The Democratic National Convention
I’m mega-busy right now, so I haven’t watched a moment of it so far.
But even if I weren’t busy, I’m not sure I’d be looking at it very much. After all, I’m overly-familiar with the message. Why drive myself nuts by listening to more?
If you want to discuss it, though, here’s a nice pristine thread for you. And here are some links:
Michelle Obama gave a speech last night praising her husband. Here’s an interesting quote; I do believe she’s telling a general truth here about the Gramscian goals of the left:
[Barack] reminds me that we are playing a long game here … and that change is hard, and change is slow and it never happens all at once.
Tonight Bill Clinton, Democratic Party elder statesman, places Obama’s name in nomination. I’ll pass (and is Bill paving the way for Hillary in 2016? She would be almost 70 years old then, by the way. Not sure her best chance isn’t over and done with, but you never know with the Clintons.)
Heh–I dropped in here to see what you thought about it because I had decided I wasn’t going to watch it, partly because I have other things to do and partly because “I’m overly-familiar with the message. Why drive myself nuts by listening to more?”
General conservative reaction so far seems to be that Michelle was very effective, everything else was same-old same-old.
RE: Hillary
Neo, you’re right in that you never know about the Clinton’s. I, too, would guess that her best chance is over.
However, given the experience we have had under Obama, a Hillary Presidency is not looking so bad.(and I was sooo against Hillary)
I do believe the entire night provided insight into the Gramcian goals of the left.
Support for abortion was the major theme with tax payer funded abortions now part of the dem platform.
‘God’ dropped from that platform.
Pro-Israel language dropped.
‘Social justice’ a euphemism for seizure and redistribution of private property…
But the most revealing moment was the DNC video with the line “Government is the only thing we all belong to”, just substitute ‘The State’ for “Government” and its blindingly clear that these are Communists in all but name.
A perfect example of Christ’s dictum, “there is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the way of death”
Michelle’s speech made me throw up in my mouth a little. I’m only partly joking; it was nauseating to watch, an overt play on the emotions of the remaining faithful. The whole point seemed to be “Barack Obama is such a good man. His life has been just like yours. You can trust him.”
I can’t recall any second term presidential candidate’s wife giving a speech anything like Michelle’s. Not Rosalyn Carter, not Nancy Reagan, not either of the Bush first ladies, and not Hillary Clinton. There was an undercurrent of desperation about it, as though she was pleading with her audience to perceive her husband as a caring, loving man…which indicates to me a recognition that far too many people believe Barack doesn’t give a damn about them, or the country in general.
Random Thoughts said: There was an undercurrent of desperation about it, as though she was pleading with her audience to perceive her husband as a caring, loving man…which indicates to me a recognition that far too many people believe Barack doesn’t give a damn about them, or the country in general.
I didn’t watch the speech (for the same reasons Neo and Mac cited), nor do I have any interest in doing so. But with respect to Random Thoughts’ observation above, it sounds almost like in a way Michelle was doing damage control for the implications of the NYT article from the other day which is summarized and employed so effectively to illustrate Clint Eastwood’s point in this piece.
Yes, a long game. Remember that video of Obama, before his pres run, saying that it may take 10 years or 15 years, but we’ll eventually get the single payer health care we want. That’s his long game. Government regulation, drive private insurers out, yell “free markets don’t work”, single payer.
Re Hillary: Her hair is looking old and washed up. (In fact,she is washed up.) I don’t see how she will ever be able to project the energy she would need to lead the country.
Kurt, that is it exactly! Michelle went on and on about how caring and humble her husband is, how poor he’s been (shoes too small, furniture out of a dumpster) how he now he sits up late at night hunched over letters from ordinary citizens, grieving over their plight.
Her words were ludicrous when compared to Obama’s actual history and his performance as president. Now that I read the NYT piece, the purpose of her speech is even more clear: “Don’t believe what you’ve seen during the past four years, believe me, because I know and love my husband.”
