Some thoughts re: the election

@okie,

I need to go to work, talk to you later.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

But marching in the street, or anything more, baloney, a waste of time and is reserved for malcontents and agitators.

Malcontents.

http://www.utsa.edu/today/images/graphics/mlk2.jpg

Agitators.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wpilgrimage.jpg

You have made yourself perfectly clear, Okie. A defender of the status quo, a lazy one, and one who believes that those who work for change and equality are wrong for even trying.

I hope that my side diminishes yours to the point of no return. And I don't mean politically, Dem versus Republican; I mean those who are willing to work for a better future for everyone versus the lazy bastards who want to prevent it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Clinton destroyed himself. And you will find out, with time, that you never destroyed Bush with the spin, and he never destroyed himself, only in your twisted mind, Bush remains a decent man as he always was, with all of his flaws as we all have, but a decent man.

Bush's approval ratings are lower than Clinton's EVER were. Clinton is loved by the US and the world. He isn't 'destroyed' in any objective fashion, Okie. You don't seem to understand what that word means.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

His favorability rating has actually gone up...

Quote:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Former President Bill Clinton's controversial remarks against Barack Obama earlier this year were a major part of the 2008 campaign narrative. Some political observers wondered whether Clinton was harming his legacy while campaigning on his wife's behalf. The latest USA Today/Gallup poll suggests that is not the case. Nearly half of Americans believe history will regard Clinton as an outstanding or an above-average president, little changed from the last pre-campaign rating and his most positive review to date.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080827BillC1_h7g4bd.gif

And even quarter of all Republicans rated Clinton favorably:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080827BillC3_z9m1f4.gif

(source)

0 Replies

Okie writes:

Quote:

that great involvement does not always equal good results

It is premature I think to know exactly what is going to happen, but it is important to be vigilent while being as supportive as possible. That devil in the details called unintended consequences comes out of many things that sounded really good at the beginning. Many of us initially objected to some of what Obama proposed because of that one sticky wicket. But it is also important not to throw cold water on good ideas.

There is much that is good that is accomplished using civilians in a government program to do good works. The Peace Corps comes to mind but even there is inefficiency and ineffectiveness mixed in with the good. Does the good outweight the other? I don't know and I doubt many do.

There is a huge difference, however, in encouraging people to get involved in voluntary good works through private organizations and organizing 'good works' that are funded by and administered by the government. Here I think we should be especially wary of those unintended consequences.

Obama and all his surrogates/spokespersons etc. seem to be trying to lower expectations for what he can accomplish now. And while that really insults the intelligence of many, it is probably a necessary thing to do at this point.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Bush remains a decent man as he always was, with all of his flaws as we all have, but a decent man.

A decent man perhaps, but a very poor president.

Look, okie, people have organized themselves throughout history. It's part of democracy. The fact that there aren't many Hitlers is evidence that those kinds of outcomes are in fact rare. The movement to elect Obama has very little in common with Hitler's movement. Just take a deep breath and maybe wait until the inauguration before we start with the Hitler comparisons, ok?

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

I think you misunderstood me.
I did like his speech, and I said so.
I thopught it was well written and well delivered.

Perhaps "creepy" was a poor choice of words.
I thought it was a little creepy that he didnt have his family there with him, and that after the speech he just stood there, soaking in the adulation.

That reminded me of a few other people throughout history, people that had that "cult of personality" and who were experts at delivering speeches.
I am in NO WAY comparing Obama to any of them, but I did think that it was creepy how much he appeared similiar to some of those other people.
People like Benito Mussolini, Idi Amin, and others I wont mention.

As for the context of the speech, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and will support him as much as I can.
When I think he is wrong, I will oppose him, and when I think he is right I will support him.

He is my President, and like every other POTUS I can remember, I will support him until he gives me a reason not to.

0 Replies

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3272/3008253269_630b2883fa.jpg

from this photo set

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Im not nitpicking (ok maybe I am) but I just found it odd that his family, or at least his wife, didnt stay out on the stage with him while he gave his victory speech.

Nothing more than that.
Can anyone remember the last time the winner of the presidential election gave his victory speech without his family there with him?

I dont remember it ever happening.

4 Replies

@mysteryman,

I'm not that close a watcher of American election protocol, but in Canada you don't see family members during acceptance speeches. Before and after, but not during. We don't see that much of political families to begin with, so U.S. expectations in that area seem a bit peculiar.

It came up on another thread at some point but here it'd be kinda odd to know the names of politicians' family members for the most part. I couldn't tell you my premier's wife's name, nor the names of any of his children or how many children he has. I know that the prime minister has two children, but I don't know his wife's or kids' names. Don't know what any of their family members' look like. Could literally trip over them and not know who they were.

The American cult of personality is kinda interesting, even when it seems weird (as your* desire to see Obama's family onstage with him seems to me).

* you, in the bigger American definition, not the individual mysteryman

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

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.

That's the morning low here for most of the year, so to me, that's very cold, especially in the sleeveless dresses Michelle and the girls were wearing under light weight sweaters.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

I honestly don't remember if the wives and children were there during the speeches or not.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

By the way, you can answer, anyone here can, how many Obama volunteers are on this board ganging up on anyone and everyone that doesn't toe the line and agree with them? Lets see, theres you, butrfly, sozobe, Diest, I think, who else?

Don't forget Dyslexia! He took a box of donuts to the volunteers at his local Obama headquarters on election day.

Oh, and don't forget MysteryMan. He even attended an Obama rally and posted his impressions here.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

Im not nitpicking (ok maybe I am) but I just found it odd that his family, or at least his wife, didnt stay out on the stage with him while he gave his victory speech.

Nothing more than that.
Can anyone remember the last time the winner of the presidential election gave his victory speech without his family there with him?

I dont remember it ever happening.

If intentional, perhaps it's a different motivation altogether: perhaps he's seen the ridicule that Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins were subjected to and wants to keep his daughters out of the glare of the spotlight a little bit.

0 Replies

@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.

Yeah, I'm normally not one for tampering with the constitution either, but I have never liked the use of riders.....get one really good piece of legislation, but have to take seven totally random unrelated pieces of pork with it. So I'm pretty much up for any option that will put a stop to it...the current...I guess it's still current...version of the line item bill, is more of a...."Hey congress, are you sure you want to do x,x, and x, take another look and let me know"...kind of thing.

Or just simply ban riders...one bill, one item.

1 Reply

@2PacksAday,

One bill, one item works for me. Will you just look at the bailout mess. Someone had to put his footprint on it by deleting the tax on wooden arrows. And here, I thought it was serious business.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Im not nitpicking (ok maybe I am) but I just found it odd that his family, or at least his wife, didnt stay out on the stage with him while he gave his victory speech.

Nothing more than that.
Can anyone remember the last time the winner of the presidential election gave his victory speech without his family there with him?

I dont remember it ever happening.

President-Elect Obama's victory speech took place in Grant Park with over 120,000 people present. It was at this moment, when our President-Elect was giving his victory speech, when he was extremely vulnerable to an assassination attempt. Many threats have been made on his life.

The stage was somewhat protected with bullet proof glass. Obama spoke from behind an OVERSIZED podium. I surmise, if shots were fired, he could duck inside the podium for protection. For security reasons, it was prudent to keep the first family off the stage during the vulnerable period when Obama was giving his speech. If shots rang out, he would instinctively act to shield his wife and daughters rather than himself.

See the following article:

Bulletproof glass shields Obama for victory speech as security is stepped up for President-elect

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/06/article-0-025D57F0000005DC-735_468x380.jpg

Protection: The two-inch think bullet-proof glass in front of Obama and his wife Michelle and Vice-President Joe Biden and his wife Jill during the victory speech in Chicago

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra:

That certainly explains a lot.

Gives you some idea of what he is going to have to go through from now on.

0 Replies

Throughout the right wing blogosphere, the pundits and know-it-alls are the ones parroting the assertion that the absence of Obama's family throughout the duration of his speech was creepy.
This is not a conclusion a normal observer would make because it's actually irrelevent.
They are trying to spin him as an egomaniac, or trying to make the quantum leap that his vision for America must be viewed through him first, and him alone.
It really has become quite silly....the post game analysis of the absent family members.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

According to the Secret Service, the number of death threats against Obama multiplied significantly once Palin and McCain started in on their 'Bullshit slime tour '08' in the last weeks of the election. It's entirely likely that he didn't want his kids exposed to sniper fire.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Some thoughts re: the election

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know