Posts
The Mariupol Plan
-
For years, many Americans weren’t able to connect the dots between Russia
and Trump. It was obscured by that huge hissy fit that Trump made of the
Steele D...
17 hours ago
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Commentary: Palin is brilliant, but risky, VP choice
By Ed RollinsCNN Contributor
Editor's note: Ed Rollins, who served as political director for President Reagan, is a Republican strategist who was national chairman of Mike Huckabee's campaign. For a rival view of the Palin pick, read here.
Ed Rollins says Sarah Palin has a compelling story and has immense potential to attract women voters
The "who" is a young, articulate, smart, tough, pro-life woman who is the governor of our northernmost state. She is conservative and a mother of 5, including a son in the Army who is set to be deployed to Iraq on September 11. Her youngest child has Down syndrome.
The "Barracuda" nickname came from her aggressive basketball play on the state championship basketball team. She is a hunter, pilot and lifetime member of the NRA.
She is blunt, outspoken and charming. And don't assume she can't stand toe-to-toe with Joe Biden. She is a great debater. And she was runner-up for the Miss Alaska title, won Miss Congeniality in that contest, and plays the flute.
She also has a compelling story and is a most interesting choice. She will be known by all in 24 to 48 hours in this instant media world and I am betting she will be well-liked.
The "why" is she is a governor and outside the Beltway. Conservatives love her and she shares John McCain's value system. She is also known for taking on the establishment and ethics is her forte.
She defeated the longtime senator and Republican governor in a primary and then went on and defeated the former Democratic governor.
I don't believe people vote for vice president but only for president. That said, I think she is every bit as good a choice as Biden. Alaska has three electoral votes and so does Delaware -- so that part ends up being a wash.
I think the potential for her to attract women voters is immense. And I am betting, win or lose or draw, she is a future star of a party in desperate need of young people and women role models.
And by the end of this campaign, she too will be a celebrity and her life will never be the same again. I hope that's all for the good.
Speaking of celebrities, Barack Obama proved why he is one at INVESCO Field, home of the Denver Broncos, last night before 85,000 crying, cheering adoring fans. And what's wrong with that? He is a real talent and he excites and inspires his supporters.
Those of us who are not supporters need to step back and quit watching in awe and prepare for battle. Obama's natural and developed speaking style is unchallengeable.
I've been in politics for 40 years. I had the privilege of serving Ronald Reagan as his White House political director and campaign manager and during those years I heard him give hundreds of speeches
And no one was ever better. His words enlightened, gave comfort, inspired and made Americans feel good about themselves again. He also had a core of beliefs developed over a long period of time that led to a very effective agenda.
The Democrats now have their own version of an RR orator. And, like Reagan, Obama's speeches are his own words. Whether he will be elected president or will have the accomplishments RR did only time will tell. But his gifts of speech and ability to inspire his supporters are impressive and should not be underestimated.
Saying all that, and putting the emotion of "mile-high Denver" euphoria aside, Ronald Reagan became a great president because of his many other skills. He knew where he wanted to take our country and had the courage to stick to his beliefs.
We still don't know what Obama and the Democrats want other than George Bush back in Crawford Texas, and their party controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
We now know the tickets: Obama-Biden; McCain-Palin.
Biden is an asset as a foreign policy adviser. Palin will be an asset on domestic and energy issues. All have compelling stories. But ultimately this race is about McCain's experience and world view and Obama's ability to excite his base.
We have one more exciting convention (now with a new player in Gov. Palin) and then 60-plus days to go at full speed. The winner gets the toughest job in the world with the most difficult agenda we as a nation have faced in decades.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer
Obama as Nero
August 29, 2008 - by Bridget JohnsonAs Barack Obama leaves Denver, I hope he remembers to fetch his fiddle: He’ll need something to play while the Democratic Party and its high hopes crumble, and he waxes poetic about the adoration of the masses he felt while perched a mile high at Invesco Field.
So, yeah, the palatial columns that made up the gaudy “West Wing” stage at Obama’s acceptance production reminded me of the cheesy set design in swords-and-sandals epics. But what really popped into my head was the image of Peter Ustinov as Nero in “Quo Vadis?” — “Do I live for the people or do the people live for me? … These people expect me to shine both day and night!” The left would have it that only the Republicans regard the masses as plebs, but Obama knows these masses as his loyal flock. More...
So loyal, in fact, that style was an easily accepted substitute for substance at this week’s convention. On a stage that looked like an Oscar for Best Performance by a Long-Winded Politician (Biden!) was going to be handed out any minute, the loyal masses saw a well-scripted throwing in of the towel by Hillary Clinton, in shots that made you wish there was an open mic on her, Bill, or even an at-times steely-faced Michelle Obama. The Republican crossover speech from former Congressman Jim Leach was a snoozing counterpoint to Zell Miller at the 2004 Republican National Convention or even how we know Joe Lieberman will be received at next week’s RNC.
And the policy points? Stunning! Bill Clinton intimated that Republicans hate autistic kids. John Kerry showed his hide is still plenty chapped over that Swift boat thing. Joe Biden struck the obligatory pro-war concession (Afghanistan) for the anti-war party. And Barack Obama drove home the point that he won’t be upstaged by anyone, essentially snagging Biden’s spotlight night Wednesday with a surprise appearance and impromptu speech at the Pepsi Center.
Was the weeklong production enough to net an Obama win in November?
One thing apparent in Denver was that the far left thinks the moderate-left platitudes put on for the media show aren’t left enough. A protester on every corner reminded you about the evil Republicans, but also chided the Democrats as traitorous to their “anti-imperialist” causes. And as amusing as many of the protests were, there were some stomach-churning undertones: A woman promoting abortion and defending Iran at the same literature-laden booth. A bumpersticker for sale that proclaimed “Satan’s a Republican.” Chants that lumped the F-bomb and America in the same sentence. A silk-screen display showing the faces of Iran (translation: “don’t attack, you evil U.S.!”) yet didn’t include a single imprisoned journalist, tortured democracy activist, or devious mullah in the happy, smiling bunch.
It also became clear in my conversations with visitors just how much a significant portion of the African-American community are investing in this Obama run. One Obama button seen for sale on the 16th Street Mall showed Martin Luther King Jr. saying “My dream is now reality,” though I can’t believe the legendary civil rights leader would have pinned all of his hopes and dreams for racial harmony on one candidate. Another button seen on a partygoer showed Obama and a giant fist, with the words “Obama said knock you out” (think the LL Cool J song). If Obama loses, how many will blame the message (or lack of details in it), and how many will let that sting sow seeds of greater divisiveness?
One night while riding the light rail, an Obama supporter stood in the middle of the train with a bullhorn, yelling random things to cheering response: “Cheney! Halliburton! KBR! Ted Haggard! Larry Craig! Slavery is over! Obama is here!” As others kvetched about John McCain, two young men wearing Obama T-shirts began fighting and calling each other the N-word. How ironic, I thought, considering the use of that slur is something that really needs to be changed in America.
I chatted with the passenger across from me, who wore an Obama button and a pendant of his parents’ picture, pre-Civil Rights era, on a dog-tag-style chain. “I want change,” he said. “We just need change! I’m voting for change! I don’t care what happens in any other country. I just care about what happens here. Only in America.” Words that could have come from any America Firster backing Ron Paul, but are clearly a trend among those who would just like to hear Obama’s current focus on domestic social-justice issues such as taxing the rich.
The problem is that globalization is about a lot more than economies. What happens abroad will continue to directly affect American families more than ever before. And as we were aided to our independence by the French so many years ago, we just can’t falter on moral clarity in our global responsibilities, as well. Would a President Obama have come to the aid of Rwanda, or would the isolationist tone that edged him past the foreign-policy-minded Hillary Clinton win out, winning the adulation of the masses on the left?
As Obama ascended his perch over the plebs Thursday night, before a crowd that endured an hours-long line to get in to see their exalted leader, he bellowed the change refrain and tried to paint John McCain as an ignorant elitist. The feel-good celebration and laundry list of promises — you’ll all get health care, get college paid for, socialist redistribution of wealth be damned (oh yeah, it was tax cuts for “95 percent of working families” — who draws the working-class lines?) — rallied the liberal base, but will have done little to entrance the moderates who, as polls show, got really nervous about Obama over the Russia-Georgia crisis.
