-
~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguation
-
This was at the beginning of the transcript.
"(CBS) The following are the remarks prepared for delivery by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama on March 18, 2008 in Philadelphia. "
Looks to me like he was looking at two teleprompters; possibly three. Reading his speech. I compared to a partial youtube clip and he deviated by misreading one of the words and covered it up really well by saying "and (original word)". But nearly all verbatim of the "prepared for delivery" transcript.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
This little bit intrigues me:
There are two problems with your statement.THAT is the kind of change America needs.
The first is that Obama doesn't actually appear to bring such change. Sure, he talks about it, but with a bit of research you'd know that his campaign has been engaging in things like deceptive mailings, just like the other campaigns. Talking about change, obviously, is not the same as actual change.
More important, however, is the second problem. The biggest issue being faced by the US right now is not a lack of positive, inspiring politicians. It's a huge economic crisis, the likes of which probably has not been seen in decades. Inspiring speeches will not solve this issue.
What's needed right now is competent governing. Obama's underwhelming record in congress, unfortunately, casts doubt on his ability to do just that. He has star power, yes. But is he competent where it really matters? Nobody knows./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Unvaxxed, still alive.Comment
-
Every time I see a candidate on a talk show I get flashes of a saxophone.
I very much remember him hitting the 'youth vote'. I was in high school the first time and college the second and he had that base.
To me at times watching this election from a bit of a distance it sometimes feels like Obama is playing Hillary at her husband's game and doing it better.
Of course when my fire fox spell check accepts 'Obama' as a correctly spelled word I will know he really has made it.Last edited by Sarah_Jayne; 03-18-2008, 12:15 PM.Comment
-
Difficult to even analyze as the voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1972. The 18-21 age group voted pretty well that year - no doubt partly due to all the exposure - and then slipped from there for the most part.
I would bet that "Rock the Vote" has convinced more young people to vote than any one candidate.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
Comment
-
Not asking that at all. Nor am I disputing that Dems generally win the majority of the youth vote. Simply winning the majority of the young vote is not 'delivering' it.
I'm talking about getting numbers to the polls and participating and showing the passion that only young people can. Getting them involved in the process and feeling like they really have a stake in the system instead of the stereotypical apathy that's always associated with them.ICQ: 456.689.835
julian (at) orgasm (dot) com
Comment
-
The problem with speeches these days is the people mouthing the words didnt have shit to do with writing the speech.
Fuck words, I believe in ACTION.
Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site?
Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com -
recent work - About meComment
-
It should concern anybody that McCain has aligned himself and his policies with a person who has been voted as the worst President in history, and yet he still stands a chance to win.Comment
-
Time constraints essentially prohibit this. Presidents and candidates can't spend days ironing out speeches while campaigning, or reviewing legislation, or meeting with public figures, and flying all over the world etc. The days of Lincoln in the 19th century when politics was slower and there was no mass media are long gone and have been for decades now.Comment
-
Obama is getting people interested in politics for all the wrong reasons. Campaigns like his, which excel in marketing but lack in substance, change the political arena into something like "American Idol: The Political Edition".
People are choosing an idol, not policies. The success of this campaign will both stimulate future politicians to do the same and teach voters to expect inspirational talks rather than sound policies.
Of course, this is a process which started a long time ago, and has been accelerating ever since television became prominent as a political campaigning tool. Still, it's hardly something to be happy about./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
It's not rocket science, and a guy from a broken home who was able to excel and obtain a law degree from Harvard and become a Senator can probably handle it. If his heart is in the right place (those who know him personally probably have insight), and his speeches express what he really believes, and his political track record (albeit short) is consistent with both, and he's running against a polarizing candidate (Hillary) and a stay-the-course candidate (McCain), I see no reason why he shouldn't run.Comment
-
They are choosing based on perceived character, yes. And indeed, they are much alike in policies.
The main difference lies in something that is another rather important part of substance, though: time spent acquiring political experience and knowledge.
Hillary spent her time in the Senate buried to the neck in legislative issues - doing the work senators are supposed to do. Obama, on the other hand, spent his time in the Senate working on his public image, basically campaigning for an eventual presidential bid already.
You are right. People are choosing which person they like better. Just like many people did in the 2000 election./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
No, it's not rocket science. I'd say it's quite a bit harder than rocket science. Rocket scientists, after all, tend to have extensive knowledge of a single subject. Presidents, on the other hand, have to be knowledgeable about economics, international relations, legislation, etc.
"It's not rocket science, he can probably handle it." Does that really sound like a good justification for making someone the single most powerful person in the whole world to you?/(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
That's what advisors are for. A President is not an island. The President's vision, beliefs, and judgement are what guides which policies and actions he is likely to take. He has credentialed people around him giving him the pros and cons of every decision, he weighs it, puts in his two cents worth, and goes with what is consistent with his beliefs. Regarding Obama in particular, his plans for the economy, international relations, and legislation are all available just like it is for every other candidate.
The single most powerful person is a double edged sword because that power has checks and balances and can be vetoed.Comment
-
Bush was voted in based on the idea, among many, that he was a likable guy, that the job wasn't rocket science, and that he could probably handle it. Now where have I heard that before?
Obama has chosen not to spend his time in the Senate learning the boring, technical details of legislation, but rather building up his own popularity. That does not bode well for his desire and ability to learn./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
That's what advisers are for, indeed. And how is someone who has not taken the effort to get to know the murky, boring, technical details of the issues supposed to choose the right advisers, and choose the right advice?
Obama is surrounded by competent people, yes. Those competent people will often give him conflicting advice. He doesn't actually have two cents to put in, so choosing the right advice over the wrong advice is a matter of sheer luck.
Once again: Bush. Bush had advisers, but little knowledge of his own. And look how well that turned out./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Bush was voted in because he had experience as Governor of Texas (I think he was pretty successful at it too), had experience in business, was the son of a former President, came from money and influence, and was likable enough to have a majority vote for him.
Obama and Bush are apples and oranges. Obama's entire life is one of a desire to learn and help. If it wasn't he never would have finished high let alone Harvard law school and then into politics. He's obviously ambitious (this could be good and bad), and I'm not saying he'd make a good President. All I'm saying is that I think his bid makes sense.Comment
-
Anybody who has attended law school is familiar with murky, boring, technical details. Law school is nothing but technical laborious detail. Lawyers routinely come across conflicing advice and statements and it is their job to make sense of it and go with the 'right' decision. This wouldn't be something new for Obama.Comment
-
its fun to watch the same people bat their heads against the wall over and overTelegram PhoenixBrad
https://quantads.ioComment
-
Nice to see him throw his Grandmother who raised under the bus trying to get elected.I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.бабки, шлюхи, силаComment
-
Pretty much everyone knew Gore was far more knowledgeable about the issues than Bush. In terms of knowledge and experience, Gore was far more suitable than Bush. Based on those things alone, Gore would have won without a problem. The conservative base, while very significant, would by itself not have been enough to deliver the victory to Bush.
The reason he won was likability. Moderates could identify more with the guy posing as a "regular Joe" than with a born bureaucrat like Gore.
As for Obama... his entire life is one of a very strong ambition. Ambition, coupled with intelligence and charisma, is more than enough to ensure success. No desire to help or learn is needed for that.
That is not to say that Obama does not have a desire to help. I'm sure he does. About his desire to learn, however, I'm less sure. More importantly, I am rather unsure about how good of an idea it is not to spend significant time learning the details of the trade before running for president, instead of planning to learn them after being voted in.
Like you, I am unsure whether he'd make a competent president. Looking at the current US economy, that worries me. When the economy is failing, taking large risks seems like a rather bad idea to me./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Comment
-
Very good points Libertine. I guess we'll see what happens and cross our fingers for the best.Comment
-
Comment
-
The TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREEComment
Comment