quote:One of your primary functions on these boards seems to be defending the indefensible actions of conservatives.
I wish you'd said something so silly and obviously untrue earlier, Paul. It would've cued the 'stop listening' switch.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's in my brain, the part that listens for ridiculous rants and then ignores them.
It's easy to pretend Dagonee is some apologist partisan hack. It's not remotely true, though. It's certainly easier than pointing out specifically when it happens why he is supposedly such a person.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and by the way: what do you do here, Orincoro? Since you've started asserting Dagonee doesn't bring anything worthwhile to the community, I'm interested in your own value.
Shall we take a poll, perhaps?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where, by the way, is the line between excerpting and editing? They didn't excerpt the whole segment, they edited out a part of it, in fact, they edited out a part that totally changed the meaning of Stewart's joke. It's only one step up from taking 100 different words out of context to construct something wholly artificial.
If they were using it as evidence about what Stewart thinks, the two scenarios would be analogous. But they're picking one joke out of several to excerpt.
Stewart's defense during the whole crossfire thing about why HE didn't have to be responsible but crossfire did was that he's not news, he's just comedy. He's just making jokes.
Fine. So they picked one of his jokes.
If he wants to claim that he's being taken out of context and thus people are being deceived (and I haven't yet seen any indication yet that he cares one way or the other), he would first have to claim that he was actually making any point other than a funny joke.
Dammit, I just lost a whole post. Here are the highlights:
I think Stewart was way off on that Crossfire thing. He can say he doesn't care and that he's not a "real" news person all he wants, but he's part of the process, and he wields that power via jokes, whether he admits it or not. He's clearly invested in the outcome of the election and the political process, or he wouldn't spend so much time exasperated with the same process.
As for the joke, I think the Obama part of it was just the punchline, but the joke was on McCain. It might have been a tiny dig at Obama for only releasing a one page summary of his medical records, but the joke is the contrast, and it's not so strange for a relatively young healthy guy to not have that much in the way of health records, whereas 8 years of McCain's life has more than a thousand pages. The joke is on McCain. Your defense of Fox seems to hinge on Stewart's self professed lack of interest or lack of seriousness in the grand scheme of things, and that sounds like a pretty dicey place to put the crux of your argument. I think Stewart, as an iconoclast, will make fun of anyone, but I never think they are just jokes. He's making a point, even if he claims he isn't when he's in character.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I wish you'd said something so silly and obviously untrue earlier, Paul. It would've cued the 'stop listening' switch."
You mean my parody of what dagonee was saying? Yeah. I wouldn't really expect you to have noticed that. I also wouldn't have expected you to notice that he's defending the indefensible here. Its not the only time he's done it, either. Another thing I wouldn't expect you to notice.
I mean, seriously? Thinking this is responsible reporting? I guess Fox has won...
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd hope so. I heard that if you don't watch Fox the terrorists win!
The fun part of this conversation is that you're joking when you say something like that. Paul isn't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: As for the joke, I think the Obama part of it was just the punchline, but the joke was on McCain. It might have been a tiny dig at Obama for only releasing a one page summary of his medical records, but the joke is the contrast, and it's not so strange for a relatively young healthy guy to not have that much in the way of health records, whereas 8 years of McCain's life has more than a thousand pages. The joke is on McCain.
I think it's more than that, really. The excerpting changes the apparent point. It doesn't "take one of Stewart's jokes"; it takes a clip of Stewart and uses it to make a different joke.
In context, Stewart is saying "McCain's ailments are a tome, whereas Obama's ailments from a period two-and-a-half times as long can be fit on one page." Without that context, it appears as "Obama released his medical history as one page, clearly he's hiding something."
This is somewhat similar to when the ad campaign for "The Last Boyscout" turned Ebert's "...so panders to its chosen audience that it will probably be a tremendous hit" into "a tremendous hit."
The criticism of Fox here is entirely valid.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Shall we take a poll, perhaps?
Are we voting people off the island now? Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, and by the way: what do you do here, Orincoro? Since you've started asserting Dagonee doesn't bring anything worthwhile to the community, I'm interested in your own value.
Shall we take a poll, perhaps?
I don't have any specific value. I guess I was mocking Dag because I felt that he does think he has a job here, and I find that kind of silly. As I find 6th grade "everyone's coming to my birthday party except you because you stink" antics. I mean, it just reeks of desperation.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Of course not. I only made that statement in light of Orincoro's nonsense.
--------
quote:I don't have any specific value. I guess I was mocking Dag because I felt that he does think he has a job here, and I find that kind of silly. As I find 6th grade "everyone's coming to my birthday party except you because you stink" antics. I mean, it just reeks of desperation.
Because if there's one thing that characterizes Dagonee's arguments on Hatrack, it's desperation. *rolleyes*
It didn't reek of desperation, and even if Dagonee did feel like he 'has a job' here, Paul clearly does as well. And I don't see you taking shots on him. So obviously what you find amusing isn't that someone thinks they 'have a job'.
You know what reeks of desperation? "You're a liar! You're a liar!" followed by off-topic mockery.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are we voting people off the island now? [Roll Eyes]
That's the one you decide to roll your eyes at? Not the two people who took a dispute about news coverage and turned it into an attack on what I do here?
Since it seems that on this board, it's not the unfounded accusations of bad behavior but the defense against such accusations that generally draws the criticism (Rakeesh excepted), I suppose I must now answer the libel Paul has decided to post against me.
Recall the crux of his accusation: "I call out liberal idiocy and misbehavior all the time over on ornery which is where I primarily post... I wonder why you can't do that?"
I am repeatedly on record as endorsing the most "liberal" dissent in Hamdi (the one written by Scalia and joined by Stevens) which was far, far harsher on the Bush administration than even the more traditional liberal justices' opinion on the subject.
Let's see, of the Dagonee-hating triumvirate of Ornery (that would be Paul, KnightEnder, and Pete at Home), one third of that is because of my defense of the idea of civil gay marriage rights. And I KNOW you know about that one Paul.
My opinion of Libby's pardon (1) it wasn't despicable; (2) but I opposed it and think it "sucks"; and (3) that Bush's stated reasons for the commutation didn't add up.
I can't find them now,* but I've condemned enough boneheaded statements by conservatives on this board that I have been accused by them of being liberal - always good for a laugh, and pretty much the flip side of what Paul has done in this thread (blame partisanship for disagreement).
*possibly because of these individuals' penchant for thread-deleting.
Of course, I've done the same thing at Ornery with respect to cherrypoptart, for example.
This, of course, shouldn't have been necessary. Paul should have done the research to back up such a statement. Of course, I seldom use words such as "indefensible" or "idiotic" in those posts, so maybe I haven't been vehement enough to qualify by Paul's standards.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because if there's one thing that characterizes Dagonee's arguments on Hatrack, it's desperation. *rolleyes*
I'm sorry for being unclear, it was your comment I was referring to. Dag doesn't seem particularly desperate.
I don't know that I've called anyone here a liar, that I can remember. Have I? I've mocked people, sure, but I don't think I've called a lot of people liars. I could be wrong, I suppose, it just doesn't sound like something I'd say. Are you conflating my mockery with someone else's accusations?
quote: the libel Paul has decided to post against me.
Is libel the appropriate term if the person posting something false about you doesn't know your entire posting history on every topic? Also, what part of what Paul wrote wasn't opinion, but stated fact?
I just want to know your reasons for such strong language. It would be unfair to bully people with claims of libel if that isn't what it is.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry for being unclear, it was your comment I was referring to. Dag doesn't seem particularly desperate.
I...that's...*sputter*
------
No, wait, actually: you're still an ass! At least in this thread, lately. Whew, that was close! You almost zinged me good there, Orincoro!
quote:You do this board a service. I don't know what it is, but hey.
OH thaaaaattttsss what you do here. Well then. Ok.
Talk to me more about sixth-grade stuff, Orincoro. It's really savvy and sophisticated when you do! Jackass.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there's a drinking fountain RIGHT IN the room! And you get to read "The Giver," which is a good book about a boy who has to share the memories of the whole village because they live in "sameness." I won't ruin it for you.
And then at 10:15 you get a WHOLE HOUR of PE. We play Pinball, which is like dodge ball, but with pins! I get to work on the yearbook this year. I usually eat in the courtyard and play basketball. I have about a million friends, and everybody likes me. The only thing I don't like is math. Math sucks! We have to do 30 problems a day. That's like a million problems almost!
What do you have to read at your school?
Pen Pals for Life Ori
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
And finally Kristol pushes Lieberman as McCain VP - I'm not so sure about this one. I think McCain has had enough trouble winning over social conservatives, and picking a pro-choice independent would douse the ticket just as they're warming up to him.
posted
I think McCain actually is going to have a hard time picking his vp. Social conservatives seem barely on his side, high probability of them just sitting the election out. So, he really needs someone to appeal to them. BUT, then he risks alienating the independents, who are getting a bit more iffy about him as he has been hitting party lines more frequently.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are we voting people off the island now? [Roll Eyes]
That's the one you decide to roll your eyes at? Not the two people who took a dispute about news coverage and turned it into an attack on what I do here?
Yes, Dag, it is, but let me explain why.
When someone implies something like "if it came down to a vote, the board would choose to get rid of you," that's bullying and threatening, and it essentially puts words into the mouth of a lot of people. Some of those people might agree, some of them would probably disagree, but I suspect a lot of them would just as soon stay out of it, finding the whole thing kind of petty and childish. Very little here ever actually "comes down to a poll" here on Hatrack, but when anyone presumes to have the weight of public opinion behind them, it grinds my teeth.
Secondly, that you are clearly not a completely partisan political shill is so transparently obvious that it seems, to me at least, that allowing those who make that allegation to hang themselves with little more than a flat denial is all that's necessary. If we could occasionally go without these three-page shoving matches where everyone insists on getting the last word, there would probably be more discussion and less "This subject is up to how many pages since I last checked? Oh, great. I think I'm going to go elsewhere while those four people hash things out." Far from disputing the point being made, it just keeps it in the forefront for longer and lends it an air of worthiness for discussion when it might have just been dismissed as ridiculous.
How do I put this...
Your rhetorical skills are such that those who back you often come across as bravely putting up their slingshots in defense of a tank from slightly behind said tank. I do not feel that you need my opinion for validation. For what it's worth, though we often disagree politically, I would never describe your opinion as nothing more than political partisanship, or suggest it is without value, or that your presence at Hatrack isn't worthwhile. It's not, it is of value, and it is worthwhile.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think McCain has had enough trouble winning over social conservatives, and picking a pro-choice independent would douse the ticket just as they're warming up to him.
Well, my political hopes were pretty doused when Obama picked Biden; it's only fair that Republicans suffer the same way.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think Stewart was way off on that Crossfire thing. He can say he doesn't care and that he's not a "real" news person all he wants, but he's part of the process, and he wields that power via jokes, whether he admits it or not. He's clearly invested in the outcome of the election and the political process, or he wouldn't spend so much time exasperated with the same process.
I don't think the point was that he doesn't care and doesn't have to because he runs a comedy show. To me, I thought it was that The Daily Show and shows like Crossfire are pretty much in the same business. The Daily Show is primarily for entertainment and, what he said at the time was right. They come on right after a bunch of puppets making crank calls.
When you've got a bunch of "news" shows that are on the same level as that - or even lower, that's the problem. The Daily Show shouldn't be the program whose viewers are the most well informed.
Consider, what really is the difference between the Colbert Report and The O'Reilly Factor? What's the difference between The Daily Show and most national news shows?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll admit, I was confusing Sen Biden with Sen Dodd. I wasn't sure why people were so down on him. Now, I sort of get it.