It seems that Obama’s soaring rhetoric and preaching to the choir — a wasted opportunity for him in a spotlight week — could have just served to burn his party in order to create an epic.
So, yeah, the palatial columns that made up the gaudy “West Wing” stage at Obama’s acceptance production reminded me of the cheesy set design in swords-and-sandals epics. But what really popped into my head was the image of Peter Ustinov as Nero in “Quo Vadis?” — “Do I live for the people or do the people live for me? … These people expect me to shine both day and night!” The left would have it that only the Republicans regard the masses as plebs, but Obama knows these masses as his loyal flock. More...
So loyal, in fact, that style was an easily accepted substitute for substance at this week’s convention. On a stage that looked like an Oscar for Best Performance by a Long-Winded Politician (Biden!) was going to be handed out any minute, the loyal masses saw a well-scripted throwing in of the towel by Hillary Clinton, in shots that made you wish there was an open mic on her, Bill, or even an at-times steely-faced Michelle Obama. The Republican crossover speech from former Congressman Jim Leach was a snoozing counterpoint to Zell Miller at the 2004 Republican National Convention or even how we know Joe Lieberman will be received at next week’s RNC.
And the policy points? Stunning! Bill Clinton intimated that Republicans hate autistic kids. John Kerry showed his hide is still plenty chapped over that Swift boat thing. Joe Biden struck the obligatory pro-war concession (Afghanistan) for the anti-war party. And Barack Obama drove home the point that he won’t be upstaged by anyone, essentially snagging Biden’s spotlight night Wednesday with a surprise appearance and impromptu speech at the Pepsi Center.
Was the weeklong production enough to net an Obama win in November?
One thing apparent in Denver was that the far left thinks the moderate-left platitudes put on for the media show aren’t left enough. A protester on every corner reminded you about the evil Republicans, but also chided the Democrats as traitorous to their “anti-imperialist” causes. And as amusing as many of the protests were, there were some stomach-churning undertones: A woman promoting abortion and defending Iran at the same literature-laden booth. A bumpersticker for sale that proclaimed “Satan’s a Republican.” Chants that lumped the F-bomb and America in the same sentence. A silk-screen display showing the faces of Iran (translation: “don’t attack, you evil U.S.!”) yet didn’t include a single imprisoned journalist, tortured democracy activist, or devious mullah in the happy, smiling bunch.
It also became clear in my conversations with visitors just how much a significant portion of the African-American community are investing in this Obama run. One Obama button seen for sale on the 16th Street Mall showed Martin Luther King Jr. saying “My dream is now reality,” though I can’t believe the legendary civil rights leader would have pinned all of his hopes and dreams for racial harmony on one candidate. Another button seen on a partygoer showed Obama and a giant fist, with the words “Obama said knock you out” (think the LL Cool J song). If Obama loses, how many will blame the message (or lack of details in it), and how many will let that sting sow seeds of greater divisiveness?
One night while riding the light rail, an Obama supporter stood in the middle of the train with a bullhorn, yelling random things to cheering response: “Cheney! Halliburton! KBR! Ted Haggard! Larry Craig! Slavery is over! Obama is here!” As others kvetched about John McCain, two young men wearing Obama T-shirts began fighting and calling each other the N-word. How ironic, I thought, considering the use of that slur is something that really needs to be changed in America.
I chatted with the passenger across from me, who wore an Obama button and a pendant of his parents’ picture, pre-Civil Rights era, on a dog-tag-style chain. “I want change,” he said. “We just need change! I’m voting for change! I don’t care what happens in any other country. I just care about what happens here. Only in America.” Words that could have come from any America Firster backing Ron Paul, but are clearly a trend among those who would just like to hear Obama’s current focus on domestic social-justice issues such as taxing the rich.
The problem is that globalization is about a lot more than economies. What happens abroad will continue to directly affect American families more than ever before. And as we were aided to our independence by the French so many years ago, we just can’t falter on moral clarity in our global responsibilities, as well. Would a President Obama have come to the aid of Rwanda, or would the isolationist tone that edged him past the foreign-policy-minded Hillary Clinton win out, winning the adulation of the masses on the left?
As Obama ascended his perch over the plebs Thursday night, before a crowd that endured an hours-long line to get in to see their exalted leader, he bellowed the change refrain and tried to paint John McCain as an ignorant elitist. The feel-good celebration and laundry list of promises — you’ll all get health care, get college paid for, socialist redistribution of wealth be damned (oh yeah, it was tax cuts for “95 percent of working families” — who draws the working-class lines?) — rallied the liberal base, but will have done little to entrance the moderates who, as polls show, got really nervous about Obama over the Russia-Georgia crisis.
It seems that Obama’s soaring rhetoric and preaching to the choir — a wasted opportunity for him in a spotlight week — could have just served to burn his party in order to create an epic.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-as-nero/
Post-electable incoherence
Before I get started, I admit that I haven’t listened to Barack Obama’s speech. He has now achieved the unenviable position in my mind of having a voice even more irritating than George Bush’s. At least with Bush, his mannerisms are so well known and predictable that they were “almost” endearing in their mindless stupidity. With Obama, the wounds are still too raw. The mannerisms that make him quite possibly more mockable than Bush are currently surrounded by ideas that make me want to smack him.
Both Heidi Li and Anglachel have commentary on Obama’s speech. I will listen or read Obama’s speech later but from what these two have deconstructed, it isn’t difficult for me to piece together what Obama was trying to convey. The bottom line is that the Democrats are in deep, deep trouble not merely because they have selected a man who is supremely unready for the job but because they find themselves trying to hold their own base together without a clue of how they got to a divided party in the first place. More...
Heidi Li reports that Obama lifted whole sections of Hillary’s speeches without attribution. This is not really a surprise. We have seen the content of Obama’s character. Schmoozers are experts at taking other people’s ideas and passing them off as their own. It’s how they keep climbing the rungs of success. The difference here is that half of his Democratic base is watching and we still have the votes to truncate his rise to the top. I think this is what drives the Obamaphiles insane, as we have witnessed in the past couple of days as the trolls descend on us and pull the “If you don’t give us what we want, it will be YOUR fault if we lose” routine. They just can’t believe they have to stoop down to us and ask nicely for our vote. If we were as smart as *they* are, we would just give it to them to do for us what they know is best for us. Can’t we see they desperately want Obama to win? Why are we making their lives so difficult?
So, Obama sighs in resignation and incorporates parts of Clinton’s agenda in his speech. “There!”, he seems to say, “I’m a Democrat. Are you happy now? Now, shut up and hand the votes over.” But then, according to Anglachel, he reveals the reason why he will fail to win the White House in November.
The problem is that if Democrats abandon their core principles and Republicans don’t abandon theirs, any attempts at negotiation and compromise ends up pulling us more to the right. The DC Village is perfectly happy pulling the Democrats to the right because it doesn’t rock their little boat and what is good for them, MUST be good for the rest of the country.
What we in the neglected half of the party can’t understand is why we are buying into the Villager narrative. This was supposed to be our year. After 8 years of unfettered movement conservatism and radical Republicanism when there was absolutely nothing standing in the way of Republicans enacting every Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society initiative in their arsenal, the country finally woke up and rejected what the Republicans were selling. This year was supposed to be a cakewalk for Democrats. The country is dying for a strong Democratic push-back and what Obama is proposing is about has bold as tapioca.
So, we have the strength of the Clinton agenda blunted by the call for bi-partisanship. This is the Change! that we’ve been waiting for? No, this is what the Villagers want. They want a Democratic party without any teeth. And the Democrats are going along with it because they have learned helplessness in the face of the Republican juggernaut. Recently, I got a clue about what is going on in the heads of the liberal elite Obamaphile when I heard an interview Terry Gross did with a pension and retirement specialist who recommended that the government start a pension account for every American. Terry whined about how the Republicans are never going to let that happen. So why bother? This is Obamatics. Give up before you even start because vigorous resistence against Republicans has been unsuccessful in the past 8 years.
Grover Norquist and Karl Rove must be ecstatic. They had always hoped to defang the opposition and now they are successful beyond their wildest dreams. The Democrats have spent so much time banging their heads against an immovable object that they have completely forgotten what it was they were fighting for in the first place. To them, politics is one endless series of compromises. With Obama elected, the Democrats continue down the path of making the party irrelevent. And they Obama faction, for the most part, is too young and affluent to realize that what is required of it is struggle. They are willing to surrender before a single bill is proposed.
What Clinton offered was the coherence of core Democratic principles with which we would strengthen our bargaining abilities. She understood the American electorate and how it had been hurt economically and socially by movement conservatism. She wanted to restore the social safety net of the New Deal and rally the public to fight for themselves. That is bold. That is change from what we have had from Democrats in the past eight years. That is scary. That’s not what we’re getting with Obama.
Obama does not have a core. That is why his speech is incoherent. It doesn’t stick together because he doesn’t believe in core Democratic principles. He is merely mouthing the words because he knows he needs us onboard. But he will never get us onboard because we understand the hollowness of his policies and as a result, he is not only post-partisan, he is post-electable. He is a failure before he has even started, along with the rest of the current Democratic party leadership. They threw away their champion for a schmoozer and will be handed their asses in November.
The sooner the better.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Both Heidi Li and Anglachel have commentary on Obama’s speech. I will listen or read Obama’s speech later but from what these two have deconstructed, it isn’t difficult for me to piece together what Obama was trying to convey. The bottom line is that the Democrats are in deep, deep trouble not merely because they have selected a man who is supremely unready for the job but because they find themselves trying to hold their own base together without a clue of how they got to a divided party in the first place. More...
Heidi Li reports that Obama lifted whole sections of Hillary’s speeches without attribution. This is not really a surprise. We have seen the content of Obama’s character. Schmoozers are experts at taking other people’s ideas and passing them off as their own. It’s how they keep climbing the rungs of success. The difference here is that half of his Democratic base is watching and we still have the votes to truncate his rise to the top. I think this is what drives the Obamaphiles insane, as we have witnessed in the past couple of days as the trolls descend on us and pull the “If you don’t give us what we want, it will be YOUR fault if we lose” routine. They just can’t believe they have to stoop down to us and ask nicely for our vote. If we were as smart as *they* are, we would just give it to them to do for us what they know is best for us. Can’t we see they desperately want Obama to win? Why are we making their lives so difficult?
So, Obama sighs in resignation and incorporates parts of Clinton’s agenda in his speech. “There!”, he seems to say, “I’m a Democrat. Are you happy now? Now, shut up and hand the votes over.” But then, according to Anglachel, he reveals the reason why he will fail to win the White House in November.
For 40 years, since 1968, the American political landscape has been dominated by the most compact, fanatical, ideologically radical party in the West today. They have brutalized their opponents and despoiled the nation. The crises of our nation (vs. some rather pedestrian political screw ups) have been caused by this group that simply does not agree that we should be a democratic nation. This is not “gridlock” - this is political survival. They have over-reached and now is the time to seize a political opportunity.He seems intent on negotiating Clinton’s agenda away in the name of post-partisanship. He embraces high-Broderism, that media construct that says that Americans really want the parties to get along and if only the Democrats would stop being so stubborn about their core principles and learned to work with Republicans, then we would all sing in perfect harmony.
From the langauge I have heard through the campaign season and particularly in the last few days, this group is quite cheerfully positioning itself in a weaker position than the Clintons took in 1992, when it seemed impossible that anything could stop the Reagan Revolution juggernaut. They have eagerly taken on the superficial trappings of the Right - pandering to religious kooks, backing down on civil rights, abandoning even the pretense of social and economic equity, flatly saying they will not entertain an ambitious health care reform plan - and have no sense of the depth of change they could accomplish if they would trust to their own party’s philosophy.
The speech was all surface and ended by denying its own opening claims, cutting off its deepest, strongest roots.
The problem is that if Democrats abandon their core principles and Republicans don’t abandon theirs, any attempts at negotiation and compromise ends up pulling us more to the right. The DC Village is perfectly happy pulling the Democrats to the right because it doesn’t rock their little boat and what is good for them, MUST be good for the rest of the country.
What we in the neglected half of the party can’t understand is why we are buying into the Villager narrative. This was supposed to be our year. After 8 years of unfettered movement conservatism and radical Republicanism when there was absolutely nothing standing in the way of Republicans enacting every Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society initiative in their arsenal, the country finally woke up and rejected what the Republicans were selling. This year was supposed to be a cakewalk for Democrats. The country is dying for a strong Democratic push-back and what Obama is proposing is about has bold as tapioca.
So, we have the strength of the Clinton agenda blunted by the call for bi-partisanship. This is the Change! that we’ve been waiting for? No, this is what the Villagers want. They want a Democratic party without any teeth. And the Democrats are going along with it because they have learned helplessness in the face of the Republican juggernaut. Recently, I got a clue about what is going on in the heads of the liberal elite Obamaphile when I heard an interview Terry Gross did with a pension and retirement specialist who recommended that the government start a pension account for every American. Terry whined about how the Republicans are never going to let that happen. So why bother? This is Obamatics. Give up before you even start because vigorous resistence against Republicans has been unsuccessful in the past 8 years.
Grover Norquist and Karl Rove must be ecstatic. They had always hoped to defang the opposition and now they are successful beyond their wildest dreams. The Democrats have spent so much time banging their heads against an immovable object that they have completely forgotten what it was they were fighting for in the first place. To them, politics is one endless series of compromises. With Obama elected, the Democrats continue down the path of making the party irrelevent. And they Obama faction, for the most part, is too young and affluent to realize that what is required of it is struggle. They are willing to surrender before a single bill is proposed.
What Clinton offered was the coherence of core Democratic principles with which we would strengthen our bargaining abilities. She understood the American electorate and how it had been hurt economically and socially by movement conservatism. She wanted to restore the social safety net of the New Deal and rally the public to fight for themselves. That is bold. That is change from what we have had from Democrats in the past eight years. That is scary. That’s not what we’re getting with Obama.
Obama does not have a core. That is why his speech is incoherent. It doesn’t stick together because he doesn’t believe in core Democratic principles. He is merely mouthing the words because he knows he needs us onboard. But he will never get us onboard because we understand the hollowness of his policies and as a result, he is not only post-partisan, he is post-electable. He is a failure before he has even started, along with the rest of the current Democratic party leadership. They threw away their champion for a schmoozer and will be handed their asses in November.
The sooner the better.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Articles /Blogs Thursday, August 27-31
Articles/ Blogs Sunday, August 31
**Sarah Palin vs, Barrack Obama, AudacityOfHypocrisy.com
Where Palin Made Her Name
How the Left Will Try and Diminish Palin - Dean Barnett, Weekly Standard
Sen. Clinton's Campaign Journey Sparks New Women's Movement, Boston Globe via Clinton Dems
They can't Help it - Reclusive Leftist, LondonAmerican
RU Experienced? - Noah Millman, American Scene
Who is Prepared to be President? Nobody - Richard Reeves, RealClearPolitics
More...
Articles/ Blogs Saturday, August 30
Obama And His Campaign Are Being Hypocrites.
