home

Obama Speaks on Michigan

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:08:22 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Barack Obama is on Larry King Live. He says he's always agreed to abide by whatever the DNC decides. Didn't the DNC approve the Michigan revote plan and didn't he refuse to agree to it? The legislature would have considered it and likely passed it had he agreed. So is that even a true statement?

He says he's confident the Michigan delegation will be seated at the convention. I wonder if he's saying that after he gets declared the nominee -- which he likely will be if FL & MI votes don't count -- then he'll agree to recommend to the Credentials committee that they be seated so they can take place in party business.

I don't trust a word he says about this. He's playing politics, stalling, so he can keep Hillary's totals from including the bulk of 2 million votes from Florida and Michigan. That's not unity. That's not change. That's politics as usual. And ignoring one of the most fundamental principles of our democracy: one person one vote.

< What's in a Passport File? | Barack Obama Again Addresses Rev. Wright >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Speaks on Michigan | 159 comments (159 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Less Spin and More Straight Talk (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:18:14 PM EST
    Obama:

    Country Needs "Less Spin" and "More Straight Talk"

    Can we start it with you Senator??

    OMG (none / 0) (#19)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:26:52 PM EST
    I know! My head almost exploded with that comment. I had to walk away from the television.

    Parent
    'A sucker born every minute' (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:19:49 PM EST
    anyone who thinks Obama is something other than a politician is deluded.
    .

    If Obama wins the nomination after all this slight (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:24:42 PM EST
    of hand, I will view it as illegal and not the choice of the democrats at all....

    He's remarkably (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:25:04 PM EST
    less of a good speaker without a speech and a teleprompter. He's back to his halting manner.

    Letterman has started counting his "Uh"s (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:35:03 PM EST
    I saw it the other night. Pretty darn funny and painfully obvious.

    Parent
    This is where a candidate (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:38:35 PM EST
    TRULY gets framed -- on Letterman.

    I'm serious.

    This is yet another bad thing for Obama.

    I thought Letterman was an Obama supporter.  Last election, he was "a security mom" (son Harry).  Maybe he still is.

    Parent

    Too true. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:44:42 PM EST
    maybe that's why i thought it was so funny  :)

    I thought he might be a Clinton supporter. He's always been pretty good to her from what I've seen. The pre-super Tuesday interview I thought was especially nice. I learned a few little things that were important to me as far as her awareness about them.

    Parent

    I dunno... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:45:11 PM EST
    ... who letterman is for, but when Hillary was on Letterman, he just let her ramble for minutes on end on policy detail minutiae instead of re-directing her for her own benefit and as he would with other guests.

    Parent
    Some people prefer feel-good B.S. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:04:34 PM EST
    Others prefer "policy minutiae."

    If I were hiring a corporate facilitator, I guess I'd want somebody who really had the motivational speaking thing down.

    When I'm voting for President, I want somebody who knew about policy -- who persuades by showing that they know what they're talking about.

    YMMV may vary, of course.


    Parent

    I'm with lambert (none / 0) (#144)
    by cal1942 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:59:34 PM EST
    on this one.  For me the candidate MUST talk policy.  Avoiding policy is a deal breaker.

    Obama avoids policy whenever possible and has trouble articulating policy when pinned down.

    Parent

    Could that be because he doesn't (none / 0) (#159)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:48:30 AM EST
    have any policies ready to go? And a president needs to hit the ground running as far as policy goes. Rhetoric may move the masses, but it won't get anything through Congress. Only workable, thought-out policies will do that. He has little to offer in that area, and avoids talking about what he has on the drawing board. This tells me that he is a speech maker, not a policy maker, and we desparately need a qualified policy maker. And personally, I want Bill Clinton advising on the economic policies, he did pretty well with the economy during his administration.

    And anyone who thinks that Obama will ask Hillary to fill the VP spot is dreaming. Michelle will see to her exclusion, I think. And frankly, I don't want a Presidential candidate who is so self-involved and egotistical that he won't run for office again if he doesn't get the job this time. Because he "won't be the same person" by the next election. Well, yeah, people grow with time and get more experience. That is usually considered a good thing in life. Apparently, Obama and Michelle think they are as good as they are going to get. If that is so, they don't make the grade, sorry to say. I want someone who will learn from their mistakes, who will give a fair shake to everyone, including voters in primaries, whose basic outlook on life is service to other people, not self-promotion at the fastest pace possible.

    And the first black man in the White House should have some civil rights experience. I have yet to see any in Obama's resume. Community organizing just isn't the same thing. If he has done any civil rights work, it is well hidden. That is one of the things that is affecting the opinions of my black friends, that and the fact that his background has nothing in common with the average American black person. Of course, if he had done any civil rights work, the idea of disenfranchising millions of voters would be abhorrent to him and not a matter for consideration, let alone encouragement.

    And, you know, I am in the horse business, and frankly I have had people come down the pike with the same sort of spiel quite often. We call them "snake-oil salesmen". What is in the little bottle will cure all that ails you.. sort of like Obama. Only the little bottles actually have ingredients, Obama just has the spiel without the bottle.

    Parent

    Not surprising is it? (none / 0) (#85)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:54:19 PM EST
    Do you really think:

    (1) in NYC, where she's extremely popular, and

    (2) on the day before the New York primary,

    that he would "take her on?"

    I don't. Not good for ratings.

    He's an entertainment guy, he doesn't confront his guests.

    He's made some pretty nasty jokes about Hillary, and for the longest time, didn't make jokes of any kind at Obama's expense.  

    Now he's doing it.  Must think there's some public acceptance of it.  Things have certainly changed.

    Parent

    He is probably reading the polls. (none / 0) (#160)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:51:51 AM EST
    And they show Hillary gaining rapidly. A talk show host needs to be aware of the public's opinions and respond to them. And he is.

    Parent
    yea, link to the video is below (none / 0) (#56)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:41:15 PM EST


    Parent
    I was typing while distracted (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:46:20 PM EST
    so I didn't see yours :)

    Parent
    Empty Suit (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by cal1942 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:51:32 PM EST
    He avoids questions from the press for, I feel, related reasons.  The fact is that Obama can't really answer questions that might relate to policy, platform and has some fear that class of question would arise.

