home

The Speech

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 05:57:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here is video of "the speech"

Update (TL): Full text of speech here.

< Tuesday Evening Open Thread | Feds May Bail Out AIG >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Speech | 111 comments (111 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Okay (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:02:36 PM EST
    2 minutes into the speech it still sounds like an econ 101 lecture with groupies and a few politics thrown in. Does he get passionate about the issues later on? Does he connect with the voters or continue to lecture them?

    Maybe it gets better later on but it sure didn't start out like a barnburner. The text of the speech was good but the delivery looks to be severly lacking.

    To each his own I guess (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:15:52 PM EST
    I think it was a great great speech delivered beautifully.

    Parent
    Maybe (2.50 / 4) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:22:04 PM EST
    it works for the converted but no one else? I think that many of the voters who support him already like the college professor lecture speech. I've been out of college too long for it to work for me I guess.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:34:15 PM EST
    I have different theories for why it does not work for you but why dwell on that?

    You don;t like it? Fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Mine is it was a tremendous speech wonderfully delivered.

    Parent

    My take..... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:08:50 PM EST
    BTD, I worked for the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. for many, many, years. I used to argue at Akron Headquarters that we produced state-of-the-art, high technology, engineered products, not round, black, balloons, with a hole in the middle.(as perceived by most consumers) When I listened to the engineers and scientists, in white lab coats, lecturing us on polymer chemistry, latex density, decoupling grooves, and ultra high speed computers, I didn't understand a word they were saying, but I left incredibly impressed because I knew that THEY knew what they were talking about.

    As a marketing executive, I wanted to get that story out; that even though we consumers didn't know what went into making a modern tire, there was an army of incredibly smart people behind the scenes that did.

    "Perception" sells a lot of tires, and Barack Obama's speech, while a little boring, and professorial, left the impression that HE knows a lot about economic matters, even as we don't. On an issue as important as the economy, boring and dull, but KNOWLEDGEABLE, beats bombastic and bewildered every time.

    I agree with you; the speech was very, very good.


    Parent

    I agree it was great on substance... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:37:30 PM EST
    ..and even though I don't have the gene (apparently) to be emotionally moved by Obama's speaking style, I do appreciate a good, intelligent explication of what he will do. So thumbs up from me.

    Parent
    When he is on prompter (none / 0) (#46)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:39:12 PM EST
    I find I really enjoy listening to him and stay focused.

    His town hall type settings where he humms and umms and gets disjointed is where I can't listen intently for long periods of time.

    I really am looking forward to the first debate to see if the team has been working with him to be concise and on point.

    Parent

    Overall I think he is just often to wordy.... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:43:52 PM EST
    ...for my attention span, which hasn't improved with age. Apparently I'm a visual learner.

    Parent
    I thought it was better (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:20:42 PM EST
    Not great, but better.  One thing is clear he really must stick to the teleprompter or else he losses me and I suspect a lot of the audience/viewers.  I think thats what I noticed was better was the delivery due to a teleprompter.

    Parent
    True. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:24:51 PM EST
    I said on another thread that this beats the heck out of the absent minded professor shuffling the paper at the podium. They have to figure out a way to tone down the screeching groupies though. They manage to turn a serious speech into a joke really quickly.

    Parent
    Hmm... (4.50 / 2) (#54)
    by Thanin on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:47:54 PM EST
    He sounded presidential, intelligent, confident and ready to lead on day one.  Took away a lot of my concerns about him regarding the economy.

    Parent
    His speech yesterday (none / 0) (#105)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:47:09 PM EST
    in Pueblo covered a lot of the same ground, and I thought the delivery was much better actually than today's. Much more loose and populist and humorous, less professorial, though the message was a bit better honed in today's.

    And did you notice? - today he asked for your vote, which I recall you've been saying he's failed to do:

    Now it falls to us. And I need you to make it happen. If you want the next four years looking just like the last eight, then I am not your candidate. But if you want real change - if you want an economy that rewards work, and that works for Main Street and Wall Street; if you want tax relief for the middle class and millions of new jobs; if you want health care you can afford and education so that our kids can compete; then I ask you to knock on some doors, and make some calls, and talk to your neighbors, and give me your vote on November 4th. And if you do, I promise you - we will win Colorado, we will win this election, and we will change America together.


    Parent
    Better. But. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by lambert on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:07:19 PM EST
    We've also got a prime example, in the greatest speech EVAH in Philly, of a speech on a huge issue facing the country, where the speech was given to solve an immediate political problem, and then dropped like a hot potato when the political problem vanished, leaving the country in exactly the same shape as before.

