Blogging Makes Me a Better Citizen. Before I started blogging, I had the low-grade contempt for politicians that's characteristic of most political scientists and avoided the political events of even those politicians in the Democratic Party I supported. But that's changed. Now that I'm reporting on politics I feel go to events and make myself better informed about the specifics of political campaigns. Initially, I went as a duty to my blog, but I'm starting to think of my blog and my duties as a dad as an opportunity to do what I should be doing as a citizen.
Obama in Lexington. It was in this civic frame of mind that I plunked down $125 for my family (two parents, two daughters, and mother-in-law) to go to Lexington, KY and hear Barack Obama speak today. There's a lot to say about Obama's speech and the event as a whole. But I'll limit myself to a few items here.
The Candidate and the Crowd. One of these days, I'm going to use my status as a blogger to get a press pass, but being out in the crowd was very much an advantage. Where the crowd at the John Edwards speech in Prestonsburg, KY wanted to be roused by Edwards, Obama's sold-out crowd of 1800 in a packed Heritage Hall was roused from the minute we took our seats. People were on edge and excited and excited about seeing Barack Obama speak. What the crowd wanted from Obama was a reason to feel their excitement was justified and the Obama campaign provided that even before the candidate came out. Reginald Smith jr. of the University of Kentucky did a version of the "Star-Spangled Banner" that was so incredible the campaign could have brought out the candidate without further introduction.
Then, Obama himself delivered the goods again and again by outlining a vision of a politics that expressed what many in the room already felt. Obama was inspiring to a racially mixed, progressive crowd because they were already inspired by his main themes. Whether it was waking up from the "long national nightmare" of the Bush administration or developing a politics of common purpose and mutual help, Obama kept hitting the right notes for the audience and the applause was often so loud that I couldn't hear him talk.
Who Deserves Credit. I've read several items about Obama peaking nationally, declining in early primary states, and falling further behind Hillary Clinton. Off Obama's rally, I'd have to say that Hillary Clinton's campaign is doing quite well to be inching further ahead. If the true measure of athletes is how they do against the best competition, Hillary Clinton must be running a very strong campaign to be maintaining their lead over Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
Invade an ally, Pakistan. Check.
Talk to our enemy, Iran. Check.
Take nukes off the table, and the put them back on the table, repeat, and repeat, all in one interview. Check.
Have your wife dis Hillary, and then deny that she did so. Check.
Claim spiritual guidance from preacher that preaches of separatists notions. Check.
Other than being a good speaker, Obama brings one of the thinnest, if not the thinnest resumes to the Presidential campaigns ever.
If there is any one thing the Clintons do well, it's run a campaign.
I'd say Obama is a good scripted speaker. Off the cuff he's proven pretty horrible. Intersting contrast to Bush I guess. Bush is a horrible scripted speaker, but his impromptu remarks, especially in the campaign debates were fairly well rated.
I don't think Obama was scripted in today's speech at all. He referred to a piece of paper in making some acknowledgements but that was it. Instead, his technique seemed to be to speak to a few identifiable ideas (long national nightmare, I am my brother's keeper, etc.) and then let the speech flow out from those as he went along.
Obama and George Bush are not comparable. Obama has a reputation as a tremendously articulate guy. Consequently, he has to live up to a high standard and was successful in doing so tonight. Because Bush has a reputation as a moron (not that I myself think he is), people have always thought he's done well just to hit his talking points. Bush has always faced a really low bar and still fails to clear it on a routine basis.
And then he goes and uses the parable of the house on the rock vs the house on sand in referrence to NOLA. I know he was trying to point out moral issues (from his/left perspective), but who in the hell thought that was a good idea?
Right, Ric ... he was just talking off the cuff. That speech you heard has been given at practically ever campaign stop.
BTW - Calling a black man articulate is racist, according to some of your Leftist brethren. See Oliver Willis ...
We do like to name call, don't we?
Yes, tim. You do.
More witticisms! Geez, ef, I pay to read a book on your thoughts (I do have a three month old):
Page One: [picture of an eye] "I"
Page Two: "know"
Page Three: [picture of a sheep and the letter R] "you are"
Page Four: [picture of Dick Cheney] "ass, errrr, but"
Page Five: "what am"
Page Six: [picture of eye]"I"
In fact, your "thoughts" might not be able to fill that book, but maybe you could write the definitive account of "I'm rubber, you're glue"?
