|By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 08:50 am: Edit|
I'm a political junkie and I always watch both conventions. I love good speakers.
I tuned in to the Dem national convention last night and I saw Obama Baraka. Holy crap! That guy was awesome! He was an amazing combination of classic liberalism, prairie populism, Reagan idealism, libertarian individualism, and Harvard Law smarts. Any thoughts? I wish he was running against Colin Powell. Now that would be a great debate. Two black men smarter than 90% of white politicians would be a refreshing choice in this country.
Also saw Theresa Heinz Kerry. She was godawful. I bet she demanded to speak since she's bankrolling her husband. She looked totally botoxed out (My wife said she looked like the joker!) and wacked on prozak. Snottiest speech I ever heard. Kerry better hide her in an undisclosed location with Cheney if he wants to get elected! I actually turned it off after 3 minutes.
|By Missmolly (Missmolly) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 08:59 am: Edit|
I think you are being too hard about Theresa. I liked her. She was refreshing and real, unlike most of those first ladies, except Hillary, and Washington types.
As for Obama, I loved his speech, and I think he stole the show. He is definiately is a rising star.
|By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 09:58 am: Edit|
I'm an idiot. It's Barack Obama, not Obama Baraka. I think I was thinking of Afrika Bambata when I wrote that.
As for refreshing and real, well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion. I thought she was bizarre.
|By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 10:17 am: Edit|
What about Bill? He had an amazing speech in my opinion. So did Hil.
|By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 10:46 am: Edit|
Yeah, Bill was amazing. Probably the best natural politician of our generation. Charming with a capital C. And smart. And, yes, a big sleazy wife-cheater, too.
I also find Bush to be quite effective as a speaker (when scripted). I think people sell him way short.
|By Philntex (Philntex) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:58 am: Edit|
Barack Obama is my new political hero. I'm going to find some kind of way to work on his campaign in the future. Dang, if I could just BE him one day...wow. I've never been more impressed by a politician than I have by him; his speech definitely stole the show. Absolutely incredible.
|By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 12:34 pm: Edit|
After seeing him speak last night, I honestly think he has high potential to be the first black president.
|By Twinkletoes696 (Twinkletoes696) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 12:38 pm: Edit|
Ahhh...why did I miss watching the convention last night? It sounds as if I missed a great speech. I am honestly disappointed. I am going to google this man (who somehow I haven't heard of until now, apparently I've been under a rock) to find out about him. Thanks for making this thread, Noodleman!
Heinz Kerry's handling of the press makes me laugh. On one hand, it looks bad for her husband, but on the other, it's kind of funny that she doesn't take crap from the reporters.
|By Chapter322 (Chapter322) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 12:54 pm: Edit|
Aww... I missed it too! I heard about Obama before... didn't he go to Harvard?
|By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 12:58 pm: Edit|
Did anyone notice Hilary Clinton's botox fillers and cheek implants?
|By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 02:01 pm: Edit|
I loved Obama's speech. Noodleman, I liked what Heinz Kerry had to say. In this country - at least in certain circles - if a woman speaks her mind, she is labeled opinionated or worse. (Remember, we still don't have an equal rights ammendment.) When she said that maybe someday, women will be thought of as smart and educated instead of opinionated really struck a chord with me. I started out after college when the glass ceiling was just a ceiling and a man who was agressive in business was motivated and astute and a woman who was agressive in business was a b..... I like the idea of having someone in the White House who speaks five languages fluently and doesn't mind being firm with the press in all of them. I'm frankly tired of cringing during speeches as I listen to the English language get mangled.