    His attitude concerning the Roberts confirmation, to me, reveals that he's either unaware or unconcerned about the effect his public decisions have in the real world. I really don't think he 'gets it.'

    A basic empty suit.

    Parent

    Letterman made fun of him for that (none / 0) (#29)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:31:49 PM EST
    The Barack Obama "Uh" count video:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=ThEAO0lt4Dw

    Parent

    Wow! (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:27:53 PM EST
    What a nasty comment.

    the insinuation... (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    ... was that obama is just a front man. Obviously he wrote one of the most acclaimed speeches in decades. Hillary is good at memorizing details of policy white papers and regurgitating them on que. Similar to law school! I'll let you decide which one is more substantive.

    Parent
    I've already decided which one is more (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:41:34 PM EST
    substantive.  Only history will tell if it is one of the "most acclaimed speeches in decades."  But I don't think it will even rank.  If it were that substantive I would think people would still be talking about the speech.  You know, quoting all the great lines, such as "Ask not what your country can do for you,..."  But I just can't seem to recall anything quite like that.  

    Parent
    You are right (none / 0) (#75)
    by jor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:49:08 PM EST
    ... it might be to early to tell for this speech

    But on the other hand the chance of anything President Hillary says being remembered for a lifetime is close to zero. She really hasn't said anything remarkable this entire campaign.  


    Parent

    I still remember (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:53:36 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton's speech in china on women's rights. it truly was a speech for the ages...and nothing close has come after.

    I will never doubt her ability to inspire.

    Parent

    I don't care if she says anything (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:53:42 PM EST
    "remarkable."  I care that she gets things done.

    Parent
    if she can't communicate (none / 0) (#87)
    by jor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:56:12 PM EST
    .. with the American people, she will not be able to anything done. Her attention to detail and perseverance would best serve the country as majority leader in the Senate, where communication with the public is a secondary qualification.

    Parent
    I'd say she's communicating pretty darn well (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:08:25 PM EST
    considering she's pulling in over 50% of the Democratic vote; she leads BO in the polls nationally.  

    I suggest you go take a debate class and learn how to frame your arguments.

    Parent

    By Democratic Vote (none / 0) (#116)
    by Knocienz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:29:04 PM EST
    You mean people that have registered with and identify with the party. Not the people who can and do vote Democratic in both primary and general and donate to Democrats but see no reason to register with the party

    Rather incomplete statistic.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#147)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:38:28 AM EST
    Given the exit polls when Democrats, independents and Republicans can be distinguished and in closed primaries; Hillary leads Obama.

    I believe that what should come out of this cycle's primaries, among other things, is that independents be forbidden from voting in any primary and that only Democrats vote the Democratic primary and only Republicans vote the Republican primary.

    In states like my own, Michigan, that don't have partisan registration there should be a qualifier in order to vote in the primary.  Only once in my memory has a partisan registration been required in Michigan and that was for the primary in 1992.

    The 1972 Democratic primary in Michigan was ruined by crossover Republicans.


    Parent

    Correlation between independent and the (none / 0) (#158)
    by Knocienz on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:46:30 AM EST
    You don't want independents to vote in a primary? Fine. But when they ARE allowed, it is ridiculous to ignore their votes for any statistical statement.

    You have no study showing that those that did not self-identify would not have registered Democrat if they were required to do so. You have put forth no study showing that the independents who show up and vote do not tend to vote Democratic anyway or donate to Democrats.

    Some people just don't identify with the PARTY even if they do identify with progressive issues.

    Parent

    And Kennedy did WHAT for the country? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:33:56 PM EST
    Got us heavily involved in Vietnam?  Bay of Pigs?

    This is just comical.  There are NO speeches ANY politician could make, short of one after a nuclear attack, that will get the viewership of the good ol' days.  And after Bush's post 9/11 speech, and the malevolent destruction that followed, why would they expect any speech ot mean anything.  People are more jaded, more distracted, that's the entire BASIS of our system.  Distraction breed complacency, complacency breeds a lack of oversight, and that has gotten us...here.  Where is here?  A war of aggression that has made us all accessories to mass murder and an economy headed for, forget a recession, a full collapse.

    All so we can enjoy our trikets and delusions.

    Parent

    geez (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:04:25 PM EST
    The comment had nothing to do with the content but Obama's delivery.  Obama is much better, and I believe more comfortable, when giving a prepared speech than speaking directly or off the cuff.  It's an observation, not an insult.

    I have noticed the same myself on several occasions.  The debates are another example where he has sort pause or even stammers a little as he is making a statement.  He is a fantastic and gifted orator.  This can be said for many people, not just him.    

    Parent

    Whoooa! (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:59:01 PM EST
    Who's acclaimed the speech?  Obama followers.

    Parent
    Reminds me (none / 0) (#148)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:44:15 AM EST
    of John Warner's declaration after one of Bush's post 9/11 speeches that it was the greatest speech ever given in the English language.

    When I read that I wondered if the people of Virginia were aware of the fact that their senior Senator was senile.

    Parent

    it's all in the eye of the beholder (none / 0) (#65)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:43:59 PM EST
    this link may interest you.  Sometimes perceptions are hard to shatter.

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/20/181758/262

    Parent

    something tells me... (none / 0) (#90)
    by jor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:57:48 PM EST
    most Americans didn't watch or read exerts of the speech. The question probably degenerates into, "if you know about the Wright controversy" are you more or less likely to vote for obama. In that context, the results are obvious.

    Parent
    Anyone with a good education (none / 0) (#161)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:05:02 AM EST
    should be able to write a great speech. Understanding and implementing policy is what a President is supposed to do, not write and give speeches. Here's a thought, Barack Obama can be President Hillary Clinton's speechwriter. She can explain the policies to him and he can write lovely speeches about them. Sounds like a plan!!

    Parent
    which comment was nasty? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:32:19 PM EST
    I can't tell from the display which one you are referring to.

    Parent
    oops, wait don't hit a parent (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:33:48 PM EST


    Parent
    hit "parent" (none / 0) (#34)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:32:57 PM EST
    you should know how this works, Jeralyn! ;)

    Parent
    really just run of the mill nowadays (none / 0) (#32)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:32:22 PM EST


    Parent
    If in reference to (none / 0) (#145)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:01:49 AM EST
    Jeralyn's comment, she's right.

