Politics

Dems in Denver

pO157.

Posted to Politics on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:47:21 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

The Democratic National Convention continues in Denver, Colorado. The first night saw an emotional goodbye to the Kennedy era, a speech from a possible future First Lady, and the old standby of cops beating up hippies. The convention is expected to continue with speeches from Hillary Clinton, and ticket headliners Barack Obama and Joe Biden and other Democratic luminaries. A tricky issue will be ensuring party unity after a fractious primary season lead to hurt feelings.

Join us for a discussion and analysis of the convention as it progresses.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, politics, DNC, Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama, 2008 Presidential Election, FTW, 2008 election (all tags)

This story: 36 comments (2 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
19

things to do in Denver when you're Dem

gerrymander.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:07:57 AM EST

4.00 (funny)

The weirdest thing about this convention is watching the Obama campaign get sandbagged with Ayers in exactly the same way Kerry was with his war record. It should be the the Democrats moment in the sun, at yet there they are, issuing non-responses to a not-for-profit's media campaign.

Here's a helpful hint to the DNC: Vet your candidates! Shine a few flashlights in the closet, and if it looks like a Totentanz, find someone else!

Ah, hell, who am I kidding? Might as well get in early on the "William Jefferson for President, 2012" campaign.

1

Spectacle

profwhat.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:15:47 AM EST

none

Someone answer this for me: why was Nancy Pelosi relegated to a non-prime-time slot on Monday, while Obama's brother in law and wife got choice spots that evening?  Pelosi is the first female speaker of the house, and (to understate) someone with something to say about issues.  Doesn't relegating her to the sidelines give you all the proof you need that this is going to be a substance-free media spectacle?  Hillary Clinton gets venerated as the second coming of Susan B Anthony because she came in second place in a presidential race she ran entirely on the strength of her husband's fame, but the first female speaker of the house gets a consolation prize?

After the first night, everyone noticed that the convention was quite touchy-feely, with no attacks on McCain of note.  I have to say after watching the second night that things didn't get much better.  That guy from Montana supposedly got aggressive, except my TV was on CNN so I only got to see about twenty seconds of his speech.

Does anyone plan to make the case for how Obama has sufficient experience to lead the federal government and serve as commander in chief?  No?  OK, then.  Tonight, look for Bill Clinton to expand upon his lavish praise of Obama as being technically qualified under the Constitution to be President.  

2

^ 1

Re: Spectacle

pO157.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:53:29 AM EST

none

Someone answer this for me: why was Nancy Pelosi relegated to a non-prime-time slot on Monday, while Obama's brother in law and wife got choice spots that evening?  Pelosi is the first female speaker of the house, and (to understate) someone with something to say about issues.  Doesn't relegating her to the sidelines give you all the proof you need that this is going to be a substance-free media spectacle?  Hillary Clinton gets venerated as the second coming of Susan B Anthony because she came in second place in a presidential race she ran entirely on the strength of her husband's fame, but the first female speaker of the house gets a consolation prize?

My guess is that because Pelosi is horribly divisive and not well liked by many in her own party (especially the left wing activists that helped make the '06 elections a success) the leadership decided they really didn't want her in a conspicuous slot. I'm not saying its right, but there you go.

Does anyone plan to make the case for how Obama has sufficient experience to lead the federal government and serve as commander in chief?  No?  OK, then.

I don't know, but I severed my next to last connection with the Democratic party this morning after getting a putrid e-mail demanding that McCain be publicly tested for Alzheimers. Disgusting.

3

^ 2

Alzheimers e-mail

profwhat.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:13:50 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

That was from Democrats.com, not the Democratic Party, right?  Please tell me I'm right.

4

^ 2

the Democratic Party

skeptic.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:38:17 AM EST

none

It is somewhat intriguing to hear that you have now severed your next-to-last connection with the Democratic Party; what is your last remaining connection?  And in the end, regardless of whether you are connected to any particular party, you will still be called upon as a voter to decide whether you prefer John McCain or Barack Obama as your next President.  (Although you can also write in someone else, if you want to, somewhat pointlessly since no write-in candidate is going to win the election.)  And whatever the failings of either Barack Obama or his party, I would still have to prefer him to McCain.