But, in the spirit of an election year, this is what makes an election a real horse race. You don't like Teresa Heinz Kerry for whatever reason, although I get the impression she really angered you. I however think that a lot of women in the audience in Boston and watching on TV last night felt as if they finally had a kindred spirit speaking for them.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 02:29 pm: Edit|
Clinton is a pro at these things. He spoke really well, but was kind of devious, saying without actually saying it that "their side is evil, ours is good." Obama was also good. But terriza heinz was absolutly horrible. I dont know why she got the main speech, or even got to speak at all. I bet she demanded it and the organizers couldn't say no because she seems so demanding and arrogent. It was almost all about her self, very off topic and irrelevent, and boring. She spent a lot of it defending her temper with the reporter and others, where she gets angry for no good reason. Why did she have to show off that she could speak 5 languages? There was no depth or substance. She barly said anything concrete about her husband, and the way she speaks and her manerisms turn me off so much. She thinks that she can do whatever she wants because of her billion dollars.
|By Avidreader2006 (Avidreader2006) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 02:36 pm: Edit|
I agree w/ Jlq3d, I almost fell asleep listening to her speech!
|By Jimster0489 (Jimster0489) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 02:59 pm: Edit|
I am so proud of Barack Obama. He is a representative of Chicago (my hometown) and will undoubtedly win the run for US Senate in Illinois. Republicans in this state are deathly afraid of Barack. Because Jack Ryan dropped out of the race, Barack has no contender and the Republic Party in Illinois has been working extremely hard to find him an opponent. They know that no one can even fathom to defeat Obama. GO BARACK! I even had the pleasure of hearing him speak once in the flesh at a convention in Chicago. He was extremely nice and very powerful and articulate in his verbal rhetoric!
Teresa Ferreira Heinz Kerry has all the right to be arrogant and demanding. She is the daughter of a Portuguese blue-blood and was raised internationally in Mozambique. She also did marry the sole heir to the Heinz fortune of an estimated 821 million dollars, and after the death of Sen. John Heinz III, inherited everything that he was ever worth. She did marry John Kerry (very recently, in 1995/1996 if I remember correctly) who is a direct descendant of John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and the most lavish and extravagant senator of contemporary Massachusetts history. She didn't demand the speech. It was only customary- she is going to be America's First Lady. I just feel bad that her millions of dollars and her extensive schooling in the a Suisse academie hadn't provided her with sufficient speaking skills. Its funny how no matter what century this is, blue-bloods always rise to the top. The two men that are running for the ruler of the most powerful nation on this Earth are hardly representative of this nation. Us Americans do love our Mayflower-descended aristocrats.
|By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 03:15 pm: Edit|
I don't have a problem with the fact that she has opinions. Goodness knows, we all do. Why she should have a speaking role at the convention is beyond me, though. (As it would be if the candidate were a woman, and it were suggested that her husband speak. I wouldn't want to hear from him, either!) We're not looking for a "spouse-in-chief" for goodness-sakes. And, actually, it isn't customary. Nor should it be.
I'm sure she's smart. I'm sure she's educated. So am I. Nobody's asking me to speak, though. And I can say "Thank You" in 16 languages.
If she had done a fantastic job, I'd be the first to say so. Her speech was just plain strange, though, and I resent people who seem to get their way all the time. She just strikes me as that sort of person. So yeah, I guess she makes me angry, as an archetypically over-privileged snot.
When you got a billion in the bank, it's easy to be outspoken. When you don't have a pot to pee in, and speaking your mind can leave you homeless cause you get canned from your crappy Wal-Mart job for speaking out, then I got respect for you. That's taking a risk.
Barbara McCulsky, on the other hand, was great. So was Janet Napolitano, from Arizona. They hold office. They should speak. She sells ketchup and sweet relish. She shouldn't.
|By Annakat (Annakat) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 05:01 pm: Edit|
oh please. if teresa kerry didn't speak at the convention, then some would be criticizing her for being passive or trying to hide something or being an aloof blue-blood. she introduced herself to the country and defined herself and her image, rather than having journalists and so-called journalists do it for her. i'll take her over stepfordesque laura bush any day. i think it's funny that some point to her wealth and background as a source of what they perceive as arrogance. what do you think the bush administration does all the time? the administration works more secretively than any other in history and thumbs its nose at its critics, both large and small, constantly. dick cheney and halliburton get to do whatever they want in iraq and elsewhere because they have the influence to do so. dick cheney gets away with saying "go f**k yourself" in congress, not because he's an everyman, but because he's a rich guy with influence. and as for bill clinton being devious . . . both parties are guilty of that.
|By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 05:06 pm: Edit|
"She didn't demand the speech. It was only customary-"
It is not customary. A spouse never has a featured speech of a night. They usually introduce the candidate or have a non-featured speech. Obama should have had the featured speech.
Her speech was terrible, boring, and had nothing to do with any thing.
|By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 05:30 pm: Edit|
i'll take her over stepfordesque laura bush any day. i think it's funny that some point to her wealth and background as a source of what they perceive as arrogance. what do you think the bush administration does all the time? the administration works more secretively than any other in history and thumbs its nose at its critics, both large and small, constantly. dick cheney and halliburton get to do whatever they want in iraq and elsewhere because they have the influence to do so. dick cheney gets away with saying "go f**k yourself" in congress, not because he's an everyman, but because he's a rich guy with influence. and as for bill clinton being devious . . . both parties are guilty of that.
I agree totally with that entire paragraph, Annakat. I'm an equal opportunity filthy-rich-and-overprivileged hater!
|By Annakat (Annakat) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 05:53 pm: Edit|
EXCELLENT!!! let's have coffee!
|By Jimster0489 (Jimster0489) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 06:41 pm: Edit|
Barack Obama had the "keynote speech". Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech wasn't even the "featured speech".
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 07:08 pm: Edit|
Bill Clinton was amazing. Without a doubt one of, if not the best spoken politician of this century. A lot of the analyists were saying how Clinton delivered John Kerry's points better than Kerry himself has ever done...I sort of agree
...kind of looking foward to hear Edwards tonight, he is another Clinton in the making (hold the intern sex though)
|By P3ar (P3ar) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 07:31 pm: Edit|
Just to add, you can see videos of all the speakers' entire speeches at the DNC website:
Rebroadcasted in streaming Quicktime and Windows Media Player. Obama and Clinton's are imo the most worthwhile to watch, though some of the other ones are decent too.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 07:35 pm: Edit|
jimster, you are incorrect. The keynote speech is the last one given and is also the longest. Heinz's speech was this, so was Clinton's. Edward's speech will also be at this slot, so will kerry's.
|By Clipper (Clipper) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 07:37 pm: Edit|
I don't want to bring up a racial issue but I do have a question.
Obama is being hailed as a black politician. His mother is white and his father is black.
Do, and pardon my ignorance on this issue, children of white/black parents always prefer to be called black or could he say he was white?
Please don't flame me, I am just curious about the "labeling" issue. I watched the morning shows and they were saying he would be the first black president.
btw - I didn't get to see his whole speech but what I heard I was impressed.
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 07:50 pm: Edit|
Actually, Jlq3d3 you are incorrect.
Obama was the featured keynote speaker last night. (you don't necessarily have to speak last to be the keynote)
Clinton was the keynote speaker the first night, obama was last night, tongiht is edwards, and on thrusday it is kerry
|By Aim78 (Aim78) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 09:41 pm: Edit|
I like Obama, but what a name. From afar it looked like people were holding up Osama signs.
|By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 09:48 pm: Edit|
yes!! omg i was at the gym when that was on, so i was watching from across the room, and all these people are holding up signs that say "OSAMA" and i'm like WTF!! and so is everyone around me. but then we got a closer look and were like...why would anybody have that name.
|By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 09:53 pm: Edit|
Noodleman, I'm glad you clarified that you're an equal opportunity filthy-rich-and-overpriviliged-hater. I was beginning to think you had a problem with women in general. Now I know it's just rich ones!
|By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Edit|
>>why would anybody have that name.>>
Why indeed. His father was from Kenya, that's why. Doubtless, there are other Kenyans with that *last name.* Yesterday, Obama explained that his parents--his Kenya-born father and his Kansas-born white mother named him Barack "blessed." As for Osama, it is a common *first name* among Muslims.
|By Judy (Judy) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 10:55 pm: Edit|
Does anyone know if there is a copy of Obama's speech anywhere on the internet? I got home last night towards the very end of his speech and was blown away with what I heard and saw. I would love to read everything he said. As a Boston talk show host said today, " It was like Barack Obama wrapped his arms around every person in the Fleet Center and brought them all close together."
|By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:15 pm: Edit|
Knock yourself out
· Kenyan-American keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Boston.
· A Democratic U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois.
On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, land of Lincoln, let me express my deep gratitude for the privilege of addressing this convention. Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let's face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant.
But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place: America, which stood as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before. While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor he signed up for duty, joined Patton's army and marched across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised their baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the GI Bill, bought a house through FHA, and moved west in search of opportunity.
And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter, a common dream, born of two continents. My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or "blessed," believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren't rich, because in a generous America you don't have to be rich to achieve your potential. They are both passed away now. Yet, I know that, on this night, they look down on me with pride.
I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents' dreams live on in my precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible. Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, "We hold these truths to he self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams of its people, the insistence on small miracles. That we can tuck in our children at night and know they are fed and clothed and safe from harm. That we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe or hiring somebody's son. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted - or at least, most of the time.
This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up, to the legacy of our forbearers, and the promise of future generations. And fellow Americans - Democrats, Republicans, Independents - I say to you tonight: we have more work to do. More to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that's moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour. More to do for the father I met who was losing his job and choking back tears, wondering how he would pay $4,500 a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits he counted on. More to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn't have the money to go to college.
Don't get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.
In this election, we offer that choice. Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. That man is John Kerry. John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and sacrifice, because they've defined his life. From his heroic service in Vietnam to his years as prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he has devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we've seen him make tough choices when easier ones were available. His values and his record affirm what is best in us.
John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded. So instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he'll offer them to companies creating jobs here at home. John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans can afford the same health coverage our politicians in Washington have for themselves. John Kerry believes in energy independence, so we aren't held hostage to the profits of oil companies or the sabotage of foreign oil fields. John Kerry believes in the constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties nor use faith as a wedge to divide us. And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world, war must be an option, but it should never he the first option.
A while back, I met a young man named Shamus at the VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, six-two or six-three, clear-eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he'd joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week. As I listened to him explain why he'd enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving Shamus as well as he was serving us? I thought of more than 900 service men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who will not be returning to their hometowns. I thought of families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one's full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or with nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.
Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure. John Kerry believes in America. And he knows it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga.
A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief - I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper - that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here - the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!
In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead. I believe we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us. America!
Tonight, if you feel the same energy I do, the same urgency I do, the same passion I do, the same hopefulness I do - if we do what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as president, and John Edwards will be sworn in as vice president, and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come. Thank you and God bless you.
|By Jimster0489 (Jimster0489) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit|
If any of you use Xanga, and you admire Obama, join the coolest blogring this side of the online journal world.. "Obama yo mama!"
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:40 pm: Edit|
scubsteve, you are wrong. Not only did heinz have the longest time slot and time of other keynoters, she was officially the main speaker. This site lists the speakers each night, and the top one on each day as you see is the main speaker.
|By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 12:10 am: Edit|
"Noodleman, I'm glad you clarified that you're an equal opportunity filthy-rich-and-overpriviliged-hater. I was beginning to think you had a problem with women in general. Now I know it's just rich ones!"
LOL. Please don't misinterpret my remarks. I'm not a misogynist--I'm a misanthrope! (It's people I can't stand! not women, specifically. )
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:18 am: Edit|
"By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:40 pm: Edit
scubsteve, you are wrong. Not only did heinz have the longest time slot and time of other keynoters, she was officially the main speaker. This site lists the speakers each night, and the top one on each day as you see is the main speaker"
No J1q, you are wrong and that link proves nothing...it does not list who is keynote...Trust me the Dems would not feature a candidates wife as the keynote
"Speakers on this day will focus on what the campaign is calling Kerry's "Lifetime of Strength and Service." They include: keynote speaker Barack Obama, a state Senator from Illinois and U.S. Senate candidate..."
"Senate candidate to give keynote address"
...and if you took the time to fully inspect the initial link that you have me, you would find this:http://www.dems2004.org/site/pp.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=130845
Candidate for the United States Senate, Illinois
Satellite feed from Chicago, Illinois
The Honorable Jim Langevin
U.S. House of Representatives, Rhode Island
Kids for Kerry Founder Ilana Wexler
Performance by Children's Voices of Greater Boston
Teresa Heinz Kerry
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:35 am: Edit|
I guess you are right then. But it does seem weird the order they put the candidate. All of the other top ones are the main speakers, they all have the same time slot, and she spoke the longest. But I concede Im wrong when I am wrong.
|By Judy (Judy) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 08:03 am: Edit|
Thanks xiggi for posting the speech.
|By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 08:25 am: Edit|
To give you just an idea of how powerful that speech was, note this review from none other than "The National Review."
July 28, 2004, 4:12 p.m.
The belief in things not seen.
Boston, Mass Barack Obama's keynote speech at the Democratic Convention here has gotten a rapturous critical reception, justifiably so. Here are a few more follow up points about it:
NATIONAL UNITY. His litany in which he made the simple phrase "there's a United States of America" a rallying cry of unity and togetherness was simple and powerful. Most of the unity rhetoric this week has had a false ring, especially coming from people who have done more than their share to divide the country. Obama's call seemed more deeply felt and was more resonant, wrapped in patriotism: "We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America." Subliminal message: We are not the party of Dukakis we like pledging allegiance.
HAWKISH NOTES. He made this week's best, most trenchant criticism of the Iraq war, saying we should "never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect the world." The criticism reflects a hawkish attitude: We need more troops. It invokes the opinion of the world but also with a hawkish tinge: The world should respect us, because when we confront an enemy we do it right.
"AN AWESOME GOD." The emotional high point of the speech may have been his declaration that "We worship an awesome God in the Blue States." He thus rebutted the notion that the Democrats are the secular party, and did it in authentic, unashamed language. The theme of faith was woven throughout the speech, from near the very beginning when Obama talked of "a faith in the simple dreams of [America's] people, the insistence on small miracles." This is language that Democrats often can't muster, and it gives added oomph to two other key themes from the speech.
"MY BROTHER'S KEEPER." Democratic social programs often seem mushy or purposeless or pandering. Obama connected them with one of the deepest of all ethical imperatives to love our neighbors as ourselves: "It's that fundamental belief I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper that makes this country work." This is a liberalism with some emotional depth, and a meaning much more profound than the dollar signs next to line-items in a federal budget.
"THE AUDACITY OF HOPE!" We've heard a lot of talk of how important it is for the Democrats to be optimistic. But the optimism of forced smiles and focus-grouped phrases can be a wan thing indeed. Obama's optimism was expressed in the language of faith. When he talked of "the audacity of hope!" he was reaching for something inside the breast of every religious believer, and connecting with the audacious hope that has fueled heroic American projects, from the nation's very founding to the civil rights movement.
For all of these reasons, by the end, when Obama said "the people will rise up in November," and "this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come," it seemed more than garden-variety political rhetoric. Because it was.
|By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:45 am: Edit|
Here's what Josh Marshall(slightly left of center blogger) had to say about OBAMA:
Barack Obama was speaking, I was making my way around the convention hall floor, trying to listen to the speech while gauging audience reactions. In some ways this is a far inferior way to absorb a speech than simply to watch it on your television screen at home. And I wasn't following every moment word for word. But at some point, perhaps a half or two-thirds into the speech, I could sense a difference in the feel of the crowd and the tenor of Obama's voice. He was electrifying the crowd in a way you seldom see a politician manage to pull off. And I realized I needed to get down as close to the podium as I could.
So I made my way down through the several delegations on the right side of the convention floor and settled in about thirty feet down from Obama's left. What struck me first about Obama is something I've only really seen clearly before in Bill Clinton.
In most politicians -- in most public speakers really -- you can always sense a sort of double motion. You can sense their constant awareness of what they should be doing before they do it, and their inability to get the two to match up. Perhaps this is simply another way of saying that you sense their consciousness of self, the visibility of their artifice, like an actor who looks like he's acting, even if the technical points are hit more or less on key.
Clinton was always different. Whether there was artifice or not, it was seldom visible. His rapport with crowds or individuals was (and is) intuitive. The mastery of voice, sound and expression was always complete. And you could see that Monday night.
As it happens, I don't think that quality in a public speaker is something that can be learned. And on a fundamental level, I don't think it's a matter of artifice, though clearly Clinton has a rhetorical bag of tricks he returns to again and again. It's an emotional quality, an element of personality -- part of that undefinable quality of personal charisma. And that was what was radiating from Obama last night.
This was the passage I found the most powerful, and only in part because of the bare text of the words.
Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
Another point on Obama, to which we'll return. Every great public speaker has an emotional touchstone, a tenor that resonates through all they say and do. Clinton's was empathy and expressive emotion -- something that many people gravitated to irresistibly, and others recoiled from. In that regard, Obama seems altogether different. That Clintonite element is barely present with him. The hallmarks are grace and power, even force. (Watch the hands and the eyes.) And that worked well with last night's invocation of national unity.
-- Josh Marshal
|By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:13 pm: Edit|
Now that is the kind of politician this country needs!
That was an awesome speech, the part about the red states and the blue states was just, I cannot think of a word to describe it so I must make one up: scrumtruelescent!
Seriously, he seems like a great guy. He seems like a great moderate-liberal. Someone still "un-politicized" by Washington. He holds good liberal values (ouch...that hurt to write ) balanced with good conservative values. He's balanced, and the kind of guy that could bring both parties closer to the center...someone both sides of the aisle could admire. He's received praise from liberals and conservatives (Tucker Carlson) alike. A good "mashing" of liberal compassion with conservative practicality...someone both parties could accept even if they don't agree 100% with him.
Great speech, and this is coming from a conservative (although you won't see me donning a donkey pin anytime soon ).
|By Crypto86 (Crypto86) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:18 pm: Edit|
" eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white"
Amen Barack Obama. May I have the privledge to cast a vote for you for president some day in the near or far future.
|By Clipper (Clipper) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit|
Even Rush said today about Obama's speech was that it was one that you would have heard at the Republican convention!!
No one has answered my question from above.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 01:30 pm: Edit|
But his speech really contradicts the bitter dividing speeches given by kennedy, gore, heinz and Edwards (albeit said with a pretty face and optimistic tone), which all were talking about two americas, putting us into units based on gender and race.
|By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:01 pm: Edit|
I hardly would describe them as bitter and divisive. Last I checked the Dems are not in power. I believe it is the party in power that has the responsibility of making the move towards bi-partisanship. If I have it correct I believe bi-partisanship means allowing each side to express their views in an atmosphere of respect and openess and then coming to a consensus that most can agree on. I don't think the democrats are causing the divisiveness- they are only reacting to it.
|By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:16 pm: Edit|
Rush's comments seem to be coming straight from Republican talking points. I noticed last night on CNN that Tucker Carlson was trying to muddy the line between Bush and Kerry by saying they are not any different in their vision of handling Iraq. What a crock- Kerry would NEVER have gone to war with such crappy intelligence and concerning what he would do now- there aren't many choices. The Republican party has never been so conservative and they are just trying to confuse the swing voters into thinking they are moderate. I say to Bush- you might have fooled them last time but not this time-hopefully. If swing voters listen to Rush or Fox news this country is doomed.
In case you haven't noticed, the Democratic party or parts of it have moved more to the center and adopted more conservative views on spending. No Republican that I know of could have made that speech with any integrity-Rush's comment is nothing more than spin.
|By Garland (Garland) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 02:38 pm: Edit|
As I wrote on another thread in response to jlq's assertion, Osama is demanding that our country *truly* be "united", just as the other speakers also demanded. That was obviously the theme of Edwards' speech, too. Describing the divisions that power imposes on the less powerful is a prelude to asserting that those divisions must be ended.
Rush and friends are definitely spinning: ask Obama if he feels kinship with the Republicans!
|By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 03:33 pm: Edit|
"Rush's comments seem to be coming straight from Republican talking points. I noticed last night on CNN that Tucker Carlson was trying to muddy the line between Bush and Kerry by saying they are not any different in their vision of handling Iraq. What a crock- Kerry would NEVER have gone to war with such crappy intelligence and concerning what he would do now- there aren't many choices. The Republican party has never been so conservative and they are just trying to confuse the swing voters into thinking they are moderate. I say to Bush- you might have fooled them last time but not this time-hopefully. IF SWING VOTERS LISTEN TO RUSH OR FOX NEWS THIS COUNTRY IS DOOMED (caps mine)
In case you haven't noticed, the Democratic party or parts of it have moved more to the center and adopted more conservative views on spending. No Republican that I know of could have made that speech with any integrity-Rush's comment is nothing more than spin. "
Yes...Democrats aren't dividing the country...sure...
As long as the left admires radicals like Moore and Franken, and as long as the right admires radicals like Rush and Savage, both parties will remain extreme.
|By Lizschup (Lizschup) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 04:16 pm: Edit|
I don't particularly admire either one for that very reason. Hmmm, who was on the scene first and who probably has a larger audience. I think the Dems are only reacting to Republican tactics because unfortunately they work. Theresa Heinz Kerry was also a Republican until she saw what their attack machine did to Max Cleland.
Unfortunately most if not all Republicans I talk to consistently watch Fox news. Most Republicans I know don't seem to have their facts straight,especially concerning the war in Iraq. This is anecdotal but I have also read research that shows that Fox has the highest percentage of misinformed viewers. That to me is a very scary prospect. When the electorate is uninformed and misinformed they are all too easy to manipulate.
|By Philntex (Philntex) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 06:13 pm: Edit|
>>" eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white"
Amen Barack Obama. May I have the privledge to cast a vote for you for president some day in the near or far future. <<
I couldn't agree more, Crypto. That was the part of the speech that rang the truest, for me anyways. I'm going to fight tooth-and-nail to work with him (or on his campaign) in the future.
|By 1212 (1212) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 06:49 pm: Edit|
"I don't want to bring up a racial issue but I do have a question.
Obama is being hailed as a black politician. His mother is white and his father is black.
Do, and pardon my ignorance on this issue, children of white/black parents always prefer to be called black or could he say he was white?
Please don't flame me, I am just curious about the "labeling" issue. I watched the morning shows and they were saying he would be the first black president. "
i can only offer my own opinion, he is like u say afterall half and half. However, he married a black women. I think to judge a man's ethnic preference, one pretty much has to analyze his life's path which would include the race of his partner. His kids will grow up as african americans. thats just an abstract way to determine ethnicity. but u are right he is half white and half black no matter what, but media and public will treat him different and i dont think he objects.
|By Clipper (Clipper) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 08:22 pm: Edit|
Thanks 1212 for your prospective. I was thinking the same thing.
But why would his kids grow up to be African-Americans when they and their parents were born here?
|By Marite (Marite) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 08:31 pm: Edit|
African-American is the equivalent of Caucasian or white. It does not mean that you were born in Africa. It has replaced Negro, colored, black as the description of people of a certain skin color and ancestry. The definition of negro--used to bar them from certain jobs, facilities, opportunities--was anyone who had 1/32 black ancestry.
|By Clipper (Clipper) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 09:17 pm: Edit|
ok cool - thanks for the info.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|