7
   

Does Clinton's Great Convention Speech Matter?

 
 
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2012 12:53 am
even during his last years in office I often walked away from one of his speeches thinking "great performance, but it was nothing but a performance". I was rarely wrong as Clinton would usually prove in the coming days and weeks that the words mattered little to him as he went in some other direction or just plain failed to do what he said he would do.

so the old coot still has it....so what?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 1,835 • Replies: 24

 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2012 02:55 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
so the old coot still has it....so what?



If you think the ability to persuade people doesn't matter in a political campaign...fine. You certainly have the right to think that.

I think it does...which is one of the reasons all the parties involved spend so much time doing it.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2012 11:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
You are assuming that a great clinton speech has the ability to persuade where as I am saying not so fast....we have seen him give a lot of technically great speeches which did not mean a damn thing because he did not believe in his own words enough to act on them.

Full disclosure: I am voting romney and did not watch any of either convention because I am busy and view modern conventions as parties for the faithful paid for by the corporate class which are turned into commercials to sell wares to the masses. I can't bemoan the corruption of the political system by the corporate class and then turn around and take thir product seriously.
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2012 03:40 pm
Obama was going to win the election anyway. So, no Clinton's speech doesn't matter.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2012 03:56 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
You are assuming that a great clinton speech has the ability to persuade where as I am saying not so fast....we have seen him give a lot of technically great speeches which did not mean a damn thing because he did not believe in his own words enough to act on them.


You are assuming that a speech must be truthful in order to persuade.

I am not making that mistake.

You may be right that Clinton does not "believe" his own words enough to act on them, but he certainly knows how to make a speech that persuades people to do thing.

At least, that is the way I see it.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2012 03:57 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Obama was going to win the election anyway. So, no Clinton's speech doesn't matter.


I will vote for Obama with enthusiasm...and will attempt to persuade others to do so also. But I suspect Obama will be a one-term president. I think he is going to lose.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 07:24 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
maxdancona wrote:
Obama was going to win the election anyway. So, no Clinton's speech doesn't matter.


I will vote for Obama with enthusiasm...and will attempt to persuade others to do so also. But I suspect Obama will be a one-term president. I think he is going to lose.


Obama is in a tactically superior position. Obama only needs to win some of the swing states in order to win. Romney needs to win all of the swing states in order to win.

Plus the economy in the swing states is better than in the nation as a whole, so just because the national polls may show people growing more dissatisfied with the economy, that doesn't mean the swing state voters share that outlook.

But Romney seems to have raised more money, and that may allow him to challenge Obama in states that are currently considered safe for Obama, and that may mix it up a bit.

It is probably better to be in Obama's position than in Romney's position, but in reality either one can win at this point.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 07:48 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
so the old coot still has it....so what?


I'm not sure it will do anything for the campaign long-term, but it means $ in the bank for Clinton. He's a terrific public speaker and a significant part of his current income comes from that skill. A little free advertising of his continued skill is a good thing for him.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 09:30 am
Why would someone ask about a speech that hadn't seen or read? Huh?

All of the people I have talked to 1) like Clinton's speech because, their words, he spoke to them as people who could understand complex wonky issues and 2) because, again their words, he actually made a speech nominating Obama to be President which dealt with all of the reasons why he should be re-elected.

Hawkeye would do well to go look up the speech on Youtube and spend the time listening to it.

You know who I missed seeing at the Republican Convention? George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove and the other architects of the Iraq War.
Did their invitations get lost in the mail?

Frank's bet against Obama winning looks shakier by the day.

Joe(bUMp)Nation
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 11:49 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
It is probably better to be in Obama's position than in Romney's position, but in reality either one can win at this point.


I certainly agree that either can win.

But I think (it is my guess) that he will lose.

We'll know in two months. Actually, I am in a win/win situation here. If he loses, my guess will have proved to be correct. If he wins, I will have voted for the winner...and our country will be in better hands than if Romney had won.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 01:32 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
If he wins, I will have voted for the winner...and our country will be in better hands than if Romney had won.


Both will do a good job of running the country.

I'm a little wary of a complete Republican victory (White House, Senate, and House), because then they'd probably do some pretty heavy damage to the nation's social safety net.

But Romney alone wouldn't be a disaster.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 02:07 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
But Romney alone wouldn't be a disaster.


Gotta love your optimism, Oralloy!

But I agree...alone, Romney probably would not be a disaster.

In any case, Romney has as much chance of "being alone" if he wins as George W. Bush had of being free of Cheney and Rove. He will be a pawn of the far right...who will claim the slimmest of victories as a major mandate to implement a Tea Party agenda.

If Romney wins, you can almost count on a "complete Republican victory" no matter the ultimate composition of the House and Senate. The far right knows how to use its muscle much better than the left...and are far, far, far more willing to use it.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 02:39 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Gotta love your optimism, Oralloy!
But I agree...alone, Romney probably would not be a disaster.


What I mean is that both Romney and Obama would do a good job running the country.



Frank Apisa wrote:
In any case, Romney has as much chance of "being alone" if he wins as George W. Bush had of being free of Cheney and Rove. He will be a pawn of the far right...who will claim the slimmest of victories as a major mandate to implement a Tea Party agenda.

If Romney wins, you can almost count on a "complete Republican victory" no matter the ultimate composition of the House and Senate. The far right knows how to use its muscle much better than the left...and are far, far, far more willing to use it.


No, the Republicans will need a majority in both the House and the Senate, as well as the White House, if they want to pass anything radical.

If the Democrats hold even one of the three, it will be enough to block the extremism.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 03:05 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
If the Democrats hold even one of the three, it will be enough to block the extremism.


You mean like they were able to block the extremism during the last session of congress?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 03:06 pm
@oralloy,
Given the modern practive of Presidents acting as though they are kings who holds power in Congress matters less and less.

Maybe SCOTUS will at some point stop the practice but don't hold your breath.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 03:21 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If the Democrats hold even one of the three, it will be enough to block the extremism.


You mean like they were able to block the extremism during the last session of congress?


So far, Medicare has not been replaced with a voucher system, Obama's health care plan has not been repealed, and Medicaid has not been replaced with block grants to the states.

Yes. So far the extremism has been blocked. None of those things will come to pass unless Republicans control the House and the Senate and the White House after the election.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 03:24 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Given the modern practive of Presidents acting as though they are kings who holds power in Congress matters less and less.

Maybe SCOTUS will at some point stop the practice but don't hold your breath.


Congress controls the budget and passes the laws. Presidents can't do anything about that.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 03:41 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
So far, Medicare has not been replaced with a voucher system, Obama's health care plan has not been repealed, and Medicaid has not been replaced with block grants to the states.

Yes. So far the extremism has been blocked. None of those things will come to pass unless Republicans control the House and the Senate and the White House after the election.


So tell me, Oralloy, have you seen any good movies lately? Wink
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 04:05 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
oralloy wrote:
So far, Medicare has not been replaced with a voucher system, Obama's health care plan has not been repealed, and Medicaid has not been replaced with block grants to the states.

Yes. So far the extremism has been blocked. None of those things will come to pass unless Republicans control the House and the Senate and the White House after the election.


So tell me, Oralloy, have you seen any good movies lately? Wink


No. I'm not really a movie person, except for certain limited topics.

Star Trek/Star Wars/Lord of the Rings/Hobbit are movies that I'll make a point of going to see, but probably not much else beyond that.

(First Hobbit installment comes out this winter.)
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2012 05:08 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
(First Hobbit installment comes out this winter.)


Loved "The Hobbit"...and the trilogy. Hope the movies will do the linguistics justice.

Nancy and I see lots of movies...but summer is not the time for it. I prefer movies in the Fall and Winter.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does Clinton's Great Convention Speech Matter?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/22/2019 at 02:06:48