Democratic National Convention Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I liked the "Twin Cities" line.

I also notice the abscence of any evidence like the "Hillary will sabotage the election because she's waiting for 2012" bullshiters were spewing.
 
I liked the "Twin Cities" line.

I also notice the abscence of any evidence like the "Hillary will sabotage the election because she's waiting for 2012" bullshiters were spewing.

it is very subtle (someone in advertising told me )

she is hitting it out of the ballpark on purpose !!
so Dems will prefer her over Obama

if she really supported Obama, she would reel it in, a bit.
 
Kieth Oberman is wetting himself in compliments

that sack, Matthews is grudgenly saying it was good, too.

He just said, the speech was Presidential.
 
I have said it here before, more than once, that Matthews is a gigantic douchebag. The comments he made with respect to Hillary were incredibly sexist all throughout the primary, and I don't understand why so many people like him.
 
I wish Keith wasn't such a Democratic homer. Oh well, maybe they'll shut up about their inane Clintonian conspiracy theories now. Watching coverage during the day, Matthews and Olbermann kept talking about the Secret Plan B for 2012 and jamming it into any talk about Hillary.
 
That's the angle, deep, you're a god damned genius!

She's trying to instill buyers remorse!!!!
Of course.

How long before this pops up on DailyKos?
 
If she reeeeaaaly wanted Obama, she would have surprised the crowd and called Michelle O to the stage and said something to the effect:

"Let it be understood, I support this lady's husband for President and I will be voting for him and supporting them both as they serve in the White House for the next 4 years, are you with us or against us"?

Other than that it was an electrifying speech, but needed to be cut about 10 minutes earlier-she went into Hilary mode towards the end.

<>
 
The Twin Cities line was classic.:lol:
I thought Hillary gave exactly the speech she needed to give. She was sincere, she was clear about exactly where she stands and what needs to be done in the coming months. The most important part of the whole thing was when she asked her supporters, and I'm paraphrasing, if they were only in the election for her, or if they were in it for the future of their children/grandchildren; therefore the future of our nation. Those who thought the speech would be a woe-is-me, half-hearted attempt to make herself look good; while only biding her time until 2012, were very wrong. I knew she wouldn't do something like that. That's not Hillary Clinton. Her ego may have gotten the better of her during the campaign, and I think that's at least part of the reason she lost. However, when push came to shove, I knew that she'd do nothing but fully support the Obama campaign. The Clintons might have a big sense of entitlement, but I think their sense of the common good of the American people is much greater. Hillary Clinton will always be one of my biggest role models for the type of woman I want to be (as Michelle Obama is quickly becoming), and I can honestly say that I have never been as proud of her as I am tonight. She accepted her loss of this nomination with grace and dignity, and she showed why she deserved to make it far as she did. Now, I'm really looking forward to Bill's speech tomorrow night, along with Joe Biden's.
 
Deep, Impressive and Gov. Patrick...not two words I hear a lot around here! He is close with Barack. So much so that they shared an entire speech...word for word. Deval just forgot to mention it wasn't his when he gave it. He also has had ties to questionable subprime lending agencies. He is articulate, but also fairly ineffective. That seems to be the consensus even within the party in MA.
 
Yeah, I saw that earlier on Olbermannwatch. I wish I had words for how much I dislike Olbermann and for how much of an idiot he is. It's indescribable.

You know what? I was going to argue this with you, but I think it would be kind of pointless. Clearly the MSNBC crew makes you feel the way the FOXNEWS crew makes me feel. I watch Bill O'Reilly, Britt Hume, et al and invariably come away feeling pissed off towards them and disbelieving that anyone could take them seriously. I suspect you feel the same way after watching the MSNBC crew. I just think it's about a disagreement of ideologies. You are conservative, so of course the MSNBC crew is going to piss you off. I am very liberal, so of course FOXNEWS is going to piss me off.

The only thing is, you can dislike Olbermann all you want, that's a subjective thing, but he's no idiot. He always comes across as a very articulate, very intelligent man. Is he unabashedly leftist? Of course. Does he dislike conservative republican ideology intensely? Of course. Does he make any secret of that, or make any pretense otherwise? No. You can disagree with him strongly on most things, that's fine, but that does not make him an idiot.

And by the way, just in case you're thinking Olbermann or Matthews is the biggest uber-liberal on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow is probably further left than either of them.
 
Rachel Maddow is wonderfully articulate, and it is really nice to see that an openly out lesbian is going to be given her own primetime show without it being a major deal and the world coming to an end.
 
The only thing is, you can dislike Olbermann all you want, that's a subjective thing, but he's no idiot. He always comes across as a very articulate, very intelligent man.


Really, the hysterical, over the top rant at Hillary a couple of months back was not articulate or intelligent at all.
 