After all, there's a recent strain of conservatism, highlighted by you and JD, that just enjoys calling liberals "racists" and "homophobes" (contrary to logic, history and context). It seems you've finally internalized that these are bad and, while you're opposed to policies that might mitigate the effects of these nasty traits, you do like to use them with rhetorical flourish.
Can't say it's a trend I find helpful, but it entertaining to be called a homophobe by folks who oppose civil unions and gay marriage (as a rule) and racist by folks who so vehemently loathe affirmative action and Civil Rights legislation that they call the purveyors of equality "racist".
Takes cojones, but the Right's never been shy about that.
As a rule, we oppose same sex marriage AND civil unions? You know so little, yet claim so much enlightenment. FWIW, not that it matters to you, since actual facts just get in the way of your story telling, I am a firm proponent of civil unions, and still think that the institution of marriage, as recognized by the law, allows any male/female to marry any female/male, regardless of their choices of sexual partners. Who is being denied a right to marry?
"as a rule" is my explicit admission that there are individual righties who are willing to break from the ranks. I thought that was clear, as I knew you or ef would try to use that characterization to miss the point.
Seriously, I'm commenting on a blog, can you give the B Moe and Pablo parsing of stuff a break and discuss the actual issue...i.e. a certain subset of the Right's newfound love of criticizing the Left as racists and homophobes, despite the Right's advocation of policies that would correct centuries of abuse and discrimination?
If you care not to partake of that argument, which, since the sum total of your commenting at PW and the pub for the last month is claiming the Left hates gays, I find likely, then could you at least could you at least avoid throwing the words around here?
By the way, if you think that you will be given a cookie for believing the just thing, you came to the wrong place. Bust that take out at PW in response some of Jeff's BS re: civil unions and then I'll give you a cookie.
PS If it's okay, I'm gonna wait until I see that before I start pouring the flour, since I imagine the flour will have long since decayed into nothingness before you would challenge Goldstein.
So, timmah, why does being teh ghey become a perjorative thrown about by those on the Left when it is found that a Republican or a Conservative is gay? Why is that? Because the Left is tolerant? Because the gay republican/conservatives are inauthentic, and can be disregarded? Professor Caric writes in his most recent post that being effiminate is a bad thing. Why? There is nothing bad about that. Nothing. The Left argues against this stereotype in their heads that Republicans just hate them some gays, minorities, and women, and the internalized belief that they are morally right makes the assumptions that flow from that flawed thought even more flawed. Who is going around threatening to out people? Who claims that a blogger should not be believed on the basis that he once did gay porn? Gannon? Another gay cock of lies.
Many disagree with Sullivan and Ellers McEllerson, and it has nothing to do with their homosexuality.
Bust what take out at PW? That I am a proponent of civil unions? No problem.
The take is the "Gay marriage" take and it should be in explicit disagreement with the host.
As far as your concern, I'll let it stand that Karl Rove and the GOP in 11 states had gay marriage placed on the ballots in an explicit attempts to draw the people who vote for banning gay marriage (the same righties calling on Larry to resign) into voting for the President.
But, that doesn't mean the right dislikes gays? No, and the Republicans don't have a plank in their party platform condemning homosexuality?
Oops.
Your examples are the usual PW. Sanchez is derided by everyone except the Weekly Standard and PW, because he was a whore, not because he is gay (although he denies being gay). Gannon was drizzled with contempt for the same reason. No one abuses Denny Hastert for being gay. The lefties I know and read don't care about sexual orientation, except as it relates to one's hypocrisy. To wit, David Vitter and Randall Tobias are worthless hypocrites to me and they are straight. Whereas Bill Clinton, who never lectured me on "family values" committed a reprehensible act, but not a hypocritical one.
First lesson: You criticize other people's moral code, then you better be living the one you're claiming is right.
Second lesson: If you ever allowed someone to have sex with you after they paid you, then your credibility is probably going to be suspect. If you don't like people questioning your credibility, then don't take money for sex. Sluts can be believed; whores not so much.
Again, the fact that you, Pablo, and Jeff, et. al. think it's a gay issue has more to do with your blinkered view on reality.
The Republican party platform "condemns" homosexuality? That is news to me. Any evidence of that?
Yes, Karl Rove had the power to force entire states to do his bidding. In fact, he is monitoring this thread now. Be careful, be very very careful. What is it like to live with that bogeyman in the corner?