    Parent
    Obama says (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:28:47 PM EST
    John McCain is an American hero. And Hillary and her husband don't like to lose. In the next sentence he criticizes soundbites. What an unimpressive interview.

    To hear him (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:30:41 PM EST
    blast soundbites and spin stretches credibility almost to the point of no return.

    Parent
    I guess it will be praised (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Coldblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:33:32 PM EST
    elsewhere, but I agree that this is not impressive.

    But I'm biased.

    Parent

    From the sounds of it (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:38:11 PM EST
    the digging continues.  I said earlier today that when someone is sliding or "on tilt" it may be best just to lay low for a while.

    He has been looking rather "small" and defeated and without any "glow"

    And that is despite all these friendly media outlets and interviews and FLAGS... many many flags.

    Parent

    Yes, I noticed that too.. (none / 0) (#162)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    the "halo" pictures completely disappeared right after the Wright revelations. The "halo" pics I refer to are the ones that have him backlit so that the light forms a glow behind him, rather like a halo. And the preacher stance pics have disappeared to. I am interested in imagery in politics and I have noticed a distinct bias in the media with reference to what sort of images are used for which candidate. Hillary is usually portrayed as angry, bossy, confrontational and deceitful and Obama is portrayed as saintly, pure and truthful. This is in images only, mind you, not stories. Although the stories tend to follow suit, attacking Hillary and fawning all over Obama. That has changed radically in the last week or so. So the visual spin the media has put on him from the beginning is no longer in play. It will be interesting to see how this affects the polls and other opinion measures.

    Parent
    Sounds like he isn't coming across too well??? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:32:56 PM EST


    Parent
    I prefer substance over style. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:30:52 PM EST


    did you read or see... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:33:51 PM EST
    ... the speech? Its almost unanimously been declared as the most substantive speech given by a politician to the general public in ages.

    Although maybe not enough action.

    Parent

    I have yet to see anyone (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:36:38 PM EST
    say it was THE most substantive speech of any kind in ages.

    Parent
    Try... (none / 0) (#63)
    by jor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:43:41 PM EST
    ... reading sites sole purpose isn't to bash Obama. Kristoff in the times today said it was the best speech since kennedy's on catholicism. The official NYT editorial is gushing. You can find other sources yourself.

    Parent
    LMAO (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:45:25 PM EST
    Even Lou Dobbs told Wolf today to basically back off that. He said it was a good speech but not the best speech in the universe like the MSM have been saying. Not one for the ages.

    Parent
    Lou Dobbs doesn't like Obama (none / 0) (#117)
    by Knocienz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:30:42 PM EST
    And he's been pretty clear about that. Not sure why you would cite Lou Dobbs on this.

    Parent
    How's Chris Matthew's leg doing? (none / 0) (#91)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:59:00 PM EST
    Any of the Times gush get on it?

    Parent
    people unanimously declared (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:44:35 PM EST
    Bush an excellent president at some point in our recent past.

    I mean, is this what we're down to: a lot of people say it's true, so it must be true?

    What the heck has happened to free-thinking people?

    Parent

    that was... (none / 0) (#77)
    by jor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:51:19 PM EST
    ... post 9/11. If you can't tell the difference, I can't help you.

    Parent
    This speech is not (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:54:18 PM EST
    The Gettysburg Address; it is not Lincoln's second inaugural address; is not any of MLK's major speeches or even many of his lesser ones; it is not Bobby Kennedy's speech of April 5, 1968, "On the Mindless Menace of Violence in America" delivered in Indianapolis the day after King was killed. It does not come close to  the great speeches in American politics.

    And, before you ask, I both heard the speech and read it.

    Parent

    His speech (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:03:14 PM EST
    was not even Hillary Clinton's speech in China on women's rights.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:06:23 PM EST
    that speech was so unforgettable that no one, save those campaigning for her, remember a single thing about it.  It did, however, manage to get a 5 second blurb on CNN.

    Parent
    It is used in classes today (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:28:05 PM EST
    but I can tell you that Obama's speech will not lend itself well to classroom use.  It is not timeless, as are the great speeches.  It requires detailed context to understand references (Ferraro, etc.) -- and then, it clearly becomes political butt-covering.  And that lessens its value, too.

    Some lines from it will make it in some history textbooks, I bet.  But it won't be read in its entirety like the great speeches still assigned today -- like MLK's "I Have a Dream."  Look at it again and see how much context is needed -- or see how much it does not attack others but actually calls for action, as Obama's did not.

    Obama probably has that good a speech in him, but not on the campaign trail.  He was trying to do a couple of speeches in one.

    Parent

    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:48:08 PM EST
    I knew her speech was actually taught in classes currently. It was timeless. 'Women's right are Human rights' is oft repeated. it inspired a generation, I should know.

    There is a vid of a girl performing the speech beautifully on hillaryspeaksforme.com, it brought tears to my eyes.

    Parent

    Thank you -- I will go find that, too (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:53:12 PM EST
    And do go to the americanrhetoric.com site -- as I do sometimes, on a day when I need some gumption.  I go hear Barbara Jordan's impeachment speech.  Miss her so much.  I have great video of her, too. . . .

    Parent
    American Rhetoric (none / 0) (#134)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:07:41 PM EST
    What a great site. I had forgotten Bill's speech at the OK bombing memorial prayer service. Brilliant. I love that site!

    Not sure if Obama's speech belongs there though.

    Parent

    As I said (none / 0) (#140)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:34:14 PM EST
    I am not making any claims towards the greatness of the speech.  I have no idea how it will be perceived down the road.

    You make a good point that it is a campaign speech.  But so was the Cross of Gold speech and most of the details of that speech are specific to the times.

    Parent

    Btw, you can check it out at the 100 (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:34:09 PM EST
    greatest speeches of the 20th century site -- see americanrhetoric.com, a marvelous site for reliving great moments of yesteryears with movie speeches and more, too.  But her Beijing speech is part of the "full text, audio, and video  database of the 100 most significant American political speeches of the 20th century, according to 137 leading scholars of American public address, as compiled by Stephen E. Lucas (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and Martin J. Medhurst (Baylor University). Find out who made the cut and experience the power of rhetorical eloquence in this provocative list of 'who's who' in American public address."

    But I'm sure Obama's speech is one of the top ones in this century.  So far.