    It would have been nice if this speech came with the framing that was devised at the convention. Instead we got houses and the uteruses of 17-year-old girls and drugged special needs babies and library books. All significant issues, to be sure, but it's the economy, stupid...

    One thing for sure... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:15:46 PM EST
    what an improvement over G-Dub, and so much better than McCain.

    I could listen to this guy for 4 or 8 years without my ears bleeding...my blood will still be simmering, since core issues dear to me will not be addressed, but my ears won't be bleeding.  

    That's something...really hope he wins this sucka.

    I'll take the college professor over the ignoramus (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:35:45 PM EST
    in the White House or McSame any day. With or without the groupies.

    I've been out of school for a quarter century.  

    Parent

    Listen without my ears bleeding... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by lambert on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:36:03 PM EST
    Haw.

    Yes, that's true.

    Parent

    I still keep wanting him (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by ccpup on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:26:41 PM EST
    to just get to the point much quicker.  His ideas and plans -- which all seem to be good and have the possibility of connecting with a lot of voters -- tend to get lost in the paragraphs he speaks in.

    Yes, being intelligent is a necessary quality in a President and, yes, I absolutely love the fact that he doesn't think in soundbites or over-simplify things.  That he is evidently aware of the magnitude of what the American People face.

    But this is Politics with a capital P.  Shorter speeches which hit three, no more than four, really good ideas/plans STRONGLY and then a flood of surrogates immediately hitting the airwaves in PunditLand afterward to echo and hammer home those four points in ten words or less.

    That's how elections are won.  This is still too wordy and I fear people will find their minds wandering after the first 10 minutes.  And if you make your SIXTH point, well, it becomes a bit much for most and they kinda zone out on the whole thing.

    Couldn't agree more. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:33:30 PM EST
    He is far to wordy.  This speech today would have been so much better if he was concise and direct to the point, especially when you combined it with his ability with a prompter.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#100)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:27:27 PM EST
    The speech was great, except I didn't have time to hear the good part.  The long lead in was excellent so I assume that his point was as well.

    Parent
    Can you feel it? The tide is turning. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:31:35 PM EST
    The difference in tone between the comments on this morning's McCain thread, and the ones from the very next story here, immediately after Obama's speech, are like night and day.

    Obama was Clintonesque in this speech, matching specificity and an attacking spirit to his customary eloquence.

    He could still very easily lose this election -- Democrats hardly ever get to 50% in a general election, and there are weeks of campaigning still to come.

    But you can feel the momentum building. I would bet cash money that Obama's polls will be better than McCain's by this Friday, and better still by next Tuesday.

    Nope (2.00 / 0) (#15)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:38:18 PM EST
    This is one thing I don't feel at all.  I feel a slight closing of the gaps in the national polls coming off the convention, but I actually am feeling the opposite of McCain gaining ground in states like Ohio, Penn, Michigan and even Wisconsin and Minnesota.  I have yet to see or hear or get any gut feeling that Obama is doing anything to swing it back yet.

    I do think they are getting their message back on track and trying to get off of Palin.  I like that they are trying to get sharper.  But until Obama is able to cut thru his professor delivery and really connect with Middle America, nothing is going to reverse things in a big way to me.  

    Even a small thing like him going to the $28,500 a plate dinner tonight after talking all day about a terrible economy, play poorly in the midwest, and McCain hit him on it.

    Parent

    oh, didn't hear about that (3.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ccpup on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:55:13 PM EST
    $28,500 a plate?  That's more than some families make in a year, I think.

    Add that to the $10 million Obama got from Lehmann Bros in donations (McCain got $6 million) and I can almost see a commercial in the works.

    If he can boil down that speech to three strong points while still admitting it is a complicated and complex issue, he may be able to turn the tide and stop some of the bleeding in the Polls.

    And if fashioning and administering that tourniquet were entirely dependent on Obama, he'd be fine.  But there's still McCain and his more often than not effective ads, so ...

    We'll see.

    Parent

    This is where some of you (4.20 / 5) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:59:13 PM EST
    prove how clueless you are.

    Does the number $28,5000 mean anything to you? At all? It is a DNC fundraiser.

    Arer you really this clueless or stupid NOT to know that Obama and McCain have been to dozens of 28,500 a plate dinners this year?

    R do you just hate Obama that much?

    Which is it? Just hateful or just ignorant?

    Parent

    neither, BTD (3.60 / 5) (#30)
    by ccpup on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:11:11 PM EST
    I'm neither hateful nor ignorant, thank you.  And I'm certainly not clueless.  But had I responded to someone with the degree of unnecessary disrespect as you did me, I'd be politely asked to leave.

    I'm well aware that both McCain and Obama have gone to many, many big money dinners and will continue to do so throughout this campaign season.  In fact, Obama's opting out of Public Financing demands it.