A Chicagoan's Perspective on Obama, Rezko and Corruption
The Game Changer - John Avlon
Bad for Obama - Mark Steyn
Palin Fought for Reform in Alaska - Fred Barnes, Wall Street Journal
With Pick, McCain Reclaims Maverick Image - Dan Balz, Washington Post
Why the Left is Scared of Sarah Palin - Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard
A Reform Ticket - Wall Street Journal
The Story Behind the Palin Pick - The Politico
McCain's Brilliant Trap - Kirsten Powers, New York Post
McCain Makes Calculated Bet
Transcipt: Palin's Speech
Articles/ Blogs Friday, August 29
Obama Offers a Beautifully Packaged Lie - Robert Tracinski, TIA Daily
McCain to Obama: 'We Can Too' - Dan Schnur, New York Times
An Extraordinary Choice - Hugh Hewitt, Townhall
A Wasted Convention - Toby Harnden, RealClearPolitics
NAFTA bashing off of Obama's Agenda, Philip Elliott, Real Clear Politics
Obama Desperately Trying to Keep Lid On Bill Ayers Story
A Speech to the Delegates - David Brooks, New York Times
Obama's New, Old Politics Clash - John Harris & Jim VandeHei, Politico
Obama Gives a Non-Celebrity Speech - Steve Kornacki, New York Observer
He Remains the Perfect Stranger - Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post
And If Obama Loses? - Pat Buchanan, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Democrats Talkin' like the GOP, Debra Saunders, Rasmussen Reports
**PUMA PLAN FOR NOVEMBER**
Articles/ Blogs Thursday, August 28
**PUMA PLAN FOR NOVEMBER**
The Audacity of Hypocrisy, nobamablog
Did Biden Worsen the Mortgage Crisis? - McQ, QandO
Obama Needs to Take a Stand on Race - Juan Williams, Wall Street Journal
Obama tactics used to stifle and intimidate its critics, National Review Online
The Separation of Church and Pelosi - David Reinhard, The Oregonian
What Hillary's Women Want - Geraldine Ferraro, New York Daily News
Big HRC Donors Giving to McCain, Marcus Baram, ABC News
Dems Are Stupid to Equate McCain and Bush - Dick Morris, The Hill
The Big Contradiction from the Denver Dems - Michael Medved, Townhall
Democrats Work to Minimize Stadium Speech's Risks - New York Times
Would You Hire Barack Obama? Dean Barnett, The Weekly Standard
Biden's Exaggerations - Karl Rove, The Weekly Standard
Obama's slender record - William Kristol, The Weekly Standard
Brand New McCain Ad: Democrats on Obama's lack of Experience, thejtandbearshow.com
Where is the 2004 Barack Obama? - Jon Gurwitz, San Antonio Express News
Pomp and Circumstancee of the Campaign Process You Just Can't Make Up, Associated Content
Democracy -- Sponsored by Corporate America - Ralph Nader, The Hill
AT&T has high profile presence at Democratic Convention, Jim Kuhnhenn, Real Clear Politics
Hillary Can't Fix What Dems Broke - Froma Harrop, Providence Journal
Scratches in Obama's Glitter - Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe
Biden's Experience in Foreign Policy Poses Problems - Charles Lipson, CT
Why Obama Was 'The Most Liberal' - Charles Green, National Journal
Congress Is a Perfect Target for McCain - Karl Rove, Wall Street Journal
Avoiding A Long, Disappointing Fall - John Judis, The New Republic
Bill Clinton Endorses John McCain Sort Of (Video)
Behind the Scenes at the Building of the Greek Temple of Obamis (Video)
Explosive Video: Bill Clinton on Obama's Lack of Experience
Articles/ Blogs Wednesday, August 27
Why Bill Is Mad - Capehart, Washington Post
Problems on Mt. Olympus - Mike Murphy, Time
The Obama-Not Hillary Ticket - Dick Morris'
Would you have given a Harvard graduate a position of CEO right after graduation?'Obama Needs More Than Change - Philip Klein, The American Spectator
The Obama-Biden Pork Partnership - Ed Morrissey, Hot Air
Obama's Ayers Problem Deepens - Michelle Malkin
Which is the Real Michelle Obama? - Mona Charen, National Review
Obama's Stage: Has He Lost His Mind? - Charles Krauthammer, Wash Post
Hillary Gets a Good Start on 2012 - Michael Barone, US News & World Report
Has the Convention Helped Obama? - Jay Cost, RealClearPolitics
What Clinton's Body Said - CBS News
Walks of Shame - Savage Politics
Hillary Clinton's Stock Up, Most Would Like to See Her Run Again - Gallup
Women Have the Skills, Why Not More Top Jobs?
Obama Wins on Empathy, McCain on Experience
Celebrities for McCain - by Stephen F. Hayes
Gallup Daily: Race Still Close With Obama 45%, McCain 44%
Clinton: An Endorsement of the Democratic Party But Not Obama - Purple People Vote
(Still) Party Unity My A**Submitted By indy1207
Obama, Bill Clinton Remain Distant - Washington Post
Clinton's Address to the DNC (Video)
Gallup: Conservative Democrats (& Republicans) Peeling Away From ObamaVoters Must Wonder Why He Didn't Pick Hillary - Kirsten Powers, NY Post
The Denver Group Reception - NoQuarter
Chaos on the Convention Floor - The Washington Post
Fighting Against Obama's Thugs - By Michelle Malkin
Obama Parrots McCain on Georgia - The London American
She was Right - London American
The Unease of Election '08 - Jay Nordlinger, National Review
The Better Hillary Does, the Worse for Obama - Dick Morris, The Hill
The Arrogance of Nancy Pelosi - Rush Limbaugh, RushLimbaugh.com
Cognitive Dissonace - LondonAmerican
New, old politics clash in speech
Listen closely to the 46-minute address, however, and you heard two speeches crushed somewhat violently together."
By JOHN F. HARRIS & JIM VANDEHEI, Politico
DENVER - That was one more bravura performance from Barack Obama Thursday night, and 85,000 supporters in the football stadium here—and no doubt millions watching on television—were ecstatic over the oratorical flights of the newly crowned Democratic nominee.
Listen closely to the 46-minute address, however, and you heard two speeches crushed somewhat jarringly together. More...
The first half, one suspects, was the speech that Obama felt he had to give: a traditional partisan appeal that, for all his sonorous cadences, read like it could have been stitched together randomly from speeches delivered on any given day from rank-and-file Democrats on the floor of the House of Representatives.
There were denuciations of outsourced manufacturing jobs and promises to save Security Security and frequent baiting of John McCain for being the candidate of the rich and a weakling against Osama bin Laden.
The second half sounded like the speech Obama wanted to give: a plea for a new brand of politics, one in which politicians don’t attack each other’s motives or character, and Washington calls a ceasefire in such drearily familiar fights as abortion and gun control.
Obama did not acknowledge the two halves of his address—the partisan top and the post-partisan close—much less try to reconcile them. Blurring inconsistencies under clouds of polished language is the right of any politician. What’s more, a convention acceptance speech is not the time for a seminar.
Even so, it was notable that Obama’s speech offered countless rhetorical stanzas but not much in the way of a sustained argument aimed at convincing people who are not already enthusiasts, or for whom the charge that McCain would represent four more years of George W. Bush does not by itself close the deal.
He chided McCain for being a slave to his party’s orthodoxy. But Obama did not find occasion to challenge any Democratic orthodoxies, or highlight places where he breaks from his party’s interest groups.
Indeed, he made almost no effort to place himself in any particular spot on the Democratic ideological spectrum. The result was to leave a default impression that he is a standard post-Clinton Democrat—wary of big business and the ill effects of globalization and free trade, motivated most intensely by antipathy to Bush and the Iraq War.
The speech included some moments of plain hypocrisy—nothing out of bounds by the standards of normal campaigning but out of step with his pleas for a more unifying and less manipulative style of politics.
Obama said “what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes,” because “the times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook.”
Over the course of this year Obama and other Democrats have suggested frequently that McCain abandoned his once independent positions in order to appease conservatives in his race for the Republican nomination.
He also invoked most of his party’s favorite gotcha moments against McCain. The thrusts were well-turned and mostly above-the-belt (though sometimes a bit distorted). But there is nothing more familiar than making politicians pay for their gaffes. This is precisely the same practice that Obama denounced last spring as old politics when it was used against him when he slipped by saying poor white voters “cling” to guns and religion because of job losses.
Obama accused McCain of considering everyone under $5 million as middle class – a reference to a clumsy comment McCain recently made at a forum. He said McCain wants to privatize Social Security, which is somewhat misleading. McCain has supported allowing workers to put a small percentage of their Social Security taxes in private savings accounts – but not to privatize the program.