    Parent

    Great site (none / 0) (#150)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:04:47 AM EST
    Thanks for the tip.

    Parent
    So, it's the best speech since 2000? (none / 0) (#163)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:47:49 AM EST
    That is funny, really funny. Given who has been giving most of the speeches, ie. Bush, and that his delivery, never mind the content, is rather comical.

    So what you are saying is that Obama's speech is great because it's better than speeches by Bush? Not the highest standard you could pick, in my opinion.

    Parent

    Good to know (none / 0) (#97)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:02:30 PM EST
    that you are able to speak for history a mere 3 days after the speech was given.

    I'm quite sure there were people that said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself?  I'm not impressed".

    It is impossible to gauge the impact of a speech 3 days after it was given.  Lincoln wasn't thinking to himself "I better write one heck of a speech before I get to Pennsylvania.  This one is going to be one for the ages."

    We will know the importance, or unimportance, of this speech in 5 or 10 years.  

    Parent

    actually, he was (none / 0) (#133)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:04:02 PM EST
    Lincoln wasn't thinking to himself "I better write one heck of a speech before I get to Pennsylvania.

    a huge and costly battle had just recently been fought on that ground, enormous blood and resources spilled, the union not so thrilled. lincoln knew he had to come up with something to make that sacrifice have meaning, and keep the union together.

    while we know that was pretty much the beginning of the end of lee's army and the confederacy, it wasn't so obvious at the time, and two more bloody years would go by before it ended.

    This one is going to be one for the ages."

    i don't know that lincoln was consciously thinking that (hey, i have a hard enough time getting inside my own brain!), but apparently it came across that way to many of his contemporaries, who were in the audience that day.

    but yes, according to his own notes, and those around him, lincoln did think he needed a bang up speech for the occasion.

    Parent

    Correct. Gary Wills did a good book (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:36:19 PM EST
    on that recently, pulling together much scholarship that already had demolished the mythology (well, apparently it lives on) about the back-of-the-envelope nonsense and more.  A good analysis and a good read, a tough thing to tackle for the great read that Lincoln's address is even today.

    Knowing the actual context makes it even more amazing.  It was a political speech, too -- but to motivate a country to continue the war to win the end of slavery and retain the union, not to cover the presidential posterior.  

    Parent

    Do y ou think that (none / 0) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:36:26 PM EST
    Lincoln's detractors, of which there were many in July of 1863, were walking around saying "Wow! What a great speech!"?  

    Lincoln was concerned about the fate of the nation and knew that his speech was important to keep the Union together.  I doubt he gave much concern about how this speech would be viewed 100 years later.

    Parent

    that isn't really what you asked. (none / 0) (#151)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:18:34 AM EST
    you asked if lincoln was consciously thinking he had to give a "bang up" speech. he was, and history records that fact. whether or not he thought it would be "one for the ages" is totally subject to conjecture; there appears to be no documented evidence to that effect, and i can't read dead people's minds.

    try sticking to a single point ok? your credibility, such as it is, just continues to diminish, the more you bounce around like some off-kilter pinball in a machine gone "tilt".

    fine, you think sen. obama's speech was just to die for. that's your prerogative. that puts you pretty squarely in the minority, at least here. please do us all the favor of not insulting our intelligence by attempting (poorly) to show us the error of our intellectual ways. so far, you've failed to impress me with yours.

    Parent

    You really need to work on (none / 0) (#156)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:33:21 AM EST
    your reading comprehension.

    I didn't say he had to give a "bang up" speech.  I said "I better write one heck of a speech before I get to Pennsylvania.  This one is going to be one for the ages"

    Seems pretty clear what my point was, regardless of whether you chose to change it to suit your purposes.

    I also was very explicit in pointing out that we cannot know the importance of this speech 3 days after the speech.  If you read my comment, rather than creating your own words for me, you would have seen I said this...

    "We will know the importance, or unimportance, of this speech in 5 or 10 years.  "

    Ad hominem attacks regarding my credibility do not, in fact, increase your's.

    Parent

    flyerhawk, what makes you say this? (none / 0) (#153)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:41:55 AM EST
    I doubt he gave much concern about how this speech would be viewed 100 years later.

    the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here


    Parent
    I'm not sure what your (none / 0) (#157)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:35:26 AM EST
    are trying to say.  Lincoln explicitly states that he doesn't think people will remember the speech, as you point out.  How does that suggest he thought that people WOULD remember the speech?

    Parent
    Bwaaaaahhhhhhhhh....... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:36:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Unanimously? One for the ages? (none / 0) (#64)
    by xspowr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:43:45 PM EST
    A good speech, yes, but a tad hyperbolic on your part, perhaps? Not everyone seems to have found it so moving:

    InsiderAdvantage Poll

    Parent

    I'll plead... (none / 0) (#83)
    by jor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:54:10 PM EST
    ...  guilty to hyperbole. However, my main point remains -- Obama is a substantive thinker and doesn't just regurgitate details from white papers like other candidates. He isn't scared to address controversial subjects head-on, unlike others.

    Parent
    He may not be scared (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Lena on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:10:52 PM EST
    to address controversial subjects head on, but he apparently is scared to let the people vote in a Democratic primary in either Michigan or Florida.

    Really a daring guy.

    Parent

    The problem (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:12:33 PM EST
    is that you completely misunderstood Jeralyn's comment.  She was comparing the difference in Obama as a speaker with a prepared speech verses his speaking without a script in an interview.  You have taken it to an entirely different level that was not even related to what she said.  

    Parent
    When did it become a negative (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by xspowr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:18:11 PM EST
    for a presidential candidate (and by extension, a president) to have a mastery of what you dismiss as mere policy "details"? After the last eight years under a so-called "inspirational" type of president, I think most Americans would welcome a president who actually understands and knows how to apply the complex "details" of governance.

    As to Obama's courage to address controversial subjects, I would merely point out that this speech was not given to open a historical dialogue on race, but rather as damage control (that does not devalue it's content, but it would be wrong to characterize it as a courageous stand; put simply, it was forced upon him by circumstances). I also recall numerous "present" votes on potentially controversial bills in Obama's past, and I do not recall seeing him on the Senate floor denouncing the Iraq War on a regular basis.