I changed my registration to Democrat in order to vote for Sen Obama in the primaries. He's been disappointing me ever since.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Secondly, that you are clearly not a completely partisan political shill is so transparently obvious that it seems, to me at least, that allowing those who make that allegation to hang themselves with little more than a flat denial is all that's necessary. If we could occasionally go without these three-page shoving matches where everyone insists on getting the last word, there would probably be more discussion and less "This subject is up to how many pages since I last checked? Oh, great. I think I'm going to go elsewhere while those four people hash things out."
I completely agree.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Consider, what really is the difference between the Colbert Report and The O'Reilly Factor? What's the difference between The Daily Show and most national news shows?
The Daily show and Colbert Report are in a position where they maintain viewership through conscientious attention to what is really motivating people. They, unlike the mainstream news, are capable of challenging dishonesty and falsehood in the face of its own obvious ridiculousness. And unlike other opinion shows, say the O'Reilly Factor, they don't fall victim that often to their own kind of barb, because they, imo, are doing it all for the sake of their viewers, and not themselves. In a word, they are honest.
That's not something you'd have an easy time saying about Michael Moore, or Bil O'Reilly.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it interesting that so many Conservative and Republican spokesmen are predicting and promoting an Anti-Obama Hillary Loyal backlash while I've yet to hear of an Anti-McCain Huckabee Loyal backlash, or Mitt Romney, or Paul-ists from the Democrat/Liberal end of the field.
Is this A)because they know something we don't? I've seen no sign of it other than their Casandra impersonations. B) because the Democrats don't want to stoop that low? I've seem them stoop low on other things. C) because the Democrats aren't smart enough to play this card? Unless it doesn't pan out. D) the Republicans are more desparate and will try for anything? E) The Democrats are know to be less loyal and more self destructive. F) Something I don't know and haven't guessed yet.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
McCain's VP pick is going to be easy and hard at the same time. He has a much smaller pool of potential picks, and I think their negatives and positives are far more well known. I think he has to have it narrowed down to two or three choices, with Romney being on top, with maybe Pawlenty and Kay Bailey Hutchinson somewhere in the wings.
quote:When you've got a bunch of "news" shows that are on the same level as that - or even lower, that's the problem. The Daily Show shouldn't be the program whose viewers are the most well informed.
Maybe they shouldn't be, but they're just as, if not better, informed as people who watch CNN, MSNBC and other "news" channels. And by the way, I think CNN and the others are just there for entertainment purposes as well, not just shows like Crossfire or the O'Reilley Factor, I mean in general.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Daily Show viewers have to be better informed or they won't get all the jokes. It's self-selecting.
Whereas to really appreciate most of the other news shows, it's better if you don't know as much. Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I think Stewart was way off on that Crossfire thing. He can say he doesn't care and that he's not a "real" news person all he wants, but he's part of the process, and he wields that power via jokes, whether he admits it or not. He's clearly invested in the outcome of the election and the political process, or he wouldn't spend so much time exasperated with the same process.
I don't think the point was that he doesn't care and doesn't have to because he runs a comedy show. To me, I thought it was that The Daily Show and shows like Crossfire are pretty much in the same business. The Daily Show is primarily for entertainment and, what he said at the time was right. They come on right after a bunch of puppets making crank calls.
When you've got a bunch of "news" shows that are on the same level as that - or even lower, that's the problem. The Daily Show shouldn't be the program whose viewers are the most well informed.
Consider, what really is the difference between the Colbert Report and The O'Reilly Factor? What's the difference between The Daily Show and most national news shows?
posted
Anyone watch the first night of the Convention? I caught most of Michelle's speech and liked what I heard. I think her job was promoting the Obama values and repackaging the Obama brand as an everyman. They can save the attack dog stuff for Biden, and the Clintons. I think she did a great job. I missed most of the rest, but I'll probably go back and read what Kennedy had to say.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh man, she knocked it out of the park. she was genuine, funny, honest, refreshingly real...i'd like to see the beer heiress top that Posts: 1 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Turns out that Barack is not the best public speaker in the Obama family.
We'll see how he does but, I tend to agree. I think his pauses during off the cuff responses are a little jarring because it breaks up the flow of his answers. On the other hand, his soaring rhetorical style is full of ups and downs when he gives prerehearsed speeches. It's a great tactic when you're trying to whip up the energy level of a crowd or appear transcendent.
Michelle on the other hand is more like a fast flowing stream. It's a constant, steady stream of powerful but smooth sentences that flow out of her. She's a powerful speaker who is clear and easy to understand without looking like she's above the fray. She sounds like she could be someone you know. I think she'll be pretty tremendous in this upcoming General Election and I think she'd make a fantastic first lady. I found her to be surprisingly compelling.
I don't know how good a speaker Cindy McCain is, because she's taken more of a Laura Bush role, but I'll be surprised if she's nearly as good.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Consider, what really is the difference between the Colbert Report and The O'Reilly Factor? What's the difference between The Daily Show and most national news shows?
I'm inclined to say that, because they don't have to aspire to journalistic integrity (whatever that means, nowadays), they can actually put two and two together. Rather than saying "New bombings in Iraq, diplomatic strife with Iran, Taliban back on the rise in Afghanistan", they can say "As demonstrated by xyz, America has a history of interventions in the Middle East with grotesque, unintended consequences (only, of course, they say it in a much funnier way.)
Arguably, O'Reilly (and many of the Fox team) connect the dots as well, but they tend to do it in a "do you see the truth of what we're saying, or is there something wrong with you" fashion, while Colbert and Stewart are more of a "You do realize that, by laughing, you're recognizing some validity in what we're saying?..."
Which may well be why Fox would like to filch a little of Stewart's mojo.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: McCain's VP pick is going to be easy and hard at the same time. He has a much smaller pool of potential picks, and I think their negatives and positives are far more well known. I think he has to have it narrowed down to two or three choices, with Romney being on top, with maybe Pawlenty and Kay Bailey Hutchinson somewhere in the wings.
Between his advancing age and the increasing suggestion of McCain's lack of stamina and easy confusion, I can't help but wonder if McCain's VP pick isn't going to be viewed more stringently than Obama's. Obama's VP fills in the gaps in his record; McCain's may be the shadow president.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by flyonwall: Oh man, she knocked it out of the park. she was genuine, funny, honest, refreshingly real...i'd like to see the beer heiress top that
Enter the low level campaign volunteer?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Between his advancing age and the increasing suggestion of McCain's lack of stamina and easy confusion, I can't help but wonder if McCain's VP pick isn't going to be viewed more stringently than Obama's. Obama's VP fills in the gaps in his record; McCain's may be the shadow president.
Or the actual president, if health concerns for McCain turn out to be valid. I think his medical condition will be a much larger concern for a lot of people, and the thought of his VP taking over will be a lot more on their minds (and Obama's ad campaigns) than the other way around. He'll have to be careful. He can't risk the balancing act that Obama is doing. He needs a young, capable conservative for his VP running mate, which I think narrows the field a bit more.
Orincoro -
Shame on you, that's not how we welcome newcomers. Besides, maybe it's really Michelle Obama in disguise!
Welcome fly, what brings you to Hatrack?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
When someone implies something like "if it came down to a vote, the board would choose to get rid of you," that's bullying and threatening, and it essentially puts words into the mouth of a lot of people.
That's one way to put it. As for me, the guy who actually said it, I say it was neither bullying nor threatening, it was responding in kind to a very similar stance taken by Orincoro, one which amounted to saying, "What're you good for around here, anyway?"
quote:...but when anyone presumes to have the weight of public opinion behind them, it grinds my teeth.
Me too.
quote: Secondly, that you are clearly not a completely partisan political shill is so transparently obvious that it seems, to me at least, that allowing those who make that allegation to hang themselves with little more than a flat denial is all that's necessary.
*shrug* It's far from transparently obvious to everyone, or even always for that matter. It's a claim that's been made several times by several people over a long period.
quote:
Your rhetorical skills are such that those who back you often come across as bravely putting up their slingshots in defense of a tank from slightly behind said tank. I do not feel that you need my opinion for validation.
*shrug* As for me, I don't think I lend any rhetorical or logical defense when I posted recently in this thread. I just think Dagonee's a pretty spiffy guy who doesn't deserve the bile spewed at him by some, and when I get especially tired of it, and notice it, I say so. Look at my post count in this thread. I'm clearly not interested in scoring points for myself as far as these discussions go, otherwise I'd be more active.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We'll see how he does but, I tend to agree. I think his pauses during off the cuff responses are a little jarring because it breaks up the flow of his answers. On the other hand, his soaring rhetorical style is full of ups and downs when he gives prerehearsed speeches. It's a great tactic when you're trying to whip up the energy level of a crowd or appear transcendent.
I read somewhere, but can't for the life of me remember where, that Senator Obama overcame a severe stuttering problem as a child.
edit to add: I remember this from back when he was running for Senate so I don't think I am getting him confused with Senator Biden who, I think stuttered as well.
posted
I don't like the "One Nation" theme, especially in a campaign that's not known for tolerance and diversity, and where the unifying principle is "Obama for President" or the vaguely loaded concept of Change.
What kind of change? Change for the better, of course.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Between his advancing age and the increasing suggestion of McCain's lack of stamina and easy confusion, I can't help but wonder if McCain's VP pick isn't going to be viewed more stringently than Obama's. Obama's VP fills in the gaps in his record; McCain's may be the shadow president.
Or the actual president, if health concerns for McCain turn out to be valid. I think his medical condition will be a much larger concern for a lot of people, and the thought of his VP taking over will be a lot more on their minds (and Obama's ad campaigns) than the other way around...
Biden may be thought of along these lines if stories like this start breaking... As sad as it is, I think they might continue.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Michelle Obama, I wanted her to get this ethic:
quote:The child of Marian and Fraser Robinson, a stay-at-home mother and a city pump operator, Michelle was raised in a close-knit family that ate every meal together, played Monopoly and read together. "Nobody emphasized public service. What was emphasized was doing what you love to do and you'll be good at whatever you do," says Craig Robinson, Michelle's brother, who left his banking job after a decade to coach college basketball.
Here you have a family that's held up as an exemplary model of the noble American working class ethic where nobody emphasized public service. There is a complicated situation. This is the America we need to understand and address because I believe there are deeply compelling and problematic issues at play.
I thought Kucinich's speech was simply fantastic. Incredibly rousing...I didn't know he could do that.
I also though Brian Schweitzer's speech was really powerful. I think I missed the beginning of it, but I liked that he focused so much on energy independence.
I missed Warner's so I'll have to go find that now and listen.
I thought Hilary did a good job of getting the point across. I think she could've been a bit more forceful though. She definitely made the case against McCain, and that's good. But I would've like to see her express real frustration and disappointment with supporters of hers who say they'll vote for McCain. Really drive home the point that that would be an extremely counterproductive move. Which she did to a certain degree. I guess as an Obama supporter I can't really speak for how her speech affected the Hilary supporters, but I'd love to find out.
I think in all the night went really well. Some quality speeches, some good anti McCain rhetoric, and some nice pro Obama rallying. I'm very curious to see what kind of bounce Obama gets after this week.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only heard part of one speech (Ohio governor, I think), but it was very off-putting. I'm not interested in hearing school-boy taunts of The Other Guy in the place of an actual plan of action.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I agree with you, but after Monday night all the commentary was on how the Democrats "wasted" the first night by being too soft on McCain/the GOP, and that that's why they've lost in the past, that they give reasoned and balanced speeches and then the Republicans go out and attack. I don't know how much I believe that is really the reason people vote the way they do, but it is certainly the conventional wisdom, that you can't win by taking about your actual plans.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
At least in this thread, lately. Whew, that was close! You almost zinged me good there, Orincoro!![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Besides, maybe it's really Michelle Obama in disguise!
