thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
DNC
Jul 27, 2004 20:20:10 GMT -5
Post by thebin on Jul 27, 2004 20:20:10 GMT -5
The following are my estimations of the speeches that I saw AS POLITICAL PERFORMACES go, not political content as such.
Gore's speech was very good. Bill Clinton's was good. Hillary was awful- boy is she tough to listen to (physically) and I no longer think that she might one day take the nomination. She has none of her husband's political or rhetorical skill at all. Dean's speech was so bad he made Bush the orator look like Henry Clay. I can't believe he looked like the frontrunner for so long.... (Admit it Dems, you can't believe that either!)
OK, now this is editorial. On Monday I saw Jimmy Carter lecture the country about a strong America. I then threw up in my mouth. That is all.
|
|
|
DNC
Jul 28, 2004 9:31:27 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 28, 2004 9:31:27 GMT -5
I agree regarding Hillary. I don't think she has what it takes, and I think her speech was pretty flat.
As for Dean, I still don't know what to make of him. His speech was bad. Then again, he just works from notes rather than a TelePrompter. Yet, I don't see him as a horrible policy-maker as much as he may make for a weak candidate in hindsight. Another thought that I have is that Dean's whole candidacy was about much more than Howard Dean in the sense that his strength was based more on a community of energized activists. Unfortunately for Dean, this community fell apart or could not translate their Internet savvy/genius into votes. What is important, however, is to allow him to speak, which is customary for those who have sought the nomination during the year. If they did not allow him to speak, imagine the outrage on the left and how folks would abandon ship for Nader.
All of this said, none of the speakers who you criticize were on during the 10-11 p.m. slot except for Hillary, whose purpose was merely to introduce Bill Clinton and perhaps to reassure folks that she supports Kerry wholeheartedly. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts more on Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Heinz Kerry who have received decent reviews for their performances.
Overall, Tucker Carlson gave Obama an A-, which says something because he is more of a moderate commentator. I liked Obama's message of unity and hope and felt as though it was a well-articulated, nuanced presentation of where the Party stands. Barring a major disaster, I expect that he'll figure prominently in Kerry's strategy.
As for Heinz Kerry, I found her speech fascinating in a Georgetown townhouse sort of way. She comes across as well-equipped to participate in the internationalist plans of a Kerry administration, and she showed her character in terms of what she stands for and how she does it. Admittedly, I find her unorthodox by American standards but fascinating for the intellectually curious. I am not sure how it plays in Kansas or rural towns, but the role of the first lady is not traditionally one where they bring in votes by the droves. Rather, I think she showed the compassion of a lifelong humanitarian and mother, which is traditionally what is expected of first ladies. It is just that her means to that end are quite different from a Laura Bush. So, I call that speech a wash in terms of votes but effective for the ticket.
On to your point about Carter, I was a bit surprised myself about Jimmy Carter and the degree to which he criticized Bush. However, I do have to take issue with your view of Carter as not being able to speak about a strong America.
For many Republicans, strength is a function of weapons, arms, and guns. This is a valid position, but one with which I disagree. In my view, it was not our weapons that won the Cold War. If this were the case, we would have won it after World War II because the Soviets were much inferior in terms of their weapons and arms. In fact, they did not have any nuclear weapons at the time. I agree that Carter's foreign policy is not anything to write home about, but I would not categorize it as weak without some qualification. At the end of his Presidency, Carter ramped up in a huge increase in defense expenditures, which helped to pave the way for what came during Reagan's first term in office.
However, Jimmy Carter stands for much more than that in terms of strength. His message is that America's strength comes from much more than a barrel of a gun. It is seen in the values of our democracy and a respect for human rights, among other things. This is, in my opinion, what brought about the end of the Cold War, and, in a reshaped form, what will win the war against tecordism. Unable to use weapons against the Soviet Union, America had to find a different way. Ronald Reagan found that way in his second term when he brought about glasnost and perestroika with Gorbachev. Then, and only then, did the Soviet people demand change. To me, that is the strength to which Carter refers.