Of those 11 votes to not include same sex marriage in the same definition as traditional marriage, how many passed? failed? Are the voters of California homophobes?
What moral code is Sanchez preaching? Sen. Craig?
Possibly, just possibly, do you think that individual states might have reacted to the Mayor of San Fran ignoring the expressed public sentiment and the laws of the State in allowing same sex marriage, and the judicial fiat in the land of Sens. Kerry and Kennedy.
"We...affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service."
--Rep platform 2004
Now, I'm sure your attorney mind, still dancing on the meaning of the word "hypocrisy", will have difficulty associating "incompatible" with "condemn", so can we just skip over how you define what condemn means? If you were a...let's say, a homosexual JAG, then the Republican Party platform condemns you to being drummed out of the military.
You'll note in the "Protecting Our Families" portion of the document, that the Platform espouses sate Constitutional Amendments and a Federal Con Amed to prevent gay marriage. Now, this time I didn't mention Rove (I knew your brain would leap to defend him, he's like a shiny penny on sunny afternoon for you folks), because I'm sure he had no input on the 2004 Platform document, but it would seem to me that it was the policy of the Republicans.
From my lessons, all you take are the words "moral code"? Senator Craig lectured all of us on the "traditional moral code." I am aware that you know that, but what's a non-sequitor or two?
That is a ridiculous position to hold, timmah. Finding that it is incompatible with military service is orders of magnitude different than condemning the people. Nice try.
Not agreeing philosophically with same sex marriage is another far step removed from condemning homosexuals. I thought the law schools around her were better than this.
First lesson: You criticize other people's moral code, then you better be living the one you're claiming is right.
I was just commenting on the First Lesson according to timmy. When did Sen. Craig lecture you? He was a back-bencher, that would not be recognizable to people not invested in the political process. How did he effect your life?
Well, you'd be wrong...oh, hold it, that's not a defense.
So, it's your contention that condemn doesn't mean fire you from your job or refuse to let you get married to your chosen partner? Again, you dance on semantics. You must be marvelous with a contract (it says "slight", not "minuscule"!). Well, we know the Idaho Family folks condemn it...
I said Senator criticized other people's moral codes, I did NOT say he criticized mine.
Are we stipulating the fact that the Amendments in various states were a strategy to draw people to the polls to vote for George? Or, did I not convince you. You are a tough nut to crack.
Could be worse. B Moe could still be hanging around.
I cannot marry Jessica Alba. My fundamental civil rights have been violated! I do not view marriage as a right. It is a privilege that the state recognizes.
Personally, I have no problem with civil unions, and providing a foundation where the benefits can be conveyed to a same sex partner. Much of the alleged problems can be fixed with the appropriate power of attorney. Hetero couple that do not wish to marry encounter the same roadblocks.
I am not stipulating to that at all. Quite the contrary. Had the mayor of San Fran not pulled his publicity stunt, flaunting state law and public opinion, and coupling that with the judicial fiat in Mass., there was good reason for states that were so inclined to address this. You would have questioned the timing no matter when it happened.
No timmy, taking the position that it is incompatible with military service is a policy position, apparently held by the party, and by the military. Far be it from me to tell the military what works best for them. Taking the postion that one disagrees with same sex marriage is a policy position, related to the ever increasing practice of redefining traditional meanings of words into something that no longer resembles the original meaning.
Condemnation is directed towards the people, and the practice of their lifestyle choice. It is entirely removed from the policy choices you referenced.
Apparently, George Wallace was a commenter on public opinion?
You do have the right to marry Jessica Alba, once you are divorced (hypothetically, of course). The Supreme Court of the United States found in Loving v Virginia and Griswold v Connecticut that State prohibitions on the very fabric of our lives requires strict scrutiny. There is no public policy reason that could survive strict scrutiny in these cases and the bigots and their legislators know it. That's why they need the Amendments.
You social policy argument is incorrect by the way. The right to marry is not a right given by the state; it is a contract recognized by the state and existed before their was this "state" or any other. The State needs a very valid reason to violate my inherent rates as a human and your arguments (suddenly changed since Jeff's post on the subject?) have moved right.
Where's the JD of yesterday with the "fuck the Idaho bigots." Today, you're on their side?
George Wallace?
My arguments have not changed one iota.
I am not on their side. Never have been, never will be.
Post a Comment