He's not the Second Coming, but he's really gonna whip McCain's wrinkled ass. I saw stuff in that speech that McCain just won't have any credible answers for.
Obama's speech was reasonably good. He sounded tough and firm in his challenge to debate McCain anytime on his fitness to be commander in chief. I loved the way he swatted away McCain's jibes on his "celebrity" status - - not only demolished the attack completely but at the very same time made McCain look foolish and out of touch. (Incidentally, there's a lot to be said for repeatedly making him look foolish and out of touch - - the audience will supply the words "old," "over the hill," etc., and Barak doesn't even have to say it.) And he completely turned around McCain's "experience" argument by turning his long years of service into a negative. (which IMHO, they are and they ought to be.)
I thought the delivery was at times bad - - Obama looked like he was stumbling his way through a teleprompter and at the same time as he stumbled, his eyes were fixed at some point high up and to the extreme right or left. Much of the speech was routine, boilerplate and didn't really come alive. The punch lines had a somewhat wooden delivery. I've never seen him perform that poorly. He's been pretty good before, as a matter of fact.
There was some stuff that I thought was just plain bad - - grandiose promises, one about eliminating the dependency on Middle East oil in ten years. Why would anyone believe that shit? How? Promises about huge changes in health care, in education. What else is new? And worst of all - -how'd he plann to pay for it? In answer to the latter question, it's easy: He'll go through the budget line by line and eliminate wasteful expenditures. At that point I really expected a huge collective groan to rise to the rafters, but of course - - as the conservatives here like to say - - the audience had drunk the Kool-Aid.
I was very disappointed with two major defects in the speech - - there was no forthright denunciation of torture (although there was a very veiled reference to it) and there was no suggestion, when the issue was raised of how to pay for all the big promises, of cutting the military budget. These, IMHO, were HUGE omissions.
Something else that rankled my ass was the "reaching out," in very Hillary-like manner, to the very bane of the liberals' existence - - the right-to-lifers, the gun owners. It was one of those really wishy-washy whines, "We're all Americans here, can't we get together across the aisle and find a workable compromise?" Fuck dat.
Last, and maybe this sounds kind of petty, I was disappointed at the general age of the crowd. I expected all age groups, and there were, but there weren't anywhere near the number of fresh, young student faces that I had expected. This wasn't a Children's Crusade along the lines of the Eugene McCarthy or RFK campaigns of the 1960s. Middle age seemed to predominate, and some pretty kooky or eccentric-looking middle-aged people indeed. I thought back to my relative who had been a chairwoman of the Wayne County ADA back in the Fifties, and they had the same kinda look - - these ladies, and men, were Democrats, couldn't possibly be anything else. Where was all the dynamism of youth?
I am hoping he wins. It was an excellent speech. I wonder what you think he could have said or promised that was within the range of the possible that woud have made it better. His diction was flawless, his pauses well-timed, his organization superior. I enjoyed his speech, even after hearing all those other guys, who were getting to be a tad tedious.
I suggest that Jesus X. Christ, were he to appear, would not be "the Second Coming", either. I thought he came again, anyway, you know, he popped up after the Crucifixion, and then again at Emmaus. Then he said, well, never mind, Christians don't read their own books, and I quit believing that stuff long, long ago. If he ever was, he isn't now, and I'll let Tom Bodet leave the light on and pay the electric bil, thank you very much.
I am pretty sure that Jesus X would have likely mentioned a number of clearly unconstitutional concepts.
I am hoping he wins. It was an excellent speech. I wonder what you think he could have said or promised that was within the range of the possible that woud have made it better. His diction was flawless, his pauses well-timed, his organization superior. I enjoyed his speech, even after hearing all those other guys, who were getting to be a tad tedious.
I suggest that Jesus X. Christ, were he to appear, would not be "the Second Coming", either. I thought he came again, anyway, you know, he popped up after the Crucifixion, and then again at Emmaus. Then he said, well, never mind, Christians don't read their own books, and I quit believing that stuff long, long ago. If he ever was, he isn't now, and I'll let Tom Bodet leave the light on and pay the electric bil, thank you very much.
I am pretty sure that Jesus X would have likely mentioned a number of clearly unconstitutional concepts.
Scripted and controlled, nothing like his off the cuff debate at Saddleback a week ago. Tonight was Hollywood, acting, fake, phony, and contrived. Nothing new, nothing earth shattering, just more of the same ole politician looking for votes.
I am not actually paying any attention to Kramer at all.
Not reading, not responding, being as Kramer is waste of space and innocent electrons.
<<He has promised before to meet McCain in a lot of debates , he doesn't mind breaking this promise because it is a political decision , not a decision made for the good of the people.>>
If he talks like he did tonight, he can meet McCain anywhere, anytime, but I don't think that would really be in McCain's best interests.
<<A lot of debate would be very good for the people , lets see if his renewed promise to debate is honored in some small way.>>
Obama will massacre him.
<<His diction was flawless . . . >>
Were we watching the same tape? I distinctly saw him stumble over a word half a dozen times and when he did that his eyes were definitely fixed on what had to be a teleprompter. Even if there were no teleprompter, he really did lose his way temporarily at least a half-dozen times.
And I was very disappointed not to hear a ringing and unambiguous denunciation of torture. It's one of the major reasons for the disastrous fall in America's reputation in the world today. And NO suggestion that giant cuts in the military budget should be the primary source funding of the promises that he made.
<<And who massacred who ?>>
Cheating doesn't count. Next time Obama won't let him get away with it.
<<Oh please mr O cut our huge defense spending down to the level at which all the rest of the world will be approveing.>>
That's a ridiculous way to put it. Nobody but you mentioned the world's approval. Getting back to the real world again, the real demand is:
Cut it down to the level which is appropriate to the actual threats faced, so we can fix health care and education and housing right here at home, even though those objectives are not even on McCain's radar screen and even though it may displease certain gigantic "defence" contractors, fascists and militarists who support McCain and his party in various ways.
Too bad Obama doesn't have the guts to say it. The more I think about this, the more I realize the better candidate would have been the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
<<Obama campaigned in Europe , it is fair to post reminders of this.>>Perhaps I am mistaken then.
That was no campaign since the people whom he visited could not vote for him. It was a combination fact-finding and get-acquainted tour.
But call it what you will - - at what point in his "campaign in Europe" did he ask for European approval of the size of the U.S. military? This is just one more fictional product of your over-heated conservative brain. It never happened, and I think you know that.
I think it's true that Obama tends to give more thoughtful, nuanced answers and McCain tends to give glib sound-bites.
I think it's true that Obama tends to give more thoughtful, nuanced answers and McCain tends to give glib sound-bites.
<<Washing that thru the lib-unspinzter cycle, we have Obama well anwer in the most vague verbosity possible to attempt to offend the least amount of voters>>
Thanks for your opinion as to why Obama says what he says. But if we limit ourselves to what we can actually SEE AND HEAR, it's pretty clear that..
I think it's true that Obama tends to give more thoughtful, nuanced answers and McCain tends to give glib sound-bites.
<<Do you see which style is more advantaged?>>
Yeah. But still I give the American people more credit. I don't think they're really gonna decide this one on bumper-sticker slogans. At least not the people Obama brought into the political process, the ones who aren't brain-dead of cynicism.
But still I give the American people more credit.
<<Do you see which style is more advantaged?>>
Yeah. But still I give the American people more credit. I don't think they're really gonna decide this one on bumper-sticker slogans.