I expect that we'll see a different view at the next convention where folks talk up the need for usable nuclear weapons to bust bunkers and so forth. In my view, I do not see this as valuable. Tactically speaking, these are probably very good things, but, in terms of affecting change necessary to win the war on tecord, they are not the panacea. We pounded countless missiles into the sides of mountains in Afghanistan. We killed many Taliban fighters and so forth, which is great. However, we have not been able to hit Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Why? In my view, without on the spot intelligence, these missiles are not those which are yet able to hit high value targets who are mobile. This is also true for Saddam Hussein who we targeted on multiple occasions. Only when we used boots on the ground and on-the-ground intel were we able to find him and capture him. In spite of our multiple bombings of Zarqawi hide-outs, how much closer are we to bringing him to justice?
This leads me to believe that the war on tecord (if fighting Saddam is considered to be part of such) requires much more than equating strength with defense/weapons spending.
Which leads me to question where we are in terms of winning the war on tecord in spite of all of this defense spending. We have won great victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. Have we won lasting victories in the war against tecord? In my opinion, we haven't. Why? We have failed to harnass our values in the international arena as a means of showing the way to our new allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ways of tecord remain powerful in that part of the world. Why? In my view, the propaganda they spew has yet to be de-legitimized by an alternative agenda that improves the lives of Middle Easterners on their terms.
What Jimmy Carter, John Kerry and the Democratic Party offer is that agenda which relies not just on arms and weapons but on our values, leadership, and compassion. This is the agenda that wins the war on tecord in my opinion. You may disagree with this, but to call Carter weak is a bit disingenuous in my book because of his defense expenditures, which is strength on Republican terms (although I am willing to concede that others are much stronger on these terms), and his promotion of values as a tool in our foreign policy arsenal (which is strength, crudely defined, on Democrats' terms).
|
|
|
DNC
Jul 28, 2004 16:46:59 GMT -5
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Jul 28, 2004 16:46:59 GMT -5
Watching thebin go it solo from the conservative side, I figure I might offer some support.
I agree with the assessments of the speeches thus far, except for Clinton. While superbly delivered (can't expect anything less), his speech was full of tired rhetoric (Reps are a party that strives to concentrate wealth). While this plays well with the faithful, it's easily refuted to an impartial audience. IMO, Edwards is headed this way with his 2 Americas shtick, which he should have ditched post-primary.
Obama's message was much more nuanced and had some of that idealism that political neophytes possess. I wonder how his religious values will play if he becomes a national candidate. Despite the hype, he may end up going the way of Harold Ford, Jr. He is, however, already ahead of nonstarter Jesse Jackson, Jr.
As for the WoT, Jersey's opinion is thought out, but I do disagree. I think the White House policy is fairly well articulated in terms of 1) protect the homeland through DHS 2) fight current terrorists abroad rather than here at home (this is where the bombs come in) 3) support institutions of democracy because free people are peaceful people. The rub is in this third strategy, but progress has been made in legitimizing these institutions in Iraq and Afghanistan (hopefully setting an example for our "friends" in Egypt and Saudi Arabia). Wars are not a long term solution, but we have reached a juncture where they need to be fought. For too long, the US shied away from real military action (Clinton launched a bomb here and there, but there were no results.)
