The Clinton speech I would like to see tonight
There has been some confusion this morning, with the AP initially reporting that Clinton was set to concede tonight (citing campaign officials) followed by the Clinton campaign officially denying the report. If you look closely at the wording, the AP said Clinton was set to concede that Obama would have the necessary delegates, while the official statement says she will not concede the nomination. This fits with additional rumors that she will not officially suspend her campaign but will let most staff go and shift her focus to discussing issues such as health care, thus keeping her options open. On the other side, Obama is set to make a victory speech at the RNC convention site in Minnesota tonight in which he is expected to declare either that he will be the nominee or else that he will have the majority of delegates. Supposedly his camp has been pushing the Supers hard behind the scenes so they can hit the magic number with wins in Montana and SD, but many Supers would prefer to give Clinton space to withdraw on her own so it doesn't seem like she is being pushed out. It is possible that what Obama says will depend on what Clinton says in her speech. So, that's the background; below the fold, the speech I would like to see Clinton give tonight in my perfect world.
HRC remarks as prepared for delivery:
Thank you New York! It's great to be back home.
This has been a historic campaign, one that has energized the Democratic party and prepared us to recapture the White House in November. I have been privileged to receive the support of over 17 million dedicated and passionate Americans who believe in modernizing health care, fixing the economy, bringing the troops home, Americans who want a President who is ready to fight for them in Washington from day one.
Now our primary has concluded and it is time to shift our focus to McCain, who promises only to continue the failed policies of the last eight years. Our nation cannot afford more of the same. That is why I am pledging here tonight to work with Senator Obama to defeat McCain, in whatever role I can, and my family and staff are similarly ready to work towards a Democratic victory in November.
It is too soon to say who the nominee will be, but I am confident that the delegates will reflect on the results of the recent contests and will decide their support in the coming days, and we stand ready to move forward as a united party. I know my supporters will rally behind Senator Obama should he secure the nomination, and I know his would do the same for me.
I want to thank all my supporters for your dedication, your hard work, and your passionate desire to improve this great nation, and while one phase of this journey will soon draw to a close I know you will be right there with me as a new struggle begins.
We stand at a turning point in history today. There are tremendous challenges facing America; health care costs are skyrocketing, jobs are moving overseas, our education system is failing our children, our soldiers are bravely fighting a difficult war. But we are resilient, and we are resourceful, and we have big dreams for what this country can be, and together we can make those dreams a reality. Thank you and God bless.
Comments :
The AP claims
that Obama has enough delegates (link
) based on Supers who have confirmed their "intentions" which presumably means they will declare for him soon, but unclear when -- tonight, tomorrow, this week?
I hope Clinton doesn't make a point of emphasizing that Supers can change their minds between now and August. They aren't going to unless something explosive comes out, and she doesn't need to continue actively campaigning to be the fall-back candidate.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Supers? Changing their minds?
Who would stress things like that
?
Ha. You had to kind of expect...
;)
Yeah, I know...
I'm really hoping for a gracious and conciliatory speech from Hillary, to help convince her more enthusiastic supporters to chill out a little.
Regardless, it will all be over soon. Thank god.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
yeah...nice wish ;)
she's got some cojones. I really think she does. What a self-indulged brat.
Not that I had much respect for her to begin with but she is sinking deeply in the eyes of anyone outside TalkLeft...I can tell you that much.
What an A-$-$.
Come on, John. Why should
Come on, John. Why should she concede? RFK was assassinated in June, remember? ;-)
David Gregory just said
David Gregory just said something pretty funny on MSNBC. He said he could almost picture folks at the Hillary rally chanting "DON'T DE-CIDE! DON'T DE-CIDE!"
She's sinking fast.
I think many liberals, independents and moderates are starting to feel empathy for the visceral conservative hatred of her...
Yeah
she should drop out of the race and stop contesting the matter just like how Ron Paul gracefully exited the GOP race when he clearly had no chance...
oh...
wait. Nevermind.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
hahaha
Not quite the same. But you already know that. ;)
Just seems a tad of a double standard
especially when the rumor is that the Rp people are trying to monkeywrench the GOP convention. That goes far beyond Hillary trying to convince superdelegates.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No. It doesn't.
We're talking about Ron Paul and Hillary here. Not some of his overzealous supporters who won't let go.
I don't see Ron Paul trying to do what Hillary is doing....not in any way shape or form. Moreover, Paul pretty much admitted his active campaign was over and has not been doing much or anything on that front.
Well he's still contesting the nomination
He hasn't withdrawn from the race or even suspended. So what exactly is the big difference between Hillary and Ron Paul? Both stayed in races that they had little or no chance to win. Both have attacked their party's apparent nominee.
The main difference I can see is that Hillary actually had a shot at winning (which has winnowed to vanishing in the last couple months). Ron Paul never really did. And yet Hillary is worse?
Personally I have no problem with her or Paul staying in as long as they please.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
OK. This has strayed far enough and...
significantly from the intent of my first post. It was written on the heels of watching Hillary's speech after she knew full well that Obama had clinched a long, hard fought nomination. Rather than acknowledge the victory or congratulate Obama and try to bring the party together, she stokes the strife.
Ron Paul is a non factor and third tier candidate and always was.
Some already have,
although if I'm not mistaken, it's trending away from her. I wouldn't be surprised to see a concession speech soon, especially with the high costs of maintaining a campaign with no immediate benefits (that is, with no more primaries until the convention).
On the other hand, if she has an insider feed that she can pull a lot of the remaining superdelegates, power to her. I just seriously doubt it, given the weight of evidence against her.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The only wildcard out there appears to be
the alleged tape of Michelle Obama making controversial statements. Not sure if it's real or just a smear, or if real what it shows, or what impact if any it will have on voters, but that's the only immediate roadblock in his path I can think of.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
If it were real
I doubt it would have stayed under wraps this long. Someone would have leaked it.
The funny thing though is how hard do you think it would be to modify a tape to appear to say whatever you want? Given that we now have entirely CG photorealistic characters in movies...
Now granted that's hard, but modifying video of an existing speech to change a word here or there?
The modification may not be undetectable, but would it really need to be? Everything the SBVT attested to was proven to be false, but what does that matter? The story was in the news long enough to make a difference. The correction was later and quieter. And video is much more potent than made up recollections. People foolishly do tend to think seeing is believing.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
How about Hillary's THOUGHTS
How about Hillary's THOUGHTS as she's giving that speech?
oops, FOUR things.
oops, FOUR things.
Heh
I wonder whether the most effective politicians have sufficient self-control that they rigidly control their thoughts too (in public settings anyway) in order to avoid slip-ups or revealing gaffes.
I would love to know what they're thinking while they spout platitudes.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Michael Kinsley said
Michael Kinsley said something that is now often quoted: "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."
I never understood that,
this line that she's trying to scuttle his campaign so she can run in 2012. What are you basing that on, other than dislike of her?
She'll back off as soon as she's out of the race and support him fully.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
What are you basing that on,
Nothing. Well, actually, it's not just "dislike" of her. It's my assessment of her values, priorities and integrity, which I believe are me, me, and zero, respectively.
Funny, with a screenname like that
I'd expect a more reasoned analysis. ;)
Seriously, though. She's been far more supportive of Obama than her detractors give her credit for, and there's absolutely no reason to believe she won't stump for him in the fall.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Well, I'll try harder to
Well, I'll try harder to please next time :-)
For what it's worth, based
For what it's worth, based on my assessment of Mitt Romney's similarly low ratio of integrity-to-ambition, I'd say the same thing about him (if McCain doesn't choose him as running mate). Does that strike you as more "rational"?
Looks like Obama will comfortably pass 2118 tonight
Clinton's speech will be interesting to watch, now that it appears inevitable that Obama will be appointed the nominee by the media at least by the time she takes the stage.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
AP has already called it
Obama clinches nomination
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I hope Clinton supporters
I hope Clinton supporters don't mind me posting this video here (believe me, I'm not trying to rub salt in your wounds), but I just want to say that no matter what happens in November, I'm glad for the Obama campaign if for nothing else, this great music video, which I think is really good musically, lyrically, and...um...visually.
Thank you
One of my favorites also.
Congrats to Obama (and Hillary).
Let the future begin. Yes, we can.
McCain speaking now (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Yeah, I'm watching, and I
Yeah, I'm watching, and I was just having the same thought I always have when I watch him give a prepared speech: "I like this guy, but even I can barely stand to watch/listen to this"
His delivery is just so awful. Reminds me of the time as a kid I was at Disneyland and they had those Lincoln and Washington robots giving some speech (although THAT was entertaining, at least for me as a 6 year-old).
Oh, just as I say this, he's starting to loosen up a bit and sound a little more conversational. Maybe there's hope for him.
It was a stiff beginning
How was he in the Republican debates? I only watched snippets and don't really remember.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
He's not a great debater
He's not a great debater either. He's best in town halls. Not great, but reasonably good.
The speech turned out to be very well written (in terms of politically smart key points and arguments), and delivered, overall, somewhere around mediocre (as opposed to the awful beginning).
Funny thing is that I had submitted a comment to this thread earlier that got lost in some browser or server error, and it touched on something that McCain spoke to. I'll try to recreate it here below:
One thing I feel good about is that whether Obama or McCain is the next president, I am somewhat confident that the next president will, compared to recent presidents (granted, a low bar) move in the proper direction on the spectrum of making decisions in the interest of the nation (to the best of his knowledge and sincere judgment) rather than to serve personal ambition. I'm sure there are a zillion times when a president must choose between the two, or when he can easily talk himself into rationalizing that the two are not really in conflict -- so that he can serve personal ambition, and I feel reasonably good about either McCain or Obama in that sense.
By contrast, I think that either Hillary or Romney would have been intensely focused on re-election beginning around 2pm on January 20, 2009 and make decisions with that as a clear, top priority, and if they won re-election they would then immediately focus intensely on personal historical glory (probably including partisan legacy, which would include, among other things, the winner of the next election [the succeding president] being a member of the same party -- as an indicator of his/her success as president).
Obviously there are plenty of other big factors to consider as a voter, and plenty of other factors in a successful presidency as I define it, but sincerely putting the nation's interest above personal interests is a good start.
Personally I agree with all of that (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
June 07, 2008 McCain's
Indeed.
He seems to be trying to co-opt the "change" theme
Distinguishing between the right and wrong kinds of change -- Obama has bought into the failed ideas of the past.
I don't know about this strategy. If I were him I'd run a campaign on "plans not platitudes" and try to undermine Obama on experience. Instead it seems like he's trying to compete on Obama's terms. We'll see, I guess.
He did have to strike back at the "McSame" idea, and so far he's doing that effectively, highlighting differences with Bush without seeming to trash the GOP or Bush too much. This is a play for moderate votes -- he must believe he has the base sewn up.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I think he'll be surprised ...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I hope so!
but I'm not counting on it.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
CNN calls nomination for Obama
based on him getting at least 4 delegates from South Dakota.
Cuts away from McCain speech to cover this...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Clinton speaking now
Opens by congratulating Obama and his supporters. Classy.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Says she is committed to uniting our party
so we move forward stronger than ever to take back the White House.
Good to hear. It will be nice to see her on the campaign trail reaching out to convince her disappointed supporters to back Obama.
There is a rumor that she and Obama talked about how he could offer her the VP and she could turn it down, since she doesn't really want it but the gesture would help bring the party together. Kind of an obvious bit of showmanship but it could be effective.
Clinton again: I will keep standing for you and working for you every single day.
I understand that a lot of people are asking, what does Hillary want? I want to end the war in Iraq, to turn the economy around, health care for every American.... and the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, heard, and no longer ignored.
Talking about health care now...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The crowd is chanting Denver (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I'm betting on an August surprise from Hillary!
:)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
HRC: I will carry your stories with me for the rest of my life
The question is where do we go from here.
This has been a long campaign and I will be making no decisions tonight. (Massive cheering)
But, this has always been your campaign. I want to hear from you. I hope you'll go to my website and share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can (ie, donate!). In the coming days I'll be determining how to move forward, with the best interests of our party and country.
Thanks for your support and your trust. Thanks to my staff and volunteers. Especially thank the leadership of my campaign, and my family.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Bwahahaha
Carville is getting beat up on CNN about Clinton's speech.
Frankly I thought her speech was pretty much what should have been expected, and I don't quite get why some Obama supporters on the internets are flipping out about it, but I can't stand Carville even if I think he's basically making sense, so whatever. Of course this depends on what she does over the next few days.
Admittedly I am not in a particularly rational mood at the moment. I guess that means I'm ready for Obama's speech!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Obama is up
The text has already been posted online but I deliberately avoided reading it... very enthusiastic and large crowd.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I think much of the
I think much of the Obamamania is ridiculous (people who can't explain their enthusiasm for his candidacy other than repeating the words "inspiring" and "change", and who haven't really thought about experience/qualifications), and (separate point) I don't think anyone should vote for or against a candidate based on race...
BUT...I must say that I feel a chill and a thrill, and pride in my country and its people, that a black person can win the nomination of a major party for the presidency of the United States. And although there's no way I can relate to it, it excites me warms my heart to imagine what is being felt tonight by older generations of African-Americans.
So, putting aside Obama in particular, and putting aside November and policy and candidate preferences, this is a great night.
AND for much the same reason, albeit I would argue to a much lesser degree, it would have been a good night from that perspective if Hillary (a woman) had won the nomination.
Did I mention that Obama is not qualified to be president? ;-)
I think Powell could have
had the nomination at one point if he had pursued it, and perhaps the Presidency.
It is indeed a great night for America in that respect.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Perhaps. May have depended
Perhaps. May have depended on whether or not he was pro-life. Was he? Also, he was pro affirmative action, which could have hurt.
Actually, I've always felt that the first black president would be a Republican, because (1) he/she would capture the normally heavily Democratic black vote in addition to getting Republican votes and possibly more Independents than usual for a Republican (other things equal), and (2) because black Democratic members of Congress have tended to be more identified (generally rightly so) with the left wing of the party, which would be less conducive to a general election victory. Obama may blow a hole in that whole theory.
Nope
Link
, second question. That's a good point, that would certainly have hurt him with some segments, particularly in a Republican primary.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
not qualified?
define qualified.
My question is more about defining the office itself than it is about Obama.
He has no executive
He has no executive experience, little foreign policy or national security experience, little experience with national domestic political issues, little experience dealing with Congress, relatively little experience as an adult (i.e., not even the general wisdom that often comes with age, other things equal)...and we are electing a president who will face enormous national security threats, two wars, a long-term fiscal imbalance that will crush us if Congress doesn't enact very politically difficult deficit-reducing measures soon, etc.
Does that answer your question?
Yaaaawn...hehehe
Like I said.
That's a sharp point of distinction between you and me. Your conceptual realm of the possible is much larger and deeper than mine. All those things don't really strike much of a cord with me because I think the complicated political/governmental process has shown us that such experience can often be for naught. Circumstances and other branches of government can blend together in an infinite amount of combinations that render such a "promising CV", by your standards, null and void and irrelevant.
Presidential pluses in my mind are usually very subtle and context dependent (external forces).
Consider a dweeb like Bush. For as horrid as he was overall, a look through the details shows that a decision to stay forcefully on Bin Laden and NOT invade Iraq would have totally transformed his foreign policy beyond current recognition. The positive ripple effects on domestic issues that this would have had (spending levels, bad press, indirect effects on oil prices...for example) would probably have added 10-15 points to his approval rating....all this with an identical domestic result....or maybe another veto along the way.
My point is that the qualities you value are not a bedrock basis to judge presidents. A Bush that AVOIDED doing a few things looks a lot better in the present....and that was more about advice (from insiders) and ideology than anything else.
And then Greenspan/Bernanke....
Again, just my opinion.
Is any of this a defense of Obama? Not really. It's more about the position I hold on the office itself.
I think the complicated
I didn't say that experience ensures success. My point is that a severe LACK of experience makes success much less likely (and mistakes with very bad consequences much more likely). It's almost like the distinction between what is necessary vs. what is sufficient, except it's not that black & white ("almost" because I'm not say experience is "necessary" to have any chance of being a successful president -- my point is based on large impact on probabiliities rather than an absolute).
I disagree with that thinking. There are many generalizable/transferable skills, insights, resources, etc., that can be applied and leveraged when confronted with new particulars. I can tell you, for example, that as a management consultant who does not focus by industry, I am able to effectively apply many research, analytical and strategic frameworks and tools, concepts, techniques, tactics, resources, etc., and my skills and insights into all of the above, with new clients with whose companies and industries I was completely unfamilar prior to the consulting engagement (project). Much of the same -- transferable skills, etc. -- applies in general for other people and other jobs, including the presidency.
Not sure what you mean by "bedrock basis". I do consider some degree of the kind of experience I mentioned to be almost a requirement to get my vote for president, particularly in these perilous times in which decisions must be made and solutions achieved politically and effectively implemented that will have enormous consequences for our nation's future. But if you mean by "bedrock basis" that I'll simply vote for the guy with more experience, than I certainly don't use that sole criterion. It's closer to a matter of threshold (minimum) requirement. Clear that bar, and experience beyond that is a plus, but is one factor among other criteria.
Well, BR
Let's just say that I find the real world results from this relationship between the kind of experience you value (overvalue?) and the potential of the office itself to be made better or made of better use of are tenuous and subjective at best.
Yes, such experience doesn't ensure success nor does such experience ensure against failure. By the same token, a relative lack of experience does do the opposite in either case.
IOW, it's value is overvalued in my opinion.
As for your personal private experience, well, let's just say that the incentives, process and framework of experience in the private world are far different and basically have little to nothing to do with the general framework of the public sector and government. It's like comparing the behavior of inanimate objects on two different planets as apples to apples.
On the last point, well, for it's worth, all candidates do have some minimum level of POLITICAL experience. But the relevant experience, IMO, is simply in understanding the political process and how to manipulate it. And that can be good or bad depending on what the issue is.
Re: "a relative lack of
Re: "a relative lack of experience does do the opposite"
Not saying it does, just that a lack of experience makes "success" significantly less likely. Again, a matter of probabilities and relative weights assigned to factors.
But as for our disagreement on the general point, ok, agree to disagree.
Out of curiosity, what if a candidate for president lacked POLITICAL experience, too* (and lacked the accompanying "understanding of the political process and how to manipulate it")? (1) How would that affect the likelihood of his having a "successful" presidency? (2) How would it affect your vote?
* for example, what if Obama ran for president after graduating from law school?
FYI
Interesting article about Presidential experience vs. performance here
. Even has a scatterplot of experience vs. historian's ranking. Upshot is there is no relation.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Interesting chart. I'll
Interesting chart. I'll check it out more later.
I haven't gotten an answer yet from John on that question (re: Obama lacking even political experience or being fresh out of law school -- still "qualified" to be president?). Do you have an answer?
Fresh out of law school
He was only 30 years old, so no, not qualified. :P
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
boooo! :-P ok, suppose he
boooo! :-P
ok, suppose he was 35?
I knew you wouldn't accept that response!
Honestly, it is a theoretical question that I don't have a good answer to. It really depends on the candidate, I think. Let me just say that Obama has a level of experience similar to many other past presidents (including several quite good ones). That is good enough for me. Anyone can set their own personal arbitrary cut-off point for what "enough" experience is. But it is just that: personal and arbitrary. Yours is apparently higher than mine. No big deal.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
1) But do you have SOME
1) But do you have SOME minimal experience of SOME kind that you would require to seriously consider a candidate for president?
2) Same question, but if by "some kind" I'm referring to any of the following:
- Executive/managerial experience
- Political experience
- Experience with important political issues (economic policy, national security, etc.)
My point here is that I think not only can "anyone set their own...cut-off point for what 'enough' experience is", but that EVERYONE does (or at least, almost everyone does, and everyone should).
Yes, we can agree on what that minimum experience should be (in level and nature), but we still have some requirement, because we all have a point below which we think a candidate's lack of experience makes "success" as president much less likely and failures much more likely.
Sure
Although I think it likely that anyone with no experience at all just wouldn't get past the initial process of getting a serious campaign going, so it's not something I even think about much.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
OK, apparently you agree
OK, apparently you agree with my broader point. We should each have some minimum required experience in general and of at least some of the types of experience I listed.
And my specific point is that Obama doesn't meet my minimum, or at least he's close enough to it that it counts very heavily against him. YMMV.
As a note, I meant to say "Yes, we can DISAGREE on what that minimum experience should be..."
Oh and da nexx time ya' pull
Oh and da nexx time ya' pull somethin' like that slick ol' "he was only 30" crappola, I'z gonna reach through deez here Internet pipes and smack yuz across da' face! Got that, commie...er, I mean lefty!?
Because of you, I can stand here tonight and say
that I will be the Democratic nominee for President.
Thanks the whole field of Democratic candidates. Says that Senator Clinton has made history in this campaign, not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she is a leader who inspires millions of Americans -- I congratulate her on her victory in South Dakota and I congratulate her on the race she has run. (Crowd applauds for all of this.) Much more about what she's done and what she will help do in the future -- very nicely done.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Ouch, Obama just undercut much of McCain's speech
Says that while McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence in the past, he's standing with Bush now in terms of his proposed policies.
It will be particularly interesting to watch the debate on Iraq. Obviously Obama would prefer to talk about starting the war, while McCain would like to focus on recent reductions in violence. The economy is definitely issue number one with voters, but whoever wins the Iraq debate with independents will probably claim the Presidency. The war is so unpopular that McCain has an uphill battle here, I think, but he certainly can make a case that he is a more solid choice than Obama to see the Iraq war through. I just don't know how much that will resonate beyond the Republican base.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Talking about people with different backgrounds
or political ideologies can work together -- shades of his 2004 convention speech.
It's a fine line he's walking between going after McCain and decrying excessive partisanship, but so far so good.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Ok, I know I am biased
but I thought that was a pretty good speech...
It will be interesting to see the reaction of non-Obama supporters who tuned in.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I was partly distracted
I was partly distracted (including by my own writing, I must admit with some embarrassment), so I only caught parts, but I'll catch it again online.
Having said that, I thought he was on target when beating down McCain and painting him as lacking the independence that he claims. As for his broad, grandiose lines for which he's become famous and beloved among his supporters, I think that stuff may fall flat with undecideds, since it falls into the trap of people wondering if the guy is great at getting a big crowd of supporters all worked up with grandiose, but empty words, but, well, where's the beef? I realize that the "just words" attack didn't work (or at least didn't work sufficiently) for Hillary, but centrists and undecided voters (as well as Hillary supporters) in the general may be a different story.
But again, I'll have to watch/listen to it in full.
That seems reasonable
He'll have to do a good job in the debates with having facts at his fingertips and being able to discuss policies in-depth. Clinton was better in most of the Dem debates, maybe he learned from those experiences.
So far the reaction from Redstate consists of griping that there have been 56 rather than 54 contests... hopefully they'll have something more substantial so I can get a sense for how the hardcore Republicans are reacting.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Interesting strategy
Interesting strategy question for McCain is to what extent to focus on high turnout among the Republican base vs. on capturing the middle. I lean toward the latter (obviously just as a matter of degree within a limited range -- not saying by any means he can walk away from the base).
For example, he should continue drawing contrasts vs. Bush, continue talking about the environment / climate change, etc. even though many in the base won't like it.
Saw the full speech later
Saw the full speech later last night. There was more substance that I had missed. I still think he should have included more substance relative to the lofty rhetoric, but given the moment, not too bad. He does have to make that shift though going forward. He's already got the "yes we can" crowd (in terms of both preference and turnout). He's got to tell the undecideds what it is that we -- more precisely, HE -- can do.
Since everyone knows I am an avid
Obama supporter!
I am profoundly moved by the historical moment that is this night.
Best line of the night by Obama: "I honor John McCain's service to this country...even if he refuses to honor mine."
And to all you cynics, that said it couldn't be done...... Take That!
It is the economy, stupid.
At the risk of being a wet blanket,
Hillary may have dropped out of the race, but it may be too late for the Democrats, since they've spent such an incredible amount of time and energy bashing Hillary that McCain is loving every minute of it and getting a free ride, meanwhile, too. Sorry, Democrats, but they've turned lots of party members off and more than likely screwed up any chances of winning back the White House in November. The Democrats have only yourselves to blame, screwing not only yourselves, but everybody else too. Thanks!
Here's another hot surprise for you all: Whether you like it or not, I'm seriously considering either voting for a third party or just writing somebody's name in, because I'm really disgusted with the behavior that the Democrats have exhibited, plus I can't stand any of the presidential candidates that we've got. By their behaviour, the Democrats at large haven't proven that Hillary Clinton is destructive and abnormal, but they're destructive..and abnormal.
WOW!
That's the most "independent minded" thing I have ever heard you say....politically at least. ;)
I am sure there are many others that empathize
with your position.
I am not one of them.
Overall I prefer the disgusting behavior that the Democrats have exhibited, to the disgusting behavior that the Republicans have exhibited.
It is the economy, stupid.