    But even the most clueless among us has to admit that the timing of this has the potential to be bad for Obama.  On the heels of this speech and Obama's attempt to pivot to the economy, if McCain is able to craft his "$28,500 a plate dinner" response as well as he has his other responses, it could take a bite out of whatever momentum may have built.  And cutting even a quarter of that momentum Obama will be considered a success for McCain.

    We'll have to see if Obama takes the bait and defends himself for this fundraiser, or stays on message without allowing himself to be distracted.

    But, no, BTD, with all due respect, I'm not ignorant, clueless or hateful.

    Parent

    ONLY the clueless among us (4.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:16:23 PM EST
    could think

    "that the timing of this has the potential to be bad for Obama.  On the heels of this speech and Obama's attempt to pivot to the economy, if McCain is able to craft his "$28,500 a plate dinner" response as well as he has his other responses, it could take a bite out of whatever momentum may have built."

    That makes you, with no due respect, clueless.

    It simply is idiotic. There is no other word for it. John McCain has been to more $28,500 dinners than Obama ever will attend. Do you know why? Because McCain will not raise any money for his own campaign, Obama will. Do you know why? Because McCain took public financing.

    ALL of McCain's fundraising will NECESSARILY involve $28,500 per plate fundraisers. Do you know why? I do not think you do. Obama CAN NOT go to as many PRECISELY because he opted out of public financing.

    You really do not know the signficance of the %28,500 number. If anything, McCain will NEVEr mention that number again.

    Parent

    BTD is right (3.66 / 3) (#75)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:52:20 PM EST
    you are the only one talking about this.

    And I wonder what the reason is, when finally the news is substantive on solid Dem issues.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#26)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:06:51 PM EST
    They both do it and will continue to do it.  

    However its naive to not think that in middle america coming on the heels of this meltdown on wall street, that having and hanging with people at that kinda fundraiser gives bad soundbites to people who very very passively follow politics.

    I don't blame Obama for having the fundraiser, he has no choice, its just too bad the timing of it provided an opportunity for McCain to use it, and he did while in Ohio today.  

    Parent

    Noooo (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:20:35 PM EST
    McCain will never mention it again.

    Think!! $28,500, Does the number mean nothing to ANY of you?

    Ok, I'll explain it to you. ALL of McCain's fundraising will be for the RNC now as he opted for public financing.

    EVERY SINGLE McCAIN FUNDRAISER will be a $28,500 per plate special. And he will be attending a number of them. MANY MANY more than Obama.

    Clueless.

    Parent

    Classic Democrat (none / 0) (#43)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:29:27 PM EST
    Never remember what the average voter thinks, feels and hears.  If you're right and McCain used the issue as a one time only hit and so do his surrogates then it has no effect.

    If they do continue to do it, it will have a small impact with some midwest voters without question.  And if Obama then responds to it, then it serves as another pointless distraction to get him off message.  

    Not saying its something that could be avoided, but the Right is very good at taking stupid, pointless things and making them bigger issues, and this is another one that McCain set up today by hitting him on it at the event today in Ohio.

    I agree with you on a ton BTD, but I think you are dismissing it far to out of hand considering that McCain DID USE IT today in Ohio.  

    And I do think tomm they will use it again.  I may end up being wrong on that.  If I am then it will have little traction, if they do use it again then it will have some impact.  Nowhere did I state it would be a game changer, or a big massive deal but in margins like this, every little bit lost hurts.

    Why don't you try having an actual debate without trying call everyone who doesn't think 100% like you clueless and instead put forth why you think its a non issue and ask for why I may think it has a little issue.  

    Parent

    Classic BS (3.66 / 3) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:43:01 PM EST
    What in the eff makes you think you have some special insight into "average voters" WTF that is.

    Here's a bet for you - we NEVER hear that from McCain again.

    And the only people who even noticed it were non-average Obama haters like you.

    Parent

    And if we don't (none / 0) (#53)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:45:30 PM EST
    Then you will be correct.  I disagree with you on this one and think we will hear him and the surrogates using it tomm.   We shall see.

    Parent
    We see already (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:53:31 PM EST
    Look and find the Right Wing blogposts on it.

    Cite Drudge.

    Find ANYTHING.

    It was crap you folks wrote and you should know it by now.

    Parent

    Places covered (none / 0) (#70)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:47:23 PM EST

    Covered as second story on The Page.

    Also covered in the NBC Nightly news as pointed out by the news recap on the The Page.

    Also highlighted at this Washington Post Article.
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/mccain_mocks_obamas_fundraiser.html

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:03:55 PM EST
    That settles it. McCain won the day.

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    in no way did i say that. (none / 0) (#88)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:08:32 PM EST
    Obama was far stronger today.

    Parent
    So what DID you say? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:17:20 PM EST
    What does that line matter? Will we ever hear about it again? Not at all and no.

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#92)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:20:14 PM EST
    at the end of the day the McCain campaign tried to intrude more "noise" to try to lessen the impact of the strength of the day Obama had with his speech.  And I believe they will try to use that noise tomorrow as well to try to keep things off message and off the speech he gave.

    Whether the media bites on it I don't know but the fact NBC nightly news choose to show it, shows they might have a little bit.  

    Its what republicans do best.  Lose a day and try as best they can to add noise to lessen that impact.

    Parent

    this reply is pretty insulting (none / 0) (#66)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:39:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Sure it is (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:44:08 PM EST
    But who cares? I am not going to pretend my sensibilities were ruffled.

    I have no problem with that response as long as he does not whine when he gets it back.

    Other commenters who can dish and take are fine. those who whine are not welcome in my threads.

    Parent

    Also, it is insulting to voters. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:50:39 PM EST
    As if it just cannot get dumbed down enough for them (us).

    Bill Clinton won, and he wasn't exactly into short speeches.

    Parent

    Bill (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:54:22 PM EST
    Could get long winded but he had the gift of making people understand what he was saying.  I can listen to the Big Dawg speak every single day for the rest of my life on pretty much any subject he wants to.

    Parent
    He bored me. (none / 0) (#81)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:56:55 PM EST
    But I still voted for him.

    And I understand Obama just fine.

    Your idea that average people can't understand him is ridiculous. He is a very good communicator.

    Parent

    When on script/prompter (none / 0) (#83)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:01:27 PM EST
    He is a good communicator.   Off script, interviews and debates I would disagree with you.  

    I firmly believe he needs to try and stay on prompter as much as possible from now till November and I sincerely hope he has been coached big for the debates on how to stay away from academia and down into short, concise laymen terms.  If he does that he will win with room to spare.

    Parent

    He is definitely my compelling (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:05:06 PM EST
    with the big speeches.

    But he is not bad AT ALL on the smaller venues, not nearly as bad as Kerry. In fact I think the reason people say he isn't good in smaller venues is that they compare his performance to his big venue performance...which is really his comfort zone.

    Parent

    oh god (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:09:16 PM EST
    Nobody was as bad as Kerry!  :)

    Parent
    I know. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:16:43 PM EST
    I love Kerry, but God he was boring.

    Parent
    Small venues (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by blue prairie on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:52:48 PM EST
    I agree with you. I have been to one of his small town hall meetings and he was excellent. He was thoughtful and gave solid thorough answers, yet he was personable and showed a sense of humor. He seemed comfortable in his own skin and didn't seem at all arrogant. The midwesterners in the setting seemed to really be listening to him and laughed at all his jokes and gave him many long applauses. He had to answer one of those confusing 4 part questions from some very old farmer, but he was able to pick out the various issues the man had tried to ask and give answers to all of them. He did this very respectfully and it proved to me his great listening skills and also that he has a very acute and active mind. Personally I want a professor as President, damn that would be sweet.

    Parent
    not "my compelling" (none / 0) (#86)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:05:32 PM EST
    MORE compelling.

    Parent
    Yeah, but Clinton was funny (none / 0) (#103)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:38:17 PM EST
    And had the gift of gab.  Clinton knows how to appeal to everyone.  He makes us WANT TO BELIEVE.  People love Clinton, as I did.  Obama's a bit harder to connect to.  People want to go have a beer with Clinton and listen to his stories.  Obama, not so much.  He's a bit too cerebral for most folks.  

    jmo

    Parent

    Maybe, (none / 0) (#106)
    by blue prairie on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:00:42 AM EST
    but even though I appreciated Clinton as a good President, I didn't personally want to have a beer with him because I also thought he had an ego problem.

    Parent
    What pol doesn't? (none / 0) (#111)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:59:29 AM EST
    Egotistical men can be so much fun, as long as you don't get close to them.  

    Parent
    Good advice, tee hee.:) (none / 0) (#112)
    by blue prairie on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:01:38 AM EST
    But he is a strange and fascinating mix of complete empathy and total self absorption. It all about everyone and all about Bill somehow at the same time.:)

    Parent
    Very true (none / 0) (#114)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:12:22 PM EST
    I don't know how Bill does it, but it's brilliant.  More importantly, it works like a charm.

    Parent
    Insulting to Democrats, not just to you. (none / 0) (#71)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:48:51 PM EST
    As if we are not also average voters.