An interesting editorial in the WSJ today about blacks and the Republican party. 68% of blacks think that Republicans are more likely to raise taxes and that Democrats are more committed to protecting the life of the unborn. The thesis of the article is that blacks are misinformed by Democratic monopolization of black media outlets (BET, urban radio). I think this applies to the situation in the Middle East. If the U.S. does not get active in the Middle East, be on the ground, and have contact with Arabs, we lose big time in the long run. Some argue that there has been a spike in volunteers for terrorist training camps. Most of this evidence is anecdotal, but even if it is true, this is short-term. By challenging the misinformation that pervades in the Middle East, we get a better chance at peace in the long run.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
DNC
Jul 28, 2004 17:54:17 GMT -5
Post by Z on Jul 28, 2004 17:54:17 GMT -5
i think obama is the brightest young star in either party right now. frankly, his unifying themes and rhetoric stand in sharp contrast with most prominent african american dem's today. i think he has a real shot to play well even in red states. i can't remember watching a black politican and thinking "this guy could really end up being the president of the US." reflects well not only on obama's own credentials, but the increasing color blindness in american society.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
DNC
Jul 28, 2004 19:20:43 GMT -5
Post by thebin on Jul 28, 2004 19:20:43 GMT -5
I realize everyone is on this guy's coatails already, but its important to remember that currently, he is a state legislator and nothing else. He won't be for long, but rookie Senators have a way of being humbled by the vets- especially ones who didn't have big gigs before Congress. (GovernorI am honestly not sure what you mean by how he plays in the red states unless you are profjecting on his presidential run WAY down the line. For my part, after watching only one performaces of Obama, I still like Harold Ford as the star to watch better. I am not sure how Obama rose so far so quickly, but I would play spoiler and caution that there is still no there there. I think people are getting a little irrational about him- unless I missed something. Is there something Ford did to tarnish his star? I would still watch him.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,768
|
DNC
Jul 28, 2004 19:39:50 GMT -5
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 28, 2004 19:39:50 GMT -5
A couple of thoughts from Red America:
1. Obama's speech played well. Given that he's running unopposed for now in Illinois, the speech will pilot him straight to DC this year. Agreed that first term senators tend to disappear but the Anyone But Hillary Faction in the Democratic Party (and they're out there) should take notice. In Texas, former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk could have been that breakthrough national black candidate as well, but lost in the senate race. He did quite well in Dallas (carrying a heavily GOP area) but had zero name recognition south of I-20.
2. Teresa Kerry's speech played well in the townhouse set, but was a big yawn in the rest of the republic. She comes across as very patrician.
3. Jimmy Carter came off as, well, as someone who never quite got over the defeat he took in 1980, whereas other presidential also-rans like Fritz Mondale and Bob Dole seem to have gotten over it better. Ditto for Gore, who hitched his wagon to Howard Dean...EEAAHHH! If Gore carried his own state (or takes the time to ask Clinton to campaign in Arkansas the last week of the election), everything would have changed. But he didn't.
This election is increasingly about five or six swing states. Those of us in Texas, California, or other safe states (one way or the other) will see very little of it.
Finally, Michael Moore no-showed his own movie premiere in Crawford, TX this evening.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
DNC
Jul 28, 2004 19:41:41 GMT -5
Post by nychoya3 on Jul 28, 2004 19:41:41 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't know why anyone would discount Ford. I guess he's getting old at around 32 or so. Maybe his Washington Post reported liason with former Hoya sex columnist Julia Baugher has dimmed his star.
As for Obama - he is certainly very talented and obviously ultra-bright (editor of Harvard Law Review). Will that make him a great senator? Not neccesarily. But it's not really neccessary to be a great senator to be a good presidential candidate 8 or 12 years down the road. Think John Kerry, who was a pretty mediocre senator in terms of legislative ability, but I think he will be a quite good president. Obama will have very safe seat, which is also nice. I wouldn't be surprised if he tries for governor down the road - that might better fit his style.
Ford and Obama are both very good speakers. But here's the name of another ultra-smart, attractive, young, moderate, black democrat who is even better - Corey Booker. He lost a close race for mayor of Newark last year. He's a Rhodes Scholar. And I've seen him speak twice and have been absolutely floored both times. Seriously, I would have followed him to the ends of the earth. He is that good, and simply too good not to make some noise. I think he's only around 30, so he has plenty of time.
I was about to launch into an extended dissertation on why Jimmy Carter gets a worse rap than he deserves, but I'd probably be the only one to read it and it's too depressing to admit that I don't have anything better to do right now. So perhaps some other time.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
DNC
Jul 28, 2004 20:11:04 GMT -5
Post by thebin on Jul 28, 2004 20:11:04 GMT -5
Isn't Booker a Republican? Was he just a conservative Dem running against an old school leftist city machine-type? I remember him being considered a real outsider and breath of fresh air for urban black poltics. I remember being impressed by him at some point too. Maybe he was a Dem but grew up upper middle class or something? Can't remember.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
DNC
Jul 28, 2004 20:23:43 GMT -5
Post by thebin on Jul 28, 2004 20:23:43 GMT -5
Found this on Booker....
"But Booker-- schooled at Oxford and backed by huge, multiracial support-- represents a new generation of black leadership, one that evidently threatens the old guard. So, in came the black, political/ civil rights establishent. Jesse Jackson attacked Booker and in the process mocked the councilman's light pigmentation, saying "he looks like a sheep, but is actually a wolf". Al Sharpton trotted out the old, standby, "not everyone who's our skin-folk, is really our kin-folk" to whip up local fervor against him. Operatives began a whisper campaign that Booker was (among other things) actually white, a Republican, and supported by the Klu Klux Klan. And Mayor James, himself an old civil rights figure, labelled Booker "insufficently black" and, more succinctly, declared to him in person during a debate that "we don't have time to teach you to be black".
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
DNC
Jul 28, 2004 20:25:37 GMT -5
Post by nychoya3 on Jul 28, 2004 20:25:37 GMT -5
Nah, he was just running as a reformist democrat against the longtime, old school mayor Sharpe James (also black, but definitely an old school machine type politician.) If I recall correctly, he comes from a working class background. I think he's a pretty centrist dem, but it can be tough to tell when only local policy is at stake.
He WILL run for something in the fairly near future and, if I can, I'd like to help him out.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
DNC
Jul 29, 2004 10:14:57 GMT -5
Post by Z on Jul 29, 2004 10:14:57 GMT -5
booker is great. james is one of the biggest scumbags imaginable.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
DNC
Jul 29, 2004 11:21:41 GMT -5
Post by Z on Jul 29, 2004 11:21:41 GMT -5
thebin, part of the strength with obama is that perception equals reality. most first term senators don't walk into congress having been the keynote speaker at the DNC. right or wrong, the DNC has anointed this guy as the future, and everyone knows it.
|
|
|
DNC
Jul 29, 2004 13:32:04 GMT -5
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Jul 29, 2004 13:32:04 GMT -5
something is going right for obama. how many people get to run for an open u.s. senate seat unopposed? he could conceivable get 60+ percent of the vote. that's almost unheard of.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
DNC
Jul 29, 2004 16:03:37 GMT -5
Post by thebin on Jul 29, 2004 16:03:37 GMT -5
Z- I agree with you mostly, but not that the guy is going to have clout in the Senate because he gave one good 20 minute speech. This freshman is not going to waltz in, and Kennedy and Frist are going to go- "hey that guy is a rising star, give him the chair of the Intel Committee." The guy WILL be a rookie in the Senate and rank means a lot in both houses when its not convention time- which is of course almost all of the time. There is just no way the guy goes from a state senator (part time job in most states) to a leader in the Senate because "perception is reality." That expresion is sometimes true, like during elections, but less so during actual governing and in an old boys network like the senate, I have a feeling reality will be reality when he strides in. Corzine hasn't been a Senate heavy by any means- and the guy was one of the most powerful men in the world before hitting the Senate, a hundred times more influential than Obama is now. He will drop off the national radar for a term or two anyway. He should. The Senate should be a little harder to crack than that. Let's face it, his being black had a lot to do with his star rising so fast (same could be said for JC Watts) That said, I sure hope that isn't enough to become a heavy in the most august legislative body in hisotry without paying some dues first.
|
|
|
DNC
Aug 9, 2004 10:06:02 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 9, 2004 10:06:02 GMT -5
I agree with bin on Obama. Obama, even still, is about raw potential. He has delivered a well-received speech and will arrive in the Senate as the new kid on the block with most others trying to knock him down a peg. He'll have to deliver something for the "first Black President" prognostications to gain credibility.
|
|