sozobe wrote:Was it daring, nimh? Your link now is to a current report, what he did actually say, so not sure which parts you were referring to.
Hm - just quickly browsing through the full transcript - sounds distinctly less bold than the excerpts had done. I didnt save or quote 'em, so I cant compare, but I remember a lot of short, tough phrases on war and terrorism that sounded very hawkish - and hawkish like he believed in it, not just going through the motions. I thought that was pretty daring, risking both the anti-war Democrats' disapproval and the Republicans' ridicule (who would I think have been put off balance by that bold an attempt to put himself practically to the right of Bush on the war on terror) - but I cant really find it back.
Its probably still all in there (the transcript is the pre-prepared one after all), its all in context and placement I guess. For example, this sentence, as it was quoted beforehand in isolation, sounds almost Bushesque:
Quote:My fellow Americans, this is the most important election of our lifetime. The stakes are high. We are a nation at war - a global war on terror against an enemy unlike any we have ever known before.
But in actuality, in the transcript he straight away bunches it into one paragraph with a follow-up sentence that quickly distracts attention back to home affairs and appears to be equating the various things as all equally important: "And here at home, wages are falling, health care costs are rising, and our great middle class is shrinking. People are working weekends; they're working two jobs, three jobs, and they're still not getting ahead."
Now you may agree with this take, but it does change how the first sentence comes across, totally. Same here - if you would only get this:
Quote:with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.
It sounds pretty powerful. Squeezed in between paragraphs about "a global effort against nuclear proliferation" and how we "need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances", however, it doesnt quite evoke the same sense of a determined winner - more that of a sensible wonk. In practice I much prefer the latter in charge, but I dont think it impresses the electorate as much. With sentences like,
Quote:As President, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower
he makes a good argument, but at the same time he makes the "war on terror" sound like a question of, you know, efficiency rather than ... war. Reminds me a little bit of people who, when the crisis and impoverishment of health care is discussed, say its all just a question of allocating resources more effectively. I dunno. I mean, he is absolutely right, but I doubt an approach that makes it sound like the fight against terrorists will be won if we're just a little "smarter" about it - rather than one that emphasises the starkness of facing an enemy that considers attacking you a holy duty ready to die for, will persuade many of the Phoenixes of your country.
Not to say that he hasnt got some great lines there. I like this one a lot:
Quote:We need to make America once again a beacon in the world. We need to be looked up to and not just feared.
And this one, though I doubt for all the above reasons that it will resonate with anyone who wasnt a multilateralist already, does make his (our) point as concisely as it can be made:
Quote:And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.
Its just I have this feeling that the O'Bills and Phoenixes of America would have wanted him to reassure you that he would do whatever it takes and go out to "get the terrorists",
whether or not you in the end succeed in patching up all the alliances in time.
I do think he could have been more agressive still. For example, this paragraph is pretty damn good, despite the distinctly false note of "misunderstood brilliance" self-pity it starts out off:
Quote:Now I know there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities - and I do - because some issues just aren't all that simple. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so. And proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn't make it so.
Now I would finish it off with, I dunno (what do I know) - something like, "Mr President: you did not accomplish your mission. I pledge here that I
will accomplish the mission America now faces - I will not be distracted." Or something, whatever. But instead he got distracted into wonkish policy focus, "reform the intelligence system", and wordplay: "so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics". Hm. He does finish it off well in the end tho - this is pretty good:
Quote:as President, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.
And this is definitely a bold and brutal enough summary of things:
Quote:I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.
you forgot the link the first time? heehee
Overall I just don't believe him.
)