    It's not only insulting, but stupid and distinctly reminicent of the GOP calling all liberals "elite".

    Parent

    We are not average! (none / 0) (#115)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:14:21 PM EST
    Every democrat I've ever met has been well above average.  

    (your results may vary)

    Parent

    But... (none / 0) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    NOT at Barbara Streisand's house.

    Sorry.....

    Parent

    Pfft (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:15:04 PM EST
    You must be kidding me.

    Parent
    Lordy, Big! (none / 0) (#96)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 10:20:37 PM EST
    you couldn't see my tongue practically boring a hole through my cheek??

    jeesh.

    Parent

    We've heard it before (none / 0) (#74)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:51:13 PM EST
    they've gone to this well one too many times.

    Parent
    by "well" I mean the GOP (none / 0) (#77)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:53:35 PM EST
    derriding Hollywood and "celebrity"

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#80)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:56:18 PM EST
    They have gone to the well on it a ton, no question but we also follow politics WAY more intently than a large % of the population who are just now starting to tune in.

    The best thing for the campaign to do "IF" the Mccain campaign keeps on it tomorrow is just to ignore it.  Keep on message and the economy and how he plans to actually fix it like he started with today.

    Parent

    What do you mean "we"? (none / 0) (#82)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:57:49 PM EST
    Half the time I get yelled at around here for not knowing what happened the day before.

    Parent
    If you (none / 0) (#110)
    by TheRizzo on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:56:12 AM EST
    read and post on political blogs, you follow politics far more closely than a lot of voters. Even if you follow it less than some of us.

    Parent
    You have evidence of that? (none / 0) (#101)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:31:50 PM EST
    And did it happen today?  Following the bad economic news yesterday?  

    Most fundraisers do not charge $28,500 a person. ( If you can find some others, I'd be happy to take back that statement.)

    As you said, timing is everything.  Obama sponsoring a fundraiser like that, TODAY, is very bad timing.

    Parent

    10 mill... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:05:22 PM EST
    for Obama, 6 mill for McCain...I'm no money wizard, but something doesn't add up.

    Parent
    Lehmann Bros. (none / 0) (#31)
    by ccpup on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:13:27 PM EST
    donated more money to Obama than to McCain, $10 million to McCain's $6 million (or $6.something, I don't remember).

    Not sure if this was during Primary Season or after they became the Nominees, but it's not too unusual for large corps. like that to pump money toward the person they think has a shot at getting the WH in order to curry favor.  Nothing partisan about it.  Just greasing the ol' wheels.

    Parent

    Strictly speaking... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:22:38 PM EST
    Lehman Bros. didn't donate money to either candidate. Lehman Bros. employees, many of whom are (or at least were) extremely well-off, did.

    Lehman Bros. is -- was? -- headquartered in New York City, the unofficial capital of Blue America.

    Obama and McCain both raised a lot of money from Lehman Bros. Obama raised more. Good for Obama.

    Parent

    I know.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:20:41 PM EST
    my snarky point was that for a company losing so much money, maybe somebody at Lehman should have looked at the expense sheet and tried to make some cuts.  I see 16 mill in savings right off the bat.

    Ya know, like a normal human individual or small business would do.  If I find myself in the red, the first thing to go is the occasional (far too occasional:) 20 buck donation to Talkleft.

    Parent

    This would be from employees. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Salo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:49:41 PM EST
    cough cough...lol.

    Parent
    Objective terms (none / 0) (#23)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:03:04 PM EST
    Whether Obama is able to cut through his professorial demeanor, really connect with Middle America, or reverse things in a big way with you, are all subjective judgments.

    My prediction is for a short-term, objective surge in Obama's polls. He's still behind McCain as of today's Gallup polls, but I am saying he will be at least tied by Friday, and ahead by next Tuesday.

    We'll see whether it actually happens. I've been wrong before, but I am feeling quite confident.

    Parent

    I was not wrong here. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 04:49:31 PM EST
    It's only Thursday, and already Obama has retaken the lead:
    The Sept. 15-17 Gallup Poll Daily tracking update shows Barack Obama with a 48% to 44% lead over John McCain among registered voters, marking the first time that Obama has held a statistically significant lead in two weeks.

    Now comes the tough part -- getting from 48% up to, say, 52%. To do that, he'll need to persuade some previously unpersuaded centrists and indepedents, which is much more difficult than re-persuading some voters that had supported him in the past.

    We need to keep up the pressure on the economy, and not get sidetracked by the Zapatero nonstory.


    Parent

    We Need the Big Dog (none / 0) (#32)
    by robrecht on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:15:57 PM EST
    Yes, it's a great speech.  Yes, Clintonesque.  Matchintg specificity, seriousness, and insight with an attacking spirit and eloquence.

