Reply
Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:30 pm
Now that the hoopla has died down, I have some thoughts about the election and election night.
First of all, I think that Obama ran an almost flawless campaign.
He did exactly what he had to win, and I congratulate him for that.
BUT, just because you can run a good campaign does NOT mean that you can govern well.
I was listening to part of a discussion on NPR this morning, and one of the people pointed out that in 2000 Bush ran an almost perfect campaign also.
Did he turn out to be a good President?
As POTUS, you have a thousand things going on at all times, and you have to be able to focus on all of them.
As candidate, Obama only had to focus on one thing...winning.
I thought his victory speech was extremely well delivered, but I did think it was a little creepy.
I watched both it and McCains speech today on the internet.
I will admit that I did find his speech a little creepy however.
I will be 47 on monday, and I dont ever remember a victorious candidate making his victory speech without his family there on stage with him.
I can understand why the kids werent on stage, but why wasnt Michelle?
He just seemed to be acting like nobody deserved to share his limelight, and I found it a little odd that he refused to share it with his own family.
McCains concession speech was also excellent.
I have to wonder however where that spech was during the campaign.
The passion and the energy he put into that speech was more then he showed during the entire campaign.
I also think that the best place for McCain is in the Senate.
IF he returns to the McCain of 2000, the (brace yourself) "maverick" he was then, doing what he thinks is right regardless of what party proposed it, then he will be the bridge between the dems and the repubs.
If the dems start getting crazy, he can lead the charge to stop them.
Now that the election is over, I do think that we will see a different Obama then the one we saw during the campaign.
I think he did a good job of hiding all of his true beliefs, and that he will actually govern from the left instead of from the center.
I hope I'm wrong, and if I am I will be the first to say so, but I dont think I'm wrong.
As for Sarah Palin, IMHO the best thing she can do is go back to Alaska.
If Ted Stevens wins re-election, he will be booted out of the Senate.
Sarah Palin can then resign as governor, and have the incoming gov appoint her to fill out Ted Stevens term (as I understand it, Senators can be appointed and house members are selected by a special election).
She will then have 4 years of experience in the Senate, and in 2012 she can run again, with Bobby Jendal on the ticket with her.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
Feel free to disagree with me, but dont ask for links or references.
Except for where I noted, the thoughts are mine and no links are required for thoughts.
@mysteryman,
One point I will make and then get out of the way for what follows. I don't think Bush had such a geat campaign either time. I think the media gave him a free ride both times, and I don't believe he actually won either election.
Re: McCain, it was my suspicion throughout the campaign that he wasn't in control of the message at all, that it was coming from handlers. He just didn't seem at all comfortable with the direction the thing was taking -- and hasn't seemed comfortable, as far as I've been able to tell, with the direction his party has been taking for the past 12 years or so. (And if I'm right about this, I fault him for not standing on his own convictions, but I also feel a little sorry for him.)
The concession speech is probably one of the few public statements in the past 2 years that McCain hasn't been conflicted about.
Haven't actually watched Obama's acceptance speech. I wasn't all that interested in him as a candidate (he certainly wasn't my candidate, as a begrudgingly registered Democrat), and I find those sorts of events to be utterly without substance.
@mysteryman,
Thanks for your thoughts, Mysteryman.
This is a tough time to be an incoming President. So many promises, so many problems. It is going to be tough to deliver in the 2 years before the next Congressional election and in the 4 years before the next Presidential election.
The Democrats will have to be very careful about how hard they push. And the Repubs? They need to focus on this and decide where they are going and who will be leading that.
47 on Monday the 10th?
@mysteryman,
Quote:Now that the election is over, I do think that we will see a different Obama then the one we saw during the campaign.
I think he did a good job of hiding all of his true beliefs, and that he will actually govern from the left instead of from the center.
I hope I'm wrong, and if I am I will be the first to say so, but I dont think I'm wrong.
I actually suspect he campaigned as more of a lefty than he will govern as. But, then, as someone who really is pretty far to the left, I'm generally bemused by claims that the Democrat party is leftist at all. If it was up to me, we'd have a legislative body full of socialists and libertarians and a truly middle-of-the-road executive (which, in my mind, would be a D.D. Eisenhower or a Bill Clinton) with the power of a line-item veto. One body to come up with new ideas, and another to decide which ones might actually be worthwhile.
@patiodog,
Quote:with the power of a line-item veto.
That is something the President MUST HAVE.
No matter how much a candidate campaigns against earmarks, if he or she cant veto them line by line, the campaign pledge to stop them is meaningless.
All the congress has to do is include them into a bill they know the POTUS will sign.
@mysteryman,
Well, sort of....even if congress were to pass a new line item bill...as a stand alone bill or as a rider, it would still draw fire from those that do not believe it is constitutional....which is what our Supreme Court ruled the last time it was passed....and it would just wind up being presented to them again.
So, at this point in time, in order for the line item veto to be legal, we would have to amend the constitution....which I am all for doing.
@mysteryman,
Hey, mm. Lots of good points you bring up. I can't say I disagree with many of them, I'll just comment on this.
mysteryman wrote:
I will admit that I did find his speech a little creepy however.
I will be 47 on monday, and I dont ever remember a victorious candidate making his victory speech without his family there on stage with him.
I can understand why the kids werent on stage, but why wasnt Michelle?
He just seemed to be acting like nobody deserved to share his limelight, and I found it a little odd that he refused to share it with his own family.
You said you watched it on the internet? His family walked him out, went backstage for the speech, and then came back out after, along with the Biden family. Maybe those parts weren't recorded or were cut out of the video you watched? I'll look for pictures to show what I'm talking about.
@FreeDuck,
Here's one from that night:
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:I can understand why the kids werent on stage, but why wasnt Michelle?
Because she was with the kids? Parents generally are, you know.
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:
Hey, mm. Lots of good points you bring up. I can't say I disagree with many of them, I'll just comment on this.
mysteryman wrote:
I will admit that I did find his speech a little creepy however.
I will be 47 on monday, and I dont ever remember a victorious candidate making his victory speech without his family there on stage with him.
I can understand why the kids werent on stage, but why wasnt Michelle?
He just seemed to be acting like nobody deserved to share his limelight, and I found it a little odd that he refused to share it with his own family.
You said you watched it on the internet? His family walked him out, went backstage for the speech, and then came back out after, along with the Biden family. Maybe those parts weren't recorded or were cut out of the video you watched? I'll look for pictures to show what I'm talking about.
Yep, also remember it was Chicago at 11 pm and probably very cold. I wouldn't want my kids standing out there in the cold for a half hour while I spoke; especially since it was also way past their bed time. Made more sense for them to wait in the warmth inside and then rejoin him at the end.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
One point I will make and then get out of the way for what follows. I don't think Bush had such a geat campaign either time. I think the media gave him a free ride both times, and I don't believe he actually won either election.
How did he not win the 2004 election? Do you want the conservatives to start saying that Obama didn't really win, because I don't hear any of us saying that.
@2PacksAday,
Line item veto sure looks attractive, but it does give the Executive a power reserved to Congress. It comes just as close to writing and passing law as do those infamous signing statements made popular by Bush. I would resist a constitutional amendment on this, or most other matters.
A line item veto will probably not pass constitutional muster.
Lots of good points.
The 10th? We'll have to celebrate.
@roger,
roger wrote:
Line item veto sure looks attractive, but it does give the Executive a power reserved to Congress. It comes just as close to writing and passing law as do those infamous signing statements made popular by Bush. I would resist a constitutional amendment on this, or most other matters.
Didn't the supreme court already nix it anyway?
@Butrflynet,
Quote:Yep, also remember it was Chicago at 11 pm and probably very cold. I wouldn't want my kids standing out there in the cold for a half hour while I spoke; especially since it was also way past their bed time. Made more sense for them to wait in the warmth inside and then rejoin him at the end.
58 degrees at 10:51 PM
Sorry, Butterfly, but it was well reported how incredibly warm Chicago and Grant Park were that night. The perfect weather in normally cold Chicago added an almost supernatural aspect to how special that election night was.
Source
@Blickers,
PS: I really don't see any material difference if Obama's family stays on the stage during the speech or comes up on stage after the speech and greets him. This sort of nitpicking, along with such things as the "fist bump controversy", is what we should be moving away from, not dwelling on.
@mysteryman,
Mysteryman, the fact the you didn't like the speech is interesting. Much of the speech was written for you (not for me). He was specifically reaching out, saying that he wanted to be YOUR president, not just mine.
I don't know why you would see bipartisanship as creepy (at least from a Democrat victor).
In this respect the issue of "governing well" is an interesting one.
Obama is focusing, as perhaps he should, on bipartisanship. But bipartisanship is at times an obstacle to doing what is right... since in your interest of pleasing the other side, you can neglect to do what you know is best.
Of course leadership is walking this tightrope, and I trust we all hope that Obama can do what is right while unifying the country.
But with all the talk of working with everyone (even with those who oppose the way forward), maybe I am the one who should find Obama's speech "creepy".
as far as politicians spouses go, i could give a rats ass if they even appear in public, i voted for the candidate not their extended family
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace