Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Day 3

Bill Clinton did a good job. He delivered a solid speech as he has a talent for doing. He did a much better job than Hillary at making a case for Obama. Overall, I think the speech was a bit heavy on self-glorification, but he nonetheless did what his party needed him to do.

Like Hillary, he delivered a laundry list of problems that the next President will have to deal with, but he fell a bit short in explaining how Obama would solve those problems. In fairness, that's Obama's job. Clinton's job was to at least appear as though he was fully supportive of Obama and that's what he did.

Now, some criticisms. Clinton mentioned the failure of America in addressing AIDS nationally and worldwide, and our failure to lead on global warming. Yet, he seemed to forget that he had eight years in office to address these issues and his administration fell very short. The same could be said about energy independence (if he'd started drilling then that oil would be hitting the market by now), global terrorism and Islamic extremism, and maintaining a strong military (no administration cut the defense budget as much as Clinton). Then he followed by saying that his "experience" tells him that Obama is ready. Hmm. Is that the same experience that dropped the ball on these issues?

All in all, I'd say BJ's speech was a plus for the Dems, but I also think that much of it was devoted to Clinton's own accomplishments and seemed to suggest that if Obama followed his lead then the candidate will do well. Fair enough. The speech was a success and may provide a small bounce but won't sway too many voters.

Joe Biden voted for the Iraq War. That should be noted since he seems to have forgotten. Also, why was it okay in the minds of Dems to take down Milosovic for genocide, but not Hussein for similar crimes? Just wondering.

More from Biden: "giving up is unforgivable" - Then how does he explain Obama's position on Iraq?

"the greatest warriors in the world" - this line got VERY little applause.

But I finally got some specifics about what Obama plans to do. Granted, these were sandwiched between the same old references of emotion, but I paid close attention. Apparently, Obama plans to provide health care to every American, save the Social Security trust fund, put more police on the streets, make college more affordable and help the nation of Georgia rebuild....and he will do all of this while cutting taxes for 95% of Americans. Huh?

Someone needs to explain to me how this is possible, because that seems like some very expensive things to do while also lowering taxes. With respect to Biden and Obama, I'm no idiot. I don't buy it.

Now, tomorrow. I am stunned that Obama insists on moving the convention to a larger venue to allow for more people to attend so he can deliver his trademark "rock star" speech. I think it's a huge mistake and a perfect metaphor for Obama's biggest shortcoming....his pride. He knows that the image of "The One" has and will hurt him. He knows that the average American most likely won't react very well to a candidate who speaks in front of a Greek temple backdrop before 80,000 people. He knows this, but he doesn't care. He wants the adoration, the crowd. At at time when America needs to learn more about Obama, he refuses to keep things more intimate, more one on one.

Obama's folks are already saying that he's doing this to allow the public more access to Obama's campaign. Bull! If that's true, then why doesn't Obama agree to the town hall debates with McCain? Why did he fight the vote counts in Florida and Michigan? That kind of rhetoric is bogus. Obama wants the grandiosity. And I don't think America is going to appreciate that.

This will look self-indulgent, presumptuous, pretentious and very arrogant. Americans may like confidence, but they don't like arrogance. A President is a servant of the people, and being a servant requires some humility. Obama has yet to demonstrate an ounce of humility. Before he says a word tomorrow, he will be facing an uphill task. His wife made the case 2 days ago that Barack was just an average guy-next-door type, and now he insists on moving the entire convention to a larger venue for his speech, complete with pillars and a stage fit for a Greek god. The two images don't mix well. Obama's speech tomorrow is already a big mistake and he hasn't said the first word. Regardless of what he says, tomorrow's speech will be more about Obama's ego than anything else. He may very well come out of this convention with a dip in the polls rather than the usual bump.


Allison said...

It seems to me like you 're angry because you don't agree with the guy who is earning all of this attention. He has not always been a politician, he has not always been in the spotlight. When you are a candidate for president, or THE president, you are by default no longer an "average guy," you probably don't come home from work at night and make small talk with your neighbors on your way from your car to your house. If he's elected, he will be one of the most powerful men in the world, much less the United States. That is far, FAR above average, and I see no way that you can fault him for that.

I shook Barack Obama's hand at an event just a few days ago, and I can assure you that I saw nothing, NOTHING that implied even the slightest bit of arrogance. He went to a local church before the event, spoke, and then ate BBQ while taking time to speak or to shake hands with nearly every individual there. I was beyond impressed. He is a man that outside of his own country can draw phenomenal crowds, and it shouldn't be any surprise if Mile High stadium is full tomorrow night.

Dan Trabue said...

Obama wants the grandiosity.

John, I suspect that you suspect that you know more than you're capable of knowing.

Dan Trabue said...

....and he will do all of this while cutting taxes for 95% of Americans. Huh?

Someone needs to explain to me how this is possible, because that seems like some very expensive things to do while also lowering taxes.

Some economists have looked at McCain's fiscal plan and told us flatly that it doesn't hold water. I could find the source if you're interested.

The last three Republican administrations have grown the gov't the most in our history. It seems a bit disingenuous when Republicans then claim that the Dems plan is for Big unsupportable Gov't. History has not shown that to be the case. I don't think Obama's actual planks show that to be the case.

If we're not out being the World's police with a military budget nearly larger than the rest of the world's combined, we can start saving a hundred billion dollars here and there and a hundred billion dollars here and there, well it starts to add up.

Anonymous said...

Dear John,

I guess the Greek stuff is lost on you although it should not be.

You know Greece? The historic cradle of Democracy?

As I recall, and correct me if I am wrong, you were raised in MS. Ever been to Shawdowlawn in Columbus, MS or Dunlieth Plantation in Natchez? These are prime examples of Greek Revival architecture as is Rowan Oak, Willaim Faulkner's home in Oxford.

I was raised in New England and one cannot drive far w/o seeing an example of Greek Revival. I also direct your attention to the Supreme Court in Washington, DC.

"Ain't that America for you and me?"


John Washburn said...

Dan, just to be clear, are you proposing hundreds of billions in defense cuts to help pay for Obama's spending? Is that what he's proposing?

At a time when we are engaged in 2 wars, continue to pursue Al qaeda across the globe, face an Iranian regime that defies the UN and seems intent on developing nukes while openly threatening Israel, face similarly insane regimes in North Korea and Venezuela, and the resurgence of the hammer-and-sickle way of thinking in want to CUT defense spending?

Just looking for clarification.