Democratic convention

  • Thread starter Thread starter scipio337
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gilliam said:
One thing the Clinton speech does is that it raises the bar for Obama. Now people will compare Obama’s speech with Clinton’s.

There is a strict rule in politics: Don’t upstage the candidate

Clinton may have broken that rule tonight.
Click to expand...
Didn’t Ryan?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Because you don’t make the big speech when its so far away from election time that everyone will forget about it by then. Anything could happen between then and now.
Click to expand...
I thought it was the job of the POTUS to rally the country together in hard times, not just when you want to be reelected? That is what a great leader does anyway.
 
ringil said:
Didn’t Ryan?
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. He was good, not great, and not touted by the majority of commentators as giving the “best convention speech in modern memory.” One could argue, Romney’s speech was in ways better than Ryans. And Ann Romneys was different but in some ways just as good as Ryans.
 
gilliam said:
You sure are quoting a lot of obscure “Republican commentators” tonight. Who are tied to losing campaigns.
Click to expand...
That’s because I like to broaden my horizons. I’m usually pretty certain FOX Republicans are going to be against anything and anyone related to Democrats but I do watch them on occasion just to see what they’re saying. I watch MSNBC. But I agree with you on their political persuasion. So for a more moderate take between the three I watch CNN as I did mostly tonight.
 
gilliam said:
I thought it was the job of the POTUS to rally the country together in hard times, not just when you want to be reelected? That is what a great leader does anyway.
Click to expand...
I think he’s given some very good speeches over the last few years. People who don’t share the same vision for the country will naturally disagree. Of course…they were far better than the deer-in-head-lights/butchery of the english language talks other Presidents have given. But, honestly, I don’t think we’ve had a Presidential orator like the one you describe since FDR. We’re living in very partisan times.
 
CMatt25 said:
That’s because I like to broaden my horizons. I’m usually pretty certain FOX Republicans are going to be against anything and anyone related to Democrats but I do watch them on occasion just to see what they’re saying. I watch MSNBC. And for a more moderate take between the three I watch CNN as I did mostly tonight.
Click to expand...
I haven’t watched FOX or MSNBC in years. When I watch TV news it usually is CNN or C-Span. Sometimes I’ll watch Brooks and Shields (?) on PBS. I normally look for substance, not rhetoric. And I hate the vitriol I find on MSNBC and on some shows on Fox
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I think he’s given some very good speeches over the last few years. People who don’t share the same vision for the country will naturally disagree. Of course…they were far better than the deer-in-head-lights/butchery of the english language talks other Presidents have given. But, honestly, I don’t think we’ve had a Presidential orator like the one you describe since FDR.
Click to expand...
You don’t remember Clinton, LBJ, JFK or Reagan I take it.
 
gilliam said:
People need to understand that MSNBC is for all intense and purposes a communication arm of the DNC. There are certain shows like that for the RNC on FOX (Sean Hanity for one) but not all the shows. That isn’t true about MSNBC. The entire line up is full of DNC talking points. It is best to steer clear of that channel if you want objective news.
Click to expand...
I don’t want objective news all the time: sometimes I like entertainment news. What American TV show provides objective news, anyway? Surely neither FOX nor CNN, nor any of the three major non-cable networks. For objective news, I watch Deutsche Welle and Al Jazeera mainly, and sometimes the BBC. You know, news with a foreign accent.
 
gilliam said:
You don’t remember Clinton or Reagan I take it.
Click to expand...
I don’t think either of them were as effective. Clinton certainly a great orator; Reagan maybe but the pervasiveness of partisanship was too great and still is. People don’t come together and huddle around televisions and radios anymore and when the speeches are over its back to the “blood sport.” Sometimes the partisans don’t even wait that long. (See Joe Wilson)
 
meltzerboy said:
I don’t want objective news all the time: sometimes I like entertainment news. What American TV show provides objective news, anyway? Surely neither FOX nor CNN, nor the three major non-cable networks. For objective news, I watch Deutsche Welle and Al Jazeera mainly, and sometimes the BBC. You know, news with a foreign accent.
Click to expand...
Al Jazeera isn’t objective. Their journalists are liberal idealists. (maybe because so many are so young) So are the journalists on the BBC (only they tend to also side with bureaucrats for whatever reason) Although over the years I have preferred reading the BBC website to watching FoxNews or CNN.

Don’t watch German stations so can’t speak to those.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I think he’s given some very good speeches over the last few years. People who don’t share the same vision for the country will naturally disagree. Of course…they were far better than the deer-in-head-lights/butchery of the english language talks other Presidents have given. But, honestly, I don’t think we’ve had a Presidential orator like the one you describe since FDR. We’re living in very partisan times.
Click to expand...
I think he has too. But you said a mouthful in that we live in very partisan times.
 
so… I notice no one has comments re: our sister in Christ… Nancy Pelosi a taboo topic? As you can see from the number of posts I’ve made, I’m new to this…
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I don’t think either of them were as effective. Clinton certainly a great orator; Reagan maybe but the pervasiveness of partisanship was too great and still is. People don’t come together and huddle around televisions and radios anymore and when the speeches are over its back to the “blood sport.” Sometimes the partisans don’t even wait that long. (See Joe Wilson)
Click to expand...
Politics has ALWAYS been a blood sport. It isn’t any different today than in the past. The country is more evenly split, but that doesn’t mean people are any more or less vehement in their views.

Listening to some of the great speeches by Reagan, JFK, LBJ and Clinton finding out the back story to them helps greatly in understanding this. We have some of the phone calls made by LBJ, those give great insite into what happens behind the scenes in politics and some of the great decisions that are dealt with. These guys were leaders and the American public knew it. (although Clinton had a great fall in the middle of his presidency that he really didn’t recover from) I don’t see it with Obama. Obama seems out of his league. Maybe he is learning… people do grow into the office. But the events of the last week aren’t proving that to me.
 
I heard obama was going to have an empty chair during his speech. Apparently its Bin Laden’s seat
 
Birdpreacher said:
I heard obama was going to have an empty chair during his speech. Apparently its Bin Laden’s seat
Click to expand...
Probably a good idea. When you only have one accomplishment to speak of, it’s a good thing to put that front and center. 👍
 
gilliam said:
Politics has ALWAYS been a blood sport. It isn’t any different today than in the past. The country is more evenly split, but that doesn’t mean people are any more or less vehement in their views.

Listening to some of the great speeches by Reagan, JFK, LBJ and Clinton finding out the back story to them helps greatly in understanding this. We have some of the phone calls made by LBJ, those give great insite into what happens behind the scenes in politics and some of the great decisions that are dealt with. These guys were leaders and the American public knew it. (although Clinton had a great fall in the middle of his presidency that he really didn’t recover from) I don’t see it with Obama. Obama seems out of his league. Maybe he is learning… people do grow into the office. But the events of the last week aren’t proving that to me.
Click to expand...
A great orator isn’t necessarily a good leader and vice versa. People are only leaders in terms of what they are capable of accomplishing and what they have accomplished. So, in that sense, its very difficult for Obama to appear a strong leader in a system of government in which, to get anything done, he is Constitutionally constrained to rely on people who made it their number one priority to sabotage his presidency at all costs instead of cooperating to accomplish great things as they did with Clinton in the 90s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top