"The hope rises again and the dream lives on . . . ." DNC chat
 

Alas, Teddy Kennedy. A contradiction to be sure, but I teared up seeing him.



I suppose we should put all the DNC chat in this thread.

yeah me too, crocodile tears. :rolleyes:

Meh - he has terminal brain cancer amd is the very last of an outstanding generation -- so, I cut him a break.

Of course I wasn't joking about his illness.

But the "last" of an outstanding generation? Ted Kennedy?

I didn't get to *see* him speak, but the convention was live on NPR so I heard it as I was driving home.

Whoever was speaking used the sea as a metaphor (was it Caroline's speech or the videoclip?)

...about how the water meant a lot to Teddy coming from Massachusetts and teaching the younger Kennedys how to sail, etc., etc.

My mind began to wander -- and remember 1969 -- and how water figured so dramatically in Ted's life.

But the mantra about Teddy being a senator from Mass and being everybody's advocate, brought me back to 2008.

The NPR guys described the scene as everyone in the hall having a Kennedy sign and that it was very moving....the highlight of the night.

When I asked my husband about the signs, he said, he never saw one. (He was watching CNN's coverage.)

Enough of my rambling...here are a couple questions.

1. What was the visual like? The TV coverage of the convention hall...did the delegates seem interested in listening to the speeches, or did they look tired and bored?

2. On the radio, the announcers kept interrupting to talk amongst themselves...which I hated. I wanted to hear the convention, not the radio-know-it-alls....and the topic was if and how the Clintons are gonna upstage Obama and take over the convention. Was anything along those lines mentioned on TV?

BTW... #3. Anybody read Rolling Stone? Here's two interesting articles:
August 21, 2008 Michael Moore "How the Democrats Can Blow it"
Sept. 4, 2008 - How Bush Destroyed the Republican Party by Sean Wilentz

Don't be dissing the Kennedys. They did alot for this country and could have done alot more good if two of them weren't assasinated , unlike that other political dynsasty that have runied it perhaps for years.

You mean JFK escalating our military and political commitments in Vietnam?
Look how that war ended.

And as far as the other political dynasty, how's the Iraq thing going? Oh yeah,
we are winning no thanks to the Democrats.

I thought we won the Iraqi war 5 anda half years ago when Bushie paraded around on the deck of the U.S.S . Abraham Lincoln in military drag behind a "Mission Accomplished "banner?That war should have never happened and over 2/3 of Americans believe that..it will be remembered as one of the darker times in our history and our "war president" who unlike JFk didn't even bother to show up for service will be remembered as what he is the lamest President of modern times perhaps of all time.

Great speech tonight by Michelle Obama. It was a poignant moment seeing Caroline speak and Maria Shriver crying when Teddy took the stage. He has done much good. Out of all the people in town for this thing, I always hoped I'd run into him the most.

Woo! We are winning. And at what price? Our treasury has been bankrupted by this war and countless are dead. Why the fukc are we there again? Seriously, can you tell me why we are there?

1. A blunder on his and his advisors part on the Mission Accomplished.
2. Don't worry about the polls, they change all the time. You can't lead
the country by them like Clinton tried to do.
3. We are not far away from this yet to truly judge whether this is one of
our darkest times. Not even close is my opinion.
4. He was in the National Guard, even if he was shown preferential treatment.
I wish everyone would be a little more careful about putting down the Guard.
My father was a member, and he was called up during the Cuban Missle Crisis.
5. Which is it? The lamest or evil genious, you really can't have it both ways.
If he tricked all of us into this war, how could he be lame? Maybe that says
something about all of us (if that's true).

Yes, we are winning. At the highest cost. War is Hell.

Maybe we are there to kill terrorist and yes for the OIL!

Even after all we've spent our economy has been strong enough to pull through it.
It it wasn't for the Banks & Mortgage Companies loaning money to people who don't
qualify for loans, and people just over extending themselves, you wouldn't be hearing about how bad the economy is.

I know you were joking :cool:

I was talking about the leaders of the 60's. His brothers John and Robert were pretty great leaders - Ted is the last of that generation :shrug:

Actually, it seems to me that if people like the D's did not start to balk at W's half a$$ed invasion of Iraq (against all military advice regarding number of troops - thanks a lot Rumsfeld) with absolutely no coherent lan to win the peace, we would not still be there with no end in sight, our blank, signed checks, and our dead and injured soldiers? I get that we are winning because of the surge, but to congratulate W for that is like congratulating someone for saving your arm when they are the reason you lost your hand in the first place. Are we supposed to now just forget the disaster Iraq was before the surge, which was directly caused by W? I suppose:

1. Losing OBL in Afgan.;
2. Lying to force an unnecessary invasion;
3. Thousands US soldiers dead in Iraq.
4. Tens of thousands of US soldiers brutally injured with no adequate medical care;
5. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians dead, and;
6. A bankrupt country

are all just forgiven in the end because W finally, for some unknown reason, determined it was time to get serious in Iraq. Do you actually believe that :eek:

In the end, don't you find it at the least interesting that W is now apparently going to get the conbat troops out of Iraq in roughly the same timetable as that espoused by Obama and Hillary, which W and his cronies, including McCain, have consistently called the strategy for losing or "they, the D's, want America to fail by setting a timetable for Al-Q to take over." Yet, when W does it with essentially the same plan, it suddenly is a "win" :rolleyes: You may buy that rhetoric crapola, but I sure as hell do not. Can you not see that W is using this as a campaign strategy for the R party.

Then again, people actually believed W when he said Iraq's oil would pay for the invasion. That anyone believes anything out of W's mouth amazes me.

The point is we never had to go in the first place. There was no Al-Q presence in Iraq. In fact, they hated each other. To suggest otherwise ignores that facts.

The terrorists who attacked us were not there at all prior to the invasion. Moreover, had W put enough troops there to begin with, Al-Q would not have the alleged foothold it now has there even if we toppled SH, which was a good thing at too expensive a cost when the people that attacked us were and still are running loose.

and - we were too stupid even to get that now weren't we. Because, if we have it, that's news to me. Why the hell isn't Iraq paying us back for this instead of having huge surpluses when all we have is debt incurred to get Iraq on its feet.

Actually, the economy was in bad shape prior to then.

I blame the Bush Admin. because it knew that was going on (Greenspan continuously warned about it) for years and passed no law to stop it. But, they could not because that phantom wealth was driving the economy since W took office.

But, even if you take that fiasco out of the equati0n, the bottom line is W spent a trillion or so dollar surplus and then borrowed at least that much to pay for Iraq. That tab would has to be paid despite the housing crisis :shrug:

I get that you are passionate about W, but surely you see these facts :shrug:

Again, if W were your employee and he bankrupted your business, made most of your customers hate you, and he never succeeded at anything -- would you keep him employed or would you fire him? I think you know the answer to that.

I thought so too. I thought the kids on stage was a bit over the top, but it will play well to Middle America because it portrays them as a tight family, which they likely are but were not really perceived as such.

You took the words right out of my mouth.. or the thoughts right out of my brain.

I rather amazes me that you venerate Ronald Reagan for a thing done while Gov. of Calif. and apparently completely ignore his bad acts as Pres., which were many. Yet, you cannot do the same for The Kennedy's, who have done many good if not great things for America despite their personal lives.

I think it would be interesting to see exactly what people hate about the Kennedy's voting records and policies.

I think you give yourself too much credit :p

What exactly are we winning? How many have had to die? How many lies were handed to us? And for what?

I know. And, if toppling SH and setting upp a govt. were our goals, I suggest we successfully did that a year or two ago.

Again, I think it is interesting now that W says it is time to leave with an established timetable that all but mirrors the timetable the D's have been screaming for, it suddenly is a win :rolleyes:

I had to share this awesome article with you guys this morning..:blob1:

Obama faces twin task in wooing Clinton backers By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
Tue Aug 26, 3:43 AM ET



DENVER - Meet Cindy Lerner and Leeann Ormsbee, the two faces of Barack Obama's struggle to win over Hillary Rodham Clinton's most fervent supporters — a task that could determine whether he becomes president.

ADVERTISEMENT

They travel in different social and economic circles: one white-collar and financially safe, one working-class and less secure. They have different educations, backgrounds and reasons for backing Clinton's presidential bid.

But both are self-described Democrats who say they may not vote for Obama this fall. And in that, they personify the complexity and urgency of his efforts to close rifts left by a marathon primary.

The most striking story line of the Democratic convention's first day was the tenacity and emotion of Clinton backers. They unapologetically threatened to disrupt the four-day event's unity theme, demanding that Clinton be honored with a prime-time nominating roll call vote on Wednesday — whether she wants it or not.

In conversations with die-hard Clinton backers, it became increasingly clear that her campaign was at least as much about them as about her. With 10 weeks to go to Obama's showdown with Republican John McCain, they remain loath to turn it loose, even if their doggedness might help the GOP keep the White House.

"I'm not there yet," said Lerner, a Miami lawyer, as she sat with fellow Florida delegates Monday wearing a Clinton button and a frown. "I hope we can use this convention to help Obama's campaign and his administration understand what millions of women in this country live everyday in terms of a lack of respect."

Lerner, 55, cited unequal pay, unfair workplace promotions and a "good ol' boy network that is still alive and well in the corporate world and in the political world."

"Delegates all over the country feel like I do," she said.

Ormsbee, meanwhile, was far away, cleaning houses in Waterford, Ohio. Single, 29, with a high school education, she might have trouble relating to Lerner's anger. Her concerns are mostly pocketbook and kitchen-table affairs, she said.

Clinton won her heart more by promising to fight for the working class than by talking of glass ceilings. But Ormbee's doubts about Obama are no less pressing than Lerner's. And she, too, feels Clinton has been disrespected.

Obama "made a foolish choice" in picking Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, Ormsbee said in a telephone interview. "He could have been president if he had picked Hillary. How stupid can you be? It seems like he did it to spite her."

In battleground states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida, Obama needs to win the vote of every Clinton supporter he possibly can. But he must appeal to them with different themes, to address their varying grievances and fears.

Lerner and many professional women like her saw Clinton's campaign as a chance to redeem their own struggles against sexism and hundreds of slights, large and small, over the years. They want empathy and respect from Obama, and Clinton is their surrogate.

Eleanor Strickland, a Florida delegate and Clinton supporter, has a master's degree in advertising and a successful career behind her. But she remembers a Chicago ad agency directing her to train a man with less education and fewer qualifications to be an account executive.

"There was no thought that a woman could be an account executive," she said.

Hearing that Clinton might not seek a full-blown roll call of her name in nomination, Strickland said: "I think she's being pressured. It's disrespectful. ... I think she was robbed."

She shared a Denver taxi with Florida delegate Catherine Leisek, an art professor and fellow Clinton backer. When Leisek worked at an art institute in 1980, a male co-worker said, "Honey, can you type this?"

No, Leisek had replied, adding that her secretary might.

In Garretsville, Ohio, Susan Carroll also is a Democrat and Clinton backer. But she can't match the college degrees and salaries that Leisek and Strickland have enjoyed. She packages cheese in a factory, and worries about paying bills and obtaining affordable health care.

Carroll, 44, said she is not sure how she will vote in November. "I want to start reading and learning more" about what Obama and McCain are proposing, she said.

While Obama addresses the feminist-related resentments of women like Cindy Lerner, he almost must speak to the economic worries of the Susan Carrolls. Polls show him struggling to attract significant numbers of white Democrats without college educations who supported Clinton in the primaries.

In Denver, Clinton admirer Chris Lomas, 45, has reconciled herself to backing Obama. But she thinks she knows why so many of her sisters have not.

The contest between the two "was so close, and went on so long," said Lomas, a first-year law student and Florida delegate. "People got so emotionally involved."

Obama has 10 weeks to speak to those emotions and, if possible, keep McCain from stealing a crucial number of voters who call themselves Democrats.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Charles Babington covers the presidential campaign for The Associated Press.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/...ntion_analysis

Nah Cheney is the brains in that outfit.Tricked all of us into war?!Again speak for yourself I'd invite you to go back and read my posts on this subject in March of 2003..I for one was far from tricked even before that debacle began.

You sound an awful lot like Carne. Your screen name is quite ironic.

Yeah I thought the same thing about the screen name ..wasn't it fear that Bush and co. used to to mislead alot of people into the Iraqi war?If it was Carne he' d have to be taking on a whole new persona and playing the devil's advocate which come to think of it he was pretty damned good at!:lol:

Well, iamnotafraid said he was from the Gulf Coast and that he had damage from Katrina. I am unsure if Carne would joke about such a thing.

Backstory - carnevaca is a now banned ledgie. Carne was banned for having multiple (I think 5-10) screen names, which is a violation of the rules. He would use these screen names to have conversations, at times, that were for the purpose of inciting a ficticious argument, also a violation of the rules. Carne would also use his main screen name to promote arguments that at times could have been construed as antagonistic.

I personally like and liked Carne and miss him.

curious. did he carry on conversations with himself?

On my lunch break and decided to check how much I'd been kicked around. :eek:

I'm sorry to all the paranoid people, but I don't even know who "Carne" is. I guess I haven't been here long enough.

I do believe in what I say here (when I'm not joking that is). Most of these political arguments are so one-sided, and that's what makes me throw my 2 cents in.

I will say that as much as Strandinthewind and I disagree on political issues, I enjoy the post I read from Strand. And I appreciate the amount of time and effort it takes to write such post. At least both of us like the McCain......oops.. sorry Strand I meant the Mac.

Most Dem's made their minds up about President Bush before he was even in office.
And as for the post mentioning the Iraqi pullout, the Dem's did want an pullout first.
But they wanted it before we were (and are) winning. That's a big difference.

I'll let ajm do the hard work here, he's a bit more scholarly than I.
I'm just a simple farmer. Plus for the most part, I'm just here for fun.

He also had conversations with himself amongst his screen names. :laugh:

Yes. He did.

Nah - I like McCain as a person. I just do not want the R party in power anymore. I think the idea of a religious state is too repugnant. And, the ironic thing is the far religious right is too stupid to realize the R's are just using them. Let the tide change from religious sectarianism, and the R party will follow the money to the other wherever it goes. They all do that. That is why the idea that McCain will somehow buck the R party on these currently vogue religious ideas is ridiculous. McCain will follow the money, which is the RNC.

I also do not get when people say Obama wants to raise their taxes. All the evidence shows that Obama is raising taxes back to the Clinton levels for those making $200,000 or more a year. Thus, the vast majority of Americans will feel nothing from this tax "increase." Moreover, at the Clinton levels, the nation had a trillion + dollar surplus. So, I just do not see how Obama's tax plan is such a bad thing and I HATE the current income tax system. Again, I am for the Fair Tax because that way every hooker, stipper, waiter, drug dealer, and any other cash based business has to in the end pay tax on their cash transactions.

As for winning in Iraq - do you not see that McCain, W, the R party, and its mouthpieces cried for the last two years and as recently a few weeks ago that any talk of withdrawing the combat troops in Iraq was an admission of defeat, the D's just want America to fail, etc. Now, W is doing just that based on the same set of facts and clearly because the American public is done with this ill thought out and planned war; McCain likely cannot win without W's current withdrawal scheme. Yet, when W does it, America suddenly is winning in Iraq and no one better talk against W or how he alone got us into the disasterous situation in Iraq in the first place. All suddenly is forgiven for W, but all of the D's who dared to raise this issue are traitors and hate America. To me, that is BS and rank hypocrisy, which I have to say the facts support is all the R's have been about since 1996.

Again, if W were your employee, would you have fired him long ago?

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/bil...008-08-26.html

Today in Denver:

[Bill Clinton] said: "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"

Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

^^

I googled this, but could not find anything other than far right sites quoting it and none privided a citation to the original source -- I'd like to see the context as none of those sites IMO can be trusted to provide an accurate portrayal.

But, it is kind of funny - that Slick Willy :laugh:

I made up my mind when he was appointed President by daddy's supreme court abetted by his brother the Governer of the state in contest! (please)can we say nepotism?I guess I buck the trend as I am not only for a pullout I believe 100% that we should never have gone in.The only way we can "win" is to stay there and occupy that nation interminably and we had a profound lack of understanding of the culture of that region and still do..Iraqi or Iran for that matter is not Germany .Japan or South Korea.And I am not so blindly partisan that I will throw out the baby with the bathwater ..I have maintained all along that I like John McCain as an individual and as misguided as I feel he is about many of his policies I feel he has the best interest of America in his heartI am however very concerned about his running mate given his age and health history ,if he were to win which I hope he does not .As for Bush he is an imbecile ..sorry.

I made up my mind about W before he went into office, yes, because he looked like a complete idiot to me on camera. He didn't speak properly and didn't have anything substantial to say. I didn't get him, don't get him, and won't get him. And damned if I wasn't right on the money. F*cking American people baffled me on that one.

Yeah I think my distaste for him actually predated the election theft of 2000..I remember thinking to myself how did an inarticulate cretin like him beat a great lady like Ann Richards in the Texas gubernatorial election..an early dose of Rovian style smear and nepotism I'd imagine.

He added alot of spice on these boards ..a quality sadly missing in recent times ..and for old times sakeRECSIND THE STRIKES!!!!!!

The Ledge Chit Chat Forum brought to you by the good folks at NBC News.

Wow... I have to say Hillary really knocked it out of the ballpark tonight ..the best speech of the convention so far!

Havent been watching the DNC since the most important time of the year is at hand...

The stretch run in MLB towards the final month of play.

She was stunning, direct, concise, and amazing.

I truly wish she were the nominee.