    I would submit that both candidates are substantive thinkers in their respective areas of strength, and that neither is necessarily more courageous than the other in confronting controversial subjects. Your implications regarding HRC are just a little too much spin for my taste. :)

    Parent

    i'd say felony hyperbole. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:53:58 PM EST
    ...  guilty to hyperbole

    not only was it not a "speech for the ages", it was only just barely lucid. but hey, that's me, i like substance with my style. my guess: MLK's legacy is not looking over its shoulder at sen. obama.

    bottom line: he's still in a hole and flailing.


    Parent

    Why not leave.. Rev Wright..and the Church (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:34:08 PM EST
    Obama: he is retired..
    Larry: but you were there...long before.. ... a never mind that..


    did Larry say "never mind that" ? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:36:33 PM EST
    Hmm sounds like he was asked not to bring up that topic too much by the Obama people if that was the case.  

    Parent
    Yes... checkout if you have tivo.. (none / 0) (#61)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:42:51 PM EST
    or the clip will be on youtube shortly.

    Parent
    What matters (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Foxx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:49:17 PM EST
    is

    1. Whether Hillary can win against McCain (yes) and Obama can (no) and
    2. Whether this will be the deciding factor for the superdelegates.

    The SDs can take FL and MI into account whether they revote or not. They will know what the polling numbers are there and around the country.

    We can only hope the SDs have the welfare of the country as their priority.

    And agree with your (none / 0) (#79)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:52:59 PM EST
    personal and wholly unsubstantiated opinion.

    Parent
    Tipping point (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:02:54 PM EST
    As The World's Longest Nomination Process grinds along, I keep wondering how close we're getting to a tipping point in the public perception of Obama.  Perhaps I have a skewed view of things, having never been afflicted with Obama Fever (or the Clinton variety, for that matter), but I find it harder by the day to watch him on TV without practically yelling, "Where's the beef!?!?!?"

    Recent events, plus his continued reliance on the tabula rasa strategy--let people read into you whatever they want--feel to me like we're getting perilously close to that tipping point.

    Given that there's almost no chance the nomination will be settled without the SD's playing a deciding role, I think this is quickly turning into an even dicier situation.  What happens, for example, if Obama Fever breaks, and he winds up with miniscule leads in popular votes and delegates, but Clinton is ahead in polling vs. McCain and (forgive the Bushism) is surging?  Now matter what the SD's do, they wind up alienating a large, critically important group of voters, beyond those in MI and FL.

    I think the irony of this situation is almost overwhelming.  We get the first "viable" (hate that term) woman candidate and the first "viable" AA candidate in the same cycle, and they wrestle each other to the ground with the help of MI and FL, making it all the easier for McCain to (ack) win.

    Honestly, if the Dems find a way to screw up this cycle, especially following the worst president in the history of history, they should disband.

    Having said that, I will vote Dem this November, no matter what happens between now and then.  

    If Obama fever truly breaks... (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:41:33 PM EST
    then Clinton should end up with the popular vote at least.  There are still enough contests where a true erosion of Obama support would lead to her winning the popular vote.

    Parent
    Anyone catch that bit about GHWB? (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:17:31 PM EST
    When King pressed Obama whether he'd use the Clintons in his potential administration, Obama made a point of adding that he'd also use Bush I, and went on to praise GHWB's foreign-policy expertise, specifically citing the first Gulf War and how Bush wrapped things up so quickly and cheaply. He also gave Bush credit for ending the Cold War.

    It might just be me, but I don't know why he'd want to open those particular cans of worms. And he conveniently omitted GHWB's role in Iran-Contra (and the subsequent pardons of its key players, many of whom became the architects of his son's foreign-policy failures).

    this pattern FRIGHTENS me (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:38:37 PM EST
    time and time again when asked about things like this, he seems much more willing and eager to praise Republicans like Reagan and the Bushes instead of Democrats.

    Parent
    Meh, it's a political move... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:57:50 PM EST
    ...and part of the reason he did so well in drawing crossover votes in the open contests (well, that, and his running ads asking Republicans to vote for him).

    I imagine it wasn't as off-the-cuff as it seemed, though; I figured it was a calculated shout-out to his Republican/indy supporters at a time when they might be giving him a second look (and a second thought).

    Parent

    and who might you suggest is responsible (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:36:00 PM EST
    for this?

    And that divided both houses will fall.

    full disclosure: i am and have been a supporter of sen. clinton, though i have also stated i would cast my vote in nov. for whoever the dem. nominee is.

    that was before the obama campaign implosion. that whole "lack of experience" thing, so derided by sen. obama's most stalwart supporters, is coming to quickly haunt his campaign's chances.

    unlike sen. clinton, who's been dealing with the republican/right-wingnut smear machine for close to 20 years now, sen. obama is a naif. this is what will kill him in nov.

    anyone who, with a straight face, says otherwise is deluding themselves. as well, it's been sen. obama's campaign that's been dividing the democratic party, not sen. clinton's. his constant, unsubstantiated accusations of racism by the clintons is shameful, and won't soon be forgotten.

    Very true.. (none / 0) (#164)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    Hillary has stood up to Republican smears for decades. Obama was "rattled" by the reaction to his support of Rev. Wright. If that rattled him, what is going to be the effect when the Repug smear machine goes into high gear?? It hasn't yet because they really WANT Obama to be the nominee. Hillary is tougher to smear, all the stuff they "have on her" is old news and not very effective anymore. Obama is fresh raw meat.

    Imagine what a combination of Wright and the letter from his Kenyan grandfather to his white grandparents saying that he didn't want the Obama blood "sullied by a white woman" will have on the average working class voter. Or any mixed race voter. And Rezko will be used against him, and so will the Illinois Senate record. The one Obama can't find, which I am sure the Republicans will have if they don't already. And they will release them with the notation to the voters that the Ill. legislature only meets 4 months a year.

    They will bring up Obama's claim of understanding the "ordinary people" because his wife shops at Target(I can't afford to shop there) and he does some grocery shopping. They will point out that the Obamas were cramped in a nice condo, which most "ordinary people" couldn't afford. They will destroy him, shred him piece by piece, and use the confetti in McCain's inaugural parade.

    Parent

    Objectivity (1.00 / 0) (#104)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:04:45 PM EST
    There is obviously great support for Hillary Clinton on this site.  No one brings up the fact that Hillary said in public and committed to not participate or campaign in either state.  She gave speaches to this effect. Now down 160 delegates she wants a revote.  Barrack didn't lie he clearly said he would accept a fair revote.  The revote would favor Hillary by changing the rules on who can vote. If I'm Obama I have genuine concern that if there is revote everyone who should have had the opportunity to vote should still have that right.  And if you live in Michigan and Florida find out who is really stopping the revotes.  Obama and Clinton are not in the legislatures making these decision.  Make it known that whoever stops this from happening will face a certain career change the next election cylce.  But for the love of god we are all Democrats, like one candidate like them both but stop all this useless rhetoric.  DO SOMETHING THAT MATTERS!!!

    No (none / 0) (#154)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:04:38 AM EST
    Please stop spreading the falsehood Obama talking point that it wouldn't be a fair revote.  Anyone who is eligible to participate would be allowed to vote in a new primary (that was APPROVED by the DNC).  People who voted in the Republican primary are ineligible to vote.  It's really as simple as that.

    Why is it so hard to understand?

    Parent

    I Agree (1.00 / 0) (#111)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:14:40 PM EST
    Lou,

    Very good point, I'm admit I'm an Obama supporter and had a brush of Obama fever.  But I'm concerned about his electability.  Although I reserve some of that falls on the Clinton tacticts of lets not parse words "McCain would be a better commander and chief".  Even with that I've vowed that I will vote for Clinton regardless of how she wins.  This is too big, too much at stake to let emotion get in the way.  Obama and Clinton's policy positions have little differences and I like them both.  My fear is that even when the dust settles and one candidate is left standing followed by a come to jesus speach from the other candidate that too much damage has been done. Not a huge % of people will be lost but 10-20% of the core group of each candidate will either not show up or will straight vote for McCain.  Believe me after reading that Clinton's surrogates brought up Wright today I was on the edge of making that vow.  We all need to reallize that the Republicans have their candidate and 45% of the vote locked up.  And that divided both houses will fall.

    Do you have any evidence (none / 0) (#1)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:11:54 PM EST
    to support this claim....

    The legislature would have considered it and likely passed it had he agreed. So is that even a true statement?

    I wonder if he's saying that after he gets declared the nominee -- which he likely will be if FL & MI votes don't count -- then he'll agree to recommend to the Credentials committee that they be seated so they can take place in party business.

    That is EXACTLY what he is saying.  Why would he say anything other than that?  

    The notion that either candidate would act altruistically and against their own interests is naive.  

    And here's how a Detroit paper reports it: (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:16:51 PM EST
    "Clinton's embrace of the Michigan do-over primary made it less attractive to Obama. His campaign never took a formal position on the proposal, but cited a litany of potential problems, including the exclusion of some Democratic voters who participated in the Republican primary Jan. 15, the propriety of using private funds to pay for a government-administered election and the burden the June 3 election would place on the people who run elections for counties and cities.

    "The Associated Press reported that Obama was questioned at a campaign stop Thursday in Charleston, W.Va., by Jeff Lynch, 48, of Mount Pleasant.

    "'When am I going to get to vote for you in Michigan?' Lynch asked.

    "'Probably in the general election,' Obama replied. 'A redo vote is very complicated.'"

    Parent

    I'm glad (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:01:50 PM EST
    that Obama is eager to tackle the complicated issues of the day...not.

    Reuters article today states "Rival Barack Obama opposes re-running the primary".

    Perhaps Obama needs to talk some more about how it becomes fair to divide the delegates 50/50 even though he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and obviously didn't earn any of these delegates that he wishes to claim.

    I can't wait for his speech on the importance of all votes count and count all votes.

    Parent

    Yeh, if he considers this to be too complicated (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:41:22 PM EST
    it does not recommend him for the presidency.

    Parent
    that was the point I was making... (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:21:28 PM EST
    In all phases, he loses on this issue...

    • He sees complicated issues as reasons to punt them
    • He demonstrates that he does not fully support voters
    • He demonstrates that votes don't count
    • He desires to accumulate delegates that didn't vote for him
    • He identifies with rules that disenfranchise voters rather than fight for them
    • He demonstrates that he is ever the politician who only sees things for political advantage

    Need I say more?

    Parent
    Gov. Rendell said it on CNN (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:12:39 PM EST
    about 15 minutes ago.

    Parent
    Youu asked if Obama lied? (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:19:34 PM EST
    The answer is YES. His legal counsel Bauer OBJECTED to the DNC approved MI plan.

    Obama is flat out lying when he says he would abide by a DNC approved plan. He OBJECTED to the DNC approved plan for Michigan.

    Parent

    "Obama opposed rerunning the Michigan primary (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:31:51 PM EST
    That's how it's put in a Reuters article on Clinton's new stimulus package.

    I'd say that's pretty clear.

    Parent

    Neither Bob Bauer or Barack Obama (none / 0) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:44:49 PM EST
    have a vote in the Michigan legislature.  

    Was the bill even offered up for a vote?  Is the Michigan legislature in the bag for Obama?

    Parent

    the Michigan Leg (none / 0) (#155)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:07:20 AM EST
    said they were ready to vote when the DNC and both candidates agreed.  They were not going to vote on a bill where one candidate balked at the idea, and then have binding legislation calling for a new primary and a cluster you-know-what in the party.

    Obama dragged his heels and is trying to run out the clock.

    Parent

    What does the governor of PA (none / 0) (#9)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:18:33 PM EST
    know about the state legislature of MI?


    Parent
    Well gee (none / 0) (#53)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:39:37 PM EST
    If Ed Rendell says so clearly it must be true.  The guy is a beacon of objectivity.  

    If Howard Wolfson says so then that cinches it.

    Parent

    he's implying (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:14:25 PM EST
    their votes will count. They won't if they aren't recognized until after the nominee is chosen. He's speaking on Larry King Live to millions of Americans  who don't follow the ins and outs of this like we do. They don't understand that nuance or distinction and he's purposely concealing it.

    Parent
    So Obama is being Obama (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:15:45 PM EST
    he does this slight of hand constantly.  It is maddening.

    Parent
    That was the plan the entire time Jeralyn (none / 0) (#58)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:41:33 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan's delegates were ALWAYS going to be seated.  But their punishment was that they wouldn't be until after it was decided.

