Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[robbotis]

Speech was kinda meh for me. Lots of typical stuff in there. Not even close to the speech on race, but it's not that kind of thing I guess.

Also, I liked them using Springsteen last night over whatever god-awful country song picked up as soon as he finished talking.

The dramatic orchestra music is bad too. I feel like the Joker's about to show up in a blimp strapped with explosives.

I think tonight was the night he tried to take away the ammo of inexperience and celebrity factor from the republican party. He isn't there for him, he's there for us...how can you argue against that?

If his speech wasn't uplifting enough, my guess is that it was planned to show that he can be uplifting, humble, and yet firm and decisive. We heard a lot more about himself, his plans, and his vision.

Every time I see him speak, I'm reminded that our leaders can and should be intelligent.

+++

++++

His speeches give me goosebumbs, no joke.

Me too. But it was the kind you get when you're scared.

Me too. We need Nancy Reagan to whip out her "Just say No" slogan. No to Obama and No to McCain.

[Popeye_Card]

It was a good "speech," but to me there wasn't a lot of substance in there, like there was in the speech on race. This one was purposefully broad and about ideas. I understand why, but I think it's hard for these kinds of speeches to be great. It's always a lot of blowing smoke up your own party's butt. Not much to chew on, really.

I don't know, he set out some pretty specific goals in the speech. He even brought up the hurdles to reaching those goals, and made a first attempt in describing how we're going to clear those hurdles.

Without breaking out a spreadsheet and showing you how everything balances out, it was about as specific as you can get with a convention speech, IMO.

The thing that struck me most was that he pretty deftly deflected the Republicans' biggest bullets against him. Going to raise taxes? Sure, for some, but 95% of Americans will see a cut. Inexperienced? Sure, but he made an excellent point about "change coming TO Washington", instead of FROM Washington. The old cliche about trying the same old thing, and expecting different results is foolish.

I also liked the way he searched for a middle ground on some social issues. Really, I think most reasonable Americans are closer than they think with regards to these issues. They don't have to be black and white. There's a huge middle ground, where the real goal lies.

What I didn't care as much for was the demonizing of the Bush administration. Yes, most Americans agree it was bad. But I think he would have done better to point out specific flaws of that administration, and contrast how his administration would be different. He also didn't reach out to many fiscal conservatives by insinuating that he's still gung-ho on welfare. He would have done better to reach out to middle-class fiscal conservatives by demonstrating that Rebublican economic policies help the upper class far more than they help them. And that Republicans preach fiscal conservatism, but have a terrible track record of deficit spending.

[ghostrunner]

It was a good "speech," but to me there wasn't a lot of substance in there, like there was in the speech on race. This one was purposefully broad and about ideas. I understand why, but I think it's hard for these kinds of speeches to be great. It's always a lot of blowing smoke up your own party's butt. Not much to chew on, really.

What do you mean by "substance"? I thought it was jam-packed with substance, outlining the differences between himself and McCain.

Maybe substance is the wrong word. I agree he outlined the differences. I just don't think any half hour speech about these kinds of general topics is ever going to be that interesting to me. He promised a lot of things, and I still don't know how he'll do them. In that respect it's no different from many other convention speeches.

I think the race speech is going to be studied for years. I was actually "wowed" by it. This one served it's purpose well enough, but I think it will be forgotten in a year or so.

[ghostrunner]

It was a good "speech," but to me there wasn't a lot of substance in there, like there was in the speech on race. This one was purposefully broad and about ideas. I understand why, but I think it's hard for these kinds of speeches to be great. It's always a lot of blowing smoke up your own party's butt. Not much to chew on, really.

I don't know, he set out some pretty specific goals in the speech. He even brought up the hurdles to reaching those goals, and made a first attempt in describing how we're going to clear those hurdles.

Without breaking out a spreadsheet and showing you how everything balances out, it was about as specific as you can get with a convention speech, IMO.

The thing that struck me most was that he pretty deftly deflected the Republicans' biggest bullets against him. Going to raise taxes? Sure, for some, but 95% of Americans will see a cut. Inexperienced? Sure, but he made an excellent point about "change coming TO Washington", instead of FROM Washington. The old cliche about trying the same old thing, and expecting different results is foolish.

I also liked the way he searched for a middle ground on some social issues. Really, I think most reasonable Americans are closer than they think with regards to these issues. They don't have to be black and white. There's a huge middle ground, where the real goal lies.