Hillary was good. at times, quite good.

she could have done more. she never said she was wrong about some of the judgments she "made."

but then, Hillary doesn't admit mistakes. like authorizing desert adventures.

a mistake that, had owned up to it, we'd be now anticipating her speech this Thursday.

the MSNBC hate is comical coming from Fox adorists.

that said, on the whole, very well done by Hillary. she kept it about her, because that's what Clinton's do. and, sadly, the mainstream media will pounce on that because psychodramatics are more interesting than substance.

the speech itself was outstanding, and gosh, she's improved since she began making political speeches in 2000. there's still work to be done.
 
I have said it here before, more than once, that Matthews is a gigantic douchebag. The comments he made with respect to Hillary were incredibly sexist all throughout the primary, and I don't understand why so many people like him.



i find his enthusiasm for the mechanics of politics extremely engaging. he's like a sports broadcaster. i also hear he's a great guy in person. :shrug:

i can understand how some viewed his comments on Hillary to be sexist.
 
i can understand how some viewed his comments on Hillary to be sexist.

He called her "witchy", a "She Devil", "Nurse Ratched."

He also said that "[T]he reason she's a U.S. Senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit."

"Some" view the comments to be sexist? How sad.
 
He called her "witchy", a "She Devil", "Nurse Ratched."

He also said that "[T]he reason she's a U.S. Senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit."

"Some" view the comments to be sexist? How sad.



it is a fact that no one has benefited more from nepotism in politics other than maybe Bush Jr.

that said, the reason i qualified it, was because i really haven't heard Matthews' comments on her. i've read them, i've heard people complain about them, thus, i can understand why some feel that way. because i didn't hear them, i'm not going to offer my own observations because i haven't made any.
 
Given that he ended up apologizing I imagine either he realized he was out of line, or the network made him, both of which are fine in my eyes.

I love how CNN puts on Republicans every night to get their reaction as if it matters one damn iota what they think.
 
I can't stand either the 'MSNBC crew' or the 'FOX crew', from what I've seen. :shrug: For pretty much the same reasons, which have nothing to do with politics--the histrionics, the shit-stirring psychodrama, the endless self-absorption, the pathetic lack of professionalism, etc. etc. etc.

But, I agree that overreliance on "idiot," "moron" and the like can get tiresome pretty quickly. If you want to hit your targets, might as well take the time to select the right arrows for the job and aim them properly.
 
it is a fact ?

because she is obviously just as terrible and incompetent a Senator as W is a President

good, sound objective reasoning :up:




swing and a miss ...

go back and read the Matthews quote that i was addressing. in no way was this a judgment on her career, nor was it even a judgment on Bush's career.

it was to say that neither of them would be where they are without the benefit of nepotism.

thank you, come again.
 
I can't stand either the 'MSNBC crew' or the 'FOX crew', from what I've seen. :shrug: For pretty much the same reasons, which have nothing to do with politics--the histrionics, the shit-stirring psychodrama, the endless self-absorption, the pathetic lack of professionalism, etc. etc. etc.

But, I agree that overreliance on "idiot," "moron" and the like can get tiresome pretty quickly. If you want to hit your targets, might as well take the time to select the right arrows for the job and aim them properly.

I don't see histrionics or shit-stirring. I am tired of people expecting journalists to just sit there and be all controlled and professional and 1000% objective. Passion makes it so much better.

And anyone who reaches the top of their profession - ANY profession - is going to have an ego and be self-absorbed. That's just the way it is. It's human nature.

My two cents.
 
I am not American, and so perhaps it is not my place to say it but this:-




...strikes me as at best simplistic, at worst an advocation to censor out pretty much any critique of Obama's experience.

It is a simple fact that Obama is less experienced than most recent US Presidential candidates. I personally STILL think he is a better candidate than McCain - but let's get real here, his political experience is really quite limited.



thanks for reading and responding to a post that i put some actual time and effort into.

i do appreciate it.
 
swing and a miss ...

go back and read the Matthews quote that i was addressing. in no way was this a judgment on her career, nor was it even a judgment on Bush's career.

it was to say that neither of them would be where they are without the benefit of nepotism.

thank you, come again.




Nepotism is when someone is appointed or given a job because of friendship or family relationships.


When JFK appointed RFK Attorney General,
a case of nepotism might stand up.

In 2000 Hillary was a competent campaigner. She earned her votes.

When Elizabeth Dole was appointed as Ambassador, nepotism, perhaps.

When she wins an election for Senate, not nepotism.


There is a lot of nepotism within the Bush Administration, with appointments to many important positions based on friendships and even family relationships.


If you are going to list people that use a family members name to help them get elected as an excuse to complain.

Than you should put Edward Kennedy and the whole Kennedy clan way ahead of Hillary for taking advantage of a family member's name.
 
Back
Top Bottom