Gah, it makes me queasy just recalling it.
2016 for Hillary? Don’t think so. Romney will be re-elected.
Also, this Romney campaign ad is devastating:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/scathing-new-rnc-ad-obama-campaign-stuck-in-2008/
Look forward to the other ads.
Wow. That ad is incredible.
Charles writes, in part, 11:18 am:
“However, given the experience we have had under Obama, a Hillary Presidency is not looking so bad (and I was sooo against Hillary).”
Lest we forget, Hillary was a dyed-in-the-wool leftie just like our Wonderful President.
A major difference, however, is that W.P. is an incompetent leftie, while Her Excellence Hillary would be a much more competent leftie.
At least with W.P., his incompetence saves us in some measure; H.E., unlike W.P., can learn from her missteps (Exhibit A — HillaryCare). She listens to counsel, particularly from her husband, who, we must admit, is among the best in the business. In contrast, W.P. is smarter than anyone on any subject within a fifty mile radius of wherever W.P. happens to be, and need not listen to anyone.
For that reason, H.E. can be much more dangerous. Exception: once W.P. no longer has anything left to win, his incompetence may be less consequential. (Still formulating this thought. Time to quit and cogitate. See ya’s.)
I couldn’t bear to watch the DNC, but from the clips and reviews of Michelle’s speech I’ve seen, it sounds like it was a rehash of what she’s been saying for years. I find her constant over-sharing of her marriage and family life, and details on Obama’s “humanizing” bad habits, inappropriate. It seems to go hand in hand with the style of their campaign emails asking everyone to celebrate Obama’s birthday, or to celebrate Obama specifically as a great father on Father’s day. Ick!
RandomThoughts points out, in part, 3:11 pm:
“Now that I read the NYT piece, the purpose of her speech is even more clear: ‘Don’t believe what you’ve seen during the past four years, believe me, because I know and love my husband.’”
Very Marxist — Groucho Marxist, that is. “Who’re you gonna believe, me or your own eyes??”
Today at work I overheard two middle-aged blacks discussing MO’s speech. The male though that Michelle had “hit it out of the park” and the female thought that Michelle had surely won the election for Obama by her speech.
Later I listened to call-in guest on conservative talk radio. Opinions there were decidedly different.
As a nation we are more polarized than at any point since reconstruction. This will only grow worse after the election no matter the winner I think. Each side is convinced of bad motives and immorality of the other. How can anyone govern such a divided nation? At a time when we need a shared sense of purpose and a willingness to sacrifice for the good of future Americans we are divided and becoming more so.
I pray that I’m wrong but will be terribly surprised if there isn’t blood in the streets by this time next year.
Liz notes: It seems to go hand in hand with the style of their campaign emails asking everyone to celebrate Obama’s birthday, or to celebrate Obama specifically as a great father on Father’s day. Ick!
Well, that was last night. Today Michelle is asking everyone to give up pizza and send the money to Barack’s campaign instead.
While we’re on the DNC, and with the deletion of any mention of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the Democrat platform, this video of Jay Carney’s handling of the question is worth viewing again. There is also a link to the same question being asked at a State Department press conference.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jay-carney-wont-say-which-city-is-the-capital-of-israel/
If Obama believes Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Carney would have evaded answering the question — and the D-platform would have not deleted mention of Jerusalem as the capital.
Meanwhile, Breitbart is fact-checking Michelle Obama’s speech.
Random Thoughts, so Michelle Obama tells us that Barack the Compassionate stays up late “hunched over letters from ordinary citizens grieving – grieving- over their plight.” Poor man, I guess all that golf, bowling, B-ball is just therapy for his soul.
And, Expat, Hillary may look old and washed up but never count the Clintons out. If Bill, with cheerleader Chelsea’s help, puts on his famous charm, I, for one, wouldn’t say that Hillary’s “never” really means never.
Perhaps she would be satisfied with a Supreme Court Justiceship, or a United Nations gig. I doubt if a President Romney would tap her for the Court. Who knows whom the United Nations kooks would select?
