking to were outright mean, as mean as the most vicious Republicans I've seen. They were clearly there looking for trouble, and thankfully they got booed down by the saner people in the audience.
As I'm sure you now know, they were Republicans in disguise.

When Gore lost in 2000, I remember a guy I worked with say, "He won't be back." I was immediately disturbed, and asked him what he meant. He'd said it so matter of factly. And he was right.
While Repubs can come back again and again and sometimes finally win, Dems seem to give up after the first loss. Candidates and supporters. I don't know why.

she has angry pointy eyebrows, this look on her face like she'd really enjoy emaciating you and a speaking style that makes my testicles retract into my abdomen.

It's not like McCain's wife is any better, anyway.
At least you threw in the caveat, but I was hoping you were joking after the first comment. Guess not. It's scary that such a thing matters so much to you.

I don't really understand why some people think he is the second coming of Christ
That's a strawman, most don't.

I am voting for him because I don't want 4 more years of what we have had for the last 8. That is the only reason. I am willing to give him a chance and if he doesn't do a good job then I will not support him next time around if he should win.
Most feel the same way.

Great speech from Senator Clinton.
I agree. Can't stand her, but it was a great speech. Again, hit all the right notes. She had to be gracious, and make a better case for Obama, and she did just that. Bill too.

I was watching CNN, and right after, they interviewed a woman - an ardent Hillary supporter. Did anyone see her? She was literally blubbering nonsense about Hilary not getting the nomination, staying home in November, etc. Unbelievable. How can someone be so reckless?
Again, a Republican in disguise.

No. I would never have voted for Kerry, MR contradiction himself. What was it, he voted against it before he was for it or something like that?
Then I'm guessing you can't stand McCain, who actually voted against a bill he cosponsored, and has flip flopped even more than Kerry did (which is why it was so poignant that he was the one to point them out in his speech).

A few weeks ago, a radio station interviewed people on the street. The people were asked who they were voting for and why? Ok, no problem right?

When asked about how the candidate they were going to vote for stood on the issues they supported, the person being interviewed couldn't come up with a single issue yet these people are going to vote BLINDLY. If these people don't know what the values of the candidates even are, they need to stay home on election day. These are the people you think should be voting.

Again, I choose not to vote this election because I don't like either man. If I did vote again, it would be Republican again this time because Obama scares me. That's the way I feel and that's good enough.
You see no hypocrisy in this? :confused:

His reaction to 9/11 cannot be ignored, by any sentient person.
Ask the firemen, or anyone else there at the time, especially the 9/11 volunteers who are now sick because he said it was safe in one of his photo ops, that should have been from a better located disaster response center, how he was, and you'll see that his response to 9/11 wasn't what he tried to make it out to be.

Man - all I can say is, I wish Bill could run for a third term...
I don't. Good speech, but he wasn't that great. There's a lot to dislike, that have nothing to do with his dalliances.

Meh...I may be one of the few, but Obama's speech bored me. According to Obama America is in shambles and if we don't elect him it will stay that way....didn't really hear anything new.
Were you not listening to the details, the whys and hows?

I did like how he said McCain voted 90% party lines...guess Obama forgot he voted 100% party lines himself...:p
First of all, no, he doesn't. He's only about the 40th most liberal Senators, behind even some Repubs. See the FISA thing, which pissed a lot of Dems off. There are others. Besides the fact that the Dems aren't in the WH and didn't have an overwhelming majority in Congress for most of the last decade and before, only recently having a very slim majority that is overrided by Bush, the GOP, and right leaning Dems. The fact that McCain voted with the very unpopular Bush almost 100% of the time is a big deal. If Obama voted against him 100% of the time, it would in his favor. As McCain pointed out by proxy recently, Obama actually voted with Bush about 40% of the time.

I'm still not convinced.
What would convince you?

If the Democrats lose, it'll be because they support the morally bankrupt practice of abortion, they stand for raising taxes, they trample freedoms/liberties in the name of "helping the little guy," they support legalized discrimination through affirmative action, they think the second amendment is "open for interpretation," and that they think teachers unions are actually helping our school systems improve. If the Democrats lose, it will be because Americans realize that the fundamental philosophies which guide every decision they make, are generally misguided.
Actually, on most issues a majority of the public is lock step with the Dems views. Besides the fact that, again, abortion goes down under both candidates, but other than talk, what more does the GOP do? Or that your taxes might actually go down under Obama, unless you're making 6 figures. Even then in some cases. Not to mention all the actual rights taken away from us under the GOP. Not sure I agree with everything the Dems want to do, but what rights are they really taking away? Really? You never did answer that one fully, unless you really think smoking bans indoors, seat belt laws, and banning transfat are more important than things like warrantless wiretapping and rendition, in which case I don't know what to tell you. I know, slippery slope. Because that's a rational argument. No one is taking your guns and you know it, but that makes a good talking point/scare tactic too I guess. I don't know what you're talking about with the school unions. As far as I can tell, no one likes them, especially teachers, but the Dems realize they're a necessary evil, to stand up against what those who are like the Governator want to do to teachers. Everyone knows NCLB is a disaster as well. While it started out as a Dem ideal, the GOP took it and ran with it. Running it right into the ground.

People may not realize they agree with the Dems, but they certainly don't like the GOP right now, and if the Dems continue what they finally started at this convention, they actually have a shot to not lose what should be in the bag for them.