    You act as if this is some secret nefarious plan by Obama.  This is the way it works and the way it has ALWAYS worked.  

    The nominee is chosen in August.  

    Parent

    Huh? Have you missed the last two weeks (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:45:35 PM EST
    at least, of discussion here -- and in Michigan, and in Florida -- on this?

    Parent
    I am quite aware (none / 0) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:48:46 PM EST
    of the political manuvoring of the past 2 weeks.  

    I am talking what the DNC planned from the very beginning.  From the moment they scrapped their vote.

    Parent

    Oh, well, I believe that of Brazile (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:57:01 PM EST
    and Dean.  He really, really doesn't want Donna to walk out.  Then he would have to face us himself on tv.

    Parent
    Can you provide (none / 0) (#112)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:16:53 PM EST
    us with anything to support your assertion that "the DNC planned from the very beginning.  From the moment they scrapped their vote."  I have not seen anything from Dean or the DNC to that effect.  I have read where the DNC said that either state would be allowed to count their votes in a revote after February 5.  

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#142)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:39:04 PM EST
    Dean is a savvy politician and he certainly understood that he couldn't ignore Michigan and Florida when the convention came rolling along.

    I am certain that he believed the race would be over on Feb 5th.  With so many states voting early the contest should have ended early, at least that was the common thinking at the time.

    Of course they wouldn't publicly state that and I think you know why.  

    Parent

    Thanks for the reply (none / 0) (#149)
    by standingup on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:57:53 AM EST
    I was looking more for a quote or statement but at least you answer is honest.   I think it is a bit of a leap to suggest we can know with certainty what the DNC or Dean had planned from the beginning.  

    I also doubt that they foresaw the primary being this close or perhaps lasting this long.  It has happened a few times in the past and I think that is one place where the rules committee was being short sighted in their decision.  That said, the DNC did give both states the option of holding a contest (no specifics on caucus or primary and at the expense of the state parties) after Feb 5 that would be counted or to petition the rules committee to have their first vote counted but the committee doesn't meet again until this summer.

    At this point it is just a mess all the way around.    

    Parent

    Worth (none / 0) (#2)
    by Athena on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:12:14 PM EST
    Any nomination is less legitimate when 2 million Democrats are excluded from participating.

    that's what Hillary said today (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:15:28 PM EST
    in the ten seconds of sounbites the networks gave her. I wonder if anybody heard her.

    Parent
    it might be unfair... (none / 0) (#16)
    by jor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:25:16 PM EST
    ... that she gets soundbites. But she really is a much, much, much worse speaker than Obama. Try and think about this when she is going to be charged with convincing americans to get behind her policy proposals. The media will not give her more than 10 seconds, because otherwise she'll switch into lecturing people on policy minutiae.

    Parent
    I take it (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:30:52 PM EST
    you've never heard her in person?

    Parent
    I have (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:02:45 PM EST
    I saw her and Bill at a campaign rally in Milwaukee in 1992. She spoke first and was an amazingly good speaker and extremely inspirational. Bill spoke last and was good, but no where near Hillary's quality. As I recall, both spoke without notes or a teleprompter.

    Parent
    No... (none / 0) (#93)
    by jor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:59:57 PM EST
    ... but I saw her on letterman. She did ok for the first minute or so, but then went back to her lecturing detail oriented self. The last thing I need at 11:30 is a lecture.

    She has to be able to communicate through the media, sorry, thats the way it works in the 21st century.

    Parent

    You sound as though you (none / 0) (#146)
    by hairspray on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:31:08 AM EST
    just graduated from school. True?

    Parent
    i've never heard her in person, (none / 0) (#152)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:35:31 AM EST
    but many times on tv and the radio. i find her far from this wooden, detail oriented policy wonk that some claim her to be. she's clear, concise and exhibits a pretty good sense of humor.

    i did catch her live on "the daily show" a couple of weeks ago. she was great, scared poor jon half to death by inviting him to come visit her campaign in person.

    if she's really this "monster" that idiot samantha powell called her, then she's either pathological or one of the greatest actors of our time, possibly of all time. she apparently can stay in "character" 24/7/365. see if angelina jolie can do that!

    if you think bill clinton is popular as a former president, she will blow him out of the water, should she get the nomination and win. there just won't be enough of her to go around the entire world.

    Parent

    Not at all -- you clearly have not heard her (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:39:22 PM EST
    as some of us have.  I didn't expect it, more than a decade ago, but she is a very engaging speaker.  And I've seen her get even better over the years.

    Aside from all that stuff you raise so wrongly -- it ought to be a simple news judgment.  A woman running for president is news.  So why isn't she on the news channels as much?  Another factor, in the case of tv, is colorful video.  Have you noticed the colors of the jackets she wears?  They really pop well for the camera.  Yet still, she isn't on the news as much.

    So can you come up with other reasons?

    Parent

    Do you believe that actually knowing (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:55:30 PM EST
    what you are talking about is a bad thing? You treat the word minutiae as if it a bad word.  Would you like her more if she said absolutely nothing of substance but said it oh so pretty?

    Parent
    nobody.... (none / 0) (#95)
    by jor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:00:50 PM EST
    ... gets convinced on minutiae. Nobody.

    Parent
    What the heck (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:04:44 PM EST
    does that mean? People don't vote based on issues? Maybe you don't care about the minutiae but my guess is you are the minority, at least on this blog.

    Parent
    I have laundry to do or else I'd stay here and (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:12:51 PM EST
    debate you.  But some people really, really, really care about the issues and want a leader who knows all the "minutiae."  I could not care less how "good" a speechgiver/reader they are.  On that point, are you aware that BO doesn't even write his speeches?  He pays someone to do that for him.  When he doesn't have a speech in front of him he uhs, and uhs, and uhs, and comes off as unpolished.  Like I said earlier.  Substance over style.  

    Parent
    please stop chattering (none / 0) (#109)
    by english teacher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:12:40 PM EST
    that is a dozen comments stating your opinion that obama is a superior speaker to clinton.  

    Parent
    Then I guess (none / 0) (#135)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:18:56 PM EST
    Hillary supporters are behind her just because
    they like her highlights. :)

    Parent
    Yes, especially the grey ones (none / 0) (#165)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:26:36 PM EST
    earned serving the American people. Those are my favorite Hillary highlights.