I will not watch the DNC…but I did hear part of Michelle Obama’s speech and I thought it was overly emotional and manipulative. I remember when she made a pitch for the Olympics and went on and about sitting on Daddy’s lap and watching Carl Lewis, when in fact she was 20 at the time he was in the Olympics.
She makes stuff up. She is a lawyer, trained to speak to a jury and use emotional arguments to tug at people’s hearts…but the part about Obama dumpster diving for a coffee table and wearing shoes that did not fit just was too much…When they started dating, Obama was working for a law firm. He was not starving and neither was Michelle.
I can’t watch it. It would be like watching a reality show where all the participants suffer from mad cow disease or something.
Fox is now reporting that the Dems have put back God and Jerusalem into the platform accompanied by the boos of over half of the delegates.
Class act.
kaba began, 4:13 pm:
“Today at work I overheard two middle-aged blacks discussing MO’s speech. The male though that Michelle had ‘hit it out of the park’ and the female thought that Michelle had surely won the election for Obama by her speech.”
What I find very telling about this is that, for these two people at least, it’s all about feeling and personality, and little or nothing else.
physicsguy said: Fox is now reporting that the Dems have put back God and Jerusalem into the platform accompanied by the boos of over half of the delegates.
You’ve got to see the video for yourself. It is pretty funny.
climb into the wayback machine…
“I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.” ~ Norman Mantoon Thomas
I went back to look at this post of Neo’s which mentioned a point i made…
How tyrannical takeovers happen: past, present, future
http://neoneocon.com/2009/09/02/how-tyrannical-takeovers-happen-past-present-future/
that was after comparing the fatal flaw in the constitution of Germany, then pointing out how ours is different… with more explanation than above.
i wonder if the constitution is as bullet proof as it was back then, and if executive orders and such were taken into account…
there are several smoldering piles of stuff that can burst into flame and all of them are the result of policies recent and some far back…
A nation’s life is about as long as its reverential memory. Whittaker chambers
Hillary is out. Fluke’s in the batter’s box.
And MO wants we should skip buying a pizza for dinner and send that money to BO–cause, you know, he knows how to spend it better than we do.
Tried to watch Bill Clinton’s speech, but seeing him on stage brought back so many bad memories of all the lies, dissembling, and sexual horndoggery (I hope that’s a word), I just couldn’t stay with it.
It doesn’t amaze me that the democrats still honor him. They have very low standards when it comes to personal honor. But for a party that claims to champion women’s rights to let this serial sexual offender and philanderer have a place of importance at their convention shows how phoney their policies really are.
I heard that he claimed that not even he, the great Bill Clinton, the man who presided over the greatest economic boom of modern times (according to him), could not have turned this economy around in just three years. (Gag me with a spoon!) What he fails to mention is that he tried the same policies that Obama did between 1992 and 1994 and when the Repubs took Congress in 1994, he was forced to declare, “The era of big government is over.” The economic success he claims credit for was the result of following small government policies and getting out of the way of business. Just the oposite of what Obama has done and intends to do.
Unfortunately, most independents don’t know or remember those facts. Some may actually swallow Clinton’s line, so now it comes down to the debates. Romney did some debate prep today. We hear that Obama is obsessively competitive. Guess what? So is Mitt.
Here’s a summary of Clinton’s speech by Jennifer Rubin. Glad she had the stomach to watch it all and report on it.
http://tinyurl.com/8taxmpr
Ultimately, Clinton’s speech was a yawn. Whatever remains of Obama’s groupies had to be wondering why grampa’s rambling was supposed to be a highlight of their convention. Clinton failed to deliver many (any?) successful applause lines of the sort that require a politician to pause until the roar subsides. He delivered a few zingers, but nothing like the memorable lines from Ryan and Romney.
If it is true that Clinton constructed his speech without submitting it for Obama or Democrat approval, then it reveals he is at heart a wonky bore. He began most of his points by citing arcane, selective details that were tortured to provide the rhetorical fly swatter he wanted to hit Romney or Ryan with. He often failed to make an assertion clear before using it, thereby causing confusion that damped the enthusiastic reaction certain lines should have elicited from the delegates. To keep Clinton’s points in mind required the sort of concentration necessary to follow the ball in a shell game.
In contrast, Ryan and Romney gave inspirational speeches that emphasized their political philosophy and priorities. The closest to a “vision thing” Clinton offered was that Democrats were the real party of prosperity. He most connected with the audience during reprises of his “I feel your pain” persona–which feels pretty dated after Obama’s apotheosis. In another four years, Clinton will appear even dessicated. If Sultan Knish is right, Hillary will need all the luck she can get.
I’ve had a bit of difficulty going to sleep tonight so I watched (on c-span) the DNC convention tonight. What at circular firing squad of clowns. IMO Slick Willy was not up to his usual slickness. I suspect this was on purpose. No love lost between Clintons and the Chicago thug.
You have to embrace this as a great opportunity for the R&R campaign: http://tinyurl.com/9xqfbee
So what’s next…. a barbecue of partial birth abortion “fetuses” followed by a Cherokee pow wow?
“IMO Slick Willy was not up to his usual slickness. I suspect this was on purpose”
Maybe, maybe not. He loves the sound of his own voice. Remember how he droned on and on at the 1988 DNC? It took him a couple of years to recover from that.
“But for a party that claims to champion women’s rights to let this serial sexual offender and philanderer have a place of importance at their convention shows how phoney their policies really are.”
Then there was the tribute to Teddy Kennedy. Mary Jo was unavailable for comment.
It will be fun watching the press try to cover the crap in their litter box and make everything smell so nice. They’re all as genuine as Michelle’s vegetable garden, Target shopping trips and professional wrestling. I’m still waiting for Obama to go Lonesome Rhodes after his landslide loss. The leftist consumption of anti depressants will leave massive shortages.
I just haven’t been able to watch the Dem’s convention…can’t stomach it. I heard that the first day had a lot about abortion (probably in disguised terms like “health choice for women”). I also heard that the gay turnout was huge.
Do the Democrats ever support and promote anything that is NORMAL?
(I don’t think gays are terrible people but I don’t think their sexual preferences are normal…so sue me.)
Another thing about Clinton’s wonderful record of balancing the budget…it was not only achieved because we had a Republican Congress but it was also achieved by fudging the books. The budget was balanced based on external money flows…but the expenditures during those years were supported by transferring funds internally from the Social Security fund.
If you count intramural cash flows, the budget WASN’T balanced.
The big financial blow-up of 2008 occurred because of excessive speculation, excessive leverage, and excessive optimism in the financial markets. The last phase of that was the housing market bubble which started and was poorly, even fraudulently managed during the Clinton administration.
texexec, as to Clinton’s surplus, don’t forget the serendipitous internet boom. Around ’97-’98, things really started taking off businesswise. That was a technology that even 10 years prior to that time was a fantasy. The internet/tech boom had nothing to do with Clinton’s policies, just dumb luck.
“texexec, as to Clinton’s surplus, don’t forget the serendipitous internet boom. Around ’97-’98, things really started taking off businesswise. That was a technology that even 10 years prior to that time was a fantasy. The internet/tech boom had nothing to do with Clinton’s policies, just dumb luck.”
I agree and it was W’s bad luck to be in office when several decades of easy money and several kinds of bubbles had to be terminated by Mr. Market and Mr. Strained Economy.
I was struck by how much yesterday’s WaPo headline about Mrs Obama’s speech
“Being president . . . reveals who you are”
is reminiscent of N. Pelosi’s
“We’ll have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.”
In neither case did the Democrats want the voters to know what they were getting.
What disgusted me so far was the tribute to Teddy…
Ted Kennedy is the only politician with a confirmed kill in the War on Women.
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment on the tribute