    But, I just happened to be looking at electoral college maps from 1992 and 1996 and I'm still a bit stunned by the scale of Bill Clinton's victories.  I was out of the country during those years so, although I voted, I was not able to follow the campaigns and elections closely.  

    How in the hell did he achieve such large electoral college victories, and yet since then we've done so poorly.  Why have the Democratic ideals and message fallen upon such hard times these last 10 years?

    Parent

    Sorry, the Big Dog won't be on the ballot. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:34:35 PM EST
    Ross Perot ran strongly in 1992, splitting the uber-patriot and "corporate competence" vote with Bush the Elder. Clinton won an impressive electoral vote victory with less than 44% of the popular vote. Even as the incumbent in 1996, against weaker opposition, Clinton did not get to 50%.

    This is NOT intended as any knock on Clinton; just historical perspective.

    Parent

    I loved Gore (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:29:20 PM EST
    but he couldn't relate to the average voter. Neither could Kerry and Obama seems to be failing on this account too. The problem is that apparently voters are so turned off by egghead types that they won't listen to what they have to say.

    Obama's doing worse than Kerry iirc mostly because of his demographic problems. You can't diss people and then just expect them to show up and vote for you.

    Parent

    People loved Clinton (none / 0) (#102)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:33:31 PM EST
    He knew how to connect with everyone, the common guy and the richest guy.  He has a real gift.  

    Parent
    Man, oh man (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:54:51 PM EST
    He could say all that in less words.  I find that he packs in way to many words that are not needed.  He needs a crisp language.  The mind wonders.  Maybe it's academic speak, but I don't think it's good speak.  

    Democrats Just Have To Eat (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by dcaster on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:10:30 PM EST
    each other alive, don't we?

    Doesn't anyone remember 1992?  Didn't everyone complain then that Bill Clinton was just too much of a "policy whonk"?

    And I have to admit, I laughed out loud (in a nice way, though, I promise!) when I read Stellaa's comment.  I couldn't help thinking of Emperor Joseph II telling Mozart of one of his operas, "Too many notes, my dear Mozart, too many notes."

    Parent

    Well, yes... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:25:04 PM EST
    something like that, too many notes when a simple melody that is catchy is what is needed here.  

    Parent
    I miss the good ol days (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:40:52 AM EST
    when you and the rest of the gang would tell us that Obama never goes into detail and how wonderful Hillary was for being such a wonk.

    Not every political speech should be a jingle.

    Parent

    A Pete Seeger song (none / 0) (#104)
    by oldpro on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:45:03 PM EST
    would do fine.

    Parent
    I imagine (3.50 / 2) (#22)
    by ccpup on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:59:42 PM EST
    that the more verbose Obama becomes (should he not heed our advice and edit, edit, edit), the more crisp, clear and strong McCain will become in response.

    Politics with a capital P says to make your message strong, crisp and memorable.  Soundbites help, but don't clutter them up with unnecessary sentences.

    Sometimes I want to scream "Alright, Obama, we got it!  You know what you're talking about.  Now get to the f**king POINT!"

    Parent

    Exactly.... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:23:29 PM EST
    boil it down, and boil it down quickly to what it has to do with "me" the voter.  

    I worked for years in the public sector, sat through countless city council, county board and state legislature meetings.  I hate to say it, but that is how the men talk, the women, get to the point and don't talk if they don't have anything to say.  I know...I know, I am generalizing, but it drove me nuts.  

    Well, if you imitate Patrick, the governor of Mass, maybe, copying the Clintons would be good advice.

    Parent

    Helping people buy homes (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by robrecht on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:21:20 PM EST
    Not engaging in speculation.

    Nice reminder of the S&L Scandal ... Keating Five, anyone?

    Yes. I ike how he talked about the (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:45:46 PM EST
    S&L scandals of the 80s, without explicitly speaking of the Keating 5.

    Reminding those of us who were cognizant back then.

    Parent

    Low-Hanging Fruit? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by bob h on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:27:51 PM EST
    When does Obama hammer the ** out of McCain on Social Security and healthcare?  McCain has terrible vulnerabilities here, and I assume Obama is just keeping his powder dry?

    (Living in a Blue State I don't have much sense what ads Obama is doing in the States that matter).

    Luckily I don't have sound on this pc, so (1.00 / 3) (#16)
    by WillBFair on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:48:24 PM EST
    I can't hear another wordy know-it-all lecture of half-baked ideas. I notice no one mentioned what the speach was actually about.
    But that's ok. I only care about policy, and I pray we get our people in this time and put in those sweet Clinton policies. So scrumptuously delectable.  