5

^ 4

Re: the Democratic Party

pO157.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:43:17 AM EST

none

My last one is my voter registration. I can't change it because we are within X number of days until a primary. Afterwards, then yes I will.

And I can still vote for a third party candidate, which I probably will. Given how blue my state is, it won't make much of a difference.

6

^ 5

Re: the Democratic Party

skeptic.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:44:49 AM EST

none

Of course, you could vote for the Libertarians.  Their candidate this year doesn't impress me, however, it would still make sense to vote for him if your objective is to register your disapproval of both the Democratic and Republican candidates.  There is something to be said for shaking up the complacent, two-party system of the US.

7

^ 4

Re: the Democratic Party

delete me.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:30:33 PM EST

none

Although you can also write in someone else, if you want to, somewhat pointlessly since no write-in candidate is going to win the election.

I kind of enjoyed the feeling of going to bed and not feeling like a slimeball for voting for some schmuck I also didn't like.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

8

^ 7

Re: the Democratic Party

T Slothrop.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:04:05 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

I achieved the same result by simply declining to vote for President in the last two national cycles. Oh, I went to the polls and voted in all contested local and state races plus the ballot initiatives, but I simply did not mark a choice for President. Fortunately my county's voting machines seemed to be perfectly ok with that.

This year, though, it looks like I'm going to be forced into making a "lesser of two evils" choice. I do not think John McCain will make a very good president, but with all the retro Cold War saber rattling coming from Moscow, I do not believe we can afford to let a rookie get his on-the-job training staring down Vlad the Impaler. Plus as I have stated many times before, Obama's idea of "change" almost always costs people like me the most money.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

12

^ 8

Re: the Democratic Party

Lou.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:05:56 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

I do not believe we can afford to let a rookie get his on-the-job training staring down Vlad the Impaler.

I agree...we need someone who can stare into Vlad's soul

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

13

^ 12

Re: the Democratic Party

T Slothrop.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:15:01 PM EST

none

I didn't vote for him either, as I think I pretty explicitly stated.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

15

^ 13

Re: the Democratic Party

Lou.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:11:14 PM EST

none

Didn't say ya did

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

9

^ 8

Re: the Democratic Party

Steve Urkel.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:23:41 PM EST

none

"with all the retro Cold War saber rattling coming from Moscow"

I find McCain's saber rattling more disturbing thann Moscow's. His unfounded bellicosity toward Russia is deeply disturbing.

10

^ 9

Re: the Democratic Party

T Slothrop.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:34:05 PM EST

none

Huh?

Are you referring to his call to boot Russia from the G-8?

Steve for some reason you seem to project this field around you that renders both my sarcasm and irony meters inoperative. :)

{Insert amusing quotation here}

11

^ 10

Re: the Democratic Party

Steve Urkel.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:53:58 PM EST

3.00 (interesting)

I'm being serious. McCain has long been making belligerant statements about Russia. I have no idea why.  

After the Georgia/Russia dustup he writes an op-ed claiming "We are all Georgians now," and I think he means it.

I find these stances demented.  

14

^ 11

Re: the Democratic Party

T Slothrop.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:24:13 PM EST

none

Yeah but even that was about him (McCain) urging Bush not to attend the St. Petersburg G-8 meeting. Still doesn't exactly come up to the standards of that Russian general who threatened to nuke Poland last week. I think McCain would definitely play diplomatic hardball with Putin, but I've still seen nothing that makes me think of Barry Goldwater... or Dr. Strangelove.

As to the "we are all Georgians now" statement, I read that as simply a presidential candidate playing to his hawkish base.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone accuse McCain of being an extremist on any issue.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

21

^ 7

Re: the Democratic Party

skeptic.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:06:49 AM EST

none

I do believe that no voter should feel obligated to vote for someone they actually don't like, merely to avoid voting for someone whom they do not expect to be able to win.  The beauty of the proportional representation system of election (which exists in many countries but not in the US) is there is a tremendously greater chance that your vote will count, even if you are not voting with the majority.  But even with the winner-take-all system, dissenting votes do make a statement.  The winner will still know that some portion of the electorate voted against him or her.

31

^ 21

Re: the Democratic Party

Shy Elf.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:24:37 AM EST

none

The winner will still know that some portion of the electorate voted against him or her.
Given the example of our current president who won his first term with less votes than his opponent, exactly what is this supposed to achieve?

32

^ 31

Re: the Democratic Party

skeptic.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:16:53 AM EST

none

It may be that George W. Bush's knowledge that he was elected to office in 2000 with fewer votes than his opponent did not in any way influence his actions as President.  What would Bush have done had he won with a landslide?  Possibly, he would have done exactly the same things.  (I could also speculate that with greater evidence of public support, he might have moved ahead with his plan for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage.)  There is no way to know this for certain.  However, the margin of victory or defeat has certainly influenced other people, even if it hasn't influenced Bush.  Parties that are only narrowly defeated are more encouraged about their future chances than they would be if their defeat had been more crushing.  A political party has to have a certain level of support to continue to be taken seriously.  Many people have criticized Ralph Nader for even running for office, not because they disagree with his policies or objectives, but merely because he is not going to win, and therefore he is just drawing votes away from other people who do have a chance of winning.  That is why your vote for a given party has some meaning, even if the party you vote for does not win the election.

16

Watching Kerry now...

pO157.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:46:01 PM EST

none

I wish he had taken the gloves off four years ago like he is now. He is really ripping into those swift boating types who engaged in substanceless personal attacks.

Perhaps if he had done that a few years ago Bush would have been a one termer.

24

^ 16

Re: Watching Kerry now...

profwhat.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:50:08 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

How could he have responded to this ad?  It's tough to respond to your own words.

Kind of like how Obama will have a tough time responding to the last 35 seconds of this web ad.

17

Not much doom. Or gloom.

pO157.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:51:38 PM EST

none

Before the convention people were calling for riots and other upheaval on a level with the Battle for Seattle. We really haven't seen that.

Then again, folks were calling (and most probably expected) a great deal of civil unrest or some type of "incident" over in China during the Olympics, yet that event went off pretty much without a hitch.

Have people calmed down, or is there a general acceptance of the fact that disruptive protest doesn't work? Or something else?

18

^ 17

Re: Not much doom. Or gloom.

T Slothrop.

Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:05:33 PM EST

4.00 (funny)

I assumed as the economy tanked that the trust funds that many of the anti-{whatever} protesters live off of simply aren't  producing sufficient returns for extensive travel.

Now where'd I leave my fire-retardant suit? :)

{Insert amusing quotation here}

23

^ 17

Re: Not much doom. Or gloom.

skeptic.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:44:14 AM EST

4.00 (interesting)

Since the US has been afflicted with a Republican President for the past 8 years, it would seem that most of the problems (such as the Iraq war, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, etc.)that people might be inclined to protest can be blamed more on the Republicans than on the Democrats.  What is the point of protesting the Democratic convention?  The big protest at the 1968 convention was related to the failure of the Democratic Party to support an anti-war candidate, but in this case, Obama is an anti-war candidate, although not to the same extent as Dennis Kucinich who favors immeidate withdrawal from Iraq, rather than the gradual withdrawal that Obama has advocated.  And I don't think that the current small group of protesters at the convention are die-hard Kucinich supporters.

As for the lack of any serious incident in China during the Olympics, I would attribute that to the extreme security precautions taken by the Chinese government.  I don't think that there is a general acceptance that disruptive protest doesn't work, but there is some understanding that disruptive protest is extremely dangerous if you try it in a totalitarian state such as China.

I think the real test will be the Republican convention, coming up shortly.  That is where people will have more reason to protest.  But even then, it isn't actually necessary to protest the convention.  We do, after all, still have a democratic system (imperfect though it may be) and if you don't like McCain, it is quite simple to just vote against him.

20

understanding pumas

wetkarma.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:23:56 AM EST

none

So supposedly 1/3 of people who leaned towards HRC don't plan on voting for Obama. Anyone out there on TnT who feels this way, or knows someone who dose, feel like explaining this to me?

Best as I can tell, the candidates positions are virtually identical and quite different (especially in the realm of taxes, healthcare and national security) from McCains.

So whats the plan? Vote McCain? Stay home on election day? Write in HRC? Vote for a third party candidate like McKinney?  I hear a lot about the rabid HRC fan club, not so much about what they plan to do to express their dissent.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

22

^ 20

Re: understanding pumas

skeptic.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:33:30 AM EST

none

The primary campaign was fought so passionately that it has left behind a strange emotional residue.  After being conditioned to think of Obama as the enemy of Hillary, some people just are not prepared to suddenly put their minds in reverse and accept him as the champion of Hillary's actual ideals and policies, even when she makes that point herself, explicitly.

Why do spectators care who wins a football game?  Such events are essentially meaningless for anyone who is not actually playing, yet some people care very deeply (and in European soccer matches, some people even become violent about it).  People enjoy the process of rooting for their team.  And some loyal fans never give up, even after their team has lost.

So, I would have to say that the Hillary supporters who now refuse to support Obama have confused politics with football.

25

^ 20

Re: understanding pumas

profwhat.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:57:23 PM EST

none

Best as I can tell, the candidates positions are virtually identical and quite different (especially in the realm of taxes, healthcare and national security) from McCains.

There is more to candidate choice than positions on the issues.  McCain is much closer to Hillary on the experience and overall "job qualification" fronts.  If you care more about having a president who know's what he's doing than you care about a laundry list of proposed legislation, McCain is your candidate.

26

^ 25

Re: understanding pumas

zyxwvutsr.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:25:16 PM EST

none

How different were Clinton's qualifications compared to Obama's? Clinton served two terms in the Senate compared to one for Obama. Is that really a drastic difference?

27

^ 26

Re: understanding pumas

profwhat.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:49:38 PM EST

none

It's close in the sense of the Price is RIght, where they have to guess the price of the grandfather clock, and one guy says $200, and the other guy says $201, and the other guy wins because the actual retail price is $4500.

28

^ 27

Re: understanding pumas

Degee.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:07:43 PM EST

none

Huh?

Do you mean the perceived value is far from reality, for ...who..?!?

Am I a great person? Hell no - by most metrics I'm pretty much an asshole. -TSlothrop

29

^ 28

Re: understanding pumas

zyxwvutsr.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:18:23 PM EST

4.00 (funny)

I think McCain is the grandfather clock.

34

^ 25

dish o' crow

JimmyHavok.

Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:34:56 AM EST

none

If you care more about having a president who knows what he's doing than you care about a laundry list of proposed legislation, McCain is your candidate.

It's still warm!

35

^ 34

Re: dish o' crow

profwhat.

Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:22:23 AM EST

none

A fair point.  But I'll still take an experienced presidential candidate over an inexperienced presidential candidate.

36

^ 35

Re: dish o' crow

JimmyHavok.

Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:57:48 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

True, McCain does have previous experience with being a Presidential candidate.

30

Hats off to McCain

pO157.

Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:39:02 PM EST

none

Probably one of the classiest campaign ads in a long long time.

33

^ 30

Re: Hats off to McCain

Degee.

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:50:44 AM EST

none

Sounds like he's been taking acting lessons from Wilford Brimley

Am I a great person? Hell no - by most metrics I'm pretty much an asshole. -TSlothrop

This story: 36 comments (2 from subqueue)
Post a Comment