He said McCain “has said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investment in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels." That’s not entirely true: McCain has been supportive of measures in all of these areas though he has also voted against many Democratic versions of these plans.
The speech was more programmatic and less biographical than many of Obama's most celebrated speeches. Notably, he touched only glancingly on his history making status as the first African-American nominee.
The speech also highlighted a contrast between Obama and the last Democrat to win the presidency. Even on big occasions like acceptance speeches or State of the Union addresses, Bill Clinton usually aimed for a conversational tone. More often than not, he also liked to pretend he was grappling genuinely with the other side’s honest positions, if only to show why they were wrong.
Obama strives for a more elevated and elegant tone in his language. But his basic case is more straightforward denunciation. “For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy — give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else,” Obama said of McCain.
This may not go far toward creating a new brand of politics, but it will please many of the Democratic elected officials here. All week, many of Obama’s colleagues in interviews said his most important job was to be a fighter—to tie McCain to Bush at every turn, and to show that when hit over his patriotism or his credentials as commander in chief he will hit back harder.
If those Democrats were right—if that was indeed Obama’s most important job—than the speech that wrapped up the 2008 Democratic convention probably succeeded both as both rhetoric and as politics. Still, even the finest phrases don't change the reality that it's hard to practice new politics and old at the very same time.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
PUMA PLAN FOR NOVEMBER
pass it around and let your friends and neighbors and online families know. It’s urgent. We only have two months to assure the defeat of the thugs from Chicago.
Here’s the PUMA plan
Battleground States Residents
Must vote for McCain if they can find it in themselves to do it. Otherwise just leave “President” blank
For Senators and House Reps
the DNC said if their Messiah didnt win, they would still win the dem downline. We’d all fall in line (not) and even if they didnt win the presidency they would still win the house and senate.
If we are to clean out the crooks and thieves and self serving, who have been busy in congress lining their pockets with special interest money, ignoring the state of their constituents, we can’t keep voting them back in office even if they are Democrats. More...
those dems who fell in with Obama from the git go, vote their opponent or leave blank.
those dems who quickly jumped ship from Hillary, accepted payoffs from Obama, the Party, Dean, Pelosi, vote their opponent or leave blank
those dems who resisted the skullduggery and stuck with Hillary to the end until they were threatened by Pelosi , the DNC, Obama, Dean, vote them back into office.
Dont forget these are the superdelegates who could have changed or stopped the rigging of the nomination and theft of votes, but didnt.
these are the same congress we elected in 2006 to end the war, instead they supported a surge.
these are the same congress we elected in 2006 to impeach Bush-Cheney - instead they continued to allow the shredding of the Constitution and Bill of rights
These are the same congress we elected in 2006 to stop the spying on American citizens which is illegal, instead they passed immunity for Bush and ATT and the rest of the phone companies which partook.
And a special note to those who live in San Francisco or are constitutents of Nancy Pelosi. As one of the major powers in this coup of the people’s nominating process, If you have to vote for Mickey Mouse, get her out of congress.
Others who spearheaded this coup against the people and rigged the nominating process are:
Rahm Emanuel of Chicago
Jesse Jackson Jr. of Chicago
Richard Durbin of Chicago
Steny Hoyer of Maryland
James Clyburn of South Carolina
PUMA is voting against these people . All of the above put self interest and interest of their party choice before the interests of the people and legitimate election.
As more bad democrats are identified we will add them to the list.
The Audacity of Hypocrisy
Posted on August 28, 2008 by nobamablog and reposted here to share:
As more information comes to light about Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers (unrepentant co-founder of violent radical leftist group Weather Underground), and as these facts get closer and closer to leaking into the consciousness of the average American voter, the Obama campaign continues to step up their strong-arm tactics to silence those who would bring the truth out into the open.
As reported here last week, the American Issues Project put an ad together detailing the dirty deeds of Bill Ayers, and his connection to Barack Obama. The Obama campaign swiftly petitioned the Justice Department to stop the ad from running. When that didn’t work, they petitioned the DOJ again, requesting that they investigate and prosecute not only AIP but also an AIP contributor, Harold Simmons. We also learned that this was not the first time that Barack Obama has called out such big guns against those who would dare to shed light on his past. Ben Smith of Politico.com writes: More...
Now we learn that the Obama campaign tried to turn their thugs loose on Chicago radio station WGN-AM just last night. After finally gaining access to the records at University of Illinois on the Annenberg Challenge, the same Stanley Kurtz was interviewed on “Extension 720 with Milt Rosenburg” to discuss the article he wrote for the National Review. Calling this “one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack”, the Obama campaign sent an email to his supporters telling them to call WGN and shame them for providing Kurtz with airtime. The email goes on to say “At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz’s lies.” Zack Christenson, executive producer of the show says the Obama campaign was asked to have someone appear on the show but declined the request.
Either Mr. Christenson is lying, or the Obama campaign deliberately tried to mislead their supporters into thinking equal time was not even offered. Hmmm…I wonder who is more believable.
In any case, what do we imagine these same supporters of Barack Obama would do if they learned that George W. Bush or Dick Cheney had tried to suppress a broadcast by a radio station about some of their suspicious dealings? Or that they tried to block information from a magazine reporter? Or that they tried to have someone prosecuted for putting together an ad about them?
But wait.
We don’t have to wonder what they would do. We already know how Obamabots feel about such things, because the Bush administration has already been chastised by their political opponents for putting up walls and slamming doors in the faces of their critics. And rightly so.
The Obama campaign needs to get a grip before someone accuses them of running for Bush’s third term.
As more information comes to light about Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers (unrepentant co-founder of violent radical leftist group Weather Underground), and as these facts get closer and closer to leaking into the consciousness of the average American voter, the Obama campaign continues to step up their strong-arm tactics to silence those who would bring the truth out into the open.
As reported here last week, the American Issues Project put an ad together detailing the dirty deeds of Bill Ayers, and his connection to Barack Obama. The Obama campaign swiftly petitioned the Justice Department to stop the ad from running. When that didn’t work, they petitioned the DOJ again, requesting that they investigate and prosecute not only AIP but also an AIP contributor, Harold Simmons. We also learned that this was not the first time that Barack Obama has called out such big guns against those who would dare to shed light on his past. Ben Smith of Politico.com writes: More...
It’s worth noting that this isn’t the first time (Obama general counsel Bob) Bauer has called for criminal investigations and prosecutions into the donors to independent groups critical of Obama, including one supporting John Edwards and another supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. His words did have the effect of scaring their donors and consultants, but haven’t yet appeared to result in any prosecution.At about the same time, it was reported that Stanley Kurtz of the National Review had tried to access records about The Annenberg Challenge on Excellence in Education, on which project Obama worked with Bill Ayers. Although these records are supposed to be open to the public, access to Mr. Kurtz was initially denied.
Now we learn that the Obama campaign tried to turn their thugs loose on Chicago radio station WGN-AM just last night. After finally gaining access to the records at University of Illinois on the Annenberg Challenge, the same Stanley Kurtz was interviewed on “Extension 720 with Milt Rosenburg” to discuss the article he wrote for the National Review. Calling this “one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack”, the Obama campaign sent an email to his supporters telling them to call WGN and shame them for providing Kurtz with airtime. The email goes on to say “At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz’s lies.” Zack Christenson, executive producer of the show says the Obama campaign was asked to have someone appear on the show but declined the request.
Either Mr. Christenson is lying, or the Obama campaign deliberately tried to mislead their supporters into thinking equal time was not even offered. Hmmm…I wonder who is more believable.
In any case, what do we imagine these same supporters of Barack Obama would do if they learned that George W. Bush or Dick Cheney had tried to suppress a broadcast by a radio station about some of their suspicious dealings? Or that they tried to block information from a magazine reporter? Or that they tried to have someone prosecuted for putting together an ad about them?
But wait.
We don’t have to wonder what they would do. We already know how Obamabots feel about such things, because the Bush administration has already been chastised by their political opponents for putting up walls and slamming doors in the faces of their critics. And rightly so.
The Obama campaign needs to get a grip before someone accuses them of running for Bush’s third term.