    Parent
    Looks like he is trying to change the subject from (none / 0) (#12)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:20:49 PM EST
    Rev Wright and Race controversy that he himself is to blame for... No Wright so far on Larry King.. why is he not asking the important questions?

    Larry King (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:30:07 PM EST
    People go on Larry King because they know he won't ask tough questions.

    Parent
    probably saving it (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:23:37 PM EST
    so people don't change the channel. It's about ratngs.

    Parent
    He is blasting senator Clinton (none / 0) (#23)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:29:43 PM EST
    experience==yrs in washington..

    getting free air time..

    Parent

    And this air time (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:31:22 PM EST
    on top of the time he got on AC360 last night, which was all Obama, all the time.

    Parent
    They are on Wright now (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:33:16 PM EST
    7:31 pm.

    Oh my .. repeats had I known (none / 0) (#41)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:36:00 PM EST
    those comments I would have walked out..
    Larry good point: you mean it was Pastor not the Church..
    I walked away....what the? (none / 0) (#49)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:38:15 PM EST
    Can you elaborate?

    Parent
    repeats the old comments that he said (none / 0) (#60)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:41:40 PM EST
    Had I known those comments earlier I would have walked out of Church... I don't know what to make it.

    Parent
    that is hard to follow (none / 0) (#55)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:40:42 PM EST
    explain that again.  Sounds like Larry King has a conscience.

    Parent
    I don't even know what to make of this... (none / 0) (#42)
    by hopeyfix on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:36:10 PM EST
    He can say whatever he wants to say, but his desperation is so out of control...

    Now he wants to spread the Wright controversy    .

    How can he want anyone's vote with his premise of change and clean campaign?

    Am I going nuts here?

    Obama gave the media a pic (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:00:22 PM EST
    of Bill Clinton and Wright together in 1998 among a roomful of clerics.  Supposedly Obama wanted the pic to prove Wright wasn't such a bad guy after all since Clinton had invited him to the WH.
    But it sure looks Rovian - appearing Obama wanted to remind the public of Clinton's dalliances -since the pic was taken during a WH prayer breakfast just prior to Ken Starr releasing his zillion page detailed report of Clinton's dalliances wth Monica.
    Obama even included the WH invitation.

    Desperate.

    Parent

    That NYT story really reeks (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:43:03 PM EST
    of desperation.  Love the "a picture -- oooooooo" quote.  Great link; thanks.

    Parent
    Piss on the voters and tell them it's raining (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:47 PM EST
    The Orwellian idea that your vote counts if you don't actually get to choose a candidate, and if your vote goes equally to two candidates, suggests contempt for the voters, and implies they are too stupid to know otherwise.

    Larry: Did you talk to Rev Wright... recently (none / 0) (#51)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:39:16 PM EST
    No he is on a cruise.. but I talked to him after these comments surfaced.. I said.. I might come after them hard on TV ... but I hope we will remain good friends...

    anyone else find that funny? (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:40:01 PM EST
    The guy is on a cruise... like he was literally "shipped away" to the middle of an ocean.

    Parent
    Maybe someone (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:38:16 PM EST
    should do reconnaissance on his passport. :)  

    Parent
    New thread for Rev. Wright portion (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:41:22 PM EST
    of show here.

    Regarding Michigan (none / 0) (#82)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:53:58 PM EST
    Considering the circumstances of the Michigan primary in January, why should Democrats who supported Edwards and Obama be penalized for voting for in the Republican primary in January? No one here seems to be discussing this. Clinton supporters get to vote for her twice and yet Democrats who would would have likely voted for the other two candidates don't get to vote at all. Why? Because the initial primary was in violation of DNC rules and was declared to not count? That seems incredibly undemocratic.

    Did Obama raise this issue tonight on Larry King? Jeralyn didn't mention it.

    Don't you think (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:56:41 PM EST
    that there should be some form of penalty for gaming someone else's primary?

    I do.  I think it's disgusting, I don't care who does it...

    Parent

    I don't remember (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:01:35 PM EST
    anyone announcing that the Republican primary wouldn't count, so people who chose to vote Republican knew when they voted that their votes would determine which of the Republican candidates would be allocated all of Michigan's delegates to the Republican Convention.

    If the votes cast in the Democratic primary are not to be counted, then any votes cast in a re-vote will be the only votes counted.

    I really do not understand why this is so hard to understand.

    Parent

    Get with it (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:22:35 PM EST
    This has been discussed ad infinitum here. I know I've posted on it at least 3 or 4 times and I don't post all that much.

    And the answer is, as always, that MI voters had three choices: Dem primary, GOP primary, or stay home. You couldn't vote in both the Dem and GOP primaries on election day.

    Those voters (some of whome listened to idiots telling them to vote for Romney) who chose the GOP ballot did so freely. The GOP primary is not being revoted. They made their choice - tough luck. They pretended to be Republicans and now will be treated as such.

    Those who voted Dem or chose not to vote because they thought their vote wouldn't count (and were right) would get to revote, although it looks like that's not going to happen anyway, because Obama is obstructiong the revote.

    The democratic principle is "one person, one vote", not "one person, two votes", which would be the case if voters who voted in the GOP primary were allowed to revote. Not too mention all the Republican voters who would get a second vote in the Dem primary.

    There is no "I voted for X because ..." spot on any ballot I've ever seen - you get one vote, and if you use it stupidly, that's your problem.  Ask all the people who voted for Nader in FL how that works.

    Parent

    Because they're not Dems (3.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:59:36 PM EST
    since they asked for and filled out Republican ballots.  They're Republicans now.

    Or we're supposed to deal with what THEY really meant, too?  

    Of course, if you want the serious answer as to why what you suggest would be illegal, it has been in past threads.

    Parent

    Illegal? (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:04:42 PM EST
    What law would it violate?

    The official Michigan primary has come and gone.  It's over.  This is a provisional primary.  There are no rules regarding it.

    Parent

    Voting twice is illegal (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:40:10 PM EST
    if both votes count.  Surely you know that -- and that only the votes of the Dems in the primary didn't count.  So Michigan's proposed bill took care of the problem that would occur with its law that only allows voting in a primary once.  Just read it, and you'll see.

    Parent
    Obama Speaks on Michigan | 159 comments (159 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment