The 2008 Democrat Convention

I'm not watching, Yet anyway (that involves finding a tv at the right time) - y'er all my news providers for the nonce.

I admit to impatience about the hillary club, but, there but for the grace, go I.

Just missed a phone call from an airport from one of my california pals who happens to be a latina of a certain age, am anxious to catch up with her and her take on all this -- was she for Hillary? what about the rest of the smart ass group? We were pals for many decades across the politcal spectrum, and that includes a Buchanan fan. Well, she was last I talked with her, and time passes.
Thing about this group of girlfriends, several of them on different sides of political spectra are witty..

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

There.

Thank you.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

But I missed Dennis and Amy and Ed and Tammy and now this John Sweeney dude is BORING.

Ah well.

Better than Rudy.

<braces self for Lash kick>

2 Replies

A Wisconsin Congresswoman telling a heartbroken story, in the voice of someone taping the audio version of a book, a completely neutral voice. John Sweeney isnt exactly the rabble-rousing populist I'd imagined the trade unions boss to be either. Debbie Stabenow earlier on was OK though. And there was a Latino Californian Congressman who did his best, though it was kinda in a sports trainer way ("are the Democrats in the house??").

One thing this sequence of ho-hum rank and file politicians does, though, is highlight how good Michelle's speech was. And she isnt even a politician!

Not to say I was perched on the front of my seat all through her speech either, but she had a sparkle and vigour all these pros lack. Going from heartwinning anecdote to combative political aspirations, she pulled in the audience. Something, I guess, in the expressive sincerity of her face, compared to these bland anonymous faces, and in the body language, the up and down of voice, and just the well-crafted narrative arc of her speech.

Superficialities? Well, speeching is a skill I suppose, even with a speechwriter. Nothing wrong with having it! And personal charisma shines through. Maybe she was also just so much more, like, real, because she hasnt had to give endless speeches in Senate chambers. Whichever way, the more of what she's got, the better!

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Dennis was worth finding a repeat. I've never seen him speak so well. He wouldn't be such a joke if he could do that every time.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Byproduct? According to Bush and Blair, liberation was one of the main reasons we went into Iraq. How is that a byproduct?

From wikipedia:

Quote:

According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Blair said the actual trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and coalition officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.[17] In a January 2003 CBS poll, 64% of U.S. nationals approved of military action against Iraq. 63% wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution rather than going to war with Iraq, and 62% believed the threat of terror would increase if war was waged with Iraq.

Also, notice that most people did not, as you stated, agree that Hussein needed to be "taken out." 63% of U.S. nationals wanted Bush to find a diplomatic solution. That doesn't sound like most people wanted to take him out to me.

1 Reply

This is the photo the Drudge Report is using the illustrate the Dem Convention this afternoon. It is without comment on the website. Would anybody care to write a caption for it?

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080826/i/r1739257917.jpg?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Red, orange and blue - change the Dutch can believe in.

http://josvanvliet.web-log.nl/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/24/print.jpg

2 Replies

@nimh,

Hillary keeps her options open.

*****

Just had an interesting conversation -- a "Save the Children" person came to the door, I chatted with her for a while and made a donation. (I used to be one of those people -- for Greenpeace and other orgs -- so I always try to be nice to them.) A neighbor walked by and asked, "Is she an Obama person?" (She had ambiguous buttons -- "Hope," "Change," but no logos.) I said "No..." and then added "... that I know of..." Turned out that she IS a big Obama fan, and I said that we were watching the convention now, she asked about whether Hillary had talked yet (no), I asked if she'd seen Michelle's speech (NO, and she was bummed), then sozlet brought up how I'd met Michelle and how she (sozlet) had met Obama... the person was super-impressed, and it was just a nice little conversation, big smiles all around.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Back to the convention...

This gal seems to have a compelling story but she's again not such a great speaker...

Steny's orange.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

"You cannot expect change from a senator who voted with Bush 95% of the time"

There ya go.

(Where is everyone?)

1 Reply

Hmm... that SEIU woman needs to look up from her script once in a while....

1 Reply

@old europe,

Yeah, I was wondering if something was wrong with her eyes.

She looked up at the very end though.

Just nervous I think!

Her words were good. "He wants to work."

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

(Where is everyone?)

Trying not to nod off...
Love those Save the Children people though, and enjoyed your story.

(2 will get you 5 Sozlet could read a prompter better than that last woman. ZZZZZZZZZ)

0 Replies

@sozobe,

I'm going to have to wind down.

The time zone stuff seriously annoys me, but this morning they had a lot of replays of last night, so hopefully I'll catch the high points that way.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

Still 2 hours to warner and 3 to Hillary. This is brutal.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Quote:

The time zone stuff seriously annoys me

No kidding....

1 Reply

@old europe,

I did think of that after I hit "reply" -- like nimh and old europe love the time zone issue! Very Happy

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

Lash:
I can easily admit that the wrong intel led us into a war that has really hurt us in a multitude of ways....trying to set the dinner table for the folks down the street...

"trying to set the dinner table for the folks down the street"; you really are way smarter than that, Lash. This "oops" notion really is too much. A 100,000 innocent Iraqis are dead because of these lies.

And they were outright lies with one purpose in mind, invade Iraq when they had the chance and knew full well that there was no danger to anyone.

Quote:

...
Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Two months later, Rice reportedly said, "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Powell boasted this was because America's policy of containment and its sanctions had effectively disarmed Saddam.

Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of US President George W Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard - to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a huge deception.

...

In his report, Pilger interviews Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and friend of Bush's father and ex-president, George Bush senior.

McGovern told Pilger that going to war because of weapons of mass destruction "was 95 per cent charade."

Pilger also claims that six hours after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he wanted to "hit" Iraq and allegedly said "Go Massive ... Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

He was allegedly talked down by Powell who said the American people would not accept an attack on Iraq without any evidence, so they opted to invade Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden had bases.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082978207.html

0 Replies

@Lash,

Sooo..... I'll just go with your premise, for the moment. Not that I agree, but it's not even the point here.

I must say I don't see the contradiction... In my opinion, you can perfectly base your decision in reality, and still have an idealistic perspective. I think that has only partly to do with the result.... (you can have a realistic perspective, and still be wrong in the end)

I think the realistic vs. idealistic thing primarily is a question of your perspective beforehand, though. For example, you can say "we have to invade, and we'll work towards democracy after we've toppled Saddam - but there's no way of telling how long it'll take" - that's not only basing your decision in reality, but also acknowledging the imponderabilities of the future. A realistic outlook.

And there were many people around - at the time - who said that much. All of that was dismissed by the administration. Brushed aside in favour of an idealistic portrayal of the post-war situation.

That's what I'm talking about. The perspective at the time.

0 Replies

The 2008 Democrat Convention

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know