Did Biden have a hand in worsening the mortgage crisis?
That what some experts are saying:Experts say hundreds of thousands of Americans may have lost their homes due to a bill championed by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., Barack Obama's vice-presidential running mate.From a political perspective only, you have to wonder if this will be played up as something Biden did because his son was associated with the credit card industry (a *gasp* lobbyist) and whether it will have any legs. More...
At least two studies have concluded that the United States' foreclosure crisis was exacerbated by a 2005 law that overhauled the nation's bankruptcy law. That conclusion is echoed by other experts, although the banking and credit industry disputes it.
The bill was backed by banks and credit card companies including MBNA, which is headquartered in Delaware, Biden's home state. They wanted the bill because it would make it harder for Americans to use bankruptcy to avoid repaying credit card debt. MBNA executives had been Biden's single largest source of campaign donations, and MBNA has employed Biden's son Hunter as a company executive, lobbyist and consultant. The Obama campaign has said Hunter Biden did no work for MBNA on the bankruptcy bill. MBNA has since been bought by Bank of America.According to some who've studied the home foreclosure situation, they see this bill as one of the contributors to the high numbers of foreclosures:
BAPCPA "is directly responsible for the rising foreclosure rate since the end of 2005," concluded a 2007 study by Credit Suisse. The law "increased foreclosures and the number of homes for sale," echoed a July 2008 study by U.S. Treasury researcher David Bernstein. That study estimated the law had pushed foreclosures or forced sales on 200,000 homeowners since it went into effect, but noted that was a rough, "back-of-the-envelope" calculation.Others call the study "junk" and "not worth the paper it's written on".
But the logic train seems to lead back to BAPCPA:
But the 2005 law Biden championed made it more expensive and more difficult to declare bankruptcy, experts conclude. That forced hundreds of thousands of distressed homeowners to sell their homes, or default on their mortgages, after which the bank would sell their former home, according to the studies. That flood of homes going up for sale in an already-weakening market further depressed home prices, according to the two reports, snowballing into the current crisis.Of course the bill was also touted by Republicans - Biden was a key sponsor and rallied enough Democratic support to get the bill passed.
BAPCPA "increased home foreclosures, increased the dollar value of financial assets in default, and put additional downward price pressure on real estate markets," concluded the Bernstein report. Bernstein conducted the report as an individual, not as a representative the Treasury Department.
However, the fact that he had such a large role in its passage and it has had the effect it has had is going to make it a little more difficult for him to claim it is those mean old Republicans who are the reason people have lost their homes.
Obama tactics used to stifle and intimidate its critics
National Review Online
Stanley Kurtz's Fairness Doctrine Preview [Guy Benson]
Stanley Kurtz's appearance on the Milt Rosenberg radio program in Chicago last night provided an unsettling look into the authoritarian tactics being employed by the Obama campaign to stifle and intimidate its critics.
More...I happened to be in the WGN studios for the entire affair because my friend, Zack Christenson, produces the show in question. He was aware of my previous reporting on the Obama-Ayers connection and kindly invited me to sit in on the two-hour interview. (For full disclosure, I work for two other radio stations in Chicago, WIND, and WYLL).
As I arrived at the downtown Chicago studios a few hours before show time, the phones began ringing off the hook with irate callers demanding Kurtz be axed from the program. It didn't take long to discover that the Obama campaign—which had declined invitations to join the show for its duration to offer rebuttals to Kurtz's points—had sent an "Obama Action Wire" e-mail to its supporters, encouraging them to deluge the station with complaints.
Why? Because, naturally, Kurtz is a "right-wing hatchet man," a "smear merchant" and a "slimy character assassin" who is perpetrating one of the "most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack."
Evidently, much of Obama nation is composed of obedient and persistent sheep. They jammed all five studio lines for nearly the entire show while firing off dozens of angry emails. Many vowed to kick their grievances up the food chain to station management. After 90 minutes of alleged smear peddling, Milt Rosenberg (a well-respected host whose long-form interview show has aired in Chicago for decades) opened the phone lines, and blind ignorance soon began to crackle across the AM airwaves. The overwhelming message was clear: The interview must be put to an end immediately, and the station management should prevent similar discussions from taking place.
One female caller, when pressed about what precisely she objected to, simply replied, "We just want it to stop!" Another angry caller was asked what "lies" Kurtz had told in any of his reporting on Barack Obama. The thoughtful response? "Everything he said is dishonest." The same caller later refused to get into "specifics." Another gentleman called Kurtz "the most un-American person" he'd ever heard. Several of the callers did not even know Stanley's name, most had obviously never read a sentence of his meticulous research, and more than simply read verbatim from the Obama talking points.
Stanley Kurtz is poring through mounds of documents (access to which was initially blocked) in a public university's library that (a) establish a deeper link between a major party presidential nominee and a man who is proud of bombing US government buildings, and (b) shed light on said candidate's brief, unexplored executive experience. It's entirely understandable why the Obama campaign would prefer that the files remain out of the public eye until at least November 5, but Kurtz's careful research is completely within the bounds of reasonable inquiry. One might even argue it's vital that a man who may be the next leader of the free world be thoroughly vetted.
Team Obama is fast becoming the campaign that cried "smear." They labeled the National Right to Life committee "liars" for providing evidence of some unpleasant facts about their candidate's record on a series of infanticide votes. This tendency to lash out and engage in baseless name-calling not only smacks of desperation; it also may foreshadow an Obama presidency's strategy in handling unfavorable media reports and sources.
As I arrived at the downtown Chicago studios a few hours before show time, the phones began ringing off the hook with irate callers demanding Kurtz be axed from the program. It didn't take long to discover that the Obama campaign—which had declined invitations to join the show for its duration to offer rebuttals to Kurtz's points—had sent an "Obama Action Wire" e-mail to its supporters, encouraging them to deluge the station with complaints.
Why? Because, naturally, Kurtz is a "right-wing hatchet man," a "smear merchant" and a "slimy character assassin" who is perpetrating one of the "most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack."
Evidently, much of Obama nation is composed of obedient and persistent sheep. They jammed all five studio lines for nearly the entire show while firing off dozens of angry emails. Many vowed to kick their grievances up the food chain to station management. After 90 minutes of alleged smear peddling, Milt Rosenberg (a well-respected host whose long-form interview show has aired in Chicago for decades) opened the phone lines, and blind ignorance soon began to crackle across the AM airwaves. The overwhelming message was clear: The interview must be put to an end immediately, and the station management should prevent similar discussions from taking place.
One female caller, when pressed about what precisely she objected to, simply replied, "We just want it to stop!" Another angry caller was asked what "lies" Kurtz had told in any of his reporting on Barack Obama. The thoughtful response? "Everything he said is dishonest." The same caller later refused to get into "specifics." Another gentleman called Kurtz "the most un-American person" he'd ever heard. Several of the callers did not even know Stanley's name, most had obviously never read a sentence of his meticulous research, and more than simply read verbatim from the Obama talking points.
As Rosenberg repeatedly pointed out that Team Obama had been offered the opportunity to take part in the conversation, the agitated masses adapted their argument to suggest it was outrageous to request an interview from the Obama campaign in the thick of the DNC. Delivering the line of the night, Rosenberg countered, "The Obama national headquarters is just down the street from here. They obviously have the time to send out these angry emails, but they can't walk a few blocks to our studios?"
Throughout the open-line segments, Rosenberg and Kurtz wore incredulous expressions. The hostile callers were so bereft of any legitimate argument, there was little to do but sit back and marvel at what was going on.
The experience was surreal, amusing, and chilling. In a matter of hours, a major national campaign had called on its legions to bully a radio show out of airing an interview with a legitimate scholar asking legitimate political questions. Coupled with the Obama campaign's recent attempts to sic the DOJ on the creators of a truthful political advertisement —which also happened to feature Obama's relationship with an unrepentant terrorist— last night's call to action represents an emerging pattern. Any criticism of Obama's unknown past is to be immediately denounced as a "smear," and the messenger is to be shut down at all costs.Stanley Kurtz is poring through mounds of documents (access to which was initially blocked) in a public university's library that (a) establish a deeper link between a major party presidential nominee and a man who is proud of bombing US government buildings, and (b) shed light on said candidate's brief, unexplored executive experience. It's entirely understandable why the Obama campaign would prefer that the files remain out of the public eye until at least November 5, but Kurtz's careful research is completely within the bounds of reasonable inquiry. One might even argue it's vital that a man who may be the next leader of the free world be thoroughly vetted.
Team Obama is fast becoming the campaign that cried "smear." They labeled the National Right to Life committee "liars" for providing evidence of some unpleasant facts about their candidate's record on a series of infanticide votes. This tendency to lash out and engage in baseless name-calling not only smacks of desperation; it also may foreshadow an Obama presidency's strategy in handling unfavorable media reports and sources.
If anyone still believes reinstating the Fairness Doctrine isn't a top priority for the American Left, last night's example offered a stark and alarming wake-up call. Still not convinced? For goodness sake, read Jonah's book.
UPDATE: Here is the podcast of the full show.Images of The One
A look at the "Manifest Hope" exhibit in Denver.
by Jonathan V. Last, The Daily Standard
A FEW MONTHS AGO I wrote about the iconography of Barack Obama; today I toured the "Manifest Hope" gallery, which brings together many of the classic works of Obama along with new additions. Apparently, the school's energy is not yet spent.
Manifest Hope is installed in a shabby, trendy neighborhood, amidst declining warehouses and new small businesses. A couple doors down from the gallery, for instance, is a doggie daycare school called The Barkway. Across the street from that is a Krav Maga studio.
The pieces included in Manifest Hope are similarly bohemian. (You can get a taste of the exhibition online.) They run from worshipful portraits, done in various mediums ranging from oil on canvas:
More...
by Jonathan V. Last, The Daily Standard
A FEW MONTHS AGO I wrote about the iconography of Barack Obama; today I toured the "Manifest Hope" gallery, which brings together many of the classic works of Obama along with new additions. Apparently, the school's energy is not yet spent.
Manifest Hope is installed in a shabby, trendy neighborhood, amidst declining warehouses and new small businesses. A couple doors down from the gallery, for instance, is a doggie daycare school called The Barkway. Across the street from that is a Krav Maga studio.
The pieces included in Manifest Hope are similarly bohemian. (You can get a taste of the exhibition online.) They run from worshipful portraits, done in various mediums ranging from oil on canvas:
To woodcuts:
|
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Gallup: Obama's Strengths and Weaknesses
John McCain has an edge over Barack Obama in the public’s eyes as a strong and decisive leader, and while 80% of Americans say McCain is able to handle the job of commander in chief, only 53% say this about Obama. Americans are more likely to say that Barack Obama cares about the needs of people and would work well with both parties to get things done in Washington. However, John McCain rates better as being a strong and decisive leader. Experts believe this is the best indicator regarding which way the undecided will likely vote in November.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Obama's Unquenchable Love Of The Grandiose
From Right Wing News:
Let's see; the McCain campaign is successfully cutting you to pieces with ads portraying you as an inexperienced, yet arrogant novice who's more of a rock star than a politician.
So, what do you do? If you're Barack Obama, you have Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen open for you, have a Hollywood actress sing the national anthem, and then...I think I will just let the rest of the story speak for itself: More...
PS: The cape might be a little bit of a stretch, but the rose petals? At this point, would you really be surprised if he had rose petals?
PS #2: Will the crowd be given complimentary Kool-Aid?
PS #3: The only way this could be better would be if some women fainted while Obama was talking.
PS #4: Wait, scratch that. Know what would be even better than fainting women? Creating a troupe of scantily clad "Obama Dancers" to dance around to his speech.
Let's see; the McCain campaign is successfully cutting you to pieces with ads portraying you as an inexperienced, yet arrogant novice who's more of a rock star than a politician.
So, what do you do? If you're Barack Obama, you have Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen open for you, have a Hollywood actress sing the national anthem, and then...I think I will just let the rest of the story speak for itself: More...
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple. The stage, similar to structures used for rock concerts, has been set up at the 50-yard-line, the midpoint of Invesco Field, the stadium where the Denver Broncos' National Football League team plays.The only way Bambi could better fit into the caricature that the McCain campaign has painted of him would be if he wore a cape and had members of Code Pink throwing rose petals in his path as he walked to the podium.
Some 80,000 supporters will see Obama appear from between plywood columns painted off-white, reminiscent of Washington's Capitol building or even the White House, to accept the party's nomination for president.
He will stride out to a raised platform to a podium that can be raised from beneath the floor.
...Once Obama speaks, confetti will rain down on him and fireworks will be fired off from locations around the stadium wall.
...Oscar-winning actress and singer Jennifer Hudson will sing the national anthem that night.
PS: The cape might be a little bit of a stretch, but the rose petals? At this point, would you really be surprised if he had rose petals?
PS #2: Will the crowd be given complimentary Kool-Aid?
PS #3: The only way this could be better would be if some women fainted while Obama was talking.
PS #4: Wait, scratch that. Know what would be even better than fainting women? Creating a troupe of scantily clad "Obama Dancers" to dance around to his speech.
Obama’s Pagan Greek Temple Sets Stage For Most Presumptuous Hedonist Acceptance Speech Since Kennedy’s
FROM WONKETTE BLOG
Oh, this is perfect. After spending all week straining to convince voters that he is a humble, all-American God-fearing Christian regular Joe, Barack Obama will deliver his acceptance speech tomorrow night from a structure that ABC News says “resembles an ancient Greek temple.” Because nothing hits the trifecta of Hollywood, presumption, and alternate religion like a wine-soaked polytheist boy-fucking Vegas pleasure dome in the middle of a massive arena. [ABC News]
Hillary Clinton and WomenCount Events
If you're at the Democratic Convention, please take time to participate in the following two events:
Thursday: "Cracks in the Glass Ceiling"
Wednesday: "WomenCount in the 2008 Election"
Location: Fifth Floor:Open Space
Time: 10:30 AM - 11:20 AM (MST)
Bloggers only briefing with Jehmu Greene, Political Director of WomenCount.
There's been a lot of commentary that the convention is all about surface, and not about issues--here's your chance to get into the issues facing women in this year's elections.
RSVP to me, so I'll know how many t-shirts to bring!
Thursday: "Cracks in the Glass Ceiling"
Location: Big Tent:DIGG Stage
Time: 1:00 PM - 1:50 PM (MST)
Panel discussion with
Jehmu Greene, Political Director – WomenCount (moderator), Marie Wilson, (White House Project), Erin Kotecki Vest (BlogHer) and others.
RSVP to me!
Here are two quick videos (one showing Hillary at Tuesdaays WomenCount events) Tuesdays event: http://www.youtube.com/
As always, thank you so much for everything, and feel free to contact me if you need anything!
Delegates voting at hotels
Delegates to the Democratic National Convention are casting ballots for the party's presidential nominee at their hotels this morning.
The vote, negotiated by the campaigns for presumptive nominee Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, is expected to speed proceedings from the floor of the Pepsi Center tonight, when totals will be read from the floor as part of a roll call vote.
But it is also leaving many delegates perplexed.
Some delegates were confused because Sen. Clinton was not expected to release her delegates until the afternoon. More...
"It doesn't make any sense to me," said Mary Sullivan, a Clinton delegate from Albany, N.Y. "I'm gonna vote for Hillary. I'm a Clinton delegate and she hasn't released me yet."
Clinton is expected to address delegates this afternoon.
Sullivan said she had been startled by the hostility toward Clinton on the part of some Obama supporters.
"The Obama people act like they lost," she said. "There's no need for it ... . It's over. It's been over. We all knew it, but some of us haven't given up the ghost yet."
But others in the New York delegation said they expected the group to rally around Obama.
"I think you'll find overwhelming support for Sen. Obama in this delegation," Sen. Charles E. Schumer said at the New York breakfast.
Several delegates said they hoped New York would vote nearly unanimously for Obama.
"Everyone should have heard her by now, loud and clear, that the job going forward is to work for the election of Obama," said Bill Ryan, the chair of the Westchester County Legislature. "I'd like to see the entire delegation [support Obama]. It would be a very strong signal."
Texas Democratic Party Chairman Boyd Richie told the state delegation during breakfast that they had until noon today to fill out roll-call ballots at their hotel.
Each delegate, he said, needed to bring ID and would have to sign their ballot, which will indicate their presidential preference.
The two campaigns, he said, negotiated a plan to conduct the voting that way.
"The campaigns have determined how this is going to work," Richie said.
After the voting, he said, the ballots would be taken to the convention center to be tallied before the delegates convene tonight.
Richie said there would still be a roll call vote tonight on the convention floor at the Pepsi Center.
Some of the Clinton supporters in the delegation raised questions about how the process would work and said they wanted an observer there to ensure that the ballots were counted accurately.
"I think it sucks," said Blanche Darley, a Clinton delegate from El Paso.
Some Obama delegates were confused by the new process, too.
Richie asked Obama surrogate Ron Kirk, former Dallas mayor, if the campaign would also like to have an observer during the balloting process.
He shrugged and later said, "I trust everybody in here to be honest."
Many of Massachusetts' most prominent Hillary Clinton supporters have already voted for Barack Obama, including Rep. Barney Frank and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino.
At the Illinois delegation hotel, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley implored the delegation to appear unified behind Obama — even to the news media.
Some Barack Obama supporters complained Wednesday that Colorado Democratic leaders may be prolonging a party rift because Hillary Clinton backers won't be allowed to switch their votes to Obama in a show of unity.
Colorado delegates cast their ballots Wednesday morning, and the tally was to be reported Wednesday night on the floor of the Democratic National Convention.
The total wasn't released because not all the delegates were present.
State party chairwoman Pat Waak said the morning vote would be the only one the delegation takes, meaning there will be no chance for Clinton supporters to change their vote to Obama.
"This is the only vote," she said, explaining it would be disruptive to try to take a second poll on the convention floor among the 70 delegates.
That upset Shawn Coleman, an Obama delegate from Boulder, who wanted a second round to allow the delegates to show full support for Obama.
"I understand that the Clinton delegates want to serve their constituents. That is what I'm doing, but I don't want this to be a hollow victory for Obama," he said.
Colorado Rep. John Salazar said he was surprised by the decision and called it unusual, but he said he would support it.
"I think it's part of the healing process. I think after tonight's vote, we're going to be a united party and support Obama.
"A divided party will never win," he said.
State Rep. Terrance Carroll of Denver said he never expected a second vote.
"We know there are delegates loyal to Clinton. It's OK. It's part of the process," he said.
It wasn't immediately clear whether other states were allowing only one ballot within their delegations.
Clinton backers in Colorado had their own concerns, worried that there would be no state-by-state roll call to record the New York senator's strong showing, or that Clinton would stop the balloting and ask for a unanimous vote for Obama before the roll call was recorded.
"If we don't have an official roll call vote state-by-state, it is going to reopen a wound," said Sonja Jaquez Lewis, a Clinton delegate from Boulder County.
Lewis said if Clinton is denied a roll call, she and others may walk out. But she said she would do whatever Clinton asks her delegates to do.
Denver Post Staff Writer Kimberly Johnson, Media News Group Staff Writers Gene Maddaus, Brandi Grissom, Matt Murphy and Leonard Fleming and the Associated Press contributed to this report. Politico and The Denver Post are sharing content during the 2008 Election cycle and during the Democratic National Conventions.
The vote, negotiated by the campaigns for presumptive nominee Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, is expected to speed proceedings from the floor of the Pepsi Center tonight, when totals will be read from the floor as part of a roll call vote.
But it is also leaving many delegates perplexed.
Some delegates were confused because Sen. Clinton was not expected to release her delegates until the afternoon. More...
"It doesn't make any sense to me," said Mary Sullivan, a Clinton delegate from Albany, N.Y. "I'm gonna vote for Hillary. I'm a Clinton delegate and she hasn't released me yet."
Clinton is expected to address delegates this afternoon.
Sullivan said she had been startled by the hostility toward Clinton on the part of some Obama supporters.
"The Obama people act like they lost," she said. "There's no need for it ... . It's over. It's been over. We all knew it, but some of us haven't given up the ghost yet."
But others in the New York delegation said they expected the group to rally around Obama.
"I think you'll find overwhelming support for Sen. Obama in this delegation," Sen. Charles E. Schumer said at the New York breakfast.
Several delegates said they hoped New York would vote nearly unanimously for Obama.
"Everyone should have heard her by now, loud and clear, that the job going forward is to work for the election of Obama," said Bill Ryan, the chair of the Westchester County Legislature. "I'd like to see the entire delegation [support Obama]. It would be a very strong signal."
Texas Democratic Party Chairman Boyd Richie told the state delegation during breakfast that they had until noon today to fill out roll-call ballots at their hotel.
Each delegate, he said, needed to bring ID and would have to sign their ballot, which will indicate their presidential preference.
The two campaigns, he said, negotiated a plan to conduct the voting that way.
"The campaigns have determined how this is going to work," Richie said.
After the voting, he said, the ballots would be taken to the convention center to be tallied before the delegates convene tonight.
Richie said there would still be a roll call vote tonight on the convention floor at the Pepsi Center.
Some of the Clinton supporters in the delegation raised questions about how the process would work and said they wanted an observer there to ensure that the ballots were counted accurately.
"I think it sucks," said Blanche Darley, a Clinton delegate from El Paso.
Some Obama delegates were confused by the new process, too.
Richie asked Obama surrogate Ron Kirk, former Dallas mayor, if the campaign would also like to have an observer during the balloting process.
He shrugged and later said, "I trust everybody in here to be honest."
Many of Massachusetts' most prominent Hillary Clinton supporters have already voted for Barack Obama, including Rep. Barney Frank and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino.
At the Illinois delegation hotel, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley implored the delegation to appear unified behind Obama — even to the news media.
Some Barack Obama supporters complained Wednesday that Colorado Democratic leaders may be prolonging a party rift because Hillary Clinton backers won't be allowed to switch their votes to Obama in a show of unity.
Colorado delegates cast their ballots Wednesday morning, and the tally was to be reported Wednesday night on the floor of the Democratic National Convention.
The total wasn't released because not all the delegates were present.
State party chairwoman Pat Waak said the morning vote would be the only one the delegation takes, meaning there will be no chance for Clinton supporters to change their vote to Obama.
"This is the only vote," she said, explaining it would be disruptive to try to take a second poll on the convention floor among the 70 delegates.
That upset Shawn Coleman, an Obama delegate from Boulder, who wanted a second round to allow the delegates to show full support for Obama.
"I understand that the Clinton delegates want to serve their constituents. That is what I'm doing, but I don't want this to be a hollow victory for Obama," he said.
Colorado Rep. John Salazar said he was surprised by the decision and called it unusual, but he said he would support it.
"I think it's part of the healing process. I think after tonight's vote, we're going to be a united party and support Obama.
"A divided party will never win," he said.
State Rep. Terrance Carroll of Denver said he never expected a second vote.
"We know there are delegates loyal to Clinton. It's OK. It's part of the process," he said.
It wasn't immediately clear whether other states were allowing only one ballot within their delegations.
Clinton backers in Colorado had their own concerns, worried that there would be no state-by-state roll call to record the New York senator's strong showing, or that Clinton would stop the balloting and ask for a unanimous vote for Obama before the roll call was recorded.
"If we don't have an official roll call vote state-by-state, it is going to reopen a wound," said Sonja Jaquez Lewis, a Clinton delegate from Boulder County.
Lewis said if Clinton is denied a roll call, she and others may walk out. But she said she would do whatever Clinton asks her delegates to do.
Denver Post Staff Writer Kimberly Johnson, Media News Group Staff Writers Gene Maddaus, Brandi Grissom, Matt Murphy and Leonard Fleming and the Associated Press contributed to this report. Politico and The Denver Post are sharing content during the 2008 Election cycle and during the Democratic National Conventions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