What I didn't care as much for was the demonizing of the Bush administration. Yes, most Americans agree it was bad. But I think he would have done better to point out specific flaws of that administration, and contrast how his administration would be different. He also didn't reach out to many fiscal conservatives by insinuating that he's still gung-ho on welfare. He would have done better to reach out to middle-class fiscal conservatives by demonstrating that Rebublican economic policies help the upper class far more than they help them. And that Republicans preach fiscal conservatism, but have a terrible track record of deficit spending.

Good points, and I mostly agree

[TimeForGuinness]

Speech was kinda meh for me. Lots of typical stuff in there. Not even close to the speech on race, but it's not that kind of thing I guess.

Also, I liked them using Springsteen last night over whatever god-awful country song picked up as soon as he finished talking.

The dramatic orchestra music is bad too. I feel like the Joker's about to show up in a blimp strapped with explosives.

I think tonight was the night he tried to take away the ammo of inexperience and celebrity factor from the republican party. He isn't there for him, he's there for us...how can you argue against that?

If his speech wasn't uplifting enough, my guess is that it was planned to show that he can be uplifting, humble, and yet firm and decisive. We heard a lot more about himself, his plans, and his vision.

Every time I see him speak, I'm reminded that our leaders can and should be intelligent.

+++

++++

His speeches give me goosebumbs, no joke.

Me too. But it was the kind you get when you're scared.

Scared of what?

[jim]

McCain to announce Palin as VP?

Good choice. I'm sure the first order of business would be to run those pesky caribou out of ANWR and get to drilling pronto.

A McCain/Palin ticket would accelerate the environmental destruction of our country exponentially. A McCain/Pailn ticket would be a nightmare team for me - you couldn't possibly put two human beings together that I disagree with more strongly on just about everything.

[BW23]

Speech was kinda meh for me. Lots of typical stuff in there. Not even close to the speech on race, but it's not that kind of thing I guess.

Also, I liked them using Springsteen last night over whatever god-awful country song picked up as soon as he finished talking.

The dramatic orchestra music is bad too. I feel like the Joker's about to show up in a blimp strapped with explosives.

I think tonight was the night he tried to take away the ammo of inexperience and celebrity factor from the republican party. He isn't there for him, he's there for us...how can you argue against that?

If his speech wasn't uplifting enough, my guess is that it was planned to show that he can be uplifting, humble, and yet firm and decisive. We heard a lot more about himself, his plans, and his vision.

Every time I see him speak, I'm reminded that our leaders can and should be intelligent.

+++

++++

His speeches give me goosebumbs, no joke.

Me too. But it was the kind you get when you're scared.

Scared of what?

Of him winning.

[cards2468]

McCain to announce Palin as VP?

Good choice. I'm sure the first order of business would be to run those pesky caribou out of ANWR and get to drilling pronto.

A McCain/Palin ticket would accelerate the environmental destruction of our country exponentially. A McCain/Pailn ticket would be a nightmare team for me - you couldn't possibly put two human beings together that I disagree with more strongly on just about everything.

I highly doubt she's that against the environment considering Alaska elected her. Not to mention she sounds like an outdoors-woman (they said she hunts and fishes).

[Socnorb11]

It was a good "speech," but to me there wasn't a lot of substance in there, like there was in the speech on race. This one was purposefully broad and about ideas. I understand why, but I think it's hard for these kinds of speeches to be great. It's always a lot of blowing smoke up your own party's butt. Not much to chew on, really.

What do you mean by "substance"? I thought it was jam-packed with substance, outlining the differences between himself and McCain.

Maybe substance is the wrong word. I agree he outlined the differences. I just don't think any half hour speech about these kinds of general topics is ever going to be that interesting to me. He promised a lot of things, and I still don't know how he'll do them. In that respect it's no different from many other convention speeches.

I think the race speech is going to be studied for years. I was actually "wowed" by it. This one served it's purpose well enough, but I think it will be forgotten in a year or so.

Well, as Popeye said, short of presenting the nation with a spreadsheet of proposed federal expenditures and revenues, I think Obama did a pretty good job of addressing how he wants to address the issues:

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility - that's the essence of America's promise.

His speech will be forgotten by some, of course. But if you weren't inspired by it, it's only because you don't want to be inspired, in my opinion.

[Popeye_Card]

I highly doubt she's that against the environment considering Alaska elected her.

A majority in Alaska probably wants to drill in ANWR, because it would mean huge bucks for them and/or their relatives/friends. Alaska isn't exactly filled with tree-hugging hippies.