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:52:08 PM EST
    Since you are incapable of clicking a link, I suppose the actual text of the speech would not be of interest to you.

    I swear, do some of you realize what you sound like?

    Seriously, do you?

    Parent

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by coigue on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:43:09 PM EST


    Parent
    rofl (none / 0) (#94)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:46:33 PM EST
    thanks for the laugh.

    Parent
    Excellent (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:28:15 PM EST
    will watch later.

    Just finished it (none / 0) (#20)
    by blogtopus on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 06:58:00 PM EST
    While it was wordy, it was engaging. Plenty of good soundbytes in there.

    I feel like this is the first time I could actually support Obama, and not just throw my vote at him. I hated all his previous speeches, it all sounded like so much pontificating, but this for me felt better. Maybe I need BTD to tell me what to like in the future, heh.

    The speech didn't do much for me. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Green26 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:04:51 PM EST
    He said the following:

    "[recent events are] final verdict on economic philosophy that has failed"

    "most serious financial crisis in generations"

    I'm not completely sure what he meant, but I don't think I agree with the first comment. What economic philosophy has failed? Is he just talking about a philosophy of less regulation, and is that "economic philosophy"?

    I suppose this might be the most serious financial crisis, but what other serious financial crises have occurred?

    People have been warning of a looming financial crisis for at least 3 years. Where has congress been--including Obama, Biden and McCain? The repubs have had the majority for several years. I blame congress more than I blame Bush (not that he exercised much leadership either).

    Trickle-down economics (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by nalo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:07:26 PM EST
    I'm not completely sure what he meant, but I don't think I agree with the first comment. What economic philosophy has failed?

    The economic philosophy Obama is attacking is "trickle-down economics"

    This is not just a 3 year thing about housing.  Trickle-down theory has been the moral justification of the last 25-40 years of Conservative ideology and Republican party politics.  These ideas have driven the national debate and been taken as received wisdom by the mainstream.  With this election, Obama is firing the warning shots across the bow at its impending failure and should be applauded, especially on a Left leaning site.

    McCain thinks that trickle down still has a last gasp left, and is fighting to continue these Republican economic policies(more tax cuts for the rich) for another 4 years.


    Parent

    Unfortunately... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:43:49 PM EST
    ... I think this situation is the result of the two parties working together (consciously of not) in a way that produced a result that was the worst of both worlds. The push to extend credit to the marginally qualified, in order to give poorer people and minorities a greater chance at home ownership, was an initiative begun during the Clinton years, and one that most Democrats (including, I suspect, Obama) would have supported. But then it dovetailed with the voracious appetites of under-regulated financial institutions for ever-greater profits, in which they cast aside all notions of risk because the personal bonuses of the managers were still going to be in the bank if the firms went belly-up, and there was always the prospect of bailouts for the ones too big to fail.

    Obama's speech was a good one. But it's still not really clear to me what he would do to change things. And while he got some good applause by mocking McCain's suggestion of a commission, I think precipitously passing new regulations might be an even worse idea.

    Parent

    The dems are kinda phney about such things (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Salo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    They will not nationalize the cancer of the private healthcare insurance companies.   They just bail out reinssurers.

    Parent
    In my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:00:01 PM EST
    as a Wall Street guy who understands the wonky details of Obama's proposals, I think his focus is 100% spot-on.

    Parent
    No -- it's all quite sensible (none / 0) (#97)
    by Maggie on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 10:49:43 PM EST
    There's long been a standard for how to regulate banks.  Problem is all these non-banks acting like banks but not subject to the same regulations.  Simple things like capital and liquidity requirements.  Banks function with them.  Non-banks can too.  Obama gets this.  He's miles ahead of McCain, who just spouts platitudes.

    I know we're all supposed to want the anti-intellectual guy.  But I don't quite get the percentage in hiring someone who is clue-less at a time like this.  The one true thing McCain has said in this campaign is that he doesn't know much about economics.

    Parent

    Last 10 minutes (none / 0) (#28)
    by Coral on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:10:04 PM EST
    Lots here. Take the last ten minutes, break into 30 and 60 second sound bites, and use as ads.

    Fabulous.

    He presents a very clear choice (none / 0) (#34)
    by robrecht on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:19:12 PM EST
    He's finally trying to close the deal with voters.

    I agree... (none / 0) (#62)
    by BigElephant on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:13:23 PM EST
    More of this and Obama will leave McCain in the dust.  It's about connecting with the values the voters have, and with this current situation, he's doing just that.

    Up until a couple of days ago I thought the culture wars would rule the day, but I think Wall Street made it clear that it's the economy, stupid.

