• comment on a post Post-Speech Thread over 5 years ago

    I watched the whole speech and this is what I objectively thought about it.

    First off you should know that I support Obama over Clinton and really haven't considered her a good candidate for the presidency for some time.  Probably late last year before all of the controversies (real and imagined).

    In the pantheon of speech giving she's better than our current president.  She is obviously intelligent and can string together complex phrases and say them without stuttering, mumbling or sounding like an idiot.  These are huge plusses over what we have now.  But her negatives when giving a speech continue to be the same- she's monotone, sometimes nasal sounding, and she rarely inspires.  Obama does all of these things better than she does, and in my view this cannot be underestimated.  We saw the effects of a good speech with Reagan and Kennedy, words matter and how they're said is probably even more important when it comes to the presidency and the bully pulpit.  Her rhetoric during the campaign that they don't was simply an attack angle to paint Obama a certain way, but its false.  She just doesn't have alot of charisma.  But you can clearly see she's smart, she tries hard, and she doesn't let her weaknesses hold her back.

    I thought her use of the gender card towards the end of the speech was divisive and insulting.  She said several times that shattering glass ceilings for women is what this was all about, getting a woman president was her priority or at least the priority of her supporters.  How about getting the most qualified person as president.  I've listened to several Obama speeches and I can't think of one where he talked about himself in this way, made the issue of him being president so selfish or so mired in groupthink.

    Now its not all negative.  I'm being honest with what I saw.  It was good to see her concede and endorse.  She endorsed wholeheartedly and I believe she means it.

    When she said that "There are no acceptable prejudices in the 21st century" this was a huge leap forward for her and all of us I think.  We need more of this kind of talk, more of this sort of absolute unity.  Her 'glass ceiling' talk stands in sharp contrast to this, because the other side to playing the gender card is the reinforcement of her image as a woman, rather than as a person and a qualified candidate.

    "There are no acceptable prejudices in the 21st century."  This statement could lead towards something more profound.  It's post-civil rights era thinking, forward looking and solutions minded.  We are not gonna solve inequality in this country with groupthink and card playing, it has to start with a more libertarian view of people as individuals to be judged on their own merits as human beings.  The civil rights stuff was very good for its day and age, but we have to move forward.  I thought this was the most substantive part of her speech and I would like to hear more along these lines.  It's a very bold statement and could lead to something bigger.

    Hillary is obviously willing to risk alot to get what she wants.  The democrats need more fighters, we should be glad we have her.  Her political calculations will probably ultimately prove correct, and I believe in time she can win back the people that she lost.  Campaigning with and for Obama will help this.  I hope Bill gets out there too and puts some of his considerable charisma to good use so they can help the party move along.

  • comment on a post "Split Decision" over 5 years ago

    I've been kind so far, but I can't hold back on this one.

    You.  Are.  Insane.

    Do you really believe Obama is moving goalposts?  His campaign has only had 1 metric and it will continue to only ever have 1 metric:  2025.

    Clinton moves goalposts.  Clinton has complete ownership on the insane twists of the day.  She spins and spins and spins.

    If the DNC decides its now 2210 or whatever, Obama will obide by that and still win.  Your psychotic reinterpretation and regurgitation of Clinton spin doesn't do anybody any good, especially the Democratic party.

  • comment on a post He Hasn't Won Yet over 5 years ago

    You're right that the superdels don't have to vote according to the popular vote.  They're gonna factor in a bunch of things, such as pledged delegates, states won, coattails, popularity, honesty, electability, integrity, opinion polls, their gut, who they owe, etc.  I know you're not in the tank for Obama, that's obvious.  But you have to at least admit that Obama is competitive in every one of those categories (I would say, winning) except the "who they owe" part, with many of them probably owing Bill Clinton in some way.  This is why she got the automatic 100 superdel lead back when this started and she was the inevitable candidate.  Remember?

    There is no "pesky matter of Florida and Michigan".  Unfortunately for the Hillary Wambulance Brigade, that's a done deal.  Hillary herself agreed to the rules months ago, and those states broke the rules.  Those states disenfranchised themselves.  They do however have every right to vote in the general any way they see fit, but that's the only right they have left.  They really should learn a lesson about this.  Hillary can complain all she wants and say the new metric is 2200-whatever, and claim she's taking it to the convention.  Once the superdels break for Obama by next month and give him 2025, it really will be over.

    And at that point, he really can stop campaigning for the nomination.

  • I think this attitude is a mistake for the Democrats to make, and kinda represents everything wrong with current political thinking.  You make the assumption that the country must be split 51/49 or that the Democrat can only win by narrow margins like Bill Clinton did.

    See my post above yours.  A) polls now mean nothing and B) there is historical precedent for a monumental political shift in the American landscape, which for reasons I've already outlined is happening now.

  • comment on a post A New Purple State (If Still a Reddish One)? over 5 years ago

    I really think you guys (including kos) overanalyze the minutia way too much and should conclude that the whole country is in play in 2008.

    Alot will change in 5 months, and all the polling done now on even the states that supposedly swing Republican won't mean a thing.  This country has gone Democrat in a big, almost unprecedented way.  I say almost unprecedented because this has happened before, when Reagan ran:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elect oralCollege1980-Large.png

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elect oralCollege1984-Large.png

    Only change the red to blue and you have the electoral map of 2008.  Bush is the Republican Carter, he's completely failed to establish or push his party's agenda.  Obama is the Democrat's Reagan, he will convert and coalesce Americans around a common purpose and he will be successful at pushing a liberal agenda (and have major coattails to boot, unlike the Clintons).

    The republicans are in retreat and they're gonna lose big in 08.  It's going to be a 55-45 or 60-40 popular vote split for the Democrat.  So really its a mistake for the Democratic party to not consider the whole country in play.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads