Democratic National Convention Thread

[deep]

i voted for bush twice. am i sorry for that? no. he was the best candidate the first time around, and the democrats could not put forth a better candidate the second time around.

that said, he fucked up a tremeondous opportunity. there's no other way to put it. the fact that he went after iraq instead of finishing the job in afghanistan, and then would not admit his mistake, is one of the main reasons why, despite my absolute love of john mccain, i am currently leaning towards voting for barack obama.

I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. am I sorry, not one bit. I thought W was a terrible candidate in 2000 and thought he would probably at best be a mediocre president. In 2004, I wished he was mediocre, instead of being the worst President, ever. I gladly voted for Kerry, a mediocre candidate.

I am currently leaning towards, McCain, barely.
I learned in 2000 that when the American people gamble on someone with little experience
it can have devastating consequences.

 

[Strongbow]

since this is the only thing you haven't already posted before, ad nauseum, let's take a look at this.

are you saying that the McCain position on Russia -- snarling, advocating that Georgia be admitted to NATO!?!?! -- is actually an admirable position and one that others are scrambling to adopt?

Its been the position of the majority of NATO countries for over a year now to begin the process of bringing in Georgia and Ukraine into the NATO alliance. But all 26 NATO countries must agree to start the process, and early this spring, 10 countries led by France and Germany decided to not to start the process. Many have wondered if this action was viewed by the Russians as a green light to large scale military intervention in Georgia.

McCain has had a tougher stance on Russia in general for some time now, dicussing the possibility of replacing Russia in the G-8 with Brazil. While many laughed at the thought of doing that, its actually being seriously considered now, depending on Russia's behavior. He has had a more honest and realistic view of Russia and Putin for some time now, and NATO needs to improve the security of its Eastern members, especially Estonia, Lativia and Lithuania. I think the US should move its forces in Germany into Poland so they can respond more quickly to crises in Eastern Europe especially if something were to happen in the Baltic States.

If Russia sees no cost to this type of military intervention in what it calls the "near abroad", your going to see more of it.

 

[mobvok]

I am just saying he was not in the loop in 2002
Obama did not get the evidence people like Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary that were in the Senate.

In 2000 the Democrats would not even give Obama a ticket to their convention in Los Angeles. He tells a story of going to L A and being turned away at the door. Quite an amazing turn of events.

I wasn't satisfied with my argument so I edited it upthread. I should click preview more often.

Basically this:

He did have a close relationship with Tony Rezko, a now convicted felon, that may have been mixed up with Saddam Hussein- In the "oil for food" scam.
So Obama was against removing Saddam. What a surprise.

You're saying Obama knew Rezko was taking money from Saddam Hussein, and that was basically why he was anti-war because he was worried about losing Rezko as a fundraiser.

Not only corruption, you could call that soft treason.

 

[namkcuR]

I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. am I sorry, not one bit. I thought W was a terrible candidate in 2000 and thought he would probably at best be a mediocre president. In 2004, I wished he was mediocre, instead of being the worst President, ever. I gladly voted for Kerry, a mediocre candidate.

I am currently leaning towards, McCain, barely.
I learned in 2000 that when the American people gamble on someone with little experience
it can have devastating consequences.

See, here's the thing; You are attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that he had little experience. I think that is the wrong thing to attribute it to. I think you should be attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that Bush was at best of average intelligence(I think he's a moron), that he had an amount of arrogance that was disproportionate to his (lack of) intelligence, that he believed in the stupid, simple, ineffective 'cowboy justice' school of thought, that he surrounded himself with either unqualified or ill-intentioned people(like Mr. Brown, or like Cheany who was entirely too connected to the oil industry to be in such a position of political power), and that he just was not a very thoughtful, insightful, person at all. Among other things.

I don't care about Obama's lack of experience. I think Obama is a highly, HIGHLY intelligent person, that views the world in far more complex terms than Bush does, that he will surround himself with far, far, far, far, far more qualified and capable and well-intentioned people than Bush has(Biden is a tremendous start already), and I think he is a very thoughtful, insightful person, I think the way he thinks about things is very cool-headed, very rational, very thoughtful. I think the way he has run his campaign speaks volumes about his ability to run a business(let's face it, a presidential campaign is a business) in an effective, responsible, and successful way. I think his judgement has been entirely sound thus far.

All of this considered, I think it's a huge, HUGE, incorrect generalization to say that, hey, George Bush was inexperienced and he's been awful, and therefore, anyone who doesn't have 30 years of experience is going to be a bad president. I think that's just simplistic, flawed logic, and I don't think it reflects reality.

 

[deep]

that Obama-Rezko-Saddam link is lame.

I wasn't satisfied with my argument so I edited it upthread. I should click preview more often.

Basically this:

You're saying Obama knew Rezko was taking money from Saddam Hussein, and that was basically why he was anti-war because he was worried about losing Rezko as a fundraiser.

Not only corruption, you could call that soft treason.

I agree
it is late
there is time for me to edit and remove it
but I wont

I do not make those charges



on another note

I was against the surge,
I had given up on Iraq
with the body counts

I was angry, with the lies into the war
I have never liked, trusted, or believed Bush/Cheney

so, I kind of wanted Iraq to deterioerate on their watch
it was thier fuck up
I thought they should own it

plus they had gotten it wrong about 10 times in a row
stay the course
stay the course
stay the course

Bush would say crap like

we need to honor their sacrifice
with more troops going to iraq


well,
I've never been to Iraq
I've never been briefed by people that have been there

but, I wrote plenty of stuff in here like I knew what I was talking about.


In the last four years McCain has been to Iraq 14 times.
He was early on calling for Rumsfeld to be fired.
When Bush, Cheney and 90% of the GOP was behind them.

Obama has been in the Senate since 2004 and he never went to Iraq once?
That is a bit odd. When he wants to build his campaign around it?

How many times do you think Biden has gone?

And the others.

I was wrong about the surge, my dislike Bush/Cheney did not even let me consider it objectivly.

Obama was wrong.



This was a chief complaint on mine against W.

He had never traveled out of the U S.

Gore was much more ready to be President in 2000.





.

 

[mobvok]

See, here's the thing; You are attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that he had little experience. I think that is the wrong thing to attribute it to. I think you should be attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that Bush was at best of average intelligence(I think he's a moron), that he had an amount of arrogance that was disproportionate to his (lack of) intelligence, that he believed in the stupid, simple, ineffective 'cowboy justice' school of thought, that he surrounded himself with people like Cheany who was entirely to connected to the oil industry to be in such a position of political power, and that he just was not a very thoughtful, insightful, person. Among other things.

I don't care about Obama's lack of experience. I think Obama is a highly, HIGHLY intelligent person, that views the world in far more complex terms than Bush does, that he will surround himself with far, far, far, far, far more qualified and capable and well-intentioned people than Bush has(Biden is a tremendous start already), and I think he is a very thoughtful, insightful person, I think the way he thinks about things is very cool-headed, very rational, very thoughtful. I think the way he has run his campaign speaks volumes about his ability to run a business(let's face it, a presidential campaign is a business) in an effective, responsible, and successful way. I think his judgement has been entirely sound thus far.

All of this considered, I think a huge, HUGE, incorrect generalization to say that, hey, George Bush was inexperienced and he's been awful, and therefore, anyone who doesn't have 30 years of experience is going to be a bad president. I think that's just simplistic, flawed logic, and I don't think it reflects reality.

I think it's simply that, beyond the bad policies, Bush simply had terrible judgment in picking people and/or knowing when they were finished. Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Brown, whoever the fuck thought it was a good idea to staff the Coalition Provisional Authority tasked with rebuilding Iraq with 2000-era staff campaign workers. I'm biased so I think Republican Presidents are usually worse then Democratic ones, but the Special Sauce, the Critical Difference if you would separating a George H.W from a George W. is that W picked the wrong people, AND stuck with them too long.

It's not a very sexy idea, but I think given the enormous stretch of the Executive Branch one of the biggest things is just picking good people to staff the government. With efficacy, we don't need inspirational speeches or decades of experience in a POTUS, so much as someone who knows how to put qualified people into their best spots. The ship of state will at least be sound. I think that's the CEO model, in a way. Although an MBA didn't really help Bush.

 

[deep]

See, here's the thing; You are attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that he had little experience. I think that is the wrong thing to attribute it to. I think you should be attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that Bush was at best of average intelligence(I think he's a moron), that he had an amount of arrogance that was disproportionate to his (lack of) intelligence, that he believed in the stupid, simple, ineffective 'cowboy justice' school of thought, that he surrounded himself with either unqualified or ill-intentioned people(like Mr. Brown, or like Cheany who was entirely too connected to the oil industry to be in such a position of political power), and that he just was not a very thoughtful, insightful, person at all. Among other things.

I don't care about Obama's lack of experience. I think Obama is a highly, HIGHLY intelligent person, that views the world in far more complex terms than Bush does, that he will surround himself with far, far, far, far, far more qualified and capable and well-intentioned people than Bush has(Biden is a tremendous start already), and I think he is a very thoughtful, insightful person, I think the way he thinks about things is very cool-headed, very rational, very thoughtful. I think the way he has run his campaign speaks volumes about his ability to run a business(let's face it, a presidential campaign is a business) in an effective, responsible, and successful way. I think his judgement has been entirely sound thus far.

All of this considered, I think it's a huge, HUGE, incorrect generalization to say that, hey, George Bush was inexperienced and he's been awful, and therefore, anyone who doesn't have 30 years of experience is going to be a bad president. I think that's just simplistic, flawed logic, and I don't think it reflects reality.

The constitution has age requirements for Congress, Senate and Presidency.


25 Congress

30 Senate

and

35 President.

These were set in the 1700s.




At 21 one is an adult.

Why is that not the age requirement.

It must be because they thought 'experience' was important.



and yes W is not very smart, the alcohol and drugs make have taken a toll, Jeb seems o k.

I also think Obama is fairly intelligent, too. I think he is a gifted politician.

I don't agree that he has always exercised perfect judgement.
But, he has not show terrible judgement like Bush/ Cheney.

The worst thing I have said about Obama is that I think he would he a very good candidate in 2012, 2016 or 2020. I said I would even expect to vote for him with some decent work demonstrated in the Senate.

 

[namkcuR]

The constitution has age requirements for Congress, Senate and Presidency.


25 Congress

30 Senate

and

35 President.

These were set in the 1700s.




At 21 one is an adult.

Why is that not the age requirement.

It must be because they thought 'experience' was important.



and yes W is not very smart, the alcohol and drugs make have taken a toll, Jeb seems o k.

I also think Obama is fairly intelligent, too. I think he is a gifted politician.

I don't agree that he has always exercised perfect judgement.
But, he has not show terrible judgement like Bush/ Cheney.

The worst thing I have said about Obama is that I think he would he a very good candidate in 2012, 2016 or 2020. I said I would even expect to vote for him with some decent work demonstrated in the Senate.

See, the last line of your post illustrates the fundamental disagreement that we have. You think he would be a better candidate in 4, 8, or 12 years. I think that in 4, and especially 8 or 12 years, he would 4, 8, or 12 years more cynical, more jaded. What makes his campaign now so special is precisely the fact that he is young, and relatively unjaded, and he truly BELIEVES in the message of hope and change he is spreading. That's what makes it special. In 4/8/12 years, he may very well not believe it as much, and if he doesn't believe it, no one else will, and the magic will be gone, the inspiration will be gone. It is precisely the fact that he DIDN'T wait 4/8/12 more years before trying this that makes the whole thing so special. Millions and millions and millions of people have voted for him not because of a term or two of being governor or because of a reputation crafted over a decade or more, they have voted for him because he has inspired them all in a very short period of time, has made them care, has given them hope in a time when there was little to be had in the political world. That magic would be gone in 8 years, in 12 years because he WON'T BE this young, fresh, unjaded, inspirational, etc. by then. We disagree on this.

 

[deep]

I would gamble on an inexperienced Senator of even Governor.

We have that now here in CA with Arnold Schwarzenegger

And they had it with Jesse Ventura in Minn

there is only so much damage they can do.


I don't care about Obama's age. He is 47. I would not care if he was 39 or 40.

There have been 12 other nominees that were younger than Obama.

Bill Clinton was two years younger than Obama is now in 1992.


For a President to be successful and effective he has to know how to get things done. What is possible, what is not. He needs to have relationships with legislators to get anything passed or appointments approved

The Apprentice is fun to watch.
I just don't want it filmed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Bill Clinton gave a fantastic speech-the bastard just has it, in spades.

 

[Dalton]

I can't wait for Obama's speech tonight. My only question is: I understand how they will simulate the sound of thunder, but how do you think they're going to get that dove to land on his shoulder?

 

[melon]

The Apprentice is fun to watch.
I just don't want it filmed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Kenneth Lay had buckets full of experience coming out of his ears when he ran Enron.

I guess if you want a militaristic old man who will further the Republican "War on Everything," then McCain is your man.

 

[Irvine511]

See, here's the thing; You are attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that he had little experience. I think that is the wrong thing to attribute it to. I think you should be attributing the devastating consequences to the fact that Bush was at best of average intelligence(I think he's a moron), that he had an amount of arrogance that was disproportionate to his (lack of) intelligence, that he believed in the stupid, simple, ineffective 'cowboy justice' school of thought, that he surrounded himself with either unqualified or ill-intentioned people(like Mr. Brown, or like Cheany who was entirely too connected to the oil industry to be in such a position of political power), and that he just was not a very thoughtful, insightful, person at all. Among other things.

I don't care about Obama's lack of experience. I think Obama is a highly, HIGHLY intelligent person, that views the world in far more complex terms than Bush does, that he will surround himself with far, far, far, far, far more qualified and capable and well-intentioned people than Bush has(Biden is a tremendous start already), and I think he is a very thoughtful, insightful person, I think the way he thinks about things is very cool-headed, very rational, very thoughtful. I think the way he has run his campaign speaks volumes about his ability to run a business(let's face it, a presidential campaign is a business) in an effective, responsible, and successful way. I think his judgement has been entirely sound thus far.

All of this considered, I think it's a huge, HUGE, incorrect generalization to say that, hey, George Bush was inexperienced and he's been awful, and therefore, anyone who doesn't have 30 years of experience is going to be a bad president. I think that's just simplistic, flawed logic, and I don't think it reflects reality.

as i was falling asleep last night, i thought this exactly.

well said.

look at where the experience of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld got us.

 

[DrTeeth]

Also, George W. Bush has almost eight years of experience in actually being the president, and who'd still vote for him?

 

[U2isthebest]

Has anyone heard if there's going to be a tribute to Martin Luther King and/or the Civil Rights movement tonight seeing as this is the 45th anniversary of "I Have A Dream"?

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

"Sittin’ in my office with a plate of grilled bacon,
Call my man Dwight just to see what was shakin’

Yo Mike, our town is dope and pretty
So check out how we live in the Electric City!

They call it Scranton
What?
The Electric City
Scranton
What?
The Electric City

Lazy Scranton the Electric City
They call it that ’cause of the electricity

The city’s laid out from east to west
And our public parks and libraries are truly the best

Call poison control if you’re bit by a spider
But check that it’s covered by your health care provider!

Are you hungry? Well quit your whining
The new downtown has five-star dining

You lack coal mines and you wanna see ‘em,
Well, check it out, yo, the Anthracite Museum!

The dope thing to do, that’s several and counting
The illest place to go is Montage Mountain

Plenty of space in the parking lot,
But the little cars go in the compact spot
Spot, spot, spot, spot …

Snack attack time, don’t lose your head
We like Cugino’s for the tasty bread

They call it Scranton
What?
The Electric City
Scranton
What?
The Electric City
Scranton
What?
The Electric City
Scranton
What?
The Electric City"

^ That just was begging to be quoted again.

I can't wait for Obama's speech tonight. My only question is: I understand how they will simulate the sound of thunder, but how do you think they're going to get that dove to land on his shoulder?

Oh, they've had the logistics to pull that off under wraps for months.

I hope we make it home tonight in time for his speech. If not, this will be one I can bet I'll be searching for video on tomorrow.

 

[mobvok]

Link

Amid a spate of awkward on-air conflicts among MNSBC anchors at this week’s Democratic convention, some staff members say there are sharp internal disputes at the cable network over whether its opinion and personality-driven political coverage has crossed the line.

“The situation at our channel is about to blow up,” a high-ranking MSNBC journalist told Politico on Wednesday.

Two other MSNBC sources said some of the testy on-air exchanges between Keith Olbermann — whose quick-witted and often caustic commentary has fueled ratings growth — and other network personalities were a public glimpse of much more intense behind-the-scenes turmoil.

As replays of the conflicts became YouTube hits, MSNBC President Phil Griffin gave his first public defense in a Politico interview.

“MSNBC does not have an ideology,” Griffin said. “We hire smart people who are passionate about their love of politics and love of news.”

“Do I want them to have squabbles?” Griffin asked. “No. But I understand they’re human.”

In addition to Olbermann, MSNBC personalities Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and David Shuster were involved in Denver controversies.

On Monday evening, Olbermann interrupted Scarborough while he was talking about McCain being competitive in the polls. “Jesus, Joe, why don’t you get a shovel?” Olbermann remarked.

On “Morning Joe” the following day, a clearly agitated Scarborough went off on Shuster during a discussion of Iraq, which quickly devolved over several cringe-worthy minutes into personal attacks, such as Scarborough telling the world how his colleague missed the show three times by oversleeping. "Are you Rip Van Shuster?” Scarborough asked. “Have you been sleeping for the past couple of months?”

As awkward as these moments have been, holy crap you wouldn't see that on CNN with Anderson Cooper. It's given some of MSNBC's coverage a Lord of the Flies type mood, and it's been train-wreck fascinating to watch.

 

[deep]

.

Media look for conflict, but Democrats disappoint

Despite the best efforts of the television news outlets, it was a great night for Democratic television.

By Mary McNamara
Times Television Critic

August 28, 2008

Karl Rove defending Bill Clinton from a disparaging Sean Hannity; Bill Clinton telling the thousands of conventioneers chanting his name to "please stop it, please sit down," so he could anoint Barack Obama; Joe Biden honoring his white-haired mother for telling him to bloody the noses of the bullies who picked on him; Obama telling Hillary Rodham Clinton that she "rocked the house" -- despite the best efforts of the television news outlets, it was a great night for Democratic television. Specifically, it was all so well planned, you almost couldn't believe it was the Democrats.

Since the party's primaries began, the media have tried to call the election long before the polls even opened, much less closed. They hit a fever pitch in Denver, where cable commentators desperate to fill news hours with anything but what was actually happening talked themselves hoarse prognosticating. James Carville carped that the Democrats weren't taking big enough swings at John McCain, Chris Matthews fretted about wounds that would not heal, Brit Hume dampened whatever enthusiasm he witnessed.

Meanwhile, in the Pepsi Center, a convention of admirable orchestration has been taking place. Long considered something of a spoiler, Hillary Clinton pledged herself and her supporters to Obama and managed to look terrific wearing an orange pantsuit. Wednesday night, Bill Clinton arrived to a seemingly uncontrollable ovation (so much for the boos predicted by many pundits), spit in the Republican Party's eye and answered the is-Obama-experienced question by noting that the same criticism was leveled at him and it seemed to turn out all right. Biden passionately outlined the goals of an Obama-Biden administration and then, as if he could not bear to stay away from such a great party, Obama himself arrived, a day ahead of schedule.

Yes, it would have been nice if any of the networks besides PBS had chosen to run John F. Kerry's speech rather than endless analysis of Bill Clinton's speech, but I guess we can't have everything. We'll just have to settle for Karl praising Bill on Fox News for so clearly articulating the goals of his party. And really, that's enough for one lifetime.

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, it would have been nice if any of the networks besides PBS had chosen to run John F. Kerry's speech rather than endless analysis of Bill Clinton's speech, but I guess we can't have everything.

if Kerry had given a similar speech in 2004, we'd be watching his re-election campaign right now.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I am currently leaning towards, McCain, barely.
I learned in 2000 that when the American people gamble on someone with little experience
it can have devastating consequences.

Say what you want, but you are making the simplistic comparison here that only experience counts. Bush little experience and Obama little experience is with this logic applied an equal outcome.

Far too simplistic in my eyes.

 

[deep]

How good will Obama be tonight?


Will he bring Biden on stage?

Michelle, Biden and Wife + kids?


The Clintons?

Will Bill even be there?

any other surprises ?

Will MLK jr family be on stage ?

Has anyone seen Jesse Jackson at the convention ????????

 

[Dreadsox]

if Kerry had given a similar speech in 2004, we'd be watching his re-election campaign right now.

To quote my wife, "Why didn't he speak like that in 2004?"

My response, "Maybe he needed the botox."

 

[deep]

Indy (pedent?) Barack and his Temple of ......













Change

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

How good will Obama be tonight?


Will he bring Biden on stage?

Michelle, Biden and Wife + kids?


The Clintons?

Will Bill even be there?

any other surprises ?

Will MLK jr family be on stage ?

Has anyone seen Jesse Jackson at the convention ????????

maybe he can bring bono on stage and they can duet on you don't bring me flowers.

 

[Lila64]

followed by ebony & ivory?

 

[deep]

followed by ebony & ivory?

Obama can sing that one solo

 

[Diane L]

They just showed delegates swaying and dancing to the sounds of "Beautiful Day" at Mile-High Stadium. That sight made me happy.

Two of my three passions, represented on the TV screen: U2 and Democratic politics. (The third is Second Life)

 

[anitram]

Has anyone seen Jesse Jackson at the convention ????????

Yeah, he's there. He was all over the teevee today talking about his meeting with Biden earlier.

 

[Strongbow]

if Kerry had given a similar speech in 2004, we'd be watching his re-election campaign right now.

It would have taken a lot more than a speech at a convention for Kerry to have won in 2004.

 

[A_Wanderer]

DENVER — Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air.

“WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears,” Obama’s campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. “He’s currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.”

Kurtz, a conservative writer, recently wrote an article for the National Review that looked at Obama’s ties to Ayers, a former 1960s radical who later emerged as a school reform advocate in Chicago.

The magazine had been blocked in its initial attempts to obtain records from the University of Illinois at Chicago regarding a school reform initiative called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Obama chaired and Ayers co-founded. Obama critics were quick to suggest that political clout could be involved in seeking to protect Obama from embarrassment. The school later reversed its position and made the records available Tuesday.

On Wednesday evening, Obama’s campaign urged supporters to call the radio station to complain. “Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse,” the note said.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves,” the note continued. “At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz’s lies.”

Obama campaign confronts WGN radio: The Swamp

The media really should know better and stay on message.