    I love this blog entry from Freakanomics:
    http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/competing-tax-plans-two-perspectives/

    It just makes it crystal clear who McCain is trying to help versus Obama.

    Parent

    As long as the race is (none / 0) (#51)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:44:49 PM EST
    Focused on substantive issues Obama wins by a huge margin.  This melt down, though depressing and not a happy thing, injected this election and the media with a dose of reality, moving us away from pigs and other character issues the McCain wants to run on.  

    I also think Obama is getting traction with the "More of the Same" line.  They are on message.  Also I think he and his surrogates are doign a good job advertising McCain's lies, and making his campaign look very dirty- which I believe (no evidence) is an important component to independents

     

    I'm not sure he's serious (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Salo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:54:37 PM EST
    about destoring the health insurance stranglehold though.  he's just as beholden to AIG or Lehman ect and is ragging on about their failure as political projects---not as capitalistic vampires.

    Parent
    He does talk about healthcare (none / 0) (#93)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 09:26:45 PM EST
    Though not as much as I would like.  He talks about it in an anecdotal manner.  I am not sure any politician during an election cycle can talk about healthcare in an intelligent manner that speaks about how you are really going to make it national, without 1)creating huge amounts of ammunition for your opponent, 2) being very dry and boring, 3) throwing everyone under the bus (doctors, patients, insurance companies, etc.).  The healthcare system is too complex.  

    Radical change is needed, but I believe that the politician that is willing to do it, must be okay with having history judge them and losing the 2nd term, as the total deconstruction of our system, would lead to considerable short term pain.   This is the problem with this type of fix- as no politician is willing to do this.

    Thus to get the change it must be incremental.

    Parent

    Great post (none / 0) (#55)
    by TheRizzo on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 07:50:50 PM EST
    The only reason I actually come to this site is to get BTD's take as he is one of the only level headed guys still out there in the left wing blogs.  Jeralyn had me until the recent obsession and goose chase on everything Palin.

    I disagree with BTD on this one subject and agree with you that lately he has become to quick to insult and be condesending to those that he doesn't agree with.  

    That said he still in my opinion nails it on the head for proper advice for not only the campaign but also the media and blogs to focus on, way more than most others out there.  For that reason talkleft is the only blog I still read.

    I am exactly the same (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:14:00 PM EST
    You just enjoyed my targets before.

    I call out nonsense wherever I see it from whomever I see it.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#65)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:34:07 PM EST
    BTD always had a low tolerance for less than rigid thinking.

    Which is not to say he has never been wrong.

    And actually he is not as bad as that Armando guy over at DK.

    Parent

    Oh please (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:11:06 PM EST
    I have decided this - I am losing you from my threads.

    Do not post in my threads again.

    Go post in Jeralyn's threads and stay out of mine.

    I have no use for you and your whine.

    I am serious. You are out. Do not post in my threads ever again.

    You are banned from my threads and I am deleting all of your comments in this thread right now except for our exchange on your ridiculous attack on Obama.

    This is for ccpup (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:12:59 PM EST
    who is now banned from my threads.

    She will now be commenting in Jeralyn's threads and TChris' threads only.

    Parent

    Some quotes from a Yahoo article: (none / 0) (#99)
    by Green26 on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 11:25:31 PM EST
    "In some ways, the candidates sounded alike."

    "But there were two major areas of contrast: McCain wants a commission, and Obama blames Republicans for the current crisis."

    "Obama pledged to "streamline our regulatory agencies" in a way that "will provide better oversight and reduce costs," but he gave no details." [Huh, I don't think this is what he believes.]

    "McCain offered a pledge: "Honest people on Wall Street , and there are many, will have a friend in the White House when I am president."

    "Obama repeatedly blamed the Bush administration for creating the financial mess, even though Democratic President Clinton signed the 1999 financial modernization law that tore down long-standing walls between commercial banks, securities firms and insurance companies, and Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007."

    "Obama pointed to the Republican Party's reverence for markets and disdain for government regulation as primarily to blame." [I don't like this comment.]

    "It's the philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down." [Okay, this appears to be the answer to my question in an earlier post. Does the "trickle down" philosophy have anything to do with the current financial mess?]

    In my view, the comments of both of these guys today indicate that neither of them knows what they are talking about, or they're just acting like politicians and pandering.

    Nice (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:37:25 AM EST
    So you pull an unsourced anonymous article to prove a point you want to make?

    If you think that the two were the equivalent in what they said then you weren't paying attention.

    Parent

    It was okay (none / 0) (#113)
    by ks on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:18:08 AM EST
    I like the written version better.  The whole stage managed thing with the flags and the podium is off putting to me.  But, it's a good step in the right direction.

    The Speech